Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1

In response to the DEIS, the Black Hills National Forest received more than 600 letters containing hundreds of concerns and comments. To find the 

Forest’s response to your concern or comment:

1) Type your last name in the “find” box on the toolbar at the top of the page and click “enter.”

2) Your last name will appear, highlighted in column one. Make a note of the three-digit letter number(s) in column 4 and the comment number(s) in 

column 5. Your name may appear on more than one line, as some people submitted more than one letter and many letters contained more than 

one comment.

3) Type the three digit letter number, followed by a forward slash and the comment number (e.g., 009/1), in the “find” box on the toolbar and click 

“enter.”

4) The page with your concern will appear with your letter and comment number highlighted in column one. Your concern or comment appears in 

column two and the Forest’s response appears in column three.

Name, Last Name, First Organization Letter Number 

(001 through 611)

Comment 

Number

Public Concern

Abels Bruce 215 1 4-224

Abels Bruce 215 2 4-221

Abels Bruce 215 3 5-46

Abels Bruce 215 4 4-131

Abels Bruce 215 5 4-129

Abels Bruce 215 6 4-101

Abels Bruce 215 7 4-36

Abels Bruce 215 8 5-78

Abels Bruce 215 9 4-131

Abels Bruce 215 10 1-70

Adams Shirley 148 1 5-167

Adams Jr Ed 035 1 2-28

Adams Jr Ed 035 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Aisenbrey Jacob 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Aitken Philip 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Albers Jason 490 1 5-76

Albers Jason 490 2 Route Specific

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2

Albers Jason 490 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Albers Kandy 489 1 5-76

Albers Kandy 489 2 Route Specific

Albers Kandy 489 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Albrecht Steve 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Alexander Derek 166 1 5-60

Alexander Derek 166 2 4-293

Alexander Derek 166 3 4-89

Alexander Kyle 175 1 4-19

Alexander Rodney 212 1 4-44

Alexander Rodney 212 2 5-136

Alexander Rodney 212 3 1-90

Alexander Rodney 212 4 5-115

Alexander Rodney 212 5 4-261

Allen Joe Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 1 1-61

Allen Joe Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 2 3-70

Alley Dr Kate 406 1 2-41

Alley Dr Kate 406 2 5-16

Alley Dr Kate 406 3 Route Specific

Alley Dr Kate 406 4 Route Specific

Alley Dr Kate 406 5 4-250

Alley Dr Kate 406 6 5-8

Ames-Curtis Juli 152 1 5-8

Ames-Curtis Juli 152 2 4-263

Ames-Curtis Juli 152 3 2-59

Amick Michael 286 1 2-44

Amick Michael 286 2 4-361

Amick Michael 286 3 5-129

Amick Michael 286 4 2-24

Amick Michael 286 5 4-139

Amick Michael 286 6 5-34

Amick Michael 286 7 5-159

Anderson Kyle 215 1 to 10

Anderson Mark 215 1 to 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3

Anderson Scott 243 1 2-36

Andis Janell 416 1 4-224

Andis Janell 416 2 4-221

Andis Janell 416 3 5-46

Andis Janell 416 4 4-131

Andis Janell 416 5 4-129

Andis Janell 416 6 4-101

Andis Janell 416 7 4-36

Andis Janell 416 8 5-78

Andis Janell 416 9 4-131

Andis Janell 416 10 1-70

Andis Janell 416 11 5-46

Andis Janell 416 12 6-15

Angulo Gil 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Anonymous 215 1 to 10

Anonymous 250 1 5-62

Anonymous 299 1 to 10

Anonymous 299 11 4-131

Anonymous 299 12 4-125

Anonymous 074 1 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 2 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 3 5-201

Anonymous 074 4 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 5 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 6 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 7 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 8 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 9 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 10 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 11 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 12 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 13 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 14 Route Specific

Anonymous 074 15 5-167

Anstine Kerry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Arehart Jennifer 215 1 to 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4

Arehart Uriah 215 1 to 10

Ast James 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Atkins Christopher 300 1 4-224

Atkins Christopher 300 2 4-221

Atkins Christopher 300 3 5-46

Atkins Christopher 300 4 4-131

Atkins Christopher 300 5 4-129

Atkins Christopher 300 6 4-101

Atkins Christopher 300 7 4-36

Atkins Christopher 300 8 5-78

Atkins Christopher 300 9 4-131

Atkins Christopher 300 10 1-70

Atkins Christopher 300 11 4-222

Avery Daniel 577 1 4-224

Avery Daniel 577 2 4-221

Avery Daniel 577 3 5-46

Avery Daniel 577 4 4-131

Avery Daniel 577 5 4-129

Avery Daniel 577 6 4-101

Avery Daniel 577 7 4-36

Avery Daniel 577 8 5-78

Avery Daniel 577 9 4-131

Avery Daniel 577 10 Route Specific

Avery Gerry 052 1 5-66

Avery Gerry 052 2 4-263

Ayer Harry & Barbara 374 1 Route Specific

Ayer Harry & Barbara 374 2 Route Specific

Ayer Harry & Barbara 374 3 Route Specific

Ayer Harry & Barbara 374 4 Route Specific

Babcock Barry 078 1 2-38

Babcock Randy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bahneman J 221 1 to 10

Bahneman J 221 11 4-232

Bahneman J 221 12 4-222

Bahneman J 221 13 5-50

Bahneman J 221 14 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5

Bahneman J 221 15 Route Specific

Bahneman J 221 16 4-101

Bahneman J 221 17 4-99

Bahneman J 221 18 4-36

Bahneman J 221 19 4-131

Bahneman John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bahneman John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bailey Justin 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bak Dave 215 1 to 10

Bak Ethan 215 1 to 10

Bak Katherine 215 1 to 10

Bak Shawn 215 1 to 10

Baker Thomas 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Baldwin Steve 522 1 5-196

Baldwin Steve 522 2 3-98

Baldwin Steve 522 3 4-259

Baldwin Steve 522 4 3-46

Baldwin Steve 522 5 4-125

Baldwin Steve 522 6 4-71

Baldwin Steve 522 7 4-71

Baldwin Steve 522 8 2-36

Balster Aric 215 1 to 10

Baltzer Doug 215 1 to 10

Baragar Jerry 215 1 to 10

Barber Douglas 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bareis Steve & Eva 062 1 5-13

Bareis Steve & Eva 062 2 5-167

Bartels Bobbi 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 1 4-224

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 2 4-221

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 3 5-46

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 4 4-131

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 5 4-129

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 6 4-101

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 7 4-36

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 9 4-131

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 10 1-70

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 11 4-232

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 12 4-222

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 13 5-46

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 14 4-143

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 15 4-122

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 16 4-36

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 17 5-78

Bartels Bobbi Jo 503 18 5-27

Barton Arthur 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bauer Curt 215 1 to 10

Bauer DaNette 215 1 to 10

Baumann John 325 1 5-19

Baumann John 325 2 5-98

Baumann John 325 3 3-51

Baumann John 325 4 5-21

Beach Charleen 157 1 4-259

Beach Charleen 157 2 5-13

Beale Mike 119 1 Route Specific

Beale Mike 119 2 4-232

Beale Mike 119 3 Route Specific

Beale Mike 119 4 4-117

Beale Mike 119 5 5-129

Beaulieu Scotty 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 1 4-125

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 2 3-96

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 3 4-121

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 4 Route Specific

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 5 2-24

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 6 Route Specific

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 7 Route Specific

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 8 Route Specific

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 9 4-24

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 10 5-159

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 11 5-136
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 12 Route Specific

Bebo Ronald & Faye 565 13 3-64

Beiser Andrew 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bellencleet Melista 215 1 4-224

Bellencleet Melista 215 2 4-221

Bellencleet Melista 215 3 5-46

Bellencleet Melista 215 4 4-131

Bellencleet Melista 215 5 4-129

Bellencleet Melista 215 6 4-101

Bellencleet Melista 215 7 4-36

Bellencleet Melista 215 8 5-78

Bellencleet Melista 215 9 4-131

Bellencleet Melista 215 10 1-70

Belt Juele 215 1 4-224

Belt Juele 215 2 4-221

Belt Juele 215 3 5-46

Belt Juele 215 4 4-131

Belt Juele 215 5 4-129

Belt Juele 215 6 4-101

Belt Juele 215 7 4-36

Belt Juele 215 8 5-78

Belt Juele 215 9 4-131

Belt Juele 215 10 1-70

Benson Jerry 564 1 Route Specific

Benton Neil 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Berger Tom 215 1 4-224

Berger Tom 215 2 4-221

Berger Tom 215 3 5-46

Berger Tom 215 4 4-131

Berger Tom 215 5 4-129

Berger Tom 215 6 4-101

Berger Tom 215 7 4-36

Berger Tom 215 8 5-78

Berger Tom 215 9 4-131

Berger Tom 215 10 1-70

Bergeron David 531 1 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8

Bergeron David 531 2 4-221

Bergeron David 531 3 5-46

Bergeron David 531 4 4-131

Bergeron David 531 5 4-129

Bergeron David 531 6 4-101

Bergeron David 531 7 4-36

Bergeron David 531 8 5-78

Bergeron David 531 9 4-131

Bergeron David 531 10 1-70

Bergeron David 531 11 5-24

Bergeron David 531 12 5-46

Bergeron David 531 13 4-121

Bergeron David 531 14 4-101

Bergeron David 531 15 4-36

Bergeron David 531 16 5-78

Bergeron David 531 17 5-34

Bergin Dusty 215 1 to 10

Bergin Dylan 215 1 to 10

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 1 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 2 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 3 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 4 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 5 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 6 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 7 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 8 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie Off-Road Riders Association; Secretary and Board 

Member.

457 9 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie 519 1 2-36
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9

Bertolotto Connie 519 2 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie 519 3 4-191

Bertolotto Connie 519 4 4-222

Bertolotto Connie 519 5 Route Specific

Bertolotto Connie 519 6 4-224

Bertolotto Connie 519 7 5-46

Bertolotto Connie 519 8 4-100

Bertolotto Connie 519 9 4-36

Bertolotto Connie 519 10 4-46

Bertolotto Tanner 215 1 to 10

Bestgen Luke 215 1 to 10

Bindert Paul 215 1 to 10

Bindert Tim 215 1 to 10

Blackmore Chris 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Blair Dayle 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Blair Roger 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Blakeman Albert 046 1 2-36

Blakeman Albert 046 2 4-262

Blakeman Albert 046 3 4-294

Bland Aaron 215 1 to 10

Blankenship Greg 215 1 to 10

Blazek Scott 278 1 2-36

Blow Brad 215 1 to 10

Blumenthal Nick 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Blythe Ian 215 1 to 10

Blythe John 215 1 to 10

Boesch Judy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Boesch Ronald 110 1 2-36

Boesch Ronald 110 2 2-36

Boesch Ronald 216 1 Route Specific

Boesch Ronald 216 2 1-32

Boesch Ronald 216 3 4-224

Boesch Ronald 216 4 4-121

Boesch Ronald 216 5 5-46

Boesch Ronald 216 6 4-131

Boesch Ronald 216 7 4-125
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10

Boesch Ronald 216 8 4-100

Boesch Ronald 216 9 4-36

Boesch Ronald 216 10 5-78

Boesch Ronald 216 11 4-131

Boesch Ronald 216 12 1-70

Boesch Ronald 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 003 1 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 003 2 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 003 3 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 003 4 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 186 1 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 186 2 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 186 3 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 186 4 Route Specific

Bogard MD Jay 186 5 Route Specific

Bognuda Jr Livio 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bohl Ronald 336 1 2-25

Bohl Ronald 336 2 5-144

Bohl Ronald 336 3 2-36

Bohl Ronald 336 4 2-36

Bohl Ronald 336 5 2-36

Bohl Ronald 336 6 2-36

Bohl Ronald 336 7 2-39

Bohl Ronald 336 8 2-39

Bohl Ronald 336 9 2-39

Bohl Ronald 336 10 2-43

Boldt Marty 215 1 to 10

Boogerd Wade 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Boone David City of Sturgis, City Manager. 045 1 5-33

Boone David City of Sturgis, City Manager. 045 2 5-34

Boone David City of Sturgis, City Manager. 045 3 6-15

Boone David City of Sturgis, City Manager. 045 4 2-14

Boone David City of Sturgis; City Manager. 054 1 5-33

Boone David City of Sturgis; City Manager. 054 2 5-34

Boone David City of Sturgis; City Manager. 054 3 6-15

Boone David City of Sturgis; City Manager. 054 4 4-294
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

11

Boswell Cindi 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Boswell Cynthia 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Boswell Gentry 429 1 4-224

Boswell Gentry 429 2 4-221

Boswell Gentry 429 3 5-46

Boswell Gentry 429 4 4-131

Boswell Gentry 429 5 4-129

Boswell Gentry 429 6 4-101

Boswell Gentry 429 7 4-36

Boswell Gentry 429 8 5-78

Boswell Gentry 429 9 4-131

Boswell Gentry 429 10 1-70

Boswell Gentry 429 11 5-46

Boswell Gentry 429 12 4-125

Boswell Gentry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Bosworth Rita 109 1 5-167

Bosworth Susan 179 1 4-187

Bosworth Susan 179 2 4-186

Bosworth Susan 179 3 Route Specific

Bosworth Susan 179 4 4-275

Bosworth Susan 179 5 Route Specific

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 1 4-324

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 2 Route Specific

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 3 5-97

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 4 1-87

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 5 4-298

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 6 4-266

Bouska Marvin & Jean 420 7 5-129

Bower Charles 501 1 4-224

Bower Charles 501 2 4-221

Bower Charles 501 3 5-46

Bower Charles 501 4 4-131

Bower Charles 501 5 4-129

Bower Charles 501 6 4-101

Bower Charles 501 7 4-36

Bower Charles 501 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

12

Bower Charles 501 9 4-131

Bower Charles 501 10 1-70

Bower Charles 501 11 4-222

Bower Charles 501 12 5-42

Bower Charles 501 13 4-131

Bower Charles 501 14 4-100

Bower Charles 501 15 5-121

Bower Charles 501 16 4-131

Bower Tyna 247 1 4-224

Bower Tyna 247 2 4-221

Bower Tyna 247 3 5-46

Bower Tyna 247 4 4-131

Bower Tyna 247 5 4-129

Bower Tyna 247 6 4-101

Bower Tyna 247 7 4-36

Bower Tyna 247 8 5-78

Bower Tyna 247 9 4-131

Bower Tyna 247 10 1-70

Bower Tyna 247 11 1-83

Bower Tyna 247 12 1-53

Bower Tyna 247 13 4-50

Bower Tyna 247 14 4-370

Bower Tyna 247 15 5-142

Bower Tyna 247 16 4-249

Bower Tyna 247 17 4-273

Bower Tyna 247 18 6-9

Bower Tyna 247 19 4-131

Bower Tyna 247 20 4-104

Bower Tyna 247 21 4-285

Bower Tyna 247 22 4-222

Bower Tyna 247 23 4-61

Bower Tyna 247 24 5-95

Bower Tyna 247 25 5-46

Bower Tyna 247 26 4-139

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 1 Route Specific

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 2 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 3 4-51

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Bower Tyna Top 50 Rally Park. 377 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Bower Tyna 567 1 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 2 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 3 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 4 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 5 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 6 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 7 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 8 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 9 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 10 Route Specific

Bower Tyna 567 11 Route Specific

Boyer Jerry Spearfish Canyon Society; President and Trustee. 610 1 3-89

Boyer Jerry Spearfish Canyon Society; President and Trustee. 610 2 Route Specific

Boyer Jerry Spearfish Canyon Society; President and Trustee. 610 3 4-7

Boyle Frank 215 1 to 10

Brady Forrest 427 1 2-41

Brady Forrest 427 2 4-259

Braithwaite Torrey 095 1 2-4

Brandhagen Gwen 437 1 Route Specific

Brandhagen Gwen 437 2 4-293

Bras Dorg 215 1 to 10

Bravo Domenic State of Wyoming, Wyoming State Trails Program. 128 1 2-36

Bravo Domenic State of Wyoming, Wyoming State Trails Program. 128 2 5-31

Bravo Domenic State of Wyoming, Wyoming State Trails Program. 128 3 5-36

Bravo Domenic State of Wyoming, Wyoming State Trails Program. 128 4 1-57

Bravo Domenic State of Wyoming, Wyoming State Trails Program. 128 5 3-46

Bright Dave 215 1 to 10

Brizzard Kathy 082 1 2-38

Brizzard Kathy 082 2 Route Specific

Brooking Royal & Bonnie 245 1 Route Specific

Brooking Royal & Bonnie 245 2 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

14

Brooking Royal & Bonnie 245 3 Route Specific

Brooking Royal & Bonnie 245 4 Route Specific

Brooking Royal & Bonnie 245 5 Route Specific

Brooking Royal & Bonnie 245 6 4-263

Brown Cory 215 1 to 10

Brown June 215 1 to 10

Brown Patty 534 1 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 2 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 3 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 4 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 5 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 6 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 7 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 8 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 9 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 10 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 11 4-125

Brown Patty 534 12 4-134

Brown Patty 534 13 4-83

Brown Patty 534 14 2-36

Brown Patty 534 15 4-224

Brown Patty 534 16 4-224

Brown Patty 534 17 Route Specific

Brown Patty 534 18 4-88

Brown Patty 534 19 4-202

Brown Patty 534 20 4-37

Brown Patty 534 21 5-31

Brown Patty 534 22 5-44

Brown Patty 534 23 4-199

Brown Patty 534 24 4-95

Brown Ross 215 1 to 10

Brown Ross 535 1 2-36

Brown Ross 535 2 4-224

Brown Ross 535 3 4-202

Brown Ross 535 4 5-44

Brown Ross 535 5 5-42
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15

Brown Ross 535 6 4-131

Brown Ross 535 7 4-99

Brown Ross 535 8 4-125

Brown Ross 535 9 6-34

Brown Ross 535 10 4-82

Brown Ross 568 1 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 2 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 3 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 4 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 5 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 6 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 7 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 8 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 9 Route Specific

Brown Ross 568 10 Route Specific

Bruhn Stacy 215 1 to 10

Bruson David 570 1 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 2 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 3 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 4 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 5 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 6 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 7 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 8 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 9 Route Specific

Bruson David 570 10 5-46

Buck Jesse 215 1 to 10

Buckau Jeffrey 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 1 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 2 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 3 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 4 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 5 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 6 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 7 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 8 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

16

Buell Erik 573 9 Route Specific

Buell Erik 573 10 4-196

Buelow Craig 215 1 to 10

Bulawa Fran 355 1 4-243

Bulawa Fran 355 2 4-243

Bulawa Fran 355 3 Route Specific

Bulawa Fran 355 4 5-36

Bulawa Fran 355 5 4-158

Bulawa Fran 355 6 5-63

Bulawa Fran 355 7 4-344

Bullard Harlan 215 1 to 10

Bunnell Jon 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Burcham Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Burdett Paul 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Burgard Robert 066 1 5-8

Burgard Robert 066 2 4-275

Burgard Robert 066 3 4-356

Burgard Robert 066 4 Route Specific

Burke Tim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Burkhart Beth 357 1 4-43

Burkhart Beth 357 2 4-45

Burkhart Beth 357 3 2-2

Burkhart Beth 357 4 Route Specific

Burkhart Beth 357 5 4-53

Burkhart Beth 357 6 4-357

Burkhart Beth 357 7 4-259

Burkhart Beth 357 8 5-213

Burkhart Beth 357 9 5-213

Burkhart Beth 357 10 5-197

Burkhart Beth 357 11 1-81

Burkhart Beth 357 12 1-80

Burkhart Beth 357 13 5-167

Burkhart Beth 357 14 4-162

Burns Jay 223 1 4-224

Burns Jay 223 2 4-221

Burns Jay 223 3 5-46
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17

Burns Jay 223 4 4-131

Burns Jay 223 5 4-129

Burns Jay 223 6 4-101

Burns Jay 223 7 4-36

Burns Jay 223 8 5-78

Burns Jay 223 9 4-131

Burns Jay 223 10 1-70

Burns Jay 223 11 4-232

Burns Jay 223 12 4-222

Burns Ken & Mary 135 1 2-36

Burns Lindy? 224 1 4-224

Burns Lindy? 224 2 4-221

Burns Lindy? 224 3 5-46

Burns Lindy? 224 4 4-131

Burns Lindy? 224 5 4-129

Burns Lindy? 224 6 4-101

Burns Lindy? 224 7 4-36

Burns Lindy? 224 8 5-78

Burns Lindy? 224 9 4-131

Burns Lindy? 224 10 1-70

Burns Lindy? 224 11 4-121

Burns Lindy? 224 12 4-131

Burns Lindy? 224 13 4-131

Burns Lindy? 224 14 4-296

Burr Andrew 076 1 Route Specific

Bursack Chuck 069 1 Route Specific

Burwell William 441 1 2-36

Burwell William 441 2 4-224

Burwell William 441 3 4-118

Burwell William 441 4 4-37

Burwell William 441 5 4-131

Butler Chris 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Butler Matt 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Butse Brand 215 1 to 10

Buy Mitch 215 1 to 10

Caaps Ronald 304 1 2-36
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

18

Caaps Ronald 304 2 5-3

Caaps Ronald 304 3 1-3

Caaps Ronald 304 4 1-3

Cafruny Bill & Patty 058 1 5-15

Cahill Peter 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Campbell Joseph 215 1 to 10

Campo Susan 111 1 Route Specific

Campo Susan 111 1 Route Specific

Campo Susan 053 1 Route Specific

Canada Sarah 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Cannella Hugh 598 1 5-19

Cannella Hugh 598 2 2-36

Cannella Hugh 598 3 4-224

Cannella Hugh 598 4 4-232

Cannella Hugh 598 5 4-37

Cannella Hugh 598 6 4-131

Capps Chris 607 1 2-36

Capps Chris 607 2 2-36

Capps Chris 607 3 2-36

Capps Chris 607 4 4-224

Capps Chris 607 5 4-37

Capps Chris 607 6 4-36

Capps Chris 607 7 1-70

Carbone Chris 181 1 3-13

Carbone Chris 181 2 4-259

Carbone Christine 015 1 2-38

Carbone Christine 015 2 4-340

Carbone Christine 015 3 4-295

Carlbom Connor 168 1 5-167

Carlson John 435 1 2-24

Carlson John 435 2 4-293

Carlson John 435 3 2-36

Carsrud Jeff 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Cassens Anne Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 1 1-61

Cassens Anne Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 289 2 3-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

19

Chairman.

Champion Rich 272 1 2-36

Chesneau Howard 333 1 5-94

Chesneau Howard 333 2 2-34

Chewning Candy 215 1 4-224

Chewning Candy 215 2 4-221

Chewning Candy 215 3 5-46

Chewning Candy 215 4 4-131

Chewning Candy 215 5 4-129

Chewning Candy 215 6 4-101

Chewning Candy 215 7 4-36

Chewning Candy 215 8 5-78

Chewning Candy 215 9 4-131

Chewning Candy 215 10 1-70

Childers Mike 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Christensen Marian 215 1 4-224

Christensen Marian 215 2 4-221

Christensen Marian 215 3 5-46

Christensen Marian 215 4 4-131

Christensen Marian 215 5 4-129

Christensen Marian 215 6 4-101

Christensen Marian 215 7 4-36

Christensen Marian 215 8 5-78

Christensen Marian 215 9 4-131

Christensen Marian 215 10 1-70

Christian Larissa 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Christians Jeffery 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Christiansen Scott 097 1 Route Specific

Christiansen Scott 097 2 Route Specific

Christiansen Scott 097 3 5-94

Christiansen Scott 097 4 3-1

Christiansen Scott 097 5 Route Specific

Christiansen Scott 097 6 Route Specific

Christiansen Scott 097 7 4-27

Christianson Alan 433 1 5-172

Christianson Alan 433 2 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

20

Christianson Alan 433 3 1-78

Christoffer Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Christopherson Michael 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Christy Jef & Julie 505 1 4-224

Christy Jef & Julie 505 2 4-221

Christy Jef & Julie 505 3 5-46

Christy Jef & Julie 505 4 4-131

Christy Jef & Julie 505 5 4-129

Christy Jef & Julie 505 6 4-101

Christy Jef & Julie 505 7 4-36

Christy Jef & Julie 505 8 5-78

Christy Jef & Julie 505 9 4-131

Christy Jef & Julie 505 10 1-70

Christy Jef & Julie 505 11 5-45

Christy Jef & Julie 505 12 4-102

Christy Jef & Julie 505 13 5-85

Church Heath 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Cieri Sean 215 1 4-224

Cieri Sean 215 2 4-221

Cieri Sean 215 3 5-46

Cieri Sean 215 4 4-131

Cieri Sean 215 5 4-129

Cieri Sean 215 6 4-101

Cieri Sean 215 7 4-36

Cieri Sean 215 8 5-78

Cieri Sean 215 9 4-131

Cieri Sean 215 10 1-70

Clark Adam 215 1 4-224

Clark Adam 215 2 4-221

Clark Adam 215 3 5-46

Clark Adam 215 4 4-131

Clark Adam 215 5 4-129

Clark Adam 215 6 4-101

Clark Adam 215 7 4-36

Clark Adam 215 8 5-78

Clark Adam 215 9 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

21

Clark Adam 215 10 1-70

Clark Dana 215 1 4-224

Clark Dana 215 2 4-221

Clark Dana 215 3 5-46

Clark Dana 215 4 4-131

Clark Dana 215 5 4-129

Clark Dana 215 6 4-101

Clark Dana 215 7 4-36

Clark Dana 215 8 5-78

Clark Dana 215 9 4-131

Clark Dana 215 10 1-70

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 1 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 2 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 3 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 4 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 5 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 6 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 7 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 8 4-294

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 9 4-306

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

482 10 Route Specific

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

038 1 1-52

Clark Greg Nepstad & 

Virginia

038 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clark John 332 1 Route Specific

Clark John 332 2 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

22

Clark John 332 3 Route Specific

Clark John 332 4 Route Specific

Clark Robert 324 1 2-40

Clark Robert 324 2 4-112

Clark Robert 324 3 4-232

Clark Robert 324 4 2-5

Clark Robert 324 5 2-36

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 1 5-16

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 2 1-13

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 3 1-13

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 4 5-11

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 5 1-5

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 6 1-5

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 7 5-153

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 8 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 9 3-151

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 10 3-151

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 11 3-151

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 12 5-10

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 13 3-50

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 14 5-87

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 15 4-10

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 16 4-144

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 17 2-9

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 18 1-9

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 19 2-38

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 20 5-156

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 21 4-57

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 22 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 23 5-4

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 24 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 25 6-1

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 26 5-152

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 27 4-350

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 28 Route Specific

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 29 4-16
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

23

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 30 4-16

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 31 4-282

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 32 4-282

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 33 4-282

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 34 4-54

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 35 4-259

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 36 4-260

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 37 4-260

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 38 4-265

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 39 4-319

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 40 4-319

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 41 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 42 4-352

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 43 4-352

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 44 4-352

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 45 4-352

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 46 4-256

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 47 4-257

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 48 4-257

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 49 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 50 4-352

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 51 4-379

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 52 6-5

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 53 4-255

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 54 4-253

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 55 6-8

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 56 4-349

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 57 Route Specific

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 58 4-349

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 59 3-29

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 60 3-43

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 61 3-30

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 62 3-41

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 63 3-74

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 64 Route Specific

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 65 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

24

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 66 3-38

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 67 Route Specific

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 68 3-128

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 69 3-103

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 70 3-103

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 71 3-103

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 72 3-101

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 73 3-124

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 74 4-259

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 75 3-102

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 76 3-100

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 77 3-23

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 78 Route Specific

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 79 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 80 3-79

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 81 3-79

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 82 3-79

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 83 Route Specific

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 84 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 85 3-80

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 86 3-10

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 87 3-81

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 88 4-378

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 89 3-24

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 90 4-49

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 91 1-81

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 92 3-54

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 93 3-54

Clauson Sam Black Hills Group-Sierra Club; Chair. 458 94 3-54

Claypool Duane 345 1 2-38

Claypool Duane 345 2 5-150

Claypool Duane 590 1 2-38

Claypool Duane 590 2 5-150

Clegg Fay 388 1 4-224

Clegg Fay 388 2 4-221

Clegg Fay 388 3 5-46
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

25

Clegg Fay 38844-131

Clegg Fay 38854-129

Clegg Fay 38864-101

Clegg Fay 38874-36

Clegg Fay 38885-78

Clegg Fay 38894-131

Clegg Fay 388 101-70

Clegg Fay 388 115-131

Clegg Kevin 38014-224

Clegg Kevin 38024-221

Clegg Kevin 38035-46

Clegg Kevin 38044-131

Clegg Kevin 38054-129

Clegg Kevin 38064-101

Clegg Kevin 38074-36

Clegg Kevin 38085-78

Clegg Kevin 38094-131

Clegg Kevin 380 101-70

Clegg Kevin 380 115-131

Clegg Lucas 53314-224

Clegg Lucas 53324-221

Clegg Lucas 53335-46

Clegg Lucas 53344-131

Clegg Lucas 53354-129

Clegg Lucas 53364-101

Clegg Lucas 53374-36

Clegg Lucas 53385-78

Clegg Lucas 53394-131

Clegg Lucas 533 101-70

Clegg Lucas 533 115-131

Cleveringa Todd 21514-224

Cleveringa Todd 21524-221

Cleveringa Todd 21535-46

Cleveringa Todd 21544-131

Cleveringa Todd 21554-129

Cleveringa Todd 21564-101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

26

Cleveringa Todd 215 7 4-36

Cleveringa Todd 215 8 5-78

Cleveringa Todd 215 9 4-131

Cleveringa Todd 215 10 1-70

Cobb Kendel 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 1 6-6

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 2 2-24

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 3 4-17

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 4 4-39

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 5 4-121

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 6 3-66

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 7 3-62

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 8 3-67

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 9 4-178

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 10 5-108

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 11 4-259

Coburn Bill Neiman Timber Company. 548 12 1-68

Coin Alison 106 1 Route Specific

Coin Alison 106 2 Route Specific

Coin Alison 106 3 Route Specific

Coin Jamison 039 1 Route Specific

Coin Jamison 039 2 Route Specific

Colhoff Cody 215 1 to 10

Colston Edward 215 1 to 10

Conlon Kathy 527 1 Route Specific

Conlon Kathy 527 2 4-325

Conlon Kathy 527 3 4-259

Conlon Darren 407 1 4-224

Conlon Darren 407 2 4-221

Conlon Darren 407 3 5-46

Conlon Darren 407 4 4-131

Conlon Darren 407 5 4-129

Conlon Darren 407 6 4-101

Conlon Darren 407 7 4-36

Conlon Darren 407 8 5-78

Conlon Darren 407 9 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

27

Conlon Darren 407 10 1-70

Conrad Darren 407 11 5-46

Conrad Darren 407 12 5-34

Converse Linda & Larry 320 1 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 2 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 3 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 4 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 5 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 6 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 7 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 8 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 9 2-38

Converse Linda & Larry 320 10 5-8

Converse Linda & Larry 320 11 4-115

Converse Linda & Larry 320 12 Route Specific

Converse Linda & Larry 320 13 2-38

Converse Linda & Larry 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Converse Linda & Larry 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Converse Linda & Larry 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Cook Brandi 154 1 5-32

Cook Brandi 154 2 5-141

Cook Jim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Copsey Dave 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Covert Tom 235 1 2-36

Coyle Mike 215 1 4-224

Coyle Mike 215 2 4-221

Coyle Mike 215 3 5-46

Coyle Mike 215 4 4-131

Coyle Mike 215 5 4-129

Coyle Mike 215 6 4-101

Coyle Mike 215 7 4-36

Coyle Mike 215 8 5-78

Coyle Mike 215 9 4-131

Coyle Mike 215 10 1-70

Creal Darla 256 1 5-154

Crisman Dean 279 1 1-1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

28

Crisman Dean 279 2 2-36

Crisman Dean 279 3 5-97

Crisman Dean 279 4 4-335

Crisman Dean 279 5 1-76

Cronin Mike 032 1 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 2 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 3 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 4 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 5 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 6 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 7 Route Specific

Cronin Mike 032 8 Route Specific

CTVA Action 

Committee

457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Cuevas Jeff 111 1 Route Specific

Cummings Kenneth 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Cummings Mitchell 215 1 4-224

Cummings Mitchell 215 2 4-221

Cummings Mitchell 215 3 5-46

Cummings Mitchell 215 4 4-131

Cummings Mitchell 215 5 4-129

Cummings Mitchell 215 6 4-101

Cummings Mitchell 215 7 4-36

Cummings Mitchell 215 8 5-78

Cummings Mitchell 215 9 4-131

Cummings Mitchell 215 10 1-70

Curran Bill 418 1 5-97

Curran Bill 418 2 5-97

Curran Bill 418 3 5-98

Curran Bill 418 4 5-110

Curran Bill 418 5 5-97

Curran Bill 051 1 5-97

Dagen Alex 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dagen Becky 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dagen Paul 397 1 4-224

Dagen Paul 397 2 4-221
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

29

Dagen Paul 397 3 5-46

Dagen Paul 397 4 4-131

Dagen Paul 397 5 4-129

Dagen Paul 397 6 4-101

Dagen Paul 397 7 4-36

Dagen Paul 397 8 5-78

Dagen Paul 397 9 4-131

Dagen Paul 397 10 1-70

Dagen Paul 397 11 Route Specific

Dagen Paul 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dagen Travis 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dagen Zach 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dahlquist Shane 215 1 4-224

Dahlquist Shane 215 2 4-221

Dahlquist Shane 215 3 5-46

Dahlquist Shane 215 4 4-131

Dahlquist Shane 215 5 4-129

Dahlquist Shane 215 6 4-101

Dahlquist Shane 215 7 4-36

Dahlquist Shane 215 8 5-78

Dahlquist Shane 215 9 4-131

Dahlquist Shane 215 10 1-70

Daniel Dale 113 1 3-11

Daniel Dale 113 2 4-264

Daniels Marc 455 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Darling Judy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Darling Shawn 417 1 4-224

Darling Shawn 417 2 4-221

Darling Shawn 417 3 5-46

Darling Shawn 417 4 4-131

Darling Shawn 417 5 4-129

Darling Shawn 417 6 4-101

Darling Shawn 417 7 4-36

Darling Shawn 417 8 5-78

Darling Shawn 417 9 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

30

Darling Shawn 417 101-70

Darling Shawn 417 115-46

Darling Shawn 417 124-208

Darling Shawn 417 134-301

Darling Steve 42114-224

Darling Steve 42124-221

Darling Steve 42135-46

Darling Steve 42144-131

Darling Steve 42154-129

Darling Steve 42164-101

Darling Steve 42174-36

Darling Steve 42185-78

Darling Steve 42194-131

Darling Steve 421 101-70

Darling Steve 421 115-46

Darling Steve 421 125-141

Darling Jr Steve 21514-224

Darling Jr Steve 21524-221

Darling Jr Steve 21535-46

Darling Jr Steve 21544-131

Darling Jr Steve 21554-129

Darling Jr Steve 21564-101

Darling Jr Steve 21574-36

Darling Jr Steve 21585-78

Darling Jr Steve 21594-131

Darling Jr Steve 215 101-70

Davis Edward 21914-224

Davis Edward 21924-221

Davis Edward 21935-46

Davis Edward 21944-131

Davis Edward 21954-129

Davis Edward 21964-101

Davis Edward 21974-36

Davis Edward 21985-78

Davis Edward 21994-131

Davis Edward 219 101-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

31

Davis Edward 219 11 5-45

Davis G 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Davis Molly 017 1 2-38

Davis Molly 017 2 2-35

Davis Tammy 231 1 4-224

Davis Tammy 231 2 4-221

Davis Tammy 231 3 5-46

Davis Tammy 231 4 4-131

Davis Tammy 231 5 4-129

Davis Tammy 231 6 4-101

Davis Tammy 231 7 4-36

Davis Tammy 231 8 5-78

Davis Tammy 231 9 4-131

Davis Tammy 231 10 1-70

Davis Tammy 231 11 5-45

Davis Tammy 231 12 4-132

Davis Jeremiah 563 1 2-38

Davis Jeremiah 563 2 5-159

Dean Everett & Kim 435 1 2-24

Dean Everett & Kim 435 2 4-293

Dean Everett & Kim 435 3 2-36

Dean Jason 435 1 2-24

Dean Jason 435 2 4-293

Dean Jason 435 3 2-36

Dean Kyle 435 1 2-24

Dean Kyle 435 2 4-293

Dean Kyle 435 3 2-36

Deane Jason 203 1 2-24

Deane Shawn 215 1 4-224

Deane Shawn 215 2 4-221

Deane Shawn 215 3 5-46

Deane Shawn 215 4 4-131

Deane Shawn 215 5 4-129

Deane Shawn 215 6 4-101

Deane Shawn 215 7 4-36

Deane Shawn 215 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

32

Deane Shawn 215 9 4-131

Deane Shawn 215 10 1-70

Decory Jace 412 1 4-252

Deem Kathleen 229 1 4-224

Deem Kathleen 229 2 4-221

Deem Kathleen 229 3 5-46

Deem Kathleen 229 4 4-131

Deem Kathleen 229 5 4-129

Deem Kathleen 229 6 4-101

Deem Kathleen 229 7 4-36

Deem Kathleen 229 8 5-78

Deem Kathleen 229 9 4-131

Deem Kathleen 229 10 1-70

Deem Kathleen 229 11 4-173

Deem Kathleen 229 12 5-49

Deem Kathleen 229 13 4-136

Deem Kathleen 229 14 4-131

Deem Kathleen 229 15 4-46

Deem William 217 1 4-224

Deem William 217 2 4-221

Deem William 217 3 5-46

Deem William 217 4 4-131

Deem William 217 5 4-129

Deem William 217 6 4-101

Deem William 217 7 4-36

Deem William 217 8 5-78

Deem William 217 9 4-131

Deem William 217 10 1-70

Deem William 217 11 4-35

Deem William 217 12 4-222

Deem William 217 13 5-46

Deem William 217 14 4-131

Deem William 217 15 4-118

Deem William 217 16 4-100

Deem William 217 17 5-84

Deem William 217 18 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

33

Deem William 217 194-12

Degen Diane 215 1 to 10

Degen Doug 215 1 to 10

Degen Ryan 215 1 to 10

Degen Ryan 39314-224

Degen Ryan 39324-221

Degen Ryan 39335-46

Degen Ryan 39344-131

Degen Ryan 39354-129

Degen Ryan 39364-101

Degen Ryan 39374-36

Degen Ryan 39385-78

Degen Ryan 39394-131

Degen Ryan 393 101-70

Degen Ryan 393 114-234

Degen Ryan 393 124-213

Degen Ryan 393 134-30

Degen Ryan 393 144-125

Degen Ryan 393 154-131

Degen Ryan 393 161-71

Deisinger Kurt 21514-224

Deisinger Kurt 21524-221

Deisinger Kurt 21535-46

Deisinger Kurt 21544-131

Deisinger Kurt 21554-129

Deisinger Kurt 21564-101

Deisinger Kurt 21574-36

Deisinger Kurt 21585-78

Deisinger Kurt 21594-131

Deisinger Kurt 215 101-70

Delaney Joey 21514-224

Delaney Joey 21524-221

Delaney Joey 21535-46

Delaney Joey 21544-131

Delaney Joey 21554-129

Delaney Joey 21564-101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

34

Delaney Joey 215 7 4-36

Delaney Joey 215 8 5-78

Delaney Joey 215 9 4-131

Delaney Joey 215 10 1-70

deLannoy Peter 020 1 Route Specific

deLannoy Peter 020 2 Route Specific

deLannoy Peter 020 3 Route Specific

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 1 2-36

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 2 5-80

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 3 5-88

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 4 3-52

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 5 6-21

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 6 1-63

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 7 5-141

Dennis Kelly Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 8 5-25

Di Salvo Joe 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dickinson Terry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dickson-Purol Betty 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Diesburg Rick 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 1 5-8

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 2 2-38

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 3 Route Specific

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 4 Route Specific

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 5 Route Specific

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 6 Route Specific

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 7 Route Specific

Dillin Gayle Marie & 

Thomas

529 8 5-75

Dittes James 603 1 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

35

Dittes James 603 2 4-221

Dittes James 603 3 5-46

Dittes James 603 4 4-131

Dittes James 603 5 4-129

Dittes James 603 6 4-101

Dittes James 603 7 4-36

Dittes James 603 8 5-78

Dittes James 603 9 4-131

Dittes James 603 10 1-70

Dittes James 603 11 2-36

Dittes James 603 12 4-37

Dittes James 603 13 4-131

Dittes James 603 14 Route Specific

Dogen Douglas 215 1 4-224

Dogen Douglas 215 2 4-221

Dogen Douglas 215 3 5-46

Dogen Douglas 215 4 4-131

Dogen Douglas 215 5 4-129

Dogen Douglas 215 6 4-101

Dogen Douglas 215 7 4-36

Dogen Douglas 215 8 5-78

Dogen Douglas 215 9 4-131

Dogen Douglas 215 10 1-70

Donahue Jack 591 1 3-44

Donahue Jack 591 2 4-121

Donahue Jack 591 3 3-88

Donahue Jack 591 4 Route Specific

Donahue Jack 591 5 4-293

Donat David 153 1 5-167

Donat David 153 2 5-167

Dornseif Westley 209 1 5-167

Dornseif Westley 209 2 5-167

Dosser Roy 215 1 4-224

Dosser Roy 215 2 4-221

Dosser Roy 215 3 5-46

Dosser Roy 215 4 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

36

Dosser Roy 21554-129

Dosser Roy 21564-101

Dosser Roy 21574-36

Dosser Roy 21585-78

Dosser Roy 21594-131

Dosser Roy 215 101-70

Dosser Tammy 21514-224

Dosser Tammy 21524-221

Dosser Tammy 21535-46

Dosser Tammy 21544-131

Dosser Tammy 21554-129

Dosser Tammy 21564-101

Dosser Tammy 21574-36

Dosser Tammy 21585-78

Dosser Tammy 21594-131

Dosser Tammy 215 101-70

Dosser Trenton 21514-224

Dosser Trenton 21524-221

Dosser Trenton 21535-46

Dosser Trenton 21544-131

Dosser Trenton 21554-129

Dosser Trenton 21564-101

Dosser Trenton 21574-36

Dosser Trenton 21585-78

Dosser Trenton 21594-131

Dosser Trenton 215 101-70

Douglas Dalton 21514-224

Douglas Dalton 21524-221

Douglas Dalton 21535-46

Douglas Dalton 21544-131

Douglas Dalton 21554-129

Douglas Dalton 21564-101

Douglas Dalton 21574-36

Douglas Dalton 21585-78

Douglas Dalton 21594-131

Douglas Dalton 215 101-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

37

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 1 2-36

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 2 4-145

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 3 5-119

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 4 5-97

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 5 5-49

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 6 4-137

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 7 5-65

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 8 4-121

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 9 4-231

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 10 5-78

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 11 4-284

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 12 Route Specific

Douglas Paul Inyan Kara Riders. 142 13 5-36

Douglas Paul 215 1 to 10

Dowens Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Doyle Patrick 561 1 4-224

Doyle Patrick 561 2 4-221

Doyle Patrick 561 3 5-46

Doyle Patrick 561 4 4-131

Doyle Patrick 561 5 4-129

Doyle Patrick 561 6 4-101

Doyle Patrick 561 7 4-36

Doyle Patrick 561 8 5-78

Doyle Patrick 561 9 4-131

Doyle Patrick 561 10 1-70

Doyle Patrick 561 11 4-46

Doyle Robert 447 1 5-46

Doyle Robert 447 2 5-46

Doyle Robert 447 3 5-46

Doyle Robert 447 4 5-51

Doyle Robert 447 5 4-77

Doyle Robert 447 6 2-55

Doyle Robert 447 7 4-121

Doyle Robert 447 8 5-78

Doyle Robert 447 9 2-24

Doyle Robert 447 10 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

38

Doyle Robert 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Doyle Robert 500 1 4-224

Doyle Robert 500 2 4-221

Doyle Robert 500 3 5-46

Doyle Robert 500 4 4-131

Doyle Robert 500 5 4-129

Doyle Robert 500 6 4-101

Doyle Robert 500 7 4-36

Doyle Robert 500 8 5-78

Doyle Robert 500 9 4-131

Doyle Robert 500 10 1-70

Doyle Robert 500 11 5-42

Doyle Robert 500 12 4-121

Doyle Robert 500 13 4-91

Doyle Robert 500 14 5-78

Drapiza Jacalyn 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Drapiza Michael 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Drewlo Steve 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Driskill Betty 306 1 4-177

Durall Chris 215 1 4-224

Durall Chris 215 2 4-221

Durall Chris 215 3 5-46

Durall Chris 215 4 4-131

Durall Chris 215 5 4-129

Durall Chris 215 6 4-101

Durall Chris 215 7 4-36

Durall Chris 215 8 5-78

Durall Chris 215 9 4-131

Durall Chris 215 10 1-70

Durkin Thomas 271 1 4-108

Dutton Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Duvall Sonya 215 1 4-224

Duvall Sonya 215 2 4-221

Duvall Sonya 215 3 5-46

Duvall Sonya 215 4 4-131

Duvall Sonya 215 5 4-129
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39

Duvall Sonya 215 6 4-101

Duvall Sonya 215 7 4-36

Duvall Sonya 215 8 5-78

Duvall Sonya 215 9 4-131

Duvall Sonya 215 10 1-70

Earl McArthur 094 1 2-36

Earl McArthur 094 2 2-36

Earl McArthur 094 3 5-97

Earl McArthur 094 4 1-70

Earl McArthur 094 5 2-71

Easton Kip 215 1 4-224

Easton Kip 215 2 4-221

Easton Kip 215 3 5-46

Easton Kip 215 4 4-131

Easton Kip 215 5 4-129

Easton Kip 215 6 4-101

Easton Kip 215 7 4-36

Easton Kip 215 8 5-78

Easton Kip 215 9 4-131

Easton Kip 215 10 1-70

Easton Linda 028 1 5-8

Eberhardt William 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Eggleston Michael 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Ehnes Austin 215 1 4-224

Ehnes Austin 215 2 4-221

Ehnes Austin 215 3 5-46

Ehnes Austin 215 4 4-131

Ehnes Austin 215 5 4-129

Ehnes Austin 215 6 4-101

Ehnes Austin 215 7 4-36

Ehnes Austin 215 8 5-78

Ehnes Austin 215 9 4-131

Ehnes Austin 215 10 1-70

Ehnes Melissa Hampton 

& Tyrell

541 1 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 1 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

40

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 2 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 3 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 4 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 5 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 6 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 7 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 8 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 9 2-38

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 10 5-8

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 11 4-115

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 12 Route Specific

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 13 2-38

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Eilers Beth & Burke 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Eilers Burke 409 1 Route Specific

Ellingson Kirsten 288 1 5-167

Ellingson Kirsten 288 2 5-8

Elliott R 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Ellis Dwane 257 1 5-8

Elwonger Stevemn 335 1 2-36

Elwonger Waldo 313 1 2-28

Elwonger Waldo 313 2 Route Specific

Elwonger Waldo 313 3 2-55

Elwonger Waldo 313 4 5-27

Elwonger Waldo 313 5 4-22

Emme James 215 1 4-224

Emme James 215 2 4-221

Emme James 215 3 5-46

Emme James 215 4 4-131

Emme James 215 5 4-129

Emme James 215 6 4-101

Emme James 215 7 4-36

Emme James 215 8 5-78

Emme James 215 9 4-131

Emme James 215 10 1-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

41

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 1 2-20

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 2 4-242

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 3 3-127

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 4 3-129

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 5 4-116

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 6 1-58

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 7 4-68

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 8 3-33

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 9 2-38

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 10 3-103

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 11 3-103

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 12 3-103

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 13 3-103

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 15 5-105

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 16 5-112

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 17 5-104

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 18 5-112

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 19 5-99

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 20 5-117

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 21 5-106

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 22 4-89

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 23 6-15

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 24 5-17

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 25 4-244

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 26 4-241

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 27 4-241

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 28 Route Specific

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 29 4-246

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 30 4-243

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 31 4-248

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 32 4-247

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 33 4-177

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 34 4-245

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 35 4-340

Emmerich John Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Deputy Director. 346 36 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

42

Enesey Valyen 21514-224

Enesey Valyen 21524-221

Enesey Valyen 21535-46

Enesey Valyen 21544-131

Enesey Valyen 21554-129

Enesey Valyen 21564-101

Enesey Valyen 21574-36

Enesey Valyen 21585-78

Enesey Valyen 21594-131

Enesey Valyen 215 101-70

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54614-19

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54624-68

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54633-62

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54644-33

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54654-17

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54664-125

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54674-125

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54684-131

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

54693-65

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

546 101-57

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

546 113-69

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

546 123-66

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

546 133-22

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 546 144-33
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

43

Manager.

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

546 15 4-36

Engelskirger Carson Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Forest Programs 

Manager.

546 16 3-69

Engler Edward Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; Board Member. 

National Mountain Bike Patrol; Member and Area 

Director.

402 1 5-155

Engler Edward 402 2 2-28

Engler Edward 402 3 Route Specific

Erickson Layton 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Erickson Mark 408 1 4-224

Erickson Mark 408 2 4-221

Erickson Mark 408 3 5-46

Erickson Mark 408 4 4-131

Erickson Mark 408 5 4-129

Erickson Mark 408 6 4-101

Erickson Mark 408 7 4-36

Erickson Mark 408 8 5-78

Erickson Mark 408 9 4-131

Erickson Mark 408 10 1-70

Erickson Mark 408 11 5-46

Erickson Mark 408 12 5-20

Erickson Mark 408 13 5-19

Erickson Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Erk John 215 1 to 10

Erlenbusch Chad 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Erlenbusch Heather 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Erlewine Karen 215 1 4-224

Erlewine Karen 215 2 4-221

Erlewine Karen 215 3 5-46

Erlewine Karen 215 4 4-131

Erlewine Karen 215 5 4-129

Erlewine Karen 215 6 4-101

Erlewine Karen 215 7 4-36

Erlewine Karen 215 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

44

Erlewine Karen 215 9 4-131

Erlewine Karen 215 10 1-70

Erlewine Ted 359 1 5-21

Erlewine Ted 359 2 5-83

Erlewine Ted 359 3 5-46

Erlewine Ted 359 4 2-27

Erlewine Ted 359 5 5-191

Erlewine Ted 359 6 4-125

Erlewine Ted 359 7 5-43

Erlewine Ted 359 8 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Erlewine Ted 530 1 4-224

Erlewine Ted 530 2 4-221

Erlewine Ted 530 3 5-46

Erlewine Ted 530 4 4-131

Erlewine Ted 530 5 4-129

Erlewine Ted 530 6 4-101

Erlewine Ted 530 7 4-36

Erlewine Ted 530 8 5-78

Erlewine Ted 530 9 4-131

Erlewine Ted 530 10 1-70

Erlewine Ted 530 11 4-235

Erlewine Ted 530 12 5-42

Erlewine Ted 530 13 4-129

Erlewine Ted 530 14 4-66

Ewert Leon 244 1 2-28

Ewert Leon 244 2 4-118

Ewert Leon 244 3 5-114

Ewert Leon 244 4 5-117

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 1 1-62

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 2 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 3 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 4 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 5 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 6 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 7 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 8 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

45

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 9 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 10 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 11 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 12 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 13 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 14 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 15 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 16 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 17 Route Specific

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 18 5-183

Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners; Chair. 472 19 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 1 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 2 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 3 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 4 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 5 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 6 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 7 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 8 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 9 2-38

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 10 5-8

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 11 4-115

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 12 Route Specific

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 13 2-38

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Fahrenholz Beck A & Keith 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Fahrner Adam 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Fairchild Mike 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Commissioners. 191 1 5-97

Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Commissioners. 191 2 5-69

Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 1 1-61

Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 2 3-70

Farnsworth Faye 457 1 to 9 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

46

Farquhar Janifer 411 1 4-203

Farquhar Janifer 411 2 4-203

Farrell Martin 204 1 5-100

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 1 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 2 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 3 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 4 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 5 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 6 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 7 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 8 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 9 2-38

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 10 5-8

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 11 4-115

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 12 Route Specific

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 13 2-38

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Farwell Sherry & Judy 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Fastner Ken 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Fawcett Bethel 215 1 4-224

Fawcett Bethel 215 2 4-221

Fawcett Bethel 215 3 5-46

Fawcett Bethel 215 4 4-131

Fawcett Bethel 215 5 4-129

Fawcett Bethel 215 6 4-101

Fawcett Bethel 215 7 4-36

Fawcett Bethel 215 8 5-78

Fawcett Bethel 215 9 4-131

Fawcett Bethel 215 10 1-70

Fawcett Lonnie 215 1 4-224

Fawcett Lonnie 215 2 4-221

Fawcett Lonnie 215 3 5-46

Fawcett Lonnie 215 4 4-131

Fawcett Lonnie 215 5 4-129

Fawcett Lonnie 215 6 4-101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

47

Fawcett Lonnie 215 7 4-36

Fawcett Lonnie 215 8 5-78

Fawcett Lonnie 215 9 4-131

Fawcett Lonnie 215 10 1-70

Feldhaus Randy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Fenenga Gary 315 1 5-62

Fenenga Gary 315 2 4-141

Fenenga Gary 315 3 5-107

Fenenga Jim 215 1 4-224

Fenenga Jim 215 2 4-221

Fenenga Jim 215 3 5-46

Fenenga Jim 215 4 4-131

Fenenga Jim 215 5 4-129

Fenenga Jim 215 6 4-101

Fenenga Jim 215 7 4-36

Fenenga Jim 215 8 5-78

Fenenga Jim 215 9 4-131

Fenenga Jim 215 10 1-70

Fenenga Tanner 215 1 4-224

Fenenga Tanner 215 2 4-221

Fenenga Tanner 215 3 5-46

Fenenga Tanner 215 4 4-131

Fenenga Tanner 215 5 4-129

Fenenga Tanner 215 6 4-101

Fenenga Tanner 215 7 4-36

Fenenga Tanner 215 8 5-78

Fenenga Tanner 215 9 4-131

Fenenga Tanner 215 10 1-70

Fenske David 196 1 2-36

Fenske David 196 2 5-136

Fenske David 196 3 3-131

Fenske David 196 4 4-286

Fenske David 196 5 1-69

Fenske David 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 1 4-60
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

48

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46524-252

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46532-67

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46545-117

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46555-120

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46565-109

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46575-111

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46584-318

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

46594-115

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 103-21

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 114-89

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 123-125

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465133-132

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 143-103

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 153-126

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 162-66

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 174-144

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 181-7

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 194-163

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 202-73
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

49

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 21 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 225-113

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 231-75

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 24 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 25 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 26 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 27 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 28 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 29 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 30 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 31 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 32 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 33 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 34 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 35 Route Specific

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 363-35

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 374-303

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 384-250

Finch Dennis Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 394-252
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

50

Fines Jay 215 1 4-224

Fines Jay 215 2 4-221

Fines Jay 215 3 5-46

Fines Jay 215 4 4-131

Fines Jay 215 5 4-129

Fines Jay 215 6 4-101

Fines Jay 215 7 4-36

Fines Jay 215 8 5-78

Fines Jay 215 9 4-131

Fines Jay 215 10 1-70

Fines Marcia 215 1 4-224

Fines Marcia 215 2 4-221

Fines Marcia 215 3 5-46

Fines Marcia 215 4 4-131

Fines Marcia 215 5 4-129

Fines Marcia 215 6 4-101

Fines Marcia 215 7 4-36

Fines Marcia 215 8 5-78

Fines Marcia 215 9 4-131

Fines Marcia 215 10 1-70

Fines Travis 215 1 4-224

Fines Travis 215 2 4-221

Fines Travis 215 3 5-46

Fines Travis 215 4 4-131

Fines Travis 215 5 4-129

Fines Travis 215 6 4-101

Fines Travis 215 7 4-36

Fines Travis 215 8 5-78

Fines Travis 215 9 4-131

Fines Travis 215 10 1-70

Fish Misty 215 1 4-224

Fish Misty 215 2 4-221

Fish Misty 215 3 5-46

Fish Misty 215 4 4-131

Fish Misty 215 5 4-129

Fish Misty 215 6 4-101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

51

Fish Misty 215 7 4-36

Fish Misty 215 8 5-78

Fish Misty 215 9 4-131

Fish Misty 215 10 1-70

Flaig Jeff 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Flynn Bill 215 1 4-224

Flynn Bill 215 2 4-221

Flynn Bill 215 3 5-46

Flynn Bill 215 4 4-131

Flynn Bill 215 5 4-129

Flynn Bill 215 6 4-101

Flynn Bill 215 7 4-36

Flynn Bill 215 8 5-78

Flynn Bill 215 9 4-131

Flynn Bill 215 10 1-70

Flyte Quade 215 1 4-224

Flyte Quade 215 2 4-221

Flyte Quade 215 3 5-46

Flyte Quade 215 4 4-131

Flyte Quade 215 5 4-129

Flyte Quade 215 6 4-101

Flyte Quade 215 7 4-36

Flyte Quade 215 8 5-78

Flyte Quade 215 9 4-131

Flyte Quade 215 10 1-70

Foos David 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Foris Renee 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Fort Richard ACTion for the Environment Eagle Cliff Ski Association. 024 1 2-38

Fort Richard ACTion for the Environment Eagle Cliff Ski Association. 024 2 Route Specific

Fort Richard ACTion for the Environment Eagle Cliff Ski Association. 024 3 Route Specific

Fort Richard ACTion for the Environment Eagle Cliff Ski Association. 024 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Fort Richard ACTion for the Environment Eagle Cliff Ski Association. 024 5 Route Specific

Fort Richard ACTion for the Environment Eagle Cliff Ski Association. 024 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Fowlkes Larry 478 1 4-42

Fowlkes Larry 478 2 2-46

Fox Hill Nancy 059 1 2-28
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

52

Fraas Bill Harry 307 1 Route Specific

Franz Jean & Willis 100 1 2-35

Frasier Jesse 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Frasier Ruth 435 1 2-24

Frasier Ruth 435 2 4-293

Frasier Ruth 435 3 2-36

Fredrickson Aaron 285 1 5-63

Fried Terry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Friedel Kristi 064 1 5-170

Friedel Kristi 064 2 5-8

Friesen Dean 211 1 5-94

Friesen Dean 211 2 5-34

Friesen Dean 211 3 2-24

Friesen Dean 211 4 2-36

Friesen Dean 211 5 2-40

Friesen Dean 211 6 3-4

Frohme Gary & Sharon 210 1 Route Specific

Fuller Terry 273 1 Route Specific

Fuller Terry 352 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Fullmer Jerry 215 1 4-224

Fullmer Jerry 215 2 4-221

Fullmer Jerry 215 3 5-46

Fullmer Jerry 215 4 4-131

Fullmer Jerry 215 5 4-129

Fullmer Jerry 215 6 4-101

Fullmer Jerry 215 7 4-36

Fullmer Jerry 215 8 5-78

Fullmer Jerry 215 9 4-131

Fullmer Jerry 215 10 1-70

Furchner Rick 506 1 4-224

Furchner Rick 506 2 4-221

Furchner Rick 506 3 5-46

Furchner Rick 506 4 4-131

Furchner Rick 506 5 4-129

Furchner Rick 506 6 4-101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

53

Furchner Rick 506 7 4-36

Furchner Rick 506 8 5-78

Furchner Rick 506 9 4-131

Furchner Rick 506 10 1-70

Furchner Rick 506 11 5-45

Furchner Rick 506 12 4-102

Furchner Rick 506 13 5-85

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 1 3-7

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 2 2-19

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 3 2-42

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 4 Route Specific

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 5 2-42

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 6 Route Specific

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 7 4-179

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 8 2-25

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 9 2-29

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 10 2-32

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 11 2-37

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 12 3-78

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 13 4-165

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 14 4-277

Gabel Ph D Audrey 280 15 5-107

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 1 1-30

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 2 5-8

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 3 Route Specific

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 4 5-107

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 5 5-120

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 6 2-28

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 7 Route Specific

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 8 2-38

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 9 2-28

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 10 4-251

Gabel Ph D Mark 372 11 4-172

Ganje Sue Fall River & Shannon Counties Auditor's Office, Sue 

Ganje, County Auditor.

290 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Gardner Rhuemma 457 1 to 9 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

54

Garman Wayne Crook County Natural Resource District Board of 

Supervisors; Chairman

480 1 3-27

Garvey Lydia 343 1 4-56

Garvey Lydia 343 2 3-30

Garvey Lydia 343 3 4-259

Garvey Lydia 343 4 4-97

Garvey Lydia 343 5 5-89

Garvey Lydia 343 6 3-3

Gates Frank 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Gebert David 111 1 Route Specific

Gehrer Roger 215 1 4-224

Gehrer Roger 215 2 4-221

Gehrer Roger 215 3 5-46

Gehrer Roger 215 4 4-131

Gehrer Roger 215 5 4-129

Gehrer Roger 215 6 4-101

Gehrer Roger 215 7 4-36

Gehrer Roger 215 8 5-78

Gehrer Roger 215 9 4-131

Gehrer Roger 215 10 1-70

Gentry Grant 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 1 4-224

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 2 4-221

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 3 5-46

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 4 4-131

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 5 4-129

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 6 4-101

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 7 4-36

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 8 5-78

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 9 4-131

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 10 1-70

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 11 4-224

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 12 4-222

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 13 4-131

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 14 4-131

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 15 4-36
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

55

George Mr & Mrs Joseph 222 16 4-131

Gibson Dean 215 1 4-224

Gibson Dean 215 2 4-221

Gibson Dean 215 3 5-46

Gibson Dean 215 4 4-131

Gibson Dean 215 5 4-129

Gibson Dean 215 6 4-101

Gibson Dean 215 7 4-36

Gibson Dean 215 8 5-78

Gibson Dean 215 9 4-131

Gibson Dean 215 10 1-70

Gibson Keith 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 1 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 2 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 3 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 4 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 5 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 6 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 7 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 8 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 9 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 569 10 Route Specific

Gikling Todd 606 1 4-224

Gikling Todd 606 2 4-221

Gikling Todd 606 3 5-46

Gikling Todd 606 4 4-131

Gikling Todd 606 5 4-129

Gikling Todd 606 6 4-101

Gikling Todd 606 7 4-36

Gikling Todd 606 8 5-78

Gikling Todd 606 9 4-131

Gikling Todd 606 10 1-70

Gikling Todd 606 11 2-36

Gikling Todd 606 12 4-232

Gikling Todd 606 13 4-232
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

56

Gikling Todd 606 14 1-50

Gikling Todd 606 15 4-37

Gikling Todd 606 16 4-131

Gikling Todd 606 17 5-46

Gikling Todd 606 18 5-130

Gikling Todd 606 19 5-109

Girtz Pete 215 1 4-224

Girtz Pete 215 2 4-221

Girtz Pete 215 3 5-46

Girtz Pete 215 4 4-131

Girtz Pete 215 5 4-129

Girtz Pete 215 6 4-101

Girtz Pete 215 7 4-36

Girtz Pete 215 8 5-78

Girtz Pete 215 9 4-131

Girtz Pete 215 10 1-70

Goff Astin 215 1 4-224

Goff Astin 215 2 4-221

Goff Astin 215 3 5-46

Goff Astin 215 4 4-131

Goff Astin 215 5 4-129

Goff Astin 215 6 4-101

Goff Astin 215 7 4-36

Goff Astin 215 8 5-78

Goff Astin 215 9 4-131

Goff Astin 215 10 1-70

Goff Daphene 215 1 4-224

Goff Daphene 215 2 4-221

Goff Daphene 215 3 5-46

Goff Daphene 215 4 4-131

Goff Daphene 215 5 4-129

Goff Daphene 215 6 4-101

Goff Daphene 215 7 4-36

Goff Daphene 215 8 5-78

Goff Daphene 215 9 4-131

Goff Daphene 215 10 1-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

57

Golinvaux Chuck 029 1 2-36

Golinvaux Chuck 225 1 4-224

Golinvaux Chuck 225 2 4-221

Golinvaux Chuck 225 3 5-46

Golinvaux Chuck 225 4 4-131

Golinvaux Chuck 225 5 4-129

Golinvaux Chuck 225 6 4-101

Golinvaux Chuck 225 7 4-36

Golinvaux Chuck 225 8 5-78

Golinvaux Chuck 225 9 4-131

Golinvaux Chuck 225 10 1-70

Golinvaux Chuck 225 11 4-222

Golinvaux Chuck 225 12 4-131

Golinvaux Chuck 225 13 4-131

Golinvaux Chuck 225 14 1-70

Gomez Catalina 139 1 2-38

Gomez Catalina 139 2 3-73

Gomez Catalina 139 3 4-57

Gomez Catalina 139 4 4-230

Gomez Catalina 139 5 4-311

Gomez Catalina 139 6 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 1 4-57

Gomez John 488 2 5-8

Gomez John 488 3 4-332

Gomez John 488 4 4-321

Gomez John 488 5 4-312

Gomez John 488 6 4-74

Gomez John 488 7 5-8

Gomez John 488 8 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 9 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 10 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 11 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 12 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 13 Route Specific

Gomez John 488 14 4-148

Gomez John 488 15 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

58

Gomez John 488 16 4-135

Gomez John 558 1 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 2 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 3 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 4 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 5 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 6 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 7 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 8 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 9 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 10 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 11 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 12 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 13 Route Specific

Gomez John 558 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gomez Tonya 367 1 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 367 2 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 367 3 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 367 4 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 367 5 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 367 6 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 367 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gomez Tonya 557 1 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 557 2 Route Specific

Gomez Tonya 557 3 Route Specific

Goss Edward 378 1 4-224

Goss Edward 378 2 4-221

Goss Edward 378 3 5-46

Goss Edward 378 4 4-131

Goss Edward 378 5 4-129

Goss Edward 378 6 4-101

Goss Edward 378 7 4-36

Goss Edward 378 8 5-78

Goss Edward 378 9 4-131

Goss Edward 378 10 1-70

Goss Edward 378 11 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

59

Goss Edward 378 12 4-312

Goss Edward 378 13 4-209

Goss Edward 378 14 3-58

Goss Edward 378 15 4-131

Goss Edward 378 16 4-96

Grable Robert 215 1 4-224

Grable Robert 215 2 4-221

Grable Robert 215 3 5-46

Grable Robert 215 4 4-131

Grable Robert 215 5 4-129

Grable Robert 215 6 4-101

Grable Robert 215 7 4-36

Grable Robert 215 8 5-78

Grable Robert 215 9 4-131

Grable Robert 215 10 1-70

Gran Cassie 198 1 5-60

Gran Cassie 198 2 5-59

Green Bret 174 1 Route Specific

Green John 398 1 Route Specific

Green Matthew 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Grefrath Gene 215 1 4-224

Grefrath Gene 215 2 4-221

Grefrath Gene 215 3 5-46

Grefrath Gene 215 4 4-131

Grefrath Gene 215 5 4-129

Grefrath Gene 215 6 4-101

Grefrath Gene 215 7 4-36

Grefrath Gene 215 8 5-78

Grefrath Gene 215 9 4-131

Grefrath Gene 215 10 1-70

Gregorich Amy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Griffin John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Grimm Keith 310 1 Route Specific

Grimm Keith 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Groote Marcia 410 1 5-154

Groote Marcia 410 2 5-12
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

60

Grosz Glenn 215 1 4-224

Grosz Glenn 215 2 4-221

Grosz Glenn 215 3 5-46

Grosz Glenn 215 4 4-131

Grosz Glenn 215 5 4-129

Grosz Glenn 215 6 4-101

Grosz Glenn 215 7 4-36

Grosz Glenn 215 8 5-78

Grosz Glenn 215 9 4-131

Grosz Glenn 215 10 1-70

Grosz Mike 395 1 4-224

Grosz Mike 395 2 4-221

Grosz Mike 395 3 5-46

Grosz Mike 395 4 4-131

Grosz Mike 395 5 4-129

Grosz Mike 395 6 4-101

Grosz Mike 395 7 4-36

Grosz Mike 395 8 5-78

Grosz Mike 395 9 4-131

Grosz Mike 395 10 1-70

Grosz Mike 395 11 Route Specific

Grosz Mike 395 12 4-125

Grosz Mike 395 13 4-358

Grosz Mike 395 14 4-8

Grosz Tim 379 1 4-224

Grosz Tim 379 2 4-221

Grosz Tim 379 3 5-46

Grosz Tim 379 4 4-131

Grosz Tim 379 5 4-129

Grosz Tim 379 6 4-101

Grosz Tim 379 7 4-36

Grosz Tim 379 8 5-78

Grosz Tim 379 9 4-131

Grosz Tim 379 10 1-70

Grosz Tim 379 11 4-224

Grosz Tim 379 12 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

61

Grosz Tim 379 13 5-46

Grosz Tim 379 14 4-100

Grosz Tim 439 1 5-46

Grosz Tim 439 2 4-118

Grosz Tim 439 3 4-232

Grosz Tim 439 4 4-221

Grosz Tim 439 5 4-125

Grosz Tim 439 6 4-131

Grosz Tim 439 7 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 8 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 9 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 10 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 11 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 12 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 13 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 14 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 15 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 16 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 17 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 18 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 19 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 20 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 21 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 22 Route Specific

Grosz Tim 439 23 Route Specific

Grosz Tom 215 1 4-224

Grosz Tom 215 2 4-221

Grosz Tom 215 3 5-46

Grosz Tom 215 4 4-131

Grosz Tom 215 5 4-129

Grosz Tom 215 6 4-101

Grosz Tom 215 7 4-36

Grosz Tom 215 8 5-78

Grosz Tom 215 9 4-131

Grosz Tom 215 10 1-70

Gruba Greg 215 1 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

62

Gruba Greg 215 2 4-221

Gruba Greg 215 3 5-46

Gruba Greg 215 4 4-131

Gruba Greg 215 5 4-129

Gruba Greg 215 6 4-101

Gruba Greg 215 7 4-36

Gruba Greg 215 8 5-78

Gruba Greg 215 9 4-131

Gruba Greg 215 10 1-70

Gruber Gary 145 1 5-86

Gruber Gary 145 2 3-60

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 1 4-224

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 2 4-221

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 3 5-46

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 4 4-131

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 5 4-129

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 6 4-101

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 7 4-36

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 8 5-78

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 9 4-131

Gruetzmacher Crystal 215 10 1-70

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 1 4-224

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 2 4-221

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 3 5-46

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 4 4-131

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 5 4-129

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 6 4-101

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 7 4-36

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 8 5-78

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 9 4-131

Gruetzmacher Mark 215 10 1-70

Grundhein Deane 215 1 4-224

Grundhein Deane 215 2 4-221

Grundhein Deane 215 3 5-46

Grundhein Deane 215 4 4-131

Grundhein Deane 215 5 4-129
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

63

Grundhein Deane 215 6 4-101

Grundhein Deane 215 7 4-36

Grundhein Deane 215 8 5-78

Grundhein Deane 215 9 4-131

Grundhein Deane 215 10 1-70

Grundstrom David Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; President. 608 1 5-158

Grundstrom David Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; President. 608 2 5-170

Grundstrom David Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; President. 608 3 4-294

Grundstrom David Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; President. 608 4 Route Specific

Grundstrom David Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; President. 608 5 2-28

Grunenfelder Craig 520 1 2-36

Grunenfelder Craig 520 2 2-55

Grunenfelder Craig 520 3 4-36

Grunenfelder Craig 520 4 4-225

Grunenfelder Craig 520 5 5-74

Guffey Scott Pennington County Weed and Pest Board. 165 1 2-38

Gullickson Gary 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Gurkin Matt 188 1 2-34

Gurkin Michael 251 1 2-33

Gurkin Michael 251 2 Route Specific

Gurkin Michael 251 3 1-3

Gustafson Jeff 215 1 4-224

Gustafson Jeff 215 2 4-221

Gustafson Jeff 215 3 5-46

Gustafson Jeff 215 4 4-131

Gustafson Jeff 215 5 4-129

Gustafson Jeff 215 6 4-101

Gustafson Jeff 215 7 4-36

Gustafson Jeff 215 8 5-78

Gustafson Jeff 215 9 4-131

Gustafson Jeff 215 10 1-70

Gustin Dirk Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; Trails Specialist. 265 1 5-158

Gustin Dirk Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; Trails Specialist. 265 2 5-155

Gustin Dirk Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; Trails Specialist. 265 3 4-204

Gustin Dirk Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; Trails Specialist. 265 4 5-175

Gustin Dirk Black Hills Mountain Bike Association; Trails Specialist. 265 5 4-297
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

64

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 1 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 2 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 3 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 4 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 5 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 6 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 7 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 8 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 9 2-38

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 10 5-8

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 11 4-115

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 12 Route Specific

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 13 2-38

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gutzmer Bonnie 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gutzmer Wayne 320 1 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 2 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 3 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 4 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 5 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 6 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 7 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 8 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 9 2-38

Gutzmer Wayne 320 10 5-8

Gutzmer Wayne 320 11 4-115

Gutzmer Wayne 320 12 Route Specific

Gutzmer Wayne 320 13 2-38

Gutzmer Wayne 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gutzmer Wayne 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Gutzmer Wayne 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Haagenson Bill Wyoming State Forestry Division; Assistant State 

Forester.

269 1 2-28

Haagenson Bill Wyoming State Forestry Division; Assistant State 

Forester.

269 2 4-42
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

65

Haagenson Bill Wyoming State Forestry Division; Assistant State 

Forester.

269 3 4-351

Haahr & Marylu 

Ledebuhr

Liz Manning & 

Janifer Farquhar & 

Gretchen

063 1 Route Specific

Haahr & Marylu 

Ledebuhr

Liz Manning & 

Janifer Farquhar & 

Gretchen

063 2 Route Specific

Haahr & Marylu 

Ledebuhr

Liz Manning & 

Janifer Farquhar & 

Gretchen

063 3 Route Specific

Haas Lavern 302 1 4-224

Haas Lavern 302 2 4-221

Haas Lavern 302 3 5-46

Haas Lavern 302 4 4-131

Haas Lavern 302 5 4-129

Haas Lavern 302 6 4-101

Haas Lavern 302 7 4-36

Haas Lavern 302 8 5-78

Haas Lavern 302 9 4-131

Haas Lavern 302 10 1-70

Haas Lavern 302 11 4-232

Haas Lavern 302 12 5-46

Haas Lavern 302 13 4-100

Haas Lavern 302 14 5-85

Habeck Mike 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hachway Shannon 435 1 2-24

Hachway Shannon 435 2 4-293

Hachway Shannon 435 3 2-36

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 1 2-36

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 2 5-80

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 3 5-88

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 4 3-52

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 5 6-21

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 6 1-63

Hadley J Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 7 5-141
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

66

HadleyJ Crook County Board of Commissioners. 47785-25

Hague Caria 50714-224

Hague Caria 50724-221

Hague Caria 50735-46

Hague Caria 50744-131

Hague Caria 50754-129

Hague Caria 50764-101

Hague Caria 50774-36

Hague Caria 50785-78

Hague Caria 50794-131

Hague Caria 507 101-70

Hague Caria 507 114-222

Hague Caria 507 125-46

Hague Caria 507 135-180

Hague Caria 507 144-126

Hague Caria 507 154-102

Hague Caria 507 161-78

Hague Caria 507 174-131

Hague Dave 50814-224

Hague Dave 50824-221

Hague Dave 50835-46

Hague Dave 50844-131

Hague Dave 50854-129

Hague Dave 50864-101

Hague Dave 50874-36

Hague Dave 50885-78

Hague Dave 50894-131

Hague Dave 508 101-70

Hague Dave 508 114-228

Hague Dave 508 12 Route Specific

Hague Dave 508 135-46

Hague Dave 508 14 Route Specific

Hague Dave 508 154-122

Hague Dave 508 164-278

Hague Dave 508 174-314

Hague Dave 508 184-149
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

67

Hague Dave 508 19 4-130

Hague Dave 508 20 4-358

Hague David 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hague Edward & Brenda 525 1 4-81

Hall Carter 093 1 2-36

Hall Carter 093 2 4-272

Hall Carter 093 3 2-36

Hall Carter 093 4 5-86

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 1 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 2 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 3 4-51

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 377 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 17 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 18 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 19 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 20 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 21 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 22 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 23 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 24 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 25 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 26 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

68

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 27 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 28 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 29 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 30 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 31 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 32 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 33 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 34 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 35 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall TroyOff-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 365-77

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 37 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

HallTroy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 384-216

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 39 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 40 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 41 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 42 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 43 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 44 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 45 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

69

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 46 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 47 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 48 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 49 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 50 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 51 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 52 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 53 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 54 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 55 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 56 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 57 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 58 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 59 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 60 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 61 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 62 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 63 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 64 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

70

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 65 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 66 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 67 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 68 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 69 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 70 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 71 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 72 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 73 4-131

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 74 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 75 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 76 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 77 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 78 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 79 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 80 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 81 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 82 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 83 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

71

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 84 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 85 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 86 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 87 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 88 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 89 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 90 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 91 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 92 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 93 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 94 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 95 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 96 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 97 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 98 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 99 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 100 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 101 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 102 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

72

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 103 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 104 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 105 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 106 2-55

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 107 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 108 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 109 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 110 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 111 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 112 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 113 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 114 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 115 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 116 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 117 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 118 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 119 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hall Troy 566 10 Route Specific

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 1 4-224

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 2 4-221
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

73

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60935-46

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60944-131

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60954-129

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60964-101

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60974-36

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60985-78

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 60994-131

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 101-70

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 112-36

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 124-224

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 134-224

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 145-46

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 155-42

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 165-42

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 174-75

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 184-131

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 194-99

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 205-78

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 216-34

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 224-82

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 231-70

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association; President. 609 244-37

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association, President; SD Off Highway 

Vehicle Coalition, Secretary

08512-74

Hall Troy Off-Road Riders Association, President; SD Off Highway 

Vehicle Coalition, Secretary

08524-117

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46012-36

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46024-224

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46034-224

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46044-222
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

74

Director of ORA).

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46055-46

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46065-42

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

4607 Route Specific

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

4608 499

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

46094-125

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 104-100

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 114-36

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 125-78

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 136-35

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 144-82

Hall Troy, and Ross A. 

Brown (Executive 

Director of ORA).

Off-Road Riders Association; President. South Dakota 

Off Highway Vehicle Coalition; Secretary.

460 151-70

Halter Kelly 42815-172

Halter Kelly 4282 Route Specific

Halter Kelly 42831-78

Hamblin Jean Claire 51815-13
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

75

Hamblin Jean Claire 518 2 3-45

Hamblin Jean Claire 518 3 3-155

Hamblin Jean Claire 518 4 5-8

Hamblin Jean Claire 518 5 5-147

Hammond Philip 215 1 4-224

Hammond Philip 215 2 4-221

Hammond Philip 215 3 5-46

Hammond Philip 215 4 4-131

Hammond Philip 215 5 4-129

Hammond Philip 215 6 4-101

Hammond Philip 215 7 4-36

Hammond Philip 215 8 5-78

Hammond Philip 215 9 4-131

Hammond Philip 215 10 1-70

Hannon Jordan 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hannon Sheila 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hannon Troy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hansen Dane 072 1 5-16

Hansen James 562 1 4-224

Hansen James 562 2 4-221

Hansen James 562 3 5-46

Hansen James 562 4 4-131

Hansen James 562 5 4-129

Hansen James 562 6 4-101

Hansen James 562 7 4-36

Hansen James 562 8 5-78

Hansen James 562 9 4-131

Hansen James 562 10 1-70

Hansen James 562 11 5-46

Hansen James 562 12 5-48

Hansen James 562 13 1-62

Hansen Tim 296 1 4-224

Hansen Tim 296 2 4-221

Hansen Tim 296 3 5-46

Hansen Tim 296 4 4-131

Hansen Tim 296 5 4-129
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

76

Hansen Tim 296 6 4-101

Hansen Tim 296 7 4-36

Hansen Tim 296 8 5-78

Hansen Tim 296 9 4-131

Hansen Tim 296 10 1-70

Hansen Tim 296 11 5-45

Hanson David 104 1 5-20

Hanson Richard 510 1 4-224

Hanson Richard 510 2 4-221

Hanson Richard 510 3 5-46

Hanson Richard 510 4 4-131

Hanson Richard 510 5 4-129

Hanson Richard 510 6 4-101

Hanson Richard 510 7 4-36

Hanson Richard 510 8 5-78

Hanson Richard 510 9 4-131

Hanson Richard 510 10 1-70

Hanson Richard 510 11 4-232

Hanson Richard 510 12 4-122

Hanson Richard 510 13 4-125

Hanson Richard 510 14 4-122

Hanson Richard 510 15 5-78

Hanson Richard 510 16 6-15

Hanson Richard 510 17 5-28

Hanssen Tom 215 1 4-224

Hanssen Tom 215 2 4-221

Hanssen Tom 215 3 5-46

Hanssen Tom 215 4 4-131

Hanssen Tom 215 5 4-129

Hanssen Tom 215 6 4-101

Hanssen Tom 215 7 4-36

Hanssen Tom 215 8 5-78

Hanssen Tom 215 9 4-131

Hanssen Tom 215 10 1-70

Harbert Cole 215 1 4-224

Harbert Cole 215 2 4-221
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

77

Harbert Cole 215 3 5-46

Harbert Cole 215 4 4-131

Harbert Cole 215 5 4-129

Harbert Cole 215 6 4-101

Harbert Cole 215 7 4-36

Harbert Cole 215 8 5-78

Harbert Cole 215 9 4-131

Harbert Cole 215 10 1-70

Harcharik Greg 199 1 2-36

Harder Adam 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Harley Julie 167 1 2-24

Harvey Richard & Karen 007 1 Route Specific

Haslam David 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hastings Troy 215 1 4-224

Hastings Troy 215 2 4-221

Hastings Troy 215 3 5-46

Hastings Troy 215 4 4-131

Hastings Troy 215 5 4-129

Hastings Troy 215 6 4-101

Hastings Troy 215 7 4-36

Hastings Troy 215 8 5-78

Hastings Troy 215 9 4-131

Hastings Troy 215 10 1-70

Hauck William 125 1 4-263

Hauck William 125 2 Route Specific

Hauck William 125 3 1-110

Haug Derek 215 1 4-224

Haug Derek 215 2 4-221

Haug Derek 215 3 5-46

Haug Derek 215 4 4-131

Haug Derek 215 5 4-129

Haug Derek 215 6 4-101

Haug Derek 215 7 4-36

Haug Derek 215 8 5-78

Haug Derek 215 9 4-131

Haug Derek 215 10 1-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

78

Haug Tim 215 1 4-224

Haug Tim 215 2 4-221

Haug Tim 215 3 5-46

Haug Tim 215 4 4-131

Haug Tim 215 5 4-129

Haug Tim 215 6 4-101

Haug Tim 215 7 4-36

Haug Tim 215 8 5-78

Haug Tim 215 9 4-131

Haug Tim 215 10 1-70

Haupt Jin & Jan 267 1 4-334

Hayes Dallas 215 1 4-224

Hayes Dallas 215 2 4-221

Hayes Dallas 215 3 5-46

Hayes Dallas 215 4 4-131

Hayes Dallas 215 5 4-129

Hayes Dallas 215 6 4-101

Hayes Dallas 215 7 4-36

Hayes Dallas 215 8 5-78

Hayes Dallas 215 9 4-131

Hayes Dallas 215 10 1-70

Hayman Rory 050 1 5-8

Hayman Rory 050 2 4-270

Hayward Jim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hayward Jim 504 1 4-224

Hayward Jim 504 2 4-221

Hayward Jim 504 3 5-46

Hayward Jim 504 4 4-131

Hayward Jim 504 5 4-129

Hayward Jim 504 6 4-101

Hayward Jim 504 7 4-36

Hayward Jim 504 8 5-78

Hayward Jim 504 9 4-131

Hayward Jim 504 10 1-70

Hayward Jim 504 11 4-125

Hayward Jim 504 12 5-34
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

79

Hayward Jim 504 13 5-46

Hayward Jim 504 14 4-126

Hayward Jim 504 15 5-24

Hayward Jim 504 16 2-55

Hayward Jim 504 17 5-115

Hayward Jim 504 18 4-270

Hayward Linda 262 1 4-224

Hayward Linda 262 2 4-221

Hayward Linda 262 3 5-46

Hayward Linda 262 4 4-131

Hayward Linda 262 5 4-129

Hayward Linda 262 6 4-101

Hayward Linda 262 7 4-36

Hayward Linda 262 8 5-78

Hayward Linda 262 9 4-131

Hayward Linda 262 10 1-70

Hayward Linda 262 11 4-232

Hayward Linda 262 12 4-125

Hayward Linda 262 13 5-46

Hayward Linda 262 14 4-100

Hayward Linda 262 15 4-36

Hayward Linda 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hazen Patrick 297 1 4-224

Hazen Patrick 297 2 4-221

Hazen Patrick 297 3 5-46

Hazen Patrick 297 4 4-131

Hazen Patrick 297 5 4-129

Hazen Patrick 297 6 4-101

Hazen Patrick 297 7 4-36

Hazen Patrick 297 8 5-78

Hazen Patrick 297 9 4-131

Hazen Patrick 297 10 1-70

Hazen Patrick 297 11 5-46

Heacock Chris 073 1 5-167

Hearne Bill 230 1 4-224

Hearne Bill 230 2 4-221
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

80

Hearne Bill 230 3 5-46

Hearne Bill 230 4 4-131

Hearne Bill 230 5 4-129

Hearne Bill 230 6 4-101

Hearne Bill 230 7 4-36

Hearne Bill 230 8 5-78

Hearne Bill 230 9 4-131

Hearne Bill 230 10 1-70

Hearne Bill 230 11 1-37

Hearne Bill 230 12 5-46

Hearne Bill 230 13 1-66

Hearne Bill 230 14 4-125

Hearne Bill 230 15 5-98

Hearne Bill 230 16 1-66

Hearne Bill 230 17 5-20

Hearne Karen 320 1 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 2 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 3 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 4 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 5 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 6 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 7 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 8 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 9 2-38

Hearne Karen 320 10 5-8

Hearne Karen 320 11 4-115

Hearne Karen 320 12 Route Specific

Hearne Karen 320 13 2-38

Hearne Karen 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hearne Karen 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hearne Karen 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hedrick Brian 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Heggie James 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hehner Eric 281 1 Route Specific

Hehner Eric 281 2 Route Specific

Hehner Eric 281 3 2-42
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

81

Heintz Sonny 215 1 to 10

Heiserman Les 401 1 5-8

Heiserman Les 401 2 Route Specific

Heiserman Les 401 3 Route Specific

Heiserman Les 401 4 Route Specific

Heisinger Chris 215 1 to 10

Henderson Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Henke Bill 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Henke Connie 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Henwood Benjamin 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Henwood Vanessa 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hermansen Al 215 1 to 10

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife

Federation

465 1 4-60

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 2 4-252

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 3 2-67

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 4 5-117

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 5 5-120

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 6 5-109

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 7 5-111

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 8 4-318

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 9 4-115

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 10 3-21

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 11 4-89

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 12 3-125

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 465 13 3-132
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

82

Federation

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 14 3-103

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 15 3-126

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 16 2-66

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 17 4-144

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 18 1-7

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 19 4-163

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 20 2-73

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 21 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 22 5-113

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 23 1-75

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 24 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 25 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 26 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 27 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 28 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 29 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 30 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 31 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 465 32 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

83

Federation

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 33 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 34 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 35 Route Specific

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 36 3-35

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 37 4-303

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 38 4-250

Hesla Chris Black Hills Sportsmen's Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation

465 39 4-252

Hettinga Lewis 298 1 4-224

Hettinga Lewis 298 2 4-221

Hettinga Lewis 298 3 5-46

Hettinga Lewis 298 4 4-131

Hettinga Lewis 298 5 4-129

Hettinga Lewis 298 6 4-101

Hettinga Lewis 298 7 4-36

Hettinga Lewis 298 8 5-78

Hettinga Lewis 298 9 4-131

Hettinga Lewis 298 10 1-70

Hettinga Lewis 298 11 5-46

Heupel Barbie 215 1 4-224

Heupel Barbie 215 2 4-221

Heupel Barbie 215 3 5-46

Heupel Barbie 215 4 4-131

Heupel Barbie 215 5 4-129

Heupel Barbie 215 6 4-101

Heupel Barbie 215 7 4-36

Heupel Barbie 215 8 5-78

Heupel Barbie 215 9 4-131

Heupel Barbie 215 10 1-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

84

Heupel Roger 215 1 4-224

Heupel Roger 215 2 4-221

Heupel Roger 215 3 5-46

Heupel Roger 215 4 4-131

Heupel Roger 215 5 4-129

Heupel Roger 215 6 4-101

Heupel Roger 215 7 4-36

Heupel Roger 215 8 5-78

Heupel Roger 215 9 4-131

Heupel Roger 215 10 1-70

Hey Sue 413 1 Route Specific

Hey Sue 413 2 Route Specific

Hey Sue 413 3 Route Specific

Hey Sue 413 4 4-324

Hey Sue 413 5 5-178

Hey Sue 413 6 3-42

Heynen Heather 016 1 Route Specific

Heynen Heather 016 2 Route Specific

Heynen Heather 016 3 Route Specific

Heynen Heather 016 4 Route Specific

Heynen Heather 016 5 Route Specific

Hibbard Chuck 215 1 4-224

Hibbard Chuck 215 2 4-221

Hibbard Chuck 215 3 5-46

Hibbard Chuck 215 4 4-131

Hibbard Chuck 215 5 4-129

Hibbard Chuck 215 6 4-101

Hibbard Chuck 215 7 4-36

Hibbard Chuck 215 8 5-78

Hibbard Chuck 215 9 4-131

Hibbard Chuck 215 10 1-70

Hickman Marc 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hildebrand Cindy 443 1 3-5

Hildebrand Cindy 443 2 4-252

Hildebrand Cindy 443 3 5-9
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

85

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29314-57

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29325-230

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29331-17

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29341-25

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29351-39

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29361-38

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29374-11

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29385-162

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 29391-39

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57811-30

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57821-39

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57832-38

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57845-195

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57855-148

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57864-226

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57874-287

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57884-139

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 57895-151

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 10 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 111-44

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 121-23

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 131-43

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 141-46

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 151-24

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 162-30

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 171-45

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 184-375

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 195-203

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 205-203

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 215-203

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 225-203

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 235-162

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 245-202

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 255-202

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 265-151

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 27 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

86

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 28 4-203

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 29 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 30 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 31 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 32 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 33 3-9

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 34 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 35 3-85

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 36 3-84

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 37 6-24

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 38 4-118

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 39 6-12

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 40 4-250

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 41 4-382

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 42 4-331

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 43 4-324

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 44 1-54

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 45 3-156

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 46 3-107

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 47 3-97

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 48 2-68

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 578 49 5-93

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 1 4-106

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 579 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 580 1 1-40

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 580 2 1-41

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 580 3 1-41

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 580 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 580 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 580 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 581 1 1-40
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

87

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 581 2 1-41

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 581 3 1-41

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 581 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 581 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 581 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 582 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 583 1 6-29

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 583 2 3-157

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 583 3 4-327

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 583 4 4-120

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 583 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 584 1 4-327

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 584 2 4-120

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 1 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 2 6-33

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 3 6-34

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 4 4-331

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 5 4-327

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 6 4-287

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 585 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 586 1 1-102

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 586 2 5-149

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 586 3 6-24

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 587 1 2-7

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 1 2-38

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 2 5-115

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 3 5-181

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 4 5-181

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 5 5-179

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 6 5-195

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 7 5-181

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 8 5-116

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 9 5-122

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 10 5-93

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 11 5-123
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

88

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 12 4-372

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 13 4-146

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 14 4-146

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 15 4-146

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 16 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 17 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 18 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 19 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 20 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 21 3-85

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 22 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 588 23 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 589 1 Route Specific

Hilding Nancy Prairie Hills Audubon Society; President. 589 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hill Brenda 260 1 4-224

Hill Brenda 260 2 4-221

Hill Brenda 260 3 5-46

Hill Brenda 260 4 4-131

Hill Brenda 260 5 4-129

Hill Brenda 260 6 4-101

Hill Brenda 260 7 4-36

Hill Brenda 260 8 5-78

Hill Brenda 260 9 4-131

Hill Brenda 260 10 1-70

Hill Brenda 260 11 5-21

Hill Brenda 260 12 4-131

Hill Brenda 260 13 4-100

Hill Brenda 260 14 4-36

Hill Brenda 260 15 5-98

Hill Brent 105 1 Route Specific

Hill Brent 105 2 5-72

Hill Brent 105 3 Route Specific

Hill Brent 105 4 Route Specific

Hill Brent 105 5 Route Specific

Hill Brent 105 6 Route Specific

Hill Brent 105 7 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

89

Hill Brent 105 8 Route Specific

Hill Brent 105 9 5-8

Hill Brent 105 10 5-31

Hill Brent 105 11 5-71

Hill Brent 105 12 2-34

Hill Brent 105 13 4-128

Hill Brent 105 14 1-59

Hill Brent 105 15 5-79

Hill Drew 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hill Michele 215 1 4-224

Hill Michele 215 2 4-221

Hill Michele 215 3 5-46

Hill Michele 215 4 4-131

Hill Michele 215 5 4-129

Hill Michele 215 6 4-101

Hill Michele 215 7 4-36

Hill Michele 215 8 5-78

Hill Michele 215 9 4-131

Hill Michele 215 10 1-70

Hinker Cote 215 1 4-224

Hinker Cote 215 2 4-221

Hinker Cote 215 3 5-46

Hinker Cote 215 4 4-131

Hinker Cote 215 5 4-129

Hinker Cote 215 6 4-101

Hinker Cote 215 7 4-36

Hinker Cote 215 8 5-78

Hinker Cote 215 9 4-131

Hinker Cote 215 10 1-70

Hirsch Chris 056 1 Route Specific

His Horse Is 

Thunder

Ron Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Chairman. 549 1 1-2

His Horse Is 

Thunder

Ron Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Chairman. 549 2 1-2

Hoard William 600 1 2-36

Hoard William 600 2 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

90

Hoard William 600 3 4-285

Hoard William 600 4 4-37

Hoard William 600 5 4-131

Hobbson David 215 1 4-224

Hobbson David 215 2 4-221

Hobbson David 215 3 5-46

Hobbson David 215 4 4-131

Hobbson David 215 5 4-129

Hobbson David 215 6 4-101

Hobbson David 215 7 4-36

Hobbson David 215 8 5-78

Hobbson David 215 9 4-131

Hobbson David 215 10 1-70

Hoeft Michael 030 1 4-68

Hoeft Michael 030 2 4-124

Hoeft Michael 030 3 4-279

Hoeft Michael 030 4 4-294

Hoeft Michael 030 5 4-340

Hoeft Michael 030 6 4-271

Hoeft Michael 030 7 4-314

Hoeft Michael 030 8 2-28

Hoeft Michael 030 9 4-281

Hoeft Michael 030 10 5-182

Hogan Debbie 122 1 2-38

Hogan Debbie 122 2 5-15

Hogan Debbie 122 3 2-38

Hogan Debbie 122 4 4-263

Hogg Michael 268 1 4-19

Hohn Jim 215 1 4-224

Hohn Jim 215 2 4-221

Hohn Jim 215 3 5-46

Hohn Jim 215 4 4-131

Hohn Jim 215 5 4-129

Hohn Jim 215 6 4-101

Hohn Jim 215 7 4-36

Hohn Jim 215 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

91

Hohn Jim 21594-131

Hohn Jim 215 101-70

Hohr Daral 21514-224

Hohr Daral 21524-221

Hohr Daral 21535-46

Hohr Daral 21544-131

Hohr Daral 21554-129

Hohr Daral 21564-101

Hohr Daral 21574-36

Hohr Daral 21585-78

Hohr Daral 21594-131

Hohr Daral 215 101-70

Hoier Stephen 09111-1

Hoier Stephen 09122-38

Hoier Stephen 09136-14

Hoier Stephen 09144-92

Hoier Stephen 09155-112

Hoier Stephen 09164-277

Hoier Stephen 09174-283

Hollmann Jeffrey 39614-224

Hollmann Jeffrey 39624-221

Hollmann Jeffrey 39635-46

Hollmann Jeffrey 39644-131

Hollmann Jeffrey 39654-129

Hollmann Jeffrey 39664-101

Hollmann Jeffrey 39674-36

Hollmann Jeffrey 39685-78

Hollmann Jeffrey 39694-131

Hollmann Jeffrey 396 10 1-70

Hollmann Jeffrey 396 114-213

Holmberg Mike 21514-224

Holmberg Mike 21524-221

Holmberg Mike 21535-46

Holmberg Mike 21544-131

Holmberg Mike 21554-129

Holmberg Mike 21564-101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

92

Holmberg Mike 215 7 4-36

Holmberg Mike 215 8 5-78

Holmberg Mike 215 9 4-131

Holmberg Mike 215 10 1-70

Homsey-Pray Teah 523 1 3-111

Honerkamp John 101 1 2-28

Honerkamp John 101 2 Route Specific

Honerkamp Marie 102 1 2-28

Honerkamp Marie 102 2 Route Specific

Hood Michelle 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hood Thomas 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hooks Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hoskin Daniel 108 1 4-340

Hoskin Daniel 108 2 2-28

Hoskin John & Marie 

Konerkamp & 

Daniel & Kathy

092 1 5-167

Hoskin Kathleen 040 1 2-28

Hoskin Kathleen 099 1 1-109

Hoskin Kathleen 099 2 Route Specific

Hoskin Kathleen 099 3 2-28

Houck Jim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Howard Austin 485 1 4-224

Howard Austin 485 2 4-221

Howard Austin 485 3 5-46

Howard Austin 485 4 4-131

Howard Austin 485 5 4-129

Howard Austin 485 6 4-101

Howard Austin 485 7 4-36

Howard Austin 485 8 5-78

Howard Austin 485 9 4-131

Howard Austin 485 10 1-70

Howard Austin 485 11 5-46

Howard Austin 485 12 2-26

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 1 4-250
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

93

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 2 2-24

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 3 2-36

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 4 4-118

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 5 4-37

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 6 5-44

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 7 4-147

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 8 5-42

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 9 4-131

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 10 4-100

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 11 5-78

Howard Mark & Taffy & 

Austin & Matthew

449 12 1-70

Howard Matthew 484 1 4-224

Howard Matthew 484 2 4-221

Howard Matthew 484 3 5-46

Howard Matthew 484 4 4-131

Howard Matthew 484 5 4-129

Howard Matthew 484 6 4-101

Howard Matthew 484 7 4-36

Howard Matthew 484 8 5-78

Howard Matthew 484 9 4-131

Howard Matthew 484 10 1-70

Howard Matthew 484 11 5-46

Howard Matthew 484 12 2-26

Howard Taffy 483 1 4-224

Howard Taffy 483 2 4-221

Howard Taffy 483 3 5-46
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

94

Howard Taffy 48344-131

Howard Taffy 48354-129

Howard Taffy 48364-101

Howard Taffy 48374-36

Howard Taffy 48385-78

Howard Taffy 48394-131

Howard Taffy 483 101-70

Howard Taffy 483 115-42

Howard Taffy 483 125-43

Howard Taffy 483 132-24

Howard Taffy 483 142-24

Howard Taffy 483 155-78

Howard Taffy 483 162-24

Howard Taffy 483 175-46

Howard Taffy 483 184-121

Howard Taffy 483 192-36

Howard Taffy 483 205-46

Howard Taffy 483 214-298

Howard Taffy 483 225-185

Howard Taffy 04915-48

Howard Taffy 04925-48

Howard Timothy 0311 Route Specific

Hoyt Everett 47512-53

Hoyt Everett 47525-13

Hoyt Everett 47535-98

Hoyt Everett 47545-98

Hoyt Everett 4755 Route Specific

Hoyt Everett 47564-206

Hoyt Everett 47574-206

Hoyt Everett 47583-26

Hoyt Everett 47592-51

Hoyt Everett 475 103-25

Hoyt Everett 475 114-314

Hoyt Everett 475 124-301

Hoyt Everett 475 134-251

Hoyt Everett 475 141-86
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

95

Hoyt Everett 475 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hoyt Everett 475 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hoyt Everett 475 17 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hoyt Everett 475 18 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hoyt Everett 475 19 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Hudyma Irving 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Huffman Brad 215 1 4-224

Huffman Brad 215 2 4-221

Huffman Brad 215 3 5-46

Huffman Brad 215 4 4-131

Huffman Brad 215 5 4-129

Huffman Brad 215 6 4-101

Huffman Brad 215 7 4-36

Huffman Brad 215 8 5-78

Huffman Brad 215 9 4-131

Huffman Brad 215 10 1-70

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 1 4-80

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 2 4-289

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 3 2-25

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 4 2-38

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 5 5-87

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 6 3-17

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 7 4-295

Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District; Chairman. 471 8 5-189

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 1 2-25

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 2 2-34

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 3 3-83

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 4 Route Specific

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 5 2-38

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 6 5-97

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 7 2-38

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 8 2-38

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 9 2-43

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 10 2-43

Hughes Jim & Pam & Tyler 399 11 1-31

Huhnerkoch Tom 539 1 3-108
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

96

Huhnerkoch Tom 539 2 3-108

Huhnerkoch Tom 539 3 4-291

Huhnerkoch Tom 539 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Humphres Brandon 215 1 4-224

Humphres Brandon 215 2 4-221

Humphres Brandon 215 3 5-46

Humphres Brandon 215 4 4-131

Humphres Brandon 215 5 4-129

Humphres Brandon 215 6 4-101

Humphres Brandon 215 7 4-36

Humphres Brandon 215 8 5-78

Humphres Brandon 215 9 4-131

Humphres Brandon 215 10 1-70

Hunt Eric 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Hunter Aubrey 215 1 4-224

Hunter Aubrey 215 2 4-221

Hunter Aubrey 215 3 5-46

Hunter Aubrey 215 4 4-131

Hunter Aubrey 215 5 4-129

Hunter Aubrey 215 6 4-101

Hunter Aubrey 215 7 4-36

Hunter Aubrey 215 8 5-78

Hunter Aubrey 215 9 4-131

Hunter Aubrey 215 10 1-70

Hunter Dustin 215 1 4-224

Hunter Dustin 215 2 4-221

Hunter Dustin 215 3 5-46

Hunter Dustin 215 4 4-131

Hunter Dustin 215 5 4-129

Hunter Dustin 215 6 4-101

Hunter Dustin 215 7 4-36

Hunter Dustin 215 8 5-78

Hunter Dustin 215 9 4-131

Hunter Dustin 215 10 1-70

Hurd David 042 1 2-28

Hurd David 042 2 2-28
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

97

Hurd David 042 3 2-28

Huseby Jaymie 215 1 4-224

Huseby Jaymie 215 2 4-221

Huseby Jaymie 215 3 5-46

Huseby Jaymie 215 4 4-131

Huseby Jaymie 215 5 4-129

Huseby Jaymie 215 6 4-101

Huseby Jaymie 215 7 4-36

Huseby Jaymie 215 8 5-78

Huseby Jaymie 215 9 4-131

Huseby Jaymie 215 10 1-70

Hutchinson Gerveann 259 1 2-36

Hutchinson Jerry 200 1 2-36

Huwe Becky 215 1 4-224

Huwe Becky 215 2 4-221

Huwe Becky 215 3 5-46

Huwe Becky 215 4 4-131

Huwe Becky 215 5 4-129

Huwe Becky 215 6 4-101

Huwe Becky 215 7 4-36

Huwe Becky 215 8 5-78

Huwe Becky 215 9 4-131

Huwe Becky 215 10 1-70

Huwe Becky 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Huwe Tom 215 1 4-224

Huwe Tom 215 2 4-221

Huwe Tom 215 3 5-46

Huwe Tom 215 4 4-131

Huwe Tom 215 5 4-129

Huwe Tom 215 6 4-101

Huwe Tom 215 7 4-36

Huwe Tom 215 8 5-78

Huwe Tom 215 9 4-131

Huwe Tom 215 10 1-70

Huwe Tom 426 1 2-36

Huwe Tom 426 2 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

98

Huwe Tom 426 3 4-125

Huwe Tom 426 4 4-232

Huwe Tom 426 5 4-221

Huwe Tom 426 6 4-259

Ingemunson Greg & Sally 048 1 1-42

Ingemunson Greg & Sally 048 2 Route Specific

Ingemunson Greg & Sally 048 3 Route Specific

Ingemunson Greg & Sally 048 4 Route Specific

Jackson John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Jackson Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Jackson Tracy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Jackson Una 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Jager Truz 215 1 to 10

Jakeway Sally 096 1 2-28

Jedrykowski Jack 215 1 to 10

Jenning Donald 215 1 to 10

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 1 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 2 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 3 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 4 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 5 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 6 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 7 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 8 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 9 2-38

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 10 5-8

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 11 4-115

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 12 Route Specific

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 13 2-38

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Jensen Debra & Jack 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Jensen Elliot 337 1 4-224

Jensen Elliot 337 2 4-221

Jensen Elliot 337 3 5-46

Jensen Elliot 337 4 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

99

Jensen Elliot 337 5 4-129

Jensen Elliot 337 6 4-101

Jensen Elliot 337 7 4-36

Jensen Elliot 337 8 5-78

Jensen Elliot 337 9 4-131

Jensen Elliot 337 10 1-70

Jensen Elliot 337 11 Route Specific

Jensen Rick 215 1 to 10

Jewett Perry 171 1 5-8

Jewett Perry 171 2 5-12

Jockisch Mary 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Chad 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Christine 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson J Alan Recreational Adventures Company, Executive Vice 

President.

463 1 6-20

Johnson J Alan Recreational Adventures Company, Executive Vice 

President.

463 2 Route Specific

Johnson J Alan Recreational Adventures Company, Executive Vice 

President.

463 3 Route Specific

Johnson J Alan Recreational Adventures Company, Executive Vice 

President.

463 4 1-78

Johnson J Alan Recreational Adventures Company, Executive Vice 

President.

463 5 Route Specific

Johnson J Alan Recreational Adventures Company, Executive Vice 

President.

463 6 Route Specific

Johnson Jared 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Jen 215 1 to 10

Johnson Keith 215 1 to 10

Johnson Kerry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Michael 215 1 to 10

Johnson Oscar 435 1 2-24

Johnson Oscar 435 2 4-293

Johnson Oscar 435 3 2-36

Johnson Peggy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Phyllis A & John 365 1 Route Specific

Johnson Phyllis A & John 365 2 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

100

Johnson Phyllis A & John 365 3 Route Specific

Johnson Phyllis A & John 365 4 Route Specific

Johnson Phyllis A & John 365 5 5-58

Johnson Shawn 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Steven 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Johnson Trent 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Jones Al 215 1 to 10

Jones Dave 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Jones Elaine 215 1 to 10

Jones Holly 215 1 to 10

Jones James 215 1 to 10

Jones Jim 215 1 to 10

Jones L 215 1 to 10

Jones Scott 601 1 2-36

Jones Scott 601 2 4-224

Jones Scott 601 3 4-232

Jones Scott 601 4 4-37

Jones Scott 601 5 4-131

Jones Steve 215 1 to 10

Jongewaard Mark 599 1 2-36

Jongewaard Mark 599 2 4-224

Jongewaard Mark 599 3 4-232

Jongewaard Mark 599 4 4-37

Jongewaard Mark 599 5 4-131

Jordan Travis 215 1 to 10

Joyce Robert 090 1 5-8

Joyce Robert 090 2 5-8

Joyce Robert 090 3 5-133

Joyce Robert 090 4 5-8

Junge Heine Pennington County Highway Department 327 1 4-250

Junge Heine Pennington County Highway Department 327 2 3-138

Junge Heine Pennington County Highway Department 327 3 2-24

Junge Heine Pennington County Highway Department 327 4 4-159

Junge Heine Pennington County Highway Department 327 5 4-262

Kaeser Bo 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kalamaha Nichole 544 1 4-40
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

101

Kalamaha Nichole 544 2 4-250

Kammerer Gerald 308 1 Route Specific

Kammerer Gerald 308 2 Route Specific

Kammerer Tara 141 1 3-2

Kammerer Tara 141 2 1-48

Kammerer Tara 141 3 2-38

Kammerer Tara 141 4 5-58

Kammerer Tara 141 5 4-239

Kammerer Tara 141 6 4-57

Kammerer Tara 141 7 4-275

Kammerer Tara 141 8 4-217

Kammerer Tara 141 9 Route Specific

Kammerer Tara 141 10 Route Specific

Kammerer Tara 141 11 Route Specific

Kammerer Tara 141 12 Route Specific

Kammerer Tara 141 13 4-214

Karsky Richard & Elaine 354 1 2-25

Karsky Richard & Elaine 354 2 Route Specific

Karsky Richard & Elaine 354 3 2-35

Karsky Richard & Elaine 354 4 Route Specific

Karsky Richard & Elaine 354 5 Route Specific

Karsky Richard & Elaine 354 6 2-44

Kassab Mark 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kassab Sandra 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kearney Jeff 497 1 4-224

Kearney Jeff 497 2 4-221

Kearney Jeff 497 3 5-46

Kearney Jeff 497 4 4-131

Kearney Jeff 497 5 4-129

Kearney Jeff 497 6 4-101

Kearney Jeff 497 7 4-36

Kearney Jeff 497 8 5-78

Kearney Jeff 497 9 4-131

Kearney Jeff 497 10 1-70

Kearney Jeff 497 11 4-224

Kearney Jeff 497 12 4-121
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

102

Kearney Jeff 497 13 5-49

Kearney Jeff 497 14 4-142

Kearney Jeff 497 15 4-125

Kearney Jeff 497 16 4-101

Kearney Jeff 497 17 4-36

Kearney Jeff 497 18 5-78

Kearney Jeff 497 19 6-20

Keefe Byron 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kehrwald Kevin 133 1 4-18

Kehrwald Kevin 133 2 2-36

Kehrwald Kevin 133 3 4-123

Kelley Don & Kim 474 1 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 2 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 3 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 4 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 5 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 6 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 7 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 8 3-20

Kelley Don & Kim 474 9 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 10 5-87

Kelley Don & Kim 474 11 5-193

Kelley Don & Kim 474 12 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 13 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 14 4-259

Kelley Don & Kim 474 15 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 16 4-277

Kelley Don & Kim 474 17 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 18 4-269

Kelley Don & Kim 474 19 4-268

Kelley Don & Kim 474 20 5-126

Kelley Don & Kim 474 21 4-267

Kelley Don & Kim 474 22 Route Specific

Kelley Don & Kim 474 23 4-42

Kelley Don & Kim 474 24 4-250

Kelley Don & Kim 474 25 4-301
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

103

Kelley Don & Kim 474 26 4-300

Kelley Don & Kim 474 27 5-8

Kelley Don & Kim 474 28 2-38

Kellogg Jesse 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kelly Brian 215 1 to 10

Kelly Cindy 215 1 to 10

Kelly Ryan 215 1 to 10

Ken Ken 323 1 5-20

Kenefick Deborah Gangloff 

& Mark 

070 1 5-167

Kennedy Bruce 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kennedy Judith 184 1 Route Specific

Kennedy Judith 206 1 5-167

Kennedy Judith 255 1 Route Specific

Kennedy Judith 255 2 5-154

Kershaw Kyle 444 1 5-46

Kershaw Kyle 444 2 4-37

Kershaw Kyle 444 3 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 1 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 2 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 3 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 4 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 5 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 6 Route Specific

Kertzman Brent 018 7 Route Specific

Kieffer Chris & Kate 079 1 5-167

Kieffer Chris & Kate 079 2 Route Specific

Kieffer Lynette 215 1 to 10

Kile Nancy 422 1 5-16

Kile Nancy 422 2 Route Specific

Kile Nancy 422 3 5-207

King Angie 318 1 5-8

Kinzler Gary 215 1 to 10

Kinzler Michael 215 1 to 10

Klatte Greg 033 1 2-33

Klatte Greg 033 2 4-294
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

104

Klatte Greg 033 3 Route Specific

Klatte Greg 033 4 Route Specific

Klatte Greg 033 5 2-36

Klatte Greg 033 6 Route Specific

Klatte Jackie 228 1 4-224

Klatte Jackie 228 2 4-221

Klatte Jackie 228 3 5-46

Klatte Jackie 228 4 4-131

Klatte Jackie 228 5 4-129

Klatte Jackie 228 6 4-101

Klatte Jackie 228 7 4-36

Klatte Jackie 228 8 5-78

Klatte Jackie 228 9 4-131

Klatte Jackie 228 10 1-70

Klatte Jackie 228 11 5-52

Klatte Jackie 228 12 4-125

Klatte Jackie 228 13 4-100

Klatte Jackie 228 14 4-136

Klein David 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Klock Tony 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Knapp Caleb 215 1 to 10

Knutson Rebecca 320 1 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 2 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 3 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 4 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 5 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 6 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 7 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 8 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 9 2-38

Knutson Rebecca 320 10 5-8

Knutson Rebecca 320 11 4-115

Knutson Rebecca 320 12 Route Specific

Knutson Rebecca 320 13 2-38

Knutson Rebecca 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Knutson Rebecca 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

105

Knutson Rebecca 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Knutson Rosalyn 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Koch Jason 215 1 to 10

Koch Michael 215 1 to 10

Kock Paul 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kokesh Ron 540 1 5-147

Kokesh Ron 540 2 Route Specific

Kopetzky Kelly 215 1 to 10

Kopetzky Kris 215 1 to 10

Kopetzky Scott 215 1 to 10

Kopp Ralph 098 1 2-64

Kopp Ralph 098 2 2-64

Kopp Ralph 098 3 2-65

Kopp Ralph 098 4 2-64

Koppi Joe 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Koppinger Martin 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Koski Bob 112 1 4-200

Koski Bob 112 2 3-77

Kossmann Paul 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kraemer Norma 150 1 2-42

Kraemer Norma 150 2 4-264

Kraemer Norma 150 3 4-294

Kraemer Norma 150 4 5-16

Kramer Milton 532 1 4-224

Kramer Milton 532 2 4-221

Kramer Milton 532 3 5-46

Kramer Milton 532 4 4-131

Kramer Milton 532 5 4-129

Kramer Milton 532 6 4-101

Kramer Milton 532 7 4-36

Kramer Milton 532 8 5-78

Kramer Milton 532 9 4-131

Kramer Milton 532 10 1-70

Kramer Milton 532 11 4-229

Kraut Rick 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kretschmar Luke 019 1 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

106

Kreun Gary 215 1 to 10

Krogstad Kenny 215 1 to 10

Krueger Josh 077 1 4-177

Krukow Brandon 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kruse Anne 386 1 4-224

Kruse Anne 386 2 4-221

Kruse Anne 386 3 5-46

Kruse Anne 386 4 4-131

Kruse Anne 386 5 4-129

Kruse Anne 386 6 4-101

Kruse Anne 386 7 4-36

Kruse Anne 386 8 5-78

Kruse Anne 386 9 4-131

Kruse Anne 386 10 1-70

Kruse Anne 386 11 4-131

Kruse Beth 387 1 4-224

Kruse Beth 387 2 4-221

Kruse Beth 387 3 5-46

Kruse Beth 387 4 4-131

Kruse Beth 387 5 4-129

Kruse Beth 387 6 4-101

Kruse Beth 387 7 4-36

Kruse Beth 387 8 5-78

Kruse Beth 387 9 4-131

Kruse Beth 387 10 1-70

Kruse Beth 387 11 5-1

Kruse Chad 215 1 to 10

Kruse Charles 385 1 4-224

Kruse Charles 385 2 4-221

Kruse Charles 385 3 5-46

Kruse Charles 385 4 4-131

Kruse Charles 385 5 4-129

Kruse Charles 385 6 4-101

Kruse Charles 385 7 4-36

Kruse Charles 385 8 5-78

Kruse Charles 385 9 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

107

Kruse Charles 385 10 1-70

Kruse Charles 385 11 5-23

Kruse Reid 384 1 4-224

Kruse Reid 384 2 4-221

Kruse Reid 384 3 5-46

Kruse Reid 384 4 4-131

Kruse Reid 384 5 4-129

Kruse Reid 384 6 4-101

Kruse Reid 384 7 4-36

Kruse Reid 384 8 5-78

Kruse Reid 384 9 4-131

Kruse Reid 384 10 1-70

Kruse Reid 384 11 5-46

Kucera Rich 151 1 4-259

Kucera Rich 151 2 4-294

Kuhn Trina 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Kurle John 215 1 4-224

Kurle John 215 2 4-221

Kurle John 215 3 5-46

Kurle John 215 4 4-131

Kurle John 215 5 4-129

Kurle John 215 6 4-101

Kurle John 215 7 4-36

Kurle John 215 8 5-78

Kurle John 215 9 4-131

Kurle John 215 10 1-70

Kutzler Darlene & Gerald 163 1 5-8

Kutzler Darlene & Gerald 163 2 4-261

Ladner Gary 452 1 5-12

Ladner Gary 452 2 4-259

Lafferty Mike 215 1 to 10

Lafferty Rita 215 1 to 10

Lammers Jerome & Nancy 258 1 5-16

Langdell John 572 10 Route Specific

Langdell John 593 1 4-224

Langdell John 593 2 4-221
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

108

Langdell John 593 3 5-46

Langdell John 593 4 4-131

Langdell John 593 5 4-129

Langdell John 593 6 4-101

Langdell John 593 7 4-36

Langdell John 593 8 5-78

Langdell John 593 9 4-131

Langdell John 593 10 1-70

Langdell John 593 11 2-36

Langdell John 593 12 4-224

Langdell John 593 13 4-232

Langdell John 593 14 1-50

Langdell John 593 15 4-37

Langdell John 593 16 4-131

Langdell John 593 17 5-46

Langdell John 593 18 5-130

Langdell John 593 19 5-109

Lapoint Peggy 115 1 5-13

Lapoint Peggy 115 2 4-261

Lapp Scott 227 1 4-224

Lapp Scott 227 2 4-221

Lapp Scott 227 3 5-46

Lapp Scott 227 4 4-131

Lapp Scott 227 5 4-129

Lapp Scott 227 6 4-101

Lapp Scott 227 7 4-36

Lapp Scott 227 8 5-78

Lapp Scott 227 9 4-131

Lapp Scott 227 10 1-70

Lapp Scott 227 11 4-100

Larghe Leslie 215 1 to 10

Larghe Rayla 215 1 to 10

Larosa Laura 134 1 4-193

Larosa Laura 134 2 2-38

Larosa Laura 134 3 Route Specific

Larosa Laura 134 4 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

109

Larosa Laura 134 5 4-57

Larosa Laura 134 6 4-311

Larosa Laura 134 7 4-313

Larosa Laura 134 8 5-107

Larosa Laura 134 9 Route Specific

Larsen Amy 215 1 to 10

Larsen Carl 215 1 to 10

Larsen Jake 215 1 to 10

Larson David 215 1 to 10

Larson David 481 1 Route Specific

Larson Michael Larsons Cycle Inc.; Owner and President. 451 1 2-36

Larson Michael Larsons Cycle Inc.; Owner and President. 451 2 4-224

Larson Michael Larsons Cycle Inc.; Owner and President. 451 3 5-424

Larson Michael Larsons Cycle Inc.; Owner and President. 451 4 4-37

Larson Michael Larsons Cycle Inc.; Owner and President. 451 5 4-131

Larson Michael Larsons Cycle Inc.; Owner and President. 451 6 1-70

Larson Mike 594 1 2-36

Larson Mike 594 2 4-224

Larson Mike 594 3 5-46

Larson Mike 594 4 4-37

Larson Mike 594 5 4-131

Larson Mike 594 6 1-70

Larson Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lauer Richard 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lauritsen Doug 499 1 4-224

Lauritsen Doug 499 2 4-221

Lauritsen Doug 499 3 5-46

Lauritsen Doug 499 4 4-131

Lauritsen Doug 499 5 4-129

Lauritsen Doug 499 6 4-101

Lauritsen Doug 499 7 4-36

Lauritsen Doug 499 8 5-78

Lauritsen Doug 499 9 4-131

Lauritsen Doug 499 10 1-70

Lauritsen Doug 499 11 5-46

Lauritsen Doug 499 12 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

110

Lauritsen Doug 499 13 4-125

Lauritsen Doug 499 14 4-91

Lauritsen Doug 499 15 4-131

Lee Anita 144 1 2-24

Lee Anita 144 2 5-20

Lee Anita 144 3 5-19

Lee Anita 144 4 4-362

Lee Brett 215 1 to 10

Lee Bruce 215 1 to 10

Lee Clark 215 1 to 10

Lee Clark & Family 605 1 4-224

Lee Clark & Family 605 2 4-221

Lee Clark & Family 605 3 5-46

Lee Clark & Family 605 4 4-131

Lee Clark & Family 605 5 4-129

Lee Clark & Family 605 6 4-101

Lee Clark & Family 605 7 4-36

Lee Clark & Family 605 8 5-78

Lee Clark & Family 605 9 4-131

Lee Clark & Family 605 10 1-70

Lee Clark & Family 605 11 2-36

Lee Clark & Family 605 12 4-224

Lee Clark & Family 605 13 4-37

Lee Clark & Family 605 14 4-131

Lee Clark & Family 605 15 5-46

Lee Jennifer 340 1 2-36

Lee Tish 215 1 to 10

Lefor James 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lefor Samantha 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Leone Mitch 215 1 to 10

Leone Travis 215 1 to 10

Letcher Mike 215 1 to 10

LeVasseur Ben 215 1 to 10

Lillegraven Jason A & Linda 517 1 4-57

Lillegraven Jason A & Linda 517 2 4-329

Lillegraven Jason A & Linda 517 3 3-118
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

111

Lillegraven Jason A & Linda 517 4 3-118

Lind Lee & Debbie 061 1 2-28

Linder S 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Linder Sonja 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lindmark Steve 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lindsley DeAnn 215 1 to 10

Lindsley Donovin 215 1 to 10

Lindsley Todd 215 1 to 10

Lister Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lockhart Stephen 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 1 1-12

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 2 4-221

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 3 4-125

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 4 4-131

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 5 2-56

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 6 4-15

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 7 4-36

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 8 4-68

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 9 3-53

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 10 5-97

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 11 1-56

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 12 4-18

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 13 3-22

Logue Joe Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; President. 545 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 1 2-31

Loos Michael 317 2 4-219

Loos Michael 317 3 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 4 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 5 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 6 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 7 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 8 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 9 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 10 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 11 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 12 4-220
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

112

Loos Michael 317 13 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 14 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 15 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 16 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 17 4-219

Loos Michael 317 18 4-219

Loos Michael 317 19 4-219

Loos Michael 317 20 4-119

Loos Michael 317 21 Route Specific

Loos Michael 317 22 4-219

Loos Michael 317 23 4-219

Loos Michael 317 24 4-219

Loos Michael 317 25 4-219

Loos Michael 317 26 4-219

Loos Michael 317 27 4-219

Loos Michael 317 28 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 29 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 30 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 31 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 32 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 33 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 34 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 35 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 36 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 37 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 38 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 39 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 40 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 41 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 42 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 43 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 44 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 45 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 46 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 47 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 48 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

113

Loos Michael 317 49 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 50 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 51 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 52 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 53 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 54 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 55 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 56 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 57 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 58 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 59 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 60 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 61 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 62 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Loos Michael 317 63 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Lopez Pete 215 1 to 10

Lowe Eric 002 1 1-3

Lowe Eric 002 2 4-301

Lowe Eric 002 3 2-36

Lowery Christopher 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Luera Teddy 215 1 to 10

Lulf Robert 595 1 2-36

Lulf Robert 595 2 4-224

Lulf Robert 595 3 4-232

Lulf Robert 595 4 4-37

Lulf Robert 595 5 4-131

Lunney Bill 10 1 2-70

Lunney Bill 10 2 4-334

Lunney Bill 10 3 2-24

Lunney Bill 10 4 Route Specific

Lunney Carla 086 1 2-70

Lunney Carla 086 2 4-334

Lunney Carla 086 3 2-24

Lunney Carla 086 4 Route Specific

Lupear Denise 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Lynes Mary Anne 026 1 2-28
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

114

Lynes Mary Anne 026 2 5-8

Lynes Mary Anne 173 1 5-167

Lyons Erik 215 1 to 10

MacFarland Ryan 178 1 5-26

MacFarland Ryan 178 2 5-34

MacFarland Ryan 178 3 5-54

MacFarland Ryan 178 4 5-146

MacFarland Ryan 178 5 2-36

Mackie Jeremie 261 1 4-224

Mackie Jeremie 261 2 4-221

Mackie Jeremie 261 3 5-46

Mackie Jeremie 261 4 4-131

Mackie Jeremie 261 5 4-129

Mackie Jeremie 261 6 4-101

Mackie Jeremie 261 7 4-36

Mackie Jeremie 261 8 5-78

Mackie Jeremie 261 9 4-131

Mackie Jeremie 261 10 1-70

Mackie Jeremie 261 11 4-236

Mackie Jeremie 261 12 4-125

Mackie Jeremie 261 13 4-131

Mackie Jeremie 261 14 4-122

Mackie Jeremie 261 15 4-99

Mackie Jeremie 261 16 4-37

Mackie Jeremie 261 17 5-101

Macy Michael 215 1 to 10

Madsen Stacy 215 1 to 10

Maeschen Jen 215 1 to 10

Maeschen Nathan 215 1 to 10

Magness Joseph 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Maisel Keith 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Maki Robert 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 1 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 2 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 3 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 4 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

115

Malaer Dan 575 5 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 6 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 7 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 8 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 9 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 10 Route Specific

Malaer Dan 575 11 5-141

Mallow Lisa Schieffer & 

Robert

Meade County Commission; Robert Mallow, Chairman 

and Lisa Schieffer, Auditor.

241 1 2-24

Mallow Lisa Schieffer & 

Robert

Meade County Commission; Robert Mallow, Chairman 

and Lisa Schieffer, Auditor.

241 2 1-60

Mallow Lisa Schieffer & 

Robert

Meade County Commission; Robert Mallow, Chairman 

and Lisa Schieffer, Auditor.

241 3 4-50

Mallow Lisa Schieffer & 

Robert

Meade County Commission; Robert Mallow, Chairman 

and Lisa Schieffer, Auditor.

241 4 4-370

Mallow Lisa Schieffer & 

Robert

Meade County Commission; Robert Mallow, Chairman 

and Lisa Schieffer, Auditor.

241 5 3-46

Mallow Lisa Schieffer & 

Robert

Meade County Commission; Robert Mallow, Chairman 

and Lisa Schieffer, Auditor.

241 6 5-142

Margadant Jim Black Hills Group - Sierra Club; Regional Conservation 

Oragnizer.

238 1 1-39

Mark Daniel & Carole & 

Sarah

201 1 5-7

Mark Daniel & Carole & 

Sarah

201 2 5-205

Mark Daniel & Carole & 

Sarah

201 3 4-67

Mark Daniel & Carole & 

Sarah

201 4 2-24

Mark Mueller 215 1 to 10

Marshall Lee 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Martin Clint 215 1 to 10

Martin Todd 253 1 2-24

Martin Todd 253 2 5-19

Martin Todd 253 3 5-70

Massa Sharon 371 1 2-38

Massa Sharon 371 2 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

116

Mastin Cody 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Mathieu Travis 215 1 to 10

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 1 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 2 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 3 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 4 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 5 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 6 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 7 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 8 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 9 2-38

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 10 5-8

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 11 4-115

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 12 Route Specific

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 13 2-38

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mathiowetz Lisa 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Matti Brian 560 1 Route Specific

Mattson James 363 1 Route Specific

Mattson James 363 2 Route Specific

Mattson James 363 3 Route Specific

Mattson James 363 4 Route Specific

Mattson James 363 5 1-14

Mattson Sherri 316 1 Route Specific

Mattson Sherri 316 2 Route Specific

Mattson Sherri 316 3 Route Specific

Mattson Sherri 316 4 2-72

Mattson Sherri 316 5 Route Specific

Mattson Sherri 316 6 2-44

Mattson Sherri 316 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mattson Steve 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Maucker Jim 450 1 4-224

Maucker Jim 450 2 4-221

Maucker Jim 450 3 5-46

Maucker Jim 450 4 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

117

Maucker Jim 450 5 4-129

Maucker Jim 450 6 4-101

Maucker Jim 450 7 4-36

Maucker Jim 450 8 5-78

Maucker Jim 450 9 4-131

Maucker Jim 450 10 1-70

Maucker Jim 450 11 5-20

Maucker Jim 450 12 2-40

Maucker Jim 450 13 4-224

Maucker Jim 450 14 4-232

Maucker Jim 450 15 4-37

Maucker Jim 450 16 4-131

Maucker Jim 450 17 5-20

May Howard 215 1 to 10

McBain Troy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

McCombs Dustin 215 1 to 10

McConnell Dave 301 1 4-224

McConnell Dave 301 2 4-221

McConnell Dave 301 3 5-46

McConnell Dave 301 4 4-131

McConnell Dave 301 5 4-129

McConnell Dave 301 6 4-101

McConnell Dave 301 7 4-36

McConnell Dave 301 8 5-78

McConnell Dave 301 9 4-131

McConnell Dave 301 10 1-70

McConnell Dave 301 11 4-115

McDaniel Kathy 205 1 5-167

McDonald Shun 215 1 to 10

McFarland Ryan 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

McGirr Dennis 234 1 4-30

McGirr Dennis 234 2 5-97

McGrath John 006 1 2-36

McGrath John 006 2 4-295

McKay Kevin 215 1 to 10

McKee Kevin 180 1 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

118

McKee Kevin 180 2 Route Specific

McKee Kevin 180 3 Route Specific

McKee Kevin 180 4 Route Specific

McKee Kevin 180 5 Route Specific

McKee Robert 114 1 2-24

McKee Robert 114 2 2-71

McKee Robert 114 3 4-87

McKee Susan 242 1 Route Specific

McKee Susan 242 2 Route Specific

McKee Susan 242 3 Route Specific

McKee Susan 242 4 Route Specific

McKeown Lois 215 1 to 10

McKinney Jacob 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

McNabb Jason 328 1 Route Specific

McPherson Jacki 215 1 to 10

Meguire Steve 215 1 to 10

Mehlhaff Danny 215 1 to 10

Meissner Kellie 215 1 to 10

Melcher Rodney 320 1 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 2 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 3 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 4 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 5 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 6 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 7 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 8 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 9 2-38

Melcher Rodney 320 10 5-8

Melcher Rodney 320 11 4-115

Melcher Rodney 320 12 Route Specific

Melcher Rodney 320 13 2-38

Melcher Rodney 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Melcher Rodney 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Melcher Rodney 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Menning Duane 215 1 to 10

Menning Makenna 215 1 to 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

119

Menning Sharon 215 1 to 10

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 1 4-224

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 2 4-221

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 3 5-46

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 4 4-131

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 5 4-129

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 6 4-101

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 7 4-36

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 8 5-78

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 9 4-131

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 10 1-70

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 11 4-222

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 12 5-49

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 13 4-36

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 14 5-78

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 15 4-131

Meyer Glenn & Vanette 382 16 5-19

Meyer Rodney 192 1 2-36

Miles Cody 215 1 to 10

Miles Dillon 215 1 to 10

Miles Gary 215 1 to 10

Miles Jay 215 1 to 10

Miles Jim 215 1 to 10

Millard Jeremy 215 1 to 10

Miller Clyde 215 1 to 10

Miller David 358 1 2-38

Miller David 358 2 1-91

Miller David 358 3 Route Specific

Miller David 358 4 Route Specific

Miller David 358 5 Route Specific

Miller David 358 6 Route Specific

Miller David 358 7 Route Specific

Miller David 358 8 Route Specific

Miller Doug 143 1 5-167

Miller Gail 215 1 to 10

Miller Jim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

120

Miller Zach 215 1 to 10

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 1 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 2 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 3 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 4 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 5 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 6 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 7 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 8 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 9 2-38

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 10 5-8

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 11 4-115

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 12 Route Specific

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 13 2-38

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mischke Joann & Herbert 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mitchell Steven & Cindy 197 1 2-52

Mitchell Steven & Cindy 197 2 5-6

Mitchell Steven & Cindy 197 3 4-47

Mitchell Steven & Cindy 197 4 5-68

Moffett Scott 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 1 2-36

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 2 5-80

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 3 5-88

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 4 3-52

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 5 6-21

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 6 1-63

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 7 5-141

Moline Jr John Crook County Board of Commissioners. 477 8 5-25

Mollaner Gaye 215 1 to 10

Mollman Mason 215 1 to 10

Mollman Troy 215 1 to 10

Moore Mike 215 1 to 10

Morava Donita 389 1 4-224

Morava Donita 389 2 4-221
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

121

Morava Donita 389 3 5-46

Morava Donita 389 4 4-131

Morava Donita 389 5 4-129

Morava Donita 389 6 4-101

Morava Donita 389 7 4-36

Morava Donita 389 8 5-78

Morava Donita 389 9 4-131

Morava Donita 389 10 1-70

Morava Donita 389 11 4-131

Morava Donita 389 12 4-100

Morgenstern John 027 1 1-14

Morgenstern John 027 2 5-12

Morgenstern John 027 3 4-276

Morgenstern John 027 4 2-38

Morson Barbara 089 1 5-16

Morson Barbara 089 2 3-2

Mortimer Lettie 071 1 Route Specific

Mortimer Sam 334 1 Route Specific

Mortimer, DVM Jeb 071 1 Route Specific

Mortimer, DVM Jim 071 1 Route Specific

Moss Paul 342 1 3-11

Moss Paul 342 2 3-8

Moss Paul 342 3 3-71

Moss Paul 342 4 4-259

Moss Paul 342 5 4-97

Moss Paul 342 6 5-89

Mudlin Bob 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Mueller D 215 1 to 10

Mueller Steve 215 1 to 10

Mueller Steve 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Mulder Wade 215 1 to 10

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 136 1 1-39

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 136 2 1-39

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 1 4-374

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 2 4-227

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 3 2-36
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

122

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 4 2-48

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 5 2-50

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 6 2-43

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 7 2-39

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 8 2-56

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 9 2-56

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 10 2-49

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 11 4-252

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 12 2-15

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 13 4-131

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 14 5-33

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 15 2-11

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 16 2-11

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 17 4-374

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 459 18 4-280

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 1 4-374

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 2 4-227

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 3 2-36

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 4 2-48

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 5 2-46

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 6 2-43

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 7 2-39

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 8 2-36

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 9 2-47

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 10 2-49

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 11 4-252

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 12 2-15

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 13 6-20

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 14 5-33

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 15 2-11

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 16 2-11

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 17 4-374

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 18 4-280

Mumm Greg BlueRibbon Coalition; Executive Director. 611 19 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 1 4-34

Mumm Rhonda 453 2 2-40
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

123

Mumm Rhonda 453 3 5-73

Mumm Rhonda 453 4 4-225

Mumm Rhonda 453 5 4-149

Mumm Rhonda 453 6 4-121

Mumm Rhonda 453 7 4-139

Mumm Rhonda 453 8 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 9 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 10 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 11 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 12 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 13 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 14 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 15 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 16 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 17 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 18 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 19 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 20 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 21 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 22 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 23 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 24 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 25 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 26 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 27 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 28 Route Specific

Mumm Rhonda 453 29 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 30 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 31 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 32 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 33 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 34 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 35 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 36 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 37 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 38 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

124

Mumm Rhonda 453 39 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 40 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 41 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mumm Rhonda 453 42 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Mundorf Adam 177 1 5-167

Munro Elizabeth Kraus 116 1 Route Specific

Munro Elizabeth Kraus 116 2 4-338

Munro Jim 067 1 5-12

Munro Jim 067 2 2-71

Murphy Kathy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Nagel Arnold 312 1 Route Specific

Nagel Arnold 312 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Nagelhout David 103 1 5-34

Nagelhout David 103 2 5-40

Nash Bruce 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Neal Neal 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Neether Keith 207 1 4-29

Neether Keith 207 2 4-21

Nehl Doyle 282 1 Route Specific

Nelson Ben 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 1 4-224

Nelson Frederick 538 2 4-221

Nelson Frederick 538 3 5-46

Nelson Frederick 538 4 4-131

Nelson Frederick 538 5 4-129

Nelson Frederick 538 6 4-101

Nelson Frederick 538 7 4-36

Nelson Frederick 538 8 5-78

Nelson Frederick 538 9 4-131

Nelson Frederick 538 10 1-70

Nelson Frederick 538 11 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 12 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 13 2-36

Nelson Frederick 538 14 4-221

Nelson Frederick 538 15 4-210
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

125

Nelson Frederick 538 16 4-182

Nelson Frederick 538 17 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 18 4-171

Nelson Frederick 538 19 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 20 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 21 Route Specific

Nelson Frederick 538 22 4-201

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 1 2-33

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 2 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 3 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 4 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 5 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 6 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 7 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 8 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 9 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 10 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 11 3-25

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 12 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 13 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 14 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 15 3-87
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

126

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 16 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 17 3-87

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 18 3-150

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 19 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 20 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 21 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 22 3-39

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 23 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 24 Route Specific

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 25 3-39

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 26 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 27 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 28 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 29 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 30 3-150

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 31 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 32 5-92

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 33 4-328

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 34 4-328
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

127

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 35 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 36 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 37 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Nelson James Spearfish Canyon Owners Association, Incorporated; 

President.

464 38 Route Specific

Nelson James 215 1 to 10

Nelson Kathryn 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Nelson Mike 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Nelson Scott 071 1 Route Specific

Nelson Shan 071 1 Route Specific

Nelson Steven 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Nicholas Donavon 305 1 3-55

Nicholas Donavon 305 2 4-250

Niehues Alex Hamm & 

Nikki

208 1 5-167

Niemcyk Dennis State of Wyoming, Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp; 

Trades Specialist.

266 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Niemcyk Dennis 330 1 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis 330 2 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis 330 3 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis 330 4 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis 330 5 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Trades Specialist. 454 1 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Trades Specialist. 454 2 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Trades Specialist. 454 3 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Trades Specialist. 454 4 Route Specific

Niemcyk Dennis Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Trades Specialist. 454 5 Route Specific

Nily Russ 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Noback Keith 528 1 4-20

Norton Randy & Cynthia 597 1 4-224

Norton Randy & Cynthia 597 2 4-232

Norton Randy & Cynthia 597 3 4-37

Norton Randy & Cynthia 597 4 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

128

Norton Randy & Cynthia 597 5 2-40

Norton Randy & Cynthia 597 6 4-72

Noteboom James 311 1 4-224

Noteboom James 311 2 4-221

Noteboom James 311 3 5-46

Noteboom James 311 4 4-131

Noteboom James 311 5 4-129

Noteboom James 311 6 4-101

Noteboom James 311 7 4-36

Noteboom James 311 8 5-78

Noteboom James 311 9 4-131

Noteboom James 311 10 1-70

Noteboom James 311 11 4-222

Noteboom James 311 12 5-46

Novotny Shane 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

O'Leary Kevin 215 1 to 10

Olson Bret 215 1 to 10

Olson Brian 366 1 4-224

Olson Brian 366 2 4-221

Olson Brian 366 3 5-46

Olson Brian 366 4 4-131

Olson Brian 366 5 4-129

Olson Brian 366 6 4-101

Olson Brian 366 7 4-36

Olson Brian 366 8 5-78

Olson Brian 366 9 4-131

Olson Brian 366 10 1-70

Olson Brian 366 11 4-335

Olson Brian 366 12 4-19

Olson Brian 215 1 to 10

Olson Dereck 215 1 to 10

Olson Erika 431 1 5-147

Olson Erika 431 2 5-135

Olson Erika 431 3 5-155

Olson Erika 431 4 2-28

Olson Erika 431 5 4-204
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

129

Olson Erika 431 6 5-175

Olson Erika 431 7 4-258

Olson Jeffrey 362 1 4-60

Olson Jeffrey 362 2 5-109

Olson Jeffrey 362 3 5-117

Olson Jeffrey 362 4 4-316

Olson Jeffrey 362 5 4-89

Olson Jeffrey 362 6 4-115

Olson Jeffrey 362 7 4-110

Olson Jeffrey 362 8 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 9 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 10 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 11 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 12 4-215

Olson Jeffrey 362 13 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 14 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 15 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 16 4-183

Olson Jeffrey 362 17 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 18 3-75

Olson Jeffrey 362 19 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 20 Route Specific

Olson Jeffrey 362 21 4-232

Olson Jeffrey 362 22 4-249

Olson Jeffrey 362 23 4-49

Olson Jeffrey 362 24 3-3

Olson Jeffrey 362 25 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Olson Jessica 215 1 to 10

Olson Kyle 215 1 to 10

Olson Richard 149 1 Route Specific

Onken Dalton 215 1 to 10

Onken Julaine 215 1 to 10

Onstot Tom 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Ormef Leo 130 1 Route Specific

Ortner Mike Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 1 1-61
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

130

Ortner Mike Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 2 3-70

Ossenfort Nichole 215 1 to 10

Ossenfort Scott 215 1 to 10

Ostwald Brent 442 1 5-19

Oswald Kirby 320 1 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 2 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 3 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 4 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 5 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 6 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 7 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 8 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 9 2-38

Oswald Kirby 320 10 5-8

Oswald Kirby 320 11 4-115

Oswald Kirby 320 12 Route Specific

Oswald Kirby 320 13 2-38

Oswald Kirby 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Oswald Kirby 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Oswald Kirby 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Oswald P 320 1 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 2 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 3 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 4 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 5 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 6 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 7 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 8 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 9 2-38

Oswald P 320 10 5-8

Oswald P 320 11 4-115

Oswald P 320 12 Route Specific

Oswald P 320 13 2-38

Oswald P 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Oswald P 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

131

Oswald P 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

O'Toole Michelle 068 1 5-167

Padgett David 120 1 Route Specific

Padgett David 120 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Page Arthur L & 

Marilyn

164 1 5-136

Painter Stacey 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Pallas Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Palm Ronald 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 1 1-4

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 2 5-162

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 3 5-162

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 4 5-150

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 5 5-150

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 7 1-34

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 8 1-34

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 9 1-34

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 10 2-9

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 11 1-9

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 12 2-38

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 13 5-156

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 14 4-59

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 16 5-161

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 17 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 18 6-1

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 19 5-152

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 20 6-23

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 21 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 22 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 23 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 24 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 25 4-144

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 26 5-120

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 27 5-120
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

132

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 28 3-82

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 29 5-145

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 30 5-210

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 31 4-340

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 32 4-6

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 33 4-350

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 34 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 35 4-16

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 36 4-16

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 37 4-282

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 38 4-282

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 39 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 40 4-54

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 41 4-259

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 42 4-260

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 43 4-260

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 44 4-265

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 45 4-319

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 46 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 47 4-352

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 48 4-352

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 49 4-352

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 50 4-352

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 51 4-256

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 52 4-257

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 53 4-257

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 54 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 55 4-352

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 56 4-379

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 57 6-5

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 58 4-255

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 59 4-253

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 60 6-8

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 61 4-349

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 62 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 63 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

133

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 64 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 65 4-349

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 66 6-11

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 67 6-12

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 68 6-12

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 69 6-28

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 70 5-115

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 71 4-189

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 72 4-139

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 73 4-108

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 74 4-320

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 75 5-178

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 76 5-192

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 77 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 78 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 79 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 80 6-7

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 81 3-29

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 82 3-43

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 83 3-30

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 84 3-41

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 85 3-74

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 86 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 87 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 88 3-36

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 89 3-31

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 90 5-118

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 91 3-128

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 92 3-103

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 93 3-103

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 94 3-103

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 95 3-103

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 96 3-101

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 97 3-124

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 98 4-259

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 99 3-102
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

134

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 100 3-100

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 101 3-23

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 102 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 103 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 104 3-79

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 105 3-79

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 106 3-79

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 107 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 108 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 109 3-80

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 110 3-10

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 111 3-81

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 112 4-378

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 113 3-24

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 114 4-49

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 115 1-81

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 116 3-154

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 117 4-111

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 118 3-54

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 119 3-54

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 120 3-54

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 121 3-133

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 122 3-136

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 123 3-136

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 124 5-192

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 125 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 126 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 127 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 128 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 129 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 130 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 131 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 132 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 133 4-258

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 134 6-4

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 135 6-4
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

135

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 136 4-14

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 137 5-166

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 138 6-4

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 139 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 140 Route Specific

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 141 5-156

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 142 4-3

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 143 1-80

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 144 4-3

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 145 2-38

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 146 4-252

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 147 3-6

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 148 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 149 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 150 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 151 4-254

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 152 4-254

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 153 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 154 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Paterson Dr Colin Norbeck Society, Incorporated; President. 456 155 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Patrick John 275 1 2-28

Patrick John 275 2 Route Specific

Patterson Cynthia 214 1 4-56

Patterson Cynthia 214 2 3-119

Patterson Cynthia 214 3 3-71

Patterson Cynthia 214 4 4-259

Patterson Cynthia 214 5 4-97

Paul Sandi 487 1 2-28

Paule Jason 514 1 4-224

Paule Jason 514 2 4-221

Paule Jason 514 3 5-46

Paule Jason 514 4 4-131

Paule Jason 514 5 4-129

Paule Jason 514 6 4-101

Paule Jason 514 7 4-36

Paule Jason 514 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

136

Paule Jason 514 9 4-131

Paule Jason 514 10 1-70

Paule Jason 514 11 4-232

Paule Jason 514 12 4-36

Paule Jason 514 13 5-31

Paule Jason 514 14 4-131

Paule Jason 514 15 5-131

Paule Jason 559 1 Route Specific

Paule Jason 559 2 5-131

Paule Jason 559 3 Route Specific

Paule Jason 559 4 4-36

Paule Jason 559 5 4-212

Paule Jason 559 6 Route Specific

Paule Jason 559 7 Route Specific

Paule Jason 559 8 Route Specific

Paule Jason 559 9 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Pauling Jamie 215 1 to 10

Pauling Jeny 215 1 to 10

Pauling Jeremy 215 1 to 10

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 1 2-36

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 2 2-28

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 3 2-8

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 4 3-61

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 5 4-118

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 6 4-285

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 7 4-188

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 8 4-147

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 9 Route Specific

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 10 5-82

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 11 2-60

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 12 4-150

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 13 5-82

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 14 5-8

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 15 5-46

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 16 5-46

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 17 5-47
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

137

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 18 5-50

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 19 4-73

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 20 4-125

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 21 4-46

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 22 4-36

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 23 5-42

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 24 Route Specific

Pavek Tim & Kathleen 536 25 Route Specific

Pearson Gerald 368 1 Route Specific

Pearson Gerald 368 2 2-38

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 1 4-56

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 2 3-11

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 3 3-8

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 4 3-71

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 5 4-259

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 6 4-97

Peirce Susan & Roger 344 7 5-89

Pender Gene 592 1 Route Specific

Pender Gene 592 2 5-97

Pender Gene 592 3 5-23

Pender Gene 592 4 4-36

Penn Roger 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Peotter Brian 132 1 5-167

Peotter Brian 185 1 Route Specific

Peotter Brian 185 2 Route Specific

Peotter Brian 185 3 Route Specific

Peotter Brian 185 4 Route Specific

Person Greg 215 1 to 10

Peters Timothy 162 1 4-261

Peters Timothy 162 2 6-15

Peters Timothy 162 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Peterson Clint 249 1 5-41

Peterson Jim & Vermona 283 1 2-36

Peterson Jim & Vermona 283 2 2-36

Peterson Jim & Vermona 283 3 2-36

Peterson Ron 430 1 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

138

Peterson Ron 430 2 4-221

Peterson Ron 430 3 5-46

Peterson Ron 430 4 4-131

Peterson Ron 430 5 4-129

Peterson Ron 430 6 4-101

Peterson Ron 430 7 4-36

Peterson Ron 430 8 5-78

Peterson Ron 430 9 4-131

Peterson Ron 430 10 1-70

Peterson Ron 430 11 5-46

Peterson Ron 430 12 Route Specific

Peterson Ron 087 1 5-97

Peterson Ron 087 2 2-57

Petrick Gary 375 1 2-46

Petrick Gary 375 2 4-232

Petrick Gary 375 3 5-115

Petrick Gary 375 4 5-115

Petrick Gary 375 5 Route Specific

Petrick Gary 375 6 Route Specific

Petrick Gary 375 7 4-299

Pfahler Ronnie 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Pfeifer Trey & Susan 287 1 2-36

Pfeifer Trey & Susan 287 2 2-36

Phillips Ed 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Phillips Lorita 172 1 5-12

Phillips Lorita 172 2 4-264

Pierce Dan 512 1 4-224

Pierce Dan 512 2 4-221

Pierce Dan 512 3 5-46

Pierce Dan 512 4 4-131

Pierce Dan 512 5 4-129

Pierce Dan 512 6 4-101

Pierce Dan 512 7 4-36

Pierce Dan 512 8 5-78

Pierce Dan 512 9 4-131

Pierce Dan 512 10 1-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

139

Pierce Dan 512 11 4-36

Pierce Dan 512 12 5-27

Pierce Dan 512 13 5-27

Pierce Dan 512 14 6-20

Pischke Kylie 215 1 to 10

Plocek Rochelle 353 1 Route Specific

Plocek Rochelle 353 2 Route Specific

Plocek Rochelle 353 3 Route Specific

Plocek Rochelle 353 4 Route Specific

Plocek Rochelle 353 5 Route Specific

Plocek Rochelle 353 6 Route Specific

Plocek Rochelle 353 7 Route Specific

Poehlman Louise 036 1

Poelstre Brian 215 1 to 10

Pond Albert 215 1 to 10

Pond Jay 246 1 5-154

Pondish Fay 215 1 to 10

Pondish John 215 1 to 10

Pondish John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Porter Mark and Charlene 492 1 2-55

Porter Mark and Charlene 492 2 2-36

Porter Mark and Charlene 492 3 4-225

Porter Mark and Charlene 492 4 4-305

Porter Mark and Charlene 492 5 Route Specific

Porter Mark and Charlene 492 6 4-131

Prickett Bobbie 215 1 to 10 4-224

Prickett Jake 390 1 4-221

Prickett Jake 390 2 5-46

Prickett Jake 390 3 4-131

Prickett Jake 390 4 4-129

Prickett Jake 390 5 4-101

Prickett Jake 390 6 4-36

Prickett Jake 390 7 5-78

Prickett Jake 390 8 4-131

Prickett Jake 390 9 1-70

Prickett Jake 390 10 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

140

Prickett Jake 390 11 Route Specific

Prickett Jake 390 12 4-37

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 291 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 1 2-38

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 2 3-19

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 3 3-122

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 4 3-106

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 5 3-121

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 6 3-128

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 7 3-103

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 8 3-101

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 9 3-124

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 10 3-15

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 11 4-259

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 12 3-23

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 13 4-185

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 14 4-211

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 15 4-168

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 16 4-175

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 17 4-218
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

141

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 184-198

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 193-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 203-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 213-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 224-174

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 234-177

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 244-207

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 254-169

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 264-218

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 274-167

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 284-170

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 294-205

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 304-164

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 313-80

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 323-10

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 333-81

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 344-378

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 353-24

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 364-49
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

142

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 37 1-81

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 38 5-192

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 39 4-348

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 40 3-33

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 41 4-86

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 42 4-54

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 43 4-259

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 44 4-260

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 45 4-260

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 46 4-265

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 47 4-256

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 48 4-257

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 49 4-257

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 50 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 51 4-379

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 52 6-5

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 53 4-253

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 54 6-8

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 55 4-349
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

143

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 56 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 57 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 58 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 59 4-349

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 60 4-371

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 61 3-29

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 62 3-43

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 63 3-30

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 64 3-41

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 65 3-74

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 66 3-34

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 67 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 68 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 69 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 70 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 71 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 72 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 73 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 74 3-90
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

144

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 75 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 76 3-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 77 5-118

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 78 5-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 79 4-319

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 80 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 81 4-97

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 82 4-59

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 83 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 84 4-144

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 85 3-136

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 86 5-192

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 87 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 88 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 89 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 90 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 91 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 92 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 93 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

145

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 94 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 95 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 96 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 97 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 98 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 99 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 100 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 101 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 102 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 103 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 104 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 105 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 106 5-169

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 107 5-170

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

319 108 2-38

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 1 2-38

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 2 3-19

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 3 3-122

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 4 3-106
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

146

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 5 3-128

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 6 3-103

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 7 3-101

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 8 3-124

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 9 3-15

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 10 4-259

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 11 3-23

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 12 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 13 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 14 3-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 15 3-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 16 3-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 17 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 18 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 19 3-80

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 20 3-10

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 21 3-81

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 22 4-378

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 23 3-24
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

147

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 24 4-49

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 25 1-81

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 26 5-192

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 27 4-54

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 28 4-259

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 29 4-260

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 30 4-260

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 31 4-265

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 32 4-371

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 33 3-29

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 34 3-43

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 35 3-30

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 36 3-41

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 37 3-74

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 38 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 39 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 40 3-34

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 41 5-118

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 42 5-90
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

148

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 43 4-319

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 44 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 45 4-97

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 46 4-57

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 47 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 48 4-144

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 49 3-82

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 50 5-146

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 51 5-210

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 52 4-340

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 53 4-6

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 54 3-133

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 55 3-136

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 56 3-136

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 57 5-192

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 58 4-166

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 59 4-180

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 60 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 61 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

149

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 62 4-176

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 63 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 64 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 65 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 66 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 67 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 68 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 69 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 70 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 71 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 72 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 73 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 74 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 75 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 76 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 77 5-169

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 78 5-170

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 79 2-38

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

414 80 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

150

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 1 2-38

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 2 3-19

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 3 3-122

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 4 3-106

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 5 3-121

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 6 3-128

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 7 3-103

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 8 3-101

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 9 3-124

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 10 3-15

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 11 4-259

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 12 3-23

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 13 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 15 3-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 16 3-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 17 3-79

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 18 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 19 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

151

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 203-80

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 213-10

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 223-81

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 234-378

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 243-24

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 254-49

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 261-81

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 275-192

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 284-348

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 293-33

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 304-86

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 314-54

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 324-259

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 334-260

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 344-260

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 354-265

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 364-256

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 374-257

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 384-257
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

152

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 39 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 40 4-379

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 41 6-5

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 42 4-253

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 43 6-8

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 44 4-349

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 45 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 46 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 47 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 48 4-349

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 49 4-371

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 50 3-29

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 51 3-43

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 52 3-30

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 53 3-41

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 54 3-74

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 55 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 56 3-34

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 57 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

153

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 58 5-118

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 59 5-90

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 60 4-319

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 61 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 62 4-97

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 63 4-59

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 64 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 65 4-144

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 66 3-82

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 67 5-145

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 68 5-210

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 69 4-340

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 70 4-6

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 71 3-133

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 72 3-136

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 73 3-136

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 74 5-192

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 75 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 76 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

154

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 77 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 78 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 79 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 80 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 81 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 82 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 83 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 84 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 85 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 86 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 87 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 88 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 89 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 90 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 91 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 92 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 93 Route Specific

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 94 5-169

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 95 5-170
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

155

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 96 2-38

Prindle Wayne Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Conservation 

Advocate

462 97 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Prosser John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Ptak John 047 1 4-1

Ptak John 047 2 4-97

Ptak John 047 3 4-294

Ptak John 047 4 4-260

Ptak John 047 5 1-12

Pullins Keith 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Purol Frank 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Purol Kiely 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

R Michael 215 1 to 10

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 1 4-224

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 2 4-221

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 3 5-46

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 4 4-131

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 5 4-129

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 6 4-101

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 7 4-36

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 8 5-78

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 9 4-131

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 10 1-70

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 11 2-36

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 12 4-224

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 13 4-37

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 14 4-131

Ragatz Rob & Lynnette 604 15 5-42

Ragsdale Amy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Ragsdale Brandon 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Rahn Perry 025 1 2-38

Rahn Perry 025 2 4-292

Rahn Perry 025 3 3-47

Rahn Perry 025 4 3-59

Rahn Perry 025 5 2-40
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

156

Randolph David 081 1 2-36

Randolph David 081 2 5-115

Rangitsch Tim Black Hills Mountain Bike Association. 434 1 1-7

Rangitsch Tim 434 2 1-78

Rangitsch Tim 434 3 Route Specific

Rangitsch Tim 434 4 2-28

Rangitsch Tim 434 5 4-204

Rangitsch Tim 434 6 4-294

Rathert Don 215 1 to 10

Reaser Glen Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 1 1-61

Reaser Glen Fall River County Commission; Joe Falkenburg, 

Chairman.

289 2 3-70

Reed Matt 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Reinecke Gene 361 1 Route Specific

Reinecke Gene 361 2 Route Specific

Reinecke Gene 361 3 Route Specific

Renaud Kent 445 1 4-28

Renaud Kent 445 2 4-315

Renaud Kent 445 3 5-119

Renaud Kent 445 4 2-36

Renaud Kent 445 5 4-125

Renaud Kent 445 6 4-88

Renaud Kent 445 7 5-43

Renaud Kent 445 8 Route Specific

Renaud Kent 445 9 4-353

Renaud Kent 445 10 4-232

Renaud Kent 445 11 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 1 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 2 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 3 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 4 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 5 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 6 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 7 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 8 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

157

Renner Geralyn 320 9 2-38

Renner Geralyn 320 10 5-8

Renner Geralyn 320 11 4-115

Renner Geralyn 320 12 Route Specific

Renner Geralyn 320 13 2-38

Renner Geralyn 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Renner Geralyn 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Renner Geralyn 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Resident Resident 320 1 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 2 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 3 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 4 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 5 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 6 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 7 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 8 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 9 2-38

Resident Resident 320 10 5-8

Resident Resident 320 11 4-115

Resident Resident 320 12 Route Specific

Resident Resident 320 13 2-38

Resident Resident 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Resident Resident 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Resident Resident 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Richard Jack 155 1 2-28

Richards Mark 448 1 5-27

Richards Mark 448 2 5-136

Richards Mark 448 3 5-67

Richardson T 226 1 4-224

Richardson T 226 2 4-221

Richardson T 226 3 5-46

Richardson T 226 4 4-131

Richardson T 226 5 4-129

Richardson T 226 6 4-101

Richardson T 226 7 4-36

Richardson T 226 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

158

Richardson T 226 9 4-131

Richardson T 226 10 1-70

Richardson T 226 11 4-232

Richardson T 226 12 4-222

Richardson T 226 13 5-85

Richer Dennis 215 1 to 10

Richer Dennis 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Richmond Jason 215 1 to 10

Rick Wesley Box Elder Planning and Zoning; Member. 263 1 2-36

Rick Wesley Box Elder Planning and Zoning; Member. 263 2 2-36

Rick Wesley Box Elder Planning and Zoning; Member. 263 3 2-36

Rick Wesley Box Elder Planning and Zoning; Member. 263 4 2-36

Rick Wesley Box Elder Planning and Zoning; Member. 263 5 2-36

Ricketts Kay Jean 215 1 to 10

Ridinger Robin 111 1 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 1 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 2 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 3 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 4 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 5 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 6 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 7 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 8 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 9 Route Specific

Riggins J 576 10 Route Specific

Riggins Justin Motorized Recreation Council of Wyoming; President. 493 1 4-30

Riggins Justin Motorized Recreation Council of Wyoming; President. 493 2 4-32

Riggins Justin Motorized Recreation Council of Wyoming; President. 493 3 5-107

Riley Greg 160 1 2-42

Rinehart Fran 320 1 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 2 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 3 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 4 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 5 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 6 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 7 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

159

Rinehart Fran 320 8 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 9 2-38

Rinehart Fran 320 10 5-8

Rinehart Fran 320 11 4-115

Rinehart Fran 320 12 Route Specific

Rinehart Fran 320 13 2-38

Rinehart Fran 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rinehart Fran 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rinehart Fran 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rinehart Jeff 320 1 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 2 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 3 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 4 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 5 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 6 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 7 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 8 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 9 2-38

Rinehart Jeff 320 10 5-8

Rinehart Jeff 320 11 4-115

Rinehart Jeff 320 12 Route Specific

Rinehart Jeff 320 13 2-38

Rinehart Jeff 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rinehart Jeff 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rinehart Jeff 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rist David 084 1 5-20

Rist David 084 2 6-20

Rist David 084 3 5-31

Rist David 084 4 5-34

Ritchie Kris 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Riter Dawn 215 1 to 10

Riter Kenny 215 1 to 10

Ritter David 215 1 to 10

Rivera Frank 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Robb Dan 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Roberts Doug 457 1 to 9 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

160

Robins James 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Robinson Donald 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Robison Emily 127 1 Route Specific

Rollette Monte 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Rose Patrick 215 1 to 10

Ross Dustin 215 1 to 10

Ross Pam 215 1 to 10

Ross Scott 215 1 to 10

Rost Marye & Denver 320 1 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 2 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 3 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 4 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 5 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 6 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 7 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 8 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 9 2-38

Rost Marye & Denver 320 10 5-8

Rost Marye & Denver 320 11 4-115

Rost Marye & Denver 320 12 Route Specific

Rost Marye & Denver 320 13 2-38

Rost Marye & Denver 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rost Marye & Denver 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Rost Marye & Denver 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Roth Robert 213 1 2-28

Roth Robert 213 2 2-38

Rothlisberger Randal 215 1 to 10

Rothlisberger Randal 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Rounsevell Shirley & Larry 158 1 2-25

Rounsevell Shirley & Larry 158 2 Route Specific

Rounsevell Shirley & Larry 158 3 2-36

Rounsevell Shirley & Larry 158 4 2-39

Rounsevell Shirley & Larry 158 5 2-43

Rowe Becci 270 1 4-108

Rowe Becci 270 2 4-109

Rowe Becci 270 3 4-252
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

161

Royer Timothy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Runestad Dan 215 1 to 10

Russell James 215 1 to 10

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1 2-16

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2 2-21

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 3 5-211

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 4 5-28

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 5 4-377

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 6 5-174

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 7 2-17

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 8 2-18

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 9 2-62

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 10 5-21

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 11 5-19

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 12 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 13 5-204

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 14 1-35

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 15 1-10

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 16 4-155

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 17 2-15

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 18 2-15

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 19 5-199

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 20 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 21 4-36

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 22 4-160

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 23 5-42

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 24 4-114

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 25 5-50

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 26 1-3

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 27 5-39

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 28 5-206

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 29 1-33

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 30 5-30

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 31 4-376

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 32 4-154

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 33 6-17
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

162

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 34 5-19

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 35 2-16

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 36 5-21

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 37 4-347

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 38 2-12

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 39 4-107

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 40 1-3

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 41 3-40

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 42 1-70

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 43 4-360

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 44 5-27

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 45 5-209

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 46 5-127

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 47 5-164

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 48 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 49 5-165

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 50 5-168

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 51 5-20

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 52 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 53 1-8

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 54 1-8

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 55 5-138

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 56 2-3

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 57 4-153

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 58 4-9

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 59 1-16

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 60 4-157

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 61 4-156

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 62 4-156

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 63 5-35

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 64 2-15

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 65 2-12

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 66 5-31

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 67 1-100

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 68 1-100

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 69 1-100
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

163

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 70 1-33

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 71 1-77

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 72 4-367

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 73 4-365

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 74 5-208

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 75 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 76 4-151

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 77 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 78 5-24

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 79 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 80 4-364

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 81 5-20

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 82 4-369

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 83 4-363

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 84 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 85 1-99

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 86 1-99

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 87 5-187

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 88 1-99

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 89 4-152

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 90 1-11

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 91 1-22

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 92 2-21

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 93 2-21

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 94 1-101

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 95 1-49

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 96 1-99

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 97 5-90

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 98 5-115

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 99 5-125

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 100 3-68

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 101 3-98

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 102 4-76

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 103 3-115

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 104 4-78

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 105 4-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

164

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1064-78

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1076-16

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1081-106

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1094-346

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1104-354

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 111 4084

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1125-211

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1134-2

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1145-164

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1151-88

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1162-6

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1176-19

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1186-18

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1192-15

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1202-15

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1212-11

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1225-29

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee126 1235-29

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1244-48

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1254-375

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1261-47

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1271-92

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1284-383

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1295-160

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1304-381

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1314-309

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1325-42

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1335-42

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1345-50

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1354-161

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1364-64

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1372-63

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1384-44

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1395-127

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1401-89

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 1411-3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

165

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 142 1-3

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 143 1-3

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 144 1-105

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 145 1-105

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 146 1-105

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 147 1-105

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 148 3-16

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 149 6-32

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 150 6-25

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 151 6-25

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 152 6-25

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 153 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 154 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 155 1-108

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 156 1-20

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 157 6-30

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 158 5-19

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 159 6-31

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 160 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 161 1-103

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 162 1-103

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 163 1-104

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 164 1-104

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 165 6-27

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 166 6-22

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 167 6-22

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 168 6-20

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 169 4-52

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 170 5-163

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 171 1-94

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 172 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 173 5-121

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 174 5-38

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 175 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 176 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 177 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

166

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 178 3-95

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 179 1-99

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 180 3-94

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 181 5-53

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 182 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 183 3-92

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 184 3-143

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 185 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 186 3-93

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 187 3-93

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 188 3-142

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 189 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 190 3-146

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 191 3-145

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 192 3-134

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 193 3-137

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 194 4-79

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 195 4-355

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 196 5-22

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 197 1-79

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 198 1-26

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 199 4-326

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 200 3-99

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 201 3-114

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 202 3-141

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 203 4-103

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 204 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 205 4-58

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 206 5-102

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 207 1-28

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 208 4-94

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 209 4-62

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 210 3-116

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 211 1-95

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 212 3-120

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 213 3-109
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

167

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2144-93

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2155-96

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2163-123

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 217

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2181-29

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2195-134

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2204-366

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2211-49

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2221-18

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2231-18

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2241-19

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2251-51

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2261-51

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2274-308

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2284-308

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2294-308

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2304-308

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2315-128

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2325-144

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2335-144

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2345-37

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2354-52

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2365-143

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2374-69

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2384-69

Salo KenCapital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2394-105

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2404-105

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2414-127

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2423-153

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2435-21

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2444-4

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2455-186

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2465-191

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2471-27

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2485-192

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 2491-93
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

168

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 250 5-212

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 251 4-334

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 252 4-334

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 253 4-90

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 254 5-190

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 255 1-97

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 256 1-97

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 257 5-184

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 258 1-98

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 259 1-98

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 260 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 261 5-185

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 262 4-326

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 263 5-191

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 264 6-10

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 265 4-368

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 266 4-31

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 267 5-134

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 268 4-13

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 269 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 270 4-308

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 271 5-27

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 272 5-127

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 273 5-115

Salo Ken Capital Trail Vehicle Association; Action Committee 126 274 5-200

Sanders Shelton 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 1 5-56

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 2 4-57

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 3 2-38

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 4 4-292

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 5 Route Specific

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 6 Route Specific

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 7 Route Specific

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 8 Route Specific

Santamaria John & Nicole 140 9 Route Specific

Santy Mary 457 1 to 9 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

169

Saye Troy 294 1 4-224

Saye Troy 294 2 4-221

Saye Troy 294 3 5-46

Saye Troy 294 4 4-131

Saye Troy 294 5 4-129

Saye Troy 294 6 4-101

Saye Troy 294 7 4-36

Saye Troy 294 8 5-78

Saye Troy 294 9 4-131

Saye Troy 294 10 1-70

Saye Troy 294 11 6-2

Saye Troy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Saye Wiladine 295 1 4-224

Saye Wiladine 295 2 4-221

Saye Wiladine 295 3 5-46

Saye Wiladine 295 4 4-131

Saye Wiladine 295 5 4-129

Saye Wiladine 295 6 4-101

Saye Wiladine 295 7 4-36

Saye Wiladine 295 8 5-78

Saye Wiladine 295 9 4-131

Saye Wiladine 295 10 1-70

Saye Wiladine 295 11 6-2

Saye Willie 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Scherrer James 013 1 4-192

Scherrer James 013 2 4-192

Scherrer James 013 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schlather Mary 498 1 4-224

Schlather Mary 498 2 4-221

Schlather Mary 498 3 5-46

Schlather Mary 498 4 4-131

Schlather Mary 498 5 4-129

Schlather Mary 498 6 4-101

Schlather Mary 498 7 4-36

Schlather Mary 498 8 5-78

Schlather Mary 498 9 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

170

Schlather Mary 498 10 1-70

Schlather Mary 498 11 4-233

Schlather Mary 498 12 4-121

Schlather Mary 498 13 4-122

Schlather Mary 498 14 4-46

Schleining William 233 1 Route Specific

Schleining William 233 2 4-225

Schleining William 233 3 5-98

Schleining William 233 4 5-116

Schleining William 233 5 6-35

Schleining William 233 6 5-61

Schleining William 233 7 4-118

Schleining William 233 8 4-113

Schlief Phil & Vicki 146 1 4-184

Schlief Phil & Vicki 146 2 Route Specific

Schlief Phil & Vicki 146 3 Route Specific

Schlief Phil & Vicki 146 4 4-261

Schmeltzer Louis 320 1 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 2 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 3 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 4 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 5 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 6 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 7 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 8 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 9 2-38

Schmeltzer Louis 320 10 5-8

Schmeltzer Louis 320 11 4-115

Schmeltzer Louis 320 12 Route Specific

Schmeltzer Louis 320 13 2-38

Schmeltzer Louis 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schmeltzer Louis 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schmeltzer Louis 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schmidt Judith 193 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Schmidt Judith 215 1 to 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

171

Schmidt Landon 215 1 to 10

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 1 Route Specific

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 2 Route Specific

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 3 Route Specific

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 4 Route Specific

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 5 4-190

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 6 Route Specific

Schmidt Wolfgang & 

Kathleen

360 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 1 4-384

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 2 Route Specific

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 3 4-250

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 4 5-205

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 5 4-17

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 6 3-49

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 7 Route Specific

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 8 5-176

Schmunk Lee & Virginia 419 9 1-96

Schneider Al 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Schortzmann Mike 190 1 2-36

Schortzmann Mike 190 2 5-86

Schramm Lonny 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Schrank Don 215 1 to 10

Schrank Gina 215 1 to 10

Schrank Reggie 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Schrank Riley 215 1 to 10

Schreiner Dave 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Schrier Howard 008 1 2-26

Schroeder Lee 005 1 2-40

Schroeder Lee 005 2 4-307
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

172

Schroeder Lee 005 3 2-40

Schroeder Lee 005 4 5-176

Schroeder Noel 320 1 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 2 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 3 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 4 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 5 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 6 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 7 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 8 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 9 2-38

Schroeder Noel 320 10 5-8

Schroeder Noel 320 11 4-115

Schroeder Noel 320 12 Route Specific

Schroeder Noel 320 13 2-38

Schroeder Noel 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schroeder Noel 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schroeder Noel 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Schroeder Thomas 055 1 2-36

Schroeder Thomas 055 2 4-305

Schroeder Thomas 055 3 2-69

Schultz Verlin 065 1 2-36

Schultz Verlin 065 2 Route Specific

Schulz Barry 491 1 2-52

Schulz Barry 491 2 6-5

Schulz Barry 491 3 2-62

Schulz Barry 491 4 5-107

Schulz Barry 491 5 2-40

Schulz Barry 491 6 Route Specific

Schulz Barry 491 7 2-36

Schut Glen & Glenda 117 1 2-26

Schwartz Dean 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Schwartz Donald & Pat 415 1 5-27

Schweisow Joachin 513 1 4-224

Schweisow Joachin 513 2 4-221

Schweisow Joachin 513 3 5-46
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

173

Schweisow Joachin 513 4 4-131

Schweisow Joachin 513 5 4-129

Schweisow Joachin 513 6 4-101

Schweisow Joachin 513 7 4-36

Schweisow Joachin 513 8 5-78

Schweisow Joachin 513 9 4-131

Schweisow Joachin 513 10 1-70

Schweisow Joachin 513 11 5-27

Schweisow Joachin 513 12 6-19

Schweitzer Doug 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Schweppe Jack 215 1 to 10

Schweppe Josh 215 1 to 10

Scott Brett 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Seeley Christian 202 1 Route Specific

Seeley Christian 202 2 Route Specific

Seeley Christian 202 3 Route Specific

Seeley Christian 202 4 Route Specific

Seeley Christian 202 5 Route Specific

Seljeskog Eric 321 1 5-65

Seljeskog Eric 321 2 5-20

Seljeskog Eric 321 3 5-81

Seljeskog Eric 321 4 2-36

Seljeskog Eric 321 5 4-278

Seneczko Sharon Black Hillls Mountain Lion Foundation; President. 547 1 3-108

Seneczko Sharon Black Hillls Mountain Lion Foundation; President. 547 2 3-108

Seneczko Sharon Black Hillls Mountain Lion Foundation; President. 547 3 3-108

Seneczko Sharon Black Hillls Mountain Lion Foundation; President. 547 4 3-108

Serrano Lupita 496 1 4-224

Serrano Lupita 496 2 4-221

Serrano Lupita 496 3 5-46

Serrano Lupita 496 4 4-131

Serrano Lupita 496 5 4-129

Serrano Lupita 496 6 4-101

Serrano Lupita 496 7 4-36

Serrano Lupita 496 8 5-78

Serrano Lupita 496 9 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

174

Serrano Lupita 496 10 1-70

Serrano Lupita 496 11 4-131

Serrano Lupita 496 12 4-127

Serrano Lupita 496 13 4-114

Serrano Lupita 496 14 4-122

Serrano Pedro 495 1 4-224

Serrano Pedro 495 2 4-221

Serrano Pedro 495 3 5-46

Serrano Pedro 495 4 4-131

Serrano Pedro 495 5 4-129

Serrano Pedro 495 6 4-101

Serrano Pedro 495 7 4-36

Serrano Pedro 495 8 5-78

Serrano Pedro 495 9 4-131

Serrano Pedro 495 10 1-70

Serrano Pedro 495 11 4-224

Serrano Pedro 495 12 4-125

Serrano Pedro 495 13 4-131

Serrano Pedro 495 14 4-131

Serrano Pedro 495 15 4-46

Severson Timothy 001 1 Route Specific

Severson Timothy 001 2 Route Specific

Sewell Chris 239 1 4-224

Sewell Chris 239 2 4-221

Sewell Chris 239 3 5-46

Sewell Chris 239 4 4-131

Sewell Chris 239 5 4-129

Sewell Chris 239 6 4-101

Sewell Chris 239 7 4-36

Sewell Chris 239 8 5-78

Sewell Chris 239 9 4-131

Sewell Chris 239 10 1-70

Sewell Chris 239 11 4-46

Sewell Chris 239 12 2-36

Sewell Dustie 215 1 to 10

Sewell Travis 215 1 to 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

175

Sewell III Steve 237 1 4-224

Sewell III Steve 237 2 4-221

Sewell III Steve 237 3 5-46

Sewell III Steve 237 4 4-131

Sewell III Steve 237 5 4-129

Sewell III Steve 237 6 4-101

Sewell III Steve 237 7 4-36

Sewell III Steve 237 8 5-78

Sewell III Steve 237 9 4-131

Sewell III Steve 237 10 1-70

Sewell III Steve 237 11 4-46

Sewell III Steve 237 12 4-222

Sewell III Steve 237 13 5-55

Sewell III Steve 237 14 4-333

Shedeed Stacy 215 1 to 10

Shepic John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Shoning Jeremy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Shoop Joel 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 1 2-38

Shupe Elizabeth 436 2 2-38

Shupe Elizabeth 436 3 4-259

Shupe Elizabeth 436 4 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 5 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 6 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 7 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 8 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 9 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 10 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 11 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 12 Route Specific

Shupe Elizabeth 436 13 Route Specific

Siemens David 083 1 5-170

Siemens David 083 2 5-147

Siemens David 083 3 1-15

Silver Steven & Family 596 1 2-36

Silver Steven & Family 596 2 4-224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

176

Silver Steven & Family 59634-232

Silver Steven & Family 59644-37

Silver Steven & Family 59654-131

Singleton Jake 22014-224

Singleton Jake 22024-221

Singleton Jake 22035-46

Singleton Jake 22044-131

Singleton Jake 22054-129

Singleton Jake 22064-101

Singleton Jake 22074-36

Singleton Jake 22085-78

Singleton Jake 22094-131

Singleton Jake 220 101-70

Singleton Jake 220 115-46

Singleton Jake 220 124-1

Singleton Jake 220 135-20

Singrey Rockie 52114-224

Singrey Rockie 52124-221

Singrey Rockie 52135-46

Singrey Rockie 52144-131

Singrey Rockie 52154-129

Singrey Rockie 52164-101

Singrey Rockie 52174-36

Singrey Rockie 52185-78

Singrey Rockie 52194-131

Singrey Rockie 521 101-70

Singrey Rockie 521 115-46

Singrey Van 51514-224

Singrey Van 51524-221

Singrey Van 51535-46

Singrey Van 51544-131

Singrey Van 51554-129

Singrey Van 51564-101

Singrey Van 51574-36

Singrey Van 51585-78

Singrey Van 51594-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

177

Singrey Van 515 10 1-70

Singrey Van 515 11 5-46

Sitzmann Becky 215 1 to 10

Sitzmann Jason 215 1 to 10

Sixbery Steven 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Skrove Dulce 215 1 to 10

Slettedahl Tyler 215 1 to 10

Smail Al 438 1 4-288

Smail Al 438 2 4-304

Smail Al 438 3 4-99

Smail Al 438 4 4-70

Smith Tyler 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Snider Jon 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Snider Mary 602 1 2-36

Snider Mary 602 2 4-224

Snider Mary 602 3 5-46

Snider Mary 602 4 4-37

Snider Mary 602 5 4-131

Snider Mary 602 6 1-70

Snider Mary 602 7 4-46

Snodgress Benjamin 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Snyder Dave 189 1 Route Specific

Snyder Jr James 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Sommers Chris 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Sorensen David 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Sorensen Lois 159 1 2-36

Sorensen Lois 159 2 2-25

Sorensen Lois 159 3 Route Specific

Sorensen Lois 159 4 2-36

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 1 5-56

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 2 4-57

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 3 2-38

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 4 4-292

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 5 Route Specific

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 6 Route Specific

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 7 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

178

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 8 Route Specific

Sorensen Rick & Mia 138 9 Route Specific

Sparks John 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 1 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 2 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 3 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 4 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 5 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 6 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 7 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 8 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 9 Route Specific

Speidel Steve 571 10 5-27

Spencer Mike 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Squires Garry 034 1 Route Specific

Squires Garry 034 2 4-264

St James Carolyn 107 1 5-170

Stanley Robert 215 1 to 10

Starn Ron 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Steckline Tim 424 1 Route Specific

Steckline Tim 424 2 Route Specific

Steckline Tim 424 3 1-34

Steckline Tim 424 4 4-259

Steckline Tim 424 5 Route Specific

Steckline Tim 424 6 Route Specific

Steckline Tim 424 7 5-8

Steckline Tim 424 8 1-37

Steele Barbara 320 1 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 2 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 3 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 4 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 5 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 6 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 7 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 8 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 9 2-38
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

179

Steele Barbara 320 10 5-8

Steele Barbara 320 11 4-115

Steele Barbara 320 12 Route Specific

Steele Barbara 320 13 2-38

Steele Barbara 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Steele Barbara 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Steele Barbara 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Steety Jason 215 1 to 10

Steffen Rick 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Sterling Chris 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Stevens Darrell 435 1 2-24

Stevens Darrell 435 2 4-293

Stevens Darrell 435 3 2-36

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 1 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 2 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 3 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 4 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 5 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 6 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 7 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 8 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 9 2-38

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 10 5-8

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 11 4-115

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 12 Route Specific

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 13 2-38

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Stevens Jill & Robert 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Stevens Josh 435 1 2-24

Stevens Josh 435 2 4-293

Stevens Josh 435 3 2-36

Stewart Billy 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Stewart Jay 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Stewart Robert USDOI, Regional Environmental Officer. 147 No 

comment.

No Comment.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

180

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 1 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 2 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 3 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 4 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 5 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 6 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 7 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 8 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 9 2-38

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 10 5-8

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 11 4-115

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 12 Route Specific

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 13 2-38

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Stiegelmeier Jina 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Stignani Jon 425 1 4-224

Stignani Jon 425 2 4-221

Stignani Jon 425 3 5-46

Stignani Jon 425 4 4-131

Stignani Jon 425 5 4-129

Stignani Jon 425 6 4-101

Stignani Jon 425 7 4-36

Stignani Jon 425 8 5-78

Stignani Jon 425 9 4-131

Stignani Jon 425 10 1-70

Stignani Jon 425 11 5-46

Stignani Jon 425 12 5-2

Stock Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Stock Todd 494 1 4-224

Stock Todd 494 2 4-221

Stock Todd 494 3 5-46

Stock Todd 494 4 4-131

Stock Todd 494 5 4-129

Stock Todd 494 6 4-101

Stock Todd 494 7 4-36
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

181

Stock Todd 494 8 5-78

Stock Todd 494 9 4-131

Stock Todd 494 10 1-70

Stock Todd 494 11 2-36

Stock Todd 494 12 5-78

Stock Todd 494 13 6-20

Stock Todd 494 14 4-122

Stock Todd 494 15 Route Specific

Stock Todd 494 16 5-85

Stock Todd 494 17 4-131

Stoddard Jim 215 1 to 10

Stoltenberg John 156 1 4-56

Stoltenberg John 156 2 3-11

Stoltenberg John 156 3 4-259

Stoltenberg John 156 4 4-97

Stoltenberg John 156 5 5-89

Stone Jeanine 111 1 Route Specific

Stone Jesse 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Stover Chris 274 1 5-117

Stover Chris 274 2 5-112

Stover Chris 274 3 Route Specific

Strunc Allan 215 1 to 10

Studer Gary 215 1 to 10

Studer Jakob 215 1 to 10

Studer Michelle 215 1 to 10

Stukel Matt 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Stymiest Clair 292 1 2-13

Stymiest Clair 292 2 4-290

Stymiest Clair 292 3 1-73

Stymiest Clair 292 4 2-33

Suelflow Chris 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Suiter Chase 215 1 to 10

Suiter Sheldon 215 1 to 10

Sumner Dusty 215 1 to 10

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 1 2-22
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

182

Bike Association

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 2 4-259

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 3 4-263

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 4 Route Specific

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 5 4-177

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 6 3-86

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 7 Route Specific

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 8 5-170

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 9 4-263

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 10 4-328

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 11 5-167

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 12 5-8

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 13 5-109

Sundance Chain Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 14 4-263
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

183

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 15 4-86

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 17 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 18 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain 

Bike Association

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike Association 479 19 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Suvada Ed & Deb 423 1 4-259

Suvada Ed & Deb 423 2 5-132

Suvada Ed & Deb 423 3 Route Specific

Svaren Theodore J. 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 1 4-5

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 2 4-55

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 3 4-340

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 4 2-38

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 5 2-38

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 6 2-38

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 7 3-91

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 8 2-61

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 9 3-37

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 10 3-76

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 11 3-32

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 12 Route Specific

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 13 5-162

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 14 4-343

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 15 5-151

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 16 4-75
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

184

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 17 5-91

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 18 4-330

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 19 4-317

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 20 4-322

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 21 4-250

Svoboda Larry USDOI, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 473 22 4-53

Swanda Ken & Marcy 137 1 2-41

Swanson Jeff 218 1 4-224

Swanson Jeff 218 2 4-221

Swanson Jeff 218 3 5-46

Swanson Jeff 218 4 4-131

Swanson Jeff 218 5 4-129

Swanson Jeff 218 6 4-101

Swanson Jeff 218 7 4-36

Swanson Jeff 218 8 5-78

Swanson Jeff 218 9 4-131

Swanson Jeff 218 10 1-70

Swanson Jeff 218 11 5-45

Swanson Julie 215 1 to 10

Sykora Drew 215 1 to 10

Tait Edward 215 1 to 10

Tanner Monica, Jeff, 

Alyssa, Jenna & 

Ross

215 1 to 10

Taylor Rob 356 1 4-223

Taylor Rob 356 2 5-8

Taylor Rob 356 3 2-38

Taylor Rob 356 4 Route Specific

Taylor Rob 356 5 Route Specific

Taylor Rob 356 6 4-259

Templeton Dave 011 1 2-36

Tennyson Bonnie 338 1 4-224

Tennyson Bonnie 338 2 4-221

Tennyson Bonnie 338 3 5-46

Tennyson Bonnie 338 4 4-131

Tennyson Bonnie 338 5 4-129
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

185

Tennyson Bonnie 338 6 4-101

Tennyson Bonnie 338 7 4-36

Tennyson Bonnie 338 8 5-78

Tennyson Bonnie 338 9 4-131

Tennyson Bonnie 338 10 1-70

Tennyson Bonnie 338 11 5-45

Tennyson Bonnie 338 12 1-69

Tennyson Mike 215 1 to 10

Tennyson Mike 314 1 5-194

Tennyson Mike 314 2 2-36

Tennyson Mike 314 3 4-138

Tennyson Mike 314 4 4-41

Tennyson Mike 314 5 Route Specific

Tennyson Mike 314 6 5-196

Tennyson Mike 314 7 4-270

Terveen Cali 195 1 Route Specific

Terveen Cali 195 2 Route Specific

Terveen Lee 194 1 Route Specific

Terveen Lee 194 2 Route Specific

Thielke Dennis 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Thielke Dennis 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Thomas Jason 339 1 2-36

Thomas Larry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Thomas Lowell & Carol 254 1 4-373

Thomas Lowell & Carol 254 2 1-107

Thomas Lowell & Carol 254 3 5-85

Thomas Lowell & Carol 254 4 Route Specific

Thomas Lowell & Carol 254 5 4-274

Thomas Lowell & Carol 254 6 6-26

Thomas Lowell & Carol 329 1 Route Specific

Thomas Lowell & Carol 329 2 4-373

Thompson Aaron 232 1 3-57

Thompson Aaron 232 2 Route Specific

Thompson Aaron 232 3 3-57

Thompson Aaron 232 4 4-259

Thompson Aaron 232 5 3-56
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

186

Thompson Dean 248 1 6-13

Thompson Hugh 236 1 3-48

Thompson Hugh 236 2 4-23

Thompson Hugh 236 3 5-97

Thompson Hugh 236 4 4-310

Thompson Hugh 236 5 5-25

Thomson Chris 215 1 to 10

Thorpe Penny 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Thorpe Penny 574 10 Route Specific

Thorson James 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Till Kathy 215 1 to 10

Timmer Chad 012 1 5-34

Timmer Chad 012 2 5-34

Timmer Chad 012 3 6-15

Timmer Chad 012 4 5-34

Timmer Kelli & Reed 023 1 5-34

Timmer Kelsey 021 1 5-78

Tippman Nick 060 1 5-27

Todd Loren 215 1 to 10

Todd Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Toth James 161 1 1-84

Toth James 161 2 2-36

Toth James 161 3 5-36

Toth James 161 4 4-340

Trabing Gary 215 1 to 10

Trabing Matt 215 1 to 10

Trabing Matt 394 1 4-224

Trabing Matt 394 2 4-221

Trabing Matt 394 3 5-46

Trabing Matt 394 4 4-131

Trabing Matt 394 5 4-129

Trabing Matt 394 6 4-101

Trabing Matt 394 7 4-36

Trabing Matt 394 8 5-78

Trabing Matt 394 9 4-131

Trabing Matt 394 10 1-70
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

187

Trabing Matt 394 11 Route Specific

Trabing Matt 394 12 4-125

Trabing Matt 394 13 4-125

Trabing Matt 394 14 4-13

Trabing Rodney 215 1 to 10

Trabing Ryan 215 1 to 10

Trabing Ryan 215 1 to 10

Trask Gregg 432 1 1-39

Trask Gregg 432 2 4-324

Trask Gregg 432 3 2-56

Trask Gregg 432 4 2-56

Trask Gregg 432 5 4-133

Trask Gregg 432 6 5-68

Trask Gregg 432 7 5-97

Trask Gregg 432 8 5-78

Trask Gregg 432 9 4-81

Trask Gregg 432 10 5-124

Treeby Brad 014 1 Route Specific

Treeby Brad 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Tromburg Joe 351 1 4-224

Tromburg Joe 351 2 4-221

Tromburg Joe 351 3 5-46

Tromburg Joe 351 4 4-131

Tromburg Joe 351 5 4-129

Tromburg Joe 351 6 4-101

Tromburg Joe 351 7 4-36

Tromburg Joe 351 8 5-78

Tromburg Joe 351 9 4-131

Tromburg Joe 351 10 1-70

Tromburg Joe 351 11 2-36

Tromburg Joe 351 12 5-42

Tromburg Joe 351 13 4-46

Tromburg Joe 351 14 5-46

Tromburg Joe 351 15 5-42

Tromburg Joe 351 16 4-118

Tromburg Joe 351 17 4-131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

188

Tromburg Joe 351 181-72

Tromburg Joe 351 194-37

Tromburg Joe 351 204-9

Tromburg Suzanne 215 1 to 10

Troup Miriam 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Truman Joshua 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46111-64

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46122-36

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46132-1

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46144-227

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46155-46

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46164-38

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46174-374

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46184-140

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

46194-131

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 106-6

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 111-82

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 121-5

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 132-36

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 145-20

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 154-285

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 461 161-65
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

189

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 171-6

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 185-2

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 191-85

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 204-8

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 214-315

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 225-98

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 235-86

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 244-232

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 254-340

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 265-2

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 274-137

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 281-55

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 294-259

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 305-188

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 311-74

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 323-139

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 333-140

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 344-85

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 461 353-148
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

190

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 36 3-149

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 37 3-147

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 38 3-112

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 39 3-135

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 40 3-110

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 41 3-130

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 42 3-105

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 43 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Turcke Paul Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Motorcycle 

Industry Council and the BlueRibbon Coalition.

461 44 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Tysdal Garrett 043 1 3-47

Tysdal Garrett 043 2 4-264

Uecker Phil 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Ujfalussy Alejandro 169 1 2-38

Ujfalussy Alejandro 169 2 Route Specific

Ujfalussy Alejandro 169 3 4-194

Ujfalussy Alejandro 169 4 4-63

Ujfalussy Alejandro 169 5 4-323

Ujfalussy Alejandro 169 6 Route Specific

Ulmer Clarence 364 1 Route Specific

Uluestad Jeff 511 1 4-224

Uluestad Jeff 511 2 4-221

Uluestad Jeff 511 3 5-46

Uluestad Jeff 511 4 4-131

Uluestad Jeff 511 5 4-129

Uluestad Jeff 511 6 4-101

Uluestad Jeff 511 7 4-36

Uluestad Jeff 511 8 5-78
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

191

Uluestad Jeff 511 9 4-131

Uluestad Jeff 511 10 1-70

Uluestad Jeff 511 11 4-221

Uluestad Jeff 511 12 5-46

Uluestad Jeff 511 13 Route Specific

Uluestad Jeff 511 14 4-348

Uluestad Jeff 511 15 4-131

Uluestad Jeff 511 16 1-70

Unreadable Tim 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unreadable Unreadable 215 1 to 10

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

381 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

476 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

537 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

542 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

543 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

550 Unused 

Letter 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

192

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

551 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

552 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

553 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

554 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

555 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

Unused Letter 

Number

556 Unused 

Letter 

Number

Urlacher Wyatt 187 1 2-38

Urlacher Wyatt 187 2 2-38

Vail Dennis 124 1 2-36

Vail Dennis 124 2 5-97

Vail Dennis 124 3 5-115

Vail Dennis 124 4 2-36

Van Boxtel Larry 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

van 

Engelenhoven

Kevin 215 1 to 10

Van Moer Charles 215 1 to 10

Van Ornam Calvin 276 1 2-36

Van Ornam Calvin 276 2 2-25

Van Ornam Calvin 276 3 2-54

Van Ornam Calvin 276 4 2-37

Van Ornam Calvin 276 5 2-38

Van Ornam Calvin 276 6 2-42

Van Ornam Calvin 276 7 2-38

Van Ornam Calvin 276 8 4-37
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

193

Vander Hamm Dean 392 1 4-224

Vander Hamm Dean 392 2 4-221

Vander Hamm Dean 392 3 5-46

Vander Hamm Dean 392 4 4-131

Vander Hamm Dean 392 5 4-129

Vander Hamm Dean 392 6 4-101

Vander Hamm Dean 392 7 4-36

Vander Hamm Dean 392 8 5-78

Vander Hamm Dean 392 9 4-131

Vander Hamm Dean 392 10 1-70

Vander Hamm Dean 392 11 Route Specific

Venosdel Matt 215 1 to 10

Vetter Joe 215 1 to 10

Vigoren Vern & Bonnie 118 1 2-38

Vigoren Vern & Bonnie 118 2 5-55

Vincent Scott 383 No 

comment.

No Comment.

Vollmer Vern 370 1 2-36

Vollmer Vern 370 2 5-191

Voncolln Mike & Rhonda 486 1 5-34

Voncolln Mike & Rhonda 486 2 4-232

Voncolln Mike & Rhonda 486 3 3-63

Voncolln Mike & Rhonda 486 4 4-259

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 1 2-23

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 2 4-98

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 3 4-98

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 4 4-98

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 5 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 6 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 326 7 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

194

Department Secretary

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

3268 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

3269 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 10 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 11 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 12 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 13 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 14 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 155-106

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 165-103

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 172-38

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 183-113

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 193-103

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 203-103

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 213-127

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 223-129

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 233-129

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 243-104

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 253-127

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 326 263-18
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

195

Department Secretary

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 273-144

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 28 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 29 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 30 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 31 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 32 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

32633 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 34 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 35 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 36 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 37 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 38 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 39 Route Specific

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 404-374

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 414-341

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 424-334

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 434-336

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 444-144

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 326 453-130
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

196

Department Secretary

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 46 3-12

Vonk Jeffrey South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; 

Department Secretary

326 47 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Vosburg Kevin 004 1 2-36

Vosburg Kevin 309 1 Route Specific

Vosburg Kevin 309 2 Route Specific

Vosburg Kevin 309 3 Route Specific

Voss Cary 277 1 2-24

Voss Cary 277 2 4-65

Voss Cary 277 3 2-24

Voss Cary 277 4 1-21

Voss Cary 277 5 4-259

Voss Cary 277 6 2-10

Voxburg Kevin 176 1 4-265

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 1 5-154

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 2 3-11

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 3 3-8

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 4 3-71

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 5 4-259

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 6 4-97

Wade Lowell & Pat 123 7 5-86

Wagner Basil 215 1 to 10

Wagner Becky 131 1 Route Specific

Wagner Richard 215 1 to 10

Wagner Rick 215 1 to 10

Wagner Toby 215 1 to 10

Waldow Lee 215 1 to 10

Waldow Manny 215 1 to 10

Waldow Menvale 215 1 to 10

Waldow Sr Lee 215 1 to 10

Walker Don 524 1 Route Specific

Walker Don 524 2 3-117

Walker Don & Cindy 331 1 Route Specific

Walker Don & Cindy 331 2 5-62
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

197

Walker Don & Cindy 331 3 4-277

Walker Don & Cindy 331 4 5-8

Walker Don & Cindy 331 5 Route Specific

Walker Don & Cindy 331 6 3-152

Walker Don & Cindy 037 1 Route Specific

Walker Don & Cindy 037 2 5-8

Walker Don & Cindy 037 3 4-277

Walker Don & Cindy 037 4 5-8

Walker Don & Cindy 037 5 Route Specific

Walker Don & Cindy 037 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Walton Scott 215 1 to 10

Waltrip Dan 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Walz Ray 044 1 Route Specific

Walz Ray 044 2 Route Specific

Ward William 075 1 5-29

Ward William 075 2 2-36

Ward William 075 3 2-36

Ward William 075 4 2-36

Warner Mark 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Watch Mike 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Watkins Joe 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Watson Donna 516 1 4-58

Watson Donna 516 2 3-14

Watson Donna 516 3 4-237

Weber Jerry 509 1 4-224

Weber Jerry 509 2 4-221

Weber Jerry 509 3 5-46

Weber Jerry 509 4 4-131

Weber Jerry 509 5 4-129

Weber Jerry 509 6 4-101

Weber Jerry 509 7 4-36

Weber Jerry 509 8 5-78

Weber Jerry 509 9 4-131

Weber Jerry 509 10 1-70

Weber Jerry 509 11 4-102

Weber Myron 457 1 to 9 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

198

Weeks Kelly 284 1 2-36

Weiand Donny 121 1 5-167

Weiand Donny 121 2 5-112

Weiand Donny 121 3 4-259

Weiand Donny 121 4 4-259

Weimer Kim Marie 080 1 5-170

Weimer Kim Marie 080 2 4-177

Weimer Kim Marie 080 3 4-125

Weisgerber Jayme 215 1 to 10

Welch Gene 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 1 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 2 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 3 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 4 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 5 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 6 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 7 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 8 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 9 2-38

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 10 5-8

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 11 4-115

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 12 Route Specific

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 13 2-38

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wendland LaVonne & Jerry 320 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jeanette 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 347 1 5-46

Wermers Jon 347 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 348 1 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 348 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 348 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 348 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 348 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 349 1 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 349 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

199

Wermers Jon 349 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 350 1 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 350 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 350 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 350 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 350 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 466 1 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 8 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 9 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 10 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 11 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 12 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 13 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 15 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 16 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 17 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 18 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 19 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 20 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 21 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 22 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 23 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 466 24 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 467 1 5-76

Wermers Jon 467 2 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 467 3 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 467 4 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 467 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

200

Wermers Jon 467 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 467 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 468 1 4-181

Wermers Jon 468 2 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 1 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 469 2 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 469 3 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 469 4 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 469 5 Route Specific

Wermers Jon 469 6 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 7 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 8 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 9 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 10 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 11 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 12 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 13 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wermers Jon 469 14 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Whalen George & Jeanne 373 1 5-198

Whalen George & Jeanne 373 2 2-38

Whalen George & Jeanne 373 3 4-118

Wheeler Tracy 264 1 2-38

Wheeler Tracy 264 2 4-312

Wheeler Tracy 264 3 3-28

Wheeler Tracy 264 4 3-72

Wheeler Tracy 264 5 Route Specific

Wheeler Tracy 264 6 Route Specific

Wheeler Tracy 264 7 Route Specific

White Amy 088 1 5-167

White Todd 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Widvey Reid 041 1 4-26

Wiebelhaus Tim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wiechmann Adam 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wieczorek Rick 215 1 to 10

Wieczorek Vicky 215 1 to 10

Wieland Harvey 369 1 4-195
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

201

Wieland Harvey 369 2 2-28

Wieland Harvey 369 3 4-25

Wieland Harvey 369 4 5-85

Wieland Harvey 369 5 5-85

Wieland Harvey 369 6 4-337

Wieland Harvey 369 7 3-131

Wieland Harvey 369 8 Route Specific

Wiest Calving Dean 240 1 5-141

Wiest Calving Dean 240 2 5-97

Wiest Calving Dean 240 3 2-24

Wilcox Dave 170 1 5-64

Wilde Shannon 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wilger Steve 022 1 Route Specific

Williams Bradley 502 1 4-224

Williams Bradley 502 2 4-221

Williams Bradley 502 3 5-46

Williams Bradley 502 4 4-131

Williams Bradley 502 5 4-129

Williams Bradley 502 6 4-101

Williams Bradley 502 7 4-36

Williams Bradley 502 8 5-78

Williams Bradley 502 9 4-131

Williams Bradley 502 10 1-70

Williams Bradley 502 11 4-225

Williams Bradley 502 12 4-222

Williams Bradley 502 13 5-46

Williams Bradley 502 14 4-122

Williams Bradley 502 15 5-78

Williams Bradley 502 16 1-78

Williams Bradley 502 17 5-78

Williams Bradley 502 18 6-19

Williams Bradley 526 1 2-55

Williams Bradley 526 2 2-36

Williams Bradley 526 3 4-225

Williams Bradley 526 4 4-305

Williams Bradley 526 5 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

202

Williams Bradley 526 6 4-131

Williams Jason 215 1 to 10

Williams Randy 215 1 to 10

Willman John 440 1 2-58

Wilson Andrew 322 1 4-224

Wilson Andrew 322 2 4-221

Wilson Andrew 322 3 5-46

Wilson Andrew 322 4 4-131

Wilson Andrew 322 5 4-129

Wilson Andrew 322 6 4-101

Wilson Andrew 322 7 4-36

Wilson Andrew 322 8 5-78

Wilson Andrew 322 9 4-131

Wilson Andrew 322 10 1-70

Wilson Andrew 322 11 1-49

Wilson Andrew 322 12 5-5

Wilson Andrew 322 13 5-18

Wilson Andrew 322 14 2-36

Wilson Andrew 322 15 4-37

Wilson Andrew 322 16 4-131

Wilson Andrew 322 17 5-44

Wilson Dale 215 1 to 10

Wilson Diane & Roger 057 1 Route Specific

Wilson Diane & Roger 057 2 4-200

Wilson Dick 215 1 to 10

Wilson Jerry 376 1 2-25

Wilson Jerry 376 2 2-29

Wilson Jerry 376 3 2-37

Wilson Jerry 376 4 2-38

Wilson Jerry 376 5 5-8

Wilson Jerry 376 6 2-45

Wilson Max 215 1 to 10

Wingert James 215 1 to 10

Winsell Jayce 215 1 to 10

Winsell Seth 215 1 to 10

Winsell Vicki 215 1 to 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

203

Wishort Bob 303 1 4-224

Wishort Bob 303 2 4-221

Wishort Bob 303 3 5-46

Wishort Bob 303 4 4-131

Wishort Bob 303 5 4-129

Wishort Bob 303 6 4-101

Wishort Bob 303 7 4-36

Wishort Bob 303 8 5-78

Wishort Bob 303 9 4-131

Wishort Bob 303 10 1-70

Wishort Bob 303 11 5-46

Wishort Bob 303 12 5-78

Wiswell Mark 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Woehl Cody 215 1 to 10

Woehl Meghan 215 1 to 10

Wolff Deb Minnich 252 1 2-38

Wolff Deb Minnich 252 2 5-171

Wollaston Tim 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wolter Brad 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wood Shawn 457 1 to 9 Route Specific

Wood Todd 215 1 to 10

Woodford Heidi 215 1 to 10

Woodford Mike 215 1 to 10

Woods Frank & Joanne & 

Norman & Mary & 

Leah

446 1 2-26

Woods Frank & Joanne & 

Norman & Mary & 

Leah

446 2 4-118

Woods Frank & Joanne & 

Norman & Mary & 

Leah

446 3 4-118

Woods Frank & Joanne & 

Norman & Mary & 

Leah

446 4 4-227

Woods Frank & Joanne & 

Norman & Mary & 

446 5 5-34
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

204

Leah

Woods Leah 404 1 4-224

Woods Mary 405 1 5-191

Woods Norman 403 1 5-19

Woods Norman 403 2 2-24

Woods Norman 403 3 4-224

Woods Norman 403 4 5-46

Woods Norman 403 5 4-118

Woods Norman 403 6 5-31

Wynia Mark 470 1 5-76

Wynia Mark 470 2 4-238

Wynia Mark 470 3 4-225

Wynia Mark 470 4 Route Specific

Wynia Mark 470 5 Attachment (map, table, etc.)

Wynia Mark 470 6 Route Specific

Wynia Mark 470 7 4-233

Wynia Mark 470 8 3-22

Wynia Mark 470 9 4-234

Wytosick Jake 215 1 to 10

Young David 215 1 to 10

Ysebaert John 341 1 3-11

Ysebaert John 341 2 3-8

Ysebaert John 341 3 3-71

Ysebaert John 341 4 4-259

Ysebaert John 341 5 4-97

Ysebaert John 341 6 5-89

Zaepfel Diane 129 1 Route Specific

Zantow Wayne 215 1 to 10

Zeal Kevin 215 1 to 10

Ziegenbein Zane 009 1 5-23

Ziegenbein Zane 009 2 4-302

Ziegenbein Zane 009 3 1-89

Zimmerman Carole 182 1 2-36

Zimmerman Carole 182 2 5-119*

Zimmerman Carole 182 3 4-121

Zimmerman Carole 182 4 5-107
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

205

Zimmerman Carole 182 5 1-70

Zimmerman Lawrence 183 1 2-36

Zimmerman Lawrence 183 2 5-119

Zimmerman Lawrence 183 3 5-107

Zimmerman Lawrence 183 4 1-86

Zimmerman Lawrence 183 5 1-70

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 1 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 2 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 3 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 4 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 5 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 6 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 7 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 8 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 9 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 10 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 11 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 12 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 13 Route Specific

Zimmerman Mark & Mary 400 14 4-189

Zwinger James 391 1 4-224

Zwinger James 391 2 4-221

Zwinger James 391 3 5-46

Zwinger James 391 4 4-131

Zwinger James 391 5 4-129

Zwinger James 391 6 4-101

Zwinger James 391 7 4-36

Zwinger James 391 8 5-78

Zwinger James 391 9 4-131

Zwinger James 391 10 1-70

Zwinger James 391 11 Route Specific
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

206

Letter#/Comment# 

(Letter numbers are three 

digit numbers, 001 through 

611) 

Public Concern Category and 

Description

Response to Concern Public 

Concern 

Number

Row 

Number

091/1. 279/1. Management Priorities. 1-1 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve its stewardship of the Black Hills 

National Forest (BHNF), to reduce the 

damage done to the forest.

The Forest Service has authority to impose road and area 

closures for resource protection, and has used that 

authority in recent years, including after large fires to allow 

revegetation and permit road rehabilitation work to be 

completed. Enforcement of closures has been difficult but 

it is expected that enforcement capability will improve with 

the implementation of the motor vehicle use map (MVUM) 

under the 2005 Travel Rule. The action alternatives are 

designed to provide for quality recreation experiences for 

users, and to reduce the adverse impacts of unmanaged 

travel, and they would accomplish these aims to varying 

degrees in different ways. Emergency closures can still be 

imposed for resource protection. 

1-1 2

549/1. 549/2. Management Priorities. 1-2 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should cease 

all activity in the Black Hill because the 

Black Hills were unlawfully taken from the 

Lakota/Dakota/Nakota Tribes.

The legal issues surrounding the Black Hills Treaties and 

the 1980 Supreme Court decision to award monetary 

damages for the taking of the Black Hills are beyond the 

scope of this EIS. However, the Black Hills National 

Forest has a legal trust responsibility to actively engage in a 

government to government relationship with sovereign 

tribal nations. This responsibility is articulated in laws and 

executive orders as explained in the Cultural Resources 

section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The Forest maintains a 

notification mailing list for sixteen (16) federally recognized 

tribes, and regularly consults with Tribal representatives 

regarding projects authorized under the NHPA and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 16 

different Tribes from five states have expressed traditional 

cultural, spiritual, or geographical interests in the Black 

Hills. Each Tribe was sent a copy of the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS (USDA 

Forest Service 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 

1-2 3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

207

formal government-to-government consultation meeting 

hosted by the Forest near Custer, SD, on April 21, 2009. 

The primary purpose of that meeting was to discuss any 

questions or issues that Tribal representatives may have had 

pertaining to the Travel Management Project. The purpose 

and need for this project includes reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged route and area usage. We are 

confident that the decision on this project will lead to 

accomplishing this objective. 

126/26. Management Priorities. 1-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support responsible multiple use of the 

National Forest to ensure consistency with 

the intent of Congress.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements of 

developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management capabilities 

of the Forest. By meeting these objectives we hope to 

satisfy our mandate of multiple use management. 

However, we realize that parties with competing interests 

may feel they don't get everything they request, and may 

perceive the decision in different ways. 

1-3 4

126/6. 304/4. Management Priorities. 1-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support responsible multiple use of the 

National Forest to ensure consistency with 

the intent of Congress to be consistent 

with the original purpose of the National 

Forests.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements 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 

1-3 5
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

208

of the Forest. By meeting these objectives we hope to 

satisfy our mandate of multiple use management. 

However, we realize that parties with competing interests 

may feel they don't get everything they request, and may 

perceive the decision in different ways. 

126/141. 126/142. Management Priorities. 1-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support responsible multiple use of the 

National Forest to be consistent with 

Federal law and the will of Congress.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements of 

developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management capabilities 

of the Forest. By meeting these objectives we hope to 

satisfy our mandate of multiple use management. 

However, we realize that parties with competing interests 

may feel they don't get everything they request, and may 

perceive the decision in different ways. 

1-3 6

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

304/3. 

Management Priorities. 1-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support responsible multiple use of the 

National Forest to be consistent with the 

will of the users.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements of 

developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management capabilities 

of the Forest. By meeting these objectives we hope to 

satisfy our mandate of multiple use management. 

However, we realize that parties with competing interests 

may feel they don't get everything they request, and may 

1-3 7
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

209

perceive the decision in different ways. 

456/1. Management Priorities. 1-4 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support sustainable practices in the 

management of the forest for multiple use 

for future generations.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements of 

developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management capabilities 

of the Forest. By meeting these objectives we hope to 

satisfy our mandate of multiple use management. 

However, we realize that parties with competing interests 

may feel they don't get everything they request, and may 

perceive the decision in different ways. 

1-4 8

458/5. 458/6. 461/12. Management Priorities. 1-5 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should better 

balance the management of renewable 

surface resources and other multiple uses 

with motorized recreation to better meet 

the needs of the public.

The comprehensive balancing of multiple uses on a 

national forest, as requested by this comment, is designed 

to occur during the forest planning process as outlined in 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Black 

Hills National Forest is currently managed under the broad 

direction in the Revised Forest Plan as Amended. The 

decision on this project, as on any project, must fit within 

that broad direction, which provides for areas open to 

more and less intensive uses. The analysis presented in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS discloses the effects of motorized 

recreation under the alternatives on other resources and on 

non-motorized recreation experiences. The effects 

disclosed for each resource consider the cumulative effects 

of motorized recreation when added to other past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

1-5 9

461/17. Management Priorities. 1-6 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prioritize active management of motorized 

recreation to avoid eliminating motorized 

recreation from public lands.

The Forest also believes that a consciously designed or 

“active” motorized travel system would improve on the 

current “passive” unmanaged system, which has evolved in 

an unplanned manner over time. An active system would 

meet a variety of motorized and non-motorized recreation 

1-6 10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

210

needs and desires while reducing effects of motorized 

recreation on natural and cultural resources, as well as 

minimizing conflicts among uses. The Forest will provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. The forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any 

one group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. The 

Forest believes such choices and evaluations are best made 

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

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

434/1. 465/18. Management Priorities. 1-7 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should better 

balance motorized and non-motorized 

uses to better support non-motorized 

dispersed recreation.

The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest, working 

with the public, to designate which roads, trails, and areas 

are available for motor vehicle use. The rule prohibits use 

off the designated system. In developing Alternative D, the 

Forest considered minimization of conflicts among uses of 

NFS lands. The Forest also considered compatibility of 

motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated 

areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other 

factors. A system of walk-in areas established outside the 

designation process is outside the scope of this decision. 

Effects of motorized use under each alternative on nonmotorized recreation experience is analyzed and disclosed 

in the Recreation section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

1-7 11

126/53. 126/54. Management Priorities. 1-8 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

too strict an interpretation of the national 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) criteria and 

standards because the national policy may 

not fit the site-specific conditions in the 

Black Hills.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

1-8 12
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

211

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

456/11. 458/18. Management Priorities. 1-9 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

recognize that some consideration of nonmotorized uses in the plan is appropriate.

The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest, working 

with the public, to designate which roads, trails, and areas 

are available for motor vehicle use. The rule prohibits use 

off the designated system. This current effort is focused on 

planning and designating routes and areas for motorized 

use, but this is done within the context of the effects of 

motorized use on other resources and non-motorized 

recreation under any of the alternatives are considered and 

disclosed in the Recreation section of Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. The Forest will provide access for both motorized 

and non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The forest 

is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one group, nor 

must every use be accommodated on every acre. It is 

entirely appropriate for different areas of the forest to 

provide different opportunities for recreation. The Forest 

believes such choices and evaluations are best made with 

full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

1-9 13

126/15. Management Priorities. 1-10 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

The Forest Service agrees that site-specific analyses and 

decisions designating routes and areas for motor vehicle 

1-10 14
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

212

using the motorized travel planning 

process for designating non-motorized 

uses because doing so is an inappropriate 

use of the process.

use are best made at the local level, with full involvement 

of Federal, tribal, State, and local governments, motorized 

and non-motorized users, and other interested parties, as 

provided for in this final rule. The focus of this effort is 

designation of motorized routes and areas, as required by 

the 2005 Travel Rule. This effort fits within the 

comprehensive direction for motorized and non-motorized 

recreation provided by the Revised Forest Plan. 

126/90. Management Priorities. 1-11 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the public opposes 

further reductions in recreational access.

Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service will rely 

heavily on public involvement for this project in making 

this decision. 

1-11 15

047/5. 545/1. Management Priorities. 1-12 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the plan is successful for 

recreational users of the forest.

Thank you for your comment. 1-12 16

458/2. 458/3. Management Priorities. 1-13 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide for biological diversity along with 

other multiple uses of the forest to comply 

with the multiple-use-sustained yield act of 

1960 (MUSYA) and National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA).

As the comment points out, national forests including the 

Black Hills National Forest are managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as described under the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the National Forest 

Management Act, and other legislation relating to the 

National Forests. The Revised Forest Plan as Amended 

provides the overarching direction for management of 

lands on the Forest. The decision on this project including 

any Forest Plan amendments will be consistent with the 

Forest Plan, as required. The effects of motorized use 

under any of the alternatives on other resources and nonmotorized recreation are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. 

1-13 17

027/1. 363/5. Management Priorities. 1-14 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prioritize preservation of the environment, 

cultural resources, and fish and wildlife 

habitat when making travel management 

decisions.

The alternatives considered different ways of meeting the 

purpose and need, and addressed the issues including 

effects on natural resources in different ways. The effects 

of motorized use under any of the alternatives on other 

resources and non-motorized recreation are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

1-14 18

083/3. Management Priorities. 1-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

promote exercise and nonpetroleum-based 

travel.

Thank you for your comment. 1-15 19
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

213

126/59. Public Involvement. 1-16 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should fully disclose 

the intent of proposed agency actions to 

help reduce the level of mistrust of the 

agency.

The final rule established a procedural framework for local 

decision making with ample opportunities for public 

involvement. The purpose and need in Chapter 1 of the 

FEIS accurately states the intent of the agency with respect 

to this proposal. The decision will be based on broad 

public input gathered over the past six years and made in 

accordance with the criteria in 212.55 of the rule. The 

Forest Service will attempt to balance competing needs, 

desires, and obligations, and will explain the decision and 

its rationale in the Record of Decision. We realize that 

some Forest users may feel their needs have not been fully 

met. 

1-16 20

293/3. Public Involvement. 1-17 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

the level of complexity of the plan and 

related documents.

The Forest acknowledges the complexity of the travel 

management planning process.

1-17 21

126/222. 126/223. Influences on Decision Making. 1-18 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not use the volume of comments 

to influence its decision making to avoid 

inappropriate bias toward non-motorized 

groups and comply with the intent of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA).

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management plan 

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

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

be made on motorized recreation management, and it is the 

time for all affected parties to make their interests known 

to the decision maker. The agency was most interested in 

the substantive points of the comments received on the 

DEIS, and not the number of times they were repeated. 

The Forest Service evaluated the content of these public 

concerns rather than the quantity of responses received 

supporting a particular view. Responses to comments will 

be reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

1-18 22

126/224. Influences on Decision Making. 1-19 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not use the level of effectiveness or 

participation of a group of users as the 

deciding factor in decision making to 

comply with the intent of NEPA.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management plan 

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

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

be made on motorized recreation management, and it is the 

time for all affected parties to make their interests known 

to the decision maker. The agency was most interested in 

the substantive points of the comments received on the 

DEIS, and not the number of times they were repeated. 

The Forest Service evaluated the content of these public 

1-19 23
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

214

concerns rather than the quantity of responses received 

supporting a particular view. Responses to comments will 

be reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

126/156. Influences on Decision Making. 1-20 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should base decisions on public need 

regardless of the economic costs and 

possibility of legal challenges.

Thank you for your comment. 1-20 24

277/4 Influences on Decision Making. 1-21 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should listen to all public comment not 

just to special interest groups.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management plan 

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

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

be made on motorized recreation management, and it is the 

time for all affected parties to make their interests known 

to the decision maker. The agency was most interested in 

the substantive points of the comments received on the 

DEIS, and not the number of times they were repeated. 

The Forest Service evaluated the content of these public 

concerns rather than the quantity of responses received 

supporting a particular view. Responses to comments will 

be reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

1-21 25

126/91. Influences on Decision Making. 1-22 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should take into account the large number 

of NEPA projects and use patterns when 

evaluating public comment to ensure that 

non-motorized groups do not have 

inordinate influence.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

1-22 26
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

215

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

578/12. Influences on Decision Making. 1-23 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid giving inappropriate 

authority to the Black Hills National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) because 

the NFAB is not an elected body and to 

ensure the process is fair to all 

stakeholders.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. The National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is a body of citizens 

properly chartered under the terms of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Board membership is made up of 

individuals and groups representing a spectrum of interests. 

The specific charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on a 

broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the Board. 

1-23 27

578/15. Influences on Decision Making. 1-24 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify the role the NFAB has 

played in the process to remove the 

appearance that Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

1-24 28
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

216

were violated. opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. The National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is a body of citizens 

properly chartered under the terms of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Board membership is made up of 

individuals and groups representing a spectrum of interests. 

The specific charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on a 

broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the Board. 

293/4. Influences on Decision Making. 1-25 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify the relationship between 

NFAB‟s decision-making process and past 

public comments, the DEIS administrative 

record, and the appeals process.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

1-25 29
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

217

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. The National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is a body of citizens 

properly chartered under the terms of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Board membership is made up of 

individuals and groups representing a spectrum of interests. 

The specific charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on a 

broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the Board. 

126/198. 126/199. Influences on Decision Making. 1-26 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should base management decisions on 

input from a management team that is 

representative of all forest users to reduce 

bias against motorized recreationists.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. The National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is a body of citizens 

properly chartered under the terms of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Board membership is made up of 

individuals and groups representing a spectrum of interests. 

The specific charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on a 

1-26 30
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

218

broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the Board. 

Extensive public involvement both during development of 

the proposal (before NEPA), and during the NEPA 

analysis process, solicited and considered input from a 

variety of forest users including individuals and groups 

from the motorized recreation community. The decision 

will consider all input received on the project. 

126/246. 126/247. Influences on Decision Making. 1-27 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should establish a Multiple-Use Review 

Board to ensure that the decision making 

reflects multiple-use management goals.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. The National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is a body of citizens 

properly chartered under the terms of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. Board membership is made up of 

individuals and groups representing a spectrum of interests. 

The specific charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on a 

broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

1-27 31
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

219

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the Board. 

The Revised Forest Plan provides the multiple-use 

management goals for the Forest, and that the decision on 

this project will be consistent with the Revised Forest Plan 

including any Plan amendments. 

126/207. 126/208. Influences on Decision Making. 1-28 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should use an adequate peer review plan 

and process to ensure that experts are 

qualified and neutral about motorized 

recreation.

The analysis for this project was conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource personnel. 

The analysis process included review of relevant scientific 

literature. The team members included and cited literature 

as appropriate in arriving at their determinations. The 

analysis and effects disclosures are explained in Chapter 3 

of the FEIS. Public comment was solicited and reviewed, 

and will be considered in the decision on this project. 

1-28 32

126/217. 126/218. Influences on Decision Making. 1-29 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include independent scientists in 

the planning and review process to ensure 

that the plan is appropriately documented 

and includes supporting data.

The analysis for this project was conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource personnel. 

The analysis process included review of relevant scientific 

literature. The team members included and cited literature 

as appropriate in arriving at their determinations. The 

analysis and effects disclosures are explained in Chapter 3 

of the FEIS. Public comment was solicited and reviewed, 

and will be considered in the decision on this project. 

1-29 33

372/1. Influences on Decision Making. 1-30 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid giving undue influence to 

motorized users because they are a small

percentage of visitors.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management plan 

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

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

be made on motorized recreation management, and it is the 

time for all affected parties to make their interests known 

to the decision maker. The agency was most interested in 

the substantive points of the comments received on the 

DEIS, and not the number of times they were repeated. 

The Forest Service evaluated the content of these public 

concerns rather than the quantity of responses received 

supporting a particular view. Responses to comments will 

be reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

1-30 34

578/1. Influences on Decision Making. The The Forest Service agrees that the travel management plan 1-30 35
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

220

Forest Service should avoid giving undue 

influence to motorized users because they 

are a small percentage of visitors because 

more visitors are interested in quiet 

recreation.

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

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

be made on motorized recreation management, and it is the 

time for all affected parties to make their interests known 

to the decision maker. The agency was most interested in 

the substantive points of the comments received on the 

DEIS, and not the number of times they were repeated. 

The Forest Service evaluated the content of these public 

concerns rather than the quantity of responses received 

supporting a particular view. Responses to comments will 

be reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

399/11. Influences on Decision Making. 1-31 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid giving undue influence to 

motorized users and the businesses that 

support motorized recreation because 

population increases will result in greater 

demand for non-motorized recreation.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

1-31 36

216/2. Influences on Decision Making. 1-32 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the input of the Off-Road 

Riders Association because they expended 

considerable effort into their analysis of 

the alternatives.

The Forest Service appreciates the participation by all 

parties, and will consider all of the public input received on 

this project. 

1-32 37

126/70. Influences on Decision Making. 1-33 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

1-33 38
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

221

should ensure that the needs of motorized 

users are fairly considered to avoid being 

overly influenced by non-motorized 

groups.

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

126/29. Influences on Decision Making. 1-33 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that the needs of motorized 

users are fairly considered including the 

cumulative impacts of road and trail 

closures.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

1-33 39

424/3. 456/7. 456/8. 456/9. Influences on Decision Making. 1-34 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid giving undue weight to the 

needs of motorized recreationists because 

while they are a vocal and aggressive 

group, they are a small minority of users.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

1-34 40
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

222

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. Add that the 

Forest Service has broadly solicited public involvement on 

this project a number of times. Members of the public 

were responsible for their own decisions on whether and 

how to respond. The meeting alluded to in the comment 

was held during the development of the proposal, prior to 

scoping, and was designed in part to educate the public on 

motorized recreation and on the then-new Travel Rule. 

The Forest Service will consider all public input received in 

making the decision on this project. 

126/14. Influences on Decision Making. 1-35 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should identify and disclose the influence 

of groups with annual budgets of greater 

than $100,000 to remove political 

influences that obscure the public benefit.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

1-35 41

126/224. Influences on Decision Making. 1-36 The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 1-36 42
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

223

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid giving undue influence to 

moneyed groups who are smaller in 

number.

non-motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not reserved 

for the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use 

be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the forest to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. The Forest believes such 

choices and evaluations are best made with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

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

National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the management 

and resource capabilities of the Forest. We will comply 

with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other applicable laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders. 

230/11. 424/8. Influences on Decision Making. 1-37 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that one ranger 

should not be able to affect so many users.

The Forest Service has broadly solicited public involvement 

on this project a number of times. The Forest Service will 

consider all public input received in making the decision on 

this project. By law the decision is reserved to a line officer 

within the Forest Service, which is the steward of the 

Federal lands administered by the Black Hills National 

Forest. 

1-37 43

293/6. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that problems with the 

website reduced access to the documents.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and formal 

requests for extension, the DEIS comment period was 

extended by 14 days. 

1-38 44

293/9. 578/2. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

extend the comment period by 30 days.

The Forest Service does not agree that the Forest Plan 

amendments proposed as a part of each action alternative 

rise to the level of significant amendments. Their 

significance will be assessed and explained as part of the 

decision. Due to technical problems with the FS web site 

and formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

1-39 45

136/2. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and formal 

requests for extension, the DEIS comment period was 

extended by 14 days. 

1-39 46
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

224

extend the comment period because the 

Forest's website was down for 

approximately two weeks.

293/5. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

extend the comment period to give the 

public and agencies enough time to review 

the document.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and formal 

requests for extension, the DEIS comment period was 

extended by 14 days. 

1-39 47

136/1. 432/1. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

extend the comment period because the 

size of the project warrants a longer 

comment period.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and formal 

requests for extension, the DEIS comment period was 

extended by 14 days. 

1-39 48

238/1. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

extend the comment period because the 

original timeframe was too short, winter 

weather has precluded field checking of 

the document, the BHNF websites was 

down, and there were delays in receiving 

the complete DEIS.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and formal 

requests for extension, the DEIS comment period was 

extended by 14 days. 

1-39 49

580/1. 581/1. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-40 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

extend the comment period to 90 days to 

comply with 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Section 219.8.

The regulation at 36 CFR 219 implements the provisions of 

the National Forest Management Act with respect to forest 

planning. The commenter was unclear as to which version 

of the regulation they cite, but the direction cited does 

appear in the version of 2000 as amended and clarified. 

Specifically, Section 219.8(b) states in part: "A proposed 

amendment that may create a significant environmental effect and thus 

require preparation of an environmental impact statement is considered 

to be a significant change in the plan. If a proposal for amendment 

requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the 

responsible official must give public notice and an opportunity to 

comment on the draft environmental impact statement for at least 90 

calendar days." This version of the regulation is currently in 

effect. However, we point out that the Travel Management 

Plan was not proposed solely to amend the Forest Plan, but 

1-40 50
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

225

rather to comply with direction in the 2005 Travel Rule. 

The proposal is to designate routes and areas for motorized 

travel. Thus this is a project decision, not a forest planning 

decision, and the portion of the regulation cited in the 

comment does not apply. Due to technical problems with 

the FS web site and formal requests for extension, the 

DEIS comment period was extended by 14 days. 

580/2. 581/2. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-41 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

accept all comments sent on the final day 

of the comment period rather than only 

accepting those received by that day.

Responses postmarked on or before the comment period 

closure date were considered timely submissions and 

accepted.

1-41 51

580/3. 581/3. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-41 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

accept all comments sent on the final day 

of the comment period to comply with 36 

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

Responses postmarked on or before the comment period 

closure date were considered timely submissions and 

accepted.

1-41 52

048/1. DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that public comment can be 

received as advertised because the email 

address and fax number did not work on 

March 11.

The Forest Service regrets that the commenter experienced 

problems in transmitting their comments. It is the 

commenter's responsibility to ensure timely receipt of their 

comments. Due to technical problems with the FS web 

site and formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

1-42 53

578/13. Scoping Process. 1-43 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that the nature of the scoping process may 

have confused the public thereby skewing 

the resulting comments.

The Forest acknowledges the complexity of the travel 

management planning process. Travel analysis is a 

necessary step in the Route Designation Process as outlined 

in the Travel Management Rule. The travel analysis 

conducted in 2007 was a broad-scale analysis that resulted 

in a travel management proposal, to be evaluated through 

the NEPA process. This proposal was then formally carried 

into the NEPA process through scoping. The Notice of 

Intent and scoping letters speak for themselves. 

1-43 54

578/11. Scoping Process. 1-44 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify what role 

the pre-scoping activities played in the 

planning process and explain what parts of 

The Forest Service understood the travel planning process 

would be complex and would be of interest to many 

parties, so the agency worked closely with the National 

Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) to better understand the 

1-44 55
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

226

that process will be included in the 

administrative record.

issues and some possible approaches before entering the 

NEPA process. The Forest Service believes this work was 

valuable in focusing the NEPA analysis, and it is 

documented in the administrative record. 

578/17. Scoping Process. 1-45 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should explain how 

public comment received during scoping 

was used in alternative development.

The Forest Service developed the proposed action (PA) 

based on NFAB recommendations and agency data and 

knowledge. The PA was modified to correct data errors 

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

PA became Alternative B, which is explained in the EIS in 

Chapter 2, along with Alternatives C, D and E. The 

analysis of scoping comments and development of issues is 

explained in the DEIS in Appendix D, and in Chapter 1. 

This information is carried over to the FEIS. 

1-45 56

578/14. Scoping Process. 1-46 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should explain how the 

modified proposed action alternative was 

influenced by scoping comments.

Administrative corrections were made due to database 

errors discovered by the Forest Service during the 

development of alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

Mapping errors were also brought to our attention by 

comments received during the scoping period.

1-46 57

126/126. Public Outreach. 1-47 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should revise its 

approach to public outreach to ensure that 

motorized users are more fairly included.

The Forest Service solicited comments from the public in 

several ways and forums including open houses, meetings 

and mailings. All of these are legitimate means of soliciting 

public comment. Over 700 responses were received at 

scoping including over 400 Black Hills OHV forms; and 

over 1200 responses were received on the DEIS. All 

comments were considered in the analysis. See FEIS 

Appendixes D and I for more information. 

1-47 58

141/2. Public Outreach. 1-48 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve 

outreach to non-motorized users because 

the plan was marketed as a motorized plan 

but will impact all users.

A significant number of comments were received at 

scoping and at the DEIS stage expressing concerns for 

both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunity. 

All of these comments were considered in the analysis. 

Please see response to Public Concern 1-47. 

1-48 59

126/95. 126/221. Public Outreach. 1-49 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve 

outreach to motorized users because many 

no longer trust the process.

Please see response to Public Concerns 1-47 and 1-48. 1-49 60

322/11. Public Outreach. 1-49 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve 

outreach to motorized users to reduce the 

appearance of bias.

Please see response to Public Concerns 1-47 and 1-48. 1-49 61
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

227

593/14. 606/14. Public Outreach. 1-50 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should get OHV user 

buy-in to the program to reduce violations 

and problems.

We agree that compliance with any travel management plan 

will be greater with wider user acceptance. The Forest 

Service has sought to consult with a range of Forest users 

through various means including open houses, meetings 

and mailings. Comments from a range of users were 

considered in developing the range of alternatives 

considered in the EIS, and these will also be considered in 

the decision. 

1-50 62

126/225. 126/226. Public Outreach. 1-51 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid using 

meeting facilitators who use manipulative 

techniques as part of the public 

participation process to preserve trust in 

the process.

The aim of the open houses and meetings held by the 

Forest Service for this effort was not to achieve consensus, 

but rather to identify a variety of concerns, and to tap the 

knowledge of users about routes and preferences. The 

information gained from all parties at these events was 

considered in the analysis and will be considered in the 

decision. 

1-51 63

038/1. Public Outreach. 1-52 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should coordinate 

directly with affected landowners.

This comment pertains to an individual situation, and a 

request for a meeting with Forest leadership. The Forest 

Supervisor responded directly to this party. No further 

response is required here. 

1-52 64

247/12. Public Outreach. 1-53 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve 

communication with communities, 

counties, and affected businesses because 

the trail system will have a significant 

impact on them.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. Copies 

of the DEIS were mailed to county commissioners for 

Crook, Weston and Campbell Counties in Wyoming; and 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River 

Counties in South Dakota, as well as numerous 

municipalities in the area. As the comment period ended, 

the Forest Supervisor contacted these counties and 

municipalities by letter of May 7, 2009, to request 

information on their plans to allow access from the Forest 

into their jurisdictions. An additional 30 days were allowed 

for response to these comments. All comments from these 

entities, businesses and the public at large were considered 

in the analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

1-53 65

578/44. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-54 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consult with Native 

American tribes to ensure treaty rights and 

economic justice issues are addressed.

The National Historic Preservation Act, especially Section 

106; and, the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR 

800, direct the Forest Service to consult with State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Indian tribes, and the 

public prior to implementing any undertaking which could 

1-54 66
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

228

affect historic properties. In addition, Federal agencies 

must provide Indian tribes the opportunity to comment on 

undertakings that could affect historic properties including 

those of traditional religious and cultural importance. 

During the analysis for this project the Black Hills NF has 

formally consulted with SHPOs from the States of South 

Dakota and Wyoming. Representatives from Indian tribal 

groups with historic interests in the Black Hills, and several 

other Indian tribal entities were contacted and invited to 

comment on the project, and meetings were held to 

facilitate that involvement. More information on the 

Government-to-Government consultation that took place 

can be found in the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 

3 of the FEIS. Concerns with respect to treaties with 

Indian tribes are of a larger scale that is beyond the scope 

of this document. The effects of this project have been 

evaluated and no effects were identified that might 

disproportionately affect low-income or minority groups. 

See Chapter 3 of the FEIS for more information on this 

subject. 

461/28. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-55 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should coordinate with 

State and local officials and the NFAB as 

part of a mixed-use analysis.

The preamble to the Travel Management Rule states that 

designations by vehicle class will be made at the local level, 

and anticipated the need to mix highway-legal and nonhighway-legal traffic on some NFS roads. The preamble 

states that these designations "will be advised by 

engineering judgment or an engineering study, as 

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

analysis is a process subject to rules which include 

judgment of a licensed engineer. The Forest conducted 

and documented a motorized mixed-use analysis in 2009. 

The findings were signed by a licensed engineer as required. 

That document informs the analysis in the FEIS, and is 

located in the project file. 

1-55 67

545/11. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-56 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow reciprocity 

between Wyoming and South Dakota 

users through a memorandum of 

understanding.

The Forest Service is reviewing a number of options for 

implementation once the decision is issued, including 

cooperation to the extent possible and where mutually 

beneficial. 

1-56 68
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

229

128/4. 546/10. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should work with the 

Wyoming State Trails Program to maintain 

trails in the Wyoming portion of the 

national forest.

We acknowledge the offer of assistance from the Wyoming 

State Trails Program, and look forward to cooperating with 

the State of Wyoming in implementing the travel 

management decision. 

1-57 69

346/6. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-58 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consult with the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

because hunters are the largest single user 

group in the Wyoming portion of the 

forest.

It is true that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

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

recommendations were drafted. The State game and fish 

position was then held by a representative from the South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. The NFAB 

recommendations were broad statements intended to guide 

the development of a travel management plan on the 

Forest. Forest personnel subsequently met with WGF and 

solicited and considered comments from WGF at scoping 

and at the Draft EIS stages, to understand the 

Department's views. We believe these have been 

incorporated into the range of alternatives. 

1-58 70

105/14. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-59 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should work with the South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

Department to develop a trail system to 

allow for motorized trail systems that 

connect to adjacent State lands.

The Forest has collaborated with the South Dakota 

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

development of this proposal and through comments 

provided at the scoping and Draft EIS stages. The Forest 

Service is willing to cooperate with the State on access 

proposals where mutual objectives can be achieved. 

1-59 71

241/2. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-60 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include Meade 

County as a coordinating partner in the 

planning process to comply with NEPA.

The Forest believes that coordination with local 

governments is critical to the success of the Forest‟s travel 

management planning process. To that extent, on July 14, 

2004, the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board held 

the first formal public meeting on Travel Management. 

Since that beginning, the Forest and the Advisory Board 

have conducted numerous meetings with local 

governments, community organizations and the public. 

Both Forest Supervisor Craig Bobzien and Northern Hills 

District Ranger Rhonda O'Byrne have met with Meade 

County. The County also was given an opportunity to 

comment at scoping for the Proposed Action. The County 

was sent a copy of the DEIS and asked to comment. In a 

formal letter dated May 7, 2009, Craig Bobzien also gave 

1-60 72
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

230

the County an additional 30 days to comment after the 

DEIS comment period closed.

289/1. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-61 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should coordinate with Fall 

River County to comply with federal 

regulations.

The Forest believes that coordination with local 

governments is critical to the success of the Forest‟s travel 

management planning process. On May 5, 2009, Hell 

Canyon District Ranger Lynn Kolund and Forest Travel 

Management Planner Tom Willems met with the Fall River 

County Commissioners to provide information on the 

Travel Management Plan DEIS and discuss the County‟s 

related concerns. A public meeting focusing on the Travel 

Management Plan DEIS was also scheduled for May 15, 

2009. The meeting was conducted from 6 – 8 p.m. at the 

Senior Center in the Fall River County community of 

Edgemont.

1-61 73

472/1. 562/13. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-62 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that the 

counties review all changes to forest road 

access with the county borders to be 

consistent with past management and 

federal law.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing NFS lands managed by the Black Hills 

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

were mailed to county commissioners for the counties of 

Crook, Weston and Campbell counties in Wyoming; and 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River 

counties in South Dakota. As the comment period came to 

a close the Forest Supervisor contacted counties, cities and 

towns in the Black Hills to request information on their 

plans to allow access from the Forest into their 

jurisdictions. The Forest Supervisor allowed another 30 

days for these comments. The Forest Service will respond 

to comments received from these entities, and they will be 

considered in the Record of Decision. 

1-62 74

477/6. 614/6. Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-63 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider the 1998 

Crook County Land Use Plan and the land 

use plans for other counties in the travel 

management plan.

The Forest Service consulted with Crook County prior to 

issuing the Draft EIS, and provided a copy of that 

document to the County to solicit comments on the travel 

management plan project. The Forest Service continues to 

be willing to involve Crook County in the planning process 

and during implementation. 

1-63 75

461/1. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-64 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should plan for a managed system and 

work with all groups to comply with 

The purpose and need for this project as stated in the 

DEIS, Chapter 1, includes the elements of identifying an 

official travel system, developing a transportation system to 

meet increasing demand and provide a range of quality 

experiences for a range of users, reduce adverse impacts 

1-64 76
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

231

Forest Service directives, the Travel 

Management Rule, and the policies behind 

the Rule.

caused by unmanaged motorized use, and to align the 

opportunities offered with the management capability of 

the Forest. The alternatives offer a range of motorized 

recreation opportunity including varying mileages of roads 

and trails and limited cross-country use. The Forest has 

made many efforts to involve the public in developing the 

proposal and in the NEPA process. These efforts are 

described in Chapter 1 of the FEIS in the Public 

Involvement section. 

461/16. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-65 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should continue to work with the NFAB.

The Forest Service fully intends to continue to work with 

the NFAB and a variety of other entities in various ways as 

we complete and implement the travel management plan. 

1-65 77

230/13. 230/16. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-66 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should coordinate with local communities 

to facilitate development of funding 

sources.

The Forest Service has reached out to local communities in 

developing the travel management plan. The agency 

solicited input from communities in developing the 

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

Forest Supervisor contacted communities at the end of the 

DEIS comment period and provided an additional 30 days 

for input on community desires to connect to the travel 

system. The Forest Service is willing to allow the system to 

connect to communities, but realizes that each community 

must appropriately determine suitable access points based 

on their individual situations. 

1-66 78

546/10. 548/7. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-67 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should work with logging groups to 

reroute OHV trails to eliminate potential 

conflicts.

The Forest Service realizes that there may be challenges to 

compatibility of uses in some areas, and supports a 

cooperative approach to addressing these challenges. We 

believe that the NEPA planning process for individual 

future projects can serve as a valuable forum to initiate this 

cooperation. 

1-67 79

548/12. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-68 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should work with the lodging and camping 

industry to enlist their help in plan 

implementation.

We acknowledge the comment, and we believe there will be 

room for much cooperation in implementing the travel 

management plan. The Forest Service will make copies of 

the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) available to the 

public and local businesses. 

1-68 80

196/5. 338/12. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-69 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The Forest Service looks forward to working with 

individuals and groups in partnerships of various kinds to 

operate and maintain both motorized and non-motorized 

1-69 81
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

232

should coordinate with motorized users 

because they are willing to volunteer time 

to help guide the activities.

recreation opportunities. 

182/5. 183/5. 609/23. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-70 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups in order to 

fund construction and maintenance of 

motorized trails.

The Forest Service acknowledges that partnerships of 

various kinds can be very useful in developing and 

maintaining a motorized recreational travel system. We 

appreciate the suggestion and offer of assistance. If an 

action alternative is selected we will explore and pursue 

partnerships as appropriate as we enter the implementation 

stage. 

1-70 82

215/10. 216/12. 217/10.

218/10. 219/10. 220/10.

222/10. 223/10. 224/10.

225/10. 225/14. 226/10.

227/10. 228/10. 229/10.

230/10. 231/10. 237/10.

239/10. 247/10. 260/10.

261/10. 262/10. 294/10.

295/10. 296/10. 297/10.

298/10. 300/10. 301/10.

302/10. 303/10. 311/10.

322/10. 337/10. 338/10.

351/10. 366/10. 378/10.

379/10. 380/10. 382/10.

384/10. 385/10. 386/10.

387/10. 388/10. 389/10.

391/10. 392/10. 393/10.

394/10. 395/10. 396/10.

397/10. 407/10. 408/10.

416/10. 417/10. 421/10.

425/10. 429/10. 430/10.

449/12. 450/10. 451/6. 460/15. 

483/10. 484/10. 485/10.

494/10. 495/10. 496/10.

497/10. 498/10. 499/10.

500/10. 501/10. 502/10.

503/10. 504/10. 505/10.

506/10. 507/10. 508/10.

509/10. 510/10. 511/10.

511/16. 512/2. 513/10. 514/10.

Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-70 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups to improve 

the trail system and ensure that 

unauthorized trails are kept in the 

inventory.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding could 

limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means to implement any 

motorized travel system. Inventoried unauthorized routes 

are being evaluated in this analysis. 

1-70 83
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

233

515/10. 521/10. 530/10.

531/10. 532/10. 533/10.

538/10. 561/10. 562/10.

577/10. 593/10. 594/6. 602/6. 

603/10. 604/10. 605/10.

606/10. 607/7. 609/10. 

094/4. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-70 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups to help 

reduce budgetary shortfalls.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding could 

limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means in the implementation 

of any motorized travel system. 

1-70 84

126/42. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-70 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups to help with 

grant applications.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding could 

limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means in the implementation 

of any motorized travel system. 

1-70 85

393/16. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-71 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should work with motorized off-road

clubs to continuously improve the trail 

system and keep unauthorized trails in the 

inventory.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding could 

limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means to implement any 

motorized travel system. Inventoried unauthorized routes 

are being evaluated in this analysis. 

1-71 86

351/18. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-72 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should work with local clubs on trail 

system design.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with local 

clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise and 

interest as appropriate in implementing any motorized 

travel system. 

1-72 87

292/3. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-73 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should partner with volunteers to identify 

problem areas where enforcement or 

closure is needed.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with local 

clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise and 

interest as appropriate in implementing any motorized 

travel system. 

1-73 88

461/31. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-74 

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with local 

clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise and 

1-74 89
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

234

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should initiate a Trail Ranger Volunteer 

Program as a public-private partnership to 

manage the BHNF.

interest as appropriate in implementing any motorized 

travel system. A trail ranger program is one option that 

could be considered. 

465/23. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-75 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should collaborate with the Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and the South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation in support of quiet 

recreation.

The Forest Service values its existing partnerships and is 

willing to consider other cooperative ventures as 

appropriate in implementing and improving programs. 

1-75 90

279/5. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-76 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should inform the public of volunteer 

opportunities.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with local 

clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise and 

interest as appropriate in implementing any motorized 

travel system. 

1-76 91

126/71. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-77 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should retain private law firms to ensure 

sufficient staff to defend multiple use land 

management decisions.

A primary objective of agency public involvement efforts is 

to raise and consider a variety of public concerns about 

management of NFS lands. It is hoped that stakeholders in 

public land management can promote their interests while 

understanding those of other stakeholders. 

1-77 92

428/3. 433/3. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-78 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should partner with mountain biking 

groups to decrease maintenance expenses.

The Forest Service values its existing partnerships and is 

willing to consider other cooperative ventures as 

appropriate in implementing and improving programs. 

1-78 93

434/2. 463/4. 502/16. 507/16. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-78 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should partner with mountain biking 

groups to create improved access.

The Forest Service values its existing partnerships and is 

willing to consider other cooperative ventures as 

appropriate in implementing and improving programs. 

1-78 94

126/197. Coordination with Organizations, 

Communities & Other Groups. 1-79 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should coordinate with AmeriCorps and 

Job Corps to do trail and environmental 

mitigation work.

This is a good suggestion, and could be considered 

consistent with the missions and capabilities of those 

entities. 

1-79 95

357/12. Final Decision-Making Process. 1-80 The commenters request that interim orders be imposed to 1-80 96
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

235

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should issue an interim order closing 

cross-country use and limiting motorized 

travel to allow for sufficient time to 

engage in a thorough planning process.

protect forest resources until the Travel Plan decision is 

issued. The Forest has issued special closure orders in the 

past to protect resources where serious harm was imminent 

to specific areas. The Forest Service may continue to issue 

such orders if and when specific circumstances arise but we 

believe the broad orders requested in these comments are 

not called for at this time, pending the Travel Plan decision. 

Of course, routes and areas could also be closed for 

resource protection purposes if necessary after the decision 

to select an action alternative on this project. 

456/143. Final Decision-Making Process. 1-80 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should issue an interim order closing 

cross-country use and limiting motorized 

travel to ensure a sustainable plan while 

protecting the forest and its wildlife.

The commenters request that interim orders be imposed to 

protect forest resources until the Travel Plan decision is 

issued. The Forest has issued special closure orders in the 

past to protect resources where serious harm was imminent 

to specific areas. The Forest Service may continue to issue 

such orders if and when specific circumstances arise but we 

believe the broad orders requested in these comments are 

not called for at this time, pending the Travel Plan decision. 

Of course, routes and areas could also be closed for 

resource protection purposes if necessary after the decision 

to select an action alternative on this project. 

1-80 97

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

456/115. 458/91. 462/26.

Final Decision-Making Process. 1-81 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that if a new preferred 

alternative is identified that the impacts of 

that alternative are fully analyzed to 

comply with NEPA.

The regulations implementing the NEPA law require that a 

preferred alternative be identified in the DEIS if one exists 

(40 CFR 1502.14). The Forest Supervisor did not identify a 

preferred alternative in the DEIS for this project because 

none was preferred. We recognize that a selected action 

combining elements of two or more alternatives could 

generate a synthesis of effects different from any one of the 

component alternatives. The effects of the selected action 

will be analyzed and disclosed as required by law. 

1-81 98

461/11. Final Decision-Making Process. 1-82 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

is available for public comment at least 30 

days before the Record of Decision.

We recognize the option of publishing the FEIS for 30-day 

comment prior to decision. This is not required since the 

Forest Service has an appeal process applicable to this 

decision, but we will provide the extra opportunity if we 

believe it is warranted. 

1-82 99

247/11. Plan Development & Revision. 1-83 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should delay development of the travel 

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

the FEIS (Travel Management Rule and Purpose and Need 

sections), the Rule requires the designation of any roads, 

1-83 100
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

236

management plan. trails and areas that are to be open to motor vehicle use on 

the Forest. Agency policy directs Forests to complete the 

required analysis and issue Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

(MVUMs) by the end of Fiscal Year 2010. Unmanaged 

recreation including motorized recreation was identified by 

the agency as one of four threats to the health of the 

nation's forests and grasslands. Resource damage from 

such use has been identified on the Black Hills National 

Forest. Levels of motorized recreation use are increasing 

yearly. It is timely to propose this action now. The Forest 

will issue the required MVUM after the decision is issued 

on this project. 

161/1. Plan Development & Revision. 1-84 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should develop separate plans for the 

Wyoming and South Dakota portions of 

the forest because the use patterns in the 

two states differ significantly.

The Forest recognizes that some differences exist between 

uses and conditions in those portions of the Forest lying in 

South Dakota and Wyoming. This has also been pointed 

out by other commenters including the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department. Recreational use patterns, objectives 

related to game management and hunting experience, and 

State policies on licensing and use of OHV's on roads 

differ between the States. The DEIS recognized these 

differences. See for example Chapter 2, Table 6, 

Consistency with State Traffic Law; and, Chapter 3, 

Recreation section, Applicable Laws (discussing variation in 

State laws for motorized activities, dispersed camping and 

hunting.) The decision on this project will effectively 

consider the relevant differences between the States. 

1-84 101

461/19. Plan Development & Revision. 1-85 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow for modifications of the 

Forest Plan as a result of site-specific 

planning during plan development.

Each action alternative would amend the Forest Plan to 

update figures such as road and trail mileages, and to 

conform to the Travel Management Rule. Any decision to 

select an action alternative would include a Plan 

amendment as appropriate. 

1-85 102

183/4. 475/14. Plan Development & Revision. 1-86 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify how future changes and 

amendments to the plan will be 

implemented to ensure the process is 

expeditious.

The Forest recognizes that some unforeseen consequences 

or circumstances may arise during implementation. We 

intend to monitor implementation including for user safety, 

route conditions and effects to natural resources. Our 

intent is that this system be dynamic. Changes can and will 

be made through individual project decisions focused on 

recreation use or more broadly on natural resource 

conditions. 

1-86 103
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

237

420/4. Plan Development & Revision. 1-87 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should revisit the proposed restrictions 

after a trial period at which time changes 

could be made.

Our intent is that the travel system be dynamic. We intend 

to monitor implementation including for user safety, route 

conditions and effects to natural resources. Changes can 

and will be made through subsequent project decisions. 

1-87 104

126/115. Plan Development & Revision. 1-88 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should use the Idaho Trail Ranger 

Program as a model to ensure that 

sufficient motorized access is provided.

The purpose and need as stated in the EIS includes 

developing a transportation system to meet the increasing 

demand for recreational travel opportunities and to provide 

a range of quality experiences for a wide variety of Forest 

users. The alternatives show a range of possible systems 

that could meet this objective. After a decision is made we 

will explore ways to efficiently implement the chosen 

system. We believe cooperation and partnerships will be 

important in accomplishing this. 

1-88 105

009/3. 126/140. Plan Development & Revision. 1-89 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should look to other National Forests for 

examples of good OHV trail systems.

The commenter cited several trail systems in Idaho, 

Oregon and Utah as good examples but did not identify the 

characteristics of these that they felt should be adopted. 

We appreciate the references and seek to develop a system 

appropriate to this area that can offer a variety of quality 

user experiences within the Forest's management capability. 

1-89 106

212/3. Plan Development & Revision. 1-90 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid comparisons to other 

National Forests.

The decision on motorized travel management on the 

Black Hills NF will consider local circumstances, issues and 

resource information, as shown in the Final EIS. 

1-90 107

358/2. Plan Development & Revision. 1-91 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should review the Telegraph Project DEIS 

because it conflicts with the nonmotorized status of the Swede/Tillson 

area.

The comment expresses concern that the Telegraph Project 

decision on the Northern Hills Ranger District could affect 

the non-motorized character of the Swede Gulch/Tillson 

area, even if an alternative with more non-motorized areas 

is selected in the Travel Management Plan decision. The 

comment refers to the Telegraph Project DEIS. A decision 

has since been issued on the Telegraph Project. Among 

other issues that decision carefully considered the effects of 

road construction on non-motorized recreation 

opportunities and scenery in Swede Gulch and other areas 

with a Management Area 4.1 prescription. The Telegraph 

Project decision approved road management in that project 

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

implemented motorized travel will be managed as approved 

in the Travel Management Plan decision. The effects of 

1-91 108
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

238

the Telegraph Project have been considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis for this project.

126/127. Plan Development & Revision. 1-92 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should engage in adequate site-specific 

planning to ensure adequate identification 

of trails and their consideration as 

designated routes.

The analysis and decision on this project will encompass 

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

site-specific project decision. The decision will be based on 

analysis of route and area information including that 

solicited from and provided by individuals and groups 

participating in the process. Ranger District personnel 

familiar with the routes collaborated with other agency 

resource specialists in conducting the analysis. We are 

confident that this site-specific decision is based on sitespecific analysis. 

1-92 109

126/249. Plan Development & Revision. 1-93 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should evaluate use patterns in highviolation areas to identify and address the 

unmet user needs.

The Forest Service has provided a number of opportunities 

for the public to identify routes of interest to them, and to 

explain why they believe these should be included in the 

motorized travel system. The FS hosted meetings with the 

public to develop the proposed action, and at the DEIS 

stage; and invited public comment at scoping and the 

DEIS. The public responded with lively interest and a 

tremendous amount of information, which will be 

considered in the decision. We believe we have provided 

the opportunities requested in this comment, and we do 

not see a need to undertake the initiative requested. 

1-93 110

126/171. Plan Development & Revision. 1-94 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should address the issue that nonmotorized groups engage in lawsuits more 

often than motorized groups to directly 

address the inequality and environmental 

justice issues this creates.

The Forest Service has no control over what avenues 

individuals or groups might use to challenge a decision. 

The purpose and need for this project as stated in Chapter 

1 of the EIS is to comply with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate a motorized travel system 

to meet increasing demand for recreational travel 

opportunities within the Forest's management capability, 

and to reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged crosscountry and route usage. Effects relative to environmental 

justice will be evaluated as required. 

1-94 111

126/211. 126/212. Plan Development & Revision. 1-95 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should monetarily compensate motorized 

users for the loss of recreation 

opportunities resulting from endangered 

species protection efforts to be consistent 

Motorized recreation use on Federal lands is not legally the 

same as a water right. And, there are no Federally-listed 

species on the Black Hills NF. This comment does not 

appear to apply to this project. 

1-95 112
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

239

with current case law.

419/9. Plan Development & Revision. 1-96 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide assurances that greater 

restrictions will not occur in the future.

The incremental effects of this project when added to other 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions have been 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis by resource. 

Future decisions regarding motorized travel management 

will be guided by circumstances and resource conditions 

existing at that time. It is difficult to speculate on what 

those might be. 

1-96 113

126/255. 126/256. Plan Development & Revision. 1-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that Executive Orders 

11644 and 11989 and their language 

regarding use conflicts don‟t overly 

influence the process to ensure equitable 

management of public lands for multiple 

uses.

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 speak for themselves. 

Together with other executive orders, laws, regulations and 

policy, they form the legal framework within which the 

decision on this project must fit. The effects of the 

alternatives on motorized and non-motorized forms of 

recreation have been evaluated, and are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

1-97 114

126/258. 126/259. Plan Development & Revision. 1-98 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should evaluate the impacts caused by 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 to 

motorized recreationists.

We agree with this comment insofar as all public lands 

visitors should respect each other and come with 

reasonable expectations. The effects of the alternatives on 

motorized and non-motorized recreation have been 

evaluated and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

1-98 115

126/88. 126/179. User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should conduct new user 

surveys because previous surveys used 

faulty methodologies.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often do 

not reflect the importance of motorized access to typical 

visitors. They believe that a high percentage of trail users 

are motorized users and that this percentage of public lands 

should be managed for multiple uses including motorized 

access and recreation. Forest Plan goals relevant to this 

project include Goal 1, which states in part to protect basic 

soil and water resources; and Goal 4, which states in part to 

provide a range of recreational opportunities. Elements of 

the purpose and need for this project include developing a 

transportation system to meet increasing demand and 

provide a range of quality user experiences; to reduce 

adverse impacts of unmanaged use; and, to align travel and 

recreation opportunities with the Forest's management 

capability. The Forest Service has solicited public 

involvement on this project on a number of occasions, and 

many groups and individuals have made their desires 

known. The decision on this project will consider all of 

1-99 116
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

240

this public involvement and will strive to meet broad 

management goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

126/96. User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should conduct new user 

surveys because motorized access is 

hidden and dispersed across categories 

resulting in inaccurate numbers.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often do 

not reflect the importance of motorized access to typical 

visitors. They believe that a high percentage of trail users 

are motorized users and that this percentage of public lands 

should be managed for multiple uses including motorized 

access and recreation. Forest Plan goals relevant to this 

project include Goal 1, which states in part to protect basic 

soil and water resources; and Goal 4, which states in part to 

provide a range of recreational opportunities. Elements of 

the purpose and need for this project include developing a 

transportation system to meet increasing demand and 

provide a range of quality user experiences; to reduce 

adverse impacts of unmanaged use; and, to align travel and 

recreation opportunities with the Forest's management 

capability. The Forest Service has solicited public 

involvement on this project on a number of occasions, and 

many groups and individuals have made their desires

known. The decision on this project will consider all of 

this public involvement and will strive to meet broad 

management goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

1-99 117

126/86. User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should conduct new user 

surveys to ensure more accurate data 

regarding multiple use.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often do 

not reflect the importance of motorized access to typical 

visitors. They believe that a high percentage of trail users 

are motorized users and that this percentage of public lands 

should be managed for multiple uses including motorized 

access and recreation. Forest Plan goals relevant to this 

project include Goal 1, which states in part to protect basic 

soil and water resources; and Goal 4, which states in part to 

provide a range of recreational opportunities. Elements of 

the purpose and need for this project include developing a 

transportation system to meet increasing demand and 

provide a range of quality user experiences; to reduce 

adverse impacts of unmanaged use; and, to align travel and 

recreation opportunities with the Forest's management 

capability. The Forest Service has solicited public 

involvement on this project on a number of occasions, and 

many groups and individuals have made their desires 

known. The decision on this project will consider all of 

1-99 118
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

241

this public involvement and will strive to meet broad 

management goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

126/85. User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should conduct new user 

surveys to ensure that motorized and 

mechanized users are accurately accounted 

for.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often do 

not reflect the importance of motorized access to typical 

visitors. They believe that a high percentage of trail users 

are motorized users and that this percentage of public lands 

should be managed for multiple uses including motorized 

access and recreation. Forest Plan goals relevant to this 

project include Goal 1, which states in part to protect basic 

soil and water resources; and Goal 4, which states in part to 

provide a range of recreational opportunities. Elements of 

the purpose and need for this project include developing a 

transportation system to meet increasing demand and 

provide a range of quality user experiences; to reduce 

adverse impacts of unmanaged use; and, to align travel and 

recreation opportunities with the Forest's management 

capability. The Forest Service has solicited public 

involvement on this project on a number of occasions, and 

many groups and individuals have made their desires 

known. The decision on this project will consider all of 

this public involvement and will strive to meet broad 

management goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

1-99 119

126/67. 126/68. 126/69. User Surveys. 1-100 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should recalculate the 

visitor use data to ensure that public lands 

are being managed for those who actually 

visit them.

The Forest Service agrees that motorized recreation 

including driving for pleasure and OHV use are popular 

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

one of the reasons that the 2005 Travel Rule was 

promulgated. To manage Federal lands by simply counting 

votes or types of users, as suggested by this comment, 

would ignore the values of the lands in question, Forest 

Plan guidance, and applicable laws, regulations and policy. 

The decision on this project will attempt to provide for the 

needs and desires of a variety of Forest users in a balanced 

way, within the management and resource capabilities of 

the Forest. 

1-100 120

126/94. User Surveys. 1-101 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

motorized use may be under reported 

because there are no self-reporting 

opportunities for those users.

There are inherent shortcomings in any means of sampling. 

Ultimately the decision on this project will not be based on 

a simple vote or tally, but will provide for a balance of uses 

in a sustainable manner. The Forest Service has used the 

data available, and has undertaken extensive public 

1-101 121
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

242

involvement for this project to try to better gauge the needs 

and desires of a variety of Forest users. 

586/1. User Surveys. 1-102 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include the full 

results of the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Survey as an appendix to the 

DEIS.

The results of the 2004 National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Survey can be found at the following Internet site: 

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

1-102 122

126/161. 126/162. Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-

103 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should comply with regulations governing 

environmental justice to ensure that 

motorized users are not unfairly 

discriminated against.

We do not believe that a diverse group such as the entire 

motorized recreation community was the focus of 

EO12898, whose title is, "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Lowincome Populations." We believe that interests of groups 

that recreate on Federal lands are best met through public 

participation in decisions such as this one. The Forest 

Service has provided a number of opportunities for public 

involvement in this analysis. Public concerns will be 

considered in the decision on this project. 

1-103 123

126/163. 126/164. Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-

104 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that the proposed action 

complies with the CEQ recommendations 

to address the issue of disproportionately 

significant impacts on motorized 

recreation.

EO12898 concerning environmental justice speaks for 

itself. The decision on this project will determine 

compliance with that and other relevant direction. This 

proposal is designed to respond to the requirements of the 

2005 Travel Rule, as explained in Chapter 1. The 

cumulative effects of this proposal on recreation 

opportunity are addressed in the recreation section in 

Chapter 3. 

1-104 124

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

126/147.

Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-

105 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should revisit the assumptions about 

ecology and sustainability that inform the 

development of the proposed alternative 

to comply with the intent of Congress, 

MUSYA, and NFMA.

The purpose and need as stated in the EIS includes 

developing a transportation system to meet the increasing 

demand for recreational travel opportunities and to provide 

a range of quality experiences for a wide variety of Forest 

users within the management capabilities of the Forest, as 

well as to reduce adverse impacts of unmanaged use and to 

conserve the condition of ecosystems and watersheds. The 

decision on this project will thus attempt to balance needs 

of resources and various users. The decision will be 

consistent with the Forest Plan, and comply with applicable 

law and regulation as intended by Congress and as 

interpreted by the courts. 

1-105 125

126/108. Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-

106 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The Forest Service has solicited input and participation by 

area counties throughout the development of the proposed 

1-106 126
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

243

should conduct sufficient research and 

consultation regarding potential Revised 

Statute (RS) 2477 routes to ensure 

compliance with the intent of RS 2477.

action and the analysis. Forest Service personnel have met 

with county officials and reviewed written input on a 

number of issues. The decision on this project will 

consider input from county involvement. 

254/2. Other Considerations. 1-107 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that private property is not 

negatively affected by the plan unlike 

other recent projects in the Forest.

Some citizens living adjacent to National Forest System 

lands find intrinsic value in the solitude and quiet, others in 

being able to quickly access the Forest. The Forest Service 

does not include heavy development as a part of this 

proposal, but reasonable access to NFS lands will be 

important to facilitate any transportation system which may 

be adopted. Measures have been incorporated into 

alternatives to identify increased likelihood of dust and 

noise near adjacent lands. The effects of the alternatives 

with respect to these elements are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. All 

comments on the project will be considered in the decision. 

1-107 127

126/155. Other Considerations. 1-108 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that NEPA should apply to 

the activities of well-funded environmental 

groups to support the intent of the law.

Thank you for your comment. The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 speaks for 

itself. 

1-108 128

099/1. Amendment to Alternative C. 1-109 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the amendment to 

Alternative C because the timing and 

presentation of the change gives the 

appearance of impropriety.

Due to an administrative error, a correction (erratum) was 

requested by the responsible District Ranger to remove a 

short section of road that was erroneously included in the 

DEIS alternatives and replaced it with the intended trail in 

the correct location. 

1-109 129

125/3. Amendment to Alternative C. 1-110 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify who reviewed the 

amendment and request a second opinion.

Due to an administrative error, a correction (erratum) was 

requested by the responsible District Ranger to remove a 

short section of road that was erroneously included in the 

DEIS alternatives and replaced it with the intended trail in 

the correct location. The intended trail location was 

reviewed by IDT resource specialists and determined to be 

within the scope of the effects analysis as described for 

Alternative C in the DEIS. 

1-110 130

461/3. General (Chapter 2: DEIS, Alternatives 

and Analysis). 2-1 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should be commended for 

their good work on the DEIS.

Thank you for your comment. 2-1 131
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

244

357/3. General. 2-2 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that it may 

not be possible to provide sufficient 

analysis because it is too difficult to 

analyze the entire Forest at the same time.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient Forest-wide analysis 

of the effects of designating roads, trails and areas for 

motorized use. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

2-2 132

126/56. General. 2-3 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement because an 

environmental assessment would not 

sufficiently address the significant impacts 

and cumulative effects on motorized 

users.

The Forest is preparing an EIS. The current document 

available for review and comment is the Draft EIS. The 

DEIS was posted in the Federal Register and on our Forest 

web page in March 2009.

2-3 133

095/1. Purpose & Need. 2-4 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not move 

forward with the travel management plan 

because it is not needed and is 

unconstitutional.

The Black Hills National Forest is not overstepping its 

authority by moving forward with the Travel Management 

Plan. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, Congress 

established the Forest Service to provide reasonable 

regulation of National Forests so that future generations 

can continue to enjoy them.

2-4 134

324/4. Purpose & Need. 2-5 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that the intent of the Travel Management 

Rule is not to reduce motorized access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

2-5 135

126/116. Purpose & Need. 2-6 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include an 

initial assessment of the need for 

motorized access before drafting 

alternatives that restrict access to avoid the 

appearance of bias.

The effects analysis of travel planning on recreational 

opportunities is addressed in the Recreation and the SocioEconomic sections of Chapter 3 in the DEIS.

2-6 136
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

245

587/1. Purpose & Need. 2-7 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reevaluate the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Scenery Management System to meet the 

stated purpose and need.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Integrity 

Objectives have been completed for the Black Hills 

National Forest Management Plan and was used in the 

development of the DEIS for the Travel Management Plan. 

Reanalyzing the ROS and SIO is beyond the scope of this 

project and does not address the purpose and need stated 

in the DEIS.

2-7 137

536/3. Purpose & Need. 2-8 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that reducing access does not meet the 

purpose and need to meet increased 

demand for recreational travel 

opportunities.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

2-8 138

456/10. 458/17. Purpose & Need. 2-9 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify that 

while designating motorized routes may be 

part of the process it is not part of the 

purpose and need for this action because 

this confusion resulted in the elimination 

of proposed walk-in-only areas from the 

plan.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

2-9 139

277/6. Range of Alternatives. 2-10 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should only 

include alternatives that are generated by 

the local public.

The range of alternatives was developed based on public 

scoping and the results of the forest-wide effects analysis 

for the DEIS.

2-10 140

126/121. 459/15. 611/15. Range of Alternatives. 2-11 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop a true No Action Alternative to 

comply with NEPA and other regulations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

2-11 141
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

246

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

459/16. 611/16. Range of Alternatives. 2-11 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop a true No Action Alternative to 

accurately describe the current condition 

relative to motorized access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

2-11 142

126/38. 126/65. Range of Alternatives. 2-12 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop an alternative other than the no 

action alternative that allows for the 

existing level of access to balance the 

needs of the motorized users and the 

environment.

An alternative allowing for the existing level of access does 

not meet the stated purpose and need.

2-12 143

292/1. Range of Alternatives. 2-13 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should seek 

out a compromise plan that protects the 

forest from destructive users while still 

allowing reasonable ATV access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

2-13 144
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

247

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

045/4. Range of Alternatives. 2-14 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide an alternative that does not close 

so many trails to ATV users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

2-14 145

126/64. Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include an alternative to increase 

motorized access to address the desires of 

most users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

2-15 146

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

611/12.

Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include an alternative to increase 

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

2-15 147
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

248

motorized access to avoid the perception 

of unfairness towards motorized users.

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

126/18. 126/120. Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include an alternative to increase 

motorized access to accommodate 

increasing motorized recreational use.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

2-15 148

126/17. Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include an alternative to increase 

motorized access to comply with NEPA, 

the CEQ, and the Forest Service 

Handbook.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

2-15 149

126/1. 126/35. Range of Alternatives. 2-16 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop an alternative that mitigates for 

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

2-16 150
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

249

the cumulative loss of motorized 

recreational access to comply with NEPA 

and CEQ guidance.

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

126/7. Range of Alternatives. 2-17 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reinstate the pro-recreation alternative 

because the cost issues can be addressed 

through grants and appropriate use of the 

gas tax.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

system of roads 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.

2-17 151

126/8. Range of Alternatives. 2-18 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create 

a new alternative that allows trail sharing, 

single-track trail creation, ATV trail 

creation, and creation of 4x4 challenge 

routes.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized 

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

2-18 152
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

250

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

to ATVs as well as other types of OHVs.

280/2. Range of Alternatives. 2-19 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include an alternative that closes trails to 

motorized travel.

Alternative E only includes 36 miles of existing trails 

currently open to motorized travel, while closing 864,000 

acres of the Forest currently open to cross-country 

motorized travel. 

2-19 153

346/1. Range of Alternatives. 2-20 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop an alternative that identifies areas 

of high, medium, or low road densities to 

simplify regulation development while 

improving protection for forest and 

wildlife resources.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. All the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing a selected alternative. The project 

is very complex, and the decision-maker may adopt points 

from different alternatives. The selected alternative will be 

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

2-20 154

126/2. 126/92. 126/93. Range of Alternatives. 2-21 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

an alternative that manages the Forest for 

multiple use and equal recreational 

opportunities for both motorized and 

non-motorized users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

2-21 155

479/1. Range of Alternatives. 2-22 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

combine Alternatives B and D.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. All the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing a selected alternative. The 

selected alternative will be based on public comments and 

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

2-22 156

326/1. Range of Alternatives. 2-23 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include elements of Alternatives B, C, and 

D in the final decision.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. All the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing a selected alternative. The 

selected alternative will be based on public comments and 

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

2-23 157

010/3. 086/3. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because the 

information provided regarding affected 

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 

2-24 158
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

251

roads and trails is insufficient for making 

an informed decision.

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and 

other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

241/1. 447/9. 483/13. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because all the 

other alternatives are not acceptable.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-24 159

277/3. 435/1. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because it 

allows for multiple use.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-24 160

114/1. 203/1. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because access 

to and use of the National Forest should 

not be limited.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

2-24 161
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

252

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

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

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

565/5.

Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because it does 

not change existing access opportunities.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-24 162

144/1. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because the 

BHNF is rich in human history and 

should remain open to all users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-24 163

240/3. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because it 

provides access for persons with 

disabilities.

Special provisions aimed at providing people with 

disabilities motorized opportunities not available to all 

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

comments and responses on the 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule published on November 9, 2005 in the Federal 

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

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can 

be denied participation in a Federal program that is 

available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. In conformance with section 504, wheelchairs are 

welcome on all National Forest System lands that are open 

to foot travel and are specifically exempt from the 

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

2-24 164
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

253

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

requirement to allow people with disabilities to use OHVs 

or other motor vehicles on roads, trails, and areas closed to 

motor vehicle use because such an exemption could 

fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest Service‟s travel 

management program (7 CFR 12e.103). Reasonable 

restrictions on motor vehicle use, applied consistently to 

everyone, are not discriminatory”. This concept also applies 

to providing special provisions for aging populations that 

may have limited mobility.

286/4. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because it is the 

only alternative that allows for ATVs over 

50 inches wide.

Forest Service guidance allows for the designation of three 

standard types of motorized trails: those that are open to all 

vehicles (including ATVs greater than 50 inches wide), 

those open to vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches wide, 

and those open only to motorcycles. Action Alternatives B, 

C and D propose designating trails open to all vehicles.

2-24 165

211/3. 483/14. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because the 

maintenance costs would be lower than 

for Alternatives C or D.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country travel 

that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A designated 

and actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use is needed. It is true that the Forest is 

unlikely to have sufficient funding to maintain to standard 

all of the proposed routes in the action Alternatives C or D 

for the foreseeable future. As a result, the Forest will need 

to prioritize maintenance work and apply for 

additional/supplemental funding to increase the number of 

miles of road and trail maintenance routinely completed. 

Partnerships, grants and volunteer work could also play a 

significant role in maintaining the forests roads and trails.

2-24 166

483/16. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because the 

other Alternatives would result in 

increased taxation.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country travel 

that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A designated 

and actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

2-24 167
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

254

motor vehicle use is needed. It is true that the Forest is 

unlikely to have sufficient funding to maintain to standard 

all of the proposed routes in the action alternatives for the 

foreseeable future. As a result, the Forest will need to 

prioritize maintenance work and apply for 

additional/supplemental funding to increase the number of 

miles of road and trail maintenance routinely completed. 

Partnerships, grants and volunteer work could also play a 

significant role in maintaining the forests roads and trails.

253/1. Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A (No Action) because most 

of the problems could be solved with 

improved enforcement.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country travel 

that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A designated 

and actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use is needed. As stated in the DEIS, the 

enforcement of motorized-travel restrictions is an 

important part of the successful implementation of the 

Travel Management Rule. Enforcement of the new travel 

management rules will likely be more efficient and effective 

after implementation. A motor vehicle use map will be 

available. Route identification signs corresponding to 

which roads are designated for travel should be on the 

ground. Off-route motorized travel in non-designated 

areas will be prohibited. There are a large percentage of 

motorized users, including individuals, motorized and nonmotorized groups, landowners and businesses that are 

knowledgeable and concerned that the Forest is protected 

and that access to the Forest be preserved. The conscious 

efforts of this large group may aid significantly in informing 

the relatively small group that is either uninformed or 

unwilling to recreate in a manner that is legal and 

responsible.

2-24 168

158/1. 354/1. Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative A because it would 

cause resource damage and conflicts with 

non-motorized users.

We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle 

use have increased to the point that the purpose and need 

cannot be met while still allowing the unrestricted crosscountry travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No 

Action Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

2-25 169
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

255

proposed in the action alternatives, a designated and 

actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use is needed. 

159/2. Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative A because it would not 

allow for enforcement.

As stated in the DEIS, enforcement of motorized-travel 

restrictions is an important part of the successful 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Under 

the current situation reflected in Alternative A, law 

enforcement efforts have been limited by scarce resources, 

an uninformed public, and a complex matrix of closure 

orders. The Forest's inability to actively manage the 

existing transportation system and enforce current travel 

rules have likely contributed to increased road and area use 

violations, user conflicts, and resource damage. 

Enforcement of the new travel management rules will likely 

be more efficient and effective after implementation of a 

designated system of roads, trails and areas. A motor 

vehicle use map will be available. Route identification signs 

corresponding to which roads are designated for travel 

should be on the ground. Off-route motorized travel in 

non-designated areas will be prohibited.

2-25 170

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

399/1. 

Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative A because it would not 

improve the current situation.

We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle 

use have increased to the point that the purpose and need 

cannot be met while still allowing the unrestricted crosscountry travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No 

Action Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, and 

areas for motor vehicle use as reflected in the action 

alternatives is needed. 

2-25 171

471/3. Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative A to protect the forest 

from weed infestations and soil and water 

damage and to reduce user conflicts.

We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle 

use have increased to the point that the purpose and need 

cannot be met while still allowing the unrestricted crosscountry 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 

2-25 172
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

256

reflected in the action alternatives is needed. 

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

485/12.

Alternative Selection. 2-26 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative A or Alternative C.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country travel 

that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A designated 

and actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use as reflected in Alternative C and the 

other action alternatives is needed. 

2-26 173

359/4. Alternative Selection. 2-27 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative B, D, or E.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-27 174

213/1. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it is the Forest 

Service's preferred Alternative.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. The 

selected alternative will be developed based on public 

comments and the results of the forest-wide effects analysis 

for the DEIS.

2-28 175

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

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

608/5. 

Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select

Alternative B because it allows for a 

balance between motorized and nonmotorized recreation.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use as reflected in 

Alternative B. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, 

National Forests are managed not only for the purposes of 

preserving natural values, water quality, wildlife habitat, 

endangered species, biological diversity, but also for timber, 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation. These uses must 

be balanced, rather than one given preference over another. 

2-28 176

030/8. 040/1. 102/1. 608/5. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 2-28 177
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

257

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it is fair to both 

motorized recreationists and local 

residents.

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country travel 

that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

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

Hills National Forest to provide access for both motorized 

and non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. As stated 

in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests are 

managed by law for multiple use as reflected in Alternative 

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

preference over another. 

035/1. 096/1. 244/1. 372/9. 

536/2. 

Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it allows for a 

sufficient number of motorized trails.

Thank you for your comment. 2-28 178

026/1. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it has more ATV 

roads.

Thank you for your comment. 2-28 179

402/2. 431/4. 434/2. 434/4. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it provides a buffer 

from Rapid City to motorized areas.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country travel 

that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

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

Hills National Forest to provide access for both motorized 

and non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. As stated 

in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests are 

managed by law for multiple use as reflected in Alternative 

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

preference over another. 

2-28 180

042/2. 313/1. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it provides a 50-inch 

or smaller trail system in the Bearlodge 

District.

Thank you for your comment. 2-28 181

042/1. 155/1. 369/2. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it increases fourThank you for your comment. 2-28 182
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

258

wheel access while limiting cross-country 

access.

030/8. 042/3. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it allows both dry 

camping and access for big game hunting.

Thank you for your comment. 2-28 183

487/1. Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select

Alternative B because it provides for fire 

escape routes.

Thank you for your comment. 2-28 184

280/9. 376/2. Alternative Selection. 2-29 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative B because it includes too 

many trails and motorized-mixed routes 

and allows too much off-road travel for 

game retrieval and camping.

Thank you for your comment. A significant difference 

between the current situation (Alternative A) and 

Alternative B is that Alternative A allows largely 

unrestricted cross country motorized travel on 864,000 

acres that is prohibited in Alternative B. 

2-29 185

578/16. Alternative Selection. 2-30 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

explain how Alternative B (Modified 

Proposed Action) modifies the current 

official forest system routes because the 

differences appear minimal or nonexistent.

The transportation system reflected in Alternative B was 

largely based on the 2007 Travel Analysis Report and 

several years of public input. A significant difference 

between the current situation (Alternative A) and 

Alternative B is that Alternative A allows largely 

unrestricted cross country motorized travel on 864,000 

acres that is prohibited in Alternative B. 

2-30 186

317/1. Alternative Selection. 2-31 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that Alternative B would 

negatively impact wildlife and habitat.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient forest-wide analysis 

of the effects of designating roads, trails and areas for 

motorized use proposed in Alternative B. The results of 

this analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

2-31 187

280/10. Alternative Selection. 2-32 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that Alternative B would be 

costly to implement because of the 

increased number of trailheads.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient forest-wide analysis 

of the effects of designating roads, trails and areas for 

motorized use. The economic feasibility of implementing 

the action alternatives, including Alternative B, was 

analyzed in the DEIS. The results of this analysis can be 

found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS within the Engineering 

and Transportation section. 

2-32 188

033/1. 251/1. 292/4. 464/1. Alternative Selection. 2-33 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B or Alternative C because 

they support two-wheel motorized 

recreation. 

Thank you for your comment. 2-33 189
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

259

105/12. 188/1. 333/2. 399/2. Alternative Selection. 2-34 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternatives B or C because they 

prioritize motorized recreation over the 

multiple-use mandate.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. National 

Forests are not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre. 

It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including all 

identified non-system routes, in the range of alternatives. 

The analysis process included identifying natural and 

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and 

other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

2-34 190

017/2. 100/1. 354/3. Alternative Selection. 2-35 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B or Alternative D.

Thank you for your comment. 2-35 191

483/19. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because the other 

alternatives are all flawed.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it is the most 

balanced and allows for multiple use.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-36 193

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

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

Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

2-36 194
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

260

Alternative C because it provides a diverse 

and sustainable travel system while 

protecting natural resources.

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

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

196/1. 370/1. 

Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C to allow for a wide range of 

access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

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

2-36 195

055/1. 075/3. 093/1. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it is easier to restrict 

access later on than to re-open areas.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the action Alternatives B 

through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. It is 

entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify areas and 

routes suitable for public motorized use designation, 

including all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. 

2-36 196
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

261

006/1. 011/1. 081/1. 094/1. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

538/13. 609/11.

Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it allows for the 

most motorized travel.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 197

263/4. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it restricts crosscountry travel.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 198

033/5. 199/1. 200/1. 259/1. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it allows for 

motorized game retrieval.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 199

211/4. 435/3. 492/2. 526/2. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it allows motorized 

game retrieval and dispersed camping.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 200

491/7. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it would allow nonhighway legal vehicles on many of the 

roads.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 201

336/3. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C to reduce user conflicts.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 202

065/1. 336/6. 432/4. 534/14. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C to reduce the areas of 

concentrated use and allow greater access.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 203

336/4. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it allows for shared 

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 204
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

262

maintenance and economic benefits to 

local communities.

094/2. 263/5. 283/3. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it would benefit 

local economies.

Thank you for your comment. 2-36 205

075/2. 477/1. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it is the only 

alternative to address the growing demand 

for motorized recreation.

Alternative C does propose the largest transportation 

system. However, all the action alternatives propose 

opportunities for motorized recreation. They vary only in 

the amount and location of those opportunities. See Table 

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

recreational opportunities proposed for the range of 

alternatives.

2-36 206

110/1. 128/1. 161/2. Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C because it would provide the 

greatest amount of trails and motorized 

riding areas in the Wyoming portion of the 

Forest.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative C does propose 

the largest transportation system. However, all the action 

alternatives propose opportunities for motorized 

recreation. They vary only in the amount and location of 

those opportunities. See Table 7 on page 37 in Chapter 2 

for a comparison of the recreational opportunities 

proposed for the range of alternatives. The State of 

Wyoming has implemented an Off-road Recreational 

Vehicle (ORRV) Program. It is the intent of the Forest to 

enroll all roads and trails designated for motorized use in 

the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills in the Wyoming 

State ORRV program.

2-36 207

276/4. 280/11. 376/3. Alternative Selection. 2-37 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative C because it opens too 

much of the forest to motorized travel.

Alternative C does propose the largest transportation 

system. Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between 

motorized trail use and existing uses. 

2-37 208

473/6. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it is the most 

consistent with Executive Orders 11644 

and 11989.

The FS acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D as 

the environmentally preferable alternative, and as the most 

consistent with these two Executive Orders. Alternative D 

proposes the smallest motorized travel system. The 

Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 Motorized 

Travel Rule to be consistent with Executive Orders 11644 

2-38 209
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

263

and 11989, and to serve as the means to implement the 

policy direction contained in those Executive Orders. The 

2005 Motorized Travel Rule places more emphasis on 

considering the effects of motorized trails and areas, than 

of roads. Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

the action alternatives were developed with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between 

motorized trail use and existing uses. 

082/1. 187/1. 473/4. 473/5. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it is the 

environmentally preferable alternative.

The FS acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D as 

the environmentally preferable alternative, and as the most 

consistent with NFMA requirements. Consistent with the 

2005 Motorized Travel Rule, the action alternatives were 

developed with the objective of minimizing effects related 

to damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest 

resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife 

habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail use and 

existing uses. Alternative D does propose the smallest 

motorized travel system.

2-38 210

091/2. 122/3. 276/7. 320/9. 

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

Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would have a 

minimal impact on resources.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does propose 

the smallest motorized travel system, and presents less 

impacts to some natural resource components. The 

decision will seek to balance recreation opportunities with 

effects to natural resources and other elements. 

2-38 211

276/5. 414/79. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would best 

protect the natural and cultural resources.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does propose 

the smallest motorized travel system, and presents less 

impacts to some natural resource components. The 

decision will seek to balance recreation opportunities with 

effects to natural resources and other elements. 

2-38 212

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

456/145.

Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would best 

protect plant and animal communities.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does propose 

the smallest motorized travel system, and presents less 

impacts to some natural resource components. The 

decision will seek to balance recreation opportunities with 

effects to natural resources and other elements. 

2-38 213

165/1. 326/17. 471/4. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would have the 

least potential to spread noxious weeds 

The Forest Service acknowledges the support of the 

Pennington County Weed and Pest Board for Alternative 

D because they believe it would have the least potential to 

spread noxious weeds and pests. Alternative D does 

2-38 214
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

264

and pests. propose the smallest motorized travel system, and presents 

less impacts to some natural resource components. The 

decision will seek to balance recreation opportunities with 

effects to natural resources and other elements. 

118/1. 326/17. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would limit 

disturbance to livestock and wild game.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does propose 

the smallest motorized travel system, and could pose less 

disturbance to livestock and wild game. The effects of each 

of the alternatives on these and other elements are 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. The decision will seek to 

balance recreation opportunities with effects to natural 

resources and other elements. 

2-38 215

252/1. 399/5. 436/1. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would provide 

enough trails for motorized use while 

decreasing damage to trails.

Thank you for your comment. 2-38 216

015/1. 358/1. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D to reduce the damage 

caused by user-created motorized trails.

Thank you for your comment. All of the action 

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

improve the ability to enforce travel regulations. The 

effects of each of the alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. 

2-38 217

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

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

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

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

Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would reduce the 

number of miles open to motorized use.

Thank you for your comment. The alternatives were 

designed to present varied levels of recreation 

opportunities. The effects of the alternatives are disclosed 

in Chapter 3 of the EIS. The decision will seek to balance 

recreation uses, effects to natural and other resources, and 

other elements. 

2-38 218

017/1. 456/145. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would 

concentrate high-impact motorized uses.

Thank you for your comment. 2-38 219

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

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

474/28.

Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would reduce 

user conflicts.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between 

motorized trail use and existing uses. The effects of the 

2-38 220
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

265

alternatives on non-motorized recreation opportunities are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

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

588/1.

Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would allow for 

quiet recreation.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between 

motorized trail use and existing uses. The effects of the 

alternatives on non-motorized recreation opportunities are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

2-38 221

024/1. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would implement 

the quiet zone concept.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between

motorized trail use and existing uses. The effects of the 

alternatives on non-motorized recreation opportunities are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

2-38 222

456/12. 458/19. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would implement 

"walk-in-only" areas.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between 

motorized trail use and existing uses. The effects of the 

alternatives on non-motorized recreation opportunities are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

2-38 223

346/9. 471/4. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would best 

protect riparian areas.

Alternatives were developed to present differing levels of 

recreation opportunities, and with the objective of 

minimizing effects to soil, watershed, vegetation, other 

forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of 

wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail use 

and existing uses. All action alternatives would significantly 

reduce the number of perennial stream crossings and the 

mileage of routes within 30 feet of streams. Design criteria 

for stream crossings would reduce the associated effects. 

No motorized cross-country use would be allowed under 

2-38 224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

266

Alternatives D or E. Alternative D does propose the 

smallest motorized travel system. The effects of each 

alternative on riparian areas and other resources are 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS, in the Hydrology section. 

372/8. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it would protect 

riparian areas and spruce habitats and 

would reduce noise impacts.

Thank you for your comment. We agree that Alternative D 

would have the least number of stream crossings, the least 

mileage of routes near streams, and the fewest miles in 

spruce and riparian habitat. 

2-38 225

371/1. 372/6. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D to protect Management 

Area 3.1 - Botanical Areas.

The action alternatives were developed to offer differing 

levels of recreation opportunities, and with the objective of 

minimizing effects to soil, watershed, vegetation, other 

forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of 

wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail use 

and other existing uses, including non-motorized 

recreation. Design criteria are included to reduce the 

effects of implementing the action alternatives. Alternative 

D does propose the smallest motorized travel system. The 

effects of the alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the 

EIS. 

2-38 226

187/2. 276/7. 320/13. 345/1. 

473/5. 590/1.

Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it is the most 

sustainable and least destructive option.

Thank you for your comment. 2-38 227

320/13. 399/8. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it is the least 

expensive.

Cost data has been added to the FEIS, in the Engineering 

section in Chapter 3. The decision will consider many 

factors including cost. 

2-38 228

122/1. 529/2. 345/1. Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because it is the least 

expensive and easiest to enforce.

Cost data has been added to the FEIS, in the Engineering 

section in Chapter 3. The decision will consider many 

factors including cost. 

2-38 229

158/4. 336/7. Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative D because it is too 

restrictive.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-39 230
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

267

336/9. Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative D because it reduces 

economic benefits to local communities.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-39 231

459/7. 611/7. Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative D because it does not 

meet the need for increasing recreation 

travel opportunities.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-39 232

336/8. Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative D to avoid increasing 

illegal trail use and resulting damage and 

reduced safety.

Thank you for your comment. 2-39 233

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

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

Alternative Selection. 2-40 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternatives D or E because they 

close too many trails to motorized use.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-40 234

005/2. 005/3. 025/5. Alternative Selection. 2-40 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternatives D or E because they 

would limit game retrieval.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-40 235

137/1. 406/1. 427/1. Alternative Selection. 2-41 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D or E because prohibiting 

off-road ATV use is the only way to 

control ATV use. 

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-41 236

160/1. Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative E because it would require 

licensing, allow motorized recreation on 

Thank you for your comment. 2-42 237
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

268

currently designated routes, and avoid the 

need for legislative action.

150/1. 376/6. Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative E because it has the fewest 

roads and trails open to off-road vehicles.

Thank you for your comment. 2-42 238

280/3. Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative E because it allows more travel 

on existing roads while limiting motorized 

use of trails.

Thank you for your comment. 2-42 239

276/6. 280/5. Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative E because it would be the least 

expensive.

Thank you for your comment. 2-42 240

281/3. Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative E because it minimizes elk 

habitat fragmentation and stream 

sedimentation.

Thank you for your comment. 2-42 241

158/5. 459/6. 611/6. Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative E because it fails to meet 

recreational travel needs and does not 

comply with MUSYA and NFMA.

All the action alternatives, including Alternative E, propose 

opportunities for motorized recreation. They vary only in 

the amount and location of those opportunities. See Table 

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

recreational opportunities proposed for the range of 

alternatives.

2-43 242

399/10. Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative E because it does not 

include concentrated motorized use areas 

or allow for game retrieval.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-43 243

336/10. Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative E because it reduces 

access and benefits to the local economy.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

2-43 244

399/9. Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 2-43 245
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

269

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative E because it allows for 

too many roads.

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS.

286/1. 316/6. 354/6. Alternative Selection. 2-44 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select Alternative E or A because they 

don't address vehicle travel in the BHNF.

Alternative E is not the same as Alternative A. Although 

Alternative E proposes designating the existing 

transportation system as reflected in Alternative A, it would 

prohibit motorized cross-country use on 864,000 acres. 

2-44 246

376/6. Alternative Selection. 2-45 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that Alternative E is not 

implementable.

All the action alternatives are considered to be 

implementable.

2-45 247

478/2. Alternative Selection. 2-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select any of the proposed alternatives 

because they close off public lands.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. The Action Alternatives B through E 

each propose a designated and actively managed system of 

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. See the FEIS, 

Chapter 2, Table 7, for a comparison of the systems 

proposed in each alternative. Specifically, total miles of 

motorized trail would jump from the current 36 miles to 

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

320 miles in Alternative D. 

2-46 248

375/1. 611/5. Alternative Selection. 2-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

select any of the proposed alternatives 

because they all concentrate motorized 

users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

2-46 249
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

270

adversely affected. The Action Alternatives B through E 

each propose a designated and actively managed system of 

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. See the FEIS, 

Chapter 2, Table 7, for a comparison of the systems 

proposed in each alternative. Specifically, total miles of 

motorized trail would jump from the current 36 miles to 

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

320 miles in Alternative D. 

611/9. Alternative Selection. 2-47 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that all the alternatives will 

reduce adverse impacts to ecosystems and 

watersheds.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, 

disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between 

motorized trail use and existing uses. 

2-47 250

459/4. 611/4. Alternative Selection. 2-48 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that all the alternatives will 

identify an official travel system and 

update the Forest travel map.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All the 

alternatives, including the no action and modified proposed 

action, are designed to provide a range of options from 

which the responsible official can make an informed 

choice. The alternatives, which were developed by an 

interdisciplinary team of specialists, differ by the relative 

emphasis given to individual issues and public concerns. 

The selected alternative will identify the official 

transportation system that, when routes and areas are 

available for designation, will be displayed on Motor 

Vehicle Use Maps.

2-48 251

459/10. 611/10. Alternative Selection. 2-49 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that all the alternatives will 

specify which routes are open to 

motorized access.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All the 

alternatives, including the no action and modified proposed 

action, are designed to provide a range of options from 

which the responsible official can make an informed 

choice. The alternatives, which were developed by an 

interdisciplinary team of specialists, differ by the relative 

emphasis given to individual issues and public concerns. 

2-49 252
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

271

The selected alternative will identify the official 

transportation system that, when routes and areas are 

available for designation, will be displayed on Motor 

Vehicle Use Maps.

459/5. Alternative Selection. 2-50 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that none of the alternatives 

will meet the increasing demand for 

recreational travel opportunities because 

they all reduce OHV opportunities.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. As proposed in the Action Alternatives 

B through E, a designated and actively managed system of 

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. All 

the action alternatives propose opportunities for OHV 

motorized recreation. They vary only in the amount and 

location of those opportunities.

2-50 253

475/9. Alternative Selection. 2-51 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the alternatives do not 

meet the stated objectives of the Travel 

Management Plan.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. Your concerns 

are acknowledged and they will be considered in developing 

the selected alternative.

2-51 254

197/1. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-52 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative A to restrict 

access to roads and trails shown on the 

current forest trails map.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-52 255

491/1. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-52 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative A to include 

greater enforcement.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-52 256

475/1. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-53 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

2-53 257
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

272

should create a preferred alternative using 

Alternative B as the baseline because it 

most closely resembles the alternative 

developed by the BHNG Advisory Board 

Travel Management Subcommittee.

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

276/3. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-54 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that Alternative B includes a 

motor vehicle use map.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The range of alternatives was 

developed to meet the stated purpose and need and address 

the identified significant issues. The selected alternative will 

be developed based on public comments and the results of 

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

the action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-54 258

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

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

Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-55 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include the trails from Alternative 

B in Alternative C.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-55 259

459/8. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative C to enhance 

recreational trail opportunity.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-56 260

459/9. 545/5. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 

Public Concern: The Forest Service

should modify Alternative C to include as 

many of the existing trails as possible.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-56 261

432/4. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative C to ensure that 

the disabled are allowed access to the 

backcountry.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative. Special provisions aimed at providing 

people with disabilities motorized opportunities not 

available to all forest users have not been included in the 

2-56 262
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

273

DEIS. In the comments and responses on the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule published on November 9, 2005 in 

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

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a 

disability can be denied participation in a Federal program 

that is available to all other people solely because of his or 

her disability. In conformance with section 504, 

wheelchairs are welcome on all National Forest System 

lands that are open to foot travel and are specifically 

exempt from the definition of motor vehicle in § 212.1 of 

the final rule, even if they are battery-powered. However, 

there is no legal requirement to allow people with 

disabilities to use OHVs or other motor vehicles on roads, 

trails, and areas closed to motor vehicle use because such 

an exemption could fundamentally alter the nature of the 

Forest Service‟s travel management program (7 CFR 

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

applied consistently to everyone, are not discriminatory”. 

This concept also applies to providing special provisions 

for aging populations that may have limited mobility.

432/3. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative C to prohibit 

mud bogging.

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

also not proposed in any of the action alternatives, 

including Alternative C.

2-56 263

087/2. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-57 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reevaluate the areas open for elk 

retrieval in Alternative C because they do 

not include many of the areas elk herds 

use.

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

retrieval were analyzed and proposed based on potential 

effects to natural and cultural resources. Based on the 

effects analysis, some areas were determined not 

appropriate for designation based on potential impacts of 

previously identified or unknown sensitive resources.

2-57 264

440/1. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-58 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative D to allow 

dispersed camping and game retrieval.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-58 265

152/3. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-59 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should modify Alternative E to include 

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

2-59 266
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

274

game retrieval. forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects of the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative. Game retrieval was included in 

Alternatives A, B and C. Alternative E will be considered 

along with game retrieval options in the final decision.

536/11. Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-60 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that the selected alternative 

includes the route designations from 

Alternative C for the Prairie 

Creek/Victoria Lake area.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of the 

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

action alternatives will be considered in developing the 

selected alternative.

2-60 267

473/8. Impact Analysis. 2-61 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

impact analysis and avoid additional 

environmental impacts.

Thank you for your comment. Your concerns will be 

considered in developing the selected alternative. 

Designation decisions will be made in accordance with the 

criteria in § 212.55 of the Travel Management Rule.

2-61 268

491/3. Impact Analysis. 2-62 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

impact analysis to remove bias and 

provide realistic impact evaluation.

Thank you for your comment. As reflected in the Travel 

Management Rule, designations of roads, trails, and areas 

for motor vehicle use will be based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. 

2-62 269

126/9. Impact Analysis. 2-62 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

impact analysis to ensure the significant 

issues are addressed.

Thank you for your comment. The significant issues 

identified for the DEIS are listed in Chapter 1. They were 

discussed and analyzed in Chapters 2 and 3.

2-62 270

126/137. Impact Analysis. 2-63 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should demonstrate 

the environmental benefits that will result 

from the proposed action to justify the 

significant impact on the human 

environment.

All alternatives address the desire for multiple-use access 

and recreational use. The Interdisciplinary Team evaluated 

resource management issues as well as the social, economic 

and environmental justice issues. The implication that 

motorized recreationists should be identified as an 

environmental justice-covered population is not valid. 

Executive Order 12898 specifically deals with low-income 

and minority populations. 

2-63 271

098/1. 098/2. 098/4. Technical and Editorial. 2-64 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide the source data used to estimate 

the $350 average per mile maintenance 

cost and should clarify whether the 

number is based on Black Hills data or on 

other forests.

Thank you for your comment. Conversations in 2007 with 

Forest Service staff from the Medicine Bow Routt NF and 

Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison NF resulted in an 

estimated range of $250 to $350 for road and motorized 

trail maintenance costs. Black Hills NF engineers concurred 

with this estimate. These figures are also included in the 

2007 Travel Analysis Report. Providing definitive cost 

figures in a DEIS for a proposed trail system is not 

2-64 272
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

275

practical or a realistic expectation. Even after the design, 

layout and construction phases for routes are completed, 

maintenance costs will vary. There are no specific standards 

for motorized trail maintenance. All routes, including trails 

with varying level of difficulty ratings, have a maintenance 

class assigned to them and are maintained at different levels 

and rates depending on the priority and available resources.

098/3. Technical and Editorial. 2-65 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

explain the reason for the differences in 

annual and deferred maintenance costs 

between September 2007 and February 

2009 and whether the data presented in 

Table 23 will be reported to Region 2.

As stated in the DEIS, annual maintenance costs include 

such things as routine road surface blading and culvert 

cleaning, and the annualized cost of replacing signs and 

road surfaces, mostly gravel. Deferred maintenance costs 

reflect maintenance that was not performed when it was 

scheduled and was delayed for a future period. Between 

2007 and 2009, the type and quality of data required to be 

collected changed, therefore the costs reported in the 2007 

Travel Analysis Report and the 2009 DEIS may also differ.

2-65 273

465/16. Technical and Editorial. 2-66 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

eliminate the use of the term 

“Concentrated Motorized Use Area” 

because users misunderstand the term.

We agree that the term "Concentrated Motorized Use 

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

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

defined area featuring smaller-scale loop routes and other 

motorized travel opportunities." Since the intent of the 

CMUA terminology is to describe the location of a 

concentration of looped OHV routes comprised of trails 

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

with "Motorized Trail System," or MTS. 

2-66 274

465/3. Technical and Editorial. 2-67 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

disclose the locations of learning areas.

The descriptions and locations of the three learning 

(practice) areas were included in the DEIS. The 

information is provided in the Alternative C description on 

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

Bearlodge Ranger District, the Bearlodge Pit in the 

northern portion of the district and the Hain Spring Pit in 

the southern portion of the district. A third area was 

identified on the Northern Hills Ranger District at the 

Spearfish Quarry near the City of Spearfish. 

2-67 275

578/48. Technical and Editorial. 2-68 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide Table 29.

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

Table of Contents, the table is located in the Hydrology 

section of Chapter 3 on page 123.

2-68 276

055/3. Maps and Data. 2-69 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include GPS 

Thank you for your comment. Latitude and Longitude 

values can be considered for the Motor Vehicle Use Map.

2-69 277
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

276

coordinates on the travel map to allow for 

accurate real-time positioning.

010/1. 086/1. Maps and Data. 2-70 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide access 

to full-sized maps at the Forest Service 

office because the online maps are too 

difficult to read.

Copies of the complete DEIS document, including 20 

maps, were available at all Black Hills NF administrative 

offices prior to the Notice of Availability (NOA) on 

Tuesday, September 11, 2007. 

2-70 278

094/5. Maps and Data. 2-71 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

maps to ensure they are accurate, legible, 

and understandable.

Thank you for your comment. We will continue to improve 

the maps for the FEIS.

2-71 279

067/2. Maps and Data. 2-71 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

maps to show the relationship between 

hiking and motorized trails.

The effects to non-motorized trail users were analyzed in 

the Recreation section within in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. It 

was not deemed necessary to further increase the 

complexity of the maps by including non-motorized trails.

2-71 280

114/2. Maps and Data. 2-71 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

maps to provide clearer information 

regarding forest lands in Wyoming.

Thank you for your comment. We will continue to improve 

the maps for the FEIS.

2-71 281

316/4. Maps and Data. 2-72 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should correct the 

maps to correctly show the location of the 

Experimental Forest.

We apologize for the confusion. The location labeled as 

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

(see symbol adjacent to text) that accesses roads and trails 

in the vicinity of the actual Experimental Forest which is 

located south and west of the trail head.

2-72 282

465/20. Maps and Data. 2-73 Public Concern: 

The Forest service should include hiking 

trails on the maps to allow the assessment 

of how users will be dispersed.

The effects to non-motorized trail users were analyzed in 

the Recreation section within in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. It 

was not deemed necessary to further increase the 

complexity of the maps by including non-motorized trails.

2-73 283

085/1. Maps and Data. 2-74 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a 

complete GIS database to allow for 

accurate route analysis.

All the proposed routes and areas are depicted on the 20 

maps representing the range of alternatives. A complete, 

single source GIS database of all the different components 

and attributes accessed for the forest-wide DEIS analysis 

does not currently exist. Some of the data is of a sensitive 

nature and access is restricted by law. 

2-74 284

097/4. General Management (Chapter 3: Natural 

Resources Management). 3-1 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should move 

forward with the travel management plan 

to protect riparian areas and private 

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests 

are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

3-1 285
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

277

property. Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

089/2. 141/1. General Management. 3-2 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the natural beauty and 

peacefulness of the Forest.

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests 

are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

3-2 286

343/6. 362/24. General Management. 3-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect our public lands because the 

BHNF is a rare and unique area.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

3-3 287

211/6. General Management. 3-4 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the forest without closing the 

forest for future generations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

3-4 288

443/1. General Management. 3-5 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should give 

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

3-5 289
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

278

natural resource protection priority over 

recreation.

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

456/147. General Management. 3-6 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

embrace sustainable management policies 

to protect the Black Hills for future 

generations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

3-6 290

280/1. General Management. 3-7 Public

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that one of their primary 

missions is to protect wildlife habitats and 

that motorized use is inconsistent with 

that mission.

The FEIS discloses the effects of each alternative on 

wildlife and their habitat. This information will be taken 

into consideration in the final decision.

3-7 291

123/3. 341/2. 342/2. 344/3. General Management. 3-8 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect wildlife habitat for sensitive snails, 

butterflies, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

The FEIS discloses the effects of each alternative on 

wildlife and their habitat. This information will be taken 

into consideration in the final decision.

3-8 292

578/33. General Management. 3-9 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should keep 

roads out of botanical areas.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. National 

Forests are not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre. 

3-9 293
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

279

It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including all 

identified non-system routes, in the range of alternatives. 

The analysis process included identifying natural and 

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and 

other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

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

458/86. 462/21.

General Management. 3-10 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the eight areas identified in the 

Black Hills Community Inventory as 

exemplary from motorized recreation.

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

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be based 

on public comments and the results of the forest-wide 

effects analysis for the DEIS. Your concerns will be further 

considered in developing the selected alternative.

3-10 294

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

342/1. 344/2.

General Management. 3-11 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

decrease road mileage to protect wildlife 

habitat.

Alternative D reduced the amount of open roads in the 

Black Hills. This will be taken into consideration in the 

final decision. 

3-11 295

326/46. General Management. 3-12 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use 

road closures to better meet habitat needs 

because more than sufficient structural 

stage 1 or roadside habitat is available.

The effects of roads on wildlife, including elk, are discussed 

in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Alternative D proposed closing 

some roads for various reasons, including wildlife. This 

information along with your comment will be considered in 

the final decision. 

The ArcHSI model was not used in the elk and deer 

analysis. Route mileage was used as the indicator of habitat 

effects and disturbance effects.

3-12 296

181/1. General Management. 3-13 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should resist 

increasing access for motorized users to 

reduce damage to roads and vegetation.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, the 

magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot be 

met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. 

3-13 297
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

280

Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being 

adversely affected. A designated and actively managed 

system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 

needed.

516/2. General Management. 3-14 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect mountain lions from the impacts 

of roads and OHVs.

Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft and Final 

EIS because they are covered under the effects to 

management indicator species (MIS). The effect to 

mountain lions would be similar to their main prey item -

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

discussed in detail in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft EIS and Final EIS. 

3-14 298

319/10. 414/9. 462/10. General Management. 3-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge the impact roads have on 

lead levels in the food chain.

The suggested literature was reviewed. The affected 

environment, general wildlife and habitat components in 

the wildlife section of Chapter 3 acknowledge pollution as 

an effect of roads. 

3-15 299

126/148. Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-

16 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not use the standard of PreEuropean Settlement when managing for 

ecological sustainability because the 

standard is illegal, arbitrary, and 

unsupported by scientific evidence.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. National 

Forests are not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre. 

It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including all 

identified non-system routes, in the range of alternatives. 

The analysis process included identifying natural and 

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and 

other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

3-16 300

471/6. Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-

17 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should retain the design criteria for 

hydrology, fisheries, and range and weeds 

because they are appropriate.

Thank you for your comments. 3-17 301

326/26. Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3- Most wildlife issues were designed into the Alternatives to 3-18 302
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

281

18 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should revise the design criteria for 

wildlife to include species in addition to 

goshawk and to include dates and areas 

for seasonal closures.

be consistent with the Forest Plan. Only those items that 

require specific considerations during implementation are 

listed for wildlife in the FEIS, Appendix B. The trailhead 

has yet to be designed on the ground and we want 

goshawks to be considered (nest nearby) during the design 

and implementation. The routes listed for goshawk 

seasonal closures are different from the standard closure 

dates for other routes and therefore potentially forgotten 

during implementation. The list serves as a reminder 

during implementation. 

319/2. 414/2. 462/2. Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-

19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should complete up-to-date wildlife 

surveys of management indicator species, 

species of local concern, and Region 2 

species to comply with NEPA.

Although no wildlife surveys were done specifically for this 

project, the document also notes that surveys have 

continued on the Forest during the course of other 

activities. These include Forest-wide monitoring efforts, 

surveys during other projects, and other incidental 

observations. The text was modified to make this clearer. 

3-19 303

474/8. Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-

20 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the plan to use 

additional herbicides to combat invasive 

weeds as mitigation for increased vehicle 

use because herbicides have their own 

problems and may not be a solution.

As described on page 280 of the DEIS, noxious weeds and 

invasive species could become established and persist 

under the action alternatives, if not addressed proactively or 

treated aggressively following the guidelines set forth in the 

Noxious Weed Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 

2003a).

3-20 304

465/10. Monitoring. 3-21 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include a 

monitoring plan to track accountability.

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the future. 

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the responsible 

agency official must monitor the effects of motor vehicle 

use on designated roads and trails, consistent with the 

applicable land management plan (Forest Plan), as 

appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 212.57).

3-21 305

470/8. 545/13. 546/13. Monitoring. 3-22 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should conduct annual 

monitoring including costs, maintenance, 

and impacts.

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the future. 

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the responsible 

3-22 306
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

282

agency official must monitor the effects of motor vehicle 

use on designated roads and trails, consistent with the 

applicable land management plan (Forest Plan), as 

appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 212.57).

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

458/77. 462/12.

Monitoring. 3-23 Public Concern: The

Forest Service should adopt monitoring 

best management practices to effectively 

monitor impacts to wildlife

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the future. 

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the responsible 

agency official must monitor the effects of motor vehicle 

use on designated roads and trails, consistent with the 

applicable land management plan (Forest Plan), as 

appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 212.57). 

3-23 307

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

458/89. 462/24. 

Monitoring. 3-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include a 

monitoring plan for native plant species to 

ensure adequate monitoring will occur.

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the future. 

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the responsible 

agency official must monitor the effects of motor vehicle 

use on designated roads and trails, consistent with the 

applicable land management plan (Forest Plan), as 

appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 212.57).

3-24 308

464/11. 475/10. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-25 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect riparian 

areas and sensitive biological/botanical 

areas from OHV use.

Any alternative except Alternative A would protect riparian 

areas and sensitive biological/botanical areas, such as the 

Black Fox, with the designation of travel routes. Cross 

country travel would not be allowed which would protect 

these sensitive areas.

3-25 309

475/8. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-26 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect streams and 

riparian areas from intrusion by OHVs.

General and route-specific design criteria have been 

identified to protect streams and riparian areas from 

intrusion by OHVs

3-26 310

480/1. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-27 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect areas around 

streams and lakes to reduce impacts on 

water quality.

General and route-specific design criteria have been 

identified to maintain water quality.

3-27 311

264/3. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & General and route-specific design criteria have been 3-28 312
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

283

Watersheds. 3-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should tightly control roads 

next to perennial creeks to avoid 

sedimentation, erosion, and the spread of 

noxious weeds.

identified to avoid/minimize sedimentation, erosion and 

noxious weeds next to perennial streams

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

458/59. 462/50. 

Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-29 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect riparian 

areas and wetlands because they serve 

important ecological functions and are 

vulnerable.

General and route-specific design criteria have been 

identified to protect riparian areas and wetlands.

3-29 313

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

458/61. 462/52.

Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-30 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should mitigate for any 

impacts to riparian areas because they 

provide important habitat for bird species.

Effects on riparian habitat pertaining to wildlife species is 

discussed in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Impacts to riparian areas would be mitigated through the 

implementation of general and site-specific design criteria 

as well as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and 

Regional Watershed Conservation Practices. 

3-30 314

456/89. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-31 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include mitigation 

for routes and streams where resource 

damage is a concern.

Mitigation for the routes you reference was included in the 

DEIS [page 308], which included prioritization of routes 

for remediation and design options for mitigation. This 

discussion is retained in the FEIS.

3-31 315

473/11. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-32 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all crossings 

of impaired water bodies as among those 

with highest priority for armoring or 

remediation.

The majority of streams listed as impaired due to water 

temperature were impaired due to natural sources. 

Prioritizing stream crossings on these impaired waters 

would have some beneficial effect, but is not likely to 

address the true source of impairment. Prioritization of 

other stream crossings based on other criteria may be more 

appropriate.

3-32 316

319/40. 346/8. 462/29. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-33 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize the 

number of routes that cross through 

streambeds to reduce sediment loading 

and damage to streambanks.

The number of road/trail crossings on perennial streams 

was used as an indicator of potential effects to water quality 

and fish habitat. Alternative D proposes the lowest number 

of crossings on perennial streams. Bridges are identified as 

a possible measure to mitigate adverse effects from routes 

crossing perennial streams.

3-33 317

319/66. 414/40. 462/56. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-34 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that stream 

crossings with potential resource issues be 

Your recommendation that the routes identified on page 

308 of the DEIS be remediated prior to designation on the 

MVUM will be considered. The second table of routes you 

reference identifies implementation monitoring as the 

3-34 318
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

284

remediated or the routes closed. appropriate short-term action because unacceptable 

resource damage was not currently occurring, while 

recognizing that increased motor vehicle use may occur 

upon designation of these routes on the MVUM and the 

subsequent potential for unacceptable resource damage to 

occur.

465/36. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-35 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should complete stream 

crossing studies prior to allowing vehicles 

on routes to protect blue ribbon trout 

streams.

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

road/trail-stream crossing inventory. We will continue to 

pursue funding and partnership opportunities to that end.

3-35 319

456/88. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should complete a streamcrossing survey to address culvert 

placement issues.

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

road/trail-stream crossing inventory. We will continue to 

pursue funding and partnership opportunities to that end. 

Your recommendation that the routes identified on pages 

308 and 309 of the DEIS be rectified prior to designation 

on the MVUM will be considered.

3-36 320

473/9. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-37 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop a stream 

crossing inventory protocol that gives 

priority to impaired streams to mitigate 

potential water quality impairments on 

streams in the BHNF.

The Forest Service has developed a protocol to inventory 

and assess road-stream crossings. The criteria to assess and 

prioritize the remediation of stream crossings are a 

management decision independent of the inventory and 

assessment protocol. Routes prioritized for remediation on 

page 308 of the DEIS were identified based on them being 

non-system routes that may lack proper engineering design 

and which therefore had the greatest potential for an 

additive incremental impact compared to the baseline 

condition. Mitigating stream crossings on streams that are 

temperature impaired due to natural causes (page 118 of 

the DEIS) may provide some positive benefits, but is not 

likely to address the actual source of impairment (natural 

causes). A table has been added to the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Hydrology section, showing the number of crossings of 

impaired waters under each alternative. 

3-37 321

458/66. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should set a forest-wide 

stream crossing density limit because 

culverts are not always correctly placed or 

Our approach to managing the Forest-wide motorized 

road/trail system in regard to stream crossings is to provide 

for a desired condition at crossings that will allow for 

aquatic organism passage, floodplain function, reduced 

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

3-38 322
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

285

maintained. density limit. 

464/22. 464/25. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify whether 

stream crossings are proposed for Hanna 

Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and Little 

Spearfish Creek.

No new stream crossings are proposed for Hanna Creek, 

West Spearfish Creek or Little Spearfish Creek.

3-39 323

126/41. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-40 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should compare potential 

sediment yield to naturally occurring 

conditions when making road closure 

decisions because naturally occurring fires 

produce more sediment yield than 

motorized recreation.

Roads are not closed based on how much sediment they 

yield. If they can be mitigated to reduce and minimize 

sediment, then there should be no problem with the road if 

it is needed. If a road is causing unacceptable impacts, then 

it should be closed or moved to a better location if the road 

is needed. Comparing it to other sediment producing 

events like wildfire is difficult because of the difference in 

magnitudes of sediment that can be produced.

3-40 324

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

458/62. 462/53.

Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-41 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should apply the Black Fox 

Valley Botanical Area model to the Black 

Hills to conserve and enhance hydrologic 

resources.

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

protected from degradation from OHV use. That is one of 

the reasons why we are proposing the travel management 

restrictions. Restricting vehicles to designated trails would 

protect seeps, springs, and wetlands.

3-41 325

413/6. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect aquifers 

from oil spills.

Technically all areas of the Black Hills National Forest are 

upstream of the recharge areas of the Madison Aquifer. It 

would not be practical to prohibit motorized travel. The 

proposal will address this concern. We are proposing to 

limit vehicle travel to designated routes, versus allowing 

cross country travel, and designated crossings.

3-42 326

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

458/60. 462/51.

Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should restrict OHV use in 

watersheds that supply municipal drinking 

water to protect the water supply from 

contamination.

OHV overuse has a potential for a very negative impact on 

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

project proposes to change unlimited off road travel to 

designated routes at designated crossings of stream to limit 

areas where vehicle travel is allowed. Many user created 

routes would be closed. Restricting travel to designated 

routes would protect the watersheds.

3-43 327

591/1. Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & 

Watersheds. 3-44 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect the Rapid 

Creek and Pactola watersheds.

The presence of roads and trails within a watershed does 

not necessarily mean that the watersheds are not protected. 

Roads and trails that are properly maintained and mitigated 

would have little overall impact to the watershed. Impacts 

to the watershed could occur where unrestricted travel 

3-44 328
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

286

occurs next to and through perennial water. This project 

proposes to limit vehicle travel to designated trails, which 

would reduce the overall impacts to the watershed. 

Empress Gulch would remain a closed system road in 

Alternatives D and E. Kelly Gulch is currently an open 

system road to the parking area, and would remain so in all 

alternatives. None of the alternatives would open Kelly 

Gulch to motorized travel from the parking area to Rapid 

Creek. Stewart Gulch would remain a closed system road 

in Alternatives D and E, although a mapping error 

incorrectly shows FSR 249.3A open seasonally in 

Alternative E. Gorman Gulch would be open to highway 

legal vehicles only in all alternatives because it provides 

access to private property.

518/2. Air Pollution. 3-45 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce air pollution 

from gas-powered vehicles.

Compliance with state and federal air quality standards 

would occur under all the action alternatives. Air quality 

was considered in developing the range of alternatives. The 

effects of the alternatives on air quality are disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

All of the action alternatives are expected to maintain air 

quality standards due to the significantly reduced acres 

open to cross-country travel and route miles open to 

motorized vehicles under all alternatives from the current 

situation (Alternative A). 

3-45 329

128/5. 241/5. 522/4. Cultural Resources. 3-46 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should protect cultural 

and sensitive resources.

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

a legal mandate to protect cultural resources. The specific 

legal mandates are summarized in the Cultural Resources 

section of the EIS. An assessment of effect has been 

completed for each of the nearly 400 cultural sites that have 

been identified in the area of potential effect. Protection 

measures have been prescribed at those locations where the 

data demonstrate that historic properties are at-risk due to 

activities associated with motor vehicle use. The protection 

measures prescribed are designed to ensure that no 

significant historic properties are adversely affected. See 

also the response to Public Concern 2-24, regarding access 

for individuals with disabilities.

3-46 330

025/3. 043/1. Grazing. 3-47 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify whether grazing 

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

Shared by all Alternatives - Administrative use" and is also 

3-47 331
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

287

permittees will be allowed access to check 

cattle and fix fences.

discussed in Chapter 3, Range section - "Assumptions", 

allowances would be available to do work directly related to 

management on the permit. This will be carried forward to 

the Final.

236/1. Grazing. 3-48 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should issue permit exemption 

stickers to grazing permittees to ensure 

that they are allowed continued ATV 

access.

How permittee access is authorized is an administrative 

question and would be done through the grazing permit 

process. The Forest is considering several methods 

including this suggestion.

3-48 332

419/6. Grazing. 3-49 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify how grazing 

permittees that are also outfitters will be 

controlled.

OHV use under the grazing permit is for the administration 

of that permit only. This is noted in the Chapter 3 Range -

Assumptions in the final EIS. Outfitters permitted on the 

Forest for hunting activities would be required to adhere to 

the same travel management rules as the general public. 

There would be no exemption for outfitters under the 

travel management rule. Currently, none of the grazing 

permittees are permitted for outfitter services on the 

Forest.

3-49 333

458/13. Grazing. 3-50 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should annually license off-road 

vehicles for grazing permittees.

How access is authorized is an administrative question and 

will be done through the grazing permit system but it is 

being discussed. 

3-50 334

325/3. Grazing. 3-51 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow access for fire 

prevention, timber operations, and forest 

thinning but should not give grazing 

permittees more rights than other users.

Administrative access under a valid permit is important and 

will be authorized.

3-51 335

477/4. 614/4. Grazing. 3-52 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should maintain the current 

motorized access for multiple uses 

including grazing, timber, mineral 

exploration, and firewood collection.

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

Shared by all Alternatives - Administrative use" allowances 

would be available to permittees to do work directly related 

to the management on the permit. This will be carried 

forward to the Final.

3-52 336

545/9. Grazing. 3-53 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that the plan will 

not detract from management activities 

including grazing and timber harvest.

Multiple use activities would continue to be allowed 

through access for administrative purposes and for 

contractors and permittees working within the terms of 

their contract or permit. Your comment will be considered 

in the final decision.

3-53 337

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

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

Grazing. 3-54 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify what restrictions will 

be placed on grazing permittees to 

Use under the grazing permit is for the administration of 

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

- Assumptions in the final EIS.

3-54 338
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

288

mitigate damage to cultural and natural 

resources.

305/1. Grazing. 3-55 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not increase motorized 

access to the Higgins Gulch Grazing 

Allotment because illegal motorized 

recreation is already a problem and should 

not be rewarded.

Routes in the Higgins Gulch allotment were analyzed for 

environmental impacts in Alternatives B and C. In 

Alternative D many of the routes in this allotment were 

dropped from the analysis and in Alternative E only the 

existing open system roads were analyzed. Any decision 

about which routes are selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

3-55 339

232/5. Grazing. 3-56 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit motorized 

recreation on the Sand Creek and Idol 

Grazing Allotments because the off-road 

community has been unable to police 

itself.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. Under Alternatives A and E only 

routes currently open to motorized opportunities were 

considered for public motorized travel. Alternative D 

proposed closing additional routes within the Sand Creek 

and Idol Allotments to public motorized travel. Alternative 

B and C proposed a less than 50-inch trail within the Sand 

Creek Allotment in addition to the routes currently open to 

motorized opportunities. Each alternative was analyzed in 

detail and effects on natural resources are documented in 

Chapter 3.

3-56 340

232/1. Grazing. 3-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should address the issues 

associated with illegal motorized use of the 

Sand Creek Closure Area because 

problems are increasing and negatively 

impacting grazing permittees.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. Illegal motorized access to 

a non-motorized area such as Sand Creek will be dealt with 

through law enforcement activities. 

3-57 341

232/3. Grazing. 3-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should address the issues 

associated with illegal motorized use of the 

Sand Creek Closure Area because the 

methods being used to limit illegal use are 

impeding grazing permittees.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. Illegal motorized access to 

a non-motorized area such as Sand Creek will be dealt with 

through law enforcement activities. 

3-57 342

378/14. Grazing. 3-58 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that ORV 

use, open areas, and grazing can be done 

properly.

The Forest Service agrees that a variety of multiple uses can 

often be accommodated in one area with proper 

management. The effects of this proposal are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. 

3-58 343

025/4. Firewood Collection. 3-59 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

whether firewood permittees will be 

Firewood permittees should reference the special notes in 

the individual permit for travel restrictions or allowances.

3-59 344
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

289

allowed motorized access.

145/2. Firewood Collection. 3-60 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure sufficient access to allow for 

firewood collection to ensure that older 

residents could collect sufficient supplies 

for winter heat.

Firewood permittees should reference the special notes in 

the individual permit for travel restrictions or allowances.

3-60 345

536/4. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-61 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not close timber sale 

areas to motorized traffic because these 

uses can coexist.

NFS roads and trails used for timber management and fire 

suppression may be used by motorized vehicles subject to 

road & trail specific restrictions.

3-61 346

546/3. 548/7. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-62 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit OHV access 

on roads used for timber harvest to reduce 

user conflicts.

NFS roads and trails used for timber management and fire 

suppression may be used by other motorized vehicles 

subject to road and trail specific restrictions.

3-62 347

486/3. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-63 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

timber harvest contractors leave trash 

behind.

Forest Service timber sale purchasers and service 

contractors are directed by contract to keep sale areas clean. 

Enforcement is a contract administration issue. 

3-63 348

565/13. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-64 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

timber harvesters can be more harmful to 

the forest than off-road vehicles.

Logging on NFS lands is an integral part of multiple use 

management. Mechanized logging machinery is the most 

efficient means of forest harvesting. Timber sale 

purchasers and service contractors are directed by contract 

to keep sale areas clean.

3-64 349

546/9. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-65 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that the trails 

system will not affect management 

activities, including timber harvesting and 

grazing.

Access will be allowed to contractors and permit holders 

operating within the terms and scope of their contract or 

permit, to conduct Government-related business. 

3-65 350

546/12. 548/6. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-66 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid restricting use 

of roads for timber harvest to allow for 

efficient removal of forest products.

Access will be allowed to contractors and permit holders 

operating within the terms and scope of their contract or 

permit, to conduct Government-related business. 

3-66 351

548/8. Timber Harvest and Vegetation Access will be allowed to contractors and permit holders 3-67 352
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

290

Management. 3-67 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that current 

forest plan goals are not affected by the 

travel management plans especially 

regarding fuel treatments, recreation 

opportunity spectrums, or scenery 

objectives.

operating within the terms and scope of their contract or 

permit, to conduct Government-related business. We do 

not expect that implementation of Forest Plan goals and 

objectives will be affected by the decision on this project, 

and in fact accomplishment of some resource protection 

objectives may be made easier. 

126/100. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-68 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reopen motorized 

routes that were closed due to timber 

harvests because the vegetation cover has 

been re-established.

NFS roads and trails used for timber management and fire 

suppression may be used by motorized vehicles subject to 

road & trail specific restrictions.

3-68 353

546/11. 546/16. Timber Harvest and Vegetation 

Management. 3-69 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that the plan 

will not hinder vegetation treatment of 

forest stands because these treatments 

serve important economic and ecological 

roles.

Forest management on NFS lands is an integral part of 

multiple use management. Travel management will be 

consistent with Forest Plan direction.

3-69 354

289/2. Mineral Exploration. 3-70 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider removing areas in Craven

Canyon from mineral exploration.

The summary sentence 'public concern' for this comment 

mischaracterized the correspondence sent by the 

commenter. The County Commissioners did not object to 

withdrawal of areas in Craven Canyon from mineral entry. 

Instead, the County Commissioners stated their concern 

that the travel management EIS was completed with no 

input from the County Commission. The reference to 

Craven Canyon was merely a preliminary statement made 

in the letter. In response to County Commission concerns, 

District Ranger Lynn Kolund, Forest Minerals Staff Rusty 

Wilder, and District Archeologist Tony King met with the 

Fall River County Commissioners on May 19, 2009. At 

that meeting, the Forest representatives answered questions 

the County Commissioners had regarding the Craven 

Canyon proposal. 

3-70 355

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

344/4.

Route Selection & Locating. 3-71 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure roads and trails avoid wetlands and 

riparian areas.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were disclosed in the 

hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the EIS. Design 

criteria in the document would protect, reduce or minimize 

impact to these areas. Motorized route designation 

3-71 356
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

291

attempts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and 

riparian areas consistent with law, regulation and policy.

264/4. Route Selection & Locating. 3-72 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure roads avoid riparian areas especially 

the Pactola Reservoir and Rapid Creek 

watersheds.

Effects to riparian areas were analyzed in the hydrology, 

botany and wildlife sections of the EIS. Design criteria in 

the document would protect, reduce or minimize impacts 

to these areas. Closing all roads and trails next to riparian 

area is not practical unless they are causing undesirable 

impacts. Many routes in the Pactola and Rapid Creek 

watersheds included in Alternative C were eliminated in 

Alternative D. 

3-72 357

139/2. Route Selection & Locating. 3-73 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should close 

all trails near perennial streams to protect 

fish habitat from sedimentation.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in the 

hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the EIS. Effects 

to streams were analyzed in the hydrology and fisheries 

sections of the EIS. Design criteria in the document are 

designed to protect and minimize impacts to the streams. 

Keeping all roads and trails out of the WIZ is not practical. 

Closing all trails within 100 feet of perennial streams is not 

practicable because not all trails run parallel to perennial 

streams and at some point these trails need to cross a 

stream. Other site-specific terrain features, such as cliffs, 

may also result in trails being routed within 100 feet of 

perennial streams. Effects to fisheries and aquatic 

resources due to sedimentation, which would include dust, 

are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Fisheries and 

Hydrology sections. 

3-73 358

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

458/63. 462/54.

Route Selection & Locating. 3-74 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

exclude any route within 100 yards of 

ephemeral or perennial streams, seeps, 

springs, wet meadows, or other wetlands 

unless the route is part of a minimal 

transportation system or legally required.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in the 

hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. 

Effects to streams were analyzed in the hydrology and 

fisheries sections of the DEIS. A buffer is not needed 

along ephemeral drainages as there is not aquatic life to 

protect along these drainages. A 100 yard buffer would be 

excessive and not necessary, especially in the Black Hills 

with the precipitation regime. Most impacts come from a 

zone of 50 feet and no or minimal impacts are expected 

with implementation of the design criteria outlined in the 

document. The DEIS analyzed the potential impacts of 

motorized routes within 30 feet and 119 feet of perennial 

streams. These buffers were based on distances identified 

in the Travel Analysis Process (2005) completed at the time 

3-74 359
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

292

of the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment. The exclusion of 

all routes within 100 yards (300 feet) of 

aquatic/riparian/wetland resources may not be necessary to 

protect these resources based on site-specific consideration 

and existing policy, e.g., Regional Watershed Conservation 

Practices Handbook. 

362/18. Route Selection & Locating. 3-75 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include riparian areas, wetlands, and wet 

meadows on the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

and establish a 300-foot buffer around 

sensitive areas.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in the 

hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. A 

buffer is not needed along ephemeral drainages as there is 

not aquatic life to protect along these drainages. A 300 foot 

buffer would be excessive and not necessary, especially in 

the Black Hills with the precipitation regime. Most impacts 

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

expected with implementation of the design criteria 

outlined in the document. Placing these areas on MVUM 

would clutter the map and make the map unreadable. The 

motor vehicle use map (MVUM) is designed for a single 

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

designated for motor vehicle use. Adding extraneous 

features that don‟t support the purpose would create 

unnecessary cartographic complexity. Using an arbitrary 

300-foot buffer as a criterion to close user created routes 

and to restrict motorized routes adjacent to seeps, springs, 

wet meadows and wetlands may be inappropriate without 

considering site-specific conditions.

3-75 360

473/10. Route Selection & Locating. 3-76 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

permit OHV use within 30 feet of an 

impaired water body and should close 

trails that run in drainages or cross 

impaired water bodies to avoid further 

degradation of water quality.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in the 

hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. As 

outlined in the DEIS and FEIS, no streams are listed 

impaired due to sediment. Design criteria would minimize 

impacts to the stream when trails are in proximity to the 

stream.

3-76 361

112/2. Route Selection & Locating. 3-77 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

motorized roads and trails that avoid 

sensitive areas to protect these areas from 

illegal off-road use.

Resources issues are being analyzed throughout the Forest. 

The Forest Service needs to manage where OHV traffic is 

allowed. Enforcement personnel would deal with the issue 

of unauthorized routes being used. Forest Service Law 

Enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public 

safety, and protecting National Forest Resources.

3-77 362
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

293

280/12. Route Selection & Locating. 3-78 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that roads are not close to or in 

areas with sensitive species because it 

would be expensive to design the roads 

and enforce protection of these areas.

Effects to botanical and other sensitive areas were analyzed 

in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Enforcement 

personnel would address the issue of unauthorized routes 

being used. Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel 

play a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

National Forest Resources.

3-78 363

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

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

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

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

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

Route Selection & Locating. 3-79 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure routes avoid all known occurrences 

of Region 2 sensitive species and BHNF 

species of local concern because surveys 

for these species have not been completed 

and to protect these species.

Effects to botanical and other sensitive areas were analyzed 

in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. The direct and 

indirect effects of the proposed action on botanical 

resources and habitat were analyzed in the DEIS. 

Population viability analyses are outside the scope of this 

decision.

3-79 364

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

458/85. 462/20. 

Route Selection & Locating. 3-80 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure trails avoid montane grasslands and 

other stands of globally rare plant 

communities to protect the special-status 

plants in the BHNF.

Effects to botanical and other sensitive areas were analyzed 

in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Impacts to 

Montane Grasslands are addressed in the Botany Resource 

Report for Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Plan.

3-80 365

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

458/87. 462/22.

Route Selection & Locating. 3-81 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

exclude any routes lacking a valid reason 

for inclusion to protect native plant 

species and communities.

Effects to native plant species and communities were 

analyzed in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included will 

be documented in the Record of Decision

3-81 366

414/49. 456/28. 462/66. Route Selection & Locating. 3-82 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

allow new routes to be added to the 

system to ensure the system is sustainable.

Any new routes added to the travel management system 

subsequent to this decision would be analyzed in a separate 

NEPA process prior to designation.

3-82 367

399/3. Area-Specific Requests. 3-83 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the area south of Bear Mountain 

Lookout Tower because it is a highly 

desirable wildlife area.

We appreciate your comments and concerns related to 

private property and specifically Forest Service Roads 

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

the alternatives analyzed have designated any of these 

routes as trails. The three routes you have identified as 

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

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

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

The Decision Maker will consider your concerns and make 

3-83 368
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

294

a decision based on the analysis of effects within all 

alternatives.

578/36. Area-Specific Requests. 3-84 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the Black Fox area from OHV and 

roads impacts.

None of the alternatives analyzed included motorized 

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

Fork in the Black Fox area. Many roads open to highway 

legal vehicles only west of Rhoade's Fork in Alternative C 

were eliminated from Alternative D.

3-84 369

578/35. 588/21. Area-Specific Requests. 3-85 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the Botany Canyon area from 

noise and impacts.

No routes were analyzed in Botany Canyon in any 

alternative. Common to all alternatives the noise level 

would be set at 96 decibels. 

3-85 370

479/6. Area-Specific Requests. 3-86 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect Dugout Gulch from motorized 

trails and resulting invasive plant 

distribution.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

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

any public motorized use within the area.

3-86 371

464/15. 464/17. Area-Specific Requests. 3-87 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

increasing motorized access to Hanna 

Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and Little 

Spearfish Creek and their riparian areas to 

avoid damaging these ecosystems and 

watersheds.

Dispersed camping in portions of Hanna Creek, Spearfish 

Creek and Little Spearfish Creek was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C and removed in Alternatives D and E. 

Game retrieval in the same areas was analyzed in 

Alternative B and removed from Alternatives C, D and E. 

Dispersed camping and game retrieval in the portions of 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish Creek 

within the Spearfish Canyon management area were not 

analyzed in any alternative. Any decision about where 

either dispersed camping or game retrieval will be allowed 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

3-87 372

591/3. Area-Specific Requests. 3-88 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove Middle Nugget Creek from the 

trail system because it is a year-long 

flowing stream. 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision

3-88 373

610/1. Area-Specific Requests. 3-89 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the Spearfish Canyon landscape 

from invasive plants, erosion, disturbance 

of above-the-rim habitat, and motorized 

recreation.

FSR 215.1 Annie Creek was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and in 

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

Alternative D. FSR 186.2 Cleopatra was not analyzed in 

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

a road open to highway legal vehicles. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

3-89 374
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

295

Decision.

319/72. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Little Spearfish 

Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

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

alternatives. Any decision on routes included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

3-90 375

319/74. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Elk Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

3-90 376

319/75. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Little Elk 

Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

3-90 377

319/76. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Box Elder 

Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

3-90 378

319/73. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Bad Luck 

Springs.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

3-90 379

319/70. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Jim Creek, Pilot 

Knob Trailhead, and Spruce Gulch.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

3-90 380

319/71. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

Many of the routes in the Silver City area that were 

included in Alternative C were eliminated or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives D and E. This 

3-90 381
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

296

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including the Silver City 

Area.

was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management Plan 

hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of routes 

in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on routes 

included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

319/69. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Ward Draw.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

3-90 382

319/68. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including Hanna Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

3-90 383

319/67. Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

remove selected trails to limit pollution 

and protect the water influence zone for 

selected streams including South 

Stagebarn Tributary.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction of 

routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any decision on 

routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

3-90 384

473/7. Impact Analysis. 3-91 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should demonstrate 

how the proposed action will protect 

resources and be ecologically sustainable 

to ensure that decision making is 

consistent with Executive Orders 11644 

and 11989. 

The Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with Executive 

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

implement the policy direction contained in those 

Executive Orders. The Rule places more emphasis on 

considering the effects of motorized trails and areas, than 

of roads. The action alternatives were developed to meet 

that part of the purpose and need to reduce adverse effects 

from unmanaged cross-country and road and trail use to 

soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, wildlife 

and their habitats, as well as to reduce conflicts between 

Forest users. The alternatives address these to varying 

degrees, which can be seen in the number of stream 

crossings, acres of cross-country use which would be 

allowed, and other indicators. Alternative D proposes the 

smallest motorized travel system. The effects of the 

alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3. 

3-91 385

126/183. Impact Analysis. 3-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should collect 

The Forest has conducted a sufficient forest-wide analysis 

of the effects of designating roads, trails and areas for 

3-92 386
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

297

sufficient background data to quantify 

existing conditions for natural resources 

so that impacts can be measured and 

quantified and management actions 

justified.

motorized use proposed in all of the action alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

126/186. Impact Analysis. 3-93 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should compare 

human-made impacts to naturally 

occurring impacts when assessing 

significance to avoid the appearance of 

bias and unfairness.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the selected 

alternative will be made in accordance with the criteria in § 

212.55 of the final rule. 

3-93 387

126/187. Impact Analysis. 3-93 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should compare 

human-made impacts to naturally 

occurring impacts when assessing 

significance because naturally-occurring 

impacts are often much greater than 

human-caused impacts.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the selected 

alternative will be made in accordance with the criteria in § 

212.55 of the final rule. 

3-93 388

126/180. Impact Analysis. 3-94 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should recognize that 

human activity in the area is less than it 

has been historically to accurately evaluate 

the cumulative impact of reduced access.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the selected 

alternative will be made in accordance with the criteria in § 

212.55 of the final rule. 

3-94 389

126/178. Impact Analysis. 3-95 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should adequately 

consider the significant humanenvironment issues involving motorized 

recreation because historically these 

impacts have not been given appropriate 

weight.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the selected 

alternative will be made in accordance with the criteria in § 

212.55 of the final rule. 

3-95 390

565/2. Impact Analysis. 3-96 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

the impact winter logging has on the 

forest.

Thank you for your comment. 3-96 391

578/47. Impact Analysis. 3-97 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

effect of high road density on pine martin 

habitat and remove roads from white 

spruce and pine martin habitat.

Marten are closely tied to spruce habitat in the Black Hills. 

The FEIS shows the number miles of routes in spruce 

habitat by alternative in the wildlife section in Chapter 3. 

Alternative D has fewer routes in spruce habitat. This will 

be taken into consideration in the final decision.

3-97 392
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

298

126/101. 522/2. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

correct the analysis of wildlife impacts to 

accurately state the impact from OHVs.

Even though elk populations are healthy in the Black Hills, 

there have been several studies in the Black Hills that have 

documented elk responses to roads. This information is 

included in the elk discussion in the Wildlife section in 

Chapter 3. Other literature referenced in the wildlife 

section of the FEIS document road effects on wild

3-98 393

126/200. 126/201. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-99 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

use disturbance of wildlife as a reason to 

restrict motorized access because evidence 

shows that hikers disturb wildlife more 

than motorized vehicles.

The designation trails are not part of this project. The 

effects of hikers are included in the cumulative effects 

portion of the wildlife analysis.

3-99 394

456/100. 458/76. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that change in available 

habitat is not the only impact on wildlife 

from the system.

The wildlife analysis in the FEIS provides charts that show 

the miles of routes in appropriate habitats. The FEIS was 

edited to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under methodology and general 

effects to wildlife, habitat loss from roads is estimated at 5 

acres per mile. Rather than doing this calculation, the miles 

of routes were used as an indicator of habitat alteration. As 

noted in the FEIS, this project is not proposing to 

construct new roads or trails, only designating existing 

roads and trails. Most habitat alteration has occurred in the 

past, not as a result of the action alternatives. The total 

miles of routes are included in the figures for wildlife 

habitat as an indicator of cumulative effects from past 

activities. The FEIS notes in the general effects to wildlife 

and habitat components that mortality is less likely on 

primitive roads such as those designated in this project.

3-100 395

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

462/8.

Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-101 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that impacts on wildlife can 

occur from OHV use including soil 

erosion, vegetation loss, loss of habitat 

security, invasive species introduction, and 

forest fragmentation.

The wildlife section of the DEIS and FEIS acknowledges 

that OHV use can affect wildlife, and discloses the effects 

on wildlife and habitat.

3-101 396

456/99. 458/75. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-102 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze the cumulative impacts of each 

alternative on habitats as a result of 

The wildlife analysis in the FEIS provides charts that show 

the miles of routes in appropriate habitats. The FEIS was 

edited to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under methodology and general 

3-102 397
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

299

fragmentation and disturbance from roads 

to provide a quantifiable basis for 

comparing alternatives.

effects to wildlife, habitat loss from roads is estimated at 5 

acres per mile. Rather than doing this calculation, the miles 

of routes were used as an indicator of habitat alteration. As 

noted in the FEIS, this project is not proposing to 

construct new roads or trails, only designating existing 

roads and trails. Most habitat alteration has occurred in the 

past, not as a result of the action alternatives. The total 

miles of routes are included in the figures for wildlife 

habitat as an indicator of cumulative effects from past 

activities. The FEIS notes in the general effects to wildlife 

and habitat components that mortality is less likely on 

primitive roads such as those designated in this project.

319/7. 326/20. 326/24. 346/10. 

414/6. 456/92. 456/94. 456/95. 

458/71. 462/7. 

Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include relevant data on elk and roads in 

its analysis because there are numerous 

studies documenting the effects of roads 

on elk.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the Final 

EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and effects of 

roads. 

3-103 398

326/19. 346/11. 346/13. 

456/93. 458/69. 

Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include relevant data on elk and roads in 

its analysis because elk movement is 

affected by human activities and not all 

roads disturb elk equally.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the Final 

EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and effects of 

roads. 

3-103 399

465/14. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include relevant data on elk and roads in 

its analysis because elk are highly sensitive 

to habitat fragmentation.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the Final 

EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and effects of 

roads. 

3-103 400

346/12. 458/70. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include relevant data on elk and roads in 

its analysis because elk are valuable wildlife 

and game species.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the Final 

EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and effects of 

roads. 

3-103 401

326/24. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-104 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include the local elk research in the DEIS 

to accurately evaluate the impact of roads 

on elk.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the Final 

EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and effects of 

roads. 

3-104 402
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

300

461/42. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-105 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the analysis of hunting and 

wildlife conservation issues to better 

address Executive Order 13443.

Additional evaluation of effects on the hunting experience 

are discussed in the recreation section. The purpose of the 

reference to Executive Order 13443 was to show that the 

different alternatives provide different types of access for 

hunting but they do not eliminate hunting access.

3-105 403

319/4. 414/4. 462/4. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-106 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce motorized routes in old-growth 

habitat to protect old-growth obligate 

species and interior forest species.

Different amounts of routes in old forest and spruce 

habitat are included in each alternative. This is displayed in 

the wildlife section in Chapter 3 (charts). This information 

and your comment will be considered in the final decision.

3-106 404

578/46. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-107 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

describe the effects of roads on habitat 

and species viability on mountain lions 

and elk.

The elk section was edited to include local studies of roads 

and elk. Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft 

and Final EIS because effects are expected to be similar to 

species already discussed in the effects analysis. The effect 

to mountain lions are expected to be similar to those 

displayed for wildlife in general, and for their main prey 

item - deer. General effects on wildlife and habitat are 

discussed in the Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

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

and are discussed in detail in the wildlife section in Chapter 

3 of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. Mule deer are also 

discussed in Chapter 3 in the Draft EIS and Final EIS as a 

demand species. 

3-107 405

539/1. 547/2. 547/4. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-108 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze impacts on mountain lions and 

their habitat because they are still 

struggling and are affected by high road 

density. 

Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft and Final 

EIS because effects are expected to be similar to species 

already discussed in the effects analysis. The effect to 

mountain lions are expected to be similar those displayed 

for wildlife in general, and for their main prey item - deer. 

General effects on wildlife and habitat are discussed in the 

Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS and Final 

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

discussed in detail in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft EIS and Final EIS. Mule deer are also discussed in 

Chapter 3 in the Draft EIS and Final EIS as a demand 

species. 

3-108 406

539/2. 547/1. 547/3. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-108 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze impacts on mountain lions and 

their habitat including overkill and loss of 

Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft and Final 

EIS because effects are expected to be similar to species 

already discussed in the effects analysis. The effect to 

mountain lions are expected to be similar to those displayed 

3-108 407
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

301

habitat. for wildlife in general, and for their main prey item, deer. 

General effects on wildlife and habitat are discussed in the 

Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS and Final 

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

discussed in detail in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft EIS and Final EIS. Mule deer are also discussed in 

Chapter 3 in the Draft EIS and Final EIS as a demand 

species.

126/213. 126/14. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-109 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

use wildlife mortality as a reason to restrict 

motorized access because OHV use does 

not cause significant wildlife mortality.

As noted in the DEIS (page 175), collisions are less likely 

on primitive roads. This is retained in the Final EIS. 

However, some species such as frogs, snakes, snails, 

butterflies, etc, are more susceptible to mortality than larger 

animals. These effects are discussed for each species. 

3-109 408

461/40. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-110 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that all of the action 

alternatives would improve wildlife 

impacts because they would largely 

eliminate cross-country travel.

The FEIS states this for most wildlife in the Wildlife 

section in Chapter 3.

3-110 409

523/1. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-111 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that wildlife is allowed some nonroaded areas.

All the alternatives have some non-road areas. Alternative 

D has the most areas with closed roads. The alternatives 

and your comment will be taken into consideration in the 

final decision and will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

3-111 410

461/38. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-112 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that not all roads have the 

same level of impact on wildlife.

The DEIS acknowledges that not all roads are equal when 

it comes to wildlife impacts on page 145. This will remain 

in the FEIS.

3-112 411

326/18. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-113 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the effects to wildlife from yearround motorized use because many 

species, including elk, will be negatively 

affected.

The Wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS discloses the 

effects of rear-round and seasonal motorized use on many 

wildlife species including elk.

3-113 412

126/202. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-114 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that hikers disturb nesting 

birds even though restrictions on hikers 

are seldom imposed.

The designation trails are not part of this project. The 

effects of hikers are included in the cumulative effects 

portion of the wildlife analysis.

3-114 413
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

302

126/103. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-115 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that hikers and wolves have 

greater impacts on wildlife than OHV 

users but hikers and wolves are 

unrestricted.

No wolf packs occur on the Black Hills. The designation 

trails are not part of this project. The effects of hikers are 

included in the cumulative effects portion of the wildlife 

analysis

3-115 414

126/210. 126/211. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-116 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider restrictions on fishing and 

hunting to protect fish and game before 

restricting motorized access because the 

benefits would be greater on the wildlife 

and impacts to motorized recreation from 

further closures would be significant.

Game and Fish season and bag limits are set by the States 

and are outside the scope of this project. The Forest will 

continue to work with our State partners to help manage 

wildlife habitat and populations.

3-116 415

524/2. Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-117 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate the stock pond at Mayhappy for 

wildlife use rather than for ATV use.

The FS analyzed FSR 546 in the Mayhappy Flats area for 

wildlife concerns in Alternatives A through E for varying 

miles of route to be included in the decision. Alternatives B 

and D propose closing approximately 1.0 mile of FSR 

546.1 beginning at the Forest boundary on the east end of 

this route which may address some of your concerns. The 

Record of Decision will designate which roads or trails are 

open to motorized vehicle use. If the stock pond at 

Mayhappy is not on a designated route, then OHV use in 

the stock pond would be prohibited under all alternatives.

3-117 416

517/3. 517/4. Special-Status Species. 3-118 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze the impacts on sensitive species.

The effect to sensitive species is discussed in the Biological 

Evaluation (located in the Planning Record) and is 

summarized in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS.

3-118 417

214/2. Special-Status Species. 3-119 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include a biological assessment of sensitive 

and rare species.

A biological evaluation and assessment of threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species is included in the planning 

record and is summarized in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

3-119 418

126/212. 126/213. Special-Status Species. 3-120 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that claims of impacts to 

endangered species are supported by 

substantial technical data.

The effects on the black-footed ferret, the only threatened 

or endangered species on the Forest, are discussed in the 

Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment, and are 

summarized in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 in the 

FEIS. A determination of "no effect" was made for blackfooted ferret and the rationale is provided in the Biological 

Evaluation/Assessment.

3-120 419
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

303

319/5. 462/5. Special-Status Species. 3-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

evaluate potential impacts on black-footed

ferret and black-tailed prairie dog because 

the black-footed ferret is the rarest 

mammal in North America.

Effects on black-footed ferrets and prairie dogs are 

discussed in the Biological Evaluation/Biological 

Assessment and are summarized in the Wildlife section of 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

3-121 420

319/3. 414/3. 462/3. Special-Status Species. 3-122 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide better demographic and 

population data for the red-belly snake 

because the species is endemic to the area.

The effect on Black Hills redbelly snakes is discussed in the 

Biological Evaluation and is summarized in the Wildlife 

Section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis uses the 

best available science (literature) combined with known 

occurrence data and assumes the species is present in 

suitable habitat. Extensive surveys would not change this 

assumption nor would it add to the design of the route 

system or enhance the effects analysis.

3-122 421

126/216. 126/217. Special-Status Species. 3-123 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the delisting of the grizzly bear as 

a reasonably foreseeable action because 

this change in status could affect whether 

areas need to remain non-motorized.

According to the most recent literature, there are no longer 

grizzly bears in the Black Hills. Grizzly bears were not 

evaluated in this project.

3-123 422

319/9. 414/8. 456/97. 458/73. 

462/9.

Wildlife Habitat. 3-124 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that roads contribute to habitat 

fragmentation to ensure that impacts to 

species are recognized.

Fragmentation was taken into consideration in the wildlife 

section of Chapter 3 of the DEIS and will remain in the 

Final EIS. In the DEIS, see pages 145, 149, 168, 175, 183, 

184, 185, as examples.

3-124 423

465/12. Wildlife Habitat. 3-125 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

impacts from roads that have displaced 

native habitats to appropriately balance 

human uses with wildlife and habitats.

The wildlife analysis in the FEIS provides charts that show 

the miles of routes in appropriate habitats. The FEIS was 

edited to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under methodology and general 

effects to wildlife, habitat loss from roads is estimated at 5 

acres per mile. Rather than doing this calculation, the miles 

of routes were used as an indicator of habitat alteration. As 

noted in the FEIS, this project is not proposing to 

construct new roads or trails, only designating existing 

roads and trails. Most habitat alteration has occurred in the 

past, not as a result of the action alternatives. The total 

miles of routes are included in the figures for wildlife 

habitat as an indicator of cumulative effects from past 

activities. The FEIS notes in the general effects to wildlife 

3-125 424
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

304

and habitat components that mortality is less likely on 

primitive roads such as those designated in this project.

465/15. Wildlife Habitat. 3-126 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should conduct a 

habitat capability model to ensure that 

burned areas are adequately analyzed.

Route mileage was used as the indicator of habitat effects 

and disturbance effects instead of a habitat capability 

model. 

3-126 425

326/21. 346/3. Wildlife Habitat. 3-127 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include a 

habitat effect analysis to estimate 

quantitative impacts and comply with 

NEPA.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss

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

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

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

project is not proposing to construct new roads or trails, 

only designating existing roads and trails. Most habitat 

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

action alternatives. The total miles of routes are included in 

the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator of cumulative 

effects from past activities.

3-127 426

326/25. Wildlife Habitat. 3-127 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include a 

habitat effect analysis including impacts to 

deer and elk and effects of concentrated 

motorized use areas.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

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

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

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

project is not proposing to construct new roads or trails, 

only designating existing roads and trails. Most habitat 

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

action alternatives. The total miles of routes are included in 

the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator of cumulative 

effects from past activities.

3-127 427

319/6. 414/5. 456/91. 458/68. 

462/6.

Wildlife Habitat. 3-128 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a more 

thorough analysis of impacts to habitat 

and include data to support their 

conclusions.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

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

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

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

project is not proposing to construct new roads or trails, 

only designating existing roads and trails. Most habitat 

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

3-128 428
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

305

action alternatives. The total miles of routes are included in 

the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator of cumulative 

effects from past activities.

326/22. 326/23. 346/4. Wildlife Habitat. 3-129 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze wildlife 

disturbance and habitat loss and 

fragmentation to allow a meaningful 

comparison of alternatives.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

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

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

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

project is not proposing to construct new roads or trails, 

only designating existing roads and trails. Most habitat 

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

action alternatives. The total miles of routes are included in 

the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator of cumulative 

effects from past activities.

3-129 429

326/45. 461/41. Wildlife Habitat. 3-130 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

effects of roads to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat especially in the Jasper/Rogers 

shack Fire Complex.

The analysis of how each alternative contributes to 

achieving the winter road density objective (Objective 5.4-

207) in Management Area 5.4 was shown on page 192 of 

the DEIS. The analysis was not done for specific areas 

such as Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires. The effects analysis 

was done for MA 5.4 Forest-wide and included areas like 

Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires. In the action alternatives, 

Guidelines 5.4-9102 and 5.4-5101 were used in different 

amounts to contribute to Objective 5.4-207, depending on 

the emphasis of each alternative. Alternatives B and C 

would move away from the objective in an effort to 

provide more motorized recreation opportunities for the 

public. Alternative D would move winter route density in 

MA 5.4 towards Objective 5.4-207 in an effort to limit the 

level and likelihood of effects on natural and cultural 

resources, including wildlife, through a smaller motorized 

travel system. Alternative E would have winter route 

densities similar to Alternative A (existing condition). (See 

also DEIS and FEIS Chapter 2 for descriptions, intent and 

design of alternatives). This rational and explanation was 

added to the route density analysis in the FEIS. The 

amount of routes, winter and yearlong, included in MA 5.4 

and in Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires will be considered in 

the final decision. 

3-130 430
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

306

196/3. 369/7. Grazing II. 3-131 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should review the impacts 

from grazing because cattle may cause 

greater impacts than ATVs.

Analysis of livestock use is outside the scope of this 

document and is done through our Range NEPA process. 

The concern about damage while rounding up livestock, 

administrative access under a valid permit is important and 

will be authorized for the administration of that permit, 

only.

3-131 431

465/13. Invasive Plants. 3-132 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should revise the 

analysis of road impacts on weed 

infestations because the analysis is 

inaccurate and inadequate.

The results from any selected alternative will reduce the 

spread of noxious weeds over the current situation; see 

Chapter 3 "Invasive Species - Environmental Effects 

Analysis." 

3-132 432

414/54. 456/121. 462/71. Invasive Plants. 3-133 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider the 

impacts of roads and vehicles on the 

spread of invasive plant species because a 

larger system will result in more invasive 

plants than a smaller system.

We agree more roads would likely increase the spread of 

weeds. The results from any selected alternative would 

reduce the spread of noxious weeds over the current 

situation, see Chapter 3 "Invasive Species - Environmental 

Effects Analysis" due to the restrictions on open travel and 

less total miles of roads through no unauthorized routes 

(see Table 44, page275), Comparison of indicator 

measures and alternatives for range.)

3-133 433

126/192. Invasive Plants. 3-134 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should revisit the 

analysis of transport mechanisms for 

invasive weeds to ensure a balanced 

evaluation of both motorized and nonmotorized transport mechanisms.

You are correct there are many transport mechanism and 

they all can spread weeds. See Chapter 3, Affected 

Environment. This document addresses motorized uses 

and that is the details discussed. ATVs and other off road 

vehicles do carry weeds in many small catch areas and in 

mud, those who do practice "Wash your Steeds” do the 

environment a great service, but many do not practice this 

policy. 

3-134 434

461/39. Invasive Plants. 3-135 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide 

support for the conclusion that OHV use 

is tied to invasive plant propagation.

Several citations are included that illustrate the impacts of 

roads. While not specific to OHV use, they do represent 

the best available science on how routes and motorized 

vehicles can affect wildlife.

3-135 435

319/85. 414/55. 414/56. 

456/122. 456/123. 462/72. 

462/73.

Invasive Plants. 3-136 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider 

available funding levels and existing 

systems for combating invasive plants 

when selecting an alternative because 

prevention is better than effective 

treatment.

The results from any selected alternative would reduce the 

spread of noxious weeds over the current situation, see 

Chapter 3, "Invasive Species - Environmental Effects 

Analysis" due to the restrictions on open travel and no 

unauthorized routes (see Table 44, page 275, Comparison 

of indicators measures and alternative for range).

3-136 436

126/193. Invasive Plants. 3-137 Public Concern: This statement may be true in Montana but there is no such 3-137 437
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

307

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that motorized users contribute to 

programs for noxious weed abatement and 

have little impact on the noxious weed 

problem to ensure a balanced discussion.

program in Wyoming or South Dakota. 

327/2. Soils & Erosion. 3-138 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

analysis of soils and erosion because 

accepted EPA standards were not used 

and the information provided is 

inadequate.

Dust is generally an effect of various levels of use on 

designated Forest transportation systems. Dust is generally 

not an issue in the Black Hills on soils when Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines are implemented. Dust (and EPA 

Air Quality Standards?) was addressed within the 

engineering and transportation section of the DEIS and is 

addressed further in the FEIS. 

3-138 438

461/32. Soils & Erosion. 3-139 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify how the 

soil compaction guidelines will be applied.

Expected soil compaction effects beyond the designated 

road/trail prism and designated parking width associated 

with the roads and trails is included under the discussion 

for the various alternatives. Information on soil 

compaction, in addition to other potential effects to the soil 

resource that would not become part of the area to be 

dedicated to the formally designated permanent 

transportation system components (roads, trails, trailheads 

and specified parking zones along routes) was included in 

the Soils section on pages 100 – 114 of the DEIS. While 

page numbers may be different in the FEIS this discussion 

is still expected to be located the Soils Section of the FEIS.

3-139 439

461/33. Soils & Erosion. 3-140 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that effects on soil will be minimal or 

beneficial because available routes already 

exist.

Expected beneficial effects, in addition to other expected 

potential effects to Forest soil resources was included in the 

Soils section of the DEIS on pages 100 – 114. In the FEIS 

this discussion is still expected to be located the Soils 

Section of the FEIS.

3-140 440

126/202. Soils & Erosion. 3-141 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that 

erosion impacts from non-motorized 

recreation are accurately described to 

avoid bias against motorized recreation.

The Travel Management Plan DEIS documents 

information and expected effects associated with the 

decision for motorized vehicle travel on the Black Hills; 

non-motorized uses are outside of the scope of that 

decision. Various other documents, both at the 

programmatic level and project level (such as the 1997 

Forest Plan FEIS and the Forest Plan Phase II FEIS) 

include descriptions of potential effects and/or closures or 

reroutes with various other non-motorized recreational 

uses. 

3-141 441
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

308

126/188. Soils & Erosion. 3-142 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid using soil 

erosion as a reason to limit motorized 

recreation because soil erosion from 

naturally occurring fires is much greater.

The Travel Management Plan DEIS documents 

information and expected effects associated with the 

decision for motorized vehicle travel on the Black Hills; 

non-motorized uses are outside of the scope of that 

decision. Various other documents, both at the

programmatic level and project level (such as the 1997 

Forest Plan FEIS and the Forest Plan Phase II FEIS) 

include descriptions of potential effects and/or closures or 

reroutes with various other non-motorized recreational 

uses. 

3-142 442

126/184. Soils & Erosion. 3-143 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not use 

sediment production as a reason to restrict 

motorized recreation because restoration 

and road decommissioning cause greater 

short-term impacts than OHV use does.

We agree that road/trail restoration and decommissioning 

can increase sediment input into water bodies in the shortterm. Per NEPA requirements, the analysis disclosed both 

the potential short-term AND long-term effects of 

designating routes for motorized use. Routes are not 

proposed to be closed because of the amount of sediment 

they are predicted to produce. As mentioned models have 

their limitations and were not used on the Black Hills 

National Forest. The design criteria outlined in the 

document would minimize the impacts to the streams.

3-143 443

326/27. Water Quality. 3-144 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should be commended for 

the thorough analysis of aquatic resources.

Thank you for the complimentary comment. 3-144 444

126/191. Water Quality. 3-145 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should establish the actual 

sediment transport capacity of project area 

streams to ensure an accurate assessment 

of sediment transport impacts.

Sediment from human activities should be limited to 

protect the aquatic resources. We disagree that sediment 

can be added to the stream and be OK if the stream can 

move it because it could still affect something down 

stream. A goal of travel management is to minimize 

impacts to the aquatic resource by minimizing or 

eliminating sediment eroding from the road and trail 

system.

3-145 445

126/190. Water Quality. 3-146 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

the amount of sediment production on 

Federal lands is small when compared to 

the sediment production on non-federal 

lands.

A Forest-wide study comparing sediment produced on 

federal versus non-federal lands has not been conducted on 

the Black Hills National Forest. Sediment produced is 

dependant on a number of watershed characteristics, 

including but not limited to soil type, slope, precipitation 

regime, land use practices, stream order, etc. The study 

referenced was conducted on the Gallatin NF in Montana 

and may not be comparable to the Black Hills NF. The 

3-146 446
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

309

Forest Service has a public trust responsibility and a duty 

per the travel management rule to address resources issues 

that are within agency authority.

461/37. Water Quality. 3-147 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

Alternative C might help contain didymo 

because it is more easily transmitted by 

foot traffic.

Alternative C is not likely to contain didymo, an aquatic 

nuisance species, in Rapid Creek because this alternative 

does not substantially change the amount of recreational 

foot traffic, which is the primary pathway for the spread of 

didymo, in Rapid Creek downstream of Pactola Dam.

3-147 447

461/35. Water Quality. 3-148 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

OHV-related water quality impacts are 

analyzed as nonpoint sources and most 

impairment in the area is due to natural 

sources.

There are no impairments to the streams on the Black Hills 

National Forest due to sediment. Most activities on the 

National Forest are non-point sources including travel 

management.

3-148 448

461/36. Water Quality. 3-149 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

greater impacts to water quality will result 

from new route construction than from 

road use.

There are several factors that contribute sediment to 

streams. As mentioned construction and the mere 

presence of the road or trail could contribute sediment, as 

will continue use. Continued use keeps churning up the 

road or trail surface making it available for transport. Road 

or trails that do not receive use will develop an armored 

surface over time and will not produce as much sediment 

as routes that are used.

3-149 449

464/18. 464/30. Water Quality. 3-150 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

Alternatives B and C would have greater 

hydrology impacts than Alternative A on 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek.

Alternative B would have less effects to the water resource 

than Alternative A because no cross country travel would 

be allowed. This would greatly reduce the impacts of 

vehicle travel even in the areas mentioned, Hanna Creek 

from South of the Hanna Campground to road 209, 

Spearfish Creek West [Spearfish Creek from Cheyenne 

Crossing west along Hwy 85 to Lead-Deadwood water 

supply intake] and Little Spearfish Creek from Savoy to 

where it flows into Little Spearfish Canyon and parallels 

Road 222. Dispersed camping and game retrieval would 

not impact these areas because dispersed camping would be 

discouraged within 100 feet of lakes and streams and land 

vehicles would be prohibited from entering perennial 

streams.

3-150 450

458/9. 458/10. 458/11. Climate Change. 3-151 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include an 

analysis of climate change impacts to 

A discussion of climate change has been added to the 

FEIS.

3-151 451
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

310

comply with the Department of Interior 

Order.

331/6. Climate Change. 3-152 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider the 

carbon footprint of its decision.

A discussion of climate change has been added to the 

FEIS.

3-152 452

126/242. Visual Resources. 3-153 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider trails 

as part of the natural landscape and should 

evaluate the visual impacts of motorized 

and non-motorized recreation fairly and 

equally.

The Scenery section of the Draft EIS analyzed the effects 

of motorized recreation use evident in the landscape and 

the expected elements of that use that would be evident in 

the landscape to all, including those enjoying nonmotorized recreation activities (i.e.-hiking, mountain biking, 

etc.). This analysis included visiting representative sites of 

motorized use in a variety of vegetation and terrain 

conditions to identify those visible effects (DEIS, pg. 255-

257). Re-evaluating the impacts of non-motorized 

recreation trails is outside the scope of this EIS.

3-153 453

456/116. Visual Resources. 3-154 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze scenic 

integrity from a variety of viewpoints to 

include viewpoints on non-motorized 

trials.

The Scenery section of the Draft EIS analyzed the effects 

of motorized recreation use evident in the landscape and 

the expected elements of that use that would be evident in 

the landscape to all, including those enjoying nonmotorized recreation activities (i.e.-hiking, mountain biking, 

etc.). This analysis included visiting representative sites of 

motorized use in a variety of vegetation and terrain 

conditions to identify those visible effects (DEIS, pg. 255-

257). As Vegetative screening can be dynamic; we only 

consider the viewed landforms.

3-154 454

518/3. Visual Resources. 3-155 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reduce light 

pollution.

Light pollution from motorized trail use (at night) was not 

discussed in the Draft EIS. Currently the Forest does not 

have rules that prohibit motorized trail use at night, nor are 

we aware of reliable ways to measure resulting cumulative 

light emissions. This issue can be monitored and addressed 

in future programmatic documents if needed. 

3-155 455

578/45. Cultural & Historic Resources. 3-156 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act to protect heritage 

resources.

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

a legal mandate to comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The specific legal mandates are 

summarized in the Cultural Resources section of the 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 

3-156 456
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

311

that historic properties are at-risk due to activities 

associated with motor vehicle use. The protection 

measures prescribed are designed to ensure that no 

significant historic properties are adversely affected. In 

addition, the U.S. Forest Service has completed formal 

consultation for this action with the respective State 

Historic Preservation Officers and appropriate Tribal 

representatives as mandated by the implementing 

regulations for National Historic Preservation Act.

583/2. Cultural & Historic Resources. 3-157 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should revise the cultural resource analysis 

to reduce confusion and comply with the 

National Historic Preservation Act.

Thank you for your comment. The Cultural Resources 

section of the FEIS has been edited and updated to more 

clearly and concisely analyze and report the effect of this 

action on historic properties. The U.S. Forest Service has a 

legal mandate to comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act. An assessment of effect has been 

completed for each of the nearly 400 cultural sites that have 

been identified in the area of potential effect. Protection 

measures have been prescribed at those locations where the 

data demonstrate that historic properties are at-risk due to 

activities associated with motor vehicle use. The protection 

measures prescribed are designed to ensure that no 

significant historic properties are adversely affected. In 

addition, the U.S. Forest Service has completed formal 

consultation for this action with the respective State 

Historic Preservation Officers and appropriate Tribal 

representatives as mandated by the implementing 

regulations for National Historic Preservation Act.

3-157 457

047/1. 220/12. General (Chapter 4: Transportation 

System Management & Planning). 4-1 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should manage the forest similarly to 

those in other states to reduce the number 

of out-of-state users.

The Travel Management Rule is intended to provide a 

consistent national framework and consistent terminology

for travel management decisions on all National Forests 

and Grasslands.

4-1 458

126/113. General. 4-2 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should identify recreational and 

motorized users of the National Forest as 

the owners of the plan to ensure that the

objective is to meet their needs.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. National 

Forests are not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

4-2 459
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

312

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre. 

It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including all 

identified non-system routes, in the range of alternatives. 

The analysis process included identifying natural and 

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and 

other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

456/142. 456/144. General. 4-3 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should adopt best management 

practices as part of the travel planning 

effort to minimize impacts and comply 

with Eos 11644 and 11989.

The Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with Executive 

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

implement the policy direction contained in those 

Executive Orders. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule places 

more emphasis on considering the effects of motorized 

trails and areas, than of roads. Consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule, development of all the action 

alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails 

with the objective of minimizing effects related to damage 

to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and 

conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses.

4-3 460

126/244. General. 4-4 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should manage the lands using 

local standards and culture as criteria 

rather than criteria more fitting for larger 

urban areas.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide 

access for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. National 

Forests are not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre. 

It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including all 

identified non-system routes, in the range of alternatives. 

The analysis process included identifying natural and 

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and 

other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

4-4 461
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

313

Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of alternatives. 

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

DEIS. 

473/1. General. 4-5 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider expanding the 

existing system to avoid increasing impacts 

to water quality, aquatic resource, and 

wildlife habitat.

Alternative D proposes the smallest motorized travel 

system. The Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with Executive 

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

implement the policy direction contained in those 

Executive Orders. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule places 

more emphasis on considering the effects of motorized 

trails and areas, than of roads. Consistent with the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule, development of all the action 

alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails 

with the objective of minimizing effects related to damage 

to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and 

conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses.

4-5 462

414/53. 456/32. 462/70. General. 4-6 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should revise the alternative 

descriptions to ensure that the motorized 

system cannot be expanded without limits 

because Appendix F implies that 

expansion could occur for many decades 

into the future.

The proposed changes to the Forest Plan are not meant to 

indicate that the stated mileages of construction or 

conversion would occur each decade into the future in 

perpetuity. The Forest Plan direction shown applies to the 

current decade. The quantities shown are not mandatory 

targets but aspirations. They are included here to provide 

appropriate adjustments to current Forest Plan direction. 

Any proposed implementation of Forest Plan direction 

must undergo site-specific NEPA analysis, which is the 

purpose of this current analysis. 

4-6 463

610/3. General. 4-7 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow for reassessment of 

the plan in future years to allow for 

thoughtful addition and deletion of routes.

Designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use is 

only one step in the ongoing process of travel management. 

Implementation of travel management decisions includes 

effective education, enforcement, monitoring and 

evaluation. Information from monitoring will help 

determine if there is a need for change and whether 

designations should be revised.

4-7 464

395/14. 461/20. General. 4-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow for future 

modifications to the trail system to 

improve connectivity of trails.

Designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use is 

only one step in the ongoing process of travel management. 

Implementation of travel management decisions includes 

effective education, enforcement, monitoring and 

evaluation. Information from monitoring will help 

4-8 465
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

314

determine if there is a need for change and whether 

designations should be revised.

126/58. 351/20. General. 4-9 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow for amendments to 

create or modify trails to be responsive to 

the needs of motorized recreationists.

Designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use is 

only one step in the ongoing process of travel management. 

Implementation of travel management decisions includes 

effective education, enforcement, monitoring and 

evaluation. Information from monitoring will help 

determine if there is a need for change and whether 

designations should be revised.

4-9 466

458/15. General. 4-10 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that future 

management projects are reviewed to 

ensure that no new road construction will 

be allowed.

Travel management planning is not new to the agency or 

the Black Hills National Forest. For many years, the Forest 

has been involved in travel planning in the development of 

land management plans and numerous site-specific projectlevel decisions. As the Forest implements and monitors the 

decision resulting from the current process, as well as those 

in the future, we may identify needs for change in the 

existing designations. 

4-10 467

293/7. General. 4-11 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that 

decreasing the road system in the future 

will be more difficult because stakeholders 

will feel entitled.

The Travel Management Rule (see § 212.54) provides for 

revision of designations as needed to meet changing 

conditions. Revisions may include closures, additions or 

changes in designations following public involvement and 

site-specific environmental analysis. 

4-11 468

217/19. General. 4-12 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide the “best trail 

system” immediately.

Thank you for your comment. 4-12 469

126/268. 394/14. General. 4-13 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should encourage manufacturers 

to design vehicles with differential axles to 

reduce the creation of ruts.

This is beyond the scope of this project. 4-13 470

456/136. Road and Trail System. 4-14 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

describe the process used to evaluate and 

identify the minimum system required for 

safe and efficient travel, administration, 

use, and protection of National Forest 

lands to comply with the Travel 

Management Rule.

A roads analysis was conducted on Black Hills National 

Forest high-speed roads resulting in a Roads Analysis 

Report (RAP) published in October 2005. A travel analysis 

was conducted on high-clearance roads, trails, and 

unauthorized routes resulting in a Travel Analysis Process 

(TAP) Report published in September 2007. These reports 

provide a technical, science-based review of the Black Hills 

National Forest transportation system. 

4-14 471

545/6. Road and Trail System. 4-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

FEIS will correct any inconsistencies in road mileages 

reported. However, roads open to motorized travel include 

4-15 472
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

315

resolve the inconsistencies in the DEIS 

regarding the total miles of roads in the 

system.

Levels 2-5. Total road miles also include Level 1 roads 

which are not open to public motorized use. 

456/35. 456/36. 458/29. 

458/30.

Road and Trail System. 4-16 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

establish an estimate of the maximum 

carrying capacity of designated roads and 

trails to allow for monitoring and capping 

the use when capacity is reached.

The size of the Travel System over time will be evaluated 

through monitoring and the environmental analysis 

process. 

4-16 473

419/5. 546/5. 548/3. Road and Trail System. 4-17 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

the allowed administrative access to ensure 

access for permittees and contractors.

The discussion of Administrative Access in Chapter 2, 

under section: Features Shared By All Alternatives, includes 

use by contractors and permit holders operating within the 

terms and scope of their contract or permit.

4-17 474

133/1. 545/12. Road and Trail System. 4-18 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

motorized travel on all routes designated 

as EX-Existing in the metadata for the 

geodatabase.

36 CFR 212 establishes requirements for the administration 

of the forest transportation system... These regulations 

describe a MINIMUM road system... The selected system 

must be environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, 

and economically feasible.

4-18 475

175/1. 268/1. 366/12. 546/1. Roads. 4-19 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow current roads to 

remain open because no damage is done 

by those who stay on the roads.

36 CFR 212 establishes requirements for the administration 

of the forest transportation system... These regulations 

describe a MINIMUM road system... The selected system 

must be environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, 

and economically feasible.

4-19 476

528/1. Roads. 4-20 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit ATV travel off of 

fire roads because users abuse the option 

and cause erosion.

Motorized use (including ATV/OHV) will only be allowed 

on routes designated through the Travel Management Plan. 

The selected system must be environmentally sustainable, 

socially acceptable, and economically feasible. Resource 

protection is critical to this process.

4-20 477

207/2. Roads. 4-21 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should open existing gated roads 

to dissuade users from travelling in nonroad areas.

Gated roads are NFSR's in Level 1 maintenance category, 

meaning they are only needed for administrative use and 

are not open to the public for motorized travel. The public 

may enjoy these routes in any non-motorized means. The 

final decision may include the conversion of some gated 

roads to an "open" status but it is just as likely that many 

will remain open for administrative use only.

4-21 478

313/5. Roads. 4-22 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should open most of the gates in 

the BHNF.

Gated roads are NFSR's in Level 1 maintenance category, 

meaning they are only needed for administrative use and 

are not open to the public for motorized travel. The public 

may enjoy these routes in any non-motorized means. The 

4-22 479
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

316

final decision may include the conversion of some gated 

roads to an "open" status but it is just as likely that many 

will remain open for administrative use only.

236/2. Roads. 4-23 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should remove the pipe barrier 

gates because they are ugly, ineffective, 

and with the plan change, unnecessary.

Gated roads are NFSR's in Level 1 maintenance category, 

meaning they are only needed for administrative use and 

are not open to the public for motorized travel. The public 

may enjoy these routes in any non-motorized means. The 

final decision may include the conversion of some gated 

roads to an "open" status but it is just as likely that many 

will remain open for administrative use only.

4-23 480

565/9. Roads. 4-24 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide access to logging 

roads.

Motorized use will be allowed on routes designated 

through the Travel Management Plan. The selected 

system will be environmentally sustainable, socially 

acceptable, and economically feasible. 

4-24 481

369/3. Roads. 4-25 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that mining 

and logging roads are dangerous.

Motorized use will be allowed on routes designated 

through the Travel Management Plan. The selected 

system will be environmentally sustainable, socially 

acceptable, and economically feasible. 

4-25 482

041/1. Trails. 4-26 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should leave the trails as they are.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 65-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

4-26 483

097/7. Trails. 4-27 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should move forward with a new 

trail system to protect the forest from 

damage while ensuring that some 

motorized access is allowed.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 65-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

4-27 484

445/1. Trails. 4-28 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should move forward with mixedused trails.

The designated system will include some mixed-use routes 

open to highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles. 

4-28 485

201/1. 207/1. Trails. 4-29 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should develop a diverse trail 

system to meet the various needs of users.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

4-29 486

234/1. 393/13. 493/1. Trails. 4-30 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should retain the maximum 

amount of trails.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

4-30 487

126/266. Trails. 4-31 Public Concern: The Forest Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 4-31 488
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

317

Service should provide a network of 

national motorized recreation trails similar 

to the continental divide trail.

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

493/2. Trails. 4-32 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include primitive trails in 

the plan to increase compliance with the 

Travel Management Rule. 

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Trail opportunities 

open to all vehicles are also provided. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

4-32 489

546/4. 546/14. Trails. 4-33 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should encourage use of trails in 

woods rather than open roads to increase 

safety. 

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

4-33 490

453/1. Trails. 4-34 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should add trails to those 

proposed in Alternative C to increase the 

success of the plan with little additional 

maintenance expense.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Some 

two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain to 

varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized use. 

4-34 491

217/11. Trails. 4-35 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include a trail system in 

Custer and Fall River Counties to allow 

for the counties to collect trail permit fees.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in width 

would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

Opportunities will be reevaluated in Custer and Fall River 

Counties.

4-35 492

126/21. 215/7. 216/9. 217/7. 

218/7. 219/7. 220/7. 221/18. 

222/7. 222/15. 223/7. 224/7. 

225/7. 226/7. 227/7. 228/7. 

229/7. 230/7. 231/7. 237/7. 

239/7. 247/7. 260/7. 260/14. 

261/7. 262/7. 262/15. 294/7. 

295/7. 296/7. 297/7. 298/7. 

300/7. 301/7. 302/7. 303/7. 

311/7. 322/7. 337/7. 338/7. 

351/7. 366/7. 378/7. 379/7. 

380/7. 382/7. 382/13. 384/7. 

385/7. 386/7. 387/7. 388/7. 

Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

trails in the inventory even if they do not 

meet design criteria.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes, 

even if they did not currently meet standards for Forest 

System trails and roads, for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

4-36 493
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

318

389/7. 391/7. 392/7. 393/7. 

395/7. 396/7. 397/7. 407/7. 

408/7. 416/7. 417/7. 421/7. 

425/7. 429/7. 430/7. 450/7. 

460/11. 483/7. 484/7. 485/7. 

494/7. 495/7. 496/7. 497/7. 

497/17. 498/7. 499/7. 500/7. 

501/7. 502/7. 503/7. 503/16. 

504/7. 505/7. 506/7. 507/7. 

508/7. 509/7. 510/7. 511/7. 

512/2. 513/7. 514/7. 515/7. 

519/9. 520/3. 521/7. 530/7. 

531/7. 531/15. 532/7. 533/7. 

538/7. 561/7. 562/7. 577/7. 

592/4. 593/7. 603/7. 604/7.

605/7. 606/7. 607/6. 609/7. 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

559/4. Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

trails in the inventory because many go to 

scenic locations.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user created 

or defined trails, including trails leading to scenic overlooks 

or other points of interest, for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-36 494

545/7. 546/15. Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

trails in the inventory even if they will 

ultimately be closed.

This analysis does not address decommissioning or 

physically closing existing roads or trails. However, not all 

existing trails and roads will be designated as open to public 

motorized travel. 

4-36 495

536/22. Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

trails in the inventory including usercreated single-track trails.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

4-36 496
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

319

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

514/12. Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

trails in the inventory including those in 

the Northern Hills.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user created 

or defined trails for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-36 497

512/11. Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

trails in the inventory including those in 

the Southern Hills.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user created 

or defined trails for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-36 498

261/16. 276/8. 322/15. 351/19. 

390/12. 441/4. 444/2. 449/5. 

450/15. 451/4. 534/20. 593/15. 

594/4. 595/4. 596/4. 597/3. 

Inventories. 4-37 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that roads 

not included due to administrative issues, 

such as timing or inaccurate mapping, be 

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user created 

or defined trails for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

4-37 499
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

320

598/5. 599/4. 600/4. 601/4. 

602/4. 603/12. 604/13. 605/13. 

606/15. 607/5. 609/24.

reviewed for later addition. 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. 

461/6. Inventories. 4-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include routes that 

were not analyzed due to budget or time 

constraints on a conditional basis.

This site-specific analysis evaluated existing user created or 

defined trails which were inventoried. The Forest Service 

understands there may be other unauthorized routes that 

could be desirable to consider for addition to the 

motorized travel system. Such routes could be included in 

the environmental analysis for future projects in those 

areas. The database for this project, including individual 

routes, will be available for use in future such projects. 

4-38 500

548/4. Inventories. 4-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all roads 

being used for access to private lands to 

avoid conflicts with landowners.

Many routes that were not proposed for designation may 

be considered to be left open to provide private access, as 

well as other administrative uses. The Travel Management 

Rule provides that the following vehicles and uses are 

exempted (see §212.51): (1) Aircraft; (2) Watercraft; (3) 

Over-snow vehicles; (4) Limited administrative use by the 

Forest Service; (5) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or 

law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; (6) 

Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle 

for national defense purposes; (7) Law enforcement 

response to violations of law, including pursuit; and (8) 

Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a 

written authorization issued under Federal law or 

regulations.

4-39 501

544/1. Inventories. 4-40 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that access to 

private property is maintained.

The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be 

able to access public and private lands. The Forest Service 

also recognizes the need for access points to be done 

responsibly including encouraging legal access as well as in 

ways that do not create resource damage. All current legal 

access rights will be maintained and the Forest will work 

with all requiring legal access.

4-40 502

314/4. Inventories. 4-41 Public Concern: The As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the Forest 4-41 503
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

321

Forest Service should ensure that private 

land holders are able to access the trail 

system.

Service supports the general principle of equal public access 

to Federal lands. However, as stated in the response to 

Public Concern 4-41, routes that were not proposed for 

designation may be considered to be left open to provide 

private access, as well as other administrative uses.

269/2. 474/23. 478/1. Inventories. 4-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that access 

for non-federal landowners of land 

adjacent to the BHNF is not affected.

The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be 

able to access public and private lands. The Forest Service 

also recognizes the need for access points to be done 

responsibly including encouraging legal access as well as in 

ways that do not create resource damage. All current legal 

access rights will be maintained and the Forest will work 

with all requiring legal access.

4-42 504

357/1. Inventories. 4-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain why 

previously closed roads or user-created 

roads are included because there are no 

compelling reasons to do so.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing routes for 

possible designation into the Forest Travel System. The 

evaluation of each route considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service Manuals 

and Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

4-43 505

126/138. 212/1. Inventories. 4-44 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all existing 

routes without significant environmental

issues because all the existing routes are 

important to visitors.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing routes for 

possible designation into the Forest Travel System. The 

evaluation of each route considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service Manuals 

and Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

4-44 506

357/2. Inventories. 4-45 Public Concern: The This analysis includes the evaluation of existing routes for 4-45 507
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

322

Forest Service should provide the 

reasoning for including each road or trail 

and exclude any route where the benefits 

don't outweigh the costs.

possible designation into the Forest Travel System. The 

evaluation of each route considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service Manuals 

and Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

237/11. 239/11. 351/13. 

495/15. 498/14. 519/10. 

536/21. 602/7. 

Inventories. 4-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all 

unauthorized roads in the inventory for 

possible future use.

Route and area inventories will be maintained in the project 

record for future consideration.

4-46 508

229/15. Inventories. 4-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all 

unauthorized roads in the inventory and 

should work with motorized clubs to 

enhance the trail system.

Route and area inventories will be maintained in the project 

record for future consideration.

4-46 509

561/11. Inventories. 4-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all 

unauthorized roads in the inventory 

including game trails.

Route and area inventories will be maintained in the project 

record for future consideration.

4-46 510

197/3. Inventories. 4-47 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include “Other 

Recorded Trails” in the inventory to 

ensure accurate information is used.

As referenced in the Travel management Rule, many of the 

user-created or defined routes were developed without 

agency authorization, environmental analysis, or public 

involvement and do not have the same status as NFS roads 

and trails included in the forest transportation system. 

However, this analysis includes the evaluation of many 

existing user created or defined routes for possible 

designation into the Forest Travel System. The evaluation 

of each route considered factors such as compatibility with 

existing land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to 

the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from the 

public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified within 

4-47 511
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

323

Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

126/124. Inventories. 4-48 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the 

requirement that motorized users 

inventory existing routes and trails because 

users don't have the needed equipment 

and it places an undue burden on these 

users.

Off-road motorcyclists' level of participation was 

considerable in the EIS process on the Black Hills National 

Forest. Many of the area's OHV organizations, including 

off-road motorcycling enthusiasts, voluntarily conducted 

extensive route inventories. 

4-48 512

319/36. 362/23. 414/24. 

456/114. 458/90. 462/25.

Non_System Roads. 4-49 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

include non-system roads to ensure that 

road and trail system is sustainable relative 

to protecting natural resources.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and non-system roads for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each route 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-49 513

241/3. 247/13. Non_System Roads. 4-50 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider closing non-system roads to 

ensure sufficient fire and emergency 

access is retained. 

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-50 514

377/3. Non_System Roads. 4-51 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and non-system roads for possible designation into the 

4-51 515
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

324

closing non-system roads because use of 

these roads will preserve access for fire 

fighting and prevention.

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each route 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

126/169. 126/235. Non_System Roads. 4-52 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

classifying all non-system roads as „illegal‟ 

because many were created legally.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and non-system roads for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each route 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-52 516

357/5. 473/22. Non_System Roads. 4-53 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

include user created roads in the final plan 

to ensure included routes are designed and 

constructed to be sustainable.

The evaluation of all routes considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designation, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. Administrative use 

routes will provide needed access to the Forest Service for 

needed management capabilities. All routes will need to 

meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

identified in FS Manuals and Handbooks.

4-53 517

319/42. 414/27. 456/40. 

458/34. 462/31.

Non_System Roads. 4-54 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that they have not adequately 

managed the OHV community thus 

leading to the problem of unauthorized 

roads.

The DEIS proposes an actively managed transportation 

system of roads and trails in all of the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B-E). The existing condition (Alternative A) is 

described as a passively managed transportation system.

4-54 518
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

325

473/2. Non_System Roads. 4-55 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

describe the process for closing 

unclassified roads including proposals for 

dealing with increasing adjacent residential 

development.

We Agree. 4-55 519

156/1. 214/1. 343/1. 344/1. Road Density. 4-56 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the number 

of roads because there are already enough 

roads. 

The Travel Management Rule of 2005 directed that any 

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

use on a National Forest be designated. Such use would be 

prohibited on routes and areas not designated. The Forest 

Service recognizes there are over 4,000 miles of 

unauthorized routes on the Black Hills NF. The purpose 

and need for this project includes identifying a system to 

comply with the Rule, provide a range of quality 

experiences for Forest users, and reduce impacts caused by 

unmanaged use. See the EIS, Chapter 1 for more 

information. 

4-56 520

134/5. 140/2. 141/6. Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the density 

of roads and trails because other National 

Forests have much lower densities.

The Forest Service is responding to the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule with this proposal. National Forests are 

managed for multiple uses, one of those being recreation. 

There are no nationwide standards for road density. 

Opportunities and limitations unique and appropriate to 

the Black Hills NF will be considered in this analysis. 

4-57 521

138/2. 488/1. Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the density 

of roads and trails to bring it in line with 

Statewide road densities.

The analysis considers a range of alternatives for a 

motorized travel system. Some factors that must be 

evaluated for the Black Hills NF include the pattern of 

intermingled private land ownership, resource management 

needs and the capability to provide a range of recreation 

opportunities. These factors are discussed and effects 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

4-57 522

414/46. 458/21. Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the density 

of roads and trails to bring it in line with 

national and Region 2 averages.

The analysis considers a range of alternatives for a 

motorized travel system. Some factors that must be 

evaluated for the Black Hills NF include the pattern of 

intermingled private land ownership, resource management 

needs and the capability to provide a range of recreation 

opportunities. These factors are discussed and effects 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

4-57 523

293/1. Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the density 

Effects of alternative motorized travel systems on these 

and other resources are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

4-57 524
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

326

of roads and trails because high road 

densities cause adverse environmental and 

recreational impacts.

139/3. Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the density 

of roads and trails to protect elk 

populations, especially in the Central Hills.

The EIS in Chapter 3, Wildlife section, acknowledges that 

roads can affect elk in various ways, including through 

displacement near open roads. The EIS states that all 

action alternatives would have a net beneficial effect on 

habitat quantity by not allowing motorized cross-country 

travel on much of the Forest, and that effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be reduced through 

less cross-country travel. 

4-57 525

517/1. Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the density 

of roads and trails to no more than 2 miles 

per square mile of forest.

The effects of the alternatives on resources are disclosed in 

the Chapter 3 of the EIS. The Hydrology section shows 

that the action alternatives would eliminate use on twothirds of perennial stream crossings currently used. The 

wildlife section states that reducing or eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel under the action alternatives 

would benefit a variety of species including elk. 

4-57 526

126/205. 126/206. 516/1. Road Density. 4-58 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revisit the road 

density criteria because deer and elk can 

withstand greater densities.

The effects of the alternatives on elk and deer are disclosed 

in the EIS in Chapter 3, Wildlife section. 

4-58 527

319/82. 456/14. 462/63. Road Density. 4-59 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

the road density in the Black Hills is high 

by comparison to other National Forests.

The analysis considers a range of alternatives for a 

motorized travel system. Some factors that must be 

evaluated for the Black Hills NF include the pattern of 

intermingled private land ownership, resource management 

needs and the capability to provide a range of recreation 

opportunities. These factors are discussed and effects 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

4-59 528

465/1. Road Density. 4-60 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit motorized 

roads to a density of 1 mile per square 

mile to reduce damage and fragmentation 

of habitat.

The purpose and need for this project includes elements to 

develop a transportation system to provide a range of 

quality experiences for a variety of Forest users, and to 

reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged travel. The 

alternatives address these objectives in different ways. 

Alternative D reduces the route mileage and eliminates 

cross-country travel. The decision on this project will 

attempt to balance a variety of needs and will consider the 

effects of the alternatives disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3. 

4-60 529

362/1. Road Density. 4-60 Public Concern: The The purpose and need for this project includes elements to 4-60 530
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

327

Forest Service should limit motorized 

roads to a density of 1 mile per square 

mile for the benefit of wildlife and quality 

habitat.

develop a transportation system to provide a range of 

quality experiences for a variety of Forest users, and to 

reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged travel. The 

alternatives address these objectives in different ways. 

Alternative D reduces the route mileage and eliminates 

cross-country travel. The decision on this project will 

attempt to balance a variety of needs and will consider the 

effects of the alternatives disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3. 

247/23. Road Density. 4-61 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should create new trails 

where needed to meet the 1 mile per 

square mile guideline in areas managed for 

wildlife.

While Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43 do have objectives 

for one mile or less of open routes in the winter, there is no 

other directive regarding road density. The alternatives 

propose different routes and route mileages to address the 

issues. The effects of the alternatives on resources and 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 

3. 

4-61 531

126/209. 126/210. Road Density. 4-62 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider the effect 

of Roadless Areas when applying density 

criteria because roadless areas mitigate for 

impacts on wildlife from high-density 

roaded areas.

The effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitat and other 

resources are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3. 

4-62 532

169/4. Road Density. 4-63 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce road density 

and motorized access to protect tourist 

attractions and reduce traffic.

The EIS explains in Chapter 1 that motorized use by ATVs 

and motorcycles has been increasing on the Black Hills NF 

for some time. The purpose and need for this project 

includes elements to develop a transportation system to 

provide for a quality experience for a variety of Forest 

users, and to reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged 

travel. The effects of the alternatives on resources and 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 

3. 

4-63 533

126/136. Route Closures. 4-64 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should fully disclose all 

existing areas, roads, and trails that would 

be closed to motorized access to ensure 

adequate public disclosure.

The 2005 Travel Management Rule requires the designation 

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

vehicle use; and, that designations shall be made by class of 

vehicle and season of use, where appropriate. The 

alternatives in the EIS are described in these terms. 

Readers can compare action alternatives against the No 

Action alternative to see proposed changes. The decision 

will comply with the requirements of the Rule. 

4-64 534

277/2. Route Closures. 4-65 Public Concern: The Forest Service considered many routes suggested by 4-65 535
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

328

The Forest Service should close no roads 

or trails that are currently accessible.

the public for inclusion in the analysis. Some were not 

included due to resource or other concerns. The 

alternatives consider a number of routes to address the 

purpose and need and the issues in different ways. As 

stated in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Features Shared By All 

Alternatives, administrative access authority would be 

retained for future management needs, access would be 

allowed to contractors or permittees operating within the 

terms of their contract or permit, and reasonable 

administrative access would be allowed for other agencies 

as needed. 

530/14. Route Closures. 4-66 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should only close roads 

when there is a specific, publicly 

documented reason.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The data relating 

to all routes from this analysis will be kept in the record. 

4-66 536

201/3. Route Closures. 4-67 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should revise the rule 

that defaults to road closure unless 

specifically opened be4cause problems are 

more appropriately addressed through 

enforcement.

The agency addressed this comment on the Travel 

Management Rule. The National Forests belong to all 

Americans, but Americans do not have a right to 

unrestricted use of National Forests. Congress established 

the Forest Service to provide reasonable regulation of the 

National Forests so that future generations can continue to 

enjoy them. The Forest Service proposed the travel 

management plan for the Black Hills NF to carry out that 

duty. 

4-67 537

346/7. Route Closures. 4-68 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should implement a 

“closed unless open” policy to protect 

wildlife and contribute to user education.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

4-68 538
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

329

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest.

030/1. 438/4. 545/8. 546/2. Route Closures. 4-68 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should implement a 

“closed unless open” to reduce issues, 

conflicts, and costs.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest.

4-68 539

126/238. Route Closures. 4-69 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revisit the “closed 

unless posted open” policy because 

signage is unreliable and requires 

significant maintenance.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest.

4-69 540

126/237. Route Closures. 4-69 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should revisit the 

“closed unless posted open” policy 

because it is inconsistent with the 3-States 

OHV ROD and National OHV policy.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest.

4-69 541

438/4. Route Closures. 4-70 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should implement an 

“open unless posted closed” policy.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest.

4-70 542

522/6. 522/7. Route Closures. 4-71 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should only close 

routes that they can afford to obliterate 

because if the road is passable, it will be 

used.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest. 

Routes that are not included in the designated system will 

be monitored for possible obliteration depending on 

resource availability.

4-71 543

597/6. Route Closures. 4-72 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid 

decommissioning existing trails because 

the money could be better spent 

upgrading them.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

4-72 544
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

330

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest. 

Routes that are not included in the designated system will 

be monitored for possible obliteration depending on 

resource availability.

536/19. Route Closures. 4-73 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should only close roads 

in areas where the trail system has been 

implemented.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest. 

Routes that are not included in the designated system will 

be monitored for possible obliteration depending on 

resource availability.

4-73 545

488/6. Route Closures. 4-74 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should refrain from 

opening routes that are currently closed 

year-round to prevent unpleasant surprises 

for the non-motorized community.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

4-74 546

473/16. 609/17. Route Closures. 4-75 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should close roads that 

have incurred significant adverse effects 

until the impacts can be mitigated because 

there are significant impacts to sediment, 

stream integrity, wetlands, and floodplains 

from OHV use.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

4-75 547
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

331

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

126/102. Route Closures. 4-76 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid closing 

roads based on wildlife concerns except 

where negative impacts can be identified 

and documented.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

4-76 548

447/5. Route Closures. 4-77 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide proof 

that nests are being used by endangered 

species before closing trails and should 

consider rerouting rather than closing the 

trail.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

4-77 549
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

332

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

126/104. 126/105. Route Closures. 4-78 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid using 

wildlife corridors as a reason to close areas 

to motorized use because sufficient 

evidence that wildlife follow basin divides 

does not exist.

Wildlife habitat needs will be one consideration in the 

decision on which roads to include n the trail and road 

system. The alternatives in FEIS present a range of 

alternatives of different route mileage. These will be taken 

into consideration during the final decision.

4-78 550

126/106. Route Closures. 4-78 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid using 

wildlife corridors as a reason to close areas 

to motorized use because there is no 

Congressional mandate for these 

corridors.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

4-78 551

126/194. Route Closures. 4-79 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid 

obliterating existing roadways and should 

instead reclassify them as motorized to 

avoid the significant environmental 

impacts and cumulative recreation impacts 

from closing and removing roads.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest. 

Routes that are not included in the designated system will 

be monitored for possible obliteration depending on 

resource availability.

4-79 552

471/1. Route Closures. 4-80 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that 

existing rights of way are retained for 

routes that will be closed to ensure longterm access for administrative contractors 

The process of designating a motorized travel system will 

not impact existing authorized access by adjacent 

landowners, permittees and FS administrative use.

4-80 553
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

333

or permittees.

432/9. 525/1. Route Closures. 4-81 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid closing 

roads that serve as alternate fire escape 

routes to comply with local County and 

State laws.

The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be 

able to access public and private lands. The Forest Service 

also recognizes the need for access points to be done 

responsibly including encouraging legal access as well as in 

ways that do not create resource damage. All current legal 

access rights will be maintained and the Forest will work 

with all requiring legal access.

4-81 554

460/14. 535/10. 609/22. Route Closures. 4-82 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider 

classifying roads as trails rather than 

decommissioning them because they have 

already been through the NEPA process.

We agree. Many of the routes considered for designation 

as motorized trails are currently Forest Service roads.

4-82 555

534/13. Route Closures. 4-83 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should classify roads 

that do not meet NEPA standards as trails 

rather than closing them.

We agree. Many of the routes considered for designation 

as motorized trails are currently Forest Service roads.

4-83 556

126/111. Route Closures. 4-84 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not close routes 

that appear to get little use-based levels of 

damage because such a policy penalizes 

ATV riders who tread lightly.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

4-84 557

461/34. Route Closures. 4-85 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that site-specific NEPA analysis must 

precede route closure methods that 

No routes are proposed to be decommissioned or 

physically closed in any alternatives in the DEIS. General 

public motorized travel will be prohibited off the 

designated transportation system. 

4-85 558
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

334

include surface disturbance.

319/41. 462/30. 479/15. Route Closures. 4-86 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide 

physical barriers at road closures that are 

sufficient to block access to ensure that 

needed buffers between motorized and 

non-motorized uses are maintained. 

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. This 

policy was developed to prevent resource damage from 

occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" recreation 

use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to establish 

and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest. 

Routes that are not included in the designated system will 

be monitored for possible physical barricades or 

obliteration depending on resource availability.

4-86 559

114/3. Route Closures. 4-87 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not use the 

phrase “Area Closure Yearlong Off 

Road.”

Area closures are implemented for specific resource 

conditions or needs and will continue as long as the

rationale still exists.

4-87 560

445/6. Seasonal Closures. 4-88 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid seasonal 

closures because they reduce the available 

trails.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-88 561

534/18. Seasonal Closures. 4-88 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid seasonal 

closures because they adversely affect 

winter ATV riding.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-88 562

166/3. 346/22. 362/5. 465/11. Seasonal Closures. 4-89 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify what the 

proposed seasonal closure dates will be to 

ensure access for spring turkey hunting 

and restrict use of wet roads.

Seasonal closure dates will be defined in a route specific 

table on the Motorized Vehicle Use Map.

4-89 563

126/253. Seasonal Closures. 4-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should limit the 

number of seasonal closure periods to two 

to simplify and standardize the system.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-90 564

500/13. Seasonal Closures. 4-91 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider 

multiple closure dates so both off-road 

riders and game can coexist.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-91 565

499/14. Seasonal Closures. 4-91 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider 

multiple closure dates rather than one set 

of dates for all areas.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-91 566
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

335

091/4. Seasonal Closures. 4-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ban off-roading 

November 1 through May 15 to limit 

damage to the trails system and reduce 

conflicts with hunters and wintering 

wildlife.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-92 567

126/214. 126/215. Seasonal Closures. 4-93 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow summer 

motorized access because wildlife can 

coexist with OHV use.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-93 568

126/208. 126/209. Seasonal Closures. 4-94 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should close routes 

during hunting and other critical seasons 

and reopen them in the summer to 

address road density criteria.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-94 569

534/24. Seasonal Closures. 4-95 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify whether 

the Savoy and Hanna areas will be closed 

seasonally.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-95 570

378/16. Seasonal Closures. 4-96 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reduce the 

number of seasonal closures in the 

Northern Hills.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-96 571

047/2. 123/6. 156/4. 214/5. 

319/81. 341/5. 342/5. 343/4. 

344/6. 414/45. 462/62.

Winter Travel Management. 4-97 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include winter travel planning in the plan 

to address wildlife issues, pollution, and 

wildland impacts.

The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not 

address travel by over-the-snow machines. Seasonal 

closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of the action 

alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

4-97 572

326/2. 326/3. Winter Travel Management. 4-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that road closures are in effect 

from December 15 to March 31 to best 

manage snowmobile trails.

The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not 

address travel by over-the-snow machines. Seasonal 

closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of the action 

alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

4-98 573

326/4. Winter Travel Management. 4-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that road closures are in effect 

from December 15 to March 31 to address 

potential conflicts between ATVs and

snowmobiles.

The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not 

address travel by over-the-snow machines. Seasonal 

closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of the action 

alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

4-98 574
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

336

221/17. 261/15. 438/3. Winter Travel Management. 4-99 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should open 

more winter travel routes because often 

there is no snow and weather is mild.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-99 575

460/8. 535/7. 609/19. Winter Travel Management. 4-99 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should open 

more winter travel routes because winter 

recreation is less damaging and is popular.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-99 576

217/16. 227/11. 379/14. 

449/10. 460/10. 

Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter because animals are used 

to roads and to comply with the existing 

forest plan.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-100 577

228/13. Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter to allow travel from 

Black Hawk to Nemo in the winter.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-100 578

216/8. Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter to allow access to the 

Northern Hills during more of the year.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-100 579

262/14. Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter to allow for dispersed 

winter camping.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-100 580

260/13. 389/12. 501/14. Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter including allowing 

narrow trails through areas rather than 

closing entire areas.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-100 581

302/13. 519/8. Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter to provide connector 

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

4-100 582
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

337

routes to allow year-round use of the 

system.

215/6. 217/6. 218/6. 219/6. 

220/6. 221/16. 222/6. 223/6. 

224/6. 225/6. 226/6. 227/6. 

228/6. 229/6. 230/6. 231/6. 

237/6. 239/6. 247/6. 260/6. 

261/6. 262/6. 294/6. 295/6. 

296/6. 297/6. 298/6. 300/6. 

301/6. 302/6. 303/6. 311/6. 

322/6. 337/6. 338/6. 351/6. 

366/6. 378/6. 379/6. 380/6. 

382/6. 384/6. 385/6. 386/6. 

387/6. 388/6. 389/6. 391/6. 

392/6. 393/6. 395/6. 396/6. 

397/6. 407/6. 408/6. 416/6. 

417/6. 421/6. 425/6. 429/6. 

430/6. 450/6. 483/6. 484/6. 

485/6. 494/6. 495/6. 496/6. 

497/6. 497/16. 498/6. 499/6. 

500/6. 501/6. 502/6. 503/6. 

504/6. 505/6. 506/6. 507/6. 

508/6. 509/6. 510/6. 511/6. 

512/2. 513/6. 514/6. 515/6. 

521/6. 530/6. 531/6. 531/14.

532/6. 533/6. 538/6. 561/6. 

562/6. 577/6. 593/6. 603/6. 

604/6. 605/6. 606/6. 609/6. 

Winter Travel Management. 4-101 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the 1 mile per square mile 

guideline is met in winter range to 

compensate for the loss of cross-country 

travel opportunities.

The comment refers to Objective 5.4-207, which would 

achieve an open-road density of one mile of road per 

square mile or less for public travel from December 15 to 

May 15. The alternatives address recreation opportunities 

and resource protection in different ways according to the 

capabilities and conditions in different parts of the Forest. 

The effects of the alternatives on these elements are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, in the Recreation and 

Wildlife sections. 

4-101 583

505/12. 506/12. 507/15. 

509/11.

Winter Travel Management. 4-102 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

maintain trails through areas managed for 

wildlife in winter.

The comment refers to Objective 5.4-207, which would 

achieve an open-road density of one mile of road per 

square mile or less for public travel from December 15 to 

May 15. The alternatives address recreation opportunities 

and resource protection in different ways according to the 

capabilities and conditions in different parts of the Forest. 

The effects of the alternatives on these elements are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, in the Recreation and 

Wildlife sections. 

4-102 584

126/203. 126/204. Winter Travel Management. 4-103 Public There is no lynx habitat on the Forest. Snowmobile use is 4-103 585
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

338

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

closing areas to winter motorized travel 

due to impacts on lynx because studies 

show no adverse impact to lynx from 

snowmobile use.

not the subject of this analysis. 

247/20. Winter Travel Management. 4-104 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

for alternative routes to year-round 

businesses when roads are too wet or 

muddy.

Seasonal conditions affecting one route may affect others 

as well. The alternatives provide for seasonal access in 

different ways. Legal access to inholdings within the Forest 

boundary is not the subject of this analysis and will not be 

affected by the decision. 

4-104 586

126/239. 126/240. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-105 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should use publication FS643 – Roads Analysis to guide the 

evaluation of motorized roads and trails to 

ensure economic, timber management, 

special use permits, fire protection, 

recreation, social, and civil rights issues are 

adequately addressed.

A roads analysis was conducted on Black Hills National 

Forest high-speed roads resulting in a Roads Analysis 

Report (RAP) published in October 2005. A travel analysis 

was conducted on high-clearance roads, trails, and 

unauthorized routes resulting in a Travel Analysis Process 

(TAP) Report published in September 2007. These reports 

provide a technical, science-based review of the Black Hills 

National Forest transportation system. 

4-105 587

579/1. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-106 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should eliminate roads in 

areas assigned to the semi-primitive nonmotorized ROS class to comply with the 

Forest Service Manual.

Semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class applies in 

Management Areas 2.2, 3.1, 3.32, 5.2A, and 5.3B. No 

routes are proposed in Management Area 2.2. In the rest, 

Forest Plan guidelines apply. The effects of the alternatives 

on ROS and recreation are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 

3, Recreation Section. 

4-106 588

126/39. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-107 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide sufficient 

routes to access historic mines and cabins 

and dispersed campsites.

Thank you for your suggestion. The final decision will take 

into account specific purpose and need for routes. 

4-107 589

270/1. 271/1. 456/73. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-108 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

routes or trailheads within 1⁄2 mile of a 

residential area to protect the areas from 

dust, noise, and harassment.

Thank you for your suggestion. The analysis uses two 

factors to evaluate impacts of each alternative. 1. Miles of 

NFS motorized routes within 1/2-mile of a non-motorized 

trail. 2. Miles of designated NFS motorized routes 

through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands.

4-108 590

270/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-109 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should locate motorized 

Thank you for your suggestion. The analysis uses two 

factors to evaluate impacts of each alternative. 1. Miles of 

NFS motorized routes within 1/2-mile of a non-motorized 

4-109 591
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

339

access points away from residential areas 

to protect these areas from the noise.

trail. 2. Miles of designated NFS motorized routes 

through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands.

362/7. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-110 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should create a buffer zone 

between trails and sensitive areas.

Thank you for your suggestion. The analysis uses two 

factors to evaluate impacts of each alternative. 1. Miles of 

NFS motorized routes within 1/2-mile of a non-motorized 

trail. 2. Miles of designated NFS motorized routes 

through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands.

4-110 592

456/117. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-111 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should close and 

rehabilitate routes within 100 yards of 

significant archeological sites, cultural 

artifacts, and historic sites unless the route 

is part of a minimal transportation system 

or legally required for access.

The alternatives provide appropriate measures and design 

criteria to protect cultural resources. These are explained in 

the FEIS, Chapter 2, Alternatives, and in Appendix B, 

Design Criteria. The effects of the alternatives are 

disclosed in Chapter 3, in the Cultural Resources section. 

4-111 593

324/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-112 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider including 

parallel or duplicate routes when those 

routes have different characters.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. 

4-112 594

233/8. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-113 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that the trail 

system design is not overly influenced by 

Forest District boundaries to ensure 

forest-wide consistency and an improved 

trail system.

Districts were heavily involved in developing alternatives 

and determining routes to be included in each. District 

personnel then worked with Forest and Interdisciplinary 

Team personnel to apply themes common to the 

alternatives and to assure that routes crossing District 

boundaries would be managed in the same way.

4-113 595

126/24. 496/13. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-114 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow for a variety of 

motorized trails to accommodate different 

Thank you for your suggestion. 4-114 596
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

340

skill levels.

301/11. 320/11. 362/6. 465/9. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-115 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the number 

of spur roads.

Thank you for your suggestion. The final decision will take 

into account specific purpose and use for spur and deadend routes.

4-115 597

346/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-116 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should either keep spur 

roads open to all vehicle types or close 

them to reduce illegal user-created trails.

Thank you for your suggestion. The final decision will take 

into account specific purpose and use for spur and deadend routes.

4-116 598

085/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-117 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain the reasons 

for excluding specific routes to allow the 

public to evaluate those factors.

The alternatives provide different recreational 

opportunities to address the issues. The route information 

provided by the public was used in formulating these 

alternatives. Some routes were carried forward into one or 

more alternatives, others were not included in any 

alternative, possibly due to resource conditions. The 

review of individual routes is documented in the project 

record. In the FEIS Alternative C has been modified to 

designate some existing roads as motorized trails in the 

Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern 

Black Hills. This increases the number of miles of looped 

trails for riders of vehicles 65 inches and less in width. 

4-117 599

119/4. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- General. 4-117 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain the reasons 

for excluding specific routes because the 

public took the time to provide comment.

The alternatives provide different recreational 

opportunities to address the issues. The route information 

provided by the public was used in formulating these 

alternatives. Some routes were carried forward into one or 

more alternatives, others were not included in any 

alternative, possibly due to resource conditions. The 

review of individual routes is documented in the project 

record. In the FEIS Alternative C has been modified to 

designate some existing roads as motorized trails in the 

Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern 

Black Hills. This increases the number of miles of looped 

trails for riders of vehicles 65 inches and less in width. 

4-117 600

351/16. 536/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

requiring the use of mixed use roads 

because many OHVs have titles that 

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 

4-118 601
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

341

prohibit licensing, as required on forest 

roads.

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may designate 

certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions will be 

made in the Record of Decision and will be informed by a 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

578/38. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

requiring the use of mixed use roads to 

avoid placing loud OHV machines on 

roads with cars.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 36 

CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken the 

lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may designate 

certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions will be 

made in the Record of Decision and will be informed by a 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

4-118 602

244/2. 373/3. 439/2. 446/3. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

requiring the use of mixed use roads to 

increase safety.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 36 

CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken the 

lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may designate 

certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions will be 

made in the Record of Decision and will be informed by a 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

4-118 603

217/15. 233/7. 403/5. 441/3. 

446/2. 449/4. 

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

requiring the use of mixed use roads 

because child-sized dirt bikes cannot be 

made street legal, thus eliminating familybased motorized recreation.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 36 

CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken the 

lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may designate

certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions will be 

made in the Record of Decision and will be informed by a 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

4-118 604

317/20. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Mixed-Use Routes. 4-119 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

only highway legal vehicles on roads to 

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 

4-119 605
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

342

avoid impacts to private property. operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may designate 

certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions will be 

made in the Record of Decision and will be informed by a 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

583/4. 584/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Mixed-Use Routes. 4-120 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

disclose the impacts to drivers of streetlegal vehicles from the mixing of nonstreet legal vehicles on roads.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 36 

CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken the 

lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may designate 

certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions will be 

made in the Record of Decision and will be informed by a 

Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

4-120 606

142/8. 224/11. 483/18. 497/12. 

498/12. 500/12. 531/13. 591/2. 

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create more loop trails because a 

loop-system is popular and entertaining.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

4-121 607

182/3. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create more loop trails to allow for 

ample parking and increase safety.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

4-121 608
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

343

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

Alternative C proposes the greatest number of trailheads 

for motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

453/6. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create more loop trails to improve 

the recreation experience and provide 

family recreation.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

4-121 609

216/4. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create more loop trails to provide 

for longer rides for senior citizens.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

Alternative C proposes the greatest route mileage of the 

action alternatives. 

4-121 610

447/7. 548/5. 565/3. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

4-121 611
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

344

should create more loop trails to improve 

the recreation experience. 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

261/14. 494/14. 498/13. 

502/14. 503/15. 508/15. 

510/12. 510/14. 

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-122 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide connecting trails to avoid 

overuse.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

4-122 612

496/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-122 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide connecting trails to 

campgrounds.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

Alternative C proposes the trail system connect to or run 

immediately adjacent to several campgrounds in the Nemo 

area including Dalton Lake because these are heavily used 

by motorized recreationists. In other areas, and in other 

4-122 613
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

345

alternatives, the Forest Service decided not to propose this 

to minimize conflicts with other users of the Forest. 

133/3. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-123 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid closing non-looping trails.

The Forest Service considered many routes suggested by 

the public for inclusion in the analysis. Some were not 

included due to resource or other concerns. The 

alternatives consider a number of routes to address the 

purpose and need and the issues in different ways. Sitespecific route analysis is documented in the planning 

record. 

4-123 614

030/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-124 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support development of a looped 

trail system including consideration of the 

enrolled roadways alternative.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the DEIS 

to describe these; the term has been changed in the FEIS to 

"Motorized Trail System". The concept is the same. The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. 

4-124 615

393/14. 429/12. 439/5. 445/5. 

545/3. 546/6. 546/7. 565/1. 

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity to 

reduce the number of isolated areas.

The Forest Service proposed varying levels and dispersions 

of motorized use in the action alternatives to provide a 

quality experience for a variety of Forest users and to 

reduce the adverse impacts of unmanaged travel. These 

alternatives also address the issues in different ways, 

including effects on natural and cultural resources and 

conflicts with other users. This results in the system 

proposed in each alternative. 

4-125 616

216/7. 220/12. 228/12. 230/14. 

426/3. 460/9. 497/15. 534/11. 

535/8. 536/20.

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity because 

it would be more family friendly and trails 

could parallel highways.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has been 

changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

4-125 617
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

346

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. The 

options to increase connectivity in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions are outside the scope of this proposal. 

Alternative C provides the greatest route mileage for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

499/13. 510/13. 522/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity to 

increase safety.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has been 

changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. The 

options to increase connectivity in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions are outside the scope of this proposal. 

Alternative C provides the greatest route mileage for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

4-125 618

504/11. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity to 

reduce the need for licenses for OHVs.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has been 

changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. The 

options to increase connectivity in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions are outside the scope of this proposal. 

4-125 619
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

347

Alternative C provides the greatest route mileage for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

299/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity to allow 

unlicensed riders to avoid using roads.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has been 

changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. The 

options to increase connectivity in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions are outside the scope of this proposal. 

Alternative C provides the greatest route mileage for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

4-125 620

080/3. 394/13. 395/12. 495/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity to 

provide for the safety of young riders.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has been 

changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. The 

options to increase connectivity in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions are outside the scope of this proposal. 

Alternative C provides the greatest route mileage for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

4-125 621
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

348

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

261/12. 262/12. 359/6. 394/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should improve trail connectivity to 

reduce the need for trailering.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has been 

changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." The 

Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some dead-end 

spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the proposed 

designation of certain roads in the Antelope Springs and 

Martin Draw areas in the southern Black Hills as motorized 

trails. This was done to increase the trail mileage available 

to vehicles 65 inches in width and less, and to address 

requests for more family recreation opportunities. The 

options to increase connectivity in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions are outside the scope of this proposal. 

Alternative C provides the greatest route mileage for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

4-125 622

504/14. 507/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Route Selection, Designation, and 

Design - Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-

126 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider providing parallel trails 

along connecting roads to allow 

unlicensed riders to have access to 

connecting trails.

Alternative C offers the greatest motorized route mileage, 

and the most connectivity between motorized trail systems. 

Connections are provided where appropriate and where the 

Forest Service has jurisdiction on the routes. The 

opportunity for further connectivity was limited in many 

cases since proposals for use in ditches along roads of 

other jurisdictions is outside the scope of this proposal. 

Safety of users was a major consideration in the 

development of alternatives. Alternative D is designed to 

reduce the safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs 

and motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

4-126 623

126/241. 496/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Route Selection, Designation, and 

Design - Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-

127 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide a continuous system of 

roads and trails to allow OHVs to be 

legally ridden. 

The purpose and need for this proposal includes the 

element to provide a range of quality experiences for a 

variety of Forest users. The action alternatives were 

developed to provide a range of motorized uses and to 

address the issues. The effects of the alternatives on 

recreation opportunity are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 

3, Recreation section. Concerning connectivity, please 

refer to the responses to PCs 4-125 and 4-126 above. 

4-127 624
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

349

105/13. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Route Selection, Designation, and 

Design - Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-

128 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create a connecting trail system for 

vehicles 50-inches and less because such a 

trail system would encompass mot 

motorized users.

Alternative C provides for the greatest motorized use 

mileage. The Forest Service considered several other 

alternatives besides the action alternatives described in 

detail in the EIS. As discussed in Chapter 2, Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, the Forest 

Service considered other routes to provide higher levels of 

motorized use than Alternative C, but dismissed these from 

detailed consideration for several reasons. These include 

possible violation of Forest Plan standards for resource 

protection, need to cross other jurisdictions, and possible 

high noise levels near adjacent private lands. 

4-128 625

215/5. 217/5. 218/5. 219/5. 

220/5. 222/5. 223/5. 224/5. 

225/5. 226/5. 227/5. 228/5. 

229/5. 230/5. 231/5. 237/5. 

239/5. 247/5. 260/5. 261/5. 

262/5. 294/5. 295/5. 296/5. 

297/5. 298/5. 300/5. 301/5. 

302/5. 303/5. 311/5. 322/5. 

337/5. 338/5. 351/5. 366/5. 

378/5. 379/5. 380/5. 382/5. 

384/5. 385/5. 386/5. 387/5. 

388/5. 389/5. 391/5. 392/5. 

393/5. 395/5. 396/5. 397/5. 

407/5. 408/5. 416/5. 417/5. 

421/5. 425/5. 429/5. 430/5. 

450/5. 483/5. 484/5. 485/5. 

494/5. 495/5. 496/5. 497/5. 

498/5. 499/5. 500/5. 501/5. 

502/5. 503/5. 504/5. 505/5. 

506/5. 507/5. 508/5. 509/5. 

510/5. 511/5. 512/2. 513/5. 

514/5. 515/5. 521/5. 530/5. 

530/13. 531/5. 532/5. 533/5. 

538/5. 561/5. 562/5. 577/5. 

593/5. 603/5. 604/5. 605/5. 

606/5. 609/5. 

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Route Selection, Designation, and 

Design - Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-

129 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that areas of heavier 

motorized trail use be connected to each 

other to ensure that the system is family 

friendly.

Please see responses to PCs 4-121 and 4-125 above. 4-129 626

508/19. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Route Selection, Designation, and 

Design - Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. Copies 

4-130 627
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

350

130 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that trails come close to 

towns so towns can build connector trails.

Towns.

of the DEIS were mailed to county commissioners for 

Crook, Weston and Campbell Counties in Wyoming; and 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River 

Counties in South Dakota, as well as numerous 

municipalities in the area. As the comment period ended, 

the Forest Supervisor contacted these counties and 

municipalities by letter of May 7, 2009, to request 

information on their plans to allow access from the Forest 

into their jurisdictions. An additional 30 days were allowed 

for response to these comments. All comments from these 

entities, businesses and the public at large were considered 

in the analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

215/4. 215/9. 216/6. 216/11. 

217/4. 217/14. 218/4. 219/4. 

220/4. 221/14. 221/19. 222/4. 

222/14. 222/16. 223/4. 224/4. 

224/12. 225/4. 225/12. 225/13. 

226/4. 227/4. 228/4. 229/4. 

230/4. 231/4. 237/4. 239/4. 

247/4. 247/19. 260/4. 261/4. 

261/13. 262/4. 294/4. 295/4. 

296/4. 297/4. 298/4. 299/11. 

300/4. 301/4. 302/4. 303/4. 

311/4. 322/4. 322/16. 337/4. 

338/4. 351/4. 366/4. 378/4. 

378/15. 379/4. 380/4. 382/4. 

382/15. 384/4. 385/4. 386/4. 

387/4. 388/4. 389/4. 389/11. 

391/4. 392/4. 393/4. 393/15. 

395/4. 396/4. 397/4. 407/4. 

408/4. 416/4. 417/4. 421/4. 

425/4. 426/2. 429/4. 430/4. 

439/6. 441/5. 449/9. 450/4. 

450/16. 483/4. 484/4. 485/4. 

494/4. 494/17. 495/4. 495/13. 

496/4. 496/11. 497/4. 498/4. 

499/4. 499/12. 500/4. 501/4. 

501/13. 501/16. 502/4. 503/4. 

504/4. 505/4. 506/4. 507/4. 

508/4. 509/4. 510/4. 511/4. 

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-131 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that trails connect to towns 

and businesses to ensure access to 

services.

The Forest Service actively sought interest in Gateway 

Communities from local jurisdictions. No specific routes 

were identified by local jurisdictions during the public 

comment period. All input received will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

4-131 628
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

351

512/2. 513/4. 514/4. 515/4. 

521/4. 530/4. 531/4. 532/4. 

533/4. 535/6. 538/4. 561/4. 

562/4. 577/4. 593/4. 593/16. 

594/5. 595/5. 596/5. 597/4. 

598/6. 599/5. 600/5. 601/5. 

602/5. 603/4. 603/13. 604/4. 

604/14. 605/4. 605/14. 606/4. 

606/16. 609/4. 609/18.

222/13. 224/13. 229/14. 

260/12. 351/17. 386/11. 451/5. 

459/13. 460/73. 461/9. 492/6. 

495/14. 499/15. 507/17. 

511/15. 514/14. 526/6. 545/4. 

546/8. 609/18.

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-131 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that trails connect to towns 

and businesses to support the local 

economy.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. Copies 

of the DEIS were mailed to county commissioners for 

Crook, Weston and Campbell Counties in Wyoming; and 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River 

Counties in South Dakota, as well as numerous 

municipalities in the area. As the comment period ended, 

the Forest Supervisor contacted these counties and 

municipalities by letter of May 7, 2009, to request 

information on their plans to allow access from the Forest 

into their jurisdictions. An additional 30 days were allowed 

for response to these comments. All comments from these 

entities, businesses and the public at large were considered 

in the analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

4-131 629

231/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-132 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge sufficient access to 

services is being provided.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. Copies 

of the DEIS were mailed to county commissioners for 

Crook, Weston and Campbell Counties in Wyoming; and 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River 

Counties in South Dakota, as well as numerous 

municipalities in the area. As the comment period ended, 

the Forest Supervisor contacted these counties and 

municipalities by letter of May 7, 2009, to request 

information on their plans to allow access from the Forest 

into their jurisdictions. An additional 30 days were allowed 

for response to these comments. All comments from these 

entities, businesses and the public at large were considered 

in the analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

4-132 630
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

352

432/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-133 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate roads that do not 

terminate at a scenic area or destination.

The Forest Service recognizes that dead-end roads and 

road spurs that do not lead to specific destinations may not 

be appropriate as parts of a motorized route system. Such 

routes can invite abuse and do not provide the loop 

opportunity sought by many. Alternative D includes the 

lowest mileage of such routes. 

4-133 631

534/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-134 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clearly mark non-looping trails that 

do not terminate at a scenic area or 

destination because most users would 

prefer not to use dead-end trails.

Please see response to PC 4-133. Routes designated for 

motorized use will be shown on the MVUM. 

4-134 632

488/16. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-135 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid creating connector trails in 

the Silver City area because it is 

unworkable there.

Travel in the vicinity of Silver City is limited to highway 

legal vehicles and licensed operators only in Alternatives C, 

D and E. Connector routes must be open to all vehicle 

types (licensed and unlicensed). 

4-135 633

228/14. 229/13. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-136 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the number 

of trailheads to support tourism and the 

local economy.

The number of trailheads available on the motorized 

system varies by alternative. Alternative C would provide 

the most (34) and Alternatives A and E the least (7). 

Trailheads would support more use but would also cost 

more to install and maintain. The effects of the alternatives 

on local economies are discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Socio-Economics section. 

4-136 634

142/6. 461/27. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-137 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more 

trailheads near service-related businesses 

and gateway communities to support local 

economic stability.

Please see responses to PCs 4-131 and 4-136. 4-137 635

314/3. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-138 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide trailheads at 

every community so users can access the 

trail system without trailering.

Please see responses to PCs 4-131 and 4-136. 4-138 636

286/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The 

The Forest Service recognizes that the effects of use near 

trailheads may be heavier due to concentration. The 

4-139 637
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

353

Forest Service should reconsider the plan 

for trailheads to avoid damage from 

concentrated use.

alternatives propose different numbers of trailheads to 

address different issues such as recreation opportunity and 

effects to natural and cultural resources. Adjustments can 

be made to motorized trailheads in any selected alternative 

based on the results of monitoring of use and effects. 

247/26. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the plan 

for trailheads to provide for multiple uses 

and needs of the public.

The trailheads proposed in the alternatives would primarily 

serve motorized users because they would be located on 

the motorized travel system. The intent is to minimize 

conflicts between non-motorized and motorized 

recreationists. Trailhead design standards would 

accommodate a variety of users. 

4-139 638

456/72. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the plan 

for trailhead to ensure that affected 

residents and private landowners approve 

the trailheads.

The Forest Service will consider comments from private 

landowners concerning the effects of any motorized system 

on Forest neighbors in the decision on this project. Some 

have supported locating trailheads near private lands to 

facilitate their own quick access to the system, while others 

have objected based on nuisance noise or dust, or other 

grounds. 

4-139 639

578/8. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the plan 

for trailheads to ensure they are not sited 

next to private lands or communities.

Please see response to PC 4-139 above. 4-139 640

453/7. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the plan 

for trailheads because many are not 

adjacent to any trails.

The Forest Service will review the location of proposed 

trailheads before issuing the FEIS. Thank you for your 

suggestions. 

4-139 641

461/8. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-140 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that 

trailheads connect to trails and that 

sufficient funding is available.

Trailheads would be proposed and developed to support 

any motorized travel system, therefore they would be 

located on or near system routes. Any motorized travel 

system including trailheads would be implemented in a 

staged fashion over time, rather than all at once, subject in 

part to the availability of funding. Prospective funding is 

an important consideration for the decision on this project 

but is outside the scope of the decision, and it is speculative 

at this point to try to identify all future possible funding 

sources. The Redbank trailhead, proposed in all 

alternatives, is located on the Hell Canyon Ranger District. 

4-140 642
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

354

More trailheads could be proposed in the future based on 

monitoring of use levels and patterns. 

315/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-141 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider locating 

trailheads in backcountry areas to reduce 

illegal off-road use.

The Forest Service acknowledges there is always some 

likelihood of vandalism or other damage to remote 

facilities. It is assumed the public will generally comply 

with the terms of the MVUM. Adjustments to the system 

including increased patrol and enforcement can be made 

based on monitoring. 

4-141 643

497/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-142 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider using 

campgrounds as trailheads to save money.

Placement of trailheads in the alternatives is intended to 

support the motorized travel system. The Forest Service 

did co-locate several motorized trailheads with 

campgrounds in Alternative C, including the Dalton Lake 

trailhead. However, generally this practice was avoided in 

order to minimize conflicts between different Forest users. 

The estimated costs of the alternatives are disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

4-142 644

503/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Trailheads. 4-143 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide services at 

trailheads to increase revenue.

Options such as concessionaires at trailheads could be 

considered in the future based on monitoring of use and 

demand, and consistent with agency policy. Competition 

with local businesses would be a necessary consideration 

before implementing such an option. 

4-143 645

319/84. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

144 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate the Concentrated 

Motorized Use Areas from the plan 

because they may cause confusion for 

users.

Several commenters noted that they found the term, 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas, confusing in the 

DEIS, and specifically felt it may inadvertently imply 

allowance of cross-country motorized use. The term has 

been replaced in the FEIS with the term, Motorized Trail 

System (MTS). The concept is the same as in the DEIS 

and, as in that document, no unlimited cross-country 

motorized travel would be designated within these areas. 

The NFAB felt any motorized system should consist of 

multiple-scale loops. To provide for that feature the Forest 

Service proposes MTSs to identify defined areas featuring 

smaller-scale loop routes. The effects of the alternatives on 

wildlife, soils, water, plants and cultural resources are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, in the respective sections. 

4-144 646

414/48. 462/65. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

144 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate the Concentrated 

Please see response to PC 4-144 above. The term, play 

areas, is not used in the EIS. Alternative C does provide 

three small beginner practice areas totaling ten acres in size. 

These are not intended to be used by advanced riders as 

4-144 647
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

355

Motorized Use Areas from the plan 

because "play areas" are not appropriate 

on public land.

play areas. Motorized cross-country travel is provided for 

in Alternative B and C only for the purposes of game 

retrieval or designated camping. The effects of the 

alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, in Chapter 3. 

326/44. 456/25. 458/16. 

465/17.

Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

144 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate the Concentrated 

Motorized Use Areas from the plan 

because the impacts on wildlife have not 

been sufficiently evaluated.

Several commenters noted that they found the term, 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas, confusing in the 

DEIS, and specifically felt it may inadvertently imply 

allowance of cross-country motorized use. The term has 

been replaced in the FEIS with the term, Motorized Trail 

System (MTS). The concept is the same as in the DEIS 

and, as in that document, no unlimited cross-country 

motorized travel would be designated within these areas. 

The NFAB felt any motorized system should consist of 

multiple-scale loops. To provide for that feature the Forest 

Service proposes MTSs to identify defined areas featuring 

smaller-scale loop routes. The effects of the alternatives on 

wildlife, soils, water, plants and cultural resources are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, in the respective sections. 

4-144 648

142/2. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

145 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should concentrate motorized use as 

proposed in Alternative C to help 

eliminate illegal riding in closed areas.

Thank you for your comment. 4-145 649

588/15. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. To 

ensure locals are given a range of choices 

including quiet recreation. 4-146 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the impacts to local residents of 

having CMUAs located nearby to ensure 

locals are given a range of choices 

including quiet recreation.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

4-146 650
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

356

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

588/13. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

146 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the impacts to local 

residents of having CMUAs located 

nearby to address the problem of children 

riding ATVs.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

4-146 651

588/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

146 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the impacts to local 

residents of having CMUAs located 

nearby to address the impact on property 

values.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each routes considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. The decision may 

include the designation of some routes that currently do 

not meet established standards with the caveat that they be 

brought up to standard prior to being formally included 

within the transportation system. 

4-146 652

449/7. 536/8. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

147 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

It is true that an aim of this project is to provide a network 

of routes and loops. The Forest Service endeavored to do 

this to varying degrees in the alternatives, but was often 

4-147 653
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

357

should ensure that CMUAs are connected 

to adjacent areas to comply with the 

objectives of the plan.

constrained by one or more factors including inability to 

propose and designate parallel routes in the rights-of-way 

of other jurisdictions, potential noise or dust impacts to 

adjacent private landowners, etc. Alternative C provides 

the greatest mileage of motorized routes, while Alternative 

D provided lower route mileage to reduce the safety risk to 

non-highway-legal OHV and motorcycle users. The term 

CMUA was changed in the FEIS to motorized trail system 

(MTS) in response to comments that it was confusing. 

488/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

148 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should restrict the trails on the periphery 

of CMUAs to prevent conflicts from 

OHVs leaving the CMUA.

Please see response to PC 4-144. Routes designated 

outside of motorized trail systems (MTSs) would be 

available for motorized use as designated on the MVUM, 

similar to routes within the MTSs. 

4-148 654

453/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

149 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include play areas or cross-country 

practice areas because they allow for a 

variety of users and can become tourist 

attractions.

Alternative C does propose three small beginner practice 

areas totaling ten acres in size. Two would be on the 

Bearlodge Ranger District in Wyoming, a third would be on 

the Northern Hills Ranger District in South Dakota. As 

stated in the FEIS, Chapter 2, in the description of 

Alternative C, these areas could serve as practice areas for 

novice riders. They are not intended as play areas for use 

by advanced riders. Other than this, motorized crosscountry travel in Alternatives B and C would be restricted 

to game retrieval and dispersed camping. The Forest 

Service believes that motorized cross-country use, if 

concentrated in a small area, could cause unacceptable 

effects to natural and cultural resources. 

4-149 655

453/5. 508/18. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

149 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include play areas or cross-country 

practice areas to reduce the need for open 

areas.

Motorized cross-country travel is proposed in Alternatives 

B and C only for the purposes of game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. Also see response to PC 4-149 above. 

4-149 656

536/12. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-

150 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include the Prairie Creek CMUA to 

be consistent with the Rule.

In the FEIS, Chapter 1, Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study section, it is explained that 

the Forest Service believes that motorized cross-country 

use, especially if concentrated in small areas, could lead to 

unacceptable impacts to natural and cultural resources. 

4-150 657
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

358

The Forest Service changed the term, CMUA, in the FEIS 

to motorized travel system (MTS), in response to 

comments that the public was confused by the term. The 

systems proposed in each alternative will be considered in 

the decision. 

126/76. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-151 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should revisit the 

allocation of motorized to non-motorized 

trails to ensure that trail designations meet 

the motorized recreation needs of the 

public. 

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

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

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts 

4-151 658

126/89. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-152 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate trails 

at a ratio of 25:1 of motorized to nonmotorized to more accurately reflect the 

actual usage patterns.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

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

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts 

4-152 659

126/57. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-153 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate trails 

based on a 50/50 ratio of motorized to 

non-motorized trails to be fair and 

accurately reflect actual usage patterns.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

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

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts 

4-153 660

126/32. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-154 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should monitor usage 

of motorized and non-motorized users on 

individual routes and make designation 

decisions based on those results.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule including 

monitoring is a responsibility each National Forest is 

undertaking under the direction of that rule. The Black 

Hills NF plan may incorporate a variety of conditions to 

monitor. Other monitoring protocols are being 

implemented through other direction outlines in FS 

Manuals and Handbooks that resulted from direction 

outlined in the TM Rule.

4-154 661

126/16. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-155 Public Concern: 

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and non4-155 662
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

359

The Forest Service should provide a wide 

variety of trails while ensuring that the 

quality and quantity of motorized trails is 

at least equal to that of non-motorized 

trails.

motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts 

126/61. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-156 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider the 

elimination of the dual-use designation 

because the proposal would effectively 

render the project area off-limits to OHV 

use.

Where necessary, a decision on whether to designate roads 

for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a 

motorized-mixed-use analysis performed by a qualified 

engineer. Depending on the complexity of the situation, 

the analysis may range from documenting engineering 

judgment to an engineering report that addresses many 

factors related to motorized mixed use. The analysis 

considers the safety risks in terms of crash potential and 

crash severity of designating highway-legal- and nonhighway-legal vehicles for concurrent use on the same 

roads.

4-156 663

126/62. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-156 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the 

elimination of the dual-use designation to 

support family-oriented OHV recreation. 

State law requires public roads to have valid driver's 

licenses and vehicles to be registered. Where necessary, a 

decision on whether to designate roads for motorized 

mixed traffic will be informed by a motorized-mixed-use 

analysis performed by a qualified engineer. Depending on 

the complexity of the situation, the analysis may range from 

documenting engineering judgment to an engineering 

report that addresses many factors related to motorized 

mixed use. The analysis considers the safety risks in terms 

of crash potential and crash severity of designating 

highway-legal- and non-highway-legal vehicles for 

concurrent use on the same roads.

4-156 664

126/60. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-157 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include a 

system of dual-use routes because they are 

essential for family OHV recreation and to 

reduce illegal trail riding.

Where necessary, a decision on whether to designate roads 

for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a 

motorized-mixed-use analysis performed by a qualified 

engineer. Depending on the complexity of the situation, 

the analysis may range from documenting engineering 

judgment to an engineering report that addresses many 

factors related to motorized mixed use. The analysis 

considers the safety risks in terms of crash potential and 

crash severity of designating highway-legal- and nonhighway-legal vehicles for concurrent use on the same 

4-157 665
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

360

roads.

355/5. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-158 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider 

designating roads in the Wyoming portion 

of the BHNF as being for licensed 

vehicles only because there are few 

conflicts between licenses vehicles and 

ORVs.

The final decision will include several roads in Wyoming 

that are planned for enrollment in the WY ORV program 

which will allow for use by ORVs with a license plate or a 

WY ORV permit.

4-158 666

327/4. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-159 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid 

designating roads maintained by 

Pennington County as ORV trails to 

ensure that non-licensed drivers and 

vehicles are not accessing public roads. 

The Forest designated system of motorized travel routes 

will not include any roads that are County or other 

government entity jurisdiction. Decisions will only be 

made on FS jurisdictional routes. 

4-159 667

126/22. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-160 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should convert all 

roads closed to full-sized vehicles to ATV 

routes.

The Forest plans to provide access for both highway-legal 

and non highway-legal vehicles in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. Decisions 

on the type of use allowed will be based on factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts 

4-160 668

126/135. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Designations. 4-161 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid using use 

levels as a criterion for designation 

because it is not a criteria for nonmotorized trails.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

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

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, and 

existing and/or potential conflicts.

4-161 669

357/14. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Walk-In Areas. 4-162 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate the 

areas identified as exemplary in the Black 

Hills Community Inventory as walk-inonly areas to protect them from motorized 

use.

It is not the purpose of this analysis to designate walk-in 

areas, but rather to designate roads, trails and areas open to 

motorized travel. The Forest Service received requests 

from several sources to reduce or eliminate motorized 

travel in certain areas in favor of non-motorized uses. The 

alternatives address this concern by balancing uses in 

different ways to respond to the project objectives. The 

effects of the alternatives on resources and non-motorized 

4-162 670
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

361

recreation are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3 in the 

Botanical and Recreation sections and others, and will be 

considered in the decision on this project. 

465/19. Route Selection, Designation, and Design 

- Walk-In Areas. 4-163 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider adding 

the walk-in areas proposed by the Black 

Hills Sportsmen‟s Club and the South 

Dakota Wildlife Federation.

The route and area configurations in the alternatives were 

designed to meet project objectives and balance uses in 

different ways. Also see response to Public Concern 4-162. 

4-163 671

319/30. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-164 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Bear 

Lodge/Creek areas to protect sensitive 

species and plant species of local concern.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

the Bearlodge and Bear Creek areas. Alternative D offers 

the least amount of motorized opportunities for these 

areas.

4-164 672

280/13. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-165 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate motorized activity in 

Bear/Beaver Gulches, Black Fox Valley, 

Black Fox Sphagnum Wetlands, South 

Fork of Rapid Creek, Rhoads Fork Spring, 

Dugout Gulch, Englewood Springs, 

Higgins Gulch, Grigg‟s Gulch, McIntosh 

Fen, North Fork of Castle Creek, and 

Upper Sand Creek.

None of the alternatives analyzed included motorized 

routes in the Black Fox area south of the Rochford Road 

and east of Rhoade's Fork. Many roads open to highway 

legal vehicles west of Rhoade's Fork and south of the South 

Fork Rapid Creek in Alternative C were eliminated from 

Alternative D. No additional motorized routes in the 

McIntosh Fen, Rhoades Fork Spring, or North Fork Castle 

Creek areas were included in any of the alternatives. All 

routes including the Beaver/Bear Gulch's, Englewood 

Springs, Higgins Gulch, Griggs Gulch were analyzed in the 

DEIS for environmental and social effects and the decision 

on whether or not to include them will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. All impacts to MA 3.1 Botanical 

Areas were analyzed in the DEIS and further described in 

the Botany Resource Report. 

4-165 673

414/58. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-166 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should prohibit motorized routes in the 

Big Hill and Spearfish Canyon areas to 

protect riparian areas.

All routes including Big Hill and Spearfish Canyon areas 

were analyzed in the DEIS for environmental and social 

effects and the decision on whether or not to include them 

will be included in the Record of Decision. A discussion on 

riparian habitat was analyzed in several different sections of 

the DEIS BHNF Travel Management Plan. 

4-166 674

319/27. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-167 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails in the Big Hill Trails 

(#72) area to protect sensitive species and 

Big Hills trails #72 are non-motorized trails and were not 

analyzed under the DEIS BHNF Travel Management Plan 

for sensitive species and species of local concern.

4-167 675
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

362

plant species of local concern.

319/15. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-168 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Black Hawk 

Winter Wildlife Area/Ware Canyon area 

to protect elk habitat.

Roads in the Black Hawk area analyzed in Alternatives C, 

D, and E are closed seasonally. Alternatives B, C and D 

propose closing some routes in the Black Hawk Area and 

Ware Canyon area. Your comment will be considered and 

the Record of Decision will document the rationale for 

designating routes on the MVUM.

4-168 676

319/25. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-169 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails in the Buskala Creek 

area to protect sensitive species and plant 

species of local concern.

All routes including any in the Buskala area were analyzed 

for botanical issues in pages 231-251 in the DEIS BHNF 

Travel Management Plan. Any decision on routes included 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

4-169 677

319/28. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-170

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails in the Cement Ridge 

area to protect sensitive species and plant 

species of local concern to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

Cement Ridge area. Alternative D offers the least amount 

of motorized opportunities for this area.

4-170 678

538/18. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-171 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should add trails to the Citadel Rock area.

Thank you for your opinion on where routes should be 

added in the Citadel Rock Area. Varying numbers of miles 

of trail were looked at between Alternative A through C. 

Many proposed routes in this area were eliminated due to 

resource concerns for botany, slope and archeology. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-171 679

372/11. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-172 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate Cranberry Springs and 

the Black Fox and Swede Gulch areas as 

non-motorized only.

The Swede Gulch area is currently designated by the Forest 

Plan as a back country non-motorized area. The Black Fox 

area is designated by the Forest Plan as a botanical area, 

which is closed to motorized vehicles off Forest System 

Roads per Special Order #82. Neither was proposed for 

designation for motorized use in any action alternative, so 

these areas would not be available for motorized use under 

any of these. Designation of areas for non-motorized use 

is beyond the scope of this proposal. 

4-172 680

229/11. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-173 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include four-wheel access trails in 

Custer County.

Although there are no designated trails in Custer County at 

this time, this does not limit the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District from consideration of trail designation in the 

future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

4-173 681
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

363

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

319/22. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-174 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Davenport 

Cave/Beaver Park and Fort Meade 

Administrative Watershed and Sturgis 

Experimental Watershed areas to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

All route including Davenport Cave/ Beaver Park/Ft 

Meade and Sturgis experimental Watersheds areas were 

analyzed for botanical issues in pages 231-251 in the DEIS 

BHNF Travel Management Plan. Any decision on route 

included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

4-174 682

319/16. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-175 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Ditch Creek 

area to protect bat habitat.

There are currently no known sites that provide critical bat 

habitat (e.g. hibernacula or maternity roosts) in the Ditch 

Creek area. Alternatives B, C and D propose closing some 

routes in the Ditch Creek area. The Record of Decision will 

document the FS decision maker's rationale for designating 

routes on the MVUM.

4-175 683

414/62. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-176 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate motorized routes 

between Dugout Gulch and Crow Peak 

and south of Crook Mountain because 

roads are prohibited within management 

areas.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

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

any public motorized use within the area. All routes 

including in the Crow Peak area and south of Crook 

mountain were analyzed for environmental concerns and 

any decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. No additional routes were considered 

in the back country non-motorized areas as designated by 

the current Forest Plan. 

4-176 684

346/33. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-177 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove motorized trails from 

Dugout Gulch to reduce disturbance to 

wildlife.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

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

any public motorized use within the area.

4-177 685

080/2. 306/1. 479/5. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-177 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove motorized trails from 

Dugout Gulch because the area has rare 

botanical resources.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

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

any public motorized use within the area.

4-177 686

077/1. 319/23. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-177 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove motorized trails from 

Dugout Gulch to protect sensitive species 

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.

4-177 687
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

364

and plant species of local concern.

548/9. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-178 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove motorized trails from 

Dugout Gulch and Eagle Cliff because the 

areas have a large non-motorized user 

group. 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

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

any public motorized use within the area. No additional 

motorized routes were considered in any alternative in the 

Eagle Cliff non-motorized trail area. 

4-178 688

280/7. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-179 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should eliminate motorized travel in the 

watershed of upper Higgins Gulch and 

Grigg‟s Gulch.

No additional motorized routes were considered in any 

alternative in the Higgins or Griggs Gulch areas.

4-179 689

414/59. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-180 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should prohibit motorized routes in 

Higgins Gulch, Upper Sand Creek, and 

northwest of Custer Peak to protect 

botanical management areas.

No additional motorized routes were considered in any 

alternative in the Higgins Botanical Area. Botanical

resources were analyzed in the DEIS. Several existing and 

unclassified routes were analyzed north west of Custer Peak 

(Englewood Botanical Area). Any decision on routes 

included will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

The direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on 

botanical resources and habitat were analyzed in the DEIS.

4-180 690

468/1. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-181 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate the area around Ice Cave 

as multi-use because it is a great family 

recreation destination for both motorized 

and non-motorized use. 

This route was analyzed as trails open to all or roads open 

to all in Alternatives B, C D and E. This would allow for 

multi-user designation. Any decision on routes included 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

4-181 691

538/16. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-182 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide more trails in the Iron 

Creek Lake area to provide trails for 

campers in the area.

Varying numbers of miles of trail were looked at in 

Alternatives A, B and C. Many proposed routes in this area 

were eliminated due to resource concerns for botany, slope 

and archeology. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

4-182 692

362/16. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-183 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce road density in the Jasper 

Burn area.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion. The open 

road density within the Jasper burn area is approximately 

3.6 miles/square mile. This area was considered as a walkin area, but this proposal was not adopted because portions 

of this area already have seasonal closure orders for the 

purpose of wildlife habitat security. Emergency closures to 

protect resources can be applied at any time. 

4-183 693

146/1. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-184 The motorized single track routes in the Jenny Gulch area 4-184 694
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

365

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of offroad and single-track trails in the Jenny 

Gulch area.

on were analyzed in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision about routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

319/13. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-185 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Jim Creek 

area to protect red belly snake habitat. 

Alternatives B, C and D propose closing routes in the Jim 

Creek area. Your comment will be considered in the 

decision.

4-185 695

179/2. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-186 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should close the roads in Management 

Area 5.4 to continue support of forage, 

fawning/calving habitat, and escape cover 

for big game species.

Many of the motorized routes in MA 5.4 would be closed 

seasonally in the action alternatives. Forest-wide, the 

alternatives vary in how they address Objective 5.4-207. 

Alternatives B and C would raise the open road density 

from the current, and Alternative D would lower it, and 

move toward achieving the Forest Plan objective. The 

effects of the alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Wildlife section, in the discussion on whitetailed deer. 

4-186 696

179/1. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-187 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should continue to seasonally close the 

roads in Management Area 5.4 to protect 

needed winter habitat for game species.

Many of the motorized routes in MA 5.4 are closed 

seasonally per the Forest Plan in Alternatives C, D, and E. 

Road densities in MA 5.4 were analyzed and disclosed in 

the DEIS. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision. 

4-187 697

536/7. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-188 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow mixed uses on all 

Maintenance Level 2 and 3 routes and on 

most maintenance level 4 routes.

Where necessary, a decision on whether to designate roads 

for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a 

motorized-mixed-use analysis performed by a qualified 

engineer. Depending on the complexity of the situation, 

the analysis may range from documenting engineering 

judgment to an engineering report that addresses many 

factors related to motorized mixed use. The analysis 

considers the safety risks in terms of crash potential and 

crash severity of designating highway-legal- and nonhighway-legal vehicles for concurrent use on the same 

roads. Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D for mixed use. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

4-188 698

400/14.

Area-Specific Route Requests. Because the 

influx of motorized users has a negative 

impact on some businesses.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, were 

analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be varying 

opinion in any community about whether or not a 

4-189 699
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

366

motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively to 

that community.

456/71.

Area-Specific Route Requests. To comply 

with the forest plan. 4-189 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

restrict motorized access around Nemo 

because the influx of motorized users has 

a negative impact on some businesses. 

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, were 

analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be varying 

opinion in any community about whether or not a 

motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively to 

that community.

4-189 700

360/5. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-190 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reroute or remove motorized trails 

around residential areas in Nemo to 

reduce the noise impacts on residents.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, were 

analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be varying 

opinion in any community about whether or not a 

motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively to 

that community. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-190 701

519/3. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-191 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide connecting trails to Nemo 

so riders could have lunch there.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, were 

analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be varying 

opinion in any community about whether or not a 

motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively to 

that community. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-191 702

013/1. 013/2. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-192 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set aside the area near the Norbeck 

Wilderness area and Custer State Park for 

non-motorized recreation because the area 

is sensitive wildlife habitat and to protect 

pristine hiking and hunting opportunities.

Road 352 is currently open seasonally to highway-legal 

vehicles. This would continue under Alternatives B and C, 

but the road would be closed to use yearlong in Alternative 

D. The comment will be considered in the decision on this 

project. 

4-192 703

134/1. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-193 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should limit the roads and trails near 

creeks feeding the Pactola Reservoir to 

reduce sedimentation.

No new roads or trails are being planned along Castle 

Creek, North Rapid Creek, Rapid Creek, or Slate Creek. 

The design criteria outlined in the document will minimize 

the impacts to the streams on the roads/trails that remain 

open. Existing system roads were analyzed as roads open to 

all or roads open to highway legal vehicles in Alternatives 

B, C, D, and E.

4-193 704

169/3. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-194 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the trail density near Pactola 

and Silver City to reduce the impacts to 

elk and bighorn sheep.

Many of the routes included in Alternative C west of 

Highway 385 and north and south of Rapid Creek were 

eliminated in Alternative D.

4-194 705
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

367

369/1. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-195 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should enforce stiff fines in the Piedmont 

Area for illegal off-road use to stop the 

damage that's being done.

The purpose of this DEIS is to analyze routes that will be 

included on the motor vehicle use map and contribute 

toward the FEIS and Record of Decision. Once routes are 

defined motorists will be expected to stay on the designated 

route to reduce resource damage. The amount of fines 

imposed for such violations is beyond the scope of this 

document. Enforcement will take place as needed.

4-195 706

573/10. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-196 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should keep the Piedmont area open for 

riding.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 

in Alternatives A through D. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

4-196 707

565/4.

Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-197 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should keep roads and trails open in the 

Pleasant Valley area because there is little 

traffic there.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 

in Alternatives A through D in the Limestone, Red Lake, 

Eagle Cliff areas. Wildlife, including elk habitat, was 

analyzed in the DEIS p146-229. Any decision on routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-197 708

319/18. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-198 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Pleasant 

Valley Walk-In area to protect elk habitat.

This area has been proposed as a walk-in hunting area. The 

Decision Maker for this project will considered this, and 

will document his decision in the Record of Decision.

4-198 709

534/23. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-199 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should add trails to the Red Bank 

Campground area.

Although no trails have been proposed that connect 

directly with Red Banks Spring Campground, there are 

trails proposed in Alternatives B and C that are within close 

proximity to Red Bank Springs Campground. Numerous 

routes west of Ditch Creek Campground are included in 

Alternatives C and D. 

4-199 710

112/1. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-200 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate the Red Lake, Limestone, 

and Eagle Cliff/Dead Ox areas as nonmotorized to protect the elk ecology of 

the area.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 

in Alternatives A through D in the Limestone, Red Lake, 

Eagle Cliff, Hanna, Tinton and Crow Peak areas. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-200 711

057/2. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-200 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate the Red Lake, Limestone, 

and Eagle Cliff/Dead Ox areas as nonmotorized because sufficient motorized 

access is allowed elsewhere in the forest.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 

in Alternatives A through D in the Limestone, Red Lake, 

Eagle Cliff, Hanna, Tinton and Crow Peak areas. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-200 712

538/22. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-201 Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 4-201 713
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

368

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create a loop trail system in the 

Riflepit Canyon area.

in Alternatives A through D in the Rifle Pit areas. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

534/19. 535/3. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-202 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide connector trails to 

Rochford because it is a popular OHV 

stop.

The two access routes in and out of Rochford are under 

other jurisdiction and not Forest Service. County and State 

laws will govern those routes.

4-202 714

411/1. 411/2. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-203 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the number of roads 

around the Sand Creek area to protect the 

opportunities for quiet recreation.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS reduced the number 

of routes open to motorized travel around the Sand Creek 

area of the Black Hills.

4-203 715

578/28. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-203 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the number of roads 

around the Sand Creek area because it is 

relatively wild and is surrounded by nonmotorized areas.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS reduced the number 

of routes open to motorized travel around the Sand Creek 

area of the Black Hills.

4-203 716

265/3. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-204 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the designation of 

routes around Shank‟s Quarry to keep 

motorized users separate from mountain 

bikes.

Many of the motorized routes in the Schroeder Road and 

Shanks Quarry area that were included in Alternative C 

were eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

4-204 717

431/5. 434/5. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-204 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the designation of 

routes around Shank‟s Quarry because the 

area has historically been a non-motorized, 

mountain biking area.

Many of the motorized routes in the Schroeder Road and 

Shanks Quarry area that were included in Alternative C 

were eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

4-204 718

319/29. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-205 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from Silver City, 

Canyon City, and Silver areas to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

Many of the motorized routes in the Silver City and 

Canyon City areas that were included in Alternative C were 

eliminated from Alternative D.

4-205 719

475/6. 475/7. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-206 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

Many of the motorcycle only routes north of Silver City in 

Alternative C were eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

4-206 720
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

369

should reduce the number of “motorcycle 

only” trails around Silver City to reduce 

traffic and preserve the historic tranquility 

of the area.

319/24. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-207 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from South 

Stagebarn Tributary to protect sensitive 

species and plant species of local concern.

All routes, including the south Stagebarn area, were 

analyzed for botanical species of concern in the DEIS and 

the decision on whether or not to include them will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-207 721

417/12. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-208 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase the trails to the Spearfish 

area.

Varying numbers of miles of routes were considered in the 

Spearfish vicinity in Alternatives A through E of the DEIS. 

The City limits of Spearfish are approximately 2 miles to 

the Forest boundary and access is controlled by other 

jurisdictions.

4-208 722

378/13. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-209 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create loops connecting Spearfish 

to Custer.

Varying numbers of miles of routes were considered on the 

entire BHNF including between Spearfish and Custer. 

Currently due to resource issues and numerous jurisdictions 

one would have to pass through to get from Spearfish to 

Custer on a trail it is not practical. 

4-209 723

538/15. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-210 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase trails around Spearfish 

Mountain because the area would be good 

for ATV trails.

Varying routes were analyzed in the Spearfish Peak area for 

use by different types of vehicles. Many routes in this area 

are not on NFS land but are in other jurisdiction. Any 

routes in this area are in management area 5.4 Big Game 

Winter Range and if they are included in the Record of 

Decision they will be seasonal.

4-210 724

319/14. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-211 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Spruce 

Draw/Gingrass Draw area to protect red 

belly snake habitat.

The effects on Black Hills redbelly snakes are discussed in 

the Biological Evaluation and is summarized in the Wildlife 

Section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis uses the 

best available science (literature) combined with known 

occurrence data and assumes the species is present in 

suitable habitat. Extensive surveys would not change this 

assumption nor would it add to the design of the route 

system or enhance the effects analysis.

4-211 725

559/5. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-212 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow motorized access to the 

Stagebarn Canyon to allow access for the 

elderly. 

The Stagebarn Canyon area is currently used during special 

use recreation events for rock crawling. This route has 

been analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D. The decision on 

whether or not to include it will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

4-212 726

393/12. 396/11. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-213 Varying routes were analyzed in the Sturgis area for use by 4-213 727
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

370

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide better trail access to 

Sturgis.

different types of vehicles. Many routes in this area are not 

on NFS land but are in other jurisdiction. The decision on 

whether or not to include these routes will be included in 

the Record of Decision.

141/13. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-214 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of 

motorized trails near Sugar Shack and 

Rapid Creek to preserve the quiet 

recreation opportunities near Silver City 

and Pactola Lake.

Many of the routes in the Silver City area that were 

included in Alternative C were eliminated or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives D and E. 

4-214 728

362/12. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-215 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should retain the roadless nature of Swede 

Gulch.

Thank you for you comments on Swede Gulch area. Any 

decision to include the spur routes at the edges of Swede 

Gulch will be included in the Record of Decision. Hunters 

and campers use these routes for parking.

4-215 729

460/38. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-216 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider adding trails near Terry 

Peak because there are several old mines 

and the area is scenic and provides for 

family-friendly recreation.

Varying routes were considered in the Terry Peak area for 

use by different types of vehicles. Many routes in this area 

are not on NFS land but are in other jurisdiction. The 

decision on whether or not to include these routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

4-216 730

141/8. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-217 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not open any new trails in the area 

once known as the Unknown Lands 

because the area is pristine and provides 

wildlife habitat.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

4-217 731

319/17. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-218 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Vanocker 

Canyon – Camp 5, Lost Soldier Spring 

area to protect elk and ruffed grouse 

habitat.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 

in Alternatives A through D in the Vanocker, Camp 5 and 

Lost Soldiers spring. Wildlife, including elk and ruffed 

grouse habitat, was analyzed in the DEIS p146-229. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-218 732

319/26. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-218 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove trails from the Vanocker 

Canyon – Camp 5, Lost Soldier Spring 

area to protect sensitive species and plant 

species of local concern.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were analyzed 

in Alternatives A through E in the Vanocker, Camp 5 and 

Lost Soldiers spring. Sensitive plant habitat, was analyzed in 

the DEIS p321-241. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

4-218 733
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

371

317/17. 317/18. 317/19. 

317/23. 447/1.

Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of roads 

and trails surrounding the property of 

Boyd Vincent because the concentration is 

disproportionate, unjustified, and 

unwarranted.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and proposed 

trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through E in the 

vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of the areas he 

expressed concern about including wildlife and botany in 

the DEIS. The existing system roads that are within 300 

feet of Mr. Vincent's property were proposed as road open 

to all as it currently exists. Any decision on routes that will 

be included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

4-219 734

317/24. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of roads 

and trails surrounding the property of 

Boyd Vincent because it is inconsistent 

with Forest Service criteria.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and proposed 

trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through E in the 

vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of the areas he 

expressed concern about including wildlife and botany in 

the DEIS. The existing system roads that are within 300 

feet of Mr. Vincent's property were proposed as road open 

to all as it currently exists. Any decision on routes that will 

be included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

4-219 735

317/25. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of roads 

and trails surrounding the property of 

Boyd Vincent because the area is a haven 

for wildlife.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and proposed 

trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through E in the 

vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of the areas he 

expressed concern about including wildlife and botany in 

the DEIS. The existing system roads that are within 300 

feet of Mr. Vincent's property were proposed as road open 

to all as it currently exists. Any decision on routes that will 

be included will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-219 736

317/2. 317/27. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of roads 

and trails surrounding the property of 

Boyd Vincent because the area has been 

given "Special Designation" by the 

Norbeck Society.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and proposed 

trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through E in the 

vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of the areas he 

expressed concern about including wildlife and botany in 

the DEIS. The existing system roads that are within 300 

feet of Mr. Vincent's property were proposed as road open 

to all as it currently exists. Any decision on routes that will 

be included will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-219 737

317/26. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of roads 

and trails surrounding the property of 

Boyd Vincent because there is a guzzler 

on the property.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and proposed 

trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through E in the 

vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of the areas he 

expressed concern about including wildlife and botany in 

the DEIS. The existing system roads that are within 300 

feet of Mr. Vincent's property were proposed as road open 

to all as it currently exists. Any decision on routes that will 

4-219 738
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

372

be included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

317/22. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the concentration of roads 

and trails surrounding the property of 

Boyd Vincent because the risk of 

trespassing is significant.

Once routes are defined motorists will be expected to stay 

on the designated route. Any trespass on private land 

should be dealt with through the Sheriff's office. The 

Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with 

many state and local law enforcement agencies that provide 

mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. Education 

and cooperative relationships with users support our 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.

4-219 739

317/12. Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-220 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the number of dead end 

trails in the vicinity of Boyd Vincent‟s 

property because they increase the risk of 

users going off-road.

Once routes are defined motorists will be expected to stay 

on the designated route. Any trespass on private land 

should be dealt with through the Sheriff's office. Spur 

routes are used by hunters and campers for a place to park. 

Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

Resources.

4-220 740

215/2. 217/2. 218/2. 219/2. 

220/2. 222/2. 223/2. 224/2. 

225/2. 226/2. 227/2. 228/2. 

229/2. 230/2. 231/2. 237/2. 

239/2. 247/2. 260/2. 261/2. 

262/2. 294/2. 295/2. 296/2. 

297/2. 298/2. 300/2. 301/2. 

302/2. 303/2. 311/2. 322/2. 

337/2. 338/2. 351/2. 366/2. 

378/2. 379/2. 380/2. 382/2. 

384/2. 385/2. 386/2. 387/2. 

388/2. 389/2. 391/2. 392/2. 

393/2. 395/2. 396/2. 397/2. 

407/2. 408/2. 416/2. 417/2. 

421/2. 425/2. 426/5. 429/2. 

430/2. 439/4. 450/2. 483/2. 

484/2. 485/2. 494/2. 495/2. 

496/2. 497/2. 498/2. 499/2. 

500/2. 501/2. 502/2. 503/2. 

504/2. 505/2. 506/2. 507/2. 

508/2. 509/2. 510/2. 511/11. 

511/2. 512/2. 513/2. 514/2. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern 

Hills Ranger District. 4-221 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the trails in the Northern Hills to 

support the regional economy and provide 

recreation opportunities.

Varying numbers of miles of routes were considered in the 

Spearfish vicinity in Alternatives A through E of the DEIS. 

These routes include the Iron Creek Lake and Cement 

ridges areas. Routes in the Cheyenne Crossing area were 

not considered due to an existing management area 

prohibiting off road traffic in the Spearfish Canyon 

management area. Any decision on routes that will be 

included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

4-221 741
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

373

515/2. 521/2. 530/2. 531/2. 

532/2. 533/2. 538/2. 538/14. 

545/2. 561/2. 562/2. 577/2. 

593/2. 603/2. 604/2. 605/2. 

606/2. 609/2. 

217/12. 221/12. 222/12. 

223/12. 225/11. 237/12. 

300/11. 311/11. 382/11. 460/2. 

460/4. 502/12. 503/12. 507/11. 

519/4. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern 

Hills Ranger District. 4-222 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the connectivity of the trails in 

the Northern Hills to support recreational 

access and the local economy.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Spearfish area, 

were analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be 

varying opinion in any community about whether or not a 

motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively to 

that community. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-222 742

226/12. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern 

Hills Ranger District. 4-222 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the connectivity of the trails in 

the Northern Hills if snowmobile trails 

can be connected then other trails can be 

too.

Many snowmobile trails pass through private property 

where the FS does not have jurisdiction to use them. The 

snowmobile trail program is run by the State of SD and 

they make agreements with the private land owners to pass 

through the private property. Some portions of 

snowmobile trails also pass through areas that would cause 

resource damage by wheeled vehicles but in the winter the 

ground is frozen and covered with snow and does not 

cause damage.

4-222 743

247/22. 501/11. Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern 

Hills Ranger District. 4-222 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the connectivity of the trails in 

the Northern Hills to allow users to access 

numerous areas from one base camp.

All businesses named in the commenter letter are on 

private property and surrounded by other jurisdiction lands. 

FS does not have authority to authorize routes on non FS 

land. Other agencies or private land owners will need to do 

that. Trails that connect between Ranger Districts are 

being considered in all alternatives.

4-222 744

356/1. Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern 

Hills Ranger District. 4-223 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the level of motorized 

recreationists travelling through Galena 

because of the noise and traffic.

All routes leading in and out of the Galena area are other 

jurisdiction roads or trails and not FS. Varying miles of 

routes that will connect to the other jurisdiction routes 

were considered in all alternatives. Any decision on routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

4-223 745

215/1. 217/1. 218/1. 219/1. 

220/1. 222/1. 223/1. 224/1. 

225/1. 226/1. 227/1. 228/1. 

229/1. 230/1. 231/1. 237/1. 

239/1. 247/1. 260/1. 261/1. 

262/1. 294/1. 295/1. 296/1. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-224 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the trails in the Hell Canyon Area 

to support the regional economy and 

provide recreation opportunities.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

4-224 746
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

374

297/1. 298/1. 300/1. 301/1. 

302/1. 303/1. 311/1. 322/1. 

337/1. 338/1. 351/1. 366/1. 

378/1. 379/1. 379/11. 380/1. 

382/1. 384/1. 385/1. 386/1. 

387/1. 388/1. 389/1. 391/1. 

392/1. 393/1. 395/1. 396/1. 

397/1. 403/3. 407/1. 408/1. 

416/1. 417/1. 421/1. 425/1. 

429/1. 430/1. 441/2. 450/1. 

450/13. 451/2. 483/1. 484/1. 

485/1. 494/1. 495/1. 495/11. 

496/1. 497/1. 497/11. 498/1. 

499/1. 500/1. 501/1. 502/1. 

503/1. 504/1. 505/1. 506/1. 

507/1. 508/1. 509/1. 510/1. 

511/1. 512/2. 513/1. 514/1. 

515/1. 519/6. 521/1. 530/1. 

531/1. 532/1. 533/1. 534/15. 

538/1. 561/1. 562/1. 577/1. 

593/1. 593/12. 594/2. 595/2. 

596/2. 597/1. 598/3. 599/2. 

600/2. 601/2. 602/2. 603/1. 

604/1. 604/12. 605/1. 605/12. 

606/1. 607/4. 609/1. 609/12 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and 

considered, and those chosen will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

216/3. 460/3. 609/13. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-224 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the trails in the Hell Canyon Area 

to avoid the impression that district staff 

did not do their jobs.

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned the 

responsibility of reviewing proposed trail designation 

routes. This review included staff from Botany, Range, 

Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire and Fuels, Lands and 

Planning. This review was conducted to ensure that all 

resources were considered and protected according to law, 

police and regulation.

4-224 747

534/16. 535/2. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-224 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the trails in the Hell Canyon Area 

because the route designation process 

seems to have been inappropriately biased 

against motorized recreationists.

Both Alternatives B and C do offer designated trails on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

4-224 748
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

375

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

404/1. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-224 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the trails in the Hell Canyon Area 

because mixed-use routes are restricted to 

street-legal vehicles.

Each alternative to be considered by the Decision Maker 

has various levels of miles of trails designated for vehicles 

less than 65". The drivers license age requirements are 

South Dakota state law requirements, and are therefore 

outside the scope of this project. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

4-224 749

492/3. 526/3. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-225 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include the OHV trails proposed by the 

public in the Hell Canyon District to 

provide a historic and less populated 

recreation opportunity.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-225 750

233/2. 502/11. 520/4. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-225 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include the OHV trails proposed by the 

public in the Hell Canyon District to 

correct errors in the process.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-225 751

453/4. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-225 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

4-225 752
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

376

include the OHV trails proposed by the 

public in the Hell Canyon District because 

they should not be eliminated on a whim. 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

578/6. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-226 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

why the planning for the Hell Canyon 

District is not protective of nonmotorized users.

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned the 

responsibility of reviewing proposed trail designation 

routes. This review included staff from Botany, Range, 

Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire and Fuels, Lands and 

Planning. This review was conducted to ensure that all 

resources were considered and protected according to law, 

police and regulation.

4-226 753

459/2. 611/2. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-227 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

review the proposed routes in the Hell 

Canyon Ranger District to address the 

flaws in the process related to the South 

Project.

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the South Project 

worked with the Forest Travel Planning, addressing both 

routes to be closed and routes to be open, as well as the 

possibility of a trail system within the South project 

boundary. These discussions are documented in the South 

Project Planning Record. Additional routes were reviewed 

and considered, and those chosen will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. The Decision Maker for this 

Travel Management Plan could consider trail designation 

within the South Project area as part of this decision, or 

under a separate decision in the future.

4-227 754

446/4. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-227 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

review the proposed routes in the Hell 

Canyon Ranger District to account for the 

shortage of routes in the district and 

around Custer Highlands.

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned the 

responsibility of reviewing proposed trail designation 

routes. This review included staff from Botany, Range, 

Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire and Fuels, Lands and 

Planning. This review was conducted to ensure that all 

resources were considered and protected according to law, 

police and regulation.

4-227 755

461/4. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-227 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

review the proposed routes in the Hell 

Canyon Ranger District to ensure that a 

sufficient range of opportunities has been 

provided.

Under Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIS, there are 

trails designated for ATV motorized use. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Although the 

number of miles designated is less than in other areas of 

the Forest, it is possible that additional trail designation 

could be considered in the future. 

4-227 756
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

377

508/11. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-228 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include trails other than multiple-use

trails in the Hell Canyon District because 

they could be sustainable with little impact 

to the area.

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned the 

responsibility of reviewing proposed trail designation 

routes. This review included staff from Botany, Range, 

Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire and Fuels, Lands and 

Planning. This review was conducted to ensure that all 

resources were considered and protected according to law, 

police and regulation.

4-228 757

532/11. Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. 4-229 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

connect the Hell Canyon District to the 

Southern Hills District.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-229 758

139/4. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-230 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the concentration of trails north of 

Pactola and open more trails in the 

Southern Hills.

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and those 

chosen will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Although currently there are fewer trails designated on the 

Southern Hills, it is possible that in the future, additional 

trails could be designated in the Southern Hills, but this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis.

4-230 759

142/9. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-231 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider disallowing trails in the 

Southern Hills.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

4-231 760

233/8. 262/11. 350/1. 520/4. 

593/12. 606/12. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Southern Hills area because they would 

The area referred to in your letter dated 4/15/09 located 

between Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 

11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T 4S., R 4E was considered by the 

Hell Canyon District Staff. The specific reasons for not 

considering these routes as trails include concerns with soil 

4-232 761
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

378

not have significant environmental 

impacts and to avoid the appearance of 

bias.

and water, known heritage sites that need to be protected, 

livestock grazing conflicts, conflicts with adjacent private

land owners and the isolated nature of this area did not 

lend itself to provide adequate motorized opportunities. 

Additional routes were reviewed and considered within 

Custer County, and those chosen will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

222/11. 223/11. 226/11. 

302/11. 514/11. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Southern Hills area and to support the 

local economy and allow for game 

retrieval.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

4-232 762

450/14. 593/13. 595/3. 596/3. 

597/2. 598/4. 599/3. 601/3. 

606/13.

Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Southern Hills area to support familyfriendly recreation.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

4-232 763

119/2. 262/11. 606/12. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

4-232 764
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

379

Southern Hills area because one person 

should not be able to exclude an entire 

area.

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

375/2. 426/4. 439/3. 486/2. 

503/11. 510/11. 

Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Southern Hills area to spread the use 

throughout the forest.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

4-232 765

221/11. 324/3. 362/21. 445/10. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Southern Hills area to allow full access to 

the Forest.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

4-232 766

461/24. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on the 4-232 767
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

380

and Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include more motorized trails in the 

Southern Hills area including conditionally 

including routes that were removed due to 

unresolved easement issues.

Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible that 

in the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas submitted 

by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. Specialists who participated in this review 

included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, Wildlife 

Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management Specialist, 

the District Ranger and an environmental compliance 

specialist (NEPA). 

470/7. 498/11. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-233 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure sufficient motorized trail access in 

the Southern Hills to allow riders under 16 

to have trail access.

Each alternative to be considered by the Decision Maker 

has various levels of miles of trails designated for vehicles 

less than 65". The drivers license age requirements are 

South Dakota state law requirements, and are therefore 

outside the scope of this project. It is possible that in the 

future, additional trails could be designated in the Southern 

Hills, but this would need to be considered in detail in a 

separate environmental analysis. 

4-233 768

393/11. 470/9. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-234 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should seek 

out alternative routes in the Southern Hills 

to mitigate for the closure of routes.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. 

4-234 769

530/11. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-235 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

connect the Southern Hills to the greater 

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in the 

northwest portion of the District which connect to other 

4-235 770
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

381

Black Hills. trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger District. 

Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this decision would not 

preclude the designation of additional motorized trails in 

the future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

261/11. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-236 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide access to non-gravel roads in the 

Southern Hills.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

4-236 771

516/3. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-237 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should limit 

road access in the area west of 385, north 

of 16, south of 85 and east of the 

Wyoming border to make the Central Hills 

a haven for wildlife and provide for future 

sustainability.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

4-237 772

470/2. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-238 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should revisit 

the proposed rock-crawling trails in the 

Southern Hills because they do not 

accurately reflect the public's requests.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. 

4-238 773

141/5. Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-239 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce trail concentration in the Central 

Hills and increase the concentration in the 

Southern Hills to more evenly distribute 

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

4-239 774
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

382

motorized travel.

467/1.

Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern 

and Central Hills Areas. 4-240 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should add 

the Edgemont area to the rock crawling 

trails in the Southern Hills because the 

area is sparsely populated.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. With respect to your concerns for 

youth under 16 years of age, this is a licensing requirement 

of the State of South Dakota, which the Forest Service has 

no control of. The benefit of mixed use designation is that 

all motorized users would be allowed on this roads, instead 

of limiting the use to only one type. 

4-240 775

346/26. 346/27. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-241 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

increasing the areas in Bearlodge that are 

accessible only by OHVs will result in 

additional illegal roads and resource 

damage.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. While Alternative C offered the 

greatest opportunity for motorized access on the Bearlodge 

District, Alternative D offers the least amount of 

motorized access. Each alternative was analyzed in detail 

and effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

4-241 776

346/2. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-242 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should justify the open road 

densities in the Bearlodge District because 

they are lower than the other districts.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. While Alternative C offered the 

greatest opportunity for motorized access on the Bearlodge 

District, Alternative D offers the least amount of 

motorized access. Each alternative was analyzed in detail 

and effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

4-242 777

346/30. 355/1. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-243 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should open more roads in 

the Bearlodge District to motorized travel 

because the proposed densities in this 

district are lower than the others.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. Alternatives B and C offers more 

motorized opportunities than Alternatives D and E on the 

central Bearlodge District. Many of the roads currently 

closed to motorized use under Alternative A are proposed 

to be open to either less than 50-inch vehicles under 

4-243 778
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

383

Alternative B or open to all vehicles under Alternative C to 

increase opportunities for motorized recreation in the 

central Bearlodge Mountains. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources 

documented in Chapter 3.

355/2. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-243 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should open more roads in 

the Bearlodge District to motorized travel 

because the majority of roads in the 

southern Bearlodge District are gated and 

closed.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. Alternative C offered the greatest 

opportunity for motorized access on the Bearlodge District. 

Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on 

natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

4-243 779

346/25. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-244 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce motorized 

access in the central Bearlodge District 

because OHV operation disturbs game 

animals.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. While Alternative C offered the 

greatest opportunity for motorized access on the Bearlodge 

District, Alternative D offers the least amount of 

motorized access. Each alternative was analyzed in detail 

and effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

4-244 780

346/34. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-245 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should open an area in the 

southern Bearlodge District for OHV 

travel only to allow current levels of 

motorized access.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. Each alternative was analyzed in 

detail and effects on natural resources documented in 

Chapter 3.

4-245 781

346/29. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-246 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should retain walk-in-only 

access to the Wood Canyon, Cook Lake, 

Rednose, and Sundance areas in Bearlodge 

District to provide more walk-in access.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized game retrieval opportunities. Under all 

alternatives, the currently established walk-in only areas of 

Wood Canyon, Cook Lake, Rednose, and Sundance Burn 

have been retained as non-motorized areas. Each 

alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources documented in Chapter 3.

4-246 782

346/32. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-247 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should maintain walk-inonly access to the Dugout, North Sand 

Creek, Hamilton, Sand Creek Roadless, 

and Upper Sand Creek Botanical Areas to 

balance the increased road densities in 

other areas of the Bearlodge District.

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 

non-motorized areas. Each alternative was analyzed in 

detail and effects on natural resources documented in 

Chapter 3.

4-247 783
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

384

346/31. Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-248 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should close the ScottHardy Spring area in the Bearlodge 

District to motor vehicles because the area 

provides big game and wild turkey habitat.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities. No motorized opportunities 

were considered under any alternative for the Scott-Hardy 

Springs area. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and 

effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

4-248 784

247/16. 362/22. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-249 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that 

sufficient funding is available to 

implement the plan.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

4-249 785

305/2. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-250 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure sufficient 

funds are available for enforcement, 

management, construction, and 

maintenance to lessen resource damage.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The Forest Service projects costs of operating 

and maintaining the system. This will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

4-250 786

327/1. 406/5. 419/3. 449/1. 

465/38. 473/21. 578/40.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-250 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure sufficient 

funds are available for enforcement, 

management, construction, and 

maintenance because without sufficient 

funds the plan is unenforceable and 

unsustainable.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

4-250 787
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

385

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

474/24. 544/2. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-250 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure sufficient 

funds are available for enforcement, 

management, construction, and 

maintenance because they haven't had the 

funds to manage the system they have 

now.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

4-250 788

372/10. 475/13. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-251 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure sufficient 

funding is available for enforcement to 

support the objective of the plan.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

4-251 789

270/3. 412/1. 443/2. 456/146. 

459/11. 465/2. 465/39. 611/11.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-252 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that the size 

of the road system is commensurate with 

the size of available funds.

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. 

4-252 790

319/53. 456/59. 458/54. 

462/42.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-253 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify where 

funding will come from to ensure 

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 

4-253 791
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

386

successful management is possible. government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

456/151. 456/152. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-254 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide support for 

their estimate of maintenance costs.

Maintenance costs will vary widely based on physical 

location of the work, amount of use on the route, route 

surface type and condition, economic climate, and whether 

the work is performed by agency employees or contractors. 

Generally, average costs used for the purpose of comparing 

alternatives were based on similar work on other Region 2 

Forests. Implementation will occur based on resource 

availability and decisions on the amount of maintenance 

needed will be based on monitoring of actual conditions.

4-254 792

456/58. 458/53. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-255 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should use the cost 

estimating model created by Dr. Michael 

Wing because it provides a comprehensive 

approach.

Thank you for your suggestion. A comprehensive cost 

analysis was conducted by Forest Service recreation and 

engineering staff. The results of the cost analysis is contain 

in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

4-255 793

319/47. 456/51. 458/46. 

462/36.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-256 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that a 

managed trail system is more expensive 

than an unmanaged system because there 

are numerous additional costs.

Maintenance costs will vary widely based on physical 

location of the work, amount of use on the route, route 

surface type and condition, economic climate, and whether 

the work is performed by agency employees or contractors. 

Generally, average costs used for the purpose of comparing 

alternatives were based on similar work on other Region 2 

Forests. Implementation will occur based on resource 

availability and decisions on the amount of maintenance 

needed will be based on monitoring of actual conditions.

4-256 794

319/48. 319/49. 456/52. 

456/53. 458/47. 458/48. 

462/37. 462/38.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-257 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

the maintenance costs have been 

underestimated.

Maintenance costs will vary widely based on physical 

location of the work, amount of use on the route, route 

surface type and condition, economic climate, and whether 

the work is performed by agency employees or contractors. 

Generally, average costs used for the purpose of comparing 

alternatives were based on similar work on other Region 2 

Forests. Implementation will occur based on resource 

availability and decisions on the amount of maintenance 

needed will be based on monitoring of actual conditions.

4-257 795

456/129. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including lawsuits and health care costs

Costs and user safety on motorized systems proposed in 

the alternatives were considered in the effects analysis. See 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

4-258 796
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

387

456/128. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including dust treatment costs.

The alternatives address the proximity of motorized routes 

near private lands and non-motorized trails in different 

ways. It is difficult to estimate the need for dust abatement 

measures since these will depend on levels of use, surface 

conditions, weather, etc. Costs and fugitive dust emissions 

from use of motorized systems under each alternative were 

considered in the effects analysis in the EIS, Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

4-258 797

456/132. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including costs from loss of plant and 

animal species.

The alternatives address the effects of motorized use on 

plant and animal habitat in different ways. All action 

alternatives reduce the area available for motorized crosscountry use from current levels. It is difficult to estimate 

the need for habitat enhancement since this may depend on 

a variety of factors. Costs of motorized systems under each 

alternative were considered in the effects analysis in the 

EIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

Effects on plant and animal species are disclosed in the 

Botanical and Wildlife sections. 

4-258 798

456/125. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including costs of long-term monitoring.

The alternatives address the effects of motorized use on 

plant and animal species in different ways. All action 

alternatives reduce the area available for motorized crosscountry use from current levels. Long-term monitoring of 

habitat elements is conducted under Forest Plan 

monitoring, and further monitoring needs are identified in 

the FEIS. Costs of motorized systems under each 

alternative were considered in the effects analysis in the 

EIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

Effects on plant and animal species are disclosed in the 

Botanical and Wildlife sections. 

4-258 799

431/7. 456/126. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including incremental costs of 

Maintenance level 2 roads.

Costs associated with mixed-use on Maintenance Level 2 

and other roads were analyzed and disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

4-258 800

456/130. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

The purpose of this proposal is to designate roads, trails 

and areas for motorized use. The analysis did not change 

allocations made in the Forest Plan. The effects of 

motorized use on non-motorized recreation are disclosed in 

4-258 801
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

388

including the cost of being unable to 

establish walk-in-only areas.

the FEIS in Chapter 3, in the Recreation section. 

456/131. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including the costs to local 911 

responders.

Costs and user safety on motorized systems proposed in 

the alternatives were considered in the effects analysis. See 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

4-258 802

456/133. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including the costs of diverting Forest 

Service personnel and funding away from 

other projects.

Congressional appropriations are beyond the scope of this 

analysis. The Forest Service will implement programs 

according to budgets provided. 

4-258 803

456/127. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-258 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should minimize costs 

associated with use of motorized vehicles 

including costs of rehabilitating damage 

already done.

One of the elements of the purpose and need for this 

project is to reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged 

cross-country and road and trail use. Route closure and 

rehabilitation is not the focus of this analysis, but can be 

proposed in future project decisions based on monitoring 

of resource needs. 

4-258 804

232/4. 277/5. 319/11. 319/43. 

343/3. 356/6. 414/10. 414/28. 

452/2. 456/41. 456/98. 458/35. 

458/74. 461/29. 462/11. 

462/32. 548/11. 

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-259 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase 

enforcement to ensure the effectiveness of 

the plan.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

4-259 805

121/4. 151/1. 423/1. 424/4. 

427/2. 436/3. 486/4. 527/3.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-259 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase 

enforcement to protect the Black Hills 

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 

4-259 806
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

389

National Forest. relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The final rule will not increase the agency's 

budget or the number of law enforcement officers. 

However, the final rule will enhance enforcement by 

substituting a regulatory prohibition for closure orders and 

providing for a motor vehicle use map supplemented by 

signage.

123/5. 156/3. 181/2. 214/4. 

341/4. 342/4. 344/5. 

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-259 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase 

enforcement including fining illegal offroad use.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Enforcement will be conducted as necessary. 

Means of enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

4-259 807

121/3. 426/6. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-259 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase 

enforcement to reduce the number of 

user-created trails.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Enforcement will be conducted as necessary. 

Means of enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

4-259 808
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

390

157/1. 357/7. 474/14. 522/3. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-259 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase 

enforcement because current levels of 

enforcement are not sufficient.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Enforcement will be conducted as necessary. 

Means of enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

4-259 809

479/2. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-259 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase 

enforcement because motorized users 

frequently break the rules.

The Travel Management Rule places more responsibility on 

Forest users to comply with the terms of the Rule and the 

MVUM. The Forest has no evidence to suggest that most 

users of the Black Hills National Forest will not comply, 

and the analysis assumes that most users will comply with 

the terms of the MVUM. Appropriate adjustments can be 

made based on monitoring. Enforcement will be 

conducted as needed. 

4-259 810

047/4. 319/44. 319/45. 414/29. 

414/30. 456/42. 456/43. 

458/36. 458/37. 462/33. 

462/34. 

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-260 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

significant number of OHV riders 

knowingly break the law.

The Travel Management Rule places more responsibility on 

Forest users to comply with the terms of the Rule and the 

MVUM. The Forest has no evidence to suggest that most 

users of the Black Hills National Forest will not comply, 

and the analysis assumes that most users will comply with 

the terms of the MVUM. Appropriate adjustments can be 

made based on monitoring. 

4-260 811

162/1. 163/2. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-261 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should enforce the rules 

that are already in place including 

confiscation of offenders' vehicles.

Enforcement will be conducted as needed. The means of 

enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

4-261 812

115/2. 146/4. 212/5. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-261 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should enforce the rules 

that are already in place including issuing 

Enforcement will be conducted as needed. The means of 

enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

4-261 813
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

391

tickets to offenders.

046/2. 327/5. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-262 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should enforce current 

rules rather than creating more 

restrictions.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

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

sustainable over the long term.

4-262 814

052/2. 125/1. 152/2. 479/3. 

479/9. 

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-263 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide sufficient 

law enforcement officers to enforce the 

proposed plan to ensure the enforcement 

is adequate and safe. 

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

4-263 815

122/4. 245/6. 479/14

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-263 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide sufficient 

law enforcement officers to enforce the 

proposed plan because without adequate 

enforcement the plan is pointless. 

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

4-263 816

034/2. 043/2.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-264 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide adequate 

enforcement of the plan to allow for nonmotorized as well as motorized access.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

4-264 817
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

392

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The alternatives provide for different levels of 

motorized use as described in the FEIS, Chapter 2. 

113/2. 150/2. 172/2. 

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-264 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide adequate 

enforcement of the plan to ensure that 

ATV users close gates, stay on trails, and 

don't drive through water dugouts.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The analysis assumes that most users will 

comply with the MVUM and requirements. Options are 

available to address situations based on monitoring. 

4-264 818

176/1. 319/46. 414/31. 456/44. 

458/38. 462/35.

Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-265 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop a 

comprehensive enforcement strategy to 

minimize resource damage

Thank you for your suggestions. Temporary closures can 

always be undertaken to address resource damage. Specific 

enforcement strategies are beyond the scope of this 

analysis. 

4-265 819

420/6. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-266 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid creating a 

forest police force or a trail grooming 

agency.

Thank you for your comment. 4-266 820

474/21. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-267 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain how the 

The nationally standardized Motor Vehicle Use Map is the 

primary enforcement tool for law enforcement. While the 

map format is standardized, we will have choices on scale 

4-267 821
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

393

motor vehicle use map will be used to aid 

enforcement.

and size. Every effort will be made to ensure the MVUM is 

clear and legible.

474/19. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-268 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider relying 

on local residents to help enforce the rules 

because it is unrealistic.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

4-268 822

474/18. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-269 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider relying 

on volunteers for enforcement because 

volunteer groups are not always effective.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final decision in 

a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could include 

appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. 

For enforcement; FS law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting NF 

resources. The FS also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users will 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

4-269 823

050/2. 314/7. 504/18. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-270 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider working 

with citizen volunteers to ensure adequate 

enforcement.

There are many ways that interested individuals and groups 

can assist the Forest Service during the implementation of 

the travel plan. Successful implementation will be highly 

dependent upon the publics help and support, including 

assistance with road and trail maintenance, signing, 

education and even enforcement. Cooperative agreements 

with other Federal, State and local agencies to provide 

assistance are another method available to expand 

enforcement capabilities.

4-270 824
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

394

030/6. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-271 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should implement the 

proposed trail ranger program to support 

responsible OHV operation, education 

and enforcement.

There are many ways that interested individuals and groups 

can assist the Forest Service during the implementation of 

the travel plan. Successful implementation will be highly 

dependent upon the publics help and support, including 

assistance with road and trail maintenance, signing, 

education and even enforcement. Cooperative agreements 

with other Federal, State and local agencies to provide 

assistance are another method available to expand 

enforcement capabilities.

4-271 825

093/2. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-272 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase use of 

cameras for enforcement of Alternative C 

to allow for cost-effective identification of 

trouble areas and miscreants.

Enforcement means are beyond the scope of this analysis. 4-272 826

247/17. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-273 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include clear 

definitions of how changes to the system 

will be made and how enforcement and 

maintenance will occur.

Thank you for your suggestions. They will be taken into 

consideration as the Forest begins moving toward 

implementation of the final decision. The implementation 

plan will address a variety of topics. Some changes to 

routes and uses may need to be addressed in future 

environmental analysis and decisions. 

4-273 827

254/5. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-274 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should strictly control 

motorized use of the Forest to protect 

wildlife and scenic values and increase 

safety.

The purpose of this analysis includes reducing adverse

impacts of unmanaged cross-country and road and trail use. 

The analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each route considered 

land and resource management needs (including fire) as 

well as factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. Effects of the 

alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS in Chapter 3. 

4-274 828

141/7. Implementation, Enforcement, and The purpose and need for this proposal is to designate a 4-275 829
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

395

Funding. 4-275 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the number 

of trails allotted to motorized recreation to 

increase the enforcement per mile.

motorized trail system. Reasons for this proposal include 

to reduce potential for damaging natural resources, 

improve user experience through a better-designed system, 

improve enforcement capability, and to comply with 

national direction. Issue 3 in Chapter 1 of the EIS 

recognizes the concern for system design relative to 

management capability including enforcement. The 

alternatives address this issue in different ways.

066/2. 179/4. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-275 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the number 

of trails allotted to motorized recreation 

because a large motorized trail system 

exceeds the Forest's capacity for 

maintenance and enforcement.

The purpose and need for this proposal is to designate a 

motorized trail system. Reasons for this proposal include 

to reduce potential for damaging natural resources, 

improve user experience through a better-designed system, 

improve enforcement capability, and to comply with 

national direction. Issue 3 in Chapter 1 of the EIS 

recognizes the concern for system design relative to 

management capability including enforcement. The 

alternatives address this issue in different ways.

4-275 830

027/3. Implementation, Enforcement, and 

Funding. 4-276 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit the areas open 

to motorized access to facilitate 

enforcement.

The purpose and need for this proposal is to designate a 

motorized trail system. Reasons for this proposal include 

to reduce potential for damaging natural resources, 

improve user experience through a better-designed system, 

improve enforcement capability, and to comply with 

national direction. Issue 3 in Chapter 1 of the EIS 

recognizes the concern for system design relative to 

management capability including enforcement. The 

alternatives address this issue in different ways. 

4-276 831

091/6. 280/14. 474/16. Licensing. 4-277 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require licensing for 

all motorized vehicles using National 

Forest lands to facilitate the identification 

of law breakers.

License requirements are addressed by state statutes for 

SD/WY. On FS roads you will need a driver's license. 

Underage drivers will only be allowed on trails.

4-277 832

037/3. 331/3. Licensing. 4-277 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require licensing for 

all motorized vehicles using National 

Forest lands to reduce enforcement issues 

and avoid underage driving.

These are why we have alternatives. We will reduce trails/ 

roads by using one of the alternatives. Enforcement will 

always be an issue, we will do the very best we can with the 

LEO's and FPO's that we have.

4-277 833

321/5. 508/16. Licensing. 4-278 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid requiring 

licenses because additional licensing 

License requirements are addressed by state statues for 

SD/WY, not the FS.

4-278 834
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

396

requirements are equivalent to double 

taxation.

030/3. Licensing. 4-279 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should implement a simple 

process to license OHVs.

License requirements are addressed by state statues for 

SD/WY, not the FS.

4-279 835

459/18. 611/18. Licensing. 4-280 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should decide whether to 

allow unlicensed vehicles on routes within 

its jurisdiction regardless of State or local 

rules on connecting non-jurisdictional 

roads.

This is addressed to different degrees in Alternatives B, C 

& D.

4-280 836

030/9. Licensing. 4-281 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require that all 

operators be at least 12 years old and meet 

minimum safety training requirements to 

mitigate liability issues.

It is the responsibility of the State to set age limits for those 

that ride on the roads. There will be no age limit while 

riding on Forest Service trails.

4-281 837

456/37. 456/38. 458/31. 

458/32. 458/33.

Licensing. 4-282 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require the 

operators of motorized vehicles be 

licensed, insured, and at least 14 years old 

because children present a danger to 

themselves and others.

Driver license requirements are addressed by State statutes 

on the roads. The Forest Service will not set such a limit on 

trails.

4-282 838

091/7. Licensing. 4-283 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require that 

operators of motorized vehicles be 

licensed and be at least 16 years old to 

avoid lawsuits.

License requirements are addressed by state statutes for 

SD/WY. No restrictions on trails.

4-283 839

142/11. Licensing. 4-284 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider licensing 

requirements that restrict underage 

operators to support family-friendly 

recreation.

License requirements for vehicle drivers are imposed by 

state law. The alternatives in the FEIS present different 

sets of opportunities for riders, including families, and the 

effects of these alternatives are disclosed in the Recreation 

section in Chapter 3.

4-284 840

247/21. 461/15. 536/6. 600/3. Licensing. 4-285 Public Concern: The

Forest Service should work with the State 

to provide legal exceptions to the licensing 

requirements to allow underage drivers to 

access motorized forest trails.

License requirements for vehicle drivers are imposed by 

state law. The alternatives in the FEIS present different 

sets of opportunities for riders, including families, and the 

effects of these alternatives are disclosed in the Recreation 

section in Chapter 3.

4-285 841

196/4. Licensing. 4-286 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should take into 

The Forest Service cannot speculate on possible future 

changes in State law. The decision will designate a 

4-286 842
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

397

consideration possible action by the State 

to eliminate licensing for ATVs to ensure 

that motorized access is not overly 

restricted. 

motorized travel system recognizing provisions of current 

State law as appropriate. 

578/7. 585/6. Licensing. 4-287 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify the difference 

between vehicles that are street legal and 

those that are not.

The glossary in the EIS provides definitions for highwaylegal and non-highway-legal vehicles. A highway-legal 

vehicle is defined as one that is licensed or certified under 

State law for general operation on all public roads within 

the State. Operators of such vehicles are subject to State 

traffic law including any requirements for operator 

licensing. 

4-287 843

438/1. Licensing. 4-288 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify what further 

restrictions and requirements may be 

implemented.

We will have a use permit and a sound limit of 96 decibels. 4-288 844

471/2. Licensing. 4-289 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require all offhighway vehicles to have a spark-arresting 

muffler to prevent OHVs from causing 

fires.

This is already a FS regulation. 4-289 845

292/2. Licensing. 4-290 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should require all riders to 

take a training course to decrease 

damaging behavior and impacts to the 

forest.

Rider education is beyond the scope of this decision. 4-290 846

539/3. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-291 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

impose significant fees on motorized 

recreational vehicles as well as significant 

fines for illegal activities to fund repairs of 

already damaged lands.

Fines are already used in enforcement. 4-291 847

025/2. 138/4. 140/4. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-292 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the proposed action can be 

enforced and should disclose the fines that 

could be imposed.

The FS will enforce regulations to the best of its ability. 

The fines imposed for violators are reassessed every year 

through the Federal Judicial system and are subject to 

change.

4-292 848

166/2. 435/2. 437/2. 591/5. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-293 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

impose stiff fines for violations because 

The FS will enforce regulations to the best of its ability. 

The fines imposed for violators are reassessed every year 

through the Federal Judicial system and are subject to 

4-293 849
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

398

these fines would address frequent 

infractions and would help fund 

maintenance of the system.

change.

033/2. 434/6. 608/3. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should adopt 

a user fee to cover the administrative costs 

of the trail system.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

4-294 850

047/3. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should adopt 

a user fee to cover maintenance costs.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

4-294 851

150/3. 151/2. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should adopt 

a user fee because users should be 

responsible for the costs associated with 

ATV use.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

4-294 852

046/3. 054/4. 482/8. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should adopt 

a user fee to fund enforcement.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

4-294 853
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

399

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

030/4. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should adopt 

a user fee because sufficient funding will 

result in improved search and rescue, fire 

fighting access, and wildlife corridors.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

4-294 854

006/2. 015/3. 471/7. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-295 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

approve the proposed annual user fee to 

cover the costs of road and trail 

maintenance. 

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

4-295 855

224/14. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-296 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

why ATVs that have DMV-issued tags 

should have to pay an additional fee.

The Forest Service does not receive any funding support 

necessary for trail construction, signing or maintenance 

from State DMV's or DOT's.

4-296 856

265/5. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-297 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

implement a fee or licensing to pay for 

facilities and trail maintenance.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the 

future decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and 

those anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

4-297 857
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

400

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

420/5. 483/21. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-298 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

implement a fee or new licensing 

requirements.

The Recreation Enhancement Act authorizes the Forest 

Service to implement fees for such things as OHV trail 

systems.

4-298 858

375/7. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-299 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

implement a fee and require out of state 

users to pay double.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act.

4-299 859

474/26. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-300 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider an auction system to establish the 

price of user permits to ensure sufficient 

funding and discourage environmentally 

irresponsible behavior. 

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-300 860

002/2. 417/13. 474/25. 475/12. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-301 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

implement an annual user fee for OHV 

users to ensure that those who benefit pay 

the costs of route construction, 

maintenance, enforcement, and 

rehabilitation of damaged areas.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-301 861

009/2. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-302 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should only 

apply the $25 fee to off-road vehicles that 

operate on National Forest lands.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-302 862

465/37. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-303 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider an annual fee greater than $20 to 

ensure sufficient funs are available for 

maintenance and administration.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-303 863
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

401

438/2. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-304 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

whether the state license plate fee will be 

accepted as the fee for access to the 

BHNF.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system. Motor vehicles with State license 

plates will not be required to purchase to REA permits for 

operation on Forest System Roads. However, permits will 

be required for operation on all Forest System trails.

4-304 864

492/4. 526/4. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-305 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should issue 

stickers or tags to fee-paying to fund 

mitigation of damage caused by motorized 

vehicles.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-305 865

055/2. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-305 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should issue 

stickers or tags to fee-paying users to 

facilitate self-policing and enforcement.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-305 866

482/9. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-306 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should give 

user fee revenues to emergency service 

agencies to offset the increased costs of 

providing emergency services to the 

BHNF.

This is beyond the scope of this project. 4-306 867

005/2. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-307 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use 

the proposed fee to hire more trail 

rangers.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-307 868

126/228. 126/270. 126/229. 

126/230.

Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-308 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use 

OHV gas tax revenues for maintenance, 

education, and construction of motorized 

recreation opportunities.

This is beyond the scope of this project. 4-308 869

126/227. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-308 Public This is beyond the scope of this project. 4-308 870
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

402

Concern: The Forest Service should use 

OHV gas tax revenues to expand and 

enhance OHV programs.

126/131. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-309 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the process for using OHV grant 

money for motorized trail projects 

because too often the projects are never 

implemented.

We agree. 4-309 871

236/4. Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-310 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should enter 

into a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the State of Wyoming to allow a 

single permit for both the Wyoming and 

South Dakota portions of the Forest.

This is beyond the scope of this project. OHV program 

fee reciprocity is outside the scope of this planning effort.

4-310 872

134/6. 139/5. Speed Limits. 4-311 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should enforce a speed 

limit of 25 miles per hour on all trails.

Speed limits are determined by engineers, based on trail 

classification standards.

4-311 873

264/2. 378/12. 488/5. Speed Limits. 4-312 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should enforce a speed 

limit of 30 miles per hour to better control 

dust, speed, and noise.

Speed limits are determined by engineers, based on trail 

classification standards.

4-312 874

134/7. Speed Limits. 4-313 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should restrict speeds 

around residences to reduce excessive 

dust.

Speed limits are determined by engineers, based on trail 

classification standards.

4-313 875

030/7. 475/11. 508/17. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

314 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should implement and enforce the 

proposed exhaust noise limitations.

Thank you for your comment. 4-314 876

445/2. 461/21. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

315 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should implement the proposed sound 

limit because the methodology behind the 

limit is well established. 

The proposal in the DEIS to establish a 96 dB(A) sound 

limit based on the SAE J1287 stationary test procedure is 

carried forward to the FEIS. This is discussed further, and 

effects disclosed, in the EIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section. 

4-315 877

362/4. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

316 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should lower the allowed noise emission 

limits to reduce disturbance to game, 

The 96 dB(A) limit is proposed because it is consistent with 

current standards for original equipment and would not 

require vehicle owners to further modify equipment 

compliant with these standards. The alternatives propose 

4-316 878
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

403

hunters, and visitors. varying mileages and areas where motorized vehicle travel 

would be designated. 

473/19. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

317 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the proposed noise 

levels because of the impacts on private 

homeowners.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-317 879

465/8. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

318 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the proposed 96-decibel 

noise limit because it is outside safety 

allowances.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-318 880

319/79. 414/43. 456/45. 

458/39. 458/40. 462/60.

Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

319 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the noise limit to 70 

decibels near residential areas because the 

96 decibel limit is too high.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-319 881

456/74. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4- The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 4-320 882
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

404

320 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set the noise limit to 70 decibels 

and require mufflers.

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

488/4. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

321 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reduce the noise limit to 60 

decibels.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-321 883

473/20. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

322 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should adopt the Federal Highway 

Administration‟s sound limits.

The Federal Highway Administration's sound limits 

mentioned in EPA's comment are based on Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) ON-HIGHWAY test 

procedure J2825. The Black Hills National Forest 

proposes to adopt a sound limit based on SAE off-road 

test procedure J1287. See also responses to Public 

Concerns 4-317 and 4-330.

4-322 884

169/5. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

323 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include noise and speed regulations 

for motorcycles.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

4-323 885
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

405

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. Vehicles traveling on public roads would be 

subject to legal speed limits. 

413/4. 420/1. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

324 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should require mufflers on motorized

vehicles to reduce noise.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-324 886

432/2. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

324 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should require mufflers on motorized 

vehicles to avoid needing to move 

trailheads or trails.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-324 887

578/43. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

324 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should require mufflers on motorized 

vehicles to provide for quiet recreation.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

4-324 888
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

406

section. 

527/2. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

325 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should limit noise from ATVs to provide 

children with the opportunity to 

experience quiet.

The Forest Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek 

different experiences. The alternatives address this in 

different ways which include different locations and 

mileages of routes and areas open to motorized vehicle 

travel. The effects of the alternatives on resources and 

recreation including non-motorized recreation are disclosed 

in the EIS in Chapter 3, Recreation and other sections. 

4-325 889

126/199. 126/200. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

326 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not use sound levels as a reason to 

limit motorized access because the noise 

from OHVs is less than or equal to 

ambient noise levels.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-326 890

126/262. 126/203. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

326 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not use sound levels as a reason to 

limit motorized access because motorized 

vehicles are quieter then formerly and 

establishing a reasonable sound limit 

would more equitably address the 

problem.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has been 

selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. 

EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption of more 

stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 

dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the EPA test. The 

SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most practical for the field 

and for enforcement testing. Sound level is discussed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

4-326 891

583/3. 584/1. 585/5. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

327 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should create noise zones that would set 

aside some areas for noisy vehicles while 

other areas could be accessed by quieter 

vehicles.

The 96 dB(A) limit is proposed because it is consistent with 

current standards for original equipment and would not 

require vehicle owners to further modify equipment 

compliant with these standards. The alternatives propose 

varying mileages and areas where motorized vehicle travel 

would be designated. 

4-327 892

464/33. 464/34. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4- The Forest Service assumes that most Forest visitors using 4-328 893
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

407

328 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify how the noise limits will be

enforced because current restrictions are 

not enforced.

the motorized system will generally comply with 

requirements and restrictions including those pertaining to 

noise levels. The agency intends to educate users as to 

those requirements and restrictions applicable on NFS 

lands, and to enforce them when needed. 

479/10. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

328 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify how the noise limits will be 

enforced because users could remove 

required mufflers post inspection.

The Forest Service assumes that most Forest visitors using 

the motorized system will generally comply with 

requirements and restrictions including those pertaining to 

noise levels. The agency intends to educate users as to 

those requirements and restrictions applicable on NFS 

lands, and to enforce them when needed. 

4-328 894

517/2. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

329 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide visitors and wildlife with 

quiet.

The Forest Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek 

different experiences. The alternatives address this in 

different ways which include different locations and 

mileages of routes and areas open to motorized vehicle 

travel. The effects of the alternatives on resources and 

recreation including non-motorized recreation are disclosed 

in the EIS in Chapter 3, Recreation and other sections. 

4-329 895

473/18. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

330 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide citations for statements 

asserting that 96 dB(A) is an EPAapproved limit.

EPA approved sound limits are currently 80 dB(A) for 

vehicles displacing less that 171cc and 82 dB(A) for those 

over 170cc, based on a precise, engineering acceleration test 

measured from a distance of 50 feet. Because the EPA test

procedure is not practical for 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. 

96 dB(A) utilizing SAE J1287 is the lowest limit that does 

not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound 

limits. Reference cited: Sound Advice, Motorcycle Sound 

Working Group – AMA, July 2005.

4-330 896

578/42. 585/4. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

331 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clarify the difference between the 

EPA‟s street-legal and off-road vehicle 

noise rules and should explain the 

meaning of the difference in decibels

The Federal Highway Administration recommends sound 

limits of 60dB(A) in some areas, and employs the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) test procedure J2825. The 

Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a sound limit 

of 96 dB(A) based on SAE off-road test procedure J1287. 

See response to Public Concern 4-317 for more 

information. 

4-331 897

488/3. Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-

332 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

Nuisance dust was an issue addressed in the alternatives. 

See response to Public Concern 4-325. 

4-332 898
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

408

should create no-dust zones around 

residential areas, trailheads, horses, hikers, 

fishermen, and riparian areas.

237/14. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-333 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide a well-marked system like that for 

snowmobiles in the Northern Hills.

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.

4-333 899

010/2. 086/2. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-334 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the quality of the signs marking 

trails to ensure that they are not easily 

removed.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map produced 

for the designated motorized system. Marking of the trail 

system is not a requirement of the decision for designation 

of a motorized travel system for the DEIS or FEIS.

4-334 900

126/251. 126/252. 267/1. 

326/42. 

Trail Marking and Maps. 4-334 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve the quality of the signs marking 

trails to reduce confusion and user 

conflicts.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map produced 

for the designated motorized system. Marking of the trail 

system is not a requirement of the decision for designation 

of a motorized travel system for the DEIS or FEIS.

4-334 901

279/4. 366/11. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-335 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

improve signage and increase penalties 

and enforcement to reduce violations.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map produced 

for the designated motorized system. Increase of penalties 

is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and beyond 

the scope of this project.

4-335 902

326/43. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-336 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

the use of orange signs to avoid 

confusion.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map produced 

for the designated motorized system. Marking of the trail 

system is not a requirement of the decision for designation 

of a motorized travel system for the DEIS or FEIS.

4-336 903

369/6. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-337 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

clearly mark dead-end trails to avoid 

creating more cross-country travel and 

trash dumping.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map produced 

for the designated motorized system. Marking of the trail 

system is not a requirement of the decision for designation 

of a motorized travel system for the DEIS or FEIS.

4-337 904

116/2. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-338 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide a detailed list of all roads that will 

be re-opened to ATV use.

Alternative A of the DEIS and FEIS shows the roads that 

are currently open to motorized use for the public. This 

alternative can be compared with the remaining alternatives 

to determine what would be re-opened to ATV use.

4-338 905

398/1. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-339 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

To the best of our knowledge, working with County 

records, the maps of the FEIS will show the most up-to4-339 906
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

409

ensure the maps are accurate because the 

plan maps show private roads as public 

roads.

date information of ownership for routes. No route 

outside the jurisdiction of Forest Service lands would be 

designated under this Travel Management Program.

015/2. 030/5. 108/1. 161/4. 

346/35. 414/52. 456/31. 

461/25. 462/69. 473/3. 

Trail Marking and Maps. 4-340 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide clearly defined motor vehicle use 

maps to facilitate enforcement.

As with the DEIS, it is anticipated that the Black Hills 

National Forest would have three Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

for the Forest to provide clearly defined routes. 

4-340 907

326/41. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-341 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide a color Motor Vehicle Use Map 

that shows seasonal dates, non-motorized 

trails, and other use areas to improve 

public compliance.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will follow National direction 

and symbology to be consistent with the overall program 

nation-wide. It will not likely contain any non-motorized 

trails. Non-motorized trail brochures are currently 

available for all designated trail systems on the Black Hills.

4-341 908

237/14. 369/4. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-342 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the trails are well marked on 

the maps to compensate for the loss of 

cross-country travel.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map produced 

for the designated motorized system. Marking of the trail 

system is not a requirement of the decision for designation 

of a motorized travel system for the DEIS or FEIS.

4-342 909

473/14. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-343 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include primitive and semi primitive areas 

on the Motor Vehicle Use Map to aid 

non-motorized users in avoiding conflicts 

with motorized users.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will follow National direction 

and symbology to be consistent with the overall program 

nation-wide. It will not likely contain any additional 

information pertaining to semi-primitive or primitive areas.

4-343 910

355/7. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-344 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

postpone implementing a new travel 

management plan until all the maps, signs, 

and gates are in place.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will display those routes that 

are ready for implementation on-the-ground. Additional 

routes will be added to the map as the implementation is 

completed.

4-344 911

009/3. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-345 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

establish an OHV program that includes a 

fee schedule and mapping to set an 

example for the nation.

The Travel Rule requires that a Motorized Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) be issued to show routes open to public use. 

Legally, the MVUM is the single source for this 

information for each national forest. The Forest will issue 

an MVUM. Other maps may eventually be issued based on 

available funds and partnerships. We intend to implement 

a user fee, authorized by the Recreation Enhancement Act, 

upon implementation of the future decision. We agree that 

costs and revenues should be accounted for. Costs and 

revenues for the road system, and those anticipated for the 

4-345 912
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

410

entire motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 3. 

In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be costly 

and that additional resources would be needed. This and 

other relevant information will be considered in the 

decision. 

126/109. Trail Marking and Maps. 4-346 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use a 

national standard for mapping to reduce 

confusion and environmental justice 

issues.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will follow National direction 

and symbology to be consistent with the overall program 

nation-wide. 

4-346 913

126/37. Construction and Maintenance. 4-347 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include construction of new trails 

in the plan to allow for the creation of a 

reasonable system of loops.

We agree. 4-347 914

319/39. 462/28. 511/14. Construction and Maintenance. 4-348 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should properly restore or repair all 

designated routes to prevent washouts and 

stream sedimentation.

We agree. 4-348 915

319/55. 319/59. 456/61. 

456/65. 458/56. 458/58. 

462/44. 462/48.

Construction and Maintenance. 4-349 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide a system to rehabilitate 

damage cause by motorized recreation.

Rehabilitation of routes is not the focus of this project. 

This may be proposed in other projects, as needed, based 

on monitoring or assessment of ground conditions.

4-349 916

456/33. 458/27. Construction and Maintenance. 4-350 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that routes are constructed 

and maintained using appropriate design 

standards and best management practices 

to ensure they are environmentally 

sustainable.

We agree. 4-350 917

269/3. Construction and Maintenance. 4-351 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that roads are sufficiently 

maintained to allow for fire management.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each route considered 

land and resource management needs (including fire) as 

well as factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

4-351 918
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

411

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. 

456/47. 456/55. 458/42. 

458/50.

Construction and Maintenance. 4-352 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure sufficient funds are 

available for construction and 

maintenance because there is already a 

significant maintenance backlog.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system. Our strategy, as we go to a 

designated trail system, is to provide the economic means 

for operation and maintenance. With volunteer support, 

permit fees, and grants, we will be able to support the 

designated trail system. The system will be open as the 

economics can provide.

4-352 919

456/48. 456/49. 456/50. 

458/42. 458/43. 458/44. 

458/45.

Construction and Maintenance. 4-352 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure sufficient funds are 

available for construction and 

maintenance to comply with the Forest 

Service Manual, 36 CFR Section 212.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-352 920

445/9. Construction and Maintenance. 4-353 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that trail maintenance costs 

are shared by all users, including 

campgrounds.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system. Use of campground fees is beyond 

the scope of this project. 

4-353 921

126/110. Construction and Maintenance. 4-354 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should use road decommissioning funds 

for road maintenance to benefit the public 

and the environment.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-354 922

126/195. Construction and Maintenance. 4-355 Forest Service System Roads and Trails will be designed, 4-355 923
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

412

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that the maintenance 

backlog is overstated because motorized 

recreationists value the challenge 

presented by primitive unmaintained trails.

constructed and maintained to meet trail classification 

standards.

066/3. Construction and Maintenance. 4-356 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should require OHV users to pay for the 

maintenance and construction of 

motorized trails to reduce the damage 

done to private property by OHV users.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). The REA permit process requires development of a 

business plan to address costs associated with management 

of an OHV trail system.

4-356 924

357/6. Construction and Maintenance. 4-357 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid opening new routes until 

needed rehabilitation on existing routes is 

complete.

Rehabilitation of routes is not the focus of this project. 

This may be proposed in other projects, as needed, based 

on monitoring or assessment of ground conditions.

4-357 925

395/13. 508/20. Construction and Maintenance. 4-358 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should enlist the help of the off-road 

community to help maintain trails because 

they are willing.

We agree. 4-358 926

292/3. Construction and Maintenance. 4-359 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should enlist the help of volunteers to 

help maintain trails.

We agree. 4-359 927

126/43. Construction and Maintenance. 4-360 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that OHV and 4x4 

trails could be maintained using a SWECO 

trail machine.

Thank you for your suggestions. The Forest owns the type 

of equipment you mention and has trained staff available. 

Use of this equipment and personnel are one of many 

possible methods that will be used for necessary 

construction and maintenance work.

4-360 928

286/2. Construction and Maintenance. 4-361 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure that necessary road closures 

due to fire, logging, or maintenance be as 

brief as possible.

The Forest will attempt to minimize closures of the 

designated OHV system.

4-361 929

144/4. Construction and Maintenance. 4-362 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should open abandoned logging roads to 

ATV use because ATV users will assist in 

The alternatives include a variety of routes including some 

created by users and others remaining from earlier 

management activities. Access for fire suppression is not 

expected to be materially different under any alternative. 

4-362 930
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

413

maintaining the roads as fire access routes.

126/83. Land Designations. 4-363 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

manage public lands, including Roadless 

Areas and Wilderness Study Areas, for 

multiple use to comply with applicable 

regulations and reduce excess allocation of 

resources to non-motorized uses.

The purpose of this project is to designate roads, trails and 

areas for motorized travel as appropriate, and not to make 

changes to uses allowed on areas of the Forest. Changes to 

existing land allocations as suggested in this comment are 

beyond the scope of this analysis and more suited to a 

forest plan revision effort. 

4-363 931

126/80. Land Designations. 4-364 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

encourage users who value quiet 

recreation to use Wilderness Areas rather 

than setting aside more areas for their use.

Allocation of the Forest to various uses is more 

appropriately done in a forest plan revision. The purpose 

and need of this travel planning effort is stated in Chapter 1 

of the EIS, and includes elements of providing for a range 

of quality experiences for a variety of Forest users, and 

reducing adverse impacts of unmanaged cross-country and 

route use. The alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the 

EIS address these objectives in different ways. 

4-364 932

126/73. Land Designations. 4-365 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that areas designated as 

Wilderness or Roadless are used for nonmotorized recreation because these areas 

contribute to the imbalance of recreation 

activities.

The Forest Service has undertaken this planning effort to 

comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule which 

directs the agency to designate roads, trails and areas where 

motorized use may occur. The Forest Service recognizes 

that Forest visitors seek different experiences. The 

alternatives address this in different ways with different 

locations and mileages of routes and areas open to 

motorized vehicle travel considering the characteristics of 

lands specific to the Forest and issues expressing a number 

of public concerns. The effects of the alternatives on 

resources and recreation are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 

3, Recreation and other sections. 

4-365 933

126/220. Land Designations. 4-366 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include stipulations requiring public access

as part of private/public land exchanges to 

offset the impacts on motorized 

recreationists.

Each proposal for land exchange or easement is unique and 

is evaluated on its own merits. 

4-366 934

126/72. Land Designations. 4-367 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

create de facto Wilderness areas because 

only Congress has such authority.

Land allocations to various multiple uses and wilderness are 

appropriately done as part of a forest plan revision. This 

travel planning effort will be a project decision and not a 

forest plan revision. The Forest Service recognizes that 

Forest visitors seek different experiences. The alternatives 

4-367 935
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

414

provide a range of options for motorized travel 

opportunities. 

126/265. Land Designations. 4-368 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

managing multiple-use lands as wilderness 

because doing so does not meet the public 

need, nor is it a reasonable or equitable 

goal.

The purpose and need for this project includes an element 

to identify an official travel system, to comply with the 

2005 Travel Management Rule. It is not designed to 

change land allocations as currently shown in the Forest 

Plan. The alternatives as described in the EIS, Chapter 2, 

provide a range of options for motorized travel 

opportunities to meet the purpose and need, within existing 

management allocations. Alternative C provides the 

greatest mileage and number of routes, and the greatest 

number of acres available for off-road game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. 

4-368 936

126/82. Land Designations. 4-369 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the public is satisfied 

with the current number of Wilderness 

Areas.

Public desires for wilderness are outside the scope of this 

proposal. 

4-369 937

241/4. 247/14. Land Designations. 4-370 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that areas with no roads, like 

Swede Gulch, look like de facto 

Wilderness designations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills NF to provide access for 

both motorized and non-motorized users in a manner that 

is environmentally sustainable over the long term. As 

stated in the Travel Rule, National Forests are managed by 

law for multiple use. National Forests are not reserved for 

the exclusive use of any one group, nor must every use be 

accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate for 

different areas of the National Forests to provide different 

opportunities for recreation. An interdisciplinary process 

was used to identify routes suitable for public motorized 

use designation, including all identified non-system routes, 

in the range of alternatives. The analysis process included 

identifying natural and cultural resource concerns, 

recreation, access needs, and other related considerations 

consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop 

the range of alternatives. The analysis results can be found 

in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

4-370 938

319/60. 414/32. 462/49. Land Designations. 4-371 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized recreation on all 

Inventoried Roadless Areas.

The Forest Service has undertaken this planning effort to 

comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule which 

directs the agency to designate roads, trails and areas where 

motorized use may occur. The Forest Service recognizes 

4-371 939
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

415

that Forest visitors seek different experiences. The 

alternatives address this in different ways with different 

locations and mileages of routes and areas open to 

motorized vehicle travel considering the characteristics of 

lands specific to the Forest and issues expressing a number 

of public concerns. The effects of the alternatives on 

resources and recreation are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 

3, Recreation and other sections. 

588/12. Land Designations. 4-372 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce roads around the Sand Creek 

Roadless Area to maintain low evidence of 

humans in the area.

Land allocations to various multiple uses including ROS 

designations, the subject of this comment, are appropriately 

evaluated as part of a forest plan revision. This travel 

planning effort will be a project decision and not a forest 

plan revision. The Forest Service recognizes that Forest 

visitors seek different experiences. The alternatives provide 

a range of options for motorized travel opportunities. 

4-372 940

254/1. 329/2. Land Designations. 4-373 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate the Hop Creek/Swede Gulch 

area as Roadless because it has been 

damaged by mining, illegal OHV use, and 

grazing.

Land allocations and the Forest roadless area inventory, the 

subject of this comment, are appropriately evaluated as part 

of a forest plan revision. This travel planning effort will be 

a project decision and not a forest plan revision. The 

Forest Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek different 

experiences. The alternatives provide a range of options 

for motorized travel opportunities. Effects of the 

alternatives on resources and recreation opportunities are 

disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3. 

4-373 941

326/40. 459/17. 611/17. Impact Analysis. 4-374 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should perform a 

mixed-use analysis before selecting a 

preferred alternative.

In 2009, motorized mixed use analyses (professional 

engineering studies) were conducted on selected ML 2 –

ML 5 roads by the forest‟s engineering department. These 

roads are the forest‟s arterials and collectors and the main 

access routes that the public uses to get to the forest. 

Professional engineering analysis and judgment was used to 

evaluate the potential for a crash as well as the severity of 

an accident should a crash occur. The crash potential 

rating is based on roadway factors such as traffic volume 

and type, surface type and condition, sight distances, 

driving speeds, and roadway alignment (horizontal and 

vertical curves). Crash severity ratings were based on 

roadside conditions (natural ground slopes, slope/height of 

embankments, and large unyielding features next to the 

road), speed, and traffic types (the larger the difference in 

4-374 942
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

416

size of vehicles, the greater the severity). The final 

decision on designation of motorized mixed use roads will 

be informed by these studies.

459/1. 611/1. Impact Analysis. 4-374 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should perform a 

mixed-use analysis to justify the selection 

of Alternative B.

In 2009, motorized mixed use analyses (professional 

engineering studies) were conducted on selected ML 2 –

ML 5 roads by the forest‟s engineering department. These 

roads are the forest‟s arterials and collectors and the main 

access routes that the public uses to get to the forest. 

Professional engineering analysis and judgment was used to 

evaluate the potential for a crash as well as 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.

4-374 943

461/7. Impact Analysis. 4-374 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should perform a 

mixed-use analysis to ensure that 

identified routes are not illusory.

In 2009, motorized mixed use analyses (professional 

engineering studies) were conducted on selected ML 2 –

ML 5 roads by the forest‟s engineering department. These 

roads are the forest‟s arterials and collectors and the main 

access routes that the public uses to get to the forest. 

Professional engineering analysis and judgment was used to

evaluate the potential for a crash as well as the severity of 

an accident should a crash occur. The crash potential 

rating is based on roadway factors such as traffic volume 

and type, surface type and condition, sight distances, 

driving speeds, and roadway alignment (horizontal and 

vertical curves). Crash severity ratings were based on 

roadside conditions (natural ground slopes, slope/height of 

embankments, and large unyielding features next to the 

road), speed, and traffic types (the larger the difference in 

size of vehicles, the greater the severity). The final 

decision on designation of motorized mixed use roads will 

be informed by these studies.

4-374 944
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

417

126/125. Impact Analysis. 4-375 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide sitespecific qualitative analysis to comply with 

the national OHV decision.

The alternatives include a variety of routes including some 

created by users and others remaining from earlier 

management activities. The effects of the alternatives on 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 

3, Recreation section. 

4-375 945

578/18. Impact Analysis. 4-375 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide sitespecific qualitative analysis to ensure 

sufficient information is available to assist 

decision makers and the public.

The alternatives were developed to address the issues in 

different ways, and include a variety of routes suggested by 

the public or proposed by the Forest Service. We agree 

that some routes may provide more opportunities than 

others, or may be more sensitive to impacts of use. 

Recreation opportunities and specific routes and areas 

important to motorized users were identified in numerous 

public comments prior to and during scoping, and in 

comments on the DEIS. These comments were used to 

develop the alternatives, and are documented in the project 

record. Routes and route segments were evaluated by 

interdisciplinary team resource specialists and ranger 

district personnel familiar with them This site-specific 

analysis is documented in the project record in the form of 

maps, reports and other data; and in the FEIS in such 

places as Appendix B, Design Criteria for Botanical 

Resources, Hydrology and Fisheries, and Wildlife; and, in 

Chapter 3, in these and other resource sections. 

4-375 946

126/31. Impact Analysis. 4-376 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include 

detailed, site-specific analysis of each road 

or trail proposed for closure to ensure 

both site-specific and cumulative impacts 

are addressed.

This project does not propose to close roads, trails or areas, 

but rather to designate routes and areas open to use. The 

effects on motorized recreation opportunities of each of 

the alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Recreation section. The cumulative effects of other actions 

on recreation opportunities are addressed there as well. 

4-376 947

126/5. Impact Analysis. 4-377 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should evaluate all 

existing routes including those meeting 

national OHV rule guidelines and 

currently closed routes.

The alternatives were developed to address the issues in 

different ways, and include a variety of routes suggested by 

the public or proposed by the Forest Service. Recreation 

opportunities and specific routes and areas important to 

motorized users were identified in numerous public 

comments prior to and during scoping, and in comments 

on the DEIS. These comments were used to develop the 

alternatives, and are contained in the project record. 

Effects of the alternatives on motorized recreation 

opportunities are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

4-377 948
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

418

Recreation section. 

319/34. 414/22. 456/112. 

458/88. 462/23.

Impact Analysis. 4-378 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include impacts 

from roads used for timber management 

in the cumulative impact assessment.

We agree. Roads used for timber harvest and other uses are 

included in the cumulative effects analysis where applicable. 

See FEIS, Chapter 3, various Resource Sections and FEIS, 

Appendix E.

4-378 949

319/51. 456/56. 458/51. 

462/40.

Impact Analysis. 4-379 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

costs of trailhead development.

Completing designs and detailed cost estimates are beyond 

the scope of this analysis. Estimated costs for a typical 

trailhead were utilized in the analysis for comparative 

purposes. Specific decisions regarding implementation and 

possibly construction will be based on the resources 

available.

4-379 950

585/1. Impact Analysis. 4-380 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a more 

detailed map and analysis of all trailheads 

located near communities and private land 

to include discussion of the impact of 

concentrated OHV use on 

neighborhoods.

The alternatives addressed the concern about motorized 

use near private lands in different ways. Alternative C 

proposes 11 trailheads within 3 miles of a potential gateway 

community, while Alternative D proposes 7; Alternatives A 

and E each propose none. Similarly, the number of miles 

of designated routes within 300 feet of lands of other 

ownerships varies by alternative. The effects of motorized 

use on neighbors and communities are disclosed in the 

FEIS in Chapter 3, in the Recreation, Engineering and 

Transportation, and Socio-Economic sections. Effects of 

each of the alternatives with respect to noise levels are 

addressed in the Engineering and Transportation section. 

4-380 951

126/130. Impact Analysis. 4-381 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include a 

comparison and analysis of trailheads in 

Wilderness Areas versus trailheads in 

OHV areas to make clear the existing 

imbalance.

One of the elements of the purpose and need for this 

project is to develop a transportation system to provide a 

range of quality experiences for a variety of Forest users. 

The Forest Service intends to provide facilities on any 

adopted motorized system that meet standards and public 

expectations. The rate at which any system can be fully 

implemented will depend on available funding including 

fees and appropriations. 

4-381 952

578/41. Impact Analysis. 4-382 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the 

discussion of decibel levels to include a 

discussion of the impact of increases on 

listeners.

The discussion of actual noise levels under the alternatives 

in the DEIS has been carried forward into the FEIS, 

Engineering and Transportation section, largely unchanged 

because no changes were made to the alternatives. The 

comment asks for discussion of what noise actually means 

to listeners. The discussion in the Socio-Economics 

section on noise impacts has been expanded somewhat to 

address this. However, since stimuli such as noise evoke 

4-382 953
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

419

different reactions among different people, it is difficult to 

estimate what a given noise level may mean to one or more 

individuals at any given time or place. Expectations of 

visitors are an important consideration. Public information 

about opportunities provided on the Forest can help 

visitors to develop realistic expectations. In addition, 

factors such as topography, vegetation cover, and wind 

direction can affect noise perceptions at a given time and 

place. The alternatives provide varying levels of motorized 

travel opportunities and address the issue of noise in 

different ways. The effects are disclosed in the EIS in 

Chapter 3. 

126/128. Impact Analysis. 4-383 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use a 

reasonable test to assess the significance of 

impacts from closing routes to motorized 

access including consideration of available 

alternatives to closure.

The Forest plans to provide access for both highway-legal 

and non highway-legal vehicles in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

decision on the type of use allowed will be based on factors 

such as compatibility with existing land prescriptions 

and/or designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife 

objectives, safety, and existing and/or potential conflicts.

4-383 954

419/1. Impact Analysis. 4-384 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

impacts of changing the responsibility for 

determining which areas are open to 

motorized use because the new policy 

places responsibility on the public to 

determine which areas are open.

OPEN

Routes available to the public for motorized use will be 

shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. The Forest Service 

may also sign designated routes on the ground based on 

resource availability. If a route is not shown on the 

MVUM, it is not available for public motorized use.

4-384 955

387/11 Access to the National Forest (Chapter 5: 

Recreation Management). 5-1 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support family-focused outdoor recreation 

in these poor economic times.

There are many motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities for families to recreate on the National 

Forest. The DEIS and FEIS considered a variety of 

recreation activities throughout the alternatives for family 

activities and disclosed the effects in Chapter 3, pages 46-

66.

5-1 956

425/12. 461/18. 461/26. Access to the National Forest. 5-2 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that all user groups are provided 

for.

National Forests are managed for multiple use activities. 

Each user group was considered in the development of the 

DEIS and FEIS and categorized into two groups; 

motorized and non-motorized. Each alternative of the 

DEIS and FEIS varies in opportunities for each of these 

recreation areas, pages 46-66.

5-2 957
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

420

304/2. Access to the National Forest. 5-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

overly-strict reduction in access to allow 

for multiple use access and access for the 

limitedly able.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Persons 

with disabilities have the same access opportunities as those 

without disabilities. 

5-3 958

458/23. Motorized Access. 5-4 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that motorized users are given substantial 

recreational resources.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-4 959

322/12. Motorized Access. 5-5 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should distinguish 

between the various types of motorized 

vehicles because they don't all cause the 

same level of damage.

The DEIS and FEIS considered the various types of 

motorized vehicles utilizing the Forest roads and trails and 

the effects each may cause on natural resources in Chapter 

3.

5-5 960

197/2. Motorized Access. 5-6 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should disclose the 

magnitude of the taking of motorized 

access constituted by the proposed plan.

The DEIS and FEIS identified the miles of roads open to 

motorized use within the Forest. The DEIS and FEIS also 

identified the miles of roads outside Forest Service 

jurisdiction, pages 66-89.

5-6 961

201/1. Motorized Access. 5-7 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that the increasing use of OHVs indicates 

that the public is increasing their use of 

the Forest.

The DEIS and FEIS disclosed the increase in sales of 

OHVs nationwide and the estimated number of motorized 

visitors to the Forest, pages 50-51. Chapter 3 discloses the 

effects increased OHV use on the Forest could do to 

natural resources without regulations. 

5-7 962

171/1. 406/6. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access

because many citizens are opposed to 

motorized use of the BHNF.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 963

037/2. 037/4. 064/2. 090/2. 

105/9. 288/2. 318/1. 331/4. 

356/2. 376/5. 424/7. 479/12. 

488/7. 529/1. 

Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

reduce the damage to public lands and 

conflicts with non-motorized users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 964

026/2. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

reduce damage to roads and trails, thereby 

increasing safety.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 965

401/1. 536/14. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 5-8 966
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

421

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

reduce damage to roads and trails.

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

163/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

reduce damage to roads and wildlife.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 967

152/1. 372/2. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

reduce damage to the ecosystem and to 

reduce oil consumption.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 968

090/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access 

because OHVs are noisy and dustproducing and many users engage in 

unsafe practices.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 969

320/10. 474/27. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

reduce contributions to global warming.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 970

090/4. 028/1. 050/1. 066/1. 

257/1. 488/2. 518/4.

Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-8 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized access to 

preserve the natural beauty and quiet 

recreation of the forest.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-8 971

443/3. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-9 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should restrict motorized access to 

public lands because motorized users 

should not be allowed to damage public 

lands.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-9 972

458/12. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-10 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized recreation 

to existing state and federal highways, 

county roads, and existing forest system 

roads with a constructed roadbed and 

Federal and State highways and County roads are outside 

the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and have not been 

included in the DEIS and FEIS for motorized recreation. 

Forest Service system roads have been included to varied 

degrees in the DEIS and FEIS alternatives and effects 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-10 973
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

422

gravel surface to mitigate the effects of 

climate change.

458/4. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-11 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the scale of offroad travel allowed to comply with the 

intent of MUSYA.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide a range of offroad travel opportunities. Effects to these alternatives on 

natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-11 974

027/2. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-12 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the number of 

motorized routes to allow for more nonmotorized, quiet recreation.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-12 975

067/1. 171/2. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-12 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the number of 

motorized routes to protect the quality of 

the recreation experience for nonmotorized users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-12 976

410/2. 172/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-12 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the number of 

motorized routes because motorized 

recreation causes noise and pollution.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3.

5-12 977

452/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-12 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the number of 

motorized routes because off-highway 

riders engage in illegal and destructive 

behavior.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-12 978

115/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-13 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce motorized access to 

the forest to protect wildlife and plant 

species and wetland and riparian areas.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-13 979

157/2. 475/2. 518/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-13 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce motorized access to 

the forest to reduce damage to the forest 

and improve wildlife habitat.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-13 980
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

423

062/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-13 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce motorized access to

the forest to allow for quiet recreation.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

limitation on motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-13 981

058/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-14 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not expand the motorized 

trail system to reduce conflicts with nonmotorized users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized trail access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-14 982

058/1. 122/2. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-15 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should choose the smallest 

motorized travel system possible to ensure 

optimal management and reduce user 

conflicts.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-15 983

089/1. 258/1. 406/2. 422/1. 

458/1.

Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-16 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit all motorized 

recreational access to protect remaining 

natural areas.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the greatest 

amount of protection from motorized access to natural 

areas and wilderness on the Forest. The natural resource 

effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-16 984

072/1. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-16 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit all motorized 

recreational access because many 

motorized users don't obey the rules and 

don't participate in trail maintenance.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-16 985

150/4. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-16 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit all motorized 

recreational access because non-motorized 

access is healthier.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-16 986

346/24. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized 

Access. 5-17 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit the number of OHV 

only areas to reduce user-created roads 

and resource damage.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the greatest 

limitation on the number of OHV-only areas and the 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

5-17 987

322/13. Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized

Access. 5-18 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should narrow access to 

Motorized opportunities vary by alternative in the DEIS 

and FEIS. Some motorized users may be restricted on 

routes under one alternative and allowed access in another. 

5-18 988
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

424

motorcycles and ATVs to mitigate the 

impacts of larger vehicles and minimize 

ongoing impacts to forest ecology.

Effects to natural resources on these varied degrees of 

motorized access are disclosed in Chapter 3.

126/11. 126/34. 144/3. 253/2. 

325/1. 382/16. 408/13. 442/1.

Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support motorized recreation to 

support the local economy and culture.

Forest visitors recreate on the Forest for a variety of 

reasons. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of 

motorized opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3.

5-19 989

403/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support motorized recreation to 

support the economy of Piedmont.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-19 990

253/3. 598/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support motorized recreation to 

support family recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-19 991

126/158. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support motorized recreation to 

help combat the increase in overweight 

and obesity.

The potential conflicts of motorized recreation with natural 

and cultural resources, and other uses of the Forest, as well 

as the social and economic effects of various levels of use 

were issues identified in Chapter 1. The DEIS and FEIS 

considered a range of motorized opportunities and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-19 992

126/51. 126/81. 323/1. 450/11. 

450/17. 461/14.

Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

20 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not reduce motorized access to be 

consistent with Congressional intent and 

meet the needs of the public.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternative C provides the highest amount of motorized 

opportunities for the Black Hills. 

5-20 993

084/1. 104/1. 126/51. 220/13. 

230/17. 408/12.

Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

20 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not reduce motorized access 

because the area used by motorized trails 

is insignificant and is at a reasonable level.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-20 994

144/2. 321/2. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

20 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-20 995
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

425

should not reduce motorized access 

because concentrating use will increase the 

damage done in the high use areas.

126/10. 126/243. 260/11. 

325/4. 

Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

21 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should preserve existing motorized access 

to comply with the intent of NEPA and 

because the trails contribute to culture, 

history, and traditions.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and FEIS provide the 

greatest motorized opportunities.

5-21 996

126/36. 220/13. 359/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

21 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should preserve existing motorized access 

because limiting and concentrating use 

would increase damage to those areas.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-21 997

126/196. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

22 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should open all trails to motorized users 

because motorized users have historically 

provided significant maintenance to trails.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

concentration of motorized routes for the Forest. Effects 

on natural resources and maintenance costs are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

5-22 998

009/1. 385/11. 592/3. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

23 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not restrict access to any of the 

existing roads and trails on National 

Forest System lands.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes 

and system routes for possible designation into the Forest 

Travel System. The evaluation of each route considered 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, 

wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential 

conflicts as well as information provided from the public. 

These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates for 

inclusion into the transportation system. Some restrictions 

to motorized access are necessary due to the sensitivity of 

resources along particular routes. Alternative C of the 

DEIS and FEIS provided the highest concentration of 

motorized routes for the Forest. Effects on natural 

5-23 999
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

426

resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

126/78. 504/15. 531/11. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

24 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should avoid changing the current travel 

management plan to preserve the current 

level of motorized access.

Alternative A reflects the current travel management plan 

and is considered in the DEIS and FEIS. 

5-24 1000

236/5. 477/8. 614/8. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

25 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include as much motorized access 

as possible to avoid non-compliance 

issues, which would result in further 

restrictions.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

concentration of motorized routes for the Forest. Effects 

on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-25 1001

178/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

26 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow liberal motorized use of 

National Forest System lands because 

adjacent areas provide sufficient nonmotorized access.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

concentration of motorized routes for the Forest. Effects 

on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-26 1002

060/1. 415/1. 571/10. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

27 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase motorized access because 

most motorized users do not cause 

environmental damage or violate current 

rules.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

concentration of motorized routes for the Forest. Effects 

on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-27 1003

503/18. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

27 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase motorized access to allow 

users to access the interior of the BHNF.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

concentration of motorized routes for the Forest. Effects 

on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-27 1004

126/44. 126/271. 313/4. 448/1. 

512/12. 512/13. 513/11. 

Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

27 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase motorized access to 

reduce illegal use and improve the OHV 

experience.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the highest 

concentration of motorized routes for the Forest. Effects 

on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-27 1005
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

427

126/4. 510/17. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

28 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should address the current and future 

needs of motorized recreationists and 

provide them with equal opportunity.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-28 1006

075/1. 126/122. 126/123. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

29 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should work proactively to accommodate 

the increasing popularity of OHV 

recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-29 1007

126/30. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

30 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should explain why non-motorized user 

needs are provided for at a higher level 

than motorized user needs.

There are many motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities on the National Forest. The DEIS and FEIS 

considered a range of recreation activities throughout the 

alternatives and disclosed the effects in Chapter 3.

5-30 1008

105/10. 128/2. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

31 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate a sufficient number of 

trails as motorized to avoid user conflicts 

and concentrating use in small areas.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail opportunities are 

in Alternatives B and C.

5-31 1009

084/3. 105/10. 126/66. 403/6. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

31 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate a sufficient number of 

trails as motorized to avoid over 

concentration and resulting safety and 

environmental impacts.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail opportunities are 

in Alternatives B and C.

5-31 1010

514/13. 534/21. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

31 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate a sufficient number of 

trails as motorized to provide motorized 

users a variety of new trail to explore.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail opportunities are 

in Alternatives B and C.

5-31 1011

128/2. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

5-31 1012
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

428

31 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate a sufficient number of 

trails as motorized to increase compliance 

with the plan.

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail opportunities are 

in Alternatives B and C.

154/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

32 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not close off-road motorized trails 

to support family recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities for family activities and disclosed 

the effects in Chapter 3..

5-32 1013

045/1. 054/1. 459/14. 611/14. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

33 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider the size of the reduction 

of motorized trails because many of the 

problems could be solved with greater 

enforcement.

Alternative A, page 21 of the DEIS, represents the legal 

motorized opportunities for the Forest. By comparison, 

Alternatives B, C, and D; pages 24, 26, and 29 respectively,

of the DEIS, provides an increase to the legal motorized 

trail opportunities for the Forest. 

5-33 1014

103/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access because restrictions 

would concentrate use, congest parking 

areas, and cause more enforcement issues.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. Effects of the Alternatives regarding the need 

to trailer ATVs and parking congestion have been disclosed 

in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, pages 46-66.

5-34 1015

045/2. 054/2. 178/2. 504/12. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access to reduce damage caused 

by concentrating use on a smaller number 

of trails.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS 

provided the highest concentration of motorized routes for 

the Forest.

5-34 1016

012/4. 531/17. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access because there are already 

sufficient areas set aside for nonmotorized recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3.

5-34 1017

023/1. 084/4. 286/6. 407/12. 

446/5. 

Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

5-34 1018
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

429

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access because motorized 

recreation is very popular in the Black 

Hills area.

in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS 

provided the highest concentration of motorized routes for 

the Forest.

012/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access because most motorized 

recreationists do not break the law and 

should not be penalized for the bad 

actions of a few.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3.

5-34 1019

012/2. 486/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access because motorized 

recreation causes less damage than other 

uses, such as grazing.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

of these alternatives on natural resources in Chapter 3.

5-34 1020

211/2. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider restrictions on 

motorized access to avoid impacts on the 

local economy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3.

5-34 1021

126/63. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

35 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that closing areas to 

OHVs exacerbates illegal use.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS 

provided the highest concentration of motorized routes for 

the Forest. 

5-35 1022

128/3. 161/3. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

36 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase the number of motorized 

roads in the Wyoming portion of the 

BHNF because higher user numbers 

would benefit the local economy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. 

5-36 1023

355/4. Motorized Access - Increasing or The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 5-36 1024
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

430

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

36 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase the number of motorized 

roads in the Wyoming portion of the 

BHNF because there is little nonmotorized use there.

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS 

provided the highest concentration of motorized routes for 

the Forest. 

142/13. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

36 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase the number of motorized 

roads in the Wyoming portion of the 

BHNF to reduce illegal riding

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. 

5-36 1025

126/234. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

37 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase publication and 

sponsorship of motorized recreation 

events to reduce the appearance of bias 

against motorized recreation.

The Forest Service web site, www.fs.fed.us, has a link for 

motorized recreation including a link for Forests with 

completed Motor Vehicle Use Maps that are available online. The Black Hills National Forest intends to make their 

Motor Vehicle Use Map available on-line when the decision 

is made of authorized routes. Private entities sponsoring 

any recreation events are normally responsible for 

publicizing such events. The Forest Service may consider 

partnerships as appropriate. 

5-37 1026

126/174. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

38 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide adequate motorized access 

within a short distance of urban areas to 

conserve energy. 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road, trail and trailhead opportunities and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-38 1027

126/27. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

39 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should open multiple-use lands to 

motorized vehicles and equipment because 

these areas should not be managed as 

wilderness. 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities within areas open to 

multiple use activities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-39 1028

103/2. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

40 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should only close those areas deemed 

sensitive or that have been damaged to 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. 

5-40 1029
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

431

avoid a one-size fits all plan.

249/1. Motorized Access - Increasing or 

Maintaining Current Motorized Access. 5-

41 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should select Alternative C because it 

would allow a wide range of motorized 

access.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS does provide the 

widest range of motorized opportunities for the Forest. 

Thank you for your comment.

5-41 1030

126/23. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate all single-track trails as open to 

motorized use to be consistent with the 

Civil Rights Act.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails may not be 

environmentally appropriate for motorized use due to 

design or location. Where non-motorized trails overlap 

with motorized roads proposals for shared interests 

between user groups was incorporated into the alternatives.

5-42 1031

351/12. 451/3. 483/11. 604/15. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate all single-track trails as open to 

motorized use because off-road 

motorcycling has a long tradition and is 

very popular.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects 

to the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

5-42 1032

126/132. 126/133. 351/15. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate all single-track trails as open to 

motorized use because single-track trails 

appear natural and can be shared with 

other users.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects 

to the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

5-42 1033

449/8. 460/6. 535/5. 536/23. 

609/15. 609/16.

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate all single-track trails as open to 

motorized use to provide a variety of 

challenging trails.

Not all the trails currently used for single-track are open to 

motorized activities. Some trails are resulting in damage to 

sensitive resources. Opportunities for single-track trails 

have been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-42 1034

500/11. 501/12. 530/12. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate all single-track trails as open to 

motorized use because motorcyclists are 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects 

to the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

5-42 1035
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

432

responsible users and there is a shortage 

of quality trails.

359/7. 445/7. 483/12. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-43 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

motorcycles to access trails currently open 

to them because motorcyclists have been 

good stewards and are willing to help with 

trail maintenance. 

Not all the trails currently used for single-track are open to 

motorized activities. Some trails are resulting in damage to 

sensitive resources. Opportunities for single-track trails 

have been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-43 1036

322/17. 449/6. 534/22. 535/4. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-44 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include all user-created single-track trails 

in the system because motorcycling has a 

long history on the BHNF and is popular.

Not all the trails currently used for single-track are open to 

motorized activities. Some trails are resulting in damage to 

sensitive resources. Opportunities for single-track trails 

have been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-44 1037

218/11. 219/11. 231/11. 

296/11. 338/11. 505/11. 

506/11.

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-45 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

provide more single-track trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-45 1038

262/13. 298/11. 447/3. 

502/13. 531/12. 536/15. 

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails to increase 

safety.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. The Forest reviewed the 

user submitted single-track trails for resource and safety 

concerns and included those routes that could be 

environmentally sustained into the alternatives.

5-46 1039

447/2. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails to reduce 

non-compliance issues.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-46 1040

215/3. 216/5. 217/3. 217/13. 

218/3. 219/3. 220/3. 222/3. 

223/3. 224/3. 225/3. 226/3. 

227/3. 228/3. 229/3. 230/3. 

231/3. 237/3. 239/3. 247/3. 

247/25. 260/3. 261/3. 262/3. 

294/3. 295/3. 296/3. 297/3. 

297/11. 298/3. 300/3. 301/3. 

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails to provide 

a variety of experiences.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-46 1041
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

433

302/3. 302/12. 303/3. 303/11. 

311/3. 311/12. 322/3. 337/3. 

338/3. 351/3. 351/14. 359/3. 

366/3. 378/3. 379/3. 380/3. 

382/3. 384/3. 384/11. 385/3. 

386/3. 387/3. 388/3. 389/3. 

391/3. 392/3. 393/3. 395/3. 

396/3. 397/3. 403/4. 407/3. 

407/11. 408/3. 408/11. 416/3. 

416/11. 417/3. 417/11. 421/3. 

421/11. 425/3. 425/11. 429/3. 

429/11. 430/3. 430/11. 439/1. 

450/3. 460/5. 483/3. 483/17. 

483/20. 484/3. 484/11. 485/3. 

485/11. 494/3. 495/3. 496/3. 

497/3. 498/3. 499/3. 500/3. 

501/3. 502/3. 503/3. 503/13. 

504/3. 504/13. 505/3. 506/3. 

507/3. 507/12. 508/3. 509/3. 

510/3. 511/3. 512/2. 513/3. 

514/3. 515/3. 515/11. 521/3. 

521/11. 530/3. 531/3. 532/3. 

533/3. 536/16. 538/3. 561/3. 

562/3. 562/11. 570/10. 577/3. 

593/3. 603/3. 604/3. 605/3. 

606/3. 609/3. 

347/1. 351/14. 379/13. 447/2. 

460/5. 461/5. 483/20. 508/13. 

570/10. 593/17. 594/3. 602/3. 

605/15. 606/17. 609/14.

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails because 

single-track users need more miles of trails 

than other motorized users.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-46 1042

220/11. 297/11. 444/1. 461/5. 

499/11. 511/12. 519/7. 

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails because 

ATV and motorcycle users prefer to have 

separate trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-46 1043

447/1. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 5-46 1044
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

434

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails because 

the single-track community has been a 

good steward.

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

230/12. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more single-track trails because 

they tend to have low non-motorized use 

rates, which would effectively separate 

users.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-46 1045

536/17. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-47 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that establishing a singletrack trail system would be inexpensive 

because little construction would be 

required.

The cost of single-track trail construction and maintenance 

was disclosed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, pages 66-89.

5-47 1046

049/2. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-48 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide greater access for dirt bikes to be 

equitable. 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-48 1047

049/1. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-48 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide greater access for dirt bikes to 

reduce congestion and increase safety.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-48 1048

562/12. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-48 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide greater access for dirt bikes 

because motorcycles are fewer in number 

than four-wheeled vehicles and do less 

damage.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-48 1049

229/12. 382/12. 497/13. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-49 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

5-49 1050
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

435

provide designated motorcycle trails to 

increase safety.

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

142/5. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-49 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide designated motorcycle trails to 

reduce user-created trails and illegal offroad riding.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-49 1051

221/13. 536/18. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-50 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

combine mountain bike and motorcycle 

trails to increase the available single-track 

trails for motorcycles.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails 

may not be environmentally appropriate for motorized use 

due to design or location. Where non-motorized trails 

overlap with motorized roads, proposals for shared 

interests between user groups was incorporated into the 

alternatives. 

5-50 1052

126/25. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-50 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

combine mountain bike and motorcycle 

trails as has been done in Idaho.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails 

may not be environmentally appropriate for motorized use 

due to design or location. Where non-motorized trails 

overlap with motorized roads, proposals for shared 

interests between user groups was incorporated into the 

alternatives. 

5-50 1053

126/134. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-50 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

combine mountain bike and motorcycle 

trails because there is no documentation 

of a wide-spread problem with multiple 

use on these trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails 

may not be environmentally appropriate for motorized use 

due to design or location. Where non-motorized trails 

overlap with motorized roads, proposals for shared 

interests between user groups was incorporated into the 

alternatives. 

5-50 1054

447/4. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-51 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

motorcycles on game trails and livestock 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Game and livestock 

5-51 1055
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

436

trails because other Forests do so. trails are not always located in environmentally sustainable 

areas. These types of trails follow creeks and riparian areas 

that are not suitable for motorized use. Where game and 

livestock trails follow roads open to motorized use, the 

trails would be incorporated as part of the road.

228/11. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-52 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that Alternative C provides 

adequate single-track trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Alternative C does 

provide the highest amount of single-track trails of all the 

action alternatives.

5-52 1056

126/181. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-53 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that areas closed to motorcycle 

travel are also closed to non-motorized 

travel because the impacts are the same.

This analysis did not focus on the effects to natural 

resources caused by non-motorized activities. Nonmotorized recreation may occur within areas that are closed 

to motorized activities. Specifically designating nonmotorized uses, such as development of a new trail, would 

require additional environmental analysis outside this 

document. 

5-53 1057

178/3. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-54 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider establishing corridors rather than 

individual trails for motorcycles because 

parallel trails could allow for different skill 

levels.

The Rule provides for a motorcycle only trail designation, 

but not for a motorcycle corridor. The concept of corridors 

is categorized under the Rule as cross-country areas where 

motorized travel is allowed. There are three areas totaling 

10 acres proposed in Alternative C as beginner practice 

areas. In addition to the 771 miles of trails open to 

motorcycles, Alternative C also proposes 134 miles of 

motorcycle-only trails.

5-54 1058

118/2. 237/13. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-55 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

allow new trails for motorcycles because 

motorcycles can use ATV trails.

Single-track routes considered in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS are existing on-the-ground and 

currently being used by this user group. Some 

reconstruction of these proposed routes may be needed to 

sustain them and protect the environment. The DEIS and 

FEIS considered a range of motorized opportunities and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

5-55 1059

138/1. 140/1. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-56 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

eliminate or greatly reduce motorcycle 

access because motorcycle use conflicts 

with other uses and contributes to erosion.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees and differ from the existing illegal system 

of single-track trails. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-56 1060
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

437

169/4. 169/5. 354/2. 374/1. 

374/2. 374/3. 374/4. 

Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-57 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of motorcycle trails 

and impose noise and speed restrictions 

on the remaining trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided for 

in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS to 

varying degrees and differ from the existing illegal system 

of single-track trails. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Proposed sound 

limits associated with all action alternatives are disclosed in 

Chapter 2, page 22 (DEIS). 

5-57 1061

141/4. 365/5. Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails 

and Motorcycle Access. 5-58 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not 

allow dedicated trails for motorcycles to 

reduce erosion.

Motorcycles are a recognized motorized user group of the 

National Forest. Opportunities for single-track trails have 

been provided for in all alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-58 1062

198/2. Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-

59 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider closing two-track roads 

because they provide access for hunting 

and cattle management.

Some two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain to 

varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized use. 

Administrative uses of the forest, such as grazing permits, 

may be exempt from the general public motorized 

restrictions by the appropriate ranger district office.

5-59 1063

198/1. Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-

60 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not close existing two-track roads 

because sufficient roads have already been 

closed.

Some two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain to 

varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized use. 

5-60 1064

166/1. Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-

60 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not close existing two-track roads 

because ATVs are causing damage, not 

four-wheel drive vehicles.

Some two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain to 

varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized use. 

5-60 1065

233/6. Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-

61 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide a trail system for vehicles 

less than 50 inches wide to accommodate 

increasing user numbers.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-61 1066

250/1. 315/1. 331/2. Motorized Access - Four-Wheel 

Motorized Access. 5-62 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should restrict fourwheel access to ensure private landowners 

are allowed quiet enjoyment of their 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the greatest 

limitation on the amount of motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative is in 

5-62 1067
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

438

properties. Chapter 3. 

285/1. 355/6. Motorized Access - Four-Wheel 

Motorized Access. 5-63 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide ORVonly areas because ORVs do not cause 

significant damage.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-63 1068

170/1. Motorized Access - Sport Utility Vehicles. 

5-64 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should restrict SUV access but should not 

restrict access for smaller ATVs because 

SUVs cause more damage and ATV users 

should not be penalized for the behavior 

of other users.

Motorized opportunities for all vehicle types have been 

provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and 

FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources 

for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-64 1069

142/7. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. 5-65 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more trails 

for vehicles over 50 inches wide to 

accommodate the increased popularity of 

UTVs.

Trail opportunities for vehicles over 50-inches have been 

provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS to 

varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. For the FEIS, motorized 

trails in South Dakota have been re-evaluated as less than 

65 inch widths, while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches 

wide or less due to State law. The Forest recognizes the 

growing popularity of UTVs, and the FEIS specifically 

allows for use of certain UTVs on some routes in South 

Dakota. Effects to natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-65 1070

321/1. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. Utility Terrain Vehicles 5-65 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide more trails for

vehicles over 50 inches wide to allow for 

side by side and UTV vehicles.

Trail opportunities for vehicles over 50-inches have been 

provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and 

FEIS to varying degrees. In the FEIS the analysis was 

expanded in Alternatives B, C, D and E to consider use of 

OHV's up to 65 inches in width on routes in South Dakota, 

while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law. Effects to the natural resources for this activity 

are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-65 1071

052/1. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. 5-66 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify its reasons 

for restricting access for vehicles over 50 

inches wide.

Travel Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches 

or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is 

identified and managed as a trail and a road as a motor 

vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and 

managed as a trail. In addition, some of the routes 

designated in the alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS as 

open to less than 50-inches are only constructed to a width 

5-66 1072
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

439

of 48-50-inches wide making it unsafe for larger vehicles to 

traverse the trail. For the FEIS, motorized trails in South 

Dakota have been re-evaluated as less than 65 inch widths, 

while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law.

448/3. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. 5-67 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the number 

of 50-inch-wide trails be at least 500 miles.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. The 

Forest considered all available routes for less than 50-inch 

vehicles under Alternative C. For the FEIS, motorized 

trails in South Dakota have been re-evaluated as less than 

65 inches widths, while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches 

wide or less due to State law.

5-67 1073

197/4. 432/6. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. 5-68 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the 50-inch 

limit to 60 inches to allow UTVs.

The DEIS was written following national direction to 

implement the Travel Management Rule. The Travel 

Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches or less 

in width and a route over 50 inches wide can be managed 

as a trail or a road. For the FEIS, motorized trails in South 

Dakota have been re-evaluated as less than 65 inch widths 

while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law.

5-68 1074

191/2. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. 5-69 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the 50-inch 

limit to 64 inches for ATVs and UTVs.

The DEIS was written following national direction to 

implement the Travel Management Rule. The Travel 

Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches or less 

in width and a route over 50 inches wide can be managed 

as a trail or a road. For the FEIS, motorized trails in South 

Dakota have been re-evaluated as less than 65 inch widths, 

while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law.

5-69 1075

253/3. Motorized Access - Utility Terrain 

Vehicles. 5-70 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not separate ATV 

access from UTV access to allow friends 

and family to recreate together.

The DEIS was written following national direction to 

implement the Travel Management Rule. The Travel 

Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches or less 

in width and a route over 50 inches wide can be managed 

as a trail or a road. UTVs are wider than ATVs thus 

limiting their ability to access some of the less than 50-inch 

trails. UTVs and ATVs may ride together on roads or trails 

open to all vehicles. For the FEIS, motorized trails in South 

Dakota have been re-evaluated as less than 65 inch widths, 

5-70 1076
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

440

while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law.

105/11. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-71 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow rock crawlers 

and hill climbing in areas where the 

erosion and visual impacts will be 

minimal.

Some rock crawling areas have been provided for by 

varying degrees in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this activity 

are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-71 1077

105/2. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-72 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify the 

restrictions on rock crawlers including 

allowed distances off trail and allowed 

hours of operation.

There are no specific restrictions on rock crawling areas 

within any of the alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS, with 

the exception of restriction to designated routes. No 

specific distance from established routes has been 

considered in the alternatives. There is no limitation on 

hours of operation under any of the alternatives.

5-72 1078

453/3. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-73 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the number 

of trails available to rock crawlers to be 

more equitable with non-motorized users.

Some rock crawling areas have been provided for by 

varying degrees in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this activity 

are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-73 1079

520/5. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-74 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should issue special rock 

crawling permits that would provide 

limited access and sufficient resource 

protection.

At the discretion of the ranger districts, recreation special 

use permits can be evaluated separately for special 

motorized events.

5-74 1080

529/8. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-75 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should eliminate the rock 

crawling area near Botany Canyon to 

protect this important botanical area.

Rock crawling opportunities identified in the Botany 

Canyon were eliminated under Alternative D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this activity 

are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-75 1081

467/1. 470/1. 489/1. 490/1. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-76 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow rock crawling 

trails in the Edgemont area of the 

Southern Hills.

Rock crawler trails in the Edgemont area were not 

considered initially because of resource concerns. 

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and those 

chosen will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

5-76 1082

460/36. Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and 

Hill Climbing. 5-77 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow access to the 

rock crawling area near Spearfish Peak.

The rock crawling area around Spearfish Peak was included 

in Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-77 1083
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

441

142/10. 447/8. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should set aside some open 

areas for cross-country travel to be 

consistent with the subcommittee's 

recommendation.

Three areas have been proposed as Beginner Practice Areas 

totaling 10 acres. This proposal is consistent with the Black 

Hills National Forest Advisory Board travel managementrelated recommendations of June 2006.

5-78 1084

215/8. 216/10. 217/8. 218/8. 

219/8. 220/8. 222/8. 223/8. 

224/8. 225/8. 226/8. 227/8. 

228/8. 229/8. 230/8. 231/8. 

237/8. 239/8. 247/8. 260/8. 

261/8. 262/8. 294/8. 295/8. 

296/8. 297/8. 298/8. 300/8. 

301/8. 302/8. 303/8. 303/12. 

311/8. 322/8. 337/8. 338/8. 

351/8. 366/8. 378/8. 379/8. 

380/8. 382/8. 384/8. 385/8. 

386/8. 387/8. 388/8. 389/8. 

391/8. 392/8. 393/8. 395/8. 

396/8. 397/8. 407/8. 408/8. 

416/8. 417/8. 421/8. 425/8. 

429/8. 430/8. 449/11. 450/8. 

460/12. 483/8. 484/8. 485/8. 

494/8. 494/12. 495/8. 496/8. 

497/8. 497/18. 498/8. 499/8. 

500/8. 500/14. 501/8. 502/8. 

502/15. 502/17. 503/8. 503/17. 

504/8. 505/8. 506/8. 507/8. 

508/8. 509/8. 510/8. 510/15. 

511/8. 512/2. 513/8. 514/8. 

515/8. 521/8. 530/8. 531/8. 

532/8. 533/8. 538/8. 561/8. 

562/8. 577/8. 593/8. 603/8. 

604/8. 605/8. 606/8. 609/8.

609/20. 

Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should set aside some open 

areas for cross-country travel because it is 

allowing cross-country game retrieval.

Motorized cross-country travel over large areas was 

included in an alternative considered but eliminated from 

detailed study. Chapter 2 discusses the reasons the 

alternative was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). Alternative 

C of the DEIS and FEIS provides some small areas for 

cross-country motorized travel. Effects of this activity on 

natural resource are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-78 1085

531/16. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should set aside some open 

areas for cross-country travel because it is 

Cross-country travel does not provide for safety to the 

environment. Many areas of the forest have sensitive 

resources that are damaged by continuous travel over the 

land. Open cross-country travel results in development of 

5-78 1086
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

442

safer and does less damage to the forest. unwanted trails as users continuously use the same places 

over and over again. Motorized cross-country travel over 

large areas was included in an alternative considered but 

eliminated from detailed study. Chapter 2 discusses the 

reasons the alternative was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). 

432/8. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should set aside some open 

areas for cross-country travel to allow 

firewood collection.

Firewood gathering is by permit only. Firewood permits 

will address the ability to travel off-road in designated areas 

for the purpose of collecting firewood.

5-78 1087

021/1. 382/14. 483/15. 500/14. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should set aside some open 

areas for cross-country travel to facilitate 

safe motorized recreation for small 

children and families.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides three small 

areas for families to utilize in teaching young riders about 

motor vehicle safety. These areas provide limited space for 

cross-country motorized travel. Motorized cross-country 

travel over large areas was included in an alternative 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. Chapter 2 

discusses the reasons the alternative was dismissed, pages 

33-35 (DEIS). Effects of these areas on natural resources 

are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-78 1088

105/15. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-79 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate some 

areas as being open to cross-country travel 

to reduce the environmental impact by 

containing the activity.

Motorized cross-country travel over large areas was 

included in an alternative considered but eliminated from 

detailed study. Chapter 2 discusses the reasons the 

alternative was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). Alternative 

C of the DEIS and FEIS provides some small areas for 

cross-country motorized travel. Effects of this activity on 

natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-79 1089

477/2. 614/2. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-80 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more crosscountry travel because three small areas 

are not enough.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel.

5-80 1090

321/3. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-81 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not limit crosscountry travel because most travel occurs 

on roads and trails that are shared with 

other users.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel.

5-81 1091

536/10. 536/13. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-82 Public Concern: The The DEIS and FEIS explain that this alternative was 

considered, and why it was dismissed from detailed 

5-82 1092
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

443

Forest Service should allow motorcycle 

cross-country travel because it has little 

impact and to be consistent with the 

Prairie Creek Project ROD.

consideration. See Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered But 

Eliminated from Detailed Study. The concern is that 

existing resource damage from such use is undesirable, and 

increased damage could reasonably be expected from 

increasing use levels.

359/2. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-83 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow cross-country 

travel on game trails and traditionally used 

trails except for four-wheeled vehicles.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel. 

Game and livestock trails are not always located in 

environmentally sustainable areas. These types of trails 

follow creeks and riparian areas that are not suitable for 

motorized use. Where game and livestock trails follow 

roads open to motorized use, the trails would be 

incorporated as part of the road.

5-83 1093

217/17. Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-84 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

cross-country travel reduces forest damage 

because it reduces concentrated use.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel. 

Motorized opportunities vary by alternative in the DEIS 

and FEIS. Chapter 3 discloses the effects increased OHV 

use on the Forest could do to natural resources without 

regulations.

5-84 1094

226/13. 254/3. 302/14. 369/4. 

369/5. 494/16. 505/13. 506/13.

Motorized Access - Cross-Country/OffRoad Travel. 5-85 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not allow crosscountry travel.

As shown in related public concern statements, many 

comments were received calling either for allowing or 

prohibiting motorized cross-country travel. This topic was 

of much interest to many who commented. The Forest 

Service considered allowing unlimited cross-country 

motorized use on large areas across the Forest, but 

dismissed this concept from detailed consideration for 

several reasons, as described in the FEIS, Chapter 2, 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed 

Study (DEIS, pg. 34). In brief, the agency noted that such 

use has begun to have undesirable effects, and is concerned 

that allowing such use in the future could lead to further 

adverse effects on natural and cultural resources. The 

agency did provide for limited cross-country motorized use 

in Alternatives B and C. 

5-85 1095

093/4. 190/2. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-86 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow dispersed 

camping and big game retrieval because 

these activities do not pose a threat to the 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

designated cross-country motorized opportunities.

Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and FEIS provide 

limited cross-country motorized travel for dispersed 

camping and game retrieval. The natural resource effects 

5-86 1096
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

444

forest analysis for these alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

123/7. 145/1. 461/23. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-86 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow dispersed 

camping and big game retrieval to 

preserve the camping experience, allow for 

stealth in hunting, and provide access for 

older hunters

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping. Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and FEIS 

provide limited cross-country motorized travel for 

dispersed camping and game retrieval to varying degrees. 

Alternative C delineates areas within which motorized 

game retrieval would be allowed for elk and deer and allows 

motorized cross-country dispersed camping within 300 feet 

of certain designated roads. The natural resource effects 

analysis for these alternatives are in Chapter 3. Firewood 

gathering is by permit only. Firewood permits will address 

the ability to travel off-road in designated areas for the 

purpose of collecting firewood.

5-86 1097

458/14. 471/5. 474/10. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-87 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should place 

reasonable limitations on game retrieval 

and dispersed camping.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping. Alternatives D and E do not provide motorized 

access for dispersed camping. Alternatives B and C provide 

varying degrees of motorized game retrieval. The natural 

resource effects analysis for these alternatives are in 

Chapter 3. 

5-87 1098

477/3. 614/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-88 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow game 

retrieval without restriction and dispersed 

camping up to 200 yards from a 

designated route.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping. Alternative C delineates areas within which 

motorized game retrieval would be allowed for elk and 

deer. The DEIS and FEIS provides the restrictions on 

cross-country travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. The 

natural resource effects analysis for the alternatives are in 

Chapter 3. The 300 foot for dispersed camping was chosen 

to be consistent with Region 2 guidance and other national 

forest's designations for motorized dispersed camping. 

5-88 1099

156/5. 341/6. 342/6. 343/5. 

344/7.

Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-89 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow dispersed 

camping one car length from a designated 

route and game retrieval up to 150 feet 

from a designated route.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping. Descriptions of the alternatives can be found in 

Chapter 2. The natural resource effects analysis for these 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-89 1100

126/97. 319/78. 414/42. 

462/59.

Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-90 Public Concern: 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed 

5-90 1101
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

445

The Forest Service should allow travel up 

to 300 feet off of a designated route to 

allow game retrieval, wood cutting, and 

dispersed camping.

camping. Alternative C provides the most motorized 

access for game retrieval and dispersed camping. The DEIS 

and FEIS provides the restrictions on cross-country travel 

for game retrieval and dispersed camping in Chapter 2. 

The natural resource effects analysis for the alternatives are 

in Chapter 3. Firewood gathering is by permit only. 

Firewood permits will address the ability to travel off-road 

in designated areas for the purpose of collecting firewood.

473/17. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-91 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow offroad travel for either game retrieval or 

dispersed camping to reduce resource 

damage and facilitate enforcement.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

designated cross-country motorized opportunities. 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country motorized travel. The natural resource 

effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 3. 

5-91 1102

464/26. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to protect wetlands 

and comply with EO 11990

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1103

464/27. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to protect the 

riparian systems and comply with Forest 

Plan Standard 1301.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1104

464/20. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

5-92 1105
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

446

Little Spearfish Creek to protect the 

riparian areas and stream reaches and 

comply with Executive Special Order 23.

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

464/28. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to protect wetlands 

and comply with Forest Plan Standard 

1302.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1106

464/29. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to protect water 

quality and reduce sediment and comply 

with Guidelines 9107 and 91087.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1107

464/32. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to continue to meet 

Objectives 219 and 238d.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1108

464/6. 464/12. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

5-92 1109
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

447

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to reduce impacts 

caused by unmanaged road and trail use.

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

464/16. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to reduce the tracks 

on the ground.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1110

464/14. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to avoid wetland 

and riparian area crossings.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1111

464/19. 464/23. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to comply with the 

guideline discouraging dispersed recreation 

within 100 feet of lakes and streams.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1112

464/31. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

5-92 1113
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

448

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to maintain 

compliance with EO 12962 regarding 

recreational fisheries.

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

464/5. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not allow 

dispersed camping or game retrieval in 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and 

Little Spearfish Creek to comply with the 

purposes and guidelines of the Forest 

Service, Lawrence County, the cities of 

Lead and Deadwood, the state of South 

Dakota, and the Spearfish Canyon Owners 

Association.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by executive 

order for the areas lying within Spearfish Canyon and 

follows Forest Plan guideline for discouraging dispersed 

recreation within 100 feet of lakes and streams. Areas 

outside of Spearfish Canyon allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval as described in Alternatives B and 

C of the DEIS and FEIS.

5-92 1114

578/49. 588/10. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval. 5-93 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should explain why the 

areas where dispersed camping and game 

retrieval are allowed are the same.

The Black Hills National Forest Travel Management DEIS 

and FEIS incorporated current management for 

restrictions on dispersed camping and off-road game 

retrieval. These restrictions were maintained throughout 

the alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS. Some of the 

restrictions are based on an executive order such as 

Spearfish Canyon or Forest Plan standards, such as Peter 

Norbeck Scenic Byway. Dispersed camping and motorized 

game retrieval areas will overlap as described in the 

alternatives that these activities are associated with routes 

open to motorized use.

5-93 1115

211/1. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-94 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow hunting access 

on National Forest System lands to 

support the local economy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail, road, and crosscountry motorized use for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping opportunities are in Alternatives A, B and C.

5-94 1116

097/3. 333/1. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-94 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow hunting access 

All alternatives allow hunting on National Forest System 

Lands. Hunting access is discussed in the wildlife section 

of the DEIS (pages 191-192, 228-229) pertaining to 

Executive order 13443. These options, effects, and related 

5-94 1117
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

449

on National Forest System lands rather 

than on private property.

comments will be considered in the final decision.

247/24. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-95 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should support crosscountry travel and game retrieval to keep 

hunters coming to the Black Hills.

Hunting access is discussed in the wildlife section of the 

DEIS (pages 191-192, 228-229) pertaining to Executive 

order 13443. These options, effects, and related comments 

will be considered in the final decision.

5-95 1118

126/215. 126/216. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-96 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide adequate 

hunter access to ensure proper elk 

population management.

Hunting access is discussed in the wildlife section of the 

DEIS (pages 191-192, 228-229) pertaining to Executive 

order 13443. These options, effects, and related comments 

will be considered in the final decision.

5-96 1119

236/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer

retrieval within one-half mile of a route 

starting at noon.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A and C as described in 

Chapter 2 delineate areas within which motorized game 

retrieval would be allowed, and provide the restrictions on 

cross-country travel for game retrieval. 

5-97 1120

051/1. 545/10. 592/2. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval because large elk and 

deer are often too large to drag.

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.

5-97 1121

087/1. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval because in many cases 

non-motorized retrieval would result in 

meat spoilage. 

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and public comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-97 1122

234/2. 418/2. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval to reduce the incentive 

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.

5-97 1123
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

450

to hunt from the road.

094/3. 420/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval to provide access for 

older hunters.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and public comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-97 1124

240/2. 420/3. 432/7. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval to provide access for 

disabled hunters.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and public comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-97 1125

124/2. 399/6. 418/5. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval because off-road 

retrieval causes very little damage.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A, B, and C provide 

varying degrees of motorized game retrieval. Alternatives A 

and C delineates areas within which motorized game 

retrieval would be allowed. The DEIS and FEIS provides 

the restrictions on cross-country travel for game retrieval in 

Chapter 2. 

5-97 1126

142/4. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval to avoid the challenges 

of enforcing restrictions.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A and C delineates areas 

within which motorized cross-country motorized game 

retrieval would be allowed. The DEIS and FEIS provides 

the restrictions on cross-country travel for game retrieval in 

Chapter 2. The publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map 

under the action alternatives would be the primary tool 

used to determine compliance and enforcement with 

motorized travel designations on the ground. 

5-97 1127

234/2. 279/3. 418/1. 418/5. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval because otherwise 

hunters will leave game behind.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A and C delineates areas 

within which motorized game retrieval would be allowed. 

The DEIS and FEIS provides the restrictions on crosscountry travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. 

5-97 1128

191/1. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

In Fall River County, only Alternative A of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides an area for motorized game retrieval on the 

5-97 1129
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

451

Retrieval. 5-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow off-road elk 

and deer retrieval in Fall River County.

Black Hills National Forest. Alternative B provides game 

retrieval within 300 feet of designated motorized routes 

while all other alternatives provide no motorized game 

retrieval within Fall River County. 

230/15. 233/3. 260/15. 325/2. 

418/3. 461/22. 475/3. 475/4.

Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-98 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase game 

retrieval opportunities by allowing 

unrestricted game retrieval or by limiting it 

to within one mile of the road. 

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and public comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-98 1130

346/19. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-99 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

illegal pursuit of game in a motor vehicle 

is not common or accepted in Wyoming.

The recreation analysis of the DEIS and FEIS did not 

intend to state that illegal pursuit of game by motorized 

means is common or accepted. The analysis merely 

identifies, whether legal or illegal, how motorized users, 

particularly cross-country travel, can impact the hunting 

experience of others. 

5-99 1131

204/1. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-100 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow hunters to 

purchase an off-road elk retrieval permit 

to ensure that downed elk are promptly 

retrieved.

A permit system for game retrieval is an administrative 

process that could be considered if game retrieval is 

allowed in the final decision. 

5-100 1132

261/17. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-101 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not limit game 

retrieval to 300 feet off trail because 

longer distances are often required to 

retrieve game.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A, B, and C provide 

varying degrees of motorized game retrieval. Alternatives A 

and C delineates areas within which motorized game 

retrieval would be allowed. The DEIS and FEIS provides 

the restrictions on cross-country travel for game retrieval in 

Chapter 2. 

5-101 1133

126/206. 126/207. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-102 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revisit the assertions 

regarding elk management needs to 

correct inaccuracies and avoid unnecessary 

road closures.

The DEIS displayed the effects of the routes and use of the 

routes on elk and their habitat. The different alternatives 

offer different amounts of roads and trails that could 

disturb elk. I could not find where the DEIS mentioned

the need to increase elk security and enhance elk 

populations.

5-102 1134
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

452

326/16. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-103 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

hunters complain there are too many 

roads and too many ATVs rather than 

there is too little access.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Some alternatives provide motorized 

game retrieval, while others do not provide any. 

5-103 1135

346/17. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-104 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

concerns about attaining desired harvest 

rates are related to road closures rather 

than game retrieval restrictions.

The FEIS sections on elk and deer were edited to read that 

game retrieval and/or road densities may affect harvest 

rates and patterns. 

5-104 1136

346/15. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-105 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

most hunters access the BHNF in motor 

vehicles.

Page 3 and 50 of the DEIS acknowledges that all visitors to 

the Black Hills National Forest utilize some form of 

motorized vehicle to access the woods, including hunters. 

The effects analysis for game retrieval in the recreation 

section was an analysis on motorized game retrieval. How 

many licensed hunters actually utilize a form of motorized 

vehicle to retrieve their down animal is uncertain due to 

lack of information. It is known that many hunters of the 

Black Hills have ATVs in their camps and utilize them to 

access the woods from their camps. It is likely, therefore, to 

assume that they are using these vehicles to retrieve their 

down game. Reducing the area for motorized game 

retrieval under Alternatives B and C or eliminating 

motorized game retrieval under Alternatives D and E will 

impact those hunters that utilize motorized vehicles to 

retrieve down game. The FEIS will correct the statement to 

clarify this information. 

5-105 1137

326/15. 346/21. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-106 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should correct in the DEIS 

the license sales and harvesting statistics 

provided for elk and deer.

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.

5-106 1138

134/8. 372/4. 493/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big The DEIS and FEIS provides the restrictions on cross- 5-107 1139
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

453

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-107 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit big game 

retrieval to the hunting season and for elk.

country travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. Alternative 

B proposes cross-country motorized use for retrieving elk 

only. Effects of this alternative on natural resources are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

183/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game

Retrieval. 5-107 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit big game 

retrieval to mid-day hours.

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives in detail. 

Game retrieval conditions for Alternatives B and C are 

described on page 23 of the DEIS. Both alternatives would 

require hunting licenses and downed animal to retrieve 

game. Alternative B would allow game retrieval for elk 

only (page 25 DEIS). None of the alternatives restricted 

game retrieval to a certain time of day. These conditions 

and options will be considered in the final decision.

5-107 1140

182/4. 315/3. 491/4. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-107 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit big game 

retrieval to those with a valid license and 

an actual downed animal.

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives in detail. 

Game retrieval conditions for Alternatives B and C are 

described on page 23 of the DEIS. Both alternatives would 

require hunting licenses and downed animal to retrieve 

game. Alternative B would allow game retrieval for elk 

only (page 25 DEIS). None of the alternatives restricted 

game retrieval to a certain time of day. These conditions 

and options will be considered in the final decision.

5-107 1141

280/15. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-107 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit big game 

retrieval to elk but not deer.

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives in detail. 

Game retrieval conditions for Alternatives B and C are 

described on page 23 of the DEIS. Both alternatives would 

require hunting licenses and downed animal to retrieve 

game. Alternative B would allow game retrieval for elk 

only (page 25 DEIS). None of the alternatives restricted 

game retrieval to a certain time of day. These conditions 

and options will be considered in the final decision.

5-107 1142

548/10. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-108 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider restrictions 

on the time of day or number of trips for 

game retrieval rather than the distance 

from the

road.

The alternatives provide a range of options for game 

retrieval. None of the alternatives limit game retrieval to a 

certain time of day. Alternatives B and C would both allow 

multiple trips to the downed animal, but only the hunter 

retrieving the animal could drive a motorized vehicle 

(DEIS page 23). These conditions and options will be 

considered in the final decision.

5-108 1143

593/19. 606/19. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. The Forest Service should 

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. 

5-109 1144
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

454

prohibit off-roading except for limited elk 

retrieval because it would be easy to 

enforce and monitor.

The effects and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

465/6. 479/13. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. The Forest Service should 

prohibit off-roading except for limited elk 

retrieval to improve the hunting 

experience.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-109 1145

465/6. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. The Forest Service should 

prohibit off-roading except for limited elk 

retrieval because the other plans are 

unenforceable.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-109 1146

362/2. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. The Forest Service should 

prohibit off-roading except for limited elk 

retrieval in non-sensitive areas.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-109 1147

418/4. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-110 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not require guns to 

be cased when retrieving game because 

most hunters don't have cases.

Thanks for the comments. The appropriateness of 

requiring a gun to be cased when retrieving downed game 

will be considered in the final decision.

5-110 1148

465/7. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-111 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prohibit elk retrieval 

in sensitive areas, recent burn areas, 

Wilderness, and wildlife and botanical

preserves.

Management Areas that do not allow off-road motorized 

travel and currently closed areas are not included in game 

retrieval areas in all alternatives. 

5-111 1149

091/5. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-112 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

off-road

retrieval of big game because packing 

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country motorized 

travel to retrieve downed game. The alternatives, associated 

effects, and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision. 

5-112 1150
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

455

game out is traditional and off-road 

violations are too common.

121/2. 346/16. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-112 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

off-road retrieval of big game to protect 

resources and reduce new user-created 

roads.

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country motorized 

travel to retrieve downed game. The alternatives, associated 

effects, and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision. 

5-112 1151

274/2. 346/18. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-112 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

off-road retrieval of big game to avoid 

confusing regulations.

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country motorized 

travel to retrieve downed game. The alternatives, associated 

effects, and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision. 

5-112 1152

465/22. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-113 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not allow motorized 

game retrieval in walk-in areas.

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country motorized 

travel to retrieve downed game. The alternatives, associated 

effects, and related comments will be considered in the 

final decision. 

5-113 1153

244/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Hunting and Game 

Retrieval. 5-114 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B 

because it restricts off-road retrieval of big 

game.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a range 

of options for game retrieval. The effects of these options 

on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The effects and public comments will be considered in the 

final decision.

5-114 1154

456/70. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

115 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping because 

some dispersed campers are loud and 

would disturb campers in campgrounds.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a variety of recreation 

activities throughout the alternatives and disclosed the 

effects in Chapter 3, pages 46-66.

5-115 1155

081/2. 124/3. 126/98. 126/273.

212/4. 375/3. 375/4. 504/17. 

588/2. 

Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

115 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping because it 

is a peaceful, inexpensive, traditional 

recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide opportunities for 

dispersed camping to varying degrees in Alternatives A, B, 

and C. Effects of these alternatives on natural resources are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-115 1156

233/4. 588/8. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big The DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide opportunities for 5-116 1157
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

456

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

116 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase the distance from the road 

where dispersed camping is allowed to 

reduce dust, noise, and visibility impacts 

and increase safety for children.

dispersed camping to varying degrees in Alternatives A, B, 

and C. Effects of these alternatives on natural resources are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

244/4. 274/1. 362/3. 465/4. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

117 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping up to 100 

feet off the road with restrictions for no 

camping 100 feet from a stream.

The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for dispersed 

camping to varying degrees in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Effects of these alternatives on natural resources are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. Forest Plan guideline discourages 

dispersed recreation within 100 feet of streams and lakes. 

This guideline is incorporated into all the alternatives.

5-117 1158

346/20. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

117 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping up to 100 

feet off the road with restrictions to avoid 

streams, sensitive habitats, and the 

Mickelson trail.

The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for dispersed 

camping and motorized game retrieval to varying degrees in 

Alternatives A, B, and C. Effects of these alternatives on 

natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. Forest Plan 

Guideline 5301 discourages dispersed recreation within 100 

feet of streams and lakes. This guideline is incorporated 

into all the alternatives.

5-117 1159

319/77. 414/41. 456/90. 

462/58.

Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

118 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should make sure that dispersed camping 

is not allowed within 100 feet of riparian 

areas to be consistent with Forest Plan 

standards.

The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for dispersed 

camping to varying degrees in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Effects of these alternatives on natural resources are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. Forest Plan guideline discourages 

dispersed recreation within 100 feet of streams and lakes. 

This guideline is incorporated into all the alternatives.

5-118 1160

142/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

119 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping up to 300 

feet off the road to reduce dust impacts 

and increase safety for children.

The DEIS and FEIS provided dispersed camping 

opportunities up to 300 feet from designated motorized 

routes in Alternative C. Resource analysis for this 

alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-119 1161

182/2. 445/3. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

119 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping up to 300 

feet off the road to preserve the feel of 

camping.

The DEIS and FEIS provided dispersed camping 

opportunities up to 300 feet from designated motorized 

routes in Alternative C. Resource analysis for this 

alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-119 1162

183/2. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big The DEIS and FEIS provided dispersed camping 5-119 1163
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

457

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

119 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow dispersed camping up to 300 

feet off the road because it protects the 

environment while providing a high 

quality camping experience.

opportunities up to 300 feet from designated motorized 

routes in Alternative C. Resource analysis for this 

alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

372/5. 456/26. 456/27. 465/5. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

120 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should only allow motorized access to 

dispersed camping sites up to one car 

length from the road to comply with the 

Forest Service Manual.

The final travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.512(b) 

allows the responsible official to permit limited use of 

motor vehicles "within a specified distance" of certain 

designated routes for dispersed camping or game retrieval. 

The rule does not stipulate any given distance. The DEIS 

and FEIS alternatives considered opportunities for 

dispersed camping and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternative A has no limitations on dispersed camping, 

while Alternatives B and C provide specific distances of 

100 feet and 300 feet, respectively, from designated routes 

unless prohibited by executive orders or Forest Plan 

direction. Chapter 2 defines the boundaries for dispersed 

camping including protection to natural resources and 

water. Alternatives D and E eliminate all dispersed 

camping on the Forest. 

5-120 1164

126/173. 501/15. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

121 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should increase the number of dispersed 

camping sites because there are not 

enough to meet current needs.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of dispersed 

campsites and sanitation at those dispersed campsites is not 

the focus of this project. 

5-121 1165

588/9. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

122 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider opening spur roads for 

dispersed camping.

Under Alternative B and C of the DEIS and FEIS many 

spur routes were left open to motorized use for dispersed 

camping opportunities. Resource analysis is disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

5-122 1166

588/11. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

123 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should develop dispersed camping sites 

where livestock, OHV use, and slash piles 

are restricted.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of dispersed 

campsites is not the focus of this project. 

5-123 1167

432/10. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 5-124 1168
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

458

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

124 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should only allow dispersed camping if 

campers can be notified in case of fire.

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of dispersed 

campsites is not the focus of this project. Motorized access 

for dispersed camping is considered along routes open to 

motorized use thereby making it easier to notify people in 

case of emergency. 

126/99. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

125 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should mitigate for the closure of 

dispersed campsites on a one-to-one basis 

to avoid a significant cumulative effect.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of dispersed 

campsites is not the focus of this project. 

5-125 1169

474/20. Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big 

Game Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-

126 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that the density of the 

forest contributes to increased fire risk 

and difficulty in enforcing dispersed 

camping restrictions.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of dispersed 

campsites is not the focus of this project. 

5-126 1170

126/139. 126/272. Mitigation. 5-127 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should create a Motorized 

Access and Recreation Mitigation Bank to 

offset the loss of motorized access.

The purpose and need for this project is to designate a 

motorized travel system, as directed by the Final Travel 

Management Rule. In doing so the Forest Service has 

identified several broad issues describing concerns with this 

proposal. These issues are shown in the FEIS in Chapter 1. 

Issue 2 shows the conflict with recreation opportunity, 

including motorized use. The alternatives address this issue 

by providing for various levels of motorized recreation use. 

The FEIS notes that such opportunity is also available on 

other lands in the area. The effects of each of the 

alternatives on recreation opportunities are shown in the 

FEIS in Chapter 3. 

5-127 1171

126/46. Mitigation. 5-127 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should create a Motorized 

Access and Recreation Mitigation Bank 

that addresses all past and reasonably 

foreseeable closures.

The alternatives provide for various levels of motorized 

recreation use within the broader set of values and uses of 

National Forest System lands administered by the Black 

Hills National Forest. The effects of the alternatives are 

shown in Chapter 3; the Recreation section describes the 

cumulative effects on motorized use. The approach 

recommended in this comment, to establish a recreation 

mitigation bank, might be appropriate if there were a 

5-127 1172
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

459

national policy mandating no net loss of motorized 

recreation opportunities, such as the national policy on no 

net loss of wetlands. However, we are not aware of any 

such policy regarding motorized recreation. 

126/231. Mitigation. 5-128 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should replace OHV-gastax-funded motorized routes that have 

been closed because non-motorized 

recreation should not benefit from the 

OHV gas tax.

None of the motorized routes on the Black Hills National 

Forest used OHV gas tax funding for construction. 

5-128 1173

119/5. 286/3. 420/7. Other Motorized Considerations. 5-129 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should close roads and trails to mountain 

bikes and horses if those roads are also 

closed to motorized recreation because 

these forms of access result in similar 

types of trail disturbance.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; closing of non-motorized 

routes is not the focus of this project. 

5-129 1174

593/18. 606/18. Other Motorized Considerations. 5-130 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate some areas where 

motorized users can climb hills or play in 

the mud to eliminate conflicts and 

resource damage in other areas of the 

Forest.

None of the alternatives in the DEIS or FEIS provide 

opportunities for hill climbing and mud-bogging. These 

motorized activities have created significant resource 

damage to sensitive resources in the past and have not been 

considered with any alternative.

5-130 1175

380/11. 388/11. 514/15. 

533/11. 559/2.

Other Motorized Considerations. 5-131 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider rock quarries as potential 

trail locations.

Some rock crawling areas have been provided for by 

varying degrees in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Alternative C also provides three training areas 

for beginning motorized users. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-131 1176

423/2. Other Motorized Considerations. 5-132 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support laws holding owners or 

renters of OHVs liable for destruction 

caused by riders to provide a deterrent to 

illegal behavior.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. All action alternatives 

would result in the publication of a Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) depicting those routes and areas that would 

be open to motorized travel. For more information on the 

MVUM see the DEIS and FEIS. The suggestion regarding 

assignment of liability for damages is outside the purview 

of the Forest Service, and more appropriately addressed to 

the State legislature or Congress. 

5-132 1177
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

460

090/3. Other Motorized Considerations. 5-133 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider strict policies regarding 

locations of ATV rentals and off-road 

access to the National Forest because not 

all surrounding communities welcome the 

noise, pollution, and damage caused by 

ATVs.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 3. 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of 

"commercial" ATV rental locations is not the focus of this 

project. 

5-133 1178

126/219. 126/267. Other Motorized Considerations. 5-134 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should deny access to private landowners 

of adjacent property that don‟t allow the 

public motorized access to their property 

to be fair.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. Access on private roads is 

beyond the scope of this project and beyond the 

jurisdiction of the Forest Service, unless a Forest Service 

easement exists for the road. The Forest Service cannot 

impose public access across private land where the owner is 

unwilling to allow it. The decision will focus on areas with 

public access routes. 

5-134 1179

431/2. Other Motorized Considerations. 5-135 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge the efforts to develop 

a ride center near Rapid City because it 

would have a significant positive 

economic effect on the area.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. 

5-135 1180

164/1. 196/2. 212/2. 448/2. 

565/11.

Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-136 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide sufficient access 

for senior citizens.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Senior citizens have the 

same rights of access as the general public.

5-136 1181

196/2. 477/7. 565/11. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-137 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide exceptions for 

senior citizens to allow them sufficient 

access.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 

will have the same access rights as the general public.

5-137 1182

126/55. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-138 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider in the planning 

process the growing popularity of 

motorized recreation, the needs of an 

aging population, and the increasing 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Senior citizens and 

persons with disabilities will have the same access rights as 

the general public.

5-138 1183
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

461

availability of recreation time.

196/2. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-139 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow senior citizens to 

purchase permits allowing them to access 

roads otherwise closed to motorized travel 

because many senior citizens cannot 

access those areas by foot.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Senior citizens and 

persons with disabilities will have the same access rights as 

the general public.

5-139 1184

164/1. 575/11. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-140 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide the greatest 

amount of motorized access possible to 

facilitate access for senior citizens.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides the highest 

amount of motorized access on the Forest. Resource 

analysis for this alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-140 1185

154/2. 240/1. 421/12. 477/7. 

575/11. 614/7.

Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-141 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide motorized access 

for disabled citizens because motorized 

access is the only way for them to access 

the National Forest. 

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.

5-141 1186

241/6. 247/15. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-142 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide motorized access 

to historic and cultural sites to ensure that 

disabled visitors have access.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 

will have the same access rights as the general public.

5-142 1187

241/6. 247/15. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-142 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide motorized access 

to historic and cultural sites to ensure that 

disabled visitors have access and to 

comply with MUSYA.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 

will have the same access rights as the general public.

5-142 1188

126/236. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-143 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should analyze all routes for the 

access they provide handicapped, elderly, 

and physically impaired visitors.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives B and C. Senior citizens and 

persons with disabilities will have the same access rights as 

the general public.

5-143 1189

126/232. 126/233. 336/2. Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen 

Access. 5-144 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should adequately consider the 

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 

5-144 1190
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

462

needs of the handicapped, elderly, and 

physically impaired to comply with Public 

Law 105-359.

access are in Alternatives B and C. Senior citizens and 

persons with disabilities will have the same access rights as 

the general public.

414/50. 456/29. 462/67. Access for Children. 5-145 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

discourage the participation of small 

children in motorized travel.

The Forest Service provides opportunities for multiple uses 

of the National Forest lands for users of all ages. On 

designated trails on the Black Hills National Forest, it is 

legal for children without driver's licenses to drive 

motorized vehicles. Our hope is that young drivers would 

choose situations suitable to their abilities under the 

supervision of licensed drivers, but that choice is reserved 

to the users and not to the Forest Service. 

5-145 1191

178/4. 414/50. Access for Children. 5-146 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate some old mines or quarries as 

areas where children can ride ATVs to 

provide a safe area for children to ride 

where adults can easily supervise.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides three 

training areas for beginners of motorized vehicles. Effects 

to the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

5-146 1192

431/1. Non-Motorized Access. 5-147 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase non-motorized areas because 

non-motorized uses are less destructive 

and conflict with motorized uses.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. 

5-147 1193

083/2. Non-Motorized Access. 5-147 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase non-motorized areas to protect 

habitats and species and reduce the spread 

of non-native plants.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. 

5-147 1194

518/5. 540/1. Non-Motorized Access. 5-147 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase non-motorized areas to preserve 

some areas for wildlife and people.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 

3. 

5-147 1195

578/5. Non-Motorized Access. 5-148 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include bird watching, wildlife watching, 

nature study, and photography in the 

discussion of recreation.

These activities are normally associated with hiking 

opportunities. Hiking was considered as a recreation 

opportunities on the Black Hills National Forest under the 

recreation analysis. The inclusion of bird watching, wildlife 

watching, nature study and photography would not change 

any of the analysis of non-motorized activities since they 

were considered to be associated with hiking. 

5-148 1196

586/2. Non-Motorized Access. 5-149 Public Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the greatest 5-149 1197
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

463

Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain a significant amount of nonmotorized area and should disclose the 

user survey information because nonmotorized uses are predominant.

amount of non-motorized opportunities to the Forest. The 

natural resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Since this document was produced to identify 

motorized opportunities for the Forest (purpose and need, 

pages 7-8), data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Survey was used to identify information about known 

Forest visitors who prefer motorized recreation 

opportunities. Non-motorized uses such as backpacking, 

walking, and biking are also utilizing some form of 

motorized vehicle to access the Forest for their nonmotorized recreation activities. Disclosure of the full 

National Visitor Use Monitoring report does not affect the 

recreation analysis nor change the alternatives presented in 

the DEIS since Alternative D was designed to provide the 

maximum opportunities for non-motorized uses.

293/2. 345/2. 456/4. 456/5. 

590/2.

Non-Motorized Access. 5-150 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the percentage of primitive and 

semi-primitive non-motorized areas to 

provide a broader spectrum of recreational 

opportunities.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings on the 

Black Hills National Forest within the Forest Service's 

jurisdiction. Reanalyzing the acreages available for these 

settings is beyond the scope of this project and does not 

address the purpose and need, pages 7-8. Adjusting ROS 

allocations across the Forest is outside the scope of this 

project, but could be considered in a Forest Plan revision. 

5-150 1198

473/15. 578/9. Non-Motorized Access. 5-151 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized access in ROS 

primitive, semi-primitive, or roaded 

natural non-motorized areas because it is 

inconsistent with the Forest Plan and 

privileges a minority of users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action alternatives would 

reduce the area open to cross-country motorized use across 

the Forest. Resource analysis is disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-151 1199

578/26. 579/1. Non-Motorized Access. 5-151 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized access in ROS 

primitive, semi-primitive, or roaded 

natural non-motorized areas to comply 

with the Forest Service Manual.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action alternatives would 

reduce the area open to cross-country motorized use across 

the Forest. Resource analysis is disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-151 1200

578/26. Non-Motorized Access. 5-151 Public Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 5-151 1201
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

464

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized access in ROS 

primitive, semi-primitive, or roaded 

natural non-motorized areas to protect the 

back country.

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action alternatives would 

reduce the area open to cross-country motorized use across 

the Forest. Resource analysis is disclosed in Chapter 3.

456/19. 458/26. Non-Motorized Access. 5-152 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized access in ROS classes 

semi-primitive, non-motorized, and 

roaded natural non-motorized because 

there are few non-motorized areas in the 

BHNF.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action alternatives would 

reduce the area open to cross-country motorized use across 

the Forest. Resource analysis is disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-152 1202

458/7. Non-Motorized Access. 5-153 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

restrict the number of roads allowed in 

ROS classes primitive and semi-primitive 

non-motorized because non-motorized 

use is equally important as motorized use 

and to comply with MUSYA.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings on the 

Black Hills National Forest within the Forest Service's 

jurisdiction. The effects of this and other alternatives on 

natural resources and opportunities for other forms of 

recreation are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

5-153 1203

123/1. 246/1. 255/2. 256/1.

410/1.

Non-Motorized Access. 5-154 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

preserve quiet recreation opportunities.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the amount of motorized use on the Forest, thus 

creating a peaceful environment. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-154 1204

265/2. 402/1. 431/3. Non-Motorized Access. 5-155 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide non-motorized access to the 

forest from Rapid City to provide access 

for children and reduce damage to the 

environment.

Development of non-motorized access opportunities to the 

Forest from any community within the Black Hills National 

Forest is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and 

outside the scope of this project. Opportunities for 

connecting communities are limited due to private 

property, paved highways, and other jurisdictions.

5-155 1205

456/13. 456/141. 458/20. Non-Motorized Access. 5-156 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

seriously consider the walk-in areas 

proposed by the Norbeck Society to 

accommodate non-motorized 

recreationists.

Walk-in only areas were included in an alternative 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. Chapter 2 

discusses the reasons the alternative was dismissed, pages 

33-35 (DEIS). 

5-156 1206

456/144. 473/6. Mechanized Recreation. 5-157 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

restrict mechanized recreation to 

This comment is referring to restricting non-motorized 

mechanized recreation to designated trails. The purpose 

and need for this project is to bring the Forest into 

5-157 1207
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

465

designated trails to ensure the safety of all 

users.

compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and 

designate motorized routes. While consideration was given 

to existing non-motorized activities in the development of 

the DEIS alternatives, restricting non-motorized recreation 

activities is not the focus of this project. 

265/1. 608/1. Mechanized Recreation. 5-158 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the BHNF may be 

designated a “ride center” by the 

International Mountain Bike Association 

because such designation would increase 

tourism and available grant funding.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. 

5-158 1208

286/7. 563/2. 565/10. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

159 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide access to all users of the 

forest because the Forest belongs to all 

citizens of the United States.

Thank you for your comment. 5-159 1209

126/129. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

160 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should clearly disclose current and 

proposed non-motorized and motorized 

recreation opportunities to ensure 

decisions are based on sufficient 

information.

The DEIS and FEIS considered the effects on a variety of 

recreation activities throughout the alternatives in Chapter 

3 (DEIS pages 46-66). Measurement Indicators developed

to address the effects on non-motorized recreation 

opportunity are disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS in Chapter 

2, comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives. 

The comment expresses concern with a perceived 

imbalance of recreational opportunities in both the existing 

and proposed conditions, and suggests several new 

indicators be used to address the concern. Issue 2 

describes potential conflicts of the proposal with other 

forms of recreation opportunities. We believe that several 

of the suggested indicators would be difficult to quantify, 

and we do not believe the suggested indicators would 

provide any new information relevant to the decision to be 

made. 

5-160 1210

456/16. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

161 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the impact on nonmotorized users of allowing the motorized 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of recreation 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis of the alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-161 1211
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

466

community wide access to the forest 

because doing so discourages nonmotorized users from visiting.

456/3. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

162 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider non-motorized use during 

the planning for motorized use to treat 

traditional recreation equally.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the greatest 

amount of non-motorized opportunities to the Forest. The 

effects on natural resources and recreation opportunities 

for this alternative are presented in Chapter 3. Since this 

document was produced to identify motorized 

opportunities for the Forest (purpose and need, pages 7-8), 

data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey was 

used to identify information about known Forest visitors 

who prefer motorized recreation opportunities. Nonmotorized uses such as backpacking, walking, and biking 

generally also utilize some form of motorized vehicle to 

access the Forest for their non-motorized recreation 

activities. Disclosure of the full National Visitor Use 

Monitoring report does not affect the recreation analysis 

nor change the alternatives presented in the DEIS since 

Alternative D was designed to address concerns for 

opportunities for non-motorized uses.

5-162 1212

293/8. 578/23. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

162 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider non-motorized use during 

the planning for motorized use to ensure 

proper management of high-end 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. The effects of the alternatives 

on natural resources and recreation opportunity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-162 1213

456/2. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

162 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider non-motorized use during 

the planning for motorized use to properly 

consider Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum planning.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. The effects of the alternatives 

on natural resources and recreation opportunity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. Comprehensive planning for all 

recreation needs, and allocations of land using the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum tool, are appropriate for 

forest planning efforts, and could be undertaken in a forest 

plan revision. 

5-162 1214

473/13. Relationship of Non-Motorized Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS do comply with the 5-162 1215
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

467

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

162 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider non-motorized use during 

the planning for motorized use to comply 

with the Travel Management Rule.

Travel Management Rule and provide for a variety of 

motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

The natural resource effects analysis of the alternatives are 

in Chapter 3.

126/170. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

163 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should explain why non-motorized 

recreation is being given priority even 

though the greater public need is for 

motorized recreation opportunities.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access are in Alternatives A, B, and C.

5-163 1216

126/47. 126/114. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

164 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should disclose that trails closed to 

motorized use become de facto open to 

non-motorized use to ensure an accurate 

statement of available recreational 

resources.

Roads or trails that are closed to motorized use may 

become available for non-motorized activities. They are not 

inventoried as non-motorized trails or designated or 

managed for non-motorized recreation opportunities, but 

the public is generally not discouraged from using them for 

these types of activities. Closures, in effect, may in many 

cases provide additional non-motorized recreational 

opportunities.

5-164 1217

126/49. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

165 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert motorized trails to 

non-motorized trails if those trails were 

constructed with OHV gas tax funds.

None of the motorized routes on the Black Hills National 

Forest used OHV gas tax funding for construction. The 

decision on this proposal will not formally designate any 

non-motorized trails as it does not meet the purpose and 

need for this project, pages 7-8

5-165 1218

456/137. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

166 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should evaluate motorized trails for 

potential decommissioning and 

repurposing as non-motorized trails.

The DEIS and FEIS does not formally identify any 

particular route or trail that will be decommissioned from 

motorized activities due to the Forest Service 

administrative access needs. Some routes may be 

decommissioned as identified in further environmental 

documents for other resource projects. The DEIS and 

FEIS does not formally designate any non-motorized trails 

as it does not meet the purpose and need for this project, 

pages 7-8.

5-166 1219

062/2. 208/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

5-167 1220
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

468

trails to motorized trails because 

motorized trails are environmentally 

destructive, stress wildlife, and cause noise 

pollution.

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E, also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

173/1. 479/11. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails because ATVs 

cause significant damage to trails, most 

ATV riders are not good stewards of the 

resource, and dual-use would reduce 

safety.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

5-167 1221

073/1. 177/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails because ATVs 

produce greenhouse gases and are noisy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-167 1222

070/1. 079/1. 088/1. 132/1. 

143/1. 148/1. 168/1. 153/1. 

209/2. 357/13. 

Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails to reduce user 

conflicts.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E, also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

5-167 1223

074/15. 092/1. 121/1. 209/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 5-167 1224
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

469

288/1. Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails to provide quiet 

recreation.

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E, also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

109/1. 206/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails because dual-use 

would compromise safety.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

5-167 1225

068/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails because the 

damage caused by motorized recreation is 

difficult to undo.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

5-167 1226

153/2. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

5-167 1227
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

470

trails to motorized trails because 

motorized travel will exacerbate erosion 

and noxious weed and insect infestation 

problems.

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

205/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

167 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not convert any non-motorized 

trails to motorized trails to avoid a 

reduction in tourism and related spending.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

5-167 1228

126/50. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

168 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should either convert some nonmotorized trails to motorized use or 

construct more motorized trails to ensure 

equality in the allocation of trails.

Motorized opportunities have been provided for in all 

alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-168 1229

319/106. 414/77. 462/94. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

169 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should disclose how many motorized trails 

are located within one-quarter mile of a 

hiking trail and how many hiking trails are 

being converted to motorized trails.

Measurement Indicators developed to address the 

alternatives effects on non-motorized recreation 

opportunity are disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS in Chapter 

2, comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives. A 

measurement indicator for non-motorized recreation is 

miles of NFS routes with 1/2 mile of a non-motorized trail. 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis of the alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

No miles of trails designated for the sole purpose of nonmotorized activities have been converted to motorized 

opportunities.

5-169 1230
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

471

064/1. 080/1. 083/1. 479/8. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

170 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure adequate distance between 

motorized and non-motorized trails to 

avoid user conflicts.

The alternatives considered a range of recreation 

opportunities, in which the mileage of motorized routes 

near non-motorized routes varied. To estimate the 

alternatives effects on non-motorized recreation the EIS 

used an indicator of motorized trails 0.5 mile from nonmotorized trails, and assumed that sound from motorized 

vehicles (96 decibels) would attenuate significantly over that 

distance. In all alternatives, there are still a number of 

motorized routes within 0.5 mile of a non-motorized trail. 

Alternative D provides less motorized routes under Forest 

Service jurisdiction (209 miles) within 0.5 miles of nonmotorized trails, while Alternative C (387 miles) provides 

the greatest. The analysis assumes that motorized users will 

generally comply with the MVUM. Enforcement actions 

will be taken as needed. The effects of the alternatives on 

relative quiet experienced by non-motorized trail users are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section, in the discussion on sound levels. 

The extent of the noise impacts to a non-motorized 

recreationist depends on personal interpretation. In 

addition, approximately 10% of designated non-motorized 

trails on the Forest lie on Forest Service roads open to 

motorized vehicles. It should also be noted that of the 323 

miles of designated non-motorized trails, 140 miles (43%) 

lie within a Forest Plan designated non-motorized area, 

leaving the remaining miles subject to motorized impacts. 

Of the 33 designated non-motorized areas on the Forest, 

11 have designated non-motorized trails within their 

boundaries.

5-170 1231

107/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

170 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure adequate distance between 

motorized and non-motorized trails to 

allow for both types of uses.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-170 1232

319/107. 414/78. 462/95. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

170 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure adequate distance between 

motorized and non-motorized trails to 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-170 1233
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

472

reduce law enforcement issues.

608/2. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

170 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should ensure adequate distance between 

motorized and non-motorized trails to 

ensure the safety of non-motorized users.

The alternatives considered a range of recreation 

opportunities, in which the mileage of motorized routes 

near non-motorized routes varied. To estimate the 

alternatives effects on non-motorized recreation the EIS 

used an indicator of motorized trails 0.5 mile from nonmotorized trails, and assumed that sound from motorized 

vehicles (96 decibels) would attenuate significantly over that 

distance. In all alternatives, there are still a number of 

motorized routes within 0.5 mile of a non-motorized trail. 

Alternative D provides less motorized routes under Forest 

Service jurisdiction (209 miles) within 0.5 miles of nonmotorized trails, while Alternative C (387 miles) provides 

the greatest. The analysis assumes that motorized users will 

generally comply with the MVUM. Enforcement actions 

will be taken as needed. The effects of the alternatives on 

relative quiet experienced by non-motorized trail users are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section, in the discussion on sound levels. 

The extent of the noise impacts to a non-motorized 

recreationist depends on personal interpretation. In

addition, approximately 10% of designated non-motorized 

trails on the Forest lie on Forest Service roads open to 

motorized vehicles. It should also be noted that of the 323 

miles of designated non-motorized trails, 140 miles (43%) 

lie within a Forest Plan designated non-motorized area, 

leaving the remaining miles subject to motorized impacts. 

Of the 33 designated non-motorized areas on the Forest, 

11 have designated non-motorized trails within their 

boundaries. The MVUM will display roads, trails and areas 

designated for motorized use. The Forest Service believes 

at this point that motorized vehicle users will generally 

comply with requirements. Enforcement actions will be 

taken as needed. 

5-170 1234

252/2. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

171 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should separate motorized recreation from 

non-motorized recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-171 1235
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

473

428/1. 433/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

172 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should support separate trail systems for 

motorized and non-motorized uses 

because the needs of these groups are 

different and conflict.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

5-172 1236

247/26. 326/12. 401/3. 465/21. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

173 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should separate motorized and nonmotorized trailheads.

New trailheads were identified in the DEIS and FEIS for 

motorized access to the proposed new designated system. 

Existing trailheads for non-motorized trails may be used by 

motorized users if they can legally ride out of the trailhead 

on the designated motorized system. 

5-173 1237

126/6. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

174 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not segregate motorized and nonmotorized uses to comply with the Civil 

Rights act.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed effects 

in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails may not be 

environmentally appropriate for motorized use due to 

design or location. Where non-motorized trails overlap 

with motorized roads proposals for shared interests 

between user groups was incorporated into the alternatives.

5-174 1238

265/4. 431/6. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

175 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should prohibit motorized and equestrian 

use of mountain bike trails because the 

trails are costly to construct and are 

significantly damaged by these uses.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. The purpose and need for this 

project is to bring the Forest into compliance with the 2005 

Travel Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of equestrian trails is not the focus of this 

project. 

5-175 1239

005/4. 419/8. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

176 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide a plan for controlling 

damage from horses because horses cause 

more damage than ATVs or dirt bikes.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

Controlling or identifying damage caused by horses is not 

the focus of this project. 

5-176 1240

424/1. Relationship of Non-Motorized 

Recreation to Motorized Recreation. 5-

177 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that motorized users 

frequently trespass on non-motorized 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. All action alternatives 

would result in the publication of a Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) depicting those routes and areas that would 

5-177 1241
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

474

trails because they cause damage and leave 

trash behind.

be open to motorized travel. The MVUM would be the 

primary authority for user compliance and would be the 

basis for enforcing motorized travel designations on the 

ground. We believe that publication and use of the MVUM 

would reduce trespass issues. For more information on the 

MVUM see the DEIS and FEIS. 

413/5. 456/75. Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 

5-178 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate some campgrounds as 

“non-OHV” to provide non-motorized 

recreationists with a quiet camping 

experience.

OHVs are a recognized motorized user group of the 

National Forest. The purpose and need for this project is to 

bring the Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of motorized user groups in campgrounds is 

not the focus of this project. Mixed use designations made 

in varying degrees throughout the alternatives may affect 

OHV use within campgrounds. Effects of motorized 

access to natural resources and recreation opportunities 

from the alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-178 1242

588/5. Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 

5-179 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should place limits on driving OHVs 

around or near developed campsites to 

reduce noise impacts.

OHVs are a recognized motorized user group of the 

National Forest. The purpose and need for this project is to

bring the Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of motorized user groups in or near developed 

campsites is not the focus of this project. Mixed use 

designations made in varying degrees throughout the 

alternatives may affect OHV use within and around 

developed campsites. Effects of motorized access to 

natural resources and recreation opportunities from the 

alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-179 1243

507/13. Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 

5-180 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide campgrounds with OHV 

access to attract tourists.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

The greatest motorized opportunities are in Alternatives A, 

B and C.

5-180 1244

588/3. 588/4. Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 

5-181 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the proximity to roads 

when selecting sites for campgrounds to 

allow for quiet camping.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes; designation of motorized 

user groups in campgrounds is not the focus of this project. 

Mixed use designations made in varying degrees 

throughout the alternatives may affect OHV use within 

campgrounds. Effects of motorized access to natural 

resources and recreation opportunities from the alternatives 

5-181 1245
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

475

are disclosed in Chapter 3.

588/7. Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 

5-181 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the proximity to roads 

when selecting sites for campgrounds to 

provide convenient access to backcountry 

trails.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities, including backcountry access to 

designated trails. Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS 

provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives is in Chapter 3. 

5-181 1246

030/10. Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 

5-182 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should maintain motorized access to local 

campgrounds and communities and 

should extend seasonal access to 

campgrounds to support the local 

economies.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities, including access to developed 

Forest Service campgrounds and access to communities 

and private campgrounds within the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives is in Chapter 3. 

5-182 1247

472/18. Other Access Considerations. 5-183 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should coordinate with South Dakota 

Game, Fish, and Parks to allow access to 

Spearfish and Spearfish Peak.

The Forest Service coordinated throughout the 

development of this project with State and local officials to 

provide the best information for motorized access to the 

Black Hills.

5-183 1248

126/257. User Conflicts. 5-184 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should develop a 

definition of “reasonable or significant” 

when evaluating user conflicts.

The comment cites two executive orders having to do with 

motorized use. EO11644 directs Federal agencies to 

protect resources, promote safety of all users of Federal 

lands, and "to minimize conflicts among the various uses of 

those lands." EO 11989 amends EO 11644, and directs 

agencies to close areas or trails to vehicles causing damage 

until corrective measures are taken. The comment alleges 

Federal agencies should focus on minimizing conflicts

between uses, rather than users. The preamble to the 

Travel Management Rule cites these two Orders as a basis 

for promulgating the Rule, and points out that both natural 

resources and visitor experiences are affected by motorized 

vehicle use (70 FR 68265). The Purpose and Need for the 

current proposal includes needs to reduce adverse impacts 

of motorized use to natural resources, and to develop a 

transportation system to provide a range of quality 

experiences for a wide variety of Forest users. Striving to 

proactively reduce conflicts between a various Forest users 

is one way to accomplish this objective. We believe the 

commenter's request to define significant user conflict is 

5-184 1249
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

476

overly narrow in scope and unwarranted.

126/261. User Conflicts. 5-185 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid 

overstating the incidence of user conflict 

because documented user conflicts occur 

at statistically insignificant rates.

Recreationists may perceive conflicts in different ways, and 

conflicts may be reported or go unreported. The Revised 

Forest Plan provides guidance on recreation management, 

stating that the Forest will provide a full range of 

recreational opportunities, and that trails typically will be 

managed to minimize user conflicts (Goal 4, Discussion 

section). While the focus of this effort is to designate 

routes and areas for motorized use, the FEIS recognizes 

there may be effects to other recreational uses. The 

alternatives address this issue in different ways (Chapter 2), 

and the effects of motorized use on other uses are 

disclosed in Chapter 3, Recreation section.

5-185 1250

483/22. User Conflicts. 5-185 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid 

overstating the incidence of user conflict 

because often users meet no other people 

on trails.

While it's true that portions of the Black Hills National 

Forest receive very little use, there are other portions that 

have high use and much existing or potential conflict 

between users. 

5-185 1251

126/245. User Conflicts. 5-186 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should address the 

issue of non-motorized groups actively 

seeking to reduce motorized recreation 

because this is the most significant aspect 

of user conflicts.

Recreationists may perceive conflicts in different ways, and 

conflicts may be reported or go unreported. The Revised 

Forest Plan provides guidance on recreation management, 

stating that the Forest will provide a full range of 

recreational opportunities, and that trails typically will be 

managed to minimize user conflicts (Goal 4, Discussion 

section). While the focus of this effort is to designate 

routes and areas for motorized use, the FEIS recognizes 

there may be effects to other recreational uses. The 

alternatives address this issue in different ways (Chapter 2), 

and the effects of motorized use on other uses are 

disclosed in Chapter 3, Recreation section.

5-186 1252

126/87. User Conflicts. 5-187 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider the 

assumptions regarding user conflicts 

because conflicts occur infrequently and 

can be resolved by restricting hikers to 

non-motorized areas.

Conflict between individuals is often based on personal 

preferences, attitudes, and social values. The Black Hills 

National Forest manages for multiple uses for motorized 

and non-motorized activities. The DEIS and FEIS 

alternatives provide opportunities for both types of 

recreation throughout the Forest to reduce conflicts 

between user groups. Routes may or may not be 

designated for motorized use for a number of reasons 

including potential conflicts with natural resource values or 

5-187 1253
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

477

other recreational uses. Resource effects are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. 

461/30. User Conflicts. 5-188 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that the 

definition of user conflict is consistent 

with the Executive Orders because they 

should not be equated with resource 

issues.

The Black Hills National Forest manages for multiple uses 

for motorized and non-motorized activities. The Purpose 

and Need for the current proposal includes needs to reduce 

adverse impacts of motorized use to natural resources, and 

to develop a transportation system to provide a range of 

quality experiences for a wide variety of Forest users. 

Striving to proactively reduce conflicts between various 

Forest users is one way to accomplish this objective. The 

DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide opportunities for both 

types of recreation throughout the Forest to reduce impacts 

between user groups. Effects to resources and recreation 

opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3.

5-188 1254

471/8. User Conflicts. 5-189 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider the 

expected increase in motorized travel 

when evaluating conflicts with private land 

management and other Forest users.

The DEIS and FEIS disclosed the increase in sales of 

OHVs nationwide and the estimated number of motorized 

visitors to the Forest, pages 50-51. Chapter 3 discloses the 

effects increased OHV use on the Forest could do to 

natural resources without regulations. 

5-189 1255

126/254. User Conflicts. 5-190 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider 

designating

alternating time periods for motorized or 

non-motorized access to reduce user 

conflicts.

The commenter suggests that an alternative be considered 

in which motorized and non-motorized users could take 

turns using areas by weeks or by year. They suggest that 

the schedule of use could be communicated to the public in 

various ways such as public media. They believe that this 

scheme would eliminate "any reasonable concern about 

conflict of users." The Forest Service considered and 

dismissed this alternative for several reasons. First, the 

Travel Management Rule requires that the Forest produce a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map which designates areas and/or 

routes for specific uses. We believe it would be impractical 

to designate and allow for this wide a range of uses over 

most of the transportation system, and would not meet the 

purposes of the Rule. Second, trails designated to support 

motorized use may require design, construction and 

maintenance which could be more costly than that required 

for non-motorized uses. To spread this over a larger 

system would, we believe, work against the aims of the 

Travel Management Rule, and this current effort, to design 

and operate an efficient transportation system. Third, 

5-190 1256
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

478

motorized use can leave lingering effects to trail surfaces 

which may not be desirable for non-motorized users. For 

these reasons, the Forest Service has dismissed this 

alternative from detailed consideration. 

126/246. 405/1. User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve user 

education before limiting use.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-191 1257

126/246. 370/2. 359/5. 370/2. User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve user 

education because most problems can be 

resolved with improved education.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-191 1258

126/263. User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve user 

education to promote use of quieter 

motorized vehicles.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-191 1259

359/5. User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve user 

education because user education is a 

more cost-effective way of addressing 

management issues.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-191 1260

319/86. 414/57. 456/124. 

462/74.

User Education. 5-192 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide user 

education on preventing the spread of 

noxious weeds.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-192 1261
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

479

126/248. 319/38. 414/26. 

462/27.

User Education. 5-192 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide user 

education on the rules and restrictions on 

National Forest System roads.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-192 1262

456/76. User Education. 5-192 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide user 

education on the risk of starting wildfires 

from exhaust sparks.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-192 1263

474/11. User Education. 5-193 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide more 

education for OHV users about habitats in 

the Black Hills.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-193 1264

314/1. User Education. 5-194 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should focus on user 

education and enforcement rather than 

restricting access. 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The Forest Service is not mandated to provide education. 

Brochures and information will be provided to share 

information with users. A comprehensive public education 

and awareness program will be developed and made 

available through a multi-media approach. 

5-194 1265

578/4. 588/6. Impact Analysis. 5-195 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include analysis 

of the noise impacts at developed 

campsites and picnic areas.

Land management agencies, including the Forest Service, 

and some states across the country have started establishing 

legal limits for sound emissions from OHVs including 

motorcycles. It has been proposed that this decision will 

establish a 96 DB(A) sound emission limit for OHVs on 

Black Hill National Forest roads and trails. The 96 DB(A) 

noise level was selected because it is the maximum level 

currently mandated by at least five states and is regarded as 

an adequate limit by the EPA and motorcycle 

manufacturers (American Motorcyclist Association 2005). 

5-195 1266

314/6. 522/1. Impact Analysis. 5-196 Public Concern: The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 5-196 1267
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

480

The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that timber harvest causes greater impacts 

than motorized recreation and should not 

use impacts from OHV use as a reason to 

close roads.

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The project does not include an analysis from timber 

harvesting. 

357/10. Impact Analysis. 5-197 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider 

impacts from timber management as part 

of the baseline when evaluating recreation 

impacts as long as timber management is a 

high priority on the BHNF.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

The project does not include an analysis from timber 

harvesting. 

5-197 1268

373/1. Impact Analysis. 5-198 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should complete an 

environmental assessment for every trail 

used for OHV travel because the impacts 

from a vehicle trail are long-term.

Routes evaluated in this DEIS and FEIS and approved 

through the Record of Decision for motorized use will not 

be re-evaluated in future environmental documents unless 

new construction activities require additional analysis. New 

routes that may be added in the future would be evaluated 

in additional environmental analysis documents.

5-198 1269

126/19. Impact Analysis. 5-199 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

cumulative impacts of motorized road 

closures to comply with CEQ guidelines 

and NEPA.

Cumulative impacts from road closures has been analyzed 

in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for natural resources.

5-199 1270

126/274. Impact Analysis. 5-200 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

cumulative effects and environmental 

justice issues related to the lack of 

motorized trails.

Cumulative impacts and environmental justice issues 

related to lack of motorized trails has been analyzed in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for natural resources.

5-200 1271

074/3. Impact Analysis. 5-201 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

effects of opening non-motorized trails to 

motorized users.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads that 

are utilized by the Forest for administrative purposes have 

been considered under Alternatives B and C for motorized 

opportunities. Current condition of the Forest, Alternatives 

A and E also identifies shared interests between nonmotorized and motorized users when the designated nonmotorized trail is a road open to public travel.

5-201 1272
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

481

578/24. 578/25. Impact Analysis. 5-202 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should complete a 

recreation opportunity spectrum inventory 

and scenery management system planning 

before completing the FEIS and ROD.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Integrity 

Objectives have been completed for the Black Hills 

National Forest Management Plan and was used in the 

development of the DEIS and FEIS for the Travel 

Management Plan for the Forest.

5-202 1273

578/19. 578/20. 578/21. 

578/22.

Impact Analysis. 5-203 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should review 

recreation

opportunity spectrum planning to ensure 

that areas meet the criteria and to comply 

with regulations governing Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery 

Management System Planning.

The comment cites and incorporates by reference 

numerous appeals of past decisions, and related documents. 

The commenter challenges the adequacy of the ROS and 

Scenery Management System (SMS) analyses, and alleges 

the current effort is referencing outdated information. The 

1999 decision on appeals of the Revised Forest Plan 

addressed similar challenges and upheld that decision. The 

current effort would be consistent with ROS direction in 

the Forest Plan, as noted. Re-evaluation of the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum is a Forest Plan level decision and 

beyond the scope of this project. Re-evaluation of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is a Forest Plan level 

decision and beyond the scope of this project.

5-203 1274

126/13. Impact Analysis. 5-204 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

significant issues affecting motorized 

recreationists to ensure that NEPA 

process is issues-driven.

The DEIS and FEIS identified the significant issues 

affecting the motorized opportunities for the Black Hills 

National Forest and analyzed them in Chapter 3 for natural 

resource areas. 

5-204 1275

201/2. 419/4. Impact Analysis. 5-205 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide 

quantitative evidence of the adverse 

impacts from motorized use to allow for 

the development of evaluation or 

suitability criteria when assessing the 

alternatives' effectiveness at meeting the 

purpose and need.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. 

The 2005 Travel Management Rules, Subpart B, requires 

designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. 

The current condition of the Forest, Alternative A, is not in 

compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule as it 

allows unrestricted cross-country motorized travel. As a 

result of the unrestricted cross-country travel, natural 

resources are being damaged or destroyed. Cultural sites, 

botanical habitat, and important wildlife habitat are being 

impacted by unrestricted motorized travel. By designating 

a motorized system, these resources would be improved. 

Please see the analysis for these sections in the DEIS or 

FEIS, pages 264, 231, and 143, respectively. 

5-205 1276

126/28. Impact Analysis. 5-206 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use the level of 

Alternative A was utilized as a baseline for the DEIS and 

FEIS. Alternative A represents the existing condition of 

5-206 1277
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

482

natural impacts as a baseline when 

evaluating impacts from OHVs because 

OHV impacts are small by comparison.

the Forest, including the current motorized opportunities.

422/3. Impact Analysis. 5-207 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should disclose the 

impacts caused by companies that cater to 

OHV users.

The DEIS and FEIS discloses information from all 

motorized users of the Forest, whether they bring their 

own OHVs to the Forest or rent from personal business. 

Effects to the natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

Analysis and disclosure of impacts caused by manufacturers 

of OHV's is beyond the scope of this EIS. 

5-207 1278

126/74. Impact Analysis. 5-208 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use current data 

regarding motorized trails to ensure the 

plan meets the need of the public.

Alternative A was utilized as a baseline for the DEIS and 

FEIS. Alternative A represents the existing condition of 

the Forest, including the current motorized opportunities.

5-208 1279

126/45. Impact Analysis. 5-209 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should expand the 

scope of the analysis to include the 

creation of new routes to allow for 

development of a reasonable alternative 

and mitigation for the loss of motorized 

access.

The DEIS and FEIS included under Alternatives B and C 

motorized opportunities that would require new 

construction. Some proposed routes are connectors for a 

looping opportunity while others may be to bring an 

existing route into compliance with environmental 

standards. New motorized routes may be added in the 

future but would be evaluated in future, additional 

environmental analysis documents.

5-209 1280

414/51. 456/30. 462/68. Impact Analysis. 5-210 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should substantiate the 

claim that increasing fuel prices will not 

likely reduce motorized recreation because 

it seems counterintuitive. 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. Rising fuel prices is 

beyond the scope of this project.

5-210 1281

126/3. Impact Analysis. 5-211 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

cumulative impacts from closing 

motorized trails because this is a 

significant impact.

Cumulative impacts from closing motorized trails has been 

analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for natural 

resources.

5-211 1282

126/112. Impact Analysis. 5-211 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

cumulative impacts from closing 

motorized trails because ignoring the trend 

of closing areas will result in de facto 

Wilderness Areas.

Cumulative impacts from closing motorized trails has been 

analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for natural 

resources.

5-211 1283

126/250. Impact Analysis. 5-212 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should evaluate the 

Cumulative impacts has been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS and FEIS for natural resources.

5-212 1284
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

483

cumulative impacts of concentrating 

motorized uses.

357/8. 357/9. Impact Analysis. 5-213 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve 

cumulative impact analysis of routes used 

for administrative purposes because roads 

used for timber harvest have similar 

impacts to roads used for recreation.

A partial listing of actions related to administrative uses is 

cited in Appendix E: Cumulative Effects of the DEIS. 

Administrative actions are actively managed to protect 

resources and are limited in scope and duration. Education 

and enforcement are important tools for increasing public 

awareness of travel management regulations and 

encourages voluntary compliance. 

5-213 1285

456/18. 458/25. Costs of Implementation (Chapter 6: 

Socio-Economic Concerns). 6-1 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the plan will require the 

reallocation of significant resources 

outside of and in addition to the fee 

income expenditures.

Costs and revenues for the road system, and those 

anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

6-1 1286

294/11. 295/11. Costs of Implementation. 6-2 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

conduct a financial impact study to analyze 

impacts on local businesses.

The social and economic analysis that appeared in the 

DEIS has been strengthened. Economic effects of the 

alternatives are disclosed in the Socio-Economic section in 

the FEIS, Chapter 3. An economic impact analysis was 

completed to support that discussion, and is located in the 

project record. That analysis considered the number of 

jobs and amount of labor income contributed by motorized 

and non-motorized use visits (i.e., users of the trail systems) 

within the seven-county Black Hills region. It focused on 

jobs and income in aggregate for the region, and not on 

individual firms or numbers of firms. It is estimated that 

82 jobs are contributed annually as a result of current nonlocal motorized and non-motorized recreational visits to 

the Forest; this estimate is assumed to characterize job 

contributions under the No Action Alternative. When 

estimating economic impacts (e.g., jobs and labor income), 

only non-local visitors bring „new „money into the local 

communities and therefore have a direct economic impact. 

Visitors who reside in the local area tend to substitute other 

local recreational activities or change the time and place for 

continuing the same activity rather than traveling long 

distances and incurring additional costs to do the same 

6-2 1287
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

484

activity. Current jobs contributions, as well as 

corresponding income (approximately $2 million) are an 

important annual contribution to relevant sectors of the 

local economy, however, these jobs are a small percentage 

of the total labor force as well as the labor force associated 

with sectors most affected (i.e., retail trade, 

accommodations and food services, and entertainment) for 

the seven county area (less than 1% and approximately 

0.5% respectively). Based on the inability to project 

changes in motorized and non-motorized visits under the 

action Alternatives (A through E), as well as the relatively 

small impacts noted above, changes in jobs and income 

resulting from Alternatives A through E are expected to be 

too small to accurately project or detect. The direction of 

any net changes in jobs and income contributed by 

recreation under Alternatives A through E is therefore 

difficult to predict.

578/37. Costs of Implementation. 6-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze the economic impacts on both 

motorized and non-motorized recreation.

It is difficult to quantitatively estimate changes in visitor 

use and types of visitor activities under the alternatives. To 

support the FEIS the economic and social consequences 

have been evaluated in a "Supplementary Specialist Report 

- Social and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. Conclusions indicate that 

potential reductions in motorized use visits under some 

alternatives may be offset, in part, by (1) some portion of 

displaced motorized users seeking substitute sites within 

the area, and (2) increases in visitors associated with nonmotorized activities as conditions contributing to the 

quality of their experience improves. The direction of any 

net changes in total visits is therefore difficult to predict.

6-3 1288

456/134. 456/135. 456/138. Costs of Implementation. 6-4 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the financial implications of the 

travel management system to comply with 

the intent of Congress.

The Travel Analysis Report from September 2007 supports 

this larger analysis. Current information on costs of 

implementing the alternatives was added to the FEIS, in 

Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. This 

discussion considers annual and deferred maintenance 

costs. It also includes a discussion of traditional funding 

sources, and concludes that annual road maintenance 

resources are about 50% of what is needed, and the Federal 

portion of that funding is trending downward. Deferred 

maintenance on roads, however, is funded by a different 

6-4 1289
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

485

appropriation than is recreational trail work, which is 

funded by recreation appropriations. The Forest Service 

proposes to implement the Recreation Enhancement Act 

to supplement funding under the recreational trails 

program, and would seek other revenue sources including 

grants. In addition, the Forest would pursue offers of 

volunteer support through a trail ranger program, and seek 

out cooperative partnerships with other agencies and local 

governments. In short, the Forest Service has estimated 

the costs of implementing the alternatives and understands 

the limits to available funding, and the decision on this 

project will consider this information. Implementation of 

any decision on this project would require the Forest to 

seek funding and assistance from a variety of sources. 

319/52. 456/57. 458/52. 

462/41. 491/2.

Costs of Implementation. 6-5 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze the implementation cost of each 

alternative to comply with NEPA.

Information on costs of the alternatives was added to the 

FEIS, in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. This includes information on current annual and 

deferred maintenance costs, and estimated annual and 

deferred maintenance costs under each of the alternatives. 

This information is aggregated to estimate the annual total 

motorized OHV system costs for the first ten years of the 

program. Based on this data, Alternative C would be the 

most costly to implement, followed closely by Alternative 

B. Alternative D would be quite a bit less costly than either 

of these, followed by Alternatives A and E. The SocioEconomic section was rewritten and contains new 

information in the FEIS. An economic impact analysis was 

completed showing the number of jobs and amount of 

labor income contributed by motorized and non-motorized 

use visits (i.e., users of the trail systems) within the sevencounty Black Hills region. In addition, indicators such as 

miles of motorized routes within 300 ft of non-NFS lands, 

and number of trailheads within 3 miles of a potential 

gateway community were evaluated to compare potential 

for noise, dust, and trespass, and other effects. Since 

quantitative estimates of changes in use between the 

alternatives were not available, only general qualitative 

comparisons of alternatives were made. 

6-5 1290

461/10. 548/1. Costs of Implementation. 6-6 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

The respondent correctly notes that there are likely to be 

meaningful differences between the nature and amount of 

6-6 1291
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

486

analyze the socioeconomic effects of each 

of the alternatives because there are 

meaningful differences between them.

use offered by the alternatives but is incorrect in noting 

that travel management plans place "unnecessary" 

restrictions on use - plans are intended to reduce impacts to 

the multiple uses, including recreation, associated with unmanaged aspects of recreation. Given the inability to 

quantitatively estimate changes in visitor use and types of 

visitor activities under the alternatives, the economic and 

social consequences have been evaluated in the 

"Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and Economic 

Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan - conclusions indicate that potential 

reductions in motorized use visits under some alternatives 

may be offset, in part, by (1) some portion of displaced 

motorized users seeking substitute sites within the area, and 

(2) increases in visitors associated with non-motorized 

activities as conditions contributing to the quality of their 

experience improves. The direction of any net changes in 

total visits (and corresponding job impacts) is therefore 

difficult to predict. The report also acknowledges that jobs 

may be impacted, but due to the small relative contribution 

of motorized and non-motorized activity on the BHNF to 

local jobs (82 jobs contributed or 0.5% of jobs in relevant 

economic sectors), changes in jobs and income resulting 

from Alternatives A through E are expected to be too small 

to accurately project or detect. See response to comment 

public concern 6.2 and 6.5 for a brief summary of those 

results.

456/80. Costs of Implementation. 6-7 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include an analysis of the lost opportunity 

costs because the alternatives interfere 

with market forces.

Based on analysis provided in the "Supplementary 

Specialist Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan, 

changes in jobs and income resulting from Alternatives A 

through E are expected to be too small to accurately 

project or detect. As a consequence, the alternatives are not 

projected to interfere with market forces, including 

measurable impacts to jobs and income associated the 

economic sectors most affected by motorized vehicle use 

on the BHNF (e.g., retail trade, accommodations and food 

services, and entertainment). These conclusions suggest 

that the alternatives will not have a measurable impact on 

business opportunities. It is recognized that the relative 

6-7 1292
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

487

opportunities for motorized use and non-motorized 

activities may be relatively lower and higher, respectively, 

under Alternative D, however, net changes in jobs and 

income contributed by recreation under Alternatives A 

through E are difficult to predict. See response to 

comments 6.2 and 6.5.

319/54. 456/60. 458/55. 

462/43.

Costs of Implementation. 6-8 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

account for and disclose all revenues and 

costs associated with management of the 

system.

We agree that costs and revenues should be accounted for. 

Costs and revenues for the road system, and those 

anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that additional 

resources would be needed. This and other relevant 

information will be considered in the decision. 

6-8 1293

247/18. Costs of Implementation. 6-9 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze the economic effects of the trail 

system because there could be both 

national and local effects.

The Forest Service recognizes the need to consider 

economic impacts. See response to Public Concern 6.2.

6-9 1294

126/264. Costs of Implementation. 6-10 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include a cost-benefit analysis of the 

impacts on fire management, fuel wood 

harvest, and timber management from 

motorized road and trail closures including 

cumulative impacts.

Proposed travel management actions would not affect fire 

suppression and timber management activities. The Forest 

Service would retain administrative access authority to carry 

out official business including these actions as well as 

contract and permit administration and addressing other 

emergencies. This was explained in the DEIS in Chapter 2, 

in the section Features Shared by All Alternatives, and is 

retained in the FEIS. The Forest intends to continue to 

allow firewood gathering, in designated areas. This 

program would continue independent of any alternative 

that is selected, and recognizes a recommendation by the 

National Forest Advisory Board's Travel Management 

Subcommittee. This recommendation is described in the 

DEIS in Chapter 1, Proposed Action, under NFAB 

Recommendations, and is retained in the FEIS. Since the 

decision on this proposal would have no effect on any of 

these programs the effects are not evaluated. 

6-10 1295

456/66. Costs of Implementation. 6-11 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

Impacts on surface water quality have been addressed in 

the Hydrology Section of the EIS. See response to public 

6-11 1296
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

488

analyze the effects of a motorized system 

near private land.

concerns 6-6 and 6-12 for concerns about property values. 

456/67. 456/68. 578/39. Costs of Implementation. 6-12 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze the potential effect on the value of 

adjacent properties as a result of the 

proposed action.

The Forest Service acknowledges concerns about property 

values, the use of hedonic valuation methods for extracting 

the marginal effect of physical attributes on property 

values, and the existence of bequest and other types of 

values, however, pre-existing hedonic studies are not 

available for the site, population, and effects-specific 

conditions associated with this plan. Time and resources 

are not available to conduct such an analysis, nor is it 

possible to quantify the potential differences in relevant 

physical attributes across the alternatives. As noted in the 

DEIS, additional indicators have been adopted (miles of 

motorized routes within 300 ft of non-NFS lands) to 

provide an index to help characterize the types of physical 

impacts that affect neighboring landowners, include 

potential for noise, dust, and trespass. For a qualitative 

discussion about differences in scenic values, see the 

Scenery section in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. These indicators are considered in combination 

with indicators representing other ecological, social, and 

economic effects when evaluating the relative tradeoffs 

associated with the alternatives. See response to public 

concern 6-5.

6-12 1297

248/1. Costs of Implementation. 6-13 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative C to support the local 

economy.

The Forest Service recognizes the concerns about the 

impact of travel management and motorized vehicle access 

on livelihoods, and has assessed the impact of motorized 

and non-motorized recreational activity (visits) on local 

jobs and labor income as described in the "Supplementary 

Specialist Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. It 

was estimated that non-local recreational visits focusing on 

motorized use contribute 30 jobs annually to the local 

seven-county Black Hills area; these jobs are recognized as 

an important annual contribution to relevant sectors of the 

local economy, however, these jobs are a small percentage 

of the total labor force. Changes in jobs and income 

resulting from Alternatives A through E are therefore 

expected to be too small to accurately project or detect. For 

a summary of those results, see response to public concern 

6-13 1298
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

489

6.2.

091/3. Costs of Implementation. 6-14 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative D because the Fore Service 

cannot afford to maintain a larger system.

Costs of implementation are discussed in the FEIS in 

Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

Implementation capability will be one of many factors 

considered in the decision. 

6-14 1299

162/2. 346/23. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

Costs of Changing the Current Condition 

6-15 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should analyze the economic effects of 

restricting access because the current 

system provides significant economic 

benefits.

The Forest Service recognizes the economic impact of 

hunting and fishing at the state and national levels, as well 

as the importance of access for recreational opportunities, 

and has assessed the impact of motorized, non-motorized, 

and other recreational activity (visits), including hunting 

and fishing, on local jobs and labor income as described in 

the "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan. That analysis focused on the 

magnitude and impact of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation specifically affiliated with the Black Hills NF, 

thereby identifying the impacts relevant to the travel 

management decisions being considered and the area most 

likely to be affected, as opposed to the State of South 

Dakota. It is recognized that fishing is a popular activity, 

accounting for 20% of primary activity visits but is less 

likely to be impacted by travel management decisions. 

Hunting is estimated to account for 8% of primary activity 

visits, contributing 14 full or part-time jobs each year to the 

local area, a relatively small component of total 

employment (18,040 jobs) engaged in the economic sectors 

most affected by recreation in the seven-county area. 

Similar observations are made for motorized and nonmotorized recreation in general; for a summary of the 

results related to recreation and tourism in general, see 

response to public concerns 6-2 and 6-13. Consideration 

for hunting needs is acknowledged in the alternatives 

through various allowances for cross-country travel for the 

purposes of game retrieval.

6-15 1300

012/3. 416/12. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

Costs of Changing the Current Condition 

6-15 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should analyze the economic effects of 

restricting access because limiting 

The Forest Service recognizes the economic impact of 

hunting and fishing at the state and national levels, as well 

as the importance of access for recreational opportunities, 

and has assessed the impact of motorized, non-motorized, 

and other recreational activity (visits), including hunting 

6-15 1301
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

490

motorized access will have detrimental 

effects on tourism.

and fishing, on local jobs and labor income as described in 

the "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan. That analysis focused on the 

magnitude and impact of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation specifically affiliated with the Black Hills NF, 

thereby identifying the impacts relevant to the travel 

management decisions being considered and the area most 

likely to be affected, as opposed to the State of South 

Dakota. It is recognized that fishing is a popular activity, 

accounting for 20% of primary activity visits but is less 

likely to be impacted by travel management decisions. 

Hunting is estimated to account for 8% of primary activity 

visits, contributing 14 full or part-time jobs each year to the 

local area, a relatively small component of total 

employment (18,040 jobs) engaged in the economic sectors 

most affected by recreation in the seven-county area. 

Similar observations are made for motorized and nonmotorized recreation in general; for a summary of the 

results related to recreation and tourism in general, see 

response to public concerns 6-2 and 6-13. Consideration 

for hunting needs is acknowledged in the alternatives 

through various allowances for cross-country travel for the 

purposes of game retrieval.

045/3. 054/3. 510/16. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

Costs of Changing the Current Condition 

6-15 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should analyze the economic effects of 

restricting access because it would 

negatively affect local economies.

As noted in "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan, there are similar numbers of 

motorized and non-motorized trail users based on 

recreational visitor survey results for the Black Hills NF 

(see response to Public Concern 6-27). Participation rates 

also indicate that it is incorrect to state that a very limited 

number of recreationists benefit from non-motorized trails; 

the number of motorized and non-motorized visitors are 

comparable. This report also compares spending by visitors 

associated with a variety of different recreational activities 

(e.g., ranges from $22 per visit for hiking, $36 per visit for 

OHV use, to $48 for hunting for non-local day visitors). 

However, spending does not represent the net benefits 

from these activities, nor is the Forest able to predict 

changes in visits by activity type (motorized or non6-15 1302
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

491

motorized) in order to complete a benefit cost analysis. The 

agency is not aware of evidence indicating that average 

consumer surplus (e.g., net benefits), per visit, is higher for 

OHV users compared to non-motorized users of trails. The 

increased number of route miles required to satisfy the 

needs of motorized users, as suggested by the commenter, 

would imply higher costs for motorized users.

162/2. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

Costs of Changing the Current Condition 

6-15 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should analyze the economic effects of 

restricting access because it would 

negatively affect local businesses.

The analysis of job and labor income impacts is based on 

visitor expenditure profiles that include consideration of 

spending on the various businesses reported by 

recreationists on the Black Hills NF as well as National 

Forests nation-wide - this includes reported spending on 

recreation, entertainment, and sporting goods which also 

includes equipment rental, implying that the impact of 

revenue associated with ATV rentals is being considered in 

the analysis. 

6-15 1303

045/3. 054/3. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

Costs of Changing the Current Condition 

6-15 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should analyze the economic effects of 

restricting access because it would 

negatively affect the economy of Sturgis.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest 

into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

and designate motorized routes. A variety of alternatives 

were analyzed in the DEIS for this purpose. None of the 

alternatives identifies "closing 92.5% of the National 

Forest" as the comment suggests. The alternatives do 

bring the Black Hills National Forest into compliance with 

the Travel Management Rule. The Forest is not able to 

project changes in recreational visits as a result of 

implementation of the various alternatives, and as a 

consequence, is not able to estimate the net benefits of 

gains and losses in recreational opportunities among the 

various recreational opportunities (motorized and nonmotorized). As indicated in the recreation analysis, some 

motorized recreationists may seek other riding locations 

that do not restrict them to designated routes. A 

"Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and Economic 

Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan was written to capture some of these 

economic impacts to communities. That report is 

incorporated by reference in the FEIS and is located in the 

project file. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a 

range of motorized road, trail, and trailhead opportunities 

and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

6-15 1304
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

492

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 motorized access opportunities to the Forest from any 

community located outside the Black Hills National Forest 

boundary is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service 

and outside the scope of this project.

126/107. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

6-16 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the socio-economic issues 

associated with using wildlife corridors to 

restrict motorized access.

The Forest Service recognizes the value of wilderness and 

wildlife, however, monetized valuation and corresponding 

consideration of these values in economic effects analysis is 

not possible. Instead, consideration of these values is 

acknowledged through analysis summarized within the 

Wildlife sections of the Draft EIS. Socio-economic effects 

are disclosed in the DEIS (pages 89-99) and are retained in 

the FEIS. The FS did not use wildlife corridors as a means 

to restrict motorized access and to establish de facto 

wilderness areas. The needs of wildlife related to breeding, 

feeding, sheltering and dispersal may have been a 

consideration in the proposed status of motorized routes 

identified across the range of alternatives. 

6-16 1305

126/33. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

6-17 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include a socio-economic analysis 

for each proposed motorized route 

closure.

The Forest Service is not responsible for conducting a 

socio-economic analysis for each route, nor is it possible to 

complete such an analysis given the difficulties with 

projecting changes in conditions and recreational visits at 

that level of detail. It is difficult even to predict and 

quantify changes in recreational visits and corresponding 

impacts at the National Forest level. For these reasons we 

believe the analysis is more appropriately conducted on the 

effects of each alternative as a whole. 

6-17 1306

126/118. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

6-18 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should use accurate data when analyzing 

economic impacts of closing motorized 

routes.

Economic impacts associated each alternative are expected 

to vary, however this level of variation is estimated to be 

too small to accurately project or detect (see response to 

Public concern 6-2). The regional model for this analysis 

uses the 2007 IMPLAN data for the seven-county Black 

Hills area. The data are compliant with the Data Quality 

Act (Section 515 of Public Law 106-554). IMPLAN 

multipliers are derived from a specific set of cross-sectional 

data regarding employment, output, and expenditures from 

a single point in time (i.e., year). National Visitor Use 

6-18 1307
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

493

Monitoring (NVUM) data used to estimate job and income 

contributions associated with Black Hills recreational visits 

are also compliant with the Data Quality Act.

126/117. 502/18. 513/12. Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 

6-19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should evaluate the economic impact, 

including the cumulative impact, of 

reducing available motorized recreation

opportunities because the impacts to 

motorized recreationists are significant.

The Forest does not predict that a complete loss of 

recreational opportunities will occur, as demonstrated by 

the designated route system indicators in Chapter 2 of the 

Draft EIS. The value of routes and access on the Black 

Hills NF is indeed a function, in part, of the availability of 

substitute sites, and this is recognized qualitatively in the 

recreation section of the Draft EIS where it states that new 

motor vehicle restrictions on other lands (e.g., Thunder 

Basin, Buffalo Gap) may displace visitors and further 

concentrate use in permitted areas, thereby creating 

potential for increased resource impacts and management 

concerns. However, information noted in the 

"Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and Economic 

Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan indicates that significant numbers of 

recreational participants on National Forests as well as 

ORV users in Wyoming reported that they would seek out 

other locations in the event of closures or restrictions, 

suggesting that those users are aware of the availability of 

substitute sites that they find acceptable, thereby offsetting 

some potential cumulative effects. The Forest is not able to 

project changes in recreational visits as a result of 

implementation of the various alternatives, and as a 

consequence, is not able to estimate the net benefits of 

gains and losses in recreational opportunities among the 

various recreational opportunities (motorized and nonmotorized). Describing the potential effects of changing 

fuel prices is correspondingly not possible beyond noting 

that changes are expected to have a broad effect on 

recreational visits to all areas, as well as have an effect on 

rates of participation among activities involving different 

fuel requirements. See also response to Public Concern 6-2.

6-19 1308

084/2. 126/168. 463/1. 494/13. 

497/19. 512/14. 611/13.

Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-20 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should consider the economic impact of 

ATV riding.

Spending by recreational visitors to the Black Hills NF is 

acknowledged in the economic impact analysis and the 

resulting estimates of jobs and labor income contributed by 

motorized and non-motorized activities. See response to 

Public concern 6-15.

6-20 1309
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

494

477/5. 614/5. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-21 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge the significant 

contribution motorized recreation makes 

to the local economy.

The Forest Service recognizes the importance of motorized 

vehicle recreation and events in the Black Hills area and has 

analyzed and presented the contribution of those activities 

on the employment and labor income within the sevencounty Black Hills area . For a summary of the analysis 

results and justification of conclusions regarding economic 

impacts associated with the plan alternatives, see response 

to public concern 6-2, 6-13, and 6-15. The report by the 

Arizona State Parks is acknowledged; the analysis 

completed for the Black Hills applies a well documented 

modeling system, modeling inputs are compliance with the 

Data Quality Act (see response to public concern 6-18), 

and is similar to the methods adopted by the Wyoming 

Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources in their 

economic assessment of off-road vehicle use (2006).

6-21 1310

126/166. 126/167. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-22 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include a cost-benefit analysis of 

motorized versus non-motorized trail use 

to ensure that sufficient trails are allocated 

for motorized use.

As noted in "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan, there are similar numbers of 

motorized and non-motorized trail users based on 

recreational visitor survey results for the Black Hills NF 

(see response to Public Concern 6-27). Participation rates 

also indicate that it is incorrect to state that a very limited 

number of recreationists benefit from non-motorized trails; 

the number of motorized and non-motorized visitors are 

comparable. This report also compares spending by visitors 

associated with a variety of different recreational activities 

(e.g., ranges from $22 per visit for hiking, $36 per visit for 

OHV use, to $48 for hunting for non-local day visitors). 

However, spending does not represent the net benefits 

from these activities, nor is the Forest able to predict 

changes in visits by activity type (motorized or nonmotorized) in order to complete a benefit cost analysis. The 

agency is not aware of evidence indicating that average 

consumer surplus (e.g., net benefits), per visit, is higher for 

OHV users compared to non-motorized users of trails. The 

increased number of route miles required to satisfy the 

needs of motorized users, as suggested by the commenter, 

would imply higher costs for motorized users.

6-22 1311

456/20. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-23 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The economic impact analysis completed for the Black 

Hills NF Travel Management Plan incorporates average 

6-23 1312
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

495

should acknowledge that Roadless Areas 

provide significant economic benefits as a 

result of the non-motorized recreation 

opportunities they provide.

visitor spending per day, by activity type, by type of visit 

(local versus non-local) based on National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) data. Average visitor spending for a 

non-local day visit ranges from $22 to $68, depending on 

the type of activity.

578/37. 586/3. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-24 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include analysis of the tourism 

impacts from not providing adequate nonmotorized recreation.

JT & EF: The importance of the tourism industry is 

demonstrated in the "Supplementary Specialist Report -

Social and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan where it is noted that 7.4% 

of jobs in the local 7-county Black Hills area are associated 

with industries closely affiliated with travel and tourism. 

Lawrence and Custer counties are also shown to rank in the 

top 3% and 6% of all counties in the country in relation to 

travel and tourism employment. The supplementary report 

indicates that the Black Hills NF may see increases in 

visitors associated with non-motorized activities if they 

perceive that conditions contributing to the quality of their 

experience improve. The supplementary report notes that 

the direction of any net changes in total visits is difficult to 

predict. 

6-24 1313

126/150. 126/151. 126/152. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-25 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include a social and economic 

analysis for all levels of forest planning 

and management to be consistent with 

Federal Law and the intent of Congress.

An assessment of economic and social effects has been 

completed, including an impact analysis of jobs and income 

and is documented in "Supplementary Specialist Report -

Social and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. MUSYA and NFMA do 

not require that National Forests be 'driving forces' in 

sustaining state and local communities.

6-25 1314

254/6. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-26 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should evaluate the economic impact of 

road and trail proliferation on tourism 

because scenic quality is a large part of the 

appeal of the Black Hills.

The importance of the tourism industry is demonstrated in 

the "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan where it is noted that 7.4% of 

jobs in the local 7-county Black Hills area are associated 

with industries closely affiliated with travel and tourism. 

Lawrence and Custer counties are also shown to rank in the 

top 3% and 6% of all counties in the country in relation to 

travel and tourism employment.

6-26 1315

126/165. Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-27 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include a thorough analysis of the 

An assessment of economic and social effects has been 

completed, including an impact analysis of jobs and income 

and is documented in "Supplementary Specialist Report -

6-27 1316
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

496

economic issues including cumulative 

impacts because recent studies show that 

economic impacts of motorized recreation 

are routinely underestimated.

Social and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. MUSYA and NFMA do 

not require that National Forests be 'driving forces' in 

sustaining state and local communities. See response to 

Public Concerns 6-2 and 6-5 for additional details. See 

response to Public Concern 6-19 regarding cumulative 

impacts. The Forest Service disagrees that there are 

necessarily more motorized recreationists on the Black 

Hills NF. The Supplementary Specialist report notes that 

3% of visitors listed OHV use as the primary purpose of 

their visit with 10% of visitors indicating that they 

participated in OHV use. In contrast, 12% of visitors listed 

hiking as the primary purpose of their visit with 30% 

participating in hiking. Overall, 17.8% of visitors listed 

motorized activities as their primary purpose (includes 

driving for pleasure) compared to 17.4% listing nonmotorized activities as their primary purpose. Economic 

impact analysis is based in part on expenditure profiles 

reported by BHNF visitors and the extent to which 

spending was made on gasoline, oil, and equipment rentals 

is reflected in impact results. Economic impacts (jobs and 

income) are based on spending by non-local visitors, and it 

cannot be assumed that non-local visitor decisions to 

purchase OHVs or make other large OHV capital 

investments are based solely or substantially on BHNF 

visits. It would also be difficult to determine that a 

substantial portion of OHV purchases by non-locals occur 

within the 7-county area. Because OHV equipment is likely 

to be manufactured or produced outside of the seven 

county Black Hills area, only the fraction of an OHV 

purchase attributable to the retail margin would contribute 

to local jobs and income. For these reasons, it is not 

reasonable to include OHV purchases in estimates of 

economic impacts. Mitigations and design criteria are 

included in the DEIS, Chapter 3 and Appendix B.

456/69. Economic Value of Preservation. 6-28 

Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that preserving 

wildlands has a positive impact on 

economic growth.

Designation of wilderness is not within the scope of this 

action. The extent to which wilderness-like characteristics 

related to recreational experience or opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) and scenic values are discussed in the recreation and 

scenery sections in the Draft EIS. The intent of the Travel 

6-28 1317
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

497

Management Planning Rule and subsequent Travel 

Management plans is in part to mitigate the adverse impacts 

of unmanaged motorized use, including damages (and 

costs) to water resources and transportation. The relative 

effects of the active management alternatives on related 

resources and program costs are discussed in the physical 

(water) and roads/transportation sections within the Draft 

EIS.

583/1. Environmental Justice. 6-29 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

include reservation communities in the 

environmental justice analysis because 

actions on the BHNF affect Tribes.

The “Supplementary Specialist Report – Social and 

Economic Effects” for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan recognizes that there are people 

outside the seven-county area that are interested in 

management of the Black Hills NF, especially Tribes who 

have historically used the area. The Forest has completed 

formal government-to-government consultation for this 

project with 16 Tribes located in five states that have 

expressed traditional cultural, spiritual, and geographic ties 

to the Black Hills.

6-29 1318

126/157. Social Issues. 6-30 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the social 

impacts to be consistent with the Social 

Impact Analysis and Environmental 

Justice regulations.

The Black Hills NF travel management plan applies to 

forest land in South Dakota and Wyoming and does not 

affect lands in Montana. Social effects are considered in the 

Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and Economic 

Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan by considering the preference for and 

potential impacts to people or groups who share one or 

more sets of values, attitudes, and beliefs. This analysis 

identified nine interest categories to capture those values, 

etc. Alternatives were ranked, qualitatively, with respect to 

each interest category to demonstrate potential for social 

effects. The results are presented in the report noted above. 

Environmental Justice is assessed in the report noted 

above; based on a review of poverty and minority 

population data, by county, it was determined that the 

study area does contain minority or low income 

populations that coincide with CEQ criteria for 

Environmental Justice (EO 12898) with the exception of 

slightly higher percentages of poverty in Fall River and 

Lawrence counties. In addition, there is no evidence to 

suggest that the proposed action will have a 

disproportionate adverse effect on low-income or minority 

6-30 1319
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

498

populations.

126/159. Social Issues. 6-31 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should evaluate the 

conditions that contribute to learned 

helplessness in their analysis of social 

impacts.

The Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan presents and summarized the 

results of social effects analysis, including consideration of 

demographics associated with the seven-county study area, 

the corresponding values and interest categories associated 

with motorized versus non-motorized users, environmental 

justice (see response to Public Concern 6-30), and civil 

rights (see response to Public Concern 6-xxx). The 

commenter alleges that motorized recreationists are 

affected by learned helplessness and requests an evaluation 

of conditions contributing to this state. This analysis is 

beyond the scope of this project. 

6-31 1320

126/149. Social Issues. 6-32 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reassess the use of 

“high social, cultural or economic value” 

when establishing desired species levels.

The Forest Service recognizes the variety of values held for 

forest resources and has considered the impacts of meeting 

the purpose and need of travel management plan decisions 

on the various resources as described in the Draft EIS. The 

potential effects of the alternatives are measured using a 

variety of qualitative and quantitative indicators. The final 

decision is based on the tradeoffs among the alternatives in 

meeting the goals listed under the 'purpose and need' as 

well as consideration of the impacts associated with 

significant issues identified through the public involvement 

process. Impacts associated with significant issues are 

evaluated using the indicators listed in Chapter one of the 

Draft EIS. The measures of 'value' regarding resource 

impacts and not measured monetarily; the indicators for 

these values are instead presented in the summary of 

comparisons within Chapter 2 of the DEIS. 

6-32 1321

585/2. Gateway Communities. 6-33 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide a definition of gateway 

community.

As referred to in the Travel Management Rule (page 

68280), „„Gateway communities‟‟ is a broad term 

encompassing county and local governments in the vicinity 

of a National Forest. A GIS layer for USA cities was 

utilized to identify gateway communities. These cities 

provide some service; gas, motels, food, etc, to any visitor 

of the National Forest. If a community was not identified 

on the GIS layer, it was not considered as a gateway 

community in the DEIS or FEIS. 

6-33 1322
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

499

535/9. 585/3. 609/21. Gateway Communities. 6-34 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support the assertion that being a gateway 

community is an economic benefit 

because the gain to one user group is a 

loss to another.

Black Hills NF recreational visitor numbers and 

participation rates, according to type of trip and type of 

activity, including motorized, non-motorized, and other 

activities, are documented in "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan. Included in the 

non-motorized and "other" activity categories are hiking, 

cross-country skiing, viewing wildlife, and primitive 

camping, as well as other non-motorized activities. While 

the current number of visitors, by activity, can be 

described, the Forest is unable to project changes in visits, 

in total or by activity type, under the action Alternatives (A 

through E). It is noted that there may be some decrease in 

motorized visits to the Black Hills as a consequence of 

constraints on travel under active management alternatives 

that affect local employment in some sectors, and these 

affects may be somewhat more pronounced under 

Alternatives D and E. However, potential job losses may be 

offset, in part, by (1) some portion of displaced motorized 

users seeking substitute sites within the area, and (2) 

increases in visitors associated with non-motorized 

activities as conditions contributing to the quality of their 

experience improves. The direction of any net changes in 

jobs and income contributed by recreation under 

Alternatives A through E is therefore difficult to predict.

6-34 1323

233/5. 460/13. Gateway Communities. 6-35 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

support Gateway Communities to provide 

access to communities and recreationalists.

No community was eliminated from the proposed trail 

system as the comment suggests. However, many 

communities lie on the outside of the National Forest 

boundary or are surrounded by private property and are 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to propose 

any trail system to connect to the National Forest. 

Community leaders were invited to participate in the 

development of these proposed alternatives to assist with 

connectivity of the trail system. For communities wishing 

more access from their towns to the proposed trail system 

on National Forest properties, it is their responsibility to 

identify those routes within their city limits. NH 

(Hill also provided a response but suggested that Jeanette 

can probably add something more specific): The DEIS and 

FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized road, 

6-35 1324
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

500

trail, and trailhead opportunities and disclosed effects in 

Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities and access 

within the Black Hills National Forest are in Alternatives A, 

B, and C. The number of trailheads located within 3 miles 

of a gateway community was used as a measurement 

indicator to compare alternatives. Measurement indicators 

are disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS in Chapter 2, 

comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives. 

Development of motorized access opportunities to the 

Forest from any community located outside the Black Hills 

National Forest boundary is outside the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service and outside the scope of this project. The 

purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest into 

compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and 

designate motorized routes administered by the Black Hills 

National Forest. 

142/6. 215/9. 216/11. 217/9. 

217/18. 218/9. 219/9. 220/9. 

221/19. 222/9. 222/16. 223/9. 

224/9. 224/13. 225/9. 225/13. 

226/9. 227/9. 228/9. 229/9. 

229/14. 230/9. 230/16. 231/9. 

237/9. 239/9. 247/9. 247/19. 

260/9. 261/9. 262/9. 294/9. 

295/9. 296/9. 297/9. 298/9. 

300/9. 301/9. 302/9. 303/9. 

311/9. 322/9. 337/9. 338/9. 

351/9. 366/9. 378/9. 378/15. 

379/9. 380/9. 382/9. 384/9. 

385/9. 386/9. 387/9. 388/9. 

389/9. 391/9. 392/9. 393/9. 

395/9. 396/9. 397/9. 407/9. 

408/9. 416/9. 417/9. 421/9. 

425/9. 429/9. 430/9. 450/9. 

460/13. 483/9. 484/9. 485/9. 

494/9. 495/9. 495/14. 496/9. 

497/9. 498/9. 499/9. 500/9. 

501/9. 501/16. 502/9. 503/9. 

504/9. 505/9. 506/9. 507/9. 

508/9. 509/9. 510/9. 511/9. 

Gateway Communities. 6-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that local communities are 

connected to the trail system to provide 

recreation opportunities for residents and 

services for recreationalists and to support 

local economies.

No community was eliminated from the proposed trail 

system as the comment suggests. However, many 

communities lie on the outside of the National Forest 

boundary or are surrounded by private property and are 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to propose 

any trail system to connect to the National Forest. 

Community leaders were invited to participate in the 

development of these proposed alternatives to assist with 

connectivity of the trail system. For communities wishing 

more access from their towns to the proposed trail system 

on National Forest properties, it is their responsibility to 

identify those routes within their city limits. 

6-36 1325
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

501

511/15. 512/2. 513/9. 514/9. 

515/9. 521/9. 530/9. 531/9. 

532/9. 533/9. 535/9. 538/9. 

561/9. 562/9. 577/9. 593/9. 

603/9. 604/9. 605/9. 606/9. 

609/9. 609/21. 

001/1 I live in Woodland Hills Black Hawk SD, 

end of Peaceful Pines Rd. about 2 miles 

west of proposed trailhead) and the Forest 

Service road runs right behind the house. 

I‟m in favor of proposal “B” but 

wondering how you will stop 

unauthorized vehicles i.e., 4 wheelers and 

motorcycles from turning south/south 

east after leaving the trailhead onto the 

dead end trail/road that heads toward 

Rolling Hills? This road is proposed to be 

and is currently open for licensed only 

vehicles.

Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

Resources.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1326

001/2 The area surrounding the trailhead [2 

miles east of the end of Peaceful Pine Rd. 

near Woodland Hills, Black Hawk, SD] is 

designated as a wildlife wintering area and 

is currently closed from 15 Dec - 15 May. 

Do you plan on changing that? I hope not, 

we the residents of Woodland Hills and 

quite a few others enjoy hiking this area in 

the off-season without all the noise/dust 

of ATVers.

FSR 126 would remain closed seasonally in Alternatives C 

and E, and would be closed yearlong in Alternative D.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1327

003/1 I live near Spearfish, SD and ride my 

mountain bike and cross country ski in 

and around the Big Hill area. My favorite 

ride is on Tinton Trail; a beautiful 

nationally famous single-track gem, the 

likes of which are found only rarely across 

the USA, let alone the Black Hills. The 

trail has been the host to numerous 

foreign and national riders. Last summer I 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

preserving this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1328
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

502

saw another mountain biker on the trail 

nearly every single day I rode. I ride close 

to 100 days in the summer months. My 

best guess is the trail, given non-wintery or 

rainy weather, sees 20-30 riders per day. 

Its maturity and lay-out is why Tinton 

Trail was featured three, if not four, times 

in national mountain biking magazines last 

year. Bike magazines labeled it the best 

mountain bike trail in the entire Midwest. 

Bike Magazine is the number one 

mountain biking magazine published. 

Spearfish has two bicycle retailers. Rapid 

City has four. Call any one of those shops 

to see if I‟m telling you fibs. Preserving 

this trail will require protection from 

dangerous logging practices and making it 

a non-motorized trail. Preserving the trail 

will help preserve the biking businesses 

that have sprung up in Spearfish. There 

aren‟t any shops in Sturgis, Deadwood, 

Custer, Keystone or Hill City to my 

knowledge. Tinton Trail is why we have 

two bike shops in Spearfish.

003/2 At this time, it sounds like Tinton Trail 

will be logged. I understand your duty to 

the forest and its health and I am also a 

proponent of forest and nature‟s health. In 

fact, I ride a mountain bike or run the 

trails for the sense of closeness with 

nature. I‟m writing today not to decry 

foresting but to ask you to consider 

carefully logging‟s impact on the forest 

experience around Spearfish and 

specifically Tinton Trail. I understand that 

Tinton Trail is neither a recognized nor 

marked trail. It has however seen more 

use than all of the trails south of Savoy 

combined. It is used because it is 

accessible to the Spearfish public and 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

preserving this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1329
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

503

travelers staying in Spearfish. Whenever I 

ride Little Spearfish trails it‟s alone; I rarely 

see tracks or

evidence of use. Whereas, I see bird 

watchers, painters, runners, hikers, dog 

walkers and bikers on the Tinton Trail 

every time I use it. I love sharing that 

beautiful trail. I believe it is the star of 

trails in the Black Hills because of its 

accessibility, its grade and its winding track 

which is much more erosion resistant than 

similar trails in the Black Hills (specifically, 

the Centennial Trail). Please preserve this 

trail. It means a great deal to many here in 

town.

003/3 I understand you may not have the money 

to make it [Tinton Trail] a recognized trail. 

Perry Jewitt has been taking good care of 

your trail on Crow Peak. I know that 

between Perry‟s Ridge Riders Club and 

our Queen City Ramblers cycling club we 

could take care of Tinton for you. I would 

even go so far as to say we could raise 

$10,000 in the next year, guaranteed, for 

this same purpose. Tinton is so well built 

it would take very little time and money to 

preserve. In the spring, clearing trees and 

the corridor is all that is needed. The trail 

must be preserved from trail damaging 

logging practices for starters and from 

motorized use in order

for it to remain inexpensive to maintain. I 

ask that you please consider protecting 

Tinton Trail from the logging which I 

have heard will soon begin and from 

future motorized use.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1330

003/4 I understand you are proposing a fourwheeler/motorized use area to the west of 

Tinton Trail. If the motorized users stayed 

in their designated area that would be 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1331
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

504

great. Unfortunately, some users see 

Tinton‟s winding single track and go 

exploring. In fact, three kids on 

motorcycles rode and destroyed parts of 

Tinton Trail last summer. It seems like 

cyclists are whining but those corners are 

very fragile and it has taken Tinton Trail 

about fifteen years to come to full 

maturity. Please consider preserving 

Tinton Trail from motorized use.

beyond the scope of this project.

007/1 RE: Parcel number 07000-00302-250-20 

T3, R2, Track A, HES 71, Lawrence 

County. The access trail (road) going from 

FS Road 206, Lawrence County, to access 

our property is the only access road we 

have to our property. That trail needs to 

be left as is and should not be gated. The 

Harvey family cemetery, which was 

established in the early 1900‟s, resides on 

this property and is still maintained by the 

family. The cemetery is certified with 

South Dakota Historical Cemetery Society, 

and the property is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. We plead that 

the trail will continue to allow us access to 

the family cemetery and our property. 

Need to know more specifically which road accesses the 

Harvey Ranch. If it is a currently open system then is was 

analyzed in Alt B-E to remain open. If this is a non-system 

road then this road will need to be dealt with as an 

easement issue by the Northern Hills Ranger District to 

allow access to private property across NFS lands.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1332

010/4 My only suggestion is that somehow the 

Forest Service gain public access to the 

lower end of the road into Thompson 

Canyon from the Beaver Creek road. The 

first one quarter mile or less of the 

Thompson Canyon road is owned by a 

family named Vore. The Vores are very 

stingy with access to the Thompson 

Canyon road. I truly think they could be 

traded out of an access that would benefit 

all of the users to the Limestone trail 

system.

Thompson Canyon access. Although Forest Service road 

# 816 provides access into Thompson Canyon, it must 

cross other ownership, and therefore cannot be designated 

as a trail. The Forest Service does not have the authority to 

designate a trail that crosses or enters other private 

ownership. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1333

014/1 I spend three months every summer at An east-west mixed use route off Calumet Road was Route 1334
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

505

Blue Wing Resort by Sheridan Lake. I 

have 2 ATVs which are licensed for public 

roads. Calumet Road is the main and only 

road leading in or out of there. There are 

no trails that go anywhere off of Calumet 

Road. I would like to see an east west trail 

somewhere off of Calumet Road that 

connected with a trail system somewhere. 

The way it is I (and others) have to drive 

several miles on public roads to get to 

other trails. Also it would be nice to have 

connecting trails that went between towns. 

For example a person could go on a 30 or 

50 mile ride between two towns.

analyzed in Alternative C. There are few opportunities for 

additional trails in this area due to private property. The 

area is also bounded by the Sheridan Lake Concentrated 

Public Use Area, Highway 16, and Highway 385. 

Alternative C addresses connecting communities to the 

extent possible, but opportunities are limited due to private 

property and other jurisdictions.

Specific 

Comment

016/1 I am writing this in response to proposed 

TMP closure of forest road 150/1E in 

Rapid City, SD. I use this road to access 

Victoria Canyon, which is inaccessible on 

the North side due to private property. I 

truly enjoy my time spent here and the 

idea that I will no longer be able to access 

and therefore spend time in this area is of 

great concern to me. I pride myself on 

taking stewardship of our shared land and 

hope I will be able to continue to visit this 

area with my daughter and husband.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1335

016/2 I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close 

FS Road 150/1E]. Victoria Canyon has 

been used since the middle 1980‟s for 

roped rock climbing and bouldering.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1336

016/3 I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

Route 

Specific 

1337
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

506

FS Road 150/1E]. Due to the location of 

Victoria Canyon, it will be land locked if 

150/1E is closed. The access from the 

Dark Canyon side of Victoria Canyon is all 

private and 150/1E is the only other 

access by motorized travel. Due to the 

Victoria Lake Road Closure that was 

established in the past years, all other 

roads that could access Victoria Canyon 

are already closed.

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Comment

016/4 I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close 

FS Road 150/1E]. All types of recreation 

that take place in Victoria Canyon (hiking, 

climbing, bouldering, kayaking) are low 

impact and non-motorized.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1338

016/5 I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close 

FS Road 150/1E]. Victoria Canyon is one 

of the closest rock climbing areas to Rapid 

City. Falling Rock climbing area takes a lot 

of impact due to its close location to 

Rapid City. Keeping road 150/1E open 

will help disperse recreational impact on 

one area.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1339

018/1 I am writing this letter in overall support 

of the USFS Travel Management Plan 

(TMP) for the Black Hills National Forest. 

The one item I disagree with in the TMP 

proposal is that USDA-FS Road 150/1E 

is slated to be closed. Road 150/1E 

provides the only public access to Victoria 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1340
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

507

Canyon (VC) a popular rock climbing and 

hiking area close to Rapid City. Victoria 

Canyon is approximately one mile south 

west of Rapid City. VC is home to a 

number of unique existing rock climbing 

routes on some of the steepest limestone 

in the Black Hills. As a concerned rock 

climber and resident of the Black Hills, I 

am voicing my support for USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E to be left open for vehicle 

access within the mandates of the normal 

seasonal closures currently in existence.

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

018/2 The following reason is why I believe 

USDA-FS Road 150/1E needs to remain 

open to public access for automobiles and 

pickups: To my knowledge the Victoria 

Canyon area has been used since the early 

1970‟s for both technical rock climbing 

and bouldering.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1341

018/3 The following reason is why I believe 

USDA-FS Road 150/1E needs to remain 

open to public access for automobiles and 

pickups: Victoria Canyon will be land 

locked if USDA-FS Road 150/1E is 

closed. The other access is from the Dark 

Canyon Road one mile west of Rapid City 

and is land locked due to private property.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1342

018/4 The following reason is why I believe 

USDA-FS Road 150/1E needs to remain 

open to public access for automobiles and 

pickups: USDA-FS Road 150/1E is 

currently the only other access by 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1343
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

508

motorized travel. A negative artifact of the 

existing Victoria Lake Road Closure is that 

all other roads that access Victoria Canyon 

are already closed due to that mandate.

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

018/5 The following reason is why I believe 

USDA-FS Road 150/1E needs to remain 

open to public access for automobiles and 

pickups: If USDA-FS Road 150/1E is 

closed, a quick 1/4 mile hike will become 

an involved four mile hike. The proposed 

closure of USDA-FS Road 150/1E will 

create a convenience hardship for Rapid 

City‟s time impoverished rock climbers 

looking for a quick after work or an early 

morning outing close to home.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1344

018/6 The following reason is why I believe 

USDA-FS Road 150/1E needs to remain 

open to public access for automobiles and 

pickups: The recreation opportunities in 

Victoria Canyon include bouldering, rock 

climbing, geo-caching, hiking, kayaking 

and mountain biking which are low 

impact, non-motorized, non-consumptive 

activities.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1345

018/7 Victoria Canyon provides the closest 

pristine rock climbing area to Rapid City. 

Nearby is the Falling Rock climbing area, 

which takes a lot of impact due to its close 

location to Rapid City. Keeping road 

150/1E open will promote dispersed 

recreational opportunities for the Rapid 

City rock climbing community.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1346
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

509

019/1 I use the road 150/1E with my car to 

access the rock climbing in Victoria 

Canyon. Without this road it is almost 

impossible to access this canyon. Private 

property blocks the Dark Canyon access 

and the walk would be too far if the 

150/1E is closed. I drive a normal car and 

do not use this road for any other use than 

to hike and climb in the Victoria Canyon. 

I would recommend keeping this road 

open to licensed vehicles. 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1347

020/1 I am opposed to the closure of Forest 

Service Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD 

for the following reason: Forest Service 

150/1E is the only remaining public 

access to Victoria Canyon. The access 

from the Dark Canyon side of Victoria 

Canyon is private with no public access.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1348

020/2 I am opposed to the closure of Forest 

Service Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD 

for the following reason: Victoria Canyon 

has been used since the middle 1980‟s for 

roped rock climbing and bouldering. 

Victoria Canyon is an established climbing 

destination in the Black Hills and has a 

long history of use.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1349

020/3 I am opposed to the closure of Forest 

Service Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD 

for the following reason: Victoria Canyon 

has been used since the middle 1980‟s for 

roped rock climbing and bouldering. 

Victoria Canyon is an established climbing 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1350
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

510

destination in the Black Hills and has a 

long history of use.

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

022/1 I would like to comment on the Travel 

Management Plan Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS). More 

specifically, I would like to state my 

support for keeping open road 150/1E. 

This road accesses Victoria Canyon which 

is a key rock climbing area. I live in 

Minnesota, but spend a lot of time in the 

Black Hills area. The Victoria Canyon 

climbing area is an important resource for 

the climbing community and its continued 

access is needed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1351

024/2 I would like to comment on the Travel 

Management Plan Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS). More 

specifically, I would like to state my 

support for keeping open road 150/1E. 

This road accesses Victoria Canyon which 

is a key rock climbing area. I live in 

Minnesota, but spend a lot of time in the 

Black Hills area. The Victoria Canyon 

climbing area is an important resource for 

the climbing community and its continued 

access is needed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1352

024/3 [From ATT 1] In my answers to your 

questionnaire I referred to a need for 

“Quiet Zones” where motorized travel 

should be restricted. Attached is a map of 

one such area which users of the Eagle 

Cliff Trails Area propose [ATT 2]. The 

area encompassed is bounded on the east 

by portions of the Hannah Road and 

Forest Road 209. On the west it is 

bounded by the upper portion of Little 

FSR 210 Can't locate this road on NH maps. Not sure 

which one the respondent is referring to. Analyzing quiet 

zones is outside the scope of this document. The roads 

along FSR209 were analyzed in various capacities from 

road open to all to trail less then 50 inches. Since it is 

unclear which four gates the respondent refers to this reply 

cannot be more specific. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1353
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

511

Spearfish Creek. On the north of it is all 

of Forest Road 733. Needless to say, 

perhaps, travel on the Hannah Road, F.R. 

209, F.R. 134, F.R. 733, the Hannah Road 

and U.S. Highway 85 would not be 

affected by this proposal. Forest Road 232 

is already blocked south of this area, but 

travel should not be allowed on Forest 

Road 210 which is in bad shape and goes 

through a spring. It would be stipulated 

that motorized travel in this area is 

prohibited at all times unless required for 

maintenance or for logging. You will 

probably notice that a large portion of this 

area is the already designated Eagle Cliff 

Trails Area where there already is a travel 

restriction. Along Forest Road 209 there 

are four appropriately located Forest 

Service Gates which can be kept closed. It 

should also be pointed out that there is no 

conflict here with designated or heavily 

used snowmobile trails. Although there 

has been some encroachment and damage 

from ATVs in the area it has not been a 

heavy use area for such users. The area 

also includes some rare and endangered 

plants and is a substantial and important 

portion of the Spearfish Creek Watershed 

which has already been designated Special, 

Exceptional, Critical or Unique by the 

State of South Dakota.

024/5 [From ATT 3] RE: Proposed Quiet Zone 

Stipulations: 1. The Designated “Quiet 

Zone” would be as marked on the 

attached map [ATT 4]. 2. Travel on Forest 

Road 134, U.S. 14A, U.S. 85 and Hannah 

Road would remain open to automobile 

and truck traffic. 3. Active timber sale 

operations would be exempted. 4. Within 

the designated area from December 1 to 

Analyzing Quit Zones and snowmobile trails is outside the 

scope of this project. Speculation about where ATV's may 

go is beyond the scope of this document. Once a decision 

is made motorized vehicles will be expected to stay on the 

designated routes. FSR232.2 C that goes by Merow Spring 

was analyzed in Alt B and E as open to highway legal 

vehicles and in Alt C and D as road open to all. FSR 

209.3D Clayton Draw was analyzed as a seasonal road open 

to all. Any decision about selected routes will be 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1354
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

512

May 1 no motorized vehicles may be used 

except for emergency or necessary 

maintenance activities. 5. From May 1 to 

December 1 motorized vehicles are 

allowed but must stay on designated roads. 

Justification: The serenity and beauty of 

this area, particularly in the winter, not 

only for residents of the area but for many 

winter users and visitors is substantially 

compromised by the noise, air pollution 

and visual ugliness resulting particularly 

from the presence of snowmobiles. In the 

summer there is a lesser but similar 

problem due to the presence of all terrain 

vehicles. In that it is known that heavy use 

of an area by snowmobiles and ATVs has 

the affect of driving out other users we 

think it is in the interest of multiple use to 

have some areas where users may enjoy 

the tranquility and beauty of an 

untrammeled landscape. Areas along 

Highway 85 and up Clayton Draw have a 

live stream which is a source for the Lead-

Deadwood water supply. Snowmobiles 

now go through this water and could 

compromise this resource. Also the trail 

up Merow Springs entails crossing a live 

spring for vehicles, which is undesirable 

for both the spring and the vehicles. The 

area encompassed by this proposal 

compromises a large portion of one of the 

most valuable high quality watersheds in 

the Black Hills. Protecting this resource 

should be a top priority for the Forest 

Service. It also is an area that includes a 

growing number of elk. The proposed area 

encroaches upon no official or heavily 

used snowmobile trails, nor does it 

prevent four-wheel-drive or ATV use in 

the summer.

documented in the Record of Decision.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

513

031/1 I am writing in regards to the proposed 

closure of Forest Service Road 150/1E 

near Rapid City, SD. This is an easily 

accessible area for many of the [Black] 

Hill‟s rock climbers, the closer of this road 

would hamper some of the best people 

using the hills from their past time. Rock 

Climbers are on a whole about the best 

people to use a natural resource like the 

Victoria Canyon area. The roads are very 

rarely distressed. The beauty of using 

something so close to us like the [Black] 

Hills is worth so much to people. I am a 

logger in Spearfish and strongly believe 

that the [Black] Hills are very intelligently 

managed, unlike some parts of the Big 

Horns where I‟m originally from. 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1355

032/1 I am writing this in support of keeping 

NFS road 150/1E open for public access 

to Victoria Canyon. As a Black Hills 

resident and avid rock climber I feel the 

need to show my support of keeping 

150/1E open.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1356

032/2 Reason for keeping 150/1E open: Victoria 

Canyon is about 1 mile SW of Rapid City. 

VC is home to 40+ world class limestone 

rock climbing routes and many high 

quality boulders for bouldering. VC is also 

a very popular hiking area for many Black 

Hills residents.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1357
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

514

032/3 Reason for keeping 150/1E open: VC 

[Victoria Canyon] will be land locked from 

public access if 150/1E is closed. The only 

other access is private via Dark Canyon.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1358

032/4 Reason for keeping 150/1E open: Road 

150/1E allows access for people with 

children to the VC [Victoria Canyon]. I 

have a 2.5 yo [year old] daughter who has 

taken a liking to rock climbing. The area at 

the bottom of VC where the climbing 

originates is very child friendly. All other 

limestone climbing areas in the BH [Black 

Hills] are on steep slopes that do allow for 

children to have a safe and enjoyable 

outdoor experience.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1359

032/5 Reason for keeping 150/1E open: Access 

to VC [Victoria Canyon] will help with 

dispersed recreation. Falling Rock gets a 

fair amount of travel due to the proximity 

to RC [Rapid City], keeping the VC access 

open will help minimize that impact.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1360

032/6 Road 150/1E has been equipped with 

rubber water bars. With those in place 

impact from motorized travel will be 

minimized.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1361
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

515

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

032/7 Reason for keeping 150/1E open: VC 

[Victoria Canyon] is used by many 

different user groups: Geo-caching, hiking, 

kayaking in wet seasons, mountain biking, 

climbing, bouldering etc.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1362

032/8 Keep 150/1E open to motorized travel. I 

am not in favor of the seasonal closure of 

150. If it comes down to all or nothing 

leave the seasonal closure in effect, but if 

we can approach them on two different 

issues then please do that.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1363

033/3 I believe that a trailhead on Peaceful Pines 

Road would be a great idea, I live in 

Woodland Hills and I‟m sure 99% of the 

people that live here hate the idea, but 

then they hate everything imposed on 

their world. I feel it would be a great 

trailhead because at this point there is no 

regulation or control. Last year you had to 

close it off completely, I assume, due to 

people using it as a dumpsite. If it was a 

trailhead it would have trash collection, 

toilet facilities and a larger human 

A trailhead on Peaceful Pines Road is included in 

Alternative C, and will be considered in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1364
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

516

presence. Another point is the New 

Freeway Exit in Black Hawk makes an 

easy access for people that live in the 

surrounding area.

033/4 If Piedmont is not a trailhead it should be, 

since it is already being used as one.

Piedmont was analyzed for a trailhead in Alternatives B, C 

and D. Any decision on trailheads will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1365

033/6 The only issue I‟d like to address is the 

Pilot Knob Trail. It is a very challenging 

trail for an inexperienced rider and there 

are no warnings as to what is ahead or an 

alternate trail.

Trails are designed for various levels of abilities. Signing 

will be handled during the implementation phase of this 

project and is out of the scope of the DEIS. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1366

034/1 I have lived at 9904 S. High Meadows Dr. 

for 25+ years. When I moved here the 

land next to me was owned by Homestake 

Mining Co. and has since been acquired by 

the Forest Service. I feel it is unfair to the 

members of this community that our road 

is now used by so many vehicles to gain 

access the forest. We have formed a road 

district and struggle to provide snow 

removal let alone the added maintenance 

needed to keep up with damage done by 

all the traffic of ATVs & other monster 

truck type vehicles which are designed to 

rip up the ground they travel on. As a 

trustee on our road district I ask that you 

find another trailhead for forest access 

away from our community. The Black 

Hills can and should be enjoyed by all, I 

believe if we work together we can achieve 

this.

None of the Alternatives considered include a trailhead at 

High Meadows.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1367

037/1 We are writing in regard to the Forest 

Service developing trails for 4 wheel 

vehicles, motocross bikes and other 

UTVs. We recently sold our property 

south of Piedmont, SD to our son, 

Donald Walker, Jr. so we are very worried 

about the TOP 50 and their plans to 

A route in this area on NFS lands was analyzed in 

Alternative C. No routes were considered on private 

property unless an easement was currently in place as this is 

out of the scope of the DEIS. Any decision to include this 

route will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1368
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

517

access more of the Forest Service by 

opening a road through the field behind 

our son‟s place. We don‟t understand the 

reason to accommodate this as their 

interest is making money by inviting 4 

wheelers from all over to come and 

destroy our Black Hills. From what we 

saw when we lived there, there was no 

respect for the environment or laws (no 

trespassing signs) by these owners or 

guests.

037/5 This is a bad Alternative [Alternative C]. 

This will create problems all along the 

Service Road [546.1] not just at the Top 

50 location.

A route in this area on NFS lands was analyzed in 

Alternative C. Any decision to include this route will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1369

039/1 The USFS TMP has proposed that Forest 

Service Road 150/1E be closed. I believe 

and respectfully request that Forest 

Service Road 150/1E remain open 

because it is the only public access road to 

Victoria Canyon; Victoria Canyon will be 

landlocked if the road is closed, as all 

other access points are privately-owned or 

have already been closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1370

039/2 Victoria Canyon is a very valuable 

recreational area that accommodates many 

types of recreation including hiking, rock 

climbing, bouldering, and kayaking. These 

types of recreation are low impact and 

non-motorized; thus, they are activities 

worth not only permitting, but also 

supporting. Additionally, Victoria Canyon 

is one of the closest rock climbing areas 

outside of Rapid City; keeping Road 

150/1E open will help disperse 

recreational impact from climbing areas 

like Falling Rock, which bears a lot of 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1371
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

518

impact due to its close location to Rapid 

City.

044/1 I received your letter referencing [the 

correction to] Alternative C, I want to go 

on record that I am opposed to this 

proposed trail as it would create another 

trailhead. As of now this section line is not 

open to the public, your proposal for this 

trail goes to a dead end. There are three 

land owners involved in this 1500 ft of 

section line and we all oppose this 

Alternative C because our land values 

would be affected and the ATV traffic 

would come from all the nearby 

communities, resulting in heavy traffic. I 

feel that the Piedmont Fire Trail is the 

ideal trailhead as there is no private land 

affected, and the trail is already there. I 

don‟t feel that private land owners should 

be [word illegible] affected by loss of land 

values with your plan.

A route in this area on NFS lands was analyzed in 

Alternative C. No routes were considered on private 

property unless an easement was currently in place as this is 

out of the scope of the DEIS. Any decision to include this 

route will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1372

044/2 If a road is built [as proposed in the 

revision to Alternative C] on the section 

line vehicles would be as close as 60 feet 

of my house, and you know the sound 

that dirt bikes make.

This route was analyzed in Alternative C. The issue of 

sound was analyzed common to all action Alternatives. A 

sound limit of 96 decibels is proposed for all OHV's 

including motorcycles. A forest order may be needed to 

implement this feature. The decision on this will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1373

048/2. The plan we would like to see 

implemented is plan „C‟. We live by Black 

Hawk, SD, at a development called High 

Meadows. We live about 50 feet from the 

entrance to the forest. However, from 

December 15th to May 15th we cannot 

use the trail [#148] with our ATVs, to go 

10 miles to the Nemo area. Instead, we 

have to load machines and travel 20 miles, 

going through Rapid City, to get to the 

Nemo area. This road access was closed 

because of one or two people in this area 

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1374
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

519

that did not like it open all year. No 

consideration was given to the majority of 

us who do want it open.

048/3. The trail that is closed is 148. It is a gravel 

road for god‟s sake! The comment we hear 

is that it is closed for the animals. Bull - I 

have those animals all over my property. 

We have been told by Ranger Bob 

Thompson that it would be reopened. We 

don‟t put much stock in what he says 

anymore.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1375

048/4. There is no reason for this road [#148] to 

be closed. At a minimum it should be 

opened to get to Nemo. Closing it has also 

made an impact on the business in Nemo. 

Please reopen it. Winter riding is even 

better than summer riding.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1376

053/1 I will write my preference for Alternative

D concerning the DEIS, but you have 

made the Alternatives so that we do not 

have a real choice! I am very saddened that 

in the plan proposals, in all “Alternatives”, 

the ATVs and ORVs are not prohibited 

from 12 miles of the Centennial Trail. This 

is a bad idea. The Centennial Trail is a 

hiking trail 110 miles long, and people will 

come from all over the USA in order to 

hike through the trail‟s full length, but not 

if they know that there are ATVs on 12 

miles of it. I know this, because I have lots 

of hiker friends.

In Alt B, C and E the existing motorized portion of the 

Centennial trail was analyzed as a motorized trail. In 

Alternative D it was removed from the motorized routes. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1377

056/1 I am concerned about the proposed 

closure of road 150/1E outside of Rapid 

City, SD. Being a rock climber this road is 

extremely significant because it is the only 

legal access way into Victoria Canyon (by 

motor). Otherwise it‟s a long hike in. This 

place has quickly become my favorite crag 

to climb at in all of the Black Hills. 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1378
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

520

Despite living in Minneapolis I make it out 

there as often as I can, as well as several of 

my friends. If this road were to be closed, 

we would all lose a beautiful recreational 

area. It would be advantageous to keep 

this road open for use because climbers, 

and hikers are very clean and also 

environmentally concerned. Not only 

would they/we pick up after ourselves, 

but there would possibly be organized 

clean-up events in the future to help keep 

the area pristine.

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

057/1 We have a cabin at Sand Creek and have 

fought the mining issues to keep our creek 

clean and safe. Now we have to turn to 

fighting a colossal issue against ATV travel 

on the Botanical Trail which the Forest 

Service spent a large sum of money on to 

make it more inviting and safe for all ages. 

Not only do we observe the destruction

that the ATVs do to roadsides, meadows, 

trails etc. but a huge concern is, what they 

take into these areas with weeds, grasses 

etc. that can destroy the plant life that is 

rare and uncommon!

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1379

063/1 My family has been active in preserving 

the Sand Creek Area for one hundred 

years. We have been landowners in that 

area for eighty years, as well. We are all 

very concerned about consideration of the 

Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail for ATV 

use. This would be a very sad day. We 

urge you to remove this area from your 

consideration; protected wild areas such as 

this are irreplaceable.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1380

063/2 Many hikers have enjoyed the quiet beauty 

of this trail [Dugout Gulch Botanical 

Trail]; the presence of motorized vehicles 

will not enhance this experience. We 

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1381
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

521

believe it will deter many of those for 

whom this is a special place from 

returning.

063/3 My concern is the increased ATV traffic 

on the county road to the proposed site 

[Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail]. This is 

such a busy road and is often a dangerous 

one for very young ATV drivers, and there 

are many very young ATV riders on this 

road. Please do not change the access 

policy of this beautiful area.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1382

065/2 The only trail designation I see that 

doesn‟t make much sense is 353.1A south 

of Storm Hill which is designated “open 

to highway legal only”. Besides utility 

service vehicles this road will be used for 

gathering firewood and some of us use a 

tractor-trailer or old pickup that is not 

licensed. In my opinion this road should 

be designated "open to all vehicles."

FSR 353.1A is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative C. A highway legal vehicle is required in order 

to get to this route off the old Hill City-Keystone road.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1383

066/4 I have not seen the current maps, but 

would discourage a trailhead off of 

Victoria Lake Road. It is a heavily used 

road for OHV, hunting, target shooters, 

etc., because of its close proximity to 

Rapid City. The Forest Service personnel, 

have consistently stated that this road, has 

historically been a huge problem, because 

of its diversity of users, and it adjoining 

private land and residences. There is also 

huge resource damage currently taking 

place in this area. Victoria watershed is 

being demolished by off-road usage.

A parking area off FSR 159 will limit travel on this road to 

highway-legal vehicles only from Sheridan Lake Road to 

the parking area. Parking areas provide a point of contact 

for better enforcement, education, and management.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1384

069/1 Please don‟t open up the Dugout Gulch 

Botanical Hiking Trail, Tinton Road area, 

Red Lake and Limestone Plateau, and the 

Crow Peak area to ATVs.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1385

071/1 I strongly believe that the Dugout Gulch 

hiking trail should remain closed to ATV 

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

Route 

Specific 

1386
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

522

recreational activities. The FS has spent a 

lot of taxpayer‟s dollars developing this 

trail for a non-motorized experience. Let‟s 

keep it this way. There is a threat to the 

botanical area this trail represents.

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area. Comment

074/1 Red Lake Area - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 10 miles 

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 225.1E, 

134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1387

074/2 639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road 

connects Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. 

Currently closed to motorized use and 

provides a good purpose being closed. 

This road will be opened (Alternatives A, 

B, and C) and provide access to the area 

behind Crow Peak. The roads go directly 

through a quiet area and more than likely 

the ATV will venture off the road and the 

whole Crow Peak area will be 

compromised. Was any consideration 

given to not allowing ATV access to the 

non-motorized areas? Also this is a known 

elk calving area. Was any consideration 

given to wildlife in the EIS for this 

planned to be opened area?

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitat 

are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for conflicts with 

non-motorized recreation opportunities are reflected in 

Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how they address each 

of these issues. FSR 639.1 was analyzed to stay closed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Once a 

decision is made individual users will be expected to stay on 

the designated route. ATV trails were not proposed in nonmotorized areas. Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of 

the DEIS. The assumption regarding wildlife disturbance 

from noise was disclosed in the DEIS (page 145) and has 

been retained in the FEIS. Forest Service Law 

Enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public

safety, and protecting National Forest Resources.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1388

074/4 It appears that no consideration was given 

to existing non-motorized areas. For 

example consider the following area: Area 

south of Hanna Campground. Roads 

211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all 

closed roads will be opened under 

Alternative A and B.

FSR's 211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, and 211.1G were analyzed to 

be open in alternative B and removed in Alternatives D and 

E. FSR 211.1G was analyzed to be open in Alternatives C

and D. FSR 209.2B is currently open and was analyzed to 

be a road open to all in all Alternatives. The current 

management area for that location is 5.1 Resource 

Production Emphasis. This area is open to all types of 

recreation including motorized and non-motorized and on 

and off road recreation. Any decision about routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1389

074/5 CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of You are correct in Alternative B CZ 1403 travels through Route 1390
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

523

the Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It 

makes no sense to expect ATV users to 

turnaround. How will you close the end of 

this road?

the Spearfish Canyon management area where no off road 

traffic is allowed. This was an error and it was removed 

from Alternatives C, D and E. 

Specific 

Comment

074/6 Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be 

designed to a Forest Service Standard? 

Will the current trail locations be reviewed 

by an Engineer and Hydrologist before 

they are opened? For example road 134.2B 

has a 35% grade for 300‟, road U010077 

goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep ruts, 

and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. 

These have been listed as examples of 

many more problem areas.

OHV routes will meet FS standards for trails. Some routes 

may be easy and some very difficult. Routes that traverse a 

steep slope will be engineered with climbing turns and 

appropriate water crossings will be built where necessary. 

Not all routes will be available to use the first year after the 

decision is made and will be opened up after mitigations are 

done.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1391

074/7 Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located 

on the Bearlodge District in the area of 

Sand Creek. A portion of this trail will be 

converted into an ATV trail. (Alternatives 

A, B, and C) This trail is in a semiprimitive non-motorized management 

area, within a botanical area and eight 

years ago the Forest Service spent 

$112,000 on developing this trail for nonmotorized users. The entire trail will be 

affected because the noise of ATVs on the 

upper loop will ruin the quiet area on the 

lower section.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1392

074/8 Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails 

(733.1A, 733.1K) will go right into the 

middle of the Eagle Cliff Trail System. 

(Alternatives A, B, and C) Noise is an 

issue; also some ATV users will get lost 

and start following the hiking trails.

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in Alternatives B, 

C and E, and analyzed to be closed in Alternative D. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. Common to all 

Alternatives noise level will be will be set at 96 decibels for 

OHV's. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1393

074/9 Little Spearfish Trail - All Alternatives 

have Road 734.1 which dead ends at the 

trail. This will encourage ATVs to follow 

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to be 

left open in all Alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1394
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

524

the Little Spearfish Trail.

074/10 Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes 

right up against the Rimrock Trail. Just 

when you think you get away an ATV 

comes past you. Also encourages use of 

Rimrock Trail.

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B and 

C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1395

074/11 Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized 

section of Centennial Trail from Dalton 

Lake to Pilot Knob. This trail section is in 

horrible condition due to over use. Most 

non-motorized users know to never go on 

this section of trail due to the heavy ATV 

use.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1396

074/12 Roads 137.1B, 1371C, 137.D and 137.1E 

currently closed roads. By opening them 

(Alternatives A, B, and C) access is 

provided to a secluded part of Centennial 

Trail. Roads 703.1C and 703.1D are 

planned to be opened and are within mere 

feet of Centennial Trail. Roads 224.1D 

and 224.1E dead end at Centennial Trail. 

By opening these roads it will be near 

impossible to keep ATVs off Centennial 

Trail.

Roads 137.1B, 137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B and C and removed from 

Alternatives D and E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently 

seasonally opened roads. They were analyzed to be left 

open in all Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are 

currently seasonally opened system roads. They were 

analyzed to be open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed 

in Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1397

074/13 It appears that no consideration was given 

to existing non-motorized trails. For 

example consider the following trail: 

Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails -

Many sections are motorized.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on Forest 

System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside the scope 

of the DEIS analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1398

074/14 Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is 

not a system trail it is probably the most 

popular mountain bike trail in the 

Northern Hills. In fact, Mountain Bike 

Magazine picked the Tinton Trail as the 

best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given 

whatsoever. ATV trails cross it and follow 

it in many locations.

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that cross 

this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals with 

motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1399

076/1 This letter is a request for support in FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in Route 1400
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

525

regards to the USFS Travel Management 

Plan (TMP) for the Black Hills National 

Forest. The TMP proposes that Forest 

Service Road 150/1E be closed. Road 

150/1E is the only public access to 

Victoria Canyon (VC). I enjoy hiking, 

climbing, and relaxing in Victoria Canyon. 

The canyon is beautiful [and] allows for 

the quick enjoyment of nature close to the 

city. The only access to this public land is 

via Forest Service Road 150/1E. Please do 

not close this road and keep access to this 

wonderful place.

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Specific 

Comment

079/2 We feel that the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement should give a reason 

and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas (FDR 134, Tinton Rd), Red 

Lake and Limestone Plateau Crow Peak, 

Eagle Cliff, area south of Hanna 

Campground and the Botanical Trail!

The DEIS analyzes the effects of the motorized travel 

system in varying capacities in Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

for wildlife, botany, archeology, hydrology, recreation, 

engineering, socio- economic, soil, scenery and range. 

FSCB and EF suggested need to be more specific about the 

different routes being considered in the various alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1401

082/2 There should be no motorized vehicles on 

the Centennial Trail. We need to protect 

our history, not destroy it.

The motorized portion of the Centennial Trail was 

removed in Alternative D. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1402

086/4 My only suggestion is that somehow the 

Forest Service gain public access to the 

lower end of the road into Thompson 

Canyon from the Beaver Creek road. The 

first one quarter mile or less of the 

Thompson Canyon road is owned by a 

family named Vore. The Vores are very 

stingy with access to the Thompson 

Canyon road. I truly think they could be 

traded out of an access that would benefit 

all of the users to the Limestone trail 

system.

Thompson Canyon access. Although Forest Service road 

# 816 provides access into Thompson Canyon, it must 

cross other ownership, and therefore cannot be designated 

as a trail. The Forest Service does not have the authority to 

designate a trail that crosses or enters other private 

ownership. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1403

097/1 I live on and own H.E.S. 609 in Lawrence 

County SD surrounded by National 

Forest. For many years I have asked and at 

times been told the road FDR 259 would 

FSR 259 is a currently open system road that was analyzed 

to be left open in all Alternatives Rerouting roads and 

safety concerns about toxic road materials are beyond the 

scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1404
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

526

be rerouted to the west of my private 

property in approximately the same route 

the road went when my property was 

homesteaded. The main reason I had 

hoped it would be rerouted was public 

safety as the current route goes between 

my house and barn and splits my property 

in two. I have had many close calls with 

cars and trucks almost killing my children 

as they go to the barn or the creek! Now 

we also have a problem with ATVs. The 

road is made of old mine tailing‟s mercury, 

cyanide, graphite, lead and many more 

harmful substances. When the road is dry 

the dust permeates my house. My children 

have suffered asthma, colds and we have 

spent many hours at the hospital. I am 

talking about toxic clouds of dust lasting 

for many minutes from speeding cars, 

trucks and ATVs. When the new County 

Road was built HWY 17 AKA Rochford 

RD the current FDR 259 was started to be 

rerouted, there is evidence of this on my 

south property line of FDR 259. I 

remember a bulldozer on the beginning of 

the road for over a year!

097/2 I would like to have a substantial Fire 

Break on the West side of my property 

[H.E.S. 609 in Lawrence County, SD]. I 

feel that a road is the only way to achieve 

this.

Construction of fire breaks is beyond the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1405

097/5 FDR 259 AKA Nahant Rd Lawrence 

County, SD, is a not improved road on the 

Black Hills map. It cannot be driven in the 

winter except when the private 

landowners plow it. We have had many 

problems with people in trucks getting 

stuck and we have to help them get out. It 

has sort of become a betting game of sorts 

watching out the window to see if they 

Plowing of roads and winter maintenance are beyond the 

scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1406
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

527

will get stuck or crash off the road!

097/6 I know money is tight but this is a case for 

economic stimulus as well as public safety 

and environmental conservation. My 

Ranch is being surveyed and property lines 

marked soon by the Forest Service for a 

possible timber sale; this is the time to 

reroute the road [FDR 259]!

Rerouting of FSR 259 for a timber sale is beyond the scope 

of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1407

099/2 This Proposal [Erratum - March 19 2009 

Alternative C] is faulty: 1.) there is no 

outlet; 2.) it‟s located in a residential area; 

and 3.) it does not form a “loop” to a 

trailhead.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address a 

public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. This 

route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, D and 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1408

101/2 The amendment to Alternative C map is 

not to my liking: there is no outlet and is 

much too close to private homes.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address a 

public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. This 

route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, D and 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1409

102/2 I would like to make a comment on the 

change you made to Alternative C Map. I 

believe that this change does not have an 

outlet and also it is too close to a 

residential area. This change is not good.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address a 

public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. This 

route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, D and 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1410

105/1 Range 5 E, Township 4 N:Rock Crawlers: 

How was the hill in section 7 designated 

for rock crawlers - even in Alternative D? 

And, will the whole hill be allowed to be 

used for this? Without being allowed to 

use the whole hill, the only existing trail on 

that hill that would seemingly attract rock 

crawlers with its steepness is on the south 

face and is of a soil / fractured rock 

composition that I know will erode 

quickly. I definitely object to allowing the 

whole hill to be used for rock crawling and 

have concerns with the trail use and 

This rock crawling trail was analyzed to be included in 

Alternatives B, C and D and, removed from Alternative E. 

Several rock crawling routes were left in Alternative D 

because even though it is a smaller motorized system 

opportunities for rock crawling should still be looked at. 

This route is currently being authorized during special 

events. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Rock Crawler Use 

is proposed on trails open to all (see Table 7 in Chapter 2). 

Rock crawler use is not identified for cross country use 

under any alternative. Enforcement will take place as 

needed.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1411
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

528

enforcement of it. The rock crawler 

designation in areas such as the Bear Butte 

Creek drainage (R4E, T4 & 5N) makes 

sense as the large granite boulders will 

support the usage.

105/3 Trails: On the west side of FH26 

(Vanocker Canyon Road) just opposite 

139.1 (Veterans Peak Tower Road), there 

is a long standing trail/road roughly along 

the section line 5/8, 6/7. It connects to 

the 541 series of FS roads. I was 

wondering if this could be opened for 50" 

and less vehicles. I like the designation of 

168.1 for 50" and less vehicles as a 

connector to the 139 and 169 series of FS 

roads.

No routes were analyzed in this location and therefore 

cannot be included in this decision. This area will be 

considered in future projects on the Northern Hills 

District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1412

105/4 Range 4 E, Township 4 N:Trails:Kirk Hill 

in section 12 has great trails on established 

roadbeds. Is there a reason this could not 

be opened for 50" and less vehicles?

No routes were analyzed in this location and therefore 

cannot be included in this decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1413

105/5 Range 4 E, Township 4 N:Trails: It would 

be nice to have a connection from the 

Galena area to the Brownville area. If you 

can figure it out, more power to you.

The land surrounding Galena and Brownville is checker 

boarded with other ownerships that are outside Forest 

Service Jurisdiction and beyond the scope of this EIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1414

105/6 Range 4 E, Township 5 N:Trails: In 

section 16, can there be a 50" and less 

vehicle connection from Camp 5 to the 

542 series of FS roads?

No routes were analyzed in this location and therefore 

cannot be included in this decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1415

105/7 Range 4 and 5 E, Township 3, 4 & 5 

N:Trails: For 50" and less vehicles, is it 

possible to connect the Camp 5 area to the 

Nemo area using FS 151.1 and 155.1? 

From Nemo, it appears there is a 

connection to the Rochford area and 

others and the connection to Camp 5 

would make an attractive touring route.

FSR 151.1 and 155.1 from Camp 5 to Nemo are currently 

open system roads and they were analyzed in all 

Alternatives to stay that way.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1416

105/8 Range 4 & 5 E, Township 3, 4 & 5 

N:Paved Highways: To connect trail areas 

for non-licensed vehicles, is it possible to 

Use of right of ways on paved roads by vehicles is outside 

of Forest Service Jurisdiction and beyond the scope of this 

EIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1417
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

529

have 50" and less vehicle trails in the rightof-ways of paved highways such as FH26 

and US-14A?

106/1 The TMP proposes that Forest Service 

Road 150/1E be closed. I believe Forest 

Service Road 150/1E should remain open 

to public access because it is the only 

public access road to Victoria Canyon, a 

recreational area. Victoria Canyon will be 

landlocked if the road is closed, as all 

other access points are privately owned or 

have already been closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1418

106/2 Victoria Canyon houses many types of 

recreation including hiking, rock climbing, 

bouldering, and kayaking. These types of 

recreation are low impact and nonmotorized; thus they are activities worth 

not only permitting, but also supporting.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1419

106/3 Victoria Canyon is one of the closest rock 

climbing areas to Rapid City. The Falling 

Rock climbing area bears a lot of impact 

due to its close location to Rapid City. 

Keeping Road 150/1E open will help 

disperse recreational impact on one area.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1420

111/1 I do not think we have been given a real 

choice in the four Alternatives of the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Plan. I 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1421
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

530

am mostly in favor of Alternative D for 

the BHNF Travel Management Plan, 

DEIS (draft environmental impact 

survey). However, I must protest. I do not 

like the inclusion of ATVs or ORVs on 

the Pilot Knob (north) section, a 12-mile 

section of the Centennial Trial. The 

document says this is not up for change. I 

wrote several letters during the “open 

time” last year to the head planner in 

Custer State Park, Tom Willems, but his 

office told me it was a “done deal”. 

“ATVs get that section of the Centennial 

Trail! Period! It is only 12 miles!” This 

section of the Centennial Trail should not 

allow any vehicles on it for at least one of 

the Alternatives. Therefore, we do not 

have a real valid choice! This section of 

the Centennial Trail has been damaged by 

the ORVs, but that is not a good reason to 

just “give it over to them”. One day last 

July I personally picked up 25 beer cans 

along that section of the Centennial Trail 

and saw that the ORV users have dug up 

dirt along the trail and made bumps on 

this trail to make it more “fun”. Many 

hikers I now would not come to the Black 

Hills to hike through on this world-class 

trail because of this 12-mile part used by 

ATVs. ORVs can have their own trails 

designated along many dirt roads in the 

Black Hills, but should not be allowed at 

all on the Centennial Trail. Please look 

into this matter and give residents and 

concerned citizens a real choice.

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

116/1 I am concerned about the botanical trail in 

the Sand Creek area being converted to an 

ATV trail. Other areas that should remain 

closed to ATVs include roads intersecting 

FDR 134, areas adjacent to FDR 134, 

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1422
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

531

known as Red Lake and Limestone 

Plateau, a connector road through the 

Crow Peak non-motorized area, an ATV 

trail on and into the middle of the Eagle 

Cliff Trail System, and an area to the south 

of Hanna Campground. Please don‟t allow 

the roar of motorized vehicles disturb the 

peace of all our trails in the lovely Black 

Hills. We need a refuge from our noisy 

world more now than ever.

119/1 None of the proposed Alternatives 

designate enough of a motorized trail 

system to accommodate the demand for 

motorized public access, especially in the 

southern Black Hills. While I am not 

familiar with most of the forest roads and 

trails, I am intimately familiar with the 

roads and trails nearest my house between

Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in 

Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T.4 S., 

R 4 Epsom of these roads were created by 

very old mining so could possibly be RS 

2477 roads, others were used to access a 

100 year old homestead, and the rest most 

likely were created from logging. Since 

these roads and trails are remnants of old 

logging and mining, most are deeply cut 

into the side slopes indicating use by larger 

vehicles. Recently I have noticed these 

trails are used by the Star Academy for 

exercises, by equestrian folks, and by a 

small number of us locals on ATVs. Pacer 

Corporation has a continuing mining 

operation of some kind in this area, and 

there is at least one grazing allottee that 

uses some of these roads for his own 

motorized interest.

The area referred to in your letter dated 4/15/09 located 

between Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 

11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T 4S., R 4E was considered by the 

Hell Canyon District Staff. The specific reasons for not 

considering these routes as trails include concerns with soil 

and water, known heritage sites that need to be protected, 

livestock grazing conflicts, conflicts with adjacent private 

land owners and the isolated nature of this area did not 

lend itself to provide adequate motorized opportunities. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1423

119/3 None of the proposed Alternatives 

designate enough of a motorized trail 

system to accommodate the demand for 

The area referred to in your letter dated 4/15/09 located 

between Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 

11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T 4S., R 4E was considered by the 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1424
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

532

motorized public access, especially in the 

southern Black Hills. While I am not 

familiar with most of the forest roads and 

trails, I am intimately familiar with the 

roads and trails nearest my house between 

Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in 

Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T.4 S., 

R 4 E.I figured out my use of public lands 

over the last 4 years of living here, I spend 

an average of one hour a day, 365 days a 

year enjoying the use of public lands. My 

normal activities are hiking with my dogs, 

exploring, metal detecting, rock hunting, 

firewood gathering, fishing and shooting; I 

use my ATV and/or motorcycle on the 

existing trail system to access places 

farther away from my house, then hike 

into more remote parts of the forest for 

these activities. If motorized access is not 

allowed, the amount of country I can 

currently explore and enjoy in a few hours 

will require a 2-day overnight camping 

expedition. The proposed Travel 

Management Plan will close all the trails 

and roads to any motorized access; this 

will devastate my current lifestyle and 

recreational activities as it will the other 

citizens living here.

Hell Canyon District Staff. The specific reasons for not 

considering these routes as trails include concerns with soil 

and water, known heritage sites that need to be protected, 

livestock grazing conflicts, conflicts with adjacent private 

land owners and the isolated nature of this area did not 

lend itself to provide adequate motorized opportunities. 

120/1 I feel that the Forest Service Road 343-1F 

should be deleted from the Travel 

Management Plan because it is less than 

one half mile long and is not 

interconnected with any other road or 

trail. This road dead ends at a location 

right next to private property and then the 

vehicle has to make a u-turn to go back 

out. This road is shown on Alternatives A, 

B, C and E but is not part of Alternative 

D. Your consideration for removal of this 

road from any Alternative which is 

Your request to remove Forest Service Road 343.1F will be 

considered in the Final Decision for this Project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1425
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

533

adopted would be appreciated.

125/2 [In regards to map titled “Erratum -

March 19, 2009”] [Motorized Recreation]

lobbyists will win this [opening and 

closing of trails] again and you know that, 

I‟m certain.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address a 

public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. This 

route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, D and 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1426

127/1 In a recent publication in the BH Pioneer 

letter to the editor section, I read an article 

from Mr. Paul Bosworth of Spearfish 

regarding the new trail mapping. I am 

disheartened and fearful of your plan to 

convert several hiking trails into ATV 

trails. My family and I and our two dogs 

love to primarily use the hiking trails 

throughout the Black Hills, but tend to use 

the NH trail system weekly. While I am 

not against ATV trails and feel they should 

be able to enjoy the beauty of our area in 

the manner they choose, subscribing 

additional trails to the ATV community 

would be a big disservice for this area. We 

frequently see people on these trails 

systems doing the same thing we are, 

enjoying the beautiful surroundings and 

appreciating the Black Hills for what they 

are. Why on earth would you consider 

converting several of these trails to ATV 

use only, or worse yet, sharing ATV with 

hiking, biking and horseback riding? Have 

you ever been on one of these trails, 

enjoying the serenity that comes with 

hiking around the Black Hills, only to have 

an ATV come up behind you? In my 

opinion the Black Hills Trails system 

should be used primarily for the hiking 

purpose. I am not asking you to get rid of 

the current ATV trails, but I am asking 

with profound concern for your 

reconsideration of making the trails on 

No system hiking trails on the NH Ranger District were 

analyzed to be converted to motorized vehicles trails.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1427
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

534

your list of changeover to ATV trails. 

Please keep our beautiful Black Hills as 

close to natural as we can!

129/1 We are not given a real choice with these 

Alternatives. As an outdoor enthusiast I 

am appalled that you would allow ATVs 

or ORVs on the Pilot Knob portion of the 

Centennial Trail. This is a matter of safety! 

One cannot have a hiking trail and an 

ORV on the same trail. Don‟t 

misunderstand me, I believe that the 

National Forest is for the people to use. 

Therefore, I think that the areas should be 

designated for hiking and biking and 

another for ORVs. Don‟t be fooled dear 

South Dakota... when traveling east one 

sees hundreds of ORVs on the Interstate 

90 leaving Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

Those states are ahead of South Dakota... 

they have realized that hiking, biking and 

ORVs do not mix. If I am forced to vote 

on these Alternatives, I favor Alternative 

D.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1428

130/1 We hike the non-motorized trails in the 

Crow Peak and Tinton areas. Opening 

more trails, especially near the Botanical 

Trail to ATV travel will reduce the natural 

beauty and solitude of these areas. If all 

ATV riders would respect the rights of 

others to enjoy the forest there would be 

no problem. It seems more and more 

riders want to go full open through the 

forest with disregard to others. We have 

already encountered ATV riders in nonmotorized areas. Opening more trails will 

provide them greater access to the closed 

areas deep in the forest. I would like to see 

the ATV trails concentrated in the areas of 

high use and leave the more wild and 

serene areas for those willing to walk in 

No system hiking trails on the NH Ranger District were 

analyzed to be converted to motorized vehicles trails. No 

additional routes were proposed in any Alternative in 

botanical areas other then existing system roads.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1429
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

535

and enjoy the wildlife.

131/1 I am a Black Hills Climber and would like 

to share my thoughts on the proposed 

BHNF Travel Management Plan Road 

Closure of Forest Service Road 150/1E. 

This road is the only public access to the 

beautiful limestone climbing area known 

as Victory Canyon (VC). Without this road 

the VC would be land locked. Climbing 

has occurred in this area since the 80s and 

I would have to say this is my favorite 

place due to the wondrous beauty of this 

area. It would be a shame to close this area 

and not let people enjoy its beauty. This 

climbing area is very close to Rapid City 

and is heavily used due to the 

convenience. If this area were closed it 

would increase the impact at Falling Rock, 

another limestone climbing area close to 

Rapid City, keeping the VC open helps to 

disperse the impact on these areas. The 

Dark Canyon side to this climbing area is 

all private property and if the public access 

road was closed I am afraid there would 

be problems with climbers crossing 

private land and causing issues between 

climbers and residents. I understand you 

have everyone‟s best interest in your 

decisions and I am sure you have reasons 

to close this road, however I hope you will 

consider the reasons to leave this road 

open. If you ever get a chance to see this 

area, especially in the spring, you would 

know why I feel it would be such a shame 

to close Road 150/1E.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1430

134/3 Too many new trails are being opened 

north of Hill City. Specifically, FSR 249 

should remain seasonal all the way from 

the intersection of FSR 254 (Log Cabin 

Road) to FSR 251 (Nugget Gulch Road).

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1431
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

536

134/4 There are many ATV trails being 

proposed east and south of FSR 249 and 

west of FSR 251 that today are closed. 

Specifically 675.1x and 249.2x system of 

trails. Even though these trails are high 

and dry, the only way to connect them is 

through 675.1 (Middle Nugget) which is a 

perennial stream. Middle Nugget is a 

beautiful walk-in area with waterfalls and 

streams. This whole area should be 

protected and no trails should be opened 

there. Why open new trails when there are 

so many other trails that are already open 

and familiar to the public. Please keep this 

area closed.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system as 

seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as these 

routes are currently closed yearlong, and would continue as 

such in a corrected Alternative E. The 675.1X system is 

closed in Alternative D, and the 249.2X system of trails are 

closed in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1432

134/9 Trail MY90 on Alternative C does not 

exist. It is impossible to create a trail as 

shown in Alternative B.

Trail MY90 does not exist and is not included in 

Alternatives C, D, or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1433

138/5 Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening 

trails that are currently closed around the 

Middle Nugget area (T1N R4E). 

Specifically trails 249.2A through 249.2E 

and 675.1A through 675.1N. They should 

stay closed. There is no need to open 

currently closed trails.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system as 

seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as these 

routes are currently closed yearlong, and would continue as 

such in a corrected Alternative E. The 675.1X system is 

closed in Alternative D, and the 249.2X system of trails are 

closed in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1434

138/6 Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening 

Middle Nugget (FSR 675.1). This road has 

been closed for many years because of the 

perennial stream that crisscrosses the road. 

The road should stay closed.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1435

138/7 Trail MY90 on Alternative C does not 

exist. This is a very steep incline with old 

growth. Even with adequate resources it 

will not be possible to build a trail as 

shown on MY90.

Trail MY90 does not exist and is not included in 

Alternatives C, D, or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1436

138/8 The area south of Rapid Creek and west 

of Pactola has always been restricted to 

seasonal travel. It seems that the Forest 

Service is trying to find a year-round 

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. Many 

of the routes south of Rapid Creek and west of Pactola are 

not included in Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1437
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

537

connector from Hill City to Silver City. 

We don‟t agree with this. It is important 

that the Rapid Creek and Pactola 

watersheds be protected and no new trails 

are open[ed] south of Rapid Creek and 

west of Pactola. All existing trails should 

remain seasonal, especially FSR 249 all the 

way from China Gulch Road to FSR 251.

138/9 Alternative map C shows a new trailhead 

to be built north of Hill City on China 

Gulch Road. This trailhead should not be 

opened. This area is quiet and should 

remain that way.

A parking area off FSR 249 will limit travel on this road to 

highway-legal vehicles and licensed operators only from 

Highway 16/385 to the parking area. Parking areas provide 

a point of contact for better enforcement, education, and 

management. A trailhead at this location is not included in 

Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1438

139/6 Trails 436.1D, 437.1E, 437.1G, 437.1F, 

437.1D, 437, 142.1A, and 5671.1D on 

both sides of Kelly Gulch (FSR 142) 

should be eliminated. These trails are 

currently closed. In the spring these trails 

make many stream crossings, all of which 

lead to Rapid Creek. Furthermore, there is 

already an excess of trails to the north and 

east of these trails and they are not 

needed. These trails were not in your 2007 

plan. Some of these trails were created 

after 2007 by ATVers for the exclusive 

purpose of adding them to Alternative C. 

Please stop the creation of new trails by 

the off-roaders.

None of these routes are included in Alternatives D or E. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1439

140/5 Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening 

trails that are currently closed around the 

Middle Nugget area (T1N R4E). 

Specifically trails 249.2A through 249.2E 

and 675.1A through 675.1N. They should 

stay closed. There is no need to open 

currently closed trails.

Alternative E includes the FSR 675.1X system as seasonally 

closed routes. This is a mapping error, as these routes are 

currently closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. The 675.1X system is closed in 

Alternative D, and the 249.2X system of trails are closed in 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1440

140/6 Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening 

Middle Nugget (FSR 675.1). This road has 

been closed for many years because of the 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system as 

seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as these 

routes are currently closed yearlong, and would continue as 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1441
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

538

perennial stream that crisscrosses the road. 

The road should stay closed.

such in a corrected Alternative E. 

140/7 Trail MY90 on Alternative C does not 

exist. This is a very steep incline with old 

growth. Even with adequate resources it 

will not be possible to build a trail as 

shown on MY90.

Trail MY90 does not exist and is not included in 

Alternatives C, D, or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1442

140/8 The area south of Rapid Creek and west 

of Pactola has always been restricted to 

seasonal travel. It seems that the Forest 

Service is trying to find a year-round 

connector from Hill City to Silver City. 

We don‟t agree with this. It is important 

that the Rapid Creek and Pactola 

watersheds be protected and no new trails 

opened south of Rapid Creek and west of 

Pactola. All existing trails should remain 

seasonal, especially FSR 249 all the way 

from China Gulch Road to FSR 251.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. Many 

of the routes south of Rapid Creek and west of Pactola are 

not included in Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1443

140/9 Alternative map C shows a new trailhead 

to be built north of Hill City on China 

Gulch Road. This trailhead should not be 

opened. This area is quiet and should 

remain that way.

The parking area off FSR 249 was not included in 

Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1444

141/9 Alternative C shows a trailhead to be 

added at China Gulch Road (FSR 249). 

There is no need for this trailhead. You 

should consider a trailhead closer to Hill 

City and better suited for accessing the 

Southern Hills.

The parking area off FSR 249 was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Alternative C addresses connecting 

Hill City to points south to the extent possible, but 

opportunities are limited due to private property, paved 

highways, and other jurisdictions.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1445

141/10 Alternatives B, C, and D all propose 

opening FSR 675.1 to all vehicles. This 

trail should be opened only seasonally and 

even then it should be monitored closely 

because it is very soft most of the year. It 

is probably not a good idea to open to all 

vehicles. It should probably be seasonal 

ATV [use] only.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system as 

seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as these 

routes are currently closed yearlong, and would continue as 

such in a corrected Alternative E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1446

141/11 FSR 671.1D and 142.1A as shown in FSR 671.1D and 142.1A are closed in Alternatives D and Route 1447
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

539

Alternative C should be closed. By 

opening it you are increasing traffic near 

Sunnyside neighborhood and the town of 

Silver City. This could lead to unwanted 

conflict.

E. Specific 

Comment

141/12 Road FSR 613 has been closed for many 

years. There is no need to open this road 

to all vehicles. It is too close the 

Centennial Trail and will give motorized 

users the temptation to go on Centennial 

Trail with their vehicles. Furthermore, it is 

too close to private property.

FSR 613 was inadvertently included as a motorized route in 

Alternatives C and E, but was omitted from Alternative D. 

Your comment has been evaluated and will be considered 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1448

142/12 The road between Straight Lake and 

Williams Springs needs to be either open 

for all vehicles or at least ATVs. This road 

was closed at Williams Springs because of 

the archeological area. To mitigate this, 

there is already a road in place 300 yards 

west of Williams Springs which would bypass this area. It ties in with the road to 

Straight Lake and it also goes west on the 

ridge above Surprise Gulch and Williams 

Gulch. This is a great way to cross the top 

of these areas without going down to the 

Grand Canyon road and saves about an 

hour trying to get from Williams Spring to 

Plato Gulch.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided additional 

access around the Straight Lake area. While the specific 

route mentioned in the comment is not included in the 

Alternative, many additional routes are that provide the 

same opportunity, to access Plato Gulch (FS 863.3A) from 

Surprise Gulch (FS 803) without traveling on Grand 

Canyon (FS 863). 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1449

146/2 We do not want to see Gorman Gulch 

FSR 141.2B connect with Kelley or 

Sunnyside so that we don‟t have a loop 

through the Southern part of this high 

concentration area of off-road and singletrack trails. We would like to see Gorman 

stay open though.

FSR 141.2B does not connect to other routes in 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1450

146/3 We do not want trail #249 open year 

round, anything to not make that a major 

thoroughfare to Hill City would be helpful 

as those vehicles go right past our house.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1451

149/1 I have looked at the maps in our area. We The first route you describe is U130149 and it was analyzed Route 1452
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

540

live just west of Trout Haven and the 

Sugar Shack. I have noticed two 

connecting roads that do not show up on 

the map. We have used them to connect 

to other trails. Both are vehicle type roads. 

I will do my best to describe. I do not 

have exact mileage on the routes. Trail 

261.3 going north off the Rochford Road. 

Road is known as Jenny Gulch Road 

(north of Rochford Rd.) It goes north and 

then turns east to Hwy. 385. At about 2 

miles. There is a gated home on the east 

side of the road. Across from the gate is a 

road going west over the hill it connects 

with 663. This connecting road gets you 

into the Experimental Forest trails. We 

hope this trail can be added to the map. 

The next road is in the Experimental 

Forest along the west side. Take 616.1 

north off the Rochford Road into the 

Experimental Forest. Turn west on 660.1. 

At about 2 to 3 miles you will be going 

north and have crossed two cattle guards. 

A well-used vehicle road goes west down a 

draw; at the bottom you angle SW and 

come to Trail #204.2g. This is a good 

connecting road as you can then go north 

up to 204.2 known as the Killorn Springs 

Road. We hope this road could be added 

to provide access north to the Roubaix 

Lake area.

in Alternative B and C. The second route you describe is 

U120137 it was analyzed in Alternative B and was dropped 

from all other Alternatives because of resource concerns. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. 

Specific 

Comment

158/2 Alternative B - Too many conflicting rules 

on various trails. Example = T3N, R5E, 

Sec. 29 and 30 on Forest Service Road 

152. FS 152 for the most part is marked 

“All Vehicles” except a small section 

where it exits Sec. 30 to Sec. 29. There it is 

marked as “Highway Legal” only. We live 

in Sec. 30 so we could not use our ATV or 

dirt bikes to travel to Nemo.

In Alternative C FSR 152 was changed to open to all 

vehicles. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1453
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

541

159/3 Alternative “B”: Township T3N - R5E 

Section 30 to 29 Forest Service #152 does 

not allow licensed vehicles. Access to our 

property is blocked for non-licensed

vehicles as this area is “highway legal 

vehicles only”.

In Alternative C FSR 152 was changed to open to all 

vehicles. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1454

169/2 Trail 675.1 in the central hills is shown as 

open in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

However, this road was closed a few years 

ago because of the impact that vehicles 

were having on the road. This road is very 

wet year-round. It has a few beaver dams 

and multiple springs that come out of the 

ground. I have even gone fishing in that 

stream for brown trout. Opening this trail 

to all vehicles will be irresponsible. Maybe 

it should only be open in the summer and 

only if there is no running water over the 

trail. If I‟m not mistaken all the water ends 

up in Pactola drainage. You have so many 

roads and trails to choose from, why open 

a trail that is currently closed?

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1455

169/6 Centennial Trail needs to remain nonmotorized.The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1456

174/1 The Dugout Gulch Hiking Trail is one of 

the best hiking trails in the Spearfish area. 

The Forest Service just got it done not 

that long ago. Please find another way for 

the ATV trail to get to Sand Creek. 

Farther south!

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the botanical area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1457

179/3 In 2008 the Forest Service spent time and 

money to rehabilitate turkey guzzlers along 

FSR 243.2B which the wildlife do use 

now. The Forest Service also had a 

prescribed burn last summer to decrease 

pine encroachment into openings, 

FSR 243.2B is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and closed 

seasonally in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1458
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

542

improve forage and browse production, 

improving fawning bedding habitat for big 

game, and stimulate hardwood restoration 

by reducing competition from ponderosa 

pine. So to me the Forest Service is still to 

this day treating the McVey Wildlife 

Winter Refuge as a part of the Forest Plan 

so why the change now.

179/5 In the Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan and the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement under 

the Engineering and Transportation 

section it clearly states that sound levels 

associated with off-highway vehicles in 

otherwise quiet areas will be an important 

issue. It states that, “A distance of 300 feet 

from private land was selected as an 

indicator because it is the approximate 

distance at which the sound emitted from 

a motorized vehicle at a sound level of 96 

dB(A) would attenuate to approximately 

50 dB(A) which is the sound level of an 

average office.” Well, NFSR 243.2B is 

within 100 feet of my home, not my land 

my home, this road is currently a 

seasonally closed road, which gives me 

some reprieve during the winter from the 

constant road noise and dust. If the NFSR 

243.2B is going to be a connector route, it 

will be a very dangerous path as it has to 

cross Hwy 385. The only foreseeable area 

to cross Hwy 385 to meet up with the 

existing NFSR 243.2B is at the junction 

with Sheridan Lake Road. The sight 

distance is not far enough to successfully 

cross safely. I don‟t personally think that 

these areas all need to have a connector 

route. I feel that if the Forest Service 

insists on opening these routes that they 

should use the Alternative D or Map D 

FSR 243.2B is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and closed 

seasonally in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1459
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

543

with a modification. The modification is 

to relocate the existing NFSR 243.2B to a 

reasonable distance from my front door. I 

feel that having the added vehicle travel to 

this road will increase the safety hazards to 

me and my animals. 100 feet is a lot closer 

than it sounds and I have already had 

problems with individuals using that road. 

They taunt my animals and cause them 

stress and in return their barking makes 

my neighbors angry which causes me 

stress.

180/1 I‟m a landowner in the Nemo area. This is 

my second letter I‟ve written against your 

proposed motorcycle trail NW of Nemo 

[[T3N R5E SEC 17, 20, 21]]. BHNF 

Travel Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative C Feb/2009 Map 2 of 3 S.D. 

North. The proposed trail will be a 

completely new trail where none exists 

now. I feel with all the trails and roads that 

exist already creating new trails is 

completely unnecessary.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of this 

EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be allowed to 

go including possibly new routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1460

180/2 I‟m a landowner in the Nemo area. This is 

my second letter I‟ve written against your 

proposed motorcycle trail NW of Nemo 

[[T3N R5E SEC 17, 20, 21]]. BHNF 

Travel Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative C Feb/2009 Map 2 of 3 S.D. 

North. The trail will run right next to our 

private ranch property which in turn will 

disrupt the peace and quiet of the area, 

frighten livestock and wildlife and increase 

the risk of forest fires. The proposed 

location is in an area where severe erosion 

will occur as a result. Litter, garbage and 

damage to fences are other concerns. I 

don‟t think the Forest Service has any idea 

how much damage these people have 

done and I find it hard to believe that they 

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of this 

EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be allowed to 

go including possibly new routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. Fires caused by arson, equipment and smoking 

combined account for less than 10% of ignitions on the 

Black Hills National Forest annually. Any action 

alternative selected for this project would reduce the total 

area currently available for motorized use and thus could 

decrease the risk of unwanted ignitions. And, routes open 

to motorized recreation could also provide access to fire 

suppression equipment should the need arise. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1461
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

544

continue to allow it.

180/3 I‟m a landowner in the Nemo area. This is 

my second letter I‟ve written against your 

proposed motorcycle trail NW of Nemo. 

(T3N R5E Sect 17,20,2), BHNF TMP 

DEIS Alternative C, Feb 2009, map 2 of 

3, SD North. The proposed trail will be a 

completely new trail where none exists 

now. I feel with all the trails a and roads 

that exist already, creating new trails is 

completely unnecessary.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of this 

EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be allowed to 

go including possibly new routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1462

180/4 There is a proposed [motorcycle] trail at 

the base of Crystal Mountain that we are 

against [[T3N R4E SEC 24, 25]]. BHNF 

Travel Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative D Feb 2009. It will cross and 

damage a section of riparian on S. Box 

Elder Creek and also another spring 

riparian further south of that crossing.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. Hydrology had been 

considered and any chosen routes that make stream 

crossings will be mitigated appropriately. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1463

180/5 There is a proposed [motorcycle] trail at 

the base of Crystal Mountain that we are 

against [[T3N R4E SEC 24, 25]]. BHNF 

Travel Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative D Feb 2009. Part of this 

proposal would create a new trail where 

none exists now.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of this 

EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be allowed to 

go including possibly new routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1464

184/1 I am saddened by the damage ATVs are 

doing to the ditches and other, moresensitive areas of our Black Hills. I am 

chagrined that the snowmobilers will not 

honor the small bit of Mickelson Trail 

they are not to be on. I want to see 

regulations that allow the ATVs and the 

snowmobilers designated spaces and 

designated spaces for those of us who love 

nature, quiet, serenity.

Use of right of ways on paved roads by vehicles is outside 

of Forest Service Jurisdiction and beyond the scope of this 

EIS. The Mickelson trail is outside Forest Service 

Jurisdiction and beyond the scope of this EIS. The 

purpose of this EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic 

will be allowed to go

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1465

185/1 I would like to comment on the proposed 

ATV trails near Spearfish‟s Tinton 

mountain bike and hiking/running trail. I 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1466
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

545

ask that you preserve this trail for the 

many outdoor enthusiasts that use a 

human motor to experience the forest. I 

would like to ask that you preserve this 

trail from potential ATVs that destroy 

single track without realizing it. I ask that 

you preserve the trail for the type of 

people that love nature and love to 

traverse it in as natural a state as possible.

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

185/2 Tinton‟s mountain bike/hiking trail was 

originally laid out by one of your own 

Forest Service agents in the 90‟s. He 

created a tight yet wonderfully flowing 

single track which has matured over the 

last 15-20 years into an American gem. 

The Tinton Trail was featured in 4 premier 

mountain biking magazines in the last 18 

months. It was voted the best single track 

in the Midwest last year in BIKE magazine 

(the best magazine of them all). It beat all 

of Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota 

and Iowa‟s trails, which is not a small feat 

when you consider that Minnesota alone 

dwarfs South Dakota with the number of 

mountain bike trails that are paid for and 

maintained by wealthy cycling enthusiasts 

in their area.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1467

185/3 I‟ve been riding Tinton Trail since the mid 

nineties, and know every rock, root, turn 

and low-lying tree. The trail in its infancy 

was crude and hard to ride because the 

“tunnel” was tight. But like a caterpillar, 

with repeated responsible riding and 

maintenance of the trail, Tinton Trail has 

metamorphosed into a beautiful section of 

single track. Each corner over the years 

has developed just the right amount of 

berm to support a turn. When I say berm I 

don‟t mean a three-foot downhiller‟s berm 

but on Tinton Trail, an inch or two in just 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1468
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

546

the right spots supports the flow. Because 

Tinton Trail is wilder, and not overbuilt, it 

is fragile. Last summer three kids with 

motorbikes rode the trail maybe three or 

four times. The damage they created with 

their powerful machines and unskilled 

hands destroyed at least two or three of 

those berms. Again, not tons of damage, 

but can you imagine what will happen 

when we get 2-3 ATVs on Tinton Trail 

per day? Worse yet, can you imagine what 

will happen when four wheelers ride up 

the middle of the single track? Tinton 

Trail would be destroyed in less than one 

season.

185/4 Please keep the ATVs and motorcycles as 

far from Tinton Trail as possible. ATVs 

have thousands of miles of dirt roads to 

explore. Mountain bikers might have 100 

miles of single track in the Black Hills. I 

beg that you protect this trail for every 

mountain biker in our country.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1469

186/1 I would like to comment on the proposed 

ATV trails near Spearfish‟s Tinton 

mountain bike and hiking/running trail. I 

ask that you preserve this trail for the 

many outdoor enthusiasts that use a 

human motor to experience the forest. I 

would like to ask that you preserve this 

trail from potential ATVs that destroy 

single track without realizing it. I ask that 

you preserve the trail for the type of 

people that love nature and love to 

traverse it in as natural a state as possible.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1470

186/2 Tinton‟s mountain bike/hiking trail was 

originally laid out by one of your own 

Forest Service agents in the 90‟s. He 

created a tight yet wonderfully flowing 

single track which has matured over the 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1471
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

547

last 15-20 years into an American Gem. 

The Tinton Trail was featured in 4 premier 

mountain biking magazines in the last 18 

months. It was voted the best single track 

in the Midwest last year in BIKE magazine 

(the best magazine of them all). It beat all 

of Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota 

and Iowa‟s trails, which is not a small feat 

when you consider that Minnesota alone 

dwarfs South Dakota with the number of 

mountain bike trails that are paid for and 

maintained by wealthy cycling enthusiasts 

in their area.

186/3 I‟ve been riding Tinton Trail since the mid 

nineties, and know every rock, root, turn 

and low-lying tree. The trail in its infancy 

was crude and hard to ride because the 

“tunnel” was tight. But like a caterpillar, 

with repeated responsible riding and 

maintenance of the trail, Tinton Trail has 

metamorphosed into a beautiful section of 

single track. Each corner over the years 

has developed just the right amount of 

berm to support a turn. When I say berm I 

don‟t mean a three-foot downhiller‟s berm 

but on Tinton Trail, an inch or two in just 

the right spots supports the flow.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1472

186/4 Please keep the ATVs and motorcycles as 

far from our trail as possible. ATVs have 

thousands of miles of dirt roads to 

explore. Mountain bikers might have 100 

miles of single track in the Black Hills. I 

beg that you protect this trail for every 

mountain biker in our country and those 

from Canada that I have seen come to 

Spearfish just to ride Tinton trail. This is 

selfish, but I beg that you save the trail for 

me. Tinton Trail has become part of my 

psyche and it soothes my soul after a long 

winter in Spearfish. Part of the reason I 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1473
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

548

live in Spearfish is to ride Tinton Trail 

home after a long day of doctoring. I can 

honestly say that if Tinton Trail is 

destroyed and not replaced I would 

consider leaving for a more bike friendly 

community.

186/5 I would be very excited to discuss a deal 

with the Forest Service to help you 

maintain and pay for the maintenance of 

Tinton Trail. I‟m speaking for my friends, 

but I‟m sure the Queen City Ramblers 

Biking Club and the Ridge Riders Biking 

Clubs are here to help you with time and 

money. We could make signs and barriers 

to at traffic or whatever you would like. 

Please consider my offer.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1474

189/1 I would like to advocate leaving Forest 

Service Road 150/1E open to vehicle 

traffic. To my knowledge this is the only 

legal access road into the Victoria Canyon 

climbing area. Losing access to this area 

would be a huge loss to the climbing 

community. Victoria Canyon is special to 

climbers not only because of the beautiful 

setting and close proximity to Rapid City, 

but also because it offers the steepest 

climbing currently found in South Dakota. 

In other words, the limestone walls of the 

canyon are very overhung, and offer a very 

athletic and challenging style of climbing, 

not found at other climbing areas in the 

state. Please consider keeping this road 

open.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1475

194/1 I am writing in regards to the proposed 

closure of Forest Service Road 150/1E 

near Rapid City, SD. I live in Spearfish, 

SD and have been climbing in Victoria 

Canyon for about 3 years now. Victoria 

Canyon can only be accessed by the Forest 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1476
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

549

Service Road 150/1E. Victoria Canyon 

has been a place for roped climbing and 

bouldering since the 1980‟s and has been 

recently expanded with new climbing 

routes which make it a more and more 

popular place for the local climbers.

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

194/2 If Victoria Canyon could be kept open all 

year, with no seasonal closure, it would 

definitely be a benefit to and appreciated 

by the people that frequent the area.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1477

195/1 I am and have been my whole life a 

resident of the Black Hills and live in 

Spearfish, SD about 55 miles west of 

Rapid City. I live here because I love to 

climb. When I heard that there may no 

longer be access to Victoria Canyon I was 

immediately concerned about the prospect 

of not being able to access the unique and 

beautiful features of that canyon. Not only 

is it a joy for me as a climber but also is 

for hikers and occasionally kayakers. I am 

writing to ask if you could please keep 

Forest Service Road 150/1E near Rapid 

City, SD open as it is the only access left 

for climbers and hikers to get down into 

Victoria Canyon being bordered at the 

entrance by private property and because 

of the Victoria Lake Road Closure that 

was established years ago. I would like to 

point out that climbing is a low-impact 

sport on the environment, with walking 

and standing at the base of the cliffs being 

the only traffic. It‟s also a benefit because 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1478
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

550

it‟s so close to Rapid City. With Victoria 

Canyon only one mile out of town it 

makes for another option for climbers to 

go to other than the other climbing area 

close to Rapid City, Falling Rock. This 

would also help disperse people from the 

Falling Rock area (which is somewhat 

more dangerous with its rappel in to the 

base of the climbing routes) to Victoria 

Canyon. Also, because much of the Black 

Hills, including Rapid City, industry is 

tourism, Victoria Canyon is a jewel for 

climbers and not to mention beautiful to 

be in as a hiker as well. This canyon 

definitely has level of rock that could 

interest many, not just local, climbers.

195/2 A matter that was brought to my attention 

was the seasonal closure (December 15th -

May 15th) of [Road 150.1E] Victoria 

Canyon. Because South Dakota can be 

sometimes very temperate during the 

winter it would be nice to have all-year 

access to Victoria Canyon for climbing -

we would appreciate it! I truly hope that 

you will see the benefit of allowing us to 

continue to have access to Victoria 

Canyon.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1479

202/1 I would like to comment on the proposed 

ATV trails near Spearfish‟s Tinton 

mountain bike and hiking/running trail. I 

ask that you preserve this trail for the 

many outdoor enthusiasts that use a 

human motor to experience the forest. I 

would like to ask that you preserve this 

trail from potential ATVs that destroy 

single track without realizing it. I ask that 

you preserve the trail for the type of 

people that love nature and love to 

traverse it in as natural a state as possible.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1480
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

551

202/2 Tinton‟s mountain bike/hiking trail was 

originally laid out by one of your own 

Forest Service agents in the 90‟s. He 

created a tight yet wonderfully flowing 

single track which has matured over the 

last 15-20 years into an American gem. 

The Tinton Trail was featured in 4 premier 

mountain biking magazines in the last 18 

months. It was voted the best single track 

in the Midwest last year in BIKE magazine 

(the best magazine of them all). It beat all 

of Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota 

and Iowa‟s trails, which is not a small feat 

when you consider that Minnesota alone 

dwarfs South Dakota with the number of 

mountain bike trails that are paid for and 

maintained by wealthy cycling enthusiasts 

in their area.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1481

202/3 I‟ve been riding Tinton [Trail] since the 

mid-nineties, and know every rock, root, 

turn and low-lying tree. The trail in its 

infancy was crude and hard to ride 

because the “tunnel” was tight. But like a 

caterpillar, with repeated responsible 

riding and maintenance of the trail, Tinton 

has metamorphosed into a beautiful 

section of single track. Each corner over 

the years has developed just the right 

amount of berm to support a turn. When I 

say berm I don‟t mean a three-foot 

downhiller‟s berm but on Tinton, an inch 

or two in just the right spots supports the 

flow. Because Tinton Trail is wilder, and 

not overbuilt, it is fragile. Last summer 

three kids with motorbikes rode the trail 

maybe three or four times. The damage 

they created with their powerful machines 

and unskilled hands destroyed at least two 

or three of those berms. Again, not tons 

of damage, but can you imagine what will 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1482
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

552

happen when we get 2-3 ATVs on Tinton 

per day? Worse yet, can you imagine what 

will happen when four wheelers ride up 

the middle of the single track? Tinton 

Trail would be destroyed in less than one 

season.

202/4 Please keep the ATVs and motorcycles as 

far from our [Tinton] Trail as possible. 

ATVs have thousands of miles of dirt 

roads to explore. Mountain bikers might 

have 100 miles of single track in the Black 

Hills. After living the last 10 years in 

Colorado, I can personally tell you that 

Tinton Trail is a true gem and deserves to 

be preserved. It ranks among the best 

trails anywhere, including Colorado, and it 

is one of the reasons I returned to the 

Black Hills.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1483

202/5 I would be very excited to discuss a deal 

with the Forest Service to help you 

maintain and pay for the maintenance of 

Tinton Trail. I‟m speaking for my friends, 

but I‟m sure the Queen City Ramblers 

Biking Club and the Ridge Riders Biking 

Clubs are here to help you with time and 

money. We could make signs and barriers 

to ATV traffic or whatever you would like. 

Please consider my offer.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1484

210/1 In relation to the BHNF we are located at 

the junction of FS Road 17 and FS Road 

238. FS Road 238 intersects our property. 

Easement granted by us in the early 1970‟s 

stipulated USFS would maintain the road 

at least every 2 years or the easement 

would be withdrawn. The 2-year 

maintenance was not met in the past. Due 

to increased development beyond our 

property; ATV and 4-wheeler use 

increased [and] we have more excessive 

The western portion of FSR 238 (east of South Rochford 

Road) is open to highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives 

C, D, and E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1485
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

553

traffic, much more dust. Our house is very 

close to FS Road 238. We request 

speed/dust control. Both of us have 

breathing problems that is aggravated by 

the increased dust. Another road, FS Road 

181.1D is available for use. This road does 

not intersect any private

property.

216/1 I prefer “Alternative C”. Talk going 

around locally is that an employee of the 

National Forest Service has had letters 

published in the Rapid City Journal asking 

others to write you in an effort to further 

limit off-road motorized vehicles. He rides 

mountain bikes and doesn‟t want 

motorized vehicles anywhere near where 

he might choose to go. A specific trail he 

is picking on, among others, is a nature 

trail in the “Ranch A” area on the 

Wyoming side of the Black Hills. The 

group I ride with is older with medical 

problems and cannot access this trail or 

any others in the Northern Hills by bike or 

on foot. Please keep this trail(s) available 

to us.

A range of Alternatives was considered in the DEIS and 

FEIS for motorized opportunities around the Ranch A 

community. While Alternatives B and C proposed 

different motorized opportunities; Alternatives A, D, and E 

do not propose any public motorized use except along 

existing motorized public roads.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1486

221/15 Need a Paiute Trail type loop (274 miles) 

with various trails feeding off of the main 

loop trail.

This comment is similar to Recommendation #5 of the 

National Forest Advisory Board, as described in Chapter 1 

of the EIS. Alternatives B, C and D feature looped trail 

systems in certain portions of the Forest. Alternatives B 

and C would allow motorized vehicles to transit between 

these looped trail systems; Alternative D would restrict 

such transit to address the issue of user safety. The 

alternatives address this concept to varying degrees. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1487

232/2 (cont from comment no. 1) This draw is 

also a major access point for our cattle and 

some debate has existed as to which user 

is responsible for the damage to soil 

stability. In a letter by District Ranger 

Steve Kozel addressed to W.W. 

This comment can not be addressed at this time. The 

"draw" mentioned can not be accurately identified for an 

on-the-ground location to provide a response. It is 

uncertain whether the DEIS identified the "draw" as a 

route for motorized use that would complicate cattle 

grazing opportunities. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1488
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

554

Thompson and Sons, Inc., dated October 

24, 2008, it was stated that due to activities 

(read motorized vehicle) other than 

grazing in the area, the draw could no 

longer function as a benchmark area for 

monitoring and should no longer be used 

as a benchmark. This demonstrates yet 

another externality of off-road motorized 

travel that has complicated both the 

grazing permittees and the Forest Service‟s 

ability to manage the grazing allotment.

233/1 The DEIS Travel Management Plan for 

the Black Hills NF recognizes the increase 

in demand for OHV use, page 3 under 

background. It also recognizes the state 

rankings of OHV participating in activities 

and recreation. However, the proposed 

action falls short of supporting the needs 

of this ranking. The 627 mile increase in 

50" or less in motorized trail miles is on 

the central, northern, and Wyoming 

districts while the Hell Canyon District 

only provides 2 trails, both of minimum 

distance. More trails are needed to help 

minimize concentration of use in the 

proposed areas, thereby reducing potential 

damage in those areas.

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and those 

chosen will be documented in the Record of Decision. If 

no trails are designated in Custer County with this decision, 

this does not limit the Hell Canyon Ranger District from 

consideration of trail designation in the future. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1489

242/1 I am writing about the proposed 

motorcycle trail by my parent‟s ranch at 

the base of Crystal Mountain [[T3NR4E 

Sec 24, 25]] I am against this trail. It will 

cross and damage at least 2 riparians, one 

on the South Box Elder Creek and 

another nice spring on the other end of 

the trail. I thought the Forest Service was 

very interested in taking care of these 

resources.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. Hydrology had been 

considered and any chosen routes that make stream 

crossings will be mitigated appropriately. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1490

242/2 I am writing about the proposed 

motorcycle trail by my parent‟s ranch at 

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. Once a decision is 

Route 

Specific 

1491
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

555

the base of Crystal Mountain [[T3NR4E 

Sec 24, 25]] I am against this trail. Your 

proposal states this will be a motorcycle 

only trail, but as fast as a trail is made, it is 

an open invitation for the ATVs to start 

using also. I don‟t know if you realize the 

damage these people have done already. I 

would be happy to show you. It‟s hard to 

believe the Forest Service allows this to 

continue.

made vehicle classes will be expected to use their 

appropriate trails. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. There will be 

designation of route and vehicle types, use of other vehicles 

will be prohibited. The rule includes definitions, 

procedures, and criteria for designation of National Forest 

Service trails, vehicle use, and a prohibition on motor 

vehicle use that occurs off the designated system or that is 

inconsistent with motor vehicle designations.

Comment

242/3 I am writing about the proposed 

motorcycle trail by my parent‟s ranch at 

the base of Crystal Mountain [[T3NR4E 

Sec 24, 25]] I am against this trail. This 

trail will run right next to our private 

ranch property. This will ruin the peace 

and quiet of the whole area involved, 

besides the increased risk of forest fires 

and frightening wildlife and livestock.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. Common to all 

Alternatives sound limit for OHV's is set at 96 decibels. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. Fires caused by arson, equipment 

and smoking combined account for less than 10% of 

ignitions on the Black Hills National Forest annually. Any 

action alternative selected for this project would reduce the 

total area currently available for motorized use and thus 

could decrease the risk of unwanted ignitions. And, routes 

open to motorized recreation could also provide access to 

fire suppression equipment should the need arise. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1492

242/4 I am writing about the proposed 

motorcycle trail by my parent‟s ranch at 

the base of Crystal Mountain [[T3NR4E 

Sec 24, 25]] I am against this trail. My 

parents have a Forest Service permit, 

which they have had for 50 years. Last 

year I actually came across 5 or 6 

motorcyclists chasing our cattle on their 

bikes. This will most certainly increase this 

problem.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. The harassment of livestock is a law 

enforcement concern and should be reported as such. 

There will be designation of route and vehicle types, use of 

other vehicles will be prohibited. The rule includes 

definitions, procedures, and criteria for designation of 

National Forest Service trails, vehicle use, and a prohibition 

on motor vehicle use that occurs off the designated system 

or that is inconsistent with motor vehicle designations.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1493

245/1 We live on USFS Road 561 roughly nine 

miles SSW of Lead, and would like to go 

on record in support of Option 

[Alternative] E. All other options provide 

connectivity from USFS [Road] 561 

through to Custer Peak via Snowmobile 

Thank you for your comment. Common to all Alternatives 

sound levels for OHV's will be set at 96 decibels.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1494
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

556

Trail # 7 and other existing traces. As has 

been evidenced by heretofore ATV use, 

this will result in an increased level of 

noise disturbance and road dust at our 

residence and those of our neighbors.

245/2 USFS 561 is the driveway for three 

permanent residences and two seasonaluse dwellings. There are a number of turns 

and hills that compromise visibility; and 

the increased level of low-profile vehicles 

not intended for road use would constitute 

a significant safety risk.

FSR 561 was analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as open 

to highway legal vehicles only and in Alternative C as road 

open to all. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Any routes selected 

as part of the motorized travel system may include 

recommended mitigation measures in place to ensure the 

safety of the users.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1495

245/3 We live on USFS Road 561 roughly nine 

miles SSW of Lead, and would like to go 

on record in support of Option 

[Alternative] E. The recently increased 

level of ATV traffic, especially during the 

summer of 2008 (a normal moisture year), 

resulted in substantial damage to the 

Snowmobile Trail [# 7] particularly in the 

area of the North Rapid Creek/Elk Creek 

divide approximately 300 yards east of the 

[USFS Road] 561 jump off to said trail.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1496

245/4 We live on USFS Road 561 roughly nine 

miles SSW of Lead, and would like to go 

on record in support of Option 

[Alternative] E. Options other than 

[Alternative] “E” provide for unrestricted 

travel on existing logging trail USFS 

[Road] 561-1C running south from USFS 

[Road] 561 along and immediately east of 

private land...

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1497

245/5 We would like to note that regardless of 

which Alternative plan is chosen, 

particular attention must be paid in 

addressing the crossing of North Rapid 

Creek immediately west of the Dumont 

Trailhead. During the 2008 season, ATV 

traffic effectively destroyed the stream 

No OHV routes were analyzed in any alternative for the 

area west of Dumont at the Rapid Creek crossing on 

snowmobile trail 7 and, therefore, it is outside the scope of 

this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1498
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

557

bank system as well as the riparian bog for 

a considerable distance up and 

downstream of the Snowmobile Trail # 7 

Crossing. This not only affects erosion of 

the immediate area but adds considerably 

to the silt load and degradation of fish 

habitat for several miles downstream.

251/2 I would like to see the 830 [USFS] Road 

open to Cook Lake and Hershey Creek to 

Coral Creek open to 50" or less ORVs.

These routes have been considered open to motorized use 

under Alternative B and C of the DEIS and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1499

254/4 Mechanized non-motorized travel should 

be restricted to a designated trail system, 

such as the Mickelson Trail, that is 

routinely monitored to assure the safety 

and well being of all users.

Thank you for your comment. The Mickelson Trail is not 

Forest Service Jurisdiction. Mechanized non-motorized 

travel is outside the scope of this document as this EIS 

deals with motorized traffic.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1500

255/1 I want to urge the Forest Service to limit 

motorized vehicles to designated areas. I 

am so saddened by the damage I see that 

ATVs have done to the Mickelson Trail, 

as they careen up the power lines and use 

the Trail (which is off limits to motorized 

vehicles) to get to their next off trail area.

Motorized access would be limited to designated areas and 

routes. Mickelson Trail is not being considered for 

motorized travel under any Alternative in the DEIS and 

FEIS. The Mickelson Trail is not Forest Service 

Jurisdiction. The purpose of the EIS is to determine which 

routes motorized traffic will be allowed on.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1501

264/5. The concentration of ATV and 

motorcycle trails around Hwy 385 North 

of Pactola is excessive. This is an excellent 

elk hunting area, especially west of Hwy 

385. The number of trails should be 

reduced or at least made seasonal only.

Many of the routes around Highway 385 and north of 

Pactola were eliminated in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1502

264/6. Motorized camping and game retrieval 

should not be allowed in FSR 141.2B, 671, 

and 671.1B. These gulches are too narrow 

and steep. Cross-country motorized use 

would adversely affect the soil and 

vegetation. A better option for motorized 

game retrieval and camping would be FSR 

672.

These routes are open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1503

264/7. Trails 671.1A, 671.1D, 142.1A, 142.1B, 

U190001, 437.1C, 437.1G,437.1F, 437.1E, 

436.1E, and 237.1I are shown on 

Most of these routes are not included in Alternatives D or 

E. FSR 142.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative E, and is closed in Alternative D.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1504
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

558

Alternative C. These trails were not part of 

the October 2007 plan and are all 

currently closed. These new proposed 

trails should be removed. Kelly Gulch 

(FSR142) is frequented by fishermen and 

families going on day trips. There should 

be no other motorized use around FSR 

142. The road itself crosses perennial 

streams multiple times and just about 

every gulch carries water as this is an 

important drainage area into Rapid Creek.

273/1. My primary uses of the BHNF are hiking 

and off highway driving in a Jeep or 

Suzuki Samurai. Both are over 50 inches 

wide. I enjoy driving rugged trails but not 

full blown rock crawling. The local clubs 

refer to these as difficulty 3 and 3+. I feel 

that Alternative C does a good job of 

laying out a very usable trail system with 

lots of though routes and loops. However 

most of the trails are limited to vehicles 

less than 50" wide. 460 miles of trails are 

limited to 50" or less and only 154 miles 

are open to all vehicles. A similar ratio 

shows up in Alternative B. Some of the 

width limited trails need the limit because 

the trails are very narrow.

Based on guidelines from the Travel Management Rule, the 

DEIS identified trails as open to less than 50 inch wide for 

motorized opportunities. Vehicles over 50-inches wide 

was identified as a special designation route on the DEIS. 

In the Final EIS, trails within South Dakota will be reevaluated for widths less than 65 inches, allowing wider 

vehicle to access these routes. Any motorized vehicle 

exceeding this width will be limited to roads. Wyoming will 

continue to evaluate motorized trails for less than 50-inch 

widths due to compliance with the State ORV program.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1505

274/3. Make the Shanks Canyon/Wild Irishman 

to Log Porch Road area non-motorized 

except for the 603 Road tied to the 199 

Road (Wild Irishman) tying 

Shroeder/Nemo road and Highway 44. 

There are tremendous potential 

opportunities for developing this area 

specifically for mountain biking and 

hiking. This area has historically been used 

by these user groups. By allowing 

motorized recreation in this area, it would 

make it, in my opinion, far more difficult 

to implement a mountain bike/hiking 

Many of the motorized routes in this area were removed in 

Alternative D, and are limited to highway legal vehicles 

only in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1506
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

559

specific area leading to greater user 

conflict.

275/2. I would like to see the 830 Road open to 

Cook Lake and Hershey Creek to Coral 

Creek open to 50" or less ORVs.

These routes have been considered open to motorized use 

under Alternative B and C of the DEIS and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1507

280/4. Motorized travel from Pilot Knob to 

Dalton Lake on the Centennial Trail must 

be eliminated! It is a premier hiking trail 

and its intent was not designed to include 

motorized travel. It appears that part of 

Dugout Gulch allows motorized use and 

this must be eliminated.

A variety of motorized opportunities was evaluated in the 

DEIS and FEIS. The motorized portion of Centennial 

Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

motorized consideration under Alternative D.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1508

280/6. Alternative D - The number of motorizedmixed trails and trails must be reduced if 

this Alternative is considered. Although it 

has fewer total number of miles for 

motorized routes compared to Alternative 

E, more of them are on trails, which have 

more impact on habitat than an existing 

road. It appears it does not actually allow 

motorized use of the Centennial Trail, but 

there are lots of trails in the area of the 

Centennial Trail, especially in the areas 

from Dalton Lake to Nemo and northwest 

of Pactola to Pactola. These trails must be 

eliminated because the Centennial Trail 

needs buffer zones.

All trails were eliminated in Alternative E. Varying 

numbers of trails were evaluated in all other Alternatives to 

meet the purpose of providing a motorized trail system for 

the public. Thank you for your comment on the Centennial 

Trail.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1509

281/1. I strongly oppose the “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” in two areas: 1. 

Motorcycle trail labeled CZ-4885 (the trail 

lays in and near the Experimental Forest) 

for Alternatives B, C, and D, and 2. 

Motorcycle trail labeled CZ-4829 (the trail 

begins near Nemo and extends north 

approximately 13 miles) for Alternatives B 

and C. I oppose these trails primarily 

because of the noise associated with 

motorcycles that causes fragmentation of 

Elk Habitat and increased stream 

Common to all Alternatives noise levels for OHV's is set at 

96 decibels. Sound levels and noise was recognized as a 

concern with the alternatives, and is addressed in Issue 4. 

The alternatives generally vary as to how many miles of 

trails are located near non-National Forest System lands. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1510
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

560

sedimentation in the Box Elder Creek 

drainage. Elk are found where they are 

least disturbed. The more trails you have 

the less habitat for elk. Also I dislike the 

noise myself. Both the American 

Motorcycle Association and the USFS 

DEIS commented on here recognize the 

importance of the noise issue:”An 

increasingly important issue in the Black 

Hills and across the nation is the sound 

level associated with off-highway vehicles 

especially in otherwise quiet areas.” (USFS 

DEIS, p.76).

281/2. I live near these trails [CZ-4885, CZ-4829] 

and have recreated in the area affected by 

the proposed “Trails Open to Motorcycles 

Only” routes described above. I have firsthand experience with the noise 

motorcycles and OHVs make on the road 

on which I live (Nemo Road), and the 

inability of government authorities to 

monitor and enforce noise standards let 

alone speeding, unlicensed vehicles and 

underage unlicensed drivers on public 

roads. The proposed route CZ-4885 

comes within a mile of my family‟s 

property, and a combination of “Seasonal 

Roads Open to Highway Legal Only

Vehicles” and “Roads Open to All 

Vehicles” could easily bring the 

motorcycles to our property. Enforcement 

is hard to visualize in this area. They can‟t 

even do it on the paved Nemo Road. The 

fewer trails you have the easier it will be to 

enforce the new travel plan. With the 

current budget this is something to be 

considered.

Common to all Alternatives noise levels for OHV's is set at 

96 decibels. NM: This is beyond the scope of the rule. 

Nemo road is a state highway, a person would need to 

contact local Sheriff Dept.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1511

282/1. I have land and a cabin along FSR134 and 

ask that you not expand the access for any 

motorized vehicle use in this area. I have 

Thank you for your comment. Varying numbers of routes 

for motorized traffic were analyzed in Alternatives B, C, 

D, and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1512
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

561

observed over the last 10 years that what 

used to be hiking trails and mountain bike 

trails are being increasingly used by 

motorized vehicles. I have observed other 

areas in the Black Hills where this has 

occurred over the past 10 years as small 

ATVs have become more popular. Don‟t 

let this happen in the Tinton Road area. 

The heavy traffic in the summer to Iron 

Creek Lake is bad enough; we don‟t need 

more vehicles of any type.

documented in the Record of Decision.

307/1. Merrill Allotment: Please keep the 3 or 4 

roads (trails) that are shown as existing on 

the old Forest Service maps. There is only 

one public access to this allotment and 

that road goes only about 1/2 mile. The 

other roads (trails) originate on private 

land and need to be left as is. On all of 

your proposed plans, there are no trails or 

roads shown.

Access into and out of this allotment will remain as is. 

Access for permitted administration of this allotment will 

also remain unchanged. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1513

308/1. As a resident of Silver City, I have seen a 

large increase in motorcycle and ATV 

traffic through town. The concentration of 

motorized travel around this area is not 

welcome. Close road 141.2B. The 

motorcyclists are using it to get to their 

trails. To get to 141.2B they go through 

Silver City Road in from of my house. 

They create dust which depending on the 

winds comes through my windows or 

ends up in the creek. There is no need to 

open 141.2B other than to access the 

private property up there.

FSR 141.2B does not connect to other routes in 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1514

308/2. Close road 675.1 (Middle Nugget). It was 

closed years ago because of problems with 

the running stream. It was debated and 

analyzed and finally closed. Why are you 

thinking about opening it up again along 

with a bunch more trails on both sides of 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1515
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

562

it? Please leave it closed.

309/1. I have noticed on the plan map that 

square 30 off Tinton Road in the 

Northern Black Hills needs to connect 

626.1 to 134.213 to complete the trail.

This access in on other jurisdiction lands and outside the 

scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1516

309/2. The section around Stageyard trailhead 

should be applied to alt [Alternative] C. 

Area that [includes] Rochford, Mystic, 

[and] Bloody Gulch, [under] [ Alternative] 

B should go to [Alternative] C and keep 

ATV trails.

The routes were analyzed in both Alternative B, C and D. 

Routes were changed in Alternative C and D because an 

concern raised was to have more looped trails and less dead 

end routes. The dead end routes were eliminated to 

address this.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1517

309/3. Looking for ditch permission on square 

#21, 206.1 to 219.1.

FSR 206 passes through private property in section 21. 

Granting permission to use the ditch is outside the scope of 

this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1518

310/1. My name is Keith Grimm, owner of Wild 

Bill‟s Campground located on Highway 

385 and Galena Road. I feel a trail system 

for ATVs and off road vehicles is a step in 

the right direction. My concern is our 

campground patrons will not have direct 

access to the proposed trail. In the 

immediate proximity there are five 

campgrounds; Fish and Fry, Hidden 

Valley, Creekside, Steel Wheel and Wild 

Bills Campground; one ATV rental; Mad 

Mountain, a complete gas and 

convenience store; Steel Wheel. This trail 

system will significantly impact our 

businesses. I would appreciate if you 

would consider including a trail from our 

campground to the suggested ATV trail 

system. In your proposed trail system we 

are not included; I ask you to reconsider 

and add our location to connect with the 

trail.

This area is on private and other jurisdiction lands and 

outside the scope of this EIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1519

312/1. This map is from 1970 F.S. [see ATT 1]. 

807 Rd was Forest Service road from 180, 

the county maintained this to the end of 

pavement only. After the private group 

Road 807 was a county road from I-90 to State line. 

County advertised in the local paper for potential 

abandonment of the portion of road through the private 

land. No public opposition was made for abandonment of 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1520
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

563

bought Homestake land, Moskee Road 

was shut down as an entrance to S.D. and 

at the same time all access on 807 or 

Grand Canyon Road was shut down. 

These are marked in red ax's [ATT 1]. 

This made it very easy for this group to 

have extra land to use for hunters that pay 

stupid prices and limit public hunting and 

fishing and camping areas that are off the 

main road. Smith Draw off 805 “circled” 

was also shut. This was a camping area 

that hunters used that was well off main 

roads. Now everyone has to camp on the 

main roads ditches. As for me, I hunt on 

foot. The old 4-W is for dragging out my 

game I may get, so plan [Alternative] A 

would have better retrieval in the summer 

when people from Gillette come over with 

their kids. The kids are the ones that tear 

the hell out of everything.

the road. Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided 

additional motorized access to the Smith Draw area that 

would also included opportunities for dispersed camping. 

313/2. I would like FS Road 838 opened through 

the private land as it did 30-50 years ago. 

It gives good access to hunting also FS 

Road 832 stops at private land and does 

not go through to Bearlodge campground.

Neither roads 838 or 832 has public easement through 

private property. Until public easement can be obtained , 

these roads would not be listed as open to public travel on 

any map.

Route

Specific 

Comment

1521

314/5. If you want to have a complete trail 

system the trails need to connect where 

possible. Dead-ends should be and can be 

avoided. This will enhance the experience. 

There are so many good trails that are 

missing from the plan that it would be 

impossible to identify all of them herein. 

However, as specific examples I would 

suggest adding the existing trails that 

connect FS 685.1C to FS 308.1C; FS 685 

to FS 308.1F; FS 309 to FS 314.1C; FS 

309 to FS 314.1C; FS 314.1E to 308.1B 

for starters. I would respectfully suggest 

that FS personnel actually ride some of the 

many trails and make an effort to add 

Thank you for your interest in this project. Many of the 

examples you suggest adding have been reviewed and some 

of these will be considered by the Decision Maker at the 

time of Decision. It is possible that in the future as the 

need arises, additional trails may be proposed and analyzed 

in a separate environmental analysis and decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1522
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

564

connections between the trails as to 

eliminate some of the dead-ends. I would 

be happy to show your people

specific trails.

316/1. Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C 

Feb/2009 Maps 2 or 3: On both maps you 

show a Trailhead at the entrance of F.S. 

204.2 In the past people have used this 

area to leave their trucks and trailer as they 

are out on their ATV, motorcycles or 

whatever. They have absolutely no 

consideration for the people who live at 

the end of F.S. 204.2A. Every summer 

weekend we are picking up beer and pop 

cans, toilet paper and trash of all kinds 

that‟s left behind. They have gone so far as 

to park at the entrance of my driveway 

preventing my family from entering our 

home! The location you are proposing for 

this Trailhead is at the top my driveway. I 

do not want to have a Trailhead in my 

backyard. Please eliminate.

Your comment will be considered. The proposed trailhead 

on FSR 204.2 was removed in Alternatives C and E. Any 

decision on trailhead locations will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1523

316/2. Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C 

Feb/2009 Maps 2 or 3: You show a 

motorcycle only trail running parallel with 

FS 204.2. This trail was only created 3 - 4 

years ago by a bunch of ATV riders from 

Minnesota. They were approaching our 

home and decided it not best to come 

down any further so they cut through the 

trees. Two times a year this same bunch 

comes and uses this trail. It would be 

difficult for a person to even find the head 

of this trail (where 204.2 and 204.2A meet) 

since it is only used by a few who know of 

it. I do not feel there is a need for a 

motorcycle only trail at this location.

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Any decision on trail locations will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1524

316/3. Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C 

Feb/2009 Maps 2 or 3: Motorcycle only 

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Route 

Specific 

1525
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

565

trail [parallel with 204.2]: You show it 

crossing HWY 385 (going to the East) and 

running the ditch a short distance until 

crossing into what you label as 

Experimental Forest. Have you contacted 

the Department of Transportation 

regarding the use of this ditch? I am 

currently working with the DOT to make 

it unlawful to use this ditch for ATVs 

and/or motorcycles. I am asking it be a 

fine punishable up to $500.00 for any 

ditch damage. Not only is this an eyesore 

but it is an extremely dangerous place to 

cross. Vehicles heading South on HWY 

385 are going 55 MPH. They come to a 

top of a hill (F.S. 204.2 entrance) and all of 

a sudden you have ATVs and motorcycles 

crossing.

For any route selected the FS will work with other 

government agencies to make crossing along any high 

speed road engineered in a safe manner. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Comment

316/5. Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C 

Feb/2009 Maps 2 or 3: You show a trail 

coming from FS 616.2A, listed in what 

should be Experimental Forest, and tying 

into FS 664.1A. 95% of the time the 

Forest Service has the gate closed for any 

vehicle access to 664.1A. If a person were 

to get onto 616.2A and travel it as shown 

and approach the exit at 664.1A and find 

the gate closed, what should they do? Are 

they to turn back and exit the way they 

came in? Yes they should but will they? 

No. They have created a trail that goes 

around the gate! FS 616.2A dead ends and 

should remain that way. Please do not 

allow this to connect with 664.1A.

The proposed ATV near 616.2A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

The gate you speak of is currently a seasonal closure and 

would be opened during the time OHVs were allowed to 

use the trail. Your comment will be considered and any 

decision on trail locations will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1526

317/3. This road or trail [CZ-4885] is carried over 

from the original Travel Management 

Proposed Action Plan and is a year-round, 

motorcycle-only trail. My client [Boyd 

Vincent] objects to this trail for a variety 

of reasons. This trail is in very close 

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1527
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

566

proximity to the northern edge of my 

client‟s private property. Given the 

relatively small amount of “motorcycleonly” designated trails under any of the 

Alternatives, it is natural to assume that 

motorcycle traffic will be greatly 

concentrated in the allowed areas.

317/4. The section of CZ-4885 which is closest in 

proximity to my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] 

private property [HES 624, section 25-36-

3-4 and sections 30 and 31-3-5] contains 

an almost perpetual bog and the attendant 

risk of resource damage. My client recently 

visited [the] site and took the attached 

photographs [ATT 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, and 36]. The fence lines 

reflected in the photographs mark the 

boundary between my client‟s property

and the National Forest. As is dramatically 

shown, there are at least two locations 

along this proposed trail, both of which 

are directly adjacent to my client‟s 

property, which have both running and 

standing water across and along the trail 

itself. There is

very little evidence this location is being 

actively used by motorcycles or other off 

road vehicles. Yet, resource damage at the 

present (limited) level of activity is 

substantial. One can only imagine the 

destruction and damage which would 

attend the increased activity brought about 

by the proposed designation (as well as the 

proposed new trailhead in the near vicinity 

of my client‟s property). My client can 

attest that these areas remain wet, 

regardless of the moisture of any particular 

year. The water in both denoted locations 

has taken on the characteristics of a 

“stream” and appears to be running 

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Soils hydrology was analyzed in pages 100-131. If this 

route is selected mitigation measures will be taken to 

protect soil resources as appropriate. Your comment will 

be considered and any decision on trail locations will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1528
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

567

generally in an easterly direction feeding 

the sensitive areas between my client‟s 

property and Nemo.

317/5. The photographs [ATT 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36] reflect that these 

water sources [on and nearby CZ-4885] 

are being used as a guzzler by elk, deer and 

other wildlife. The disturbed areas shown 

in the photographs reflect a high level of 

wildlife activity. I would hope that you 

would agree that a high level of 

motorcycle only traffic in and around this 

location would be most detrimental to 

wildlife in the area.

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Wildlife were analyzed in pages 143-229. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1529

317/6. The section of my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] 

private property [HES 624, section 2536-

3-4 and sections 30 and 31-3-5] closest to 

this trail [CZ-4885] is highly unique and 

capable of development. The views and 

surroundings would make this an ideal 

location for an additional permanent 

structure. My client has long considered 

this option but believes the close 

proximity of a year-round motorcycle-only 

trail will frustrate these plans. The 

proposed motorcycle trail is literally 

adjacent to my client‟s private property to 

the north (as shown by the attached 

photographs [ATT 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, and 36]), thus being 

inconsistent with the Forest Service‟s 

original goal of an at least 300-foot buffer 

between private property and Forest 

Service-designated roads or trails.

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternative E. 

Your comment will be considered and any decision on trail 

locations will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1530

317/7. CZ-4885 in the areas adjacent to my 

client‟s [Boyd Vincent] property [HES 

624, section 25-36-3-4 and sections 30 and 

31-3-5] has been designated by The 

Norbeck Society as “Special” as pertains 

Thank you for your comment. The proposed motorcycle 

CZ-4885 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D and 

removed in Alternatives E. Your comment will be 

considered and any decision on trail locations will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1531
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

568

to wildlife and botanical interests. 

Motorcycles are widely known to be the 

fastest moving, noisiest, and ultimately 

most destructive form of off-road travel, 

and my client believes it is inconsistent 

with the Norbeck Society‟s Special 

Designation.

317/8. As reflected in the attached maps, [ATT 3, 

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25] this is denoted 

as an all-vehicle road which in its entirety 

runs directly adjacent to the east side of 

my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5]. In fact, Road 741-

1A actually encroaches upon the Vincent 

private property. Proof of this 

encroachment can be provided upon 

request. For this reason alone, this read 

needs to be eliminated for consideration as 

part of any final Travel Management Plan. 

This is true regardless of any particular 

permitted vehicle designation. Allowing 

741.1A to remain as part of any of the 

Travel Management Plans would foster a 

trespass upon my client‟s private property. 

Whatever other considerations exist, this 

fact alone must trump all others. Even 

when not encroaching on my client‟s 

private property, the road is in very close 

proximity to the property line and thus 

inconsistent with the “buffer zone” goal as 

originally expressed by the Forest Service.

FSR 741.1A is an existing Forest Service road currently 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all alternatives to 

remain as such. The allegation of trespass of this road on 

private property is apparently a long standing issue that 

may require an engineering survey to resolve with the 

Northern Hills Ranger District. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1532

317/9. This road [741.1A] is in close proximity to 

the wildlife watering area, or “guzzler”, 

located on my client‟s private property.

FSR 741.1A is a currently open existing forest service road 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such. Structures on private property were not 

analyzed by this EIS as it is outside the scope of this 

project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1533

317/10. A close inspection of this road [740.1A] FSR 740.1A is a currently open existing forest service road Route 1534
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

569

reveals that it [is] nearly impassable due to 

the rocky terrain.

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such.

Specific 

Comment

317/11. It [740.1A] is denoted as all-vehicle 

accessible, i.e., the highest possible use 

category. Considering that Road 740.1A 

should be closed as encroaching upon my 

client‟s [Boyd Vincent] private property 

[HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and sections 

30 and 31-3-5], Road 740.1A would be a 

dead end road and thus inconsistent with 

the goal of establishing “loops” for offroad travel. The presence of a dead end 

road or trail in close proximity to my 

client‟s property naturally gives rise to 

concerns over unauthorized access to the 

forest and even unauthorized trespass 

upon my client‟s private property. Even 

without reference to Road 741.1A, 740.1A 

is a dead end road for vehicles as it runs 

directly into the proposed motorcyclesonly trail, CZ-4885.

FSR 740.1A is a currently open existing forest service road 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such. All motorized traffic will be expected to 

remain on the designated routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1535

317/13. My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this 

all-vehicle road [730.1] in that it is a dead 

end road which terminates in very close 

proximity to the north and west portions 

of my client‟s private property [HES 624, 

section 25-36-3-4 and sections 30 and 31-

3-5]. The dead end nature of this road 

makes it limited in terms of recreation, 

doubles the number of contacts in the 

proximity of my client‟s private property, 

and creates the risk of users failing to 

abide by the road designations.

FSR 730.1 is a currently open existing forest service road 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such. All motorized traffic will be expected to 

remain on the designated routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1536

317/14. This small section of all-vehicle road 

[730.1D] is in very close proximity to the 

northern end of my client‟s private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5] and is a dead end 

in that it terminates on the proposed 

FSR 730.1D is a currently open existing forest service road 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such. All motorized traffic will be expected to 

remain on the designated routes. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1537
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

570

motorcycle-only trail, CZ-4885.

317/15. My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this 

road [U-130097], designated as being for 

50-inch vehicles or less, due to its very 

close proximity to the north and west 

sections of my client‟s private property 

[HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and sections 

30 and 31-3-5]. A piece of this road or trail 

actually appears to terminate directly onto 

my client‟s property.

U130097 was analyzed as a trail less then 50" in 

Alternatives B, C, and D and removed in Alternative E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1538

317/16. My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this 

road [741.1B], designated as open to all 

vehicles, given its very close proximity to 

my client‟s private property [HES 624, 

section 25-36-3-4 and sections 30 and 31-

3-5]. Upon physical inspection, this road 

also “dead ends” as a practical matter 

because of a bog created by ground water.

FSR 741.1B is a currently open existing forest service road 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1539

317/21. [From ATT 37] Attachment 2 [ATT 2] 

vividly demonstrates the disproportionate 

burden my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5] (and those 

surrounding) is to bear with respect to 

yearlong off road vehicle travel. This is 

particularly true when compared to the 

vast tracts of land to the north of my 

client‟s property where virtually all roads 

and trails are to be closed.

All system roads surrounding Mr. Vincent's property 

currently exist and are open to motorized traffic and were 

analyzed to remain as such in all Alternatives. Once the 

decision is made vehicles will not be allowed to travel off 

roads or designated trails. The existing system roads north 

of Mr. Vincent's property were also analyzed in the same 

manner.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1540

319/56. The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail and the area around 

Dalton Lake have been significantly 

degraded by OHV incursions that have 

resulted in a significant amount of 

resource damage. These areas were 

historically designated as being areas of 

non-motorized recreation. However, in 

the DEIS, these areas, and the Centennial 

Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. A portion of 

the Centennial Trail (FSR 613) was inadvertently included 

as a motorized route in Alternatives C and E, but was 

omitted from Alternative D. FSR 613, 746, 746.1B, 1D, 

and 1F in the area of Deer Creek Trailhead were 

inadvertently included in Alternatives B and C as motorized 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1541
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

571

been re-designated as motorized 

recreation areas. BCA [Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance] views this redesignation of traditionally non-motorized 

trails as dominating multiple uses of the 

forest. The following two photos [ATT 2 

and 3] are examples of the currently 

designated motorized trails on the Pilot 

Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial 

Trail. [These photos] [ATT 2 and 3] reflect 

the heavy damage that has been caused in 

the past and still exists today. In order to 

redress the domination of multiple uses of 

the forest by the OHV community, the 

Norbeck Society requests that the USFS 

re-designate all sections and trailheads of 

the Centennial Trail as non-motorized, 

place priority on rehabilitation of “usercreated” trails within a 1-mile buffer of 

Dalton Lake.

routes, but were removed from Alternative D. Your 

comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision. 

319/87. Areas with high riparian risk:- Big Hill -

Road 626- Spearfish Canyon - location 5N 

2E. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources.

FSR 626 is an existing seasonally open system road for 

motorized traffic. It was analyzed as such in all 

Alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1542

319/88. Roads in conflict with Botanical 

Management Areas:- Higgins Gulch -

location 6N 1E- Upper Sand Creek - 51N 

60W- Northwest of Custer Peak - Roads 

228 and 205. It is requested that the Forest 

Service withdraw any motorized routes in 

these areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources.

Roads within the botanical area designated as Upper Sand 

Creek are closed to public motorized use from all 

Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS. Administrative 

motorized activities may be authorized by district ranger. 

No routes were proposed in the Higgins Gulch and 

Englewood botanical areas other then the existing currently 

open system roads in any Alternative. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1543

319/89. Roads in conflict with Montane Grassland 

- Cement Ridge - 50N 60W- West of 

Black Buttes - Roads 878, 872, and 1AHardy - Roads 107, 108, 183- Ditch Creek 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS proposed motorized 

routes on FS 805.1 because it is a historical access route to 

the Cement Ridge fire tower. FS 878, 872, and 872.1A are 

not associated with known montane grasslands. Motorized 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1544
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

572

- location 1S 2E. It is requested that the 

Forest Service withdraw any motorized 

routes in these areas [from Alternative D] 

to protect sensitive natural resources.

routes in montane grassland in the Ditch Creek area and 

FSR 107 and 180 are existing system roads in Alternatives 

D and E.

319/90. Roads in conflict with Weed Infested 

Areas:- West of Hardy - Roads 107, 108-

South West Jewel Cave - Roads 1A, 1BNorth of Clayton Quarry - Roads 209, 

210, and 232. It is requested that the 

Forest Service withdraw any motorized 

routes in these areas [from Alternative D] 

to protect sensitive natural resources.

Motorized routes in the FSR 107, 108, 209, 210 and 232 are 

existing system roads in all Alternatives with no changes 

proposed in any alternative. Management of weed 

infestations will not change under any of the alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1545

319/91. Roads prohibited within Management 

Areas:- Between Dugout Gulch and Crow 

Peak - 6N 1E- South of Crook Mountain -

Roads 1D, 542. It is requested that the 

Forest Service withdraw any motorized 

routes in these areas [from Alternative D] 

to protect sensitive natural resources. 

Secondly it also appears that no 

consideration was given to existing nonmotorized areas.

The DEIS and FEIS under Alternative D eliminated all 

opportunities for motorized access for Dugout Gulch, 

except for administrative purposes. There are currently five 

seasonally open existing roads from Crow Peak to Dugout 

gulch areas. They were analyzed in all Alternatives to 

remain as such. No additional routes were proposed in 

existing non-motorized management areas. FSR 542.1D in 

Crook Mountain area is also a seasonally open existing road 

that was analyzed in all Alternatives. It is in a management 

area that allows motorized traffic. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1546

319/92. Red Lake Area - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 10 miles 

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 225.1E, 

134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015. All of these roads are currently 

closed and provide an excellent quiet area 

for the non-motorized enthusiast. With 

Alternatives A, B, and C these roads will 

be opened. How does opening these roads 

affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect 

the non-motorized community? Was that 

analyzed [in the] EIS? Why is no 

consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1547
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

573

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

319/93. Limestone Plateau - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 20 miles 

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 733.2B, 733.2C, 733.3A, 733.3B, 

733.3C, 733.3D, U050089. This currently 

closed area will be opened with 

Alternatives A, B, and C. How does 

opening these roads affect wildlife? Was 

this analyzed in the EIS? How does 

opening the roads affect the nonmotorized community? Was that analyzed 

[in the] EIS? Why is no consideration 

given to existing non-motorized areas? 

These areas and roads were closed for a 

reason. Why were they closed in the first 

place? The EIS should give a reason and 

show effects of opening these roads and 

areas. The EIS should list every road that 

is currently closed that will be opened so 

that the public knows what is going on 

and what affect this has on all resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1548

319/94. Roads off FSR 134 - 134.2B, 134.2L, 

214.1D, U010071, 134.3A, U010072, 

U010060, 134.2U, U710095. These roads 

were closed be a previous ranger and now 

they will be opened [under] Alternative A, 

B, and C. How does opening these roads 

affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect 

the non-motorized community? Was that 

analyzed [in the] EIS? Why is no 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1549
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

574

consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

319/95. 639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road 

connects Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. 

Currently closed to motorized use and 

provides a good purpose being closed. 

This road will be opened [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C] and provide 

access to the area behind Crow Peak. The 

roads goes directly through a quiet area 

and more than likely the ATV will venture 

off the road and the whole Crow Peak 

area will be compromised. Was any 

consideration given to not allowing ATV 

access to the non-motorized areas? Also 

this is a known elk caving area. Was any 

consideration given to wildlife in the EIS 

for this planned to be opened area? Why is 

no consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitat 

are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for conflicts with 

non-motorized recreation opportunities are reflected in 

Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how they address each 

of these issues. FSR 639.1 was analyzed to stay closed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Once a 

decision is made individual users will be expected to stay on 

the designated route. ATV trails were not proposed in nonmotorized areas. Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of 

the DEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1550

319/96. Area south of Hanna Campground. Roads 

211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all 

closed roads will be opened [under 

Alternatives A and B]. Was any 

The closed routes south of Hanna Campground were 

analyzed to be opened in Alternative B and removed from 

Alternatives C, D and E. There are no system hiking trails 

near any of the routes mentioned.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1551
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

575

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

319/97. CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of 

the Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It 

makes no sense to expect ATV users to 

turn around. How will you close the end 

of this road? Was any consideration given 

for a non-motorized buffer around our 

[the forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail 

system? In many cases [under Alternatives 

A, B, and C] the motorized trail either 

parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

You are correct in Alternative B, CZ 1403 travels through 

the Spearfish Canyon management area where no off road 

traffic is allowed. This was an error and it was removed 

from Alternatives C, D and E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1552

319/98. Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be 

designed to a Forest Service Standard? 

Will the current trail locations be reviewed 

by an Engineer and Hydrologist before 

they are opened? For example road 134.2B 

has a 35% grade for 300‟, road U010077 

goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep ruts, 

and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. 

These have been listed as examples of 

many more problem areas. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

OHV routes will meet FS standards for trails. Some routes 

may be easy and some very difficult. Routes that traverse a 

steep slope will be engineered with climbing turns and 

appropriate water crossings will be built where necessary. 

Not all routes will be available to use the first year after the 

decision is made and will be opened up after mitigations are 

done.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1553
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

576

319/99. Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located 

on the Bearlodge District in the area of 

Sand Creek. A portion of this trail - miles 

of the total trail length of - miles [distances 

not provided] will be converted into an 

ATV trail [under Alternatives A, B, and 

C]. This trail is in a semi-primitive nonmotorized management area, within a 

botanical area and eight years ago the 

Forest Service spent $112,000 on 

developing this trail for non-motorized 

users. The entire trail will be affected 

because the noise of ATVs on the upper 

loop will ruin the quiet area on the lower 

section. Was any consideration given for a 

non-motorized buffer around our [the 

forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail 

system? In many cases [under Alternatives 

A, B, and C] the motorized trail either 

parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

Alternative A represents the existing condition for 

motorized opportunities on the Black Hills NF which does 

not include motorized opportunities on the Dugout Trail. 

The portion of Dugout trail considered under Alternatives 

B and C for motorized opportunities is an existing road 

that doubles as a trail for non-motorized activities and 

motorized administrative activities. No funding was spent 

on this road for development of the trail. For trails that are 

not defined roads, motorized opportunities were restricted.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1554

319/100. Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails 

(733.1A, 733.1K) will go right into the 

middle of the Eagle Cliff Trail System 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C]. Noise is 

an issue. Some ATV users will get lost and 

start following the hiking trails. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in Alternatives B, 

C and E, and analyzed to be closed in Alternative D. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. Common to all 

Alternatives noise level will be will be set at 96 decibels for 

OHV's. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1555

319/101. Little Spearfish Trail - All Alternatives 

have a Road 734.1 which dead ends at the 

trail. This will encourage ATVs to follow 

the Little Spearfish Trail. Was any 

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to be 

left open in all Alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1556
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

577

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

319/102. Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes 

right up against the Rimrock Trail. Just 

when you think you get away an ATV 

comes past you. Also encourages [ATV] 

use of Rimrock Trail. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buff around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B and 

C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1557

319/103. Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized 

section of Centennial Trail from Dalton 

Lake to Pilot Knob. This trail section is in 

horrible condition due to overuse. Most 

non-motorized users know to never go on 

this section of trail due to the heavy ATV 

use. Roads 137.1B, 1371C, 137.D and 

137.1E [are] currently closed roads. By 

opening them [under Alternatives A, B, 

and C] access is provided to a secluded 

part of Centennial Trail. Roads 703.1C 

and 703.1D are planned to be opened and 

are within mere feet of Centennial Trail. 

Roads 224.1D and 224.1E dead end at 

Centennial Trail. By opening these roads it 

will be near impossible to keep ATVs off 

Centennial Trail. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around 

our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be

documented in the Record of Decision. Roads 137.1B, 

137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be open in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently seasonally opened 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in all 

Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are currently 

seasonally opened system roads. They were analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed in Alternative 

D. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1558
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

578

trail system? In many cases [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C] the motorized 

trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

319/104. Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails -

Many sections are motorized. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on existing 

Forest System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside the 

scope of the DEIS analysis. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1559

319/105. Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is 

not a system trail it is probably the most 

popular mountain bike trail in the 

Northern Hills. In fact, Mountain Bike 

Magazine picked the Tinton Trail as the 

best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given 

whatsoever. ATV trails cross it and follow 

it in many locations. Was any

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, 

or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ 

experience.

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that cross 

this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals with 

motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1560

320/1. The signers of this letter are local residents 

of the Peaceful Pines neighborhood that is 

northwest of Black Hawk, SD. Our rural 

residential neighborhood consists of 

approximately 30 homes, some of which 

are within a few yards of the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1561
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

579

Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). We have 

examined the different action Alternatives 

in the DEIS and support Alternative D.

320/2. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

significantly increase the probability for 

major contamination of the underground 

Karst-based hydrological system that is the 

sole source of our community‟s water 

supply.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1562

320/3. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

require new, county and Forest Service 

law enforcement to minimize improper 

human activities, environmental threats, 

[and] general safety problems at this 

particular location because it is over 20 

miles from a 24/7 police or USFS office.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1563

320/4. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

definitely enhance the likelihood of 

human-caused fires, illegal drug activities, 

inappropriate firearm usage, diseases from 

decaying animal carcasses and their related 

damages to property, wildlife habitat and 

life.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1564

320/5. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

greatly magnify traffic from travelers 

unfamiliar with the steep, narrow two-lane 

roads (Peaceful Pines and Ridgeview) that 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1565
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

580

provide the only vehicle access to our 

community and this proposed trailhead.

320/6. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

result in greater noise and airborne 

pollution from the increased OHV usage.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1566

320/7. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

negatively impact the natural beauty and 

serenity of this portion of the Black Hills.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1567

320/8. [Alternative D] does not include the 

proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). 

An OHV Trailhead at this location would 

be completely unnecessary because an 

established trailhead already exists a few 

miles away at Piedmont.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1568

320/12. We [Peaceful Pines local residents]

support the removal of trails 777.1C and 

149.5B, as reflected in Alternative D. 

These particular trails currently traverse an 

existing, sensitive wildlife wintering habitat 

area and an important surface, subsurface 

watershed region. This watershed 

functions as an important recharge zone 

for the community water system.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1569

326/5. Alternative B: Eliminate road 238.1B by 

Rochford. It dead ends on private 

property parallel to the Mickelson Trail.

FSR 238.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1570

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 

No OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, Nahant, 

Dumont or Rochford in any Alternative on the Northern 

Hills District. The Mystic trailhead was not included in 

Alternative E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1571
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

581

areas ATV parking may also increase the 

likelihood that ATV riders may use the 

Mickelson Trail, which is non-motorized.

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 off-road use was 

allowed.

This route is proposed as road open to all in Alternatives B, 

C. and D and as road open to highway legal in Alternative 

E. There is no route proposed where the bridge is out in 

any Alternative. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1572

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 area 

needs to be open in case of fire or other 

emergency. The Mystic Trailhead is also 

too small to park trucks and ATV trailers. 

It is one of the busiest trailheads on the 

Mickelson during the summer months. 

There is not enough parking for the 

current Mickelson Trail users.

The trailhead at Mystic is not included in Alternative E. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1573

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 

FSR 245 is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and seasonally 

open to highway legal vehicles only in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1574
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

582

be closed from the Mickelson Trail 

intersection points during the summer but 

open for hunting use.

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 Mount Rushmore. Although no 

decision has been made about where this 

connector trail will be located, we [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 

Parks] would recommend no OHV trails 

overlap with Mount Rushmore and 

Mickelson trails. Keeping OHV trails away 

from the final connector trail at a 

manageable distance would mitigate 

conflicts between the user groups.

U250067 is not included as a motorized route in 

Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1575

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.

These trailheads are not included in Alternative E. No 

OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, Nahant, 

Dumont or Rochford in any Alternative on the Northern 

Hills District. There are no changes proposed to any of the 

existing Mickelson Trailheads, and there are no plans to 

allow recreational motorized use on the Mickelson Trail in 

the Southern Hills. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1576

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 

These trailheads are not included in Alternative E. No 

OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, Nahant, 

Dumont or Rochford in any Alternative on the Northern 

Hills District. There are no changes proposed to any of the 

existing Mickelson Trailheads, and there are no plans to 

allow recreational motorized use on the Mickelson Trail in 

the Southern Hills. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1577
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

583

affect the trail and its users. If these areas 

were to be used as trailheads for the ATV 

system it would create confusion in use of 

the Mickelson Trail. Even though the trail 

is signed, there is the distinct possibility 

that motorized vehicles will use these 

sections of trail. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] do 

not want to promote or even hint at 

motorized vehicles on the non-motorized 

Mickelson Trail.

326/13. Alternative D: For further clarification, the 

Mickelson Trail Right-of-Way (ROW) 

varies in distance from the trail center line 

and is not consistent along the Mickelson 

Trail. We [South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks] would like to 

reiterate the fact that any dispersed 

camping in the ROW of the Mickelson 

Trail is prohibited.

The Mickelson Trail is not Forest Service Jurisdiction and 

camping in the trail ROW is beyond the scope of this 

document. Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS analyzed 

no dispersed camping anywhere on the Black Hills 

National Forest, which includes along the Mickelson Trail. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1578

326/14. (SDGFP [South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks] 2007 Issue #12). 

We [SDGFP] support 100 foot fixed limit 

for dispersed camping and parking in 

Alternative B with modifications to avoid 

the Mickelson Trails, streams, and other 

sensitive habitats. Inconsistency between 

fixed distances could be confusing to the 

forest user to distinguish between which 

use allows 100‟ versus 300‟ (game 

retrieval) in Alternative B, and lead to 

enforcement issues. (SDGFP 2007 Issue 

#13). We support motorized game 

retrieval areas similar to Alternative C, but 

for elk only. We do not support 300‟ 

retrieval in Alternative B for numerous 

reasons (including #4 above). To avoid 

duplicate comments, we reference and 

incorporate herein our November 12, 

2007, letter and supporting reasons.

Dispersed camping is discouraged within a minimum of 

100 feet of lakes and streams per Guideline 5301. Other 

limitations to avoid dispersed camping within 100 feet of 

the Mickelson Trail and other sensitive habitats will be 

difficult to depict on the MVUM, but may appear as 

limitations described in narrative text on the MVUM. We 

share your concern regarding the potential confusion and 

enforcement challenge posed by having different distances 

allowed off-road for dispersed camping versus big game 

retrieval in Alternative B. Motorized retrieval of downed 

big game presents a variety of management considerations. 

We appreciate your comments and look forward to 

continuing our productive partnership in addressing this 

issue.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1579
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

584

326/28. Pleasant Valley Walk-in Area: A 3 mile x 2 

mile year-round non-motorized east of 

SDGFP [South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks] properties. The 

South Project created this area but we 

noted on some of the Alternative, the 

South Decision and Order could be 

rescinded and would defeat the purposes 

of the South Analysis and designation. Elk 

use our state land and find refuge to the 

east in the FS forested landscapes. Elk use 

is annual and we have identified that elk 

come here for the Wind Cave area to 

calve. The herd of about 100 head 

generally stays in the surrounding area 

then head back east in the late fall. Our 

conservation officer has also identified this 

area for prime archery deer. The recent 

prescribed fires will enhance native 

vegetation and a non-motorized area 

would assure recovery and a place for 

humans to simply enjoy the views. We 

[SDGFP] ask that all roads be closed 

except to administrative uses. Road 

numbers with the Hell Canyon South 

Project Maps and the proposed BHNF 

Route Map do not jive so we list all 

possible combinations: all user-created 

trails in addition to 715.3D, South 077, 

316.1M, 316.1N, U420010, U420017, 

U420009, CZ-3236, 316.1H, 315.1U, 

315.1R, 315.JQ, South 076.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Pleasant 

Valley Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been reviewed 

and will be considered by the Decision Maker at the time of 

Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1580

326/29. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Fire Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker at 

the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1581
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

585

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Roger's Shack Fire 

Walk-in Area: Open views, deer and elk 

habitat, grasshopper sparrows, 

woodpeckers, native vegetation has 

responded well to the fire falling trees will 

naturally aid in road closures. 307, 307.1A, 

307.1D, 307.1F, 307.1C, 307.1E, 307.1G, 

402, 402.1C, 402.1B, 402.1F, 402.1D, 409, 

445, 715.3J, 275, 275.1C, 275.1D, 715.3I, 

715.3E, 715.3M, 715.3L, 310.1H, 310.1G, 

310.1D, 507, 715.3E, 715.3K, 275.1A, 

275.1B, 715.3P, 715.3O, 715.3N, 409.1A, 

U350143, and 310.1E.

326/30. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Jasper Fire - Hell 

Canyon Walk-in Area: Views, deer and elk 

habitat, seasonal seeps and springs in 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Jasper 

Fire-Hell Canyon Walk-in Area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1582
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

586

canyons, mountain lion habitat, and 

canyon wren. Close 284.2K, 282.1A, 

282.1F, 284.2G, 284.2F, 284.2D, 284.2A, 

284.2B, 284.2A, 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 Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Park Complex and 

French Creek Walk-in Areas: Along the 

boundaries of Custer State Park, Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve and Wind Cave National 

Park: Protection of buffer to state and 

Federal parks, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, 

Meeker Creek. Wildlife are more likely to 

move freely across boundaries if not 

disturbed by roads and vehicles. Meeker 

Creek purchases by RMEF [Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation] and conveyed 

to BHNF in part to retain the solitude and 

habitats adjacent to Norbeck. Close 

373.1B, 435, 340, 337.1D, 342.1Q (and 

adjacent southern spur too short to see 

number on BHNF map), 339.1B, 343.1J, 

343.1F, 345.1A, 349.1A, 349.1D, 349.1E.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Park 

Complex and French Creek Walk-in Area you suggest 

adding has been reviewed and will be considered by the 

Decision Maker at the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1583

326/32. Designation of Motorized Routes to Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's Route 1584
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

587

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Roger‟s Shack Spring 

Walk-in Area: [Close] 272.2I, 272.2H, 

272.2D, 272.2C, 272.2E, 272.2F, 276.1T, 

276.1D, U410011, CZ-3942, 276.1F, 

272.2B.

Shack Spring Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker at 

the time of Decision. 

Specific 

Comment

326/33. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: McVey Burn - Silver 

City Walk-in Area: One of the most 

traditional sought-after areas for big game 

hunting. [Close] U190001, 142.1B, 142, 

FSR 606 is open seasonally in Alternatives C, D, and E as it 

provides access to the Deerfield Trail at Flannigan's Cabin. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1585
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

588

436, 251.1G, 249.3A, 249.2H, 249.2G, 606 

(or 909?).

326/34. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Silver Mountain 

Walk-in Area: Hiking through mixed 

conifers and hardwoods, big game area. 

[Close] U260047, 358.1B DE, 674.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1586

326/35. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Horse Creek Walk-in 

Area: [Close] 257.1A, 257, 257.1B, 257.1C, 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1587
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

589

710, 710.1A, U190099.

326/36. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following roads: Swede Gulch Walk-in 

Area: [Close] 231.4B, 234.1, un-numbered 

spur in Sec. 33 off 206.1, 206.1G, 206.1D, 

206.1E.

FSR 231.4B accesses recreation cabins that are under 

special use permit. This road was analyzed to remain open 

in all Alternatives to provide access. FSR234.1 and 231.5J 

(referred to as unnumbered spur) are open system roads 

that are not within the Swede Gulch non-motorized area. It 

was analyzed to remain open in Alternatives B, C and E 

and was removed from Alt D. FSRs 206.1G, 206.1D and 

206.1E are open system roads that were analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain open. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1588

326/37. Designation of Motorized Routes to 

Create Non-Motorized Area (Walk-in 

Areas): (SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of 

motorized routes by default create areas 

with less or no motorized disturbances for 

a myriad of forest users, as best illustrated 

in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create 

walk-in areas for hunting seasons that 

begin in September and go through 

winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] suggest 

the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 

2007. Walk-in‟s approximate closures of 

the following

roads: Black Fox Botanical Walk-in Area: 

[Close] 233.3A, 190.1R, 125, 125.1D, 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1589
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

590

191.1B, 190.1J.

326/38. Besant Park Walk-in Area: Closure of 

U100073, 209.3B. RMEP [Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation] Purchase (in 

part) and conveyed to BHNF for elk and 

riparian habitats. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

highly object to designating an ATV trail 

immediately adjacent to and surrounding 

this area for big game since that defeats 

the purpose of the conveyance and BHNF 

should already be on board with managing 

the surrounding area to meet the 

objectives of Besant Park. Proposed trail 

in forested site will disturb big game 

moving from meadows into security cover

of forest. Custer Crossing (Gonzales) 

Walk-in Area: Currently no roads 

proposed in area or new trails around it 

and we ask it stay that way for the same 

reasons as other RMEF purchased lands.

FSR 209.3B and U100073 were analyzed in Alternative B to 

be open and were removed from Alternatives C, D and E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1590

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 

MA [Management Area] 4.1 Limited 

Motorized Use and adjacent to and 

possibly encompassing MA 3.32 

Backcountry Non-Motorized Recreation 

(and Inventoried Roadless Area Beaver 

Park). Illegal user-created routes through 

drainages should not become a system trail 

or road by rewarding the public that 

created these inappropriate routes. These 

two MAs are a very small percent of the 

Forest and should be managed to retain 

the characteristics and desired conditions 

in which they were classified.

U080156 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. This route is in 

management area 4.1 and not within management area 

3.32. This route was not illegally created as it used to be a 

FS system route as indicated on old FS maps from the 60's, 

70's and 80's. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1591

328/1. This letter is to request that road 150/1E FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in Route 1592
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

591

remain open in the new travel 

management plan draft, and if possible, 

for the seasonal closure from December 

15 to May 15th be lifted to allow access in 

the warm spring months. 150/1E is the 

only public access point to Victoria 

Canyon which is one of the most beautiful 

canyons in the Black Hills which houses 

opportunity for hiking, kayaking, and 

some of the most high quality rock 

climbing offered in the country. Other 

than 150/1E, Victoria Canyon is 

landlocked by private property, and to lose 

feasible access to this amazing resource 

would truly be a tragedy.

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Specific 

Comment

329/1. Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Information map (South Dakota Area, 

Expires December 31, 2007 or if 

Rescinded) shows an access into the Hop 

Creek/Swede Gulch/Tilson [Springs] area 

from road 231.3 on a short road segment 

identified on the map as 235.1. This route 

cannot be accessed without first crossing a 

private property home site, does not 

appear on Black Hills National Forest 

Maps (i.e. 2001), and was verbally 

identified by prior Northern Hills Ranger 

District administration as being 

unnecessary to Forest Service needs. We 

request road segment 235.1 not be a part 

of the Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan.

FSR 235.1 is a closed system road that was only shown on 

the existing condition, Alternative A, map. It was removed 

from consideration on all other alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1593

330/1. Comment on road closure in Thomson 

Canyon. Road #816 Section #33: This is a 

good gravel road in the bottom of 

Thomson Canyon that we have been using 

for 50 years. This canyon is land locked 

and recently the landowner has denied 

access to the road. BHNF seems to have 

no interest in gaining access for the public. 

Although Forest Service road # 816 provides access into 

Thompson Canyon, it must cross other ownership, and 

therefore cannot be designated as a trail. The Forest 

Service does not have the authority to designate a trail that 

crosses or enters other private ownership. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1594
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

592

I am going through the State to try and get 

access by prescriptive right. So I don‟t 

think this road should be closed. The road 

is in the bottom of the canyon, therefore 

there is little damage that could be done.

330/2. 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.

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. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1595

330/3. Closing of road 818.1A, 818.1B, 81831F, 

and 818.1R on Elk Mountain, Section 

#10, and the main road # 118.1 to Elk 

Mountain Lookout Tower: These roads 

are well graveled roads and provide good 

access to an area that is great for hunting. 

I have been using them for years and do 

not see any reason to deny motor vehicle 

access to this area.

Portions of this road cross onto private land. The Forest 

Service does not have the authority to designate any travel 

routes onto or through private land. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1596

330/4. 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. 

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.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1597

330/5. Closing off road #117.5C in section #32: 

This is a good gravel road that we have 

been using for years. It is on flat ground 

and in good condition. I do not see any 

reason that this road should be closed.

This road is designated as open to highway legal in all 

Alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1598

331/1. We are writing in regard to the Forest 

Service developing trails for 4 wheel 

vehicles, motocross bikes and other 

UTVs. We recently sold our property 

south of Piedmont, SD to our son, 

Donald Walker, Jr. so we are very worried 

about the TOP 50 and their plans to 

access more of the Forest Service by 

The route in the field behind Donald Walkers house is on 

private land and not within FS jurisdiction and is therefore 

outside the scope of this document. NH9 which is within 

FS jurisdiction was analyzed in alt C and removed from all 

other alternatives. Any decision about routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1599
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

593

opening a road through the field behind 

our son‟s place. We don‟t understand the 

reason to accommodate this as their 

interest is making money by inviting 4 

wheelers form all over to come and 

destroy our Black Hills. From what we 

saw when we lived there, there was no 

respect for the environment of laws (no 

trespassing signs) by these owners or 

guests.

331/5. I don‟t think people realize the destruction 

these ATVers cause. Meanwhile they pay 

no fees, license et cetera. We however pay 

(gladly) to walk or bike to Mickelson Trail.

Impacts caused from motorized users on the National 

Forest was analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS. 

The Mickelson Trail was not proposed for motorized use 

under any alternative. A recreational fee program for 

motorized trail use is being analyzed and discussed for the 

Black Hills National Forest.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1600

332/1. My preference for the DEIS is plan C, 

with exceptions. The following should 

remain seasonal: 244 Bear Gulch to Horse 

Creek 243.

FSR 244 is closed seasonally in Alternative E. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1601

332/2. My preference for the DEIS is plan C, 

with exceptions. The following should 

remain seasonal: West Nugget (249) 

intersection with (530) Spruce.

FSR 249 is closed seasonally in Alternative E. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1602

332/3. Reopen (244.1B) and (251.1C) to Horse 

Creek. Also 606 (Tiffel Mine to 530).

FSR 244.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative D. FSR 606 is open seasonally in Alternatives 

C, D, and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1603

332/4. If you are looking for a through route 

from China Gulch to Nemo or beyond 

travel 149-530-CZ2570-245-to Mystic. 

Travel 231.1-231.2 232.1 to Merritt. Do 

not make Silver City part of a through 

route. We are cloaked in dust every 

weekend through the summer. It shouldn‟t 

[go] through or adjacent to private 

properties.

Routes through and adjacent to Silver City are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1604

334/1. I live on Sand Creek Road outside of 

Beulah WY and I am very concerned that 

Dugout Gulch is listed to become a trail 

Forest Service road 864 has two portions; a closed portion 

(about 1.5 miles) at the junction with Road 863 and an 

open portion (about 2 miles) at the junction of Road 865. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1605
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

594

for ATVs. The Botanical Trail is for hiking

and not for motorized vehicles. FS road 

864 is what I am referring to. Sand Creek 

Road which turns into 863 is the road to 

historic Ranch A and having increased 

traffic by ATVs will disturb all the people 

who have property along this road. This is 

the only access to Dugout Gulch 864. If 

this becomes an ATV destination, it will 

ruin this pristine part of the Black Hills, 

disturb the Ice Age plants that grow in the 

gulch and also disturb the elk and other 

wildlife. Please reconsider your plans for 

this area.

The only portion considered open for motorized activities 

under the DEIS and FEIS is that portion which has 

historically been open to all motorized users at junction 

with Road 865. 

337/11. [Respondent] needs to be able to get to 

Camp 5 from Sturgis without going on a 

major gravel road. Need access from 

171.1B.

Due to resource concerns the area from 171.1B to the 

Camp 5 area from Sturgis was not analyzed in any 

alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1606

346/28. We [Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department] generally support the 

proposed travel plan under all Alternative 

on the North Bearlodge, i.e., north of 

Highway 24 along USFS Rd #830. In all 

Alternatives, this area is not proposed to 

significantly change compared to the 

current situation, which provides a large 

(approximately 25 miles [squared]) area for 

walk-in hunting and other forms of 

recreation. This area offers some of the 

best hunting on the BHNF and is heavily 

used. Most of the current road closures 

here are effective and well followed by the 

public. In the past, USFS Rd # 830.4 was 

open all the way to its terminus at the 

extreme northeast end of the forest 

boundary (Section 6 of Township 55, 

Range 62). In all the proposed Alternatives 

it is indicated this road would be closed 

approximately where it runs into Section 

11, T55 R63. We suggest this road be 

The Blue Ridge road (FS 830.4) was closed due to damage 

caused by motorized access on sensitive resources. This 

route was not considered for motorized access under any 

Alternative of the DEIS and FEIS to protect these 

resources. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1607
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

595

opened to the forest boundary, as was 

previously the case. This allows better 

access for hunters, and does not give 

people coming on the BHNF from 

adjoining private land an unfair access 

advantage.

348/1. Raspberry Ridge is a favorite among 4x4 

groups and is currently a permitted trail 

used by several 4x4 clubs for events held 

throughout the summer months. The trail 

is generally run with the Jake Trail and is 

enjoyed by people of all experience levels.

Many of us use a spur off of Raspberry 

Ridge that forms a loop back to the 

original Raspberry Ridge trail. The road is 

existing and no maintenance or 

improvements would need to be made to 

utilize this road in a trail system. There is a 

section that offers an easy rock section 

and scenic opportunities. Off of 

Raspberry Ridge , there is another section 

that would offer a rock crawling 

opportunity near Raspberry Ridge, and 

would need to be looked at further. 

However, it would be a great chance to 

designate and look into the options 

further. The maps show the locations of 

the add-ons I would like to see.

Raspberry Ridge and Jake were analyzed to Alternatives B 

and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. Since the 

additional routes you speak of were not in any Alternative 

they cannot be considered for this EIS decision. They may 

be considered in future projects conducted by the 

individual Ranger Districts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1608

349/1. The 4x4 rock crawling trails known as the 

Buzzworms have challenged the 4x4 

community for many years, and have 

offered world class entertainment for 

people from all over the United States at 

events held in the Black Hills. It also has 

proven that limited use in the right 

conditions show it can be managed to 

sustain entertainment for the 4x4 crowd 

and minimize interaction with the locals. 

The deep canyon that houses the trails 

offer a secluded trail for enthusiasts to 

The Buzzworms routes you speak of were not in any 

Alternative they cannot be considered for this EIS decision. 

They may be considered in future projects conducted by 

the individual Ranger Districts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1609
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

596

enjoy testing their abilities and machines, 

and yet offer the seclusion to the residents 

that border the Forest Service Land in the 

access corridors to the trails. The natural 

terrain of the canyon minimizes any 

damage to the resources in the area. 

Recreation is abundant in the area, and the 

limited use of the trail should be provided 

to the 4x4 community along with others 

using the trails in the area. This trail is a 

certain attraction to those that want this 

kind of challenge, and folks will come 

from afar to enjoy themselves. This trail 

should be included in the trail system, as it 

surely fits the guidelines set for the trails in 

the proposed trail system. This trail has 

not been included on any of the current 

DEIS maps at this time. The Buzzworms 

trails are indicated on the included map 

named Buzzworms in the narrow purple 

line. [ATT 1 and 2].

350/1. 470/3. Elbow Canyon Trail, Southern Black Hills, 

South Dakota. The trail starts 

approximately at 43°26‟45.31N / 

103°50‟13.85W, and ends at 

43°27‟04.77N / 103°51‟24.38W. There is 

an alternate route that may make another 

sustainable route through the area south 

of the main trail. The rock crawling trails 

in the Southern Hills are essential for the 

trail system because to have a diversified 

trail system that is manageable, usable, and 

enforceable, it must be able to deal with 

issues of overcrowding, over-use, and 

encroachment of houses near forest 

property. Lack of trails in the Southern 

Hills is a major concern of the 4x4 

community, as this may provide a year 

round opportunity for recreation as the 

area does not usually see as much snowfall 

Thank you for your comments regarding the Southern 

Black Hills and specifically the Elbow Canyon Trail. On 

April 18, 2009 both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn 

Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked 

this trail to become familiar with the interest and concerns 

with this trail. This trail was requested as a rock crawling 

trail route. The Decision Maker will consider this request. 

If this trail is not designated during this planning process it 

is possible that in the future additional trails could be 

designated in the Southern Hills. However, this would 

need to be considered in detail in a separate environmental 

analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1610
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

597

as in the Northern part of the Hills. The 

proximity of small communities will 

benefit from having the recreation as this 

would offer a economics of tourism in 

lodging, food, and fuel to the locals. The 

area has been home to local organized 

mud bogs on private land, and the 

community has welcomed the recreation 

and opportunity. This is one of many trails 

that have been submitted through the 

proper channels via Jon Wermers with 

SDOHVC [South Dakota Off-Highway 

Vehicle Coalition], at the public input 

meetings in Custer and Rapid City, and 

hand-delivered to the Hell Canyon Acting 

District Ranger in addition to being hiked 

with numerous officials. Elbow Canyon 

was hiked on April 18, 2009 with 

SDOVHC, Black Hills Jeeps, and Black 

Hills 4X4 representatives, U.S. Forest 

Service Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell 

Canyon District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. 

The trails in the Southern Hills seem to 

have been ignored in the system by the 

previous District Ranger.

353/1. My first comment is in regard to the 

proposal for Forest Service Road 150.1E 

to be closed. Road 150.1E is the only 

public access to Victoria Canyon. Victoria 

Canyon is approximately 1 mile from 

Rapid City and holds 40+ sport climbing 

routes on steep limestone. It is a unique 

area that provides beginner to expert 

climbing in close proximity to Rapid City, 

SD. Victoria Canyon has been used as a 

climbing area for almost 30-years. All 

types of recreation that take place in 

Victoria Canyon (hiking, climbing, 

bouldering, kayaking) are low-impact and 

non-motorized. Because Victoria Canyon 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1611
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

598

is one of the closest rock climbing areas to 

Rapid City it helps to alleviate the impact 

the Falling Rock climbing area receives. 

Without the climbing in Victoria Canyon, 

Falling Rock‟s impact will be greatly 

heightened. Keeping FSR 150.1E open 

will help disperse recreational impacts.

353/2. FSR 150.1E is the only public access into 

Victoria Canyon. All other access requires 

crossing private land. Due to the Victoria 

Lake Road closure that was established in 

the past years, all other roads that could 

access Victoria Canyon are already closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the Alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1612

353/3. In regard to the Tinton Trail in the 

Northern Hills Ranger District, adjacent to 

Forest Service Road 134 proposed to be 

opened to motorized recreation. Although 

this trail was created illegally in the mid1990‟s, it provides some of the best singletrack mountain biking and trail running in 

the Black Hills.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1613

353/4. Tinton Trail [FS 134] should remain 

closed to motorized users. Motorized 

recreationists have multiple access points 

to National Forest land immediately 

surrounding Spearfish. Without Tinton 

Trail, the nearest non-motorized access is 

located approximately 7 miles from 

Spearfish. The Tinton Trail provides 

citizens with the opportunity to enjoy the 

National Forest for short periods 

throughout the day when they cannot take 

the time to access another trailhead.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1614

353/5. Tinton Trail [FS 134] should remain Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized by a Route 1615
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

599

closed to motorized users. It is commonly 

recognized that trails used by both 

motorized and non-motorized users have 

increased user-conflicts. Allowing 

motorized use decreases the safety of the 

trail for all users, especially children and 

pets.

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Specific 

Comment

353/6. Tinton Trail [FS 134] should remain 

closed to motorized users. In places where 

motorized access is allowed, trail quality is 

often degraded significantly.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1616

353/7. In regard to the Tinton Trail in the 

Northern Hills Ranger District, adjacent to 

Forest Service Road 134 proposed to be 

opened to motorized recreation. Although 

this trail was created illegally in the mid1990‟s, it provides some of the best singletrack mountain biking and trail running in 

the Black Hills.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1617

354/2. The Sheridan Lake Highlands (SLH) 

development on Sheridan Lake Road. The 

trails in this area, which are supposed to 

be closed, are too close to the residential. 

Often times there are individuals on these 

trails and the surrounding areas riding on 

motorized vehicles or motorcycles tearing 

up the land, littering, target shooting, and 

causing noise disturbances. Closing these 

trails that are located near these 

communities will reduce incidents and 

encounters with the various trail users and 

help to maintain or increase property 

values. We have made a significant 

investment in our home, as have the 

others in these communities, and do not 

want to see the continued abuse to this 

area or put up with the noise of the ATVs, 

vehicles, and motorcycles.

Motorized routes adjacent to Sheridan Lake Highlands are 

not included in Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1618
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

600

354/4. Both Alternatives [B and D] create a 

trailhead on Victoria Lake Road at the site 

of the long time, well-known area referred 

to as the “Shooting Gallery”. This area has 

been, and continues to be, a dumping 

ground and trash-filled area, for 

“appliance” targets and shell casings. The 

building of a trailhead, hopefully with 

restrooms and picnic tables, will be a 

gathering place, and provide parking, for 

the vehicles, motorcycles, and ATVs, 

thereby closing this area to the shooters. 

This area is no longer the remote spot for 

target shooting and is too close to 

residences and their livestock.

Parking areas provide a point of contact for better 

enforcement, education, and management. Thank you for 

your comment.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1619

354/5. We are adamantly opposed to Alternative 

C because it places a motorcycle only trail 

(CZ-4889) very close to our homes in 

SLH [Sheridan Lake Road] that connects 

Victoria Lake Road to 520.1B/C. The trail 

can be seen from our home! Please keep 

the motorized trails away from the existing 

communities! We do not want to listen to 

motorcycles tearing up and down the trail.

Route CZ-4889 is not included as a motorized route in 

Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1620

355/3. The game retrieval plan offered in 

Alternatives B and C has a base in distance 

from an open road. This is not very 

practical since most of the mileage is on 

the higher class roads, which are not 

within the allowed distance from a likely 

elk harvest. (See WYG&F [Wyoming 

Department of Game and Fish] comments 

regarding location of elk versus highly 

traveled roads.) Further these roads often 

border private in-holdings (inviting 

trespass) in the BHNF, such as is the case 

on Moskee Road Grand Canyon and 

Wagon Canyon. Vehicle retrieval of elk 

should be allowed in any DEIS Alternative 

within the specified distance from any 

A range of Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS was 

considered for motorized game retrieval. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1621
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

601

existing road, closed or not. Further, 

vehicle retrieval would be less intrusive 

than say 4-5 human walking excursions to 

retrieve quarters and the head of a 

harvested elk would. The rules of evidence 

on having the required license and an elk 

body are fine. The issue of cased weapons 

seems to be unnecessary given the first 

two requirements and it can be argued that 

the requirement is unsafe should a lion 

claim a carcass in the hunter‟s absence. No 

one would seriously consider that 

requirement for a successful hunter 

returning on foot!

356/4. According to the maps that were issued 

with the DEIS, there should theoretically 

be no traffic through Galena with the 

exception of local users. All the maps 

show the road ending where county 

maintenance ends. From that point it is 

heavily used as an „illegal trail‟ and through 

private property. This is used as the short 

cut to one of the motorized off road 

playgrounds. Traveling this direction also 

takes all these vehicles across Bear Butte 

Creek, which does show erosion from the 

usage. I believe there is access from the 

top of Spring Run Road, via a numbered 

spur that would take OHVs into their trail 

system. Signage on Galena Road just past 

Wild Bills Campground should help as 

well as directional signs showing where 

access points are.

All of the roads running in and out of the town of Galena 

are on properties not within Forest Service jurisdiction and 

are therefore beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1622

356/5. Per the DEIS, Galena Road is listed as a 

level 4 maintenance. With that 

designation, there should not be any usage 

by vehicles that are not licensed and 

insured. Nor should there be any 

operators under the age of 16. We do not 

have any hard statistical data but have at 

The portion of Galena Road you refer to is under county 

jurisdiction. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1623
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

602

times watched the traffic flow and have 

counted to at least 50% of the traffic being 

unlicensed vehicles and young operators. 

This also seems to be the class of users 

that is most annoying, as they are the ones 

that tend to drive faster and to rev their 

engines needlessly.

357/4. The only routes in the Carroll Creek Road 

vicinity that should be included in the final 

travel plan of motorized routes are FSR 

313 (Carroll Creek Rd); Mayo Rd; FSR 

308 to private residence at the north end 

of Section 32 T4S, R4E; FSR 685 (Fox 

Ridge Rd) to dead end in Section 20 T4S, 

R4E [[specifically, no motorized trail on 

north side of Hay Creek/Thunder 

Mountain that would dead end at private 

property accessed by Pleasant Valley Rd 

(FSR 715)]]. All routes/trails that have

been opened and used by public 

motorized users in the last 4 years for 

timber management (and which remain 

open, despite having been closed to public 

motorized use for the 15 previous years) 

between Carroll Creek Rd and Hwy 385 

should not be included in the final 

plan/Alternative. North of Hopkins Flat 

Rd (FSR 315 and FSR 316), existing FSR 

309 (dead ending in Section 29 T4S, R4E 

and not connecting through to Carroll 

Creek Rd) should be the only constructed 

route between Carroll Rd and Pleasant 

Valley Rd included in the final 

plan/Alternative. All other routes do not 

meet reasonable goals for quality 

motorized recreation because they are 

short, many are dead ends, and they are 

intermingled and often cross private 

property. Use of these routes produces 

impacts of dust and noise to private 

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your thoughts 

and concerns regarding this planning process. I would first 

like to address your specific concerns in the Carroll Creek 

Road vicinity. Any routes that are maintained by the 

county should and will remain open in all Alternatives and 

unchanged from current management. Any approved 

access to private lands will also remain open in all 

Alternatives and unchanged from current management. 

Other routes that are included in the Alternatives as open, 

vary by Alternative as to designation. Some of these routes 

are designated as open to highway legal only. Additionally, 

in Alternative E, many of the routes you may be concerned 

with are not designated as open. Within the Carroll Creek, 

Mayo, Hay Creek and Hopkins Flat areas, none of the 

routes identified as open are designated as trails. The 

Decision Maker will consider your concerns and make a 

decision on designation within the analysis of effects of all 

Alternatives. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1624
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

603

property and regular unauthorized use by 

motorized vehicles of private land. They 

also fragment wildlife habitat (such as elk) 

and native vegetation communities.

358/3. Dome Mountain/Pillar Peak Complex: 

The Dome Mountain/Pillar Peak ridge 

system lies between the Two Bit and the 

Lost Gulch drainages about five miles 

west of Deadwood. The few thousand 

acre area is note worthy for its soaring 

ramparts, scenic overlooks and, at least in 

its higher reaches, its lack of major 

resource damage from motorized vehicles. 

It is the only significant semi-wild area 

remaining between the Lead Deadwood 

area and Forest Highway 26 that connects 

Sturgis to Nemo. This few thousand acre 

area is of minimal value for timber, but it 

is a rugged, one of a kind, semi-wild area. 

Most of this area was formed by a massive 

porphyritic intrusion that is now a rugged 

ridge line known as the Dome 

Mountain/Pillar Peak complex. It is a 

country of hidden parks, aspen groves, 

unusually rugged canyons and splendid 

overlooks. It is thin soiled country and 

very susceptible to permanent damage 

from motorized off road travel. The main 

characteristic of the area is rugged scenery. 

It lost much of its old growth timber to 

wild fire in the early 1890‟s and in the 

Grizzly Gulch Fire of 2002. Its extensive 

aspen thickets were created by the earlier 

fire, and they now serve as game 

production and crown fire barriers over 

much of the area. Extensive shrub and 

aspen re-growth is now coming in the 

wake of the Grizzly Gulch fire as well. I 

did the stage 2 timber inventory of the 

region in the late 1970s, and I am quite 

Route UO30046 was analyzed to be included in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from consideration in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1625
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

604

familiar with the area. The following 

roads, road segments and trails should be 

closed to all motorized travel. UO30046 in 

sections 21 and 28, T. 5N, R. 3 E. This 

segment of road branches off of Forest 

Road 172.1 about one mile beyond the 

latter‟s junction with Forest Road 306 not 

far off of Highway 14 A. The road follows 

an increasingly steep grade until it passes 

under the base of Pillar Peak. Near here, 

on the divide with Lost Gulch, it 

interconnects with and continues on as 

Forest Road 172.1H.

358/4. (cont from comment no. 3) This road, 

UO30046 does not appear in Alternative 

D but it does in your (preferred) 

Alternative B. The lower area served by 

the northern end of the road, that is, 

between Pillar Peak and Road 306, was 

logged recently. The higher Pillar Peak 

area was burned in the Grizzly Gulch Fire 

of 2002. Road UO30046 traverses 

unacceptably steep grades on a narrow 

ridgeline on its approach to the base of 

Pillar Peak. It is a continuing source of 

erosion, and there is no way that this road 

can be left open to motorized travel 

without doing unacceptable resource 

damage. This road also encourages 

motorized traffic to the edge of the semiwild Pillar Peak/Dome Mountain area. 

This semi-wild area is now being damaged 

by ORVs that arrive on Road 172.1 and its 

adjoining segments. The OHV (mostly 

ORV) operators, go around or run over 

Forest Service road and trail closure 

markers along the edge of the Pillar 

Peak/Dome Mountain complex. The 

behavior is commonplace. The two 

segments of Road 172.1H (with a spur, 

Routes selected for the Record of Decision will have 

mitigation measures in place to deal with erosion issues. 

Once routes are selected motorized users will be expected 

to stay on the designated road or trail. .

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1626
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

605

171.D) form a loop. The loop is 

completed by a short segment of 172.1 in 

Lost Gulch. The two halves of the loop 

connect with 172.1 in Lost Gulch within a 

stone‟s throw of each other. This is a

classic case of road building for the sake 

of road building. The southern link of 

172.1H should never have been built, and 

anyone with an eye for slope and resource 

protection can see that. Both segments of 

the loop also encourage motorized travel 

to the lower edge of the Pillar Peak/Dome 

Mountain area. This area has very high 

wild land value and very low timber 

harvest potential. The combination is 

unusual, and it presents an important 

opportunity in the north central area of 

the Forest, an area that is riddled with 

roads and private in-holdings.

358/5. (cont from comment no. 4) The area 

between the Pillar Peak-Dome Mountain 

ridgeline and Lost Gulch needs 

rehabilitation to mitigate resource damage 

done by motorized vehicles on several 

roads and trails (above) that exist between 

Lost Gulch and the Pillar Peak/Dome 

Mountain ridgeline. Other than that, it 

needs to be left alone. If a management 

road into this area was needed in the 

future, the Forest Service could provide 

for this by leaving the main bed of the 

northern link of the loop formed by Road 

172.1 H and its spur, 172.1D, intact at the 

time of closure.

Routes selected for the Record of Decision will have 

mitigation measures in place to deal with erosion issues. 

Once routes are selected motorized users will be expected 

to stay on the designated road or trail.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1627

358/6. Road/trail 172.1C is actually the old Pillar 

Peak fire trail, and it was the only access to 

the Pillar Peak ridge before Forest Road 

172.1 and its adjuncts were constructed. 

Road/trail 172.1C runs immediately 

alongside of Road 172.1H from just above 

Routes selected for the Record of Decision will have 

mitigation measures in place to deal with erosion issues. 

Once routes are selected motorized users will be expected 

to stay on the designated road or trail.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1628
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

606

the floor of Lost Gulch to the upper end 

of the northern loop of 172.1H. Road 

172.1C parallels and duplicates H. It is a 

relatively short but very steep and deeply 

rutted trail. The Forest Service didn‟t 

bother to close C when the Agency built 

172.1H and motorized vehicles soon 

turned it into a massive erosion scar. 

[Road 172.1]C is the result of negligence 

on the part of the Forest Service. It is an 

erosion scar first, a road/trail second, and 

there is no excuse for this kind of land 

damage. Close it and rehabilitate the 

damaged area.

358/7. Close the short spur, Road 172.1A in the 

southern corner of Section 32, T. 5 N., R 

3 E. It serves no purpose except to 

encourage resource damage and travel 

toward the southern end of the Dome 

Mountain/Pillar Peak area. Walk this road 

out sometime and see for yourself. OHVs 

have converted this into one of the worst 

examples of resource damage in this 

Forest. In any case, you have already 

provided more than enough motorized 

access of all kinds in adjacent regions 

along the northeast face of the Black Hills. 

There is no reason to leave 172.1C or A 

open and there are excellent reasons for 

closing them. These roads are prime 

examples of why restrictions on motorized 

travel were needed to begin with.

Road 172.1A was analyzed in all Alternatives to be left 

open. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1629

358/8. Centennial Trail Segments: Although it 

doesn‟t appear in the Travel Management 

DEIS, it is my understanding that the 

Forest Service has recently proposed that 

motorized travel be allowed on the 

segment of the Centennial Trail, (Trail 89) 

that runs from Pilot Knob to the Silver 

City area. Did this change come about 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. This portion of the trail has been classified 

as motorized since the trail's beginning in 1989. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1630
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

607

recently due to political pressure from 

motorized groups? If so, why hasn‟t the 

Forest Service advised us of this change? 

Service personnel have a tough 

assignment. I need only look at the cynical 

approach the Meade County Commission 

takes to the Travel Plan DEIS to see that. 

Still, that is no excuse for proposing that 

motorized vehicles continue to be allowed 

on the Dalton Lake/Pilot Knob segment 

of the Centennial, or that they be allowed 

on the Pilot Knob/ Silver City section of 

the trail. The Centennial Trail is a hiking 

and non-motorized biking trail. Trails of 

this kind are by their nature nonmotorized, and their purpose is to provide 

safe, quiet enjoyment of the Forest. One 

of the most disconcerting aspects of this 

business is my having to even remind you 

of this. You know as well as I do about 

the damage that motorized vehicles did 

along the Centennial [Trail] southwest of 

Nemo. Your responsibilities are transgenerational. At the very least be truthful 

with words. Do not deceive the public by 

implying that the distinction between 

motorized and non-motorized trails is 

meaningless, by pretending that words do 

not mean what they mean. People and 

public agencies may disagree sharply 

without deceiving one another. Deception 

is terribly destructive of public trust. If 

you choose to change segments of the 

Centennial Trail into a motorized trail, so 

be it. But be truthful with the public and 

remove motorized trail segments from the 

Centennial Trail and mark them with an 

explanation explaining to the public and 

the future why you did so.

360/1. Dalton Lake Road [#224] should not be FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road Route 1631
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

608

part of the trail system for ATVs. Right 

now it is being used as a playground and a 

racetrack. This Forest Service one lane 

gravel road should be off limits to ATV 

use period. We are requesting that a sign 

be erected “No ATVs Beyond This Point” 

for the first one mile stretch of Dalton 

Lake Road #224. When they come from 

the east, another sign can reroute them 

onto Road #224-1A and lead them to 

Nemo. That way they will not be 

disrupting our neighborhood.

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Specific 

Comment

360/2. Dalton Lake Road [#224] should not be 

part of the trail system for ATVs. Dalton 

Lake Road is too congested of an area 

with regular local traffic alone. Hunters, 

logging trucks, Christmas tree cutter, 

campers, fishermen, horse trailers, 

firewood gatherers and now twice the 

ATV trailer as before, are using this road. 

Paving Vanocker Canyon (Hwy. 26) from 

Nemo to Sturgis has impacted our road 

with the increased traffic. Dalton Lake 

Road is a very dusty, one-lane (With 

turnouts) road and is very heavily used 

year-round. Since the new ATV trail map 

has come out, Dalton Lake Road has 

become one of the busiest gravel roads in 

the Black Hills. There are sometimes 24-

26 ATVs on one flatbed going down our 

road, creating dust, noise and unsafe and 

unhealthy conditions. It makes for a very 

dangerous situation. Allowing ATVs to 

use Dalton Lake Road is an accident 

waiting to happen. They have children 

riding with them as they are flying around 

the curves on this road. I can assure you 

that a lawyer will find a way to sue to 

Forest Service (since this is a Federal road) 

when someone is seriously injured on this 

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1632
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

609

road on an ATV. It is a one-lane, dusty, 

winding, dangerous gravel road with no 

warning of what is coming around the 

next curve and no signs.

360/3. We have called the Lawrence County 

Sheriff when these ATVs are speeding 

past our residence, but they do not have 

the manpower to come out here and 

enforce the speed limit. For that matter, 

there is no speed limit on Dalton Lake 

Road [#224]. The two small signs we 

erected to trees on our land have been 

completely ignored. We hope that our 

requests will be taken seriously and not 

ignored. We pay extremely high property 

taxes and to have no law enforcement in 

this area to control this very heavy ATV 

traffic is not going to be taken lightly. If 

you do not do something to limit the trails 

in our area and the ATVs going past our 

homes, rest assured that we plan to file a 

lawsuit against the Forest Service for 

unfairly burdening the Nemo area over 

and above all other parts of the Black Hills 

National Forest. The management of the 

Black Hills National Forest is biased 

toward ATV users, especially the 

Northern Hills office in Spearfish. When I 

have spoken to that office in the past (I 

don‟t bother to call them anymore because 

it doesn‟t do any good). I have been told 

that they have no control over our road 

and to call law enforcement. It appears 

that no one is in control over this area 

except the off road users!

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1633

360/4. We are asking that the first portion of 

Dalton Lake Road (approximately 1 mile) 

#224 be off limits to ATVs due to the 

several homes in this section that are being 

impacted by the traffic. If you review the 

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1634
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

610

proposed maps [in the DEIS], the area to 

the south of us is overrun with ATV trails 

and there are way too many of them 

congested in this area. We have lived 

within the National Forest for over 30 

years. It is worse here now than if we live 

on a busy street in Rapid City! Dalton 

Lake Road is overburdened and over-used 

with heavy traffic. Adding more traffic 

with the proposed addition of a new 

parking area for ATVs at Dalton Lake is 

absolutely unacceptable! This was a quiet 

campground for 30+ years.

360/6. There needs to be a plan to do something 

about our area [Dalton Lake Road] besides 

creating more trails for ATVs! The 

damage they are causing during rainy 

weather alone is absolutely ridiculous and 

these trails should be closed until you have 

enough money for law enforcement. But, 

of course, last spring, all of sudden there 

was plenty of money to put a mesh layer 

and several hundred tons of gravel on the 

damaged Centennial Trail near Nemo so 

they could continue to damage the trail. I 

heard it was in excess of $25,000. But yet 

there is no money.

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1635

361/1. I find most of the trail system in the 

Pettigrew grazing allotment, which I am 

very familiar with, completely acceptable. 

Specific off road trails cause considerable 

conflict with other forest uses. It seems 

reasonable that conflicts caused by open 

gates in fences used for grazing 

management can be eliminated with little 

impact on the trail system. I would like to 

see 134.2R eliminated from the trail 

system as it is very short and goes through 

a gate next to Iron Creek only to dead end 

on 134 which is not designated for off 

FSR 134.2R is currently an open system that was analyzed 

in Alternatives B, C, D, as a trail open to vehicles less then 

50 inches and in Alt E as an road open to highway legal 

vehicles. Your comment will be given consideration. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1636
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

611

road vehicles.

361/2. I find most of the trial system in the 

Pettigrew grazing allotment, which I am 

very familiar with, completely acceptable. 

Specific off road trails cause considerable 

conflict with other forest uses. It seems 

reasonable that conflicts caused by open 

gates in fences used for grazing 

management can be eliminated with little 

impact on the trail system. There will have 

to be access through the gate in Prospect 

Gulch just south of Iron Creek to access 

the extensive trail system east of 134 on 

the Pettigrew allotment form the Trailhead 

on Big Hill. This would be an excellent 

location for an easy open - easy close gate. 

Inexpensive gates can be installed that 

return to a closed position after they have 

been accessed.

Mitigation measures for livestock and gate conflicts will be 

included on selected routes.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1637

361/3. I find most of the trial system in the 

Pettigrew grazing allotment, which I am 

very familiar with, completely acceptable. 

Specific off road trails cause considerable 

conflict with other forest uses. It seems 

reasonable that conflicts caused by open 

gates in fences used for grazing 

management can be eliminated with little 

impact on the trail system. It appears on 

the proposed trail map that 225.1 doesn‟t 

access 222.2. If it does, that would cause 

unnecessary gate conflict.

Mitigation measures for livestock and gate conflicts will be 

included on selected routes.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1638

362/8. Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] 

lands: Buffered areas could allow 

motorized elk retrieval. The areas within 

the boundary must remain non-motorized 

for all uses. Bessant Park [area]: This area 

was purchased by sportsmen to provide a 

haven for wildlife. In the current proposal 

there are roads and trails surrounding this 

FSR 209.3B, 209.3A, 209.3J and 206.1A were analyzed in 

Alternative B, C, D and E to be a road open to 

all..U100073 was analyzed in Alternative B as a trail open to 

vehicle 50 inches or less and removed from Alternatives C, 

D and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1639
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

612

little piece of open area. Roads and trails 

U100073, 209.3B, 209.3A, 209.3J and 

206.1A should be closed year round to 

protect this area.

362/9. Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] 

lands: Buffered areas could allow 

motorized elk retrieval. The areas within 

the boundary must remain non-motorized 

for all uses. Tillson Springs [area]: This 

area is protected fairly well. I would 

suggest closing the spur road 234.1.

Designated areas for motorized game retrieval were 

addressed in Alternatives B and C. Alternatives D and E 

did not have any designated areas for cross country game 

retrieval. The closing of spur 234.1 was analyzed in 

Alternative D. Decisions about game retrieval will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. FSR 234.1 was 

analyzed in Alt B and E as a road open to highway legal 

vehicles and in Alt C as a road open to all. It was removed 

in Alt D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1640

362/10. Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] 

lands: Buffered areas could allow 

motorized elk retrieval. The areas within 

the boundary must remain non-motorized 

for all uses. Gonzoles: I would request no 

travel on all of the BHCI lands turned 

over to the Forest Service yearlong. To 

create the desired buffer to this area roads 

256.1S and 219.1G must be closed.

FSR 256.1S and 219.1G were analyzed in all Alternatives as 

road open to all. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1641

362/11. Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] 

lands: Buffered areas could allow 

motorized elk retrieval. The areas within 

the boundary must remain non-motorized 

for all uses. Meeker Creek, Wildcat 

Canyon, Beaver Creek... note attachment 

[ATT 1] to this document.

Motorized access into these areas is not proposed for any 

changes. If they are currently non-motorized, they will 

remain non-motorized.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1642

362/13. McVey Burn. Walk In Areas: This area 

seems to have enough road closures in the 

new proposal. I would encourage you not 

to add any more roads during the next 

part of this process. This is [a] quality 

hunting area that does receive lots of 

OHV abuse.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1643

362/14. Pleasant Valley GPA [Game Production 

Area]: The timbered ridge adjacent to this 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Pleasant 

Valley Game Record of Decision Area is an area that has 

Route 

Specific 

1644
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

613

parcel is a very important habitat that 

needs to be protected. I would request 

that we close 715.3D, 316.1H, U420009, 

U420079 and CZ 3236 (this one is not 

used by the local resident). Alternative D 

has addressed this well.

been reviewed and considered as a walk-in hunting area. 

This will be considered by the Decision Maker at the time 

of Decision and documented in the Record of Decision for 

this project. 

Comment

362/15. Wild Irishman Gulch off Schroeder Road: 

This was a popular hunting area close to 

Rapid City. This is also the reason it has 

become popular with OHV travel and the 

solitude is now rare in this area. It is listed 

as a winter range area and it needs to stay 

protected. I like the current proposal but I 

am also aware that some of the motorized 

users have requested many trails in this 

area. I request that these user created trails 

do not be added to the map.

Alternative D includes very few motorized routes in the 

Wild Irishman area.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1645

362/17. Roger‟s Shack Burn... note attached 

document [ATT 1] for suggested road 

closures.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Burn Area is an area that has been reviewed and 

considered as a walk-in hunting area. This will be 

considered by the Decision Maker at the time of Decision 

and documented in the Record of Decision for this project. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1646

362/19. Custer State Park and Wind Cave National 

Park: The MVUM [Motor Vehicle Use 

Map] shows a somewhat adequate buffer 

on the west border of these parks. These

are valuable corridors for wildlife that 

need to remain protected. Please note 

enclosed attachment [ATT 1] for 

suggested road closures.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Pleasant 

Valley Game Record of Decision Area is an area that has 

been reviewed and considered as a walk-in hunting area. 

This will be considered by the Decision Maker at the time 

of Decision and documented in the Record of Decision for 

this project. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1647

362/20. Jewel Cave and Mount Rushmore... note 

suggested road closures next to these 

sensitive areas in the enclosed document 

[ATT 1].

Thank you for your interest in this project. The area 

adjacent to Mount Rushmore on the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District is within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Within

the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, no motorized travel is 

allowed except on designated roads. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1648

363/1. My comment is specific to Hwy 385 and 

F.S. 204.2. There is not an area for 

trailhead parking and leaving unoccupied 

vehicles at Hwy 385 and F.S. 204.2. Do 

The trailhead on FSR204.2 was analyzed in Alternatives B 

and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. No 

permission would be needed from DOT as any selected 

trailheads will be on NFS lands. The Pilot Knob trailhead 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1649
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

614

you even have permission from the DOT 

[Department of Transportation] for such? 

I believe the best trailhead point and trail 

advantageous to the motorcycle riders 

would be at the Pilot Knob location. It is 

centralized, trailhead parking, restaurant, 

gas and more area for trails.

was analyzed on Alternatives B, C and E and not included 

in Alt D. Any decision about selected trailheads will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

363/2. My comment is specific to Hwy 385 and 

F.S. 204.2. Are you making reference to a 

dirt bike trail? I maintain a motorcycle that 

is a Harley, Honda and Vulcan etc. street 

legal. I have not witnessed any such street 

legal motorcycles on these trails or any 

trail at any time. If so, please consider 

dangers involved or safety concerns 

related to trees, rocks, car traffic and 

logging trucks. Also, where you have the 

so called motorcycle crossing on [Hwy] 

385 there is a curve; it‟s on a slight hill 

coming into a tree area from an open 

straight road. Do you have correct

planned signage and also do you have 

DOT [Department of Transportation] 

permission to use the road ditch?

The reference to motorcycles in the DEIS is for dirt bike 

type motorcycles. Any highway or other high speed road 

crossings would be engineered and signed as appropriate to 

make them safe.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1650

363/3. My comment is specific to Hwy 385 and 

F.S. 204.2. Your motorcycle or dirt bike 

trail runs parallel to [Hwy] 385 and there 

are safety concerns of dust, rocks, grass 

and other debris causing difficulty for the 

regular tourists and daily traffic on [Hwy] 

385.

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

For any route selected the FS will work with other 

government agencies to make crossing along any high 

speed road engineered in a safe manner. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1651

363/4. FS 616.2A has never been a trail and 

should remain so.

The proposed ATV route on 616.2A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Your comment will be considered and any decision on trail 

locations will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1652

364/1. I am commenting on a proposed trail 

system that is on the Alternative C map in 

Wyoming Bearlodge area, the main trail 

system I am referring to is trail numbers 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1653
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

615

832.1B, 832.1B, 832.11 and 832.1G that 

comes off of 832.1. And the other trails 

are 830.3, 832.1 and 830.3. On the 

Alternative C map this part is located 

between T54N and T53N R63W and 

R61W.The rest of the trail that is 

proposed on Alternative C map I think 

should stay. The reason I would like to see 

trails 832.1B, 832.1B, 832.11 and 832.1G 

that forms a loop, is that it covers an area 

that is needed very much for ones like me 

that have heart trouble or other handicap 

reasons. I live just to the east of there.

365/1. This comment refers to the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

We are looking at Alternative C, Feb 2009, 

Map 2 of 3, South Dakota-North. Begin 

approximately 6 miles south of 

Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 

385 and FS 294.2 where a trailhead is 

shown: The Experimental Forest is shown 

on the northerly side of US 385. It is 

actually at least 1 mile southerly and on 

the southerly side of US 385. FS route 

number 616 is the main route through the 

Experimental Forest.

Experimental Forest in Alt C was an area name given to a 

proposed trailhead and not the actual location of the 

Experimental Forest.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1654

365/2. This comment refers to the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

We are looking at Alternative C, Feb 2009, 

Map 2 of 3, South Dakota-North. Begin 

approximately 6 miles south of 

Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 

385 and F.S. 294.2 where a trailhead is 

shown: A motorcycle trail is shown on the 

northerly side of US 385. It is shown in 

the ditch of US 385 for about 1/2 mile. 

Four wheelers have previously used this 

1/2 mile and created very dangerous 

conditions due to proximity with highway 

traffic and creation of dust. The 

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

For any route selected the FS will work with other 

government agencies to make crossing along any high 

speed road engineered in a safe manner. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1655
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

616

motorcycle trail must cross US 385 at the 

shown trailhead and then continues 

adjacent to F.S. 204.2 for 2+ miles. The 

trail as shown has never been used for 

motorcycles and should not be allowed. 

F.S. 204.2 is the logical trail.

365/3. This comment refers to the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

We are looking at Alternative C, Feb 2009, 

Map 2 of 3, South Dakota-North. Begin 

approximately 6 miles south of 

Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 

385 and FS. 294.2 where a trailhead is 

shown. Approximately 1 mile south is the 

junction of FS616 and US385. A trail open 

to 4 wheelers is labeled as 616.2A. The 

experimental Forest has many miles of 

roads as shown, and the trail labeled 

616.2A is not needed and should be 

eliminated.

The proposed ATV route on 616.2A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Your comment will be considered and any decision on trail 

locations will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1656

365/4. This comment refers to the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

We are looking at Alternative C, Feb 2009, 

Map 2 of 3, South Dakota-North. Begin 

approximately 6 miles south of 

Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 

385 and F.S. 294.2 where a trailhead is 

shown: Approximately 4 miles south of 

the F.S. 616 junction is the junction of F.S. 

672 and US 385. To the immediate 

southerly side of that junction is a maze of 

motorcycle and 4 wheeler trails. Eliminate 

all the motorcycle trails. There are ample 

trails without setting specific trails for 

motorcycles.

Use of motorcycles is a legitimate use of the Forest on 

designated routes. Varying miles of motorcycle routes were 

analyzed in all Alternatives. Any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1657

367/1. I am the owner of private land within the 

BHNF. The land is encompassed by 72 

acres just north of Silver City, SD. (see 

attached map) [ATT 1]. Our legal access is 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1658
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

617

through FSR 141.2B. Alternative E shows 

FSR 141.2B ending at the property line. 

Alternatives B, C, and D shows the road 

going past the property and dead-ending. 

The road is shown on all the maps as a 

dead -end spur. The DEIS mentions the 

need to reduce the number of dead-end 

spurs. The road should end at the private 

property line. It is my recommendation 

that the road end at the property line as 

shown in Alternative E.

367/2. The road [FSR 141.2B] is only accessible 

through Silver City Road (Road 141). 

Being that Silver City Road crosses 

through the town, access through FSR 

141.2B should be discouraged because of 

increased traffic through residential 

neighborhoods leading to dust, noise 

pollution, and potential conflict. It is my 

recommendation that the road end at the 

property line as shown in Alternative E.

Routes through and adjacent to Silver City are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1659

367/3. Since the publication of the tentative maps 

in 2007, there has been a marked increase 

of motorcycle traffic on this road [FSR 

141.2B]. Users have created many more 

trails with the intent of connecting this 

dead-end spur with additional trails further 

north. The community of Silver City is 

unanimously opposed to having FSR 

141.2B be part of the network of trails 

that are exploding North of Silver City 

(see separate signed petition). FSR 141.2B 

should in no way be allowed to connect 

with other user created trails. It is my 

recommendation that the road end at the 

property line as shown in Alternative E.

FSR 141.2B does not connect to other routes in 

Alternatives D and E. Comment has been evaluated and 

will be considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1660

367/4. A population of Bighorn sheep resides in 

the Rapid Creek Canyon from April to 

October before going to the foothills in 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1661
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

618

the winter. The herd crosses this road 

[FSR 141.2B] twice a day (early in the 

morning and late in the afternoon). They 

feed during the day in the meadows in 

Silver city and go west to the higher rock.

367/5. Alternative B and C allow dispersed 

camping and motorized game retrieval on 

FSR141.2B. My recommendation is that 

game retrieval and dispersed camping not 

be allowed on this road because the road 

runs on the bottom of a narrow gulch. It 

has high ridges on both sides. Any 

motorized game retrieval would allow 

travel up very steep ground. Since the road 

is at the bottom of the gulch it would be 

preferable for the hunter to drag the 

animal downhill on foot rather than drive

up to retrieve it. The DEIS makes the 

assumption that “More areas for 

motorized game retrieval would generally 

be expected to generate more use of those 

areas” (pg 46) [of the DEIS]. Being that 

the road is between the town of Silver City 

with 80 houses and the Sunnyside 

Subdivision with 12 houses, it would be 

preferable not to cause more use of that 

area for hunting.

FSR 141.2B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1662

367/6. Alternative C calls for opening trails 

671.1D, 142.1A, 437.1D, 437.1F, 437.1E 

and 437.1G. These are old logging trails. 

These trails should be eliminated because: 

the connectors to these trails were created 

within the last two years. Several trees 

were painted with white arrows to indicate 

a circuit for ATVs. Once the connectors 

were created and the trees were marked, 

the number of ATVs increased as they 

were made aware of the trails. The 

connectors are all user created for the sole 

purpose of being able to add them to the 

Most of these routes are not included in Alternatives D or 

E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1663
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

619

DEIS. The trails should be closed. There 

is already a high concentration of ATV 

and motorcycle trails north and east of 

Silver City. The community is very uneasy 

with this.

368/1. It seems so counter to the National 

Forests preservation goals to allow such 

destruction to the section of the formerly 

beautiful Centennial Trail that is open to 

motorized vehicles. Please close the entire 

Centennial Trail to all motorized vehicles. 

We have been in the Nemo, South Dakota 

area for 23 years and have witnessed the 

destruction that has taken place on the 

Centennial Trail with ATVs and dirt bikes. 

We used to see hikers and pedal bikes on 

the trail in the past, but they are few and 

far between now. The noise factor is also 

bad.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Common to all 

Alternatives noise levels will be set at 96 decibels for OHV 

traffic.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1664

369/8. Being a senior citizen in my seventies, I 

long for a time where some of the 

Mickelson/Centennial Trail scenery could 

be available for those of us who now find 

these areas off limits to use tunnel, 

bridges, etc. Perhaps golf cart vehicles for 

8-12 people between trailheads with a 

return by road at a reasonable fee could be 

an option in the future. (A profitable 

enterprise to fund the up-keep of the trails 

similar to 1880 train) - just a thought!

The Mickelson Trail and possible outfitting and guiding 

possibility on the designated motorized system are beyond 

the scope of this EIS. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1665

371/1. I'm writing this note to tell you I am in 

favor of Alternative D to save the 

botanical areas and hiking areas.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1666

371/2. I would like to see the Peaceful Pines 

Trailhead changed because it is located in 

a residential neighborhood where people 

have homes in the peacefulness of the 

forest.

The Peaceful Pines trailhead was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Comment has been evaluated and will 

be considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1667

372/3. For numerous reasons, I support The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is Route 1668
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

620

Alternative D in the DEIS. First, motor 

travel on the Centennial Trail (Dalton 

Lake to Nemo area) must be eliminated. 

The ATV users on this part of the trail 

have done an incredible amount of

damage to the trail, and have made it 

unusable by hikers or mountain bikers. 

Recent repair of the trail has cost $17,000 

per mile, and is an unnecessary waste of 

resources.

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Specific 

Comment

372/7. Alternatives B and C must not be allowed 

because 864.1, 864.1A and 864.1C would 

be in conflict with the ROS [Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum] semi-primitive 

non-motorized status of Dugout Gulch. 

As stated on page 250 of the DEIS, 

opening these routes to motorized 

vehicles is in conflict with the Forest Plan 

Guideline 3.1-5103.

Alternatives A, D, and E of the DEIS and FEIS addressed 

this concern and eliminated these routes from 

consideration. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1669

374/1. We strongly oppose the “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” on: motorcycle trail 

labeled CZ-4885 (the trail lays in and near 

the Experimental Forest) for Alternatives 

B, C, and D. We oppose these trails 

primarily because of the noise associated 

with motorcycles.

Thank you for your comment. The proposed motorcycle 

CZ-4885 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D and 

removed in Alternatives E. Your comment will be 

considered and any decision on trail locations will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Common to all 

Alternatives noise levels will be set at 96 decibels for OHV 

traffic.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1670

374/2. We strongly oppose the “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” on: motorcycle trail 

labeled CZ-4829 (the trail begins near 

Nemo and extends north approximately 

13 miles) for Alternatives B and C. We 

oppose these trails primarily because of 

the noise associated with motorcycles.

Common to all Alternatives noise levels will be set at 96 

decibels for OHV traffic.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1671

374/3. Both the American Motorcycle 

Association and the USFS DEIS recognize 

the importance of the noise issue: “The 

Association believes that few other factors 

contribute more to misunderstanding and 

prejudice against the motorcycling 

Concerns for noise levels (noise) were recognized in Issue 

4, in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. That issue lists proximity of 

trails to adjacent non-National Forest System (NFS) lands 

as one indicator to measure the performance of the 

alternatives with respect to this issue. The alternatives vary 

in how many miles of routes are proposed near to nonRoute 

Specific 

Comment

1672
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

621

community than excessively noisy 

motorcycles.” 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/

motors/amapositionnoise.html “An 

increasingly important issue in the Black 

Hills and across the nation is the sound 

level associated with off-highway vehicles 

especially in otherwise quiet areas.” (USFS 

DEIS, p 76). The DEIS suggests a 96DB 

(A) sound emission limit, and argues that 

at 300 feet the attenuated sound decreases 

to a more acceptable 50DB (A). But the 

DEIS also recognizes that 1. “It is possible 

that moving existing cross-country traffic 

onto designated roads and trails will 

increase the average sound levels in some 

areas” (pg 87), 2. “Enforcement of the 

sound level limit is key to the success of 

those programs” (p 77), and, regarding the 

ability to enforce sound limits. 3. 

“Addressing many of the management 

concerns will be dependent on available 

funding sources, which will most likely be 

limited” (p 15).Since 1934 our family has 

owned and recreated on property [near 

trails CZ4885 and CZ 4829] proposed as 

“Trails Open to Motorcycles Only” 

routes. We have first-hand experience with 

the noise motorcycles and OHVS make 

on the road on which we live (Nemo 

Road), and the inability of government 

authorities to monitor and enforce noise 

standards. The proposed route CZ-4885 

comes within a mile of our property, and a 

combination of “Seasonal Roads Open to 

Highway Legal Only Vehicles” and 

“Roads Open to All Vehicles” could easily 

bring the motorcycles to our property. 

Enforcement is hard to visualize in this 

area.

NFS lands. CZ 4885 and CZ 4829 are included as 

motorcycle trails in Alternatives B, C and D and removed 

from Alt E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Under all action 

alternatives the sound level for OHV traffic would be set at 

96 decibels.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

622

374/4. (cont form comment no. 3) CZ-4885 does 

not form a loop, but it is easy to imagine 

that some motorcycles will want to make a 

loop trip out of the ride. That will be easily 

done by connecting Nemo Road, taking 

Nemo Road northwest to Benchmark 

Road, and Benchmark Road back to its 

intersection with CA-4885. In so doing, 

the motorcycles will go directly past our 

family homes. Alternatively, if “Trails 

Open to Motorcycles Only” route CZ4829 is built, the modified loop for 

motorcycles becomes even more 

attractive. In that case, motorcycles on 

CZ4885 can join CZ-4829 near Nemo, 

ride north to Nemo Road, follow Nemo 

Road past our homes, and again take 

Benchmark Road to CZ-4885. Our 

experience is that many motorcycles will 

be revving engines (no doubt past 96 

DB(A)) as they go past our homes, and 

that no enforcement will be at hand. I 

have no doubt that for us and many like 

us that value nature‟s quiet, the USFS 

caution “... that moving existing crosscountry traffic onto designated roads and 

trails will increase the average sound levels 

in some areas” will indeed hold true for 

our area. And, we have strong reservations 

that the crucial enforcement of sound 

limits will be adequately performed. We 

have spoken to our family‟s particular 

situation. No doubt others will be 

negatively affected by noise from the 

motorcycle routes listed here, and by other 

OHV routes given for most of the 

Alternatives. Please eliminate the 

Motorcycle Only routes listed above and 

restrict “concentrated Motorized Use 

Areas” more than in Alternatives B, C, 

Motorized traffic would be expected to stay on the 

designated routes. In all alternatives the sound level for 

OHV traffic would be set at 96 decibels. The Forest 

Service expects that the public will generally comply with 

requirements but will conduct enforcement where needed. 

The alternatives present a range of options, as stated in the 

comment, and this concern will be considered in making 

the decision on this project. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1673
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

623

and D. Alternative E addresses these 

concerns and appears much more in line 

with budget and enforcement likelihoods.

375/5. There needs to be a trail from Hwy 385 

over to Rochford.

There are many routes that go between Hwy 385 and 

Rochford. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1674

375/6. On a couple of Alternatives there is no 

trail from Pilots Knob to Nemo. Are you 

removing the Centennial Trail?

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1675

377/1. Enclosed you will find letters of support, 

signed petitions, and a copy of an online 

petition all supporting the use of the Top 

50 Rally Park as a trailhead leading to 

Forest Service designated trails. Please 

note there are over 440 people represented 

here. We [Top 50 supporters] are asking 

you to designate the 1/3mile on Forest 

Service land leading to the legally open 

public right of way (section line) 

connecting Top 50 Rally Park and the 

Forest Service Trail System. With such an 

action, Top 50 Rally Park plans to work 

with the Forest Service, Meade County 

who has jurisdiction over the section line 

in question, the Off-Road Riders 

Association, and OHV manufacturers to 

acquire grants and volunteers to properly 

and legally engineer and construct a trail 

from Top 50 Rally Park to the trail system. 

Some of this funding and volunteer labor 

may be used on the Forest Service‟s 1/3 

of a mile leading to the trail system, trail 

reconstruction in any damaged areas 

nearby, and in on-going maintenance and 

law enforcement. In further consideration 

of designating use of this connection, we 

The Top 50 Trailhead location is not within FS jurisdiction 

and therefore outside of the scope of this DEIS. The route 

NH9 was analyzed in Alt C and removed in Alternatives B, 

D and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1676
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

624

refer to Meade County Commissioners. In 

the past Meade County Commissioners 

have voted to keep this section line open, 

and have recently refused taking further 

action, stating no action is necessary as 

this section line is open to travel by the 

public. Meade County Commissioners‟ 

official response to the DEIS (see ** 

below) requests no action, supports 

motorized access to the forest, and calls 

for additional meetings. We feel these 

statements and actions support leaving the 

Top 50 Rally Park section line access to

Forest Service Trails open to public use so 

long as there is no resource damage done. 

There are many people calling out for 

large, easily accessible locations to access 

the trail system from. The City of Sturgis 

has also expressed their need for access to

the trail system and has discussed the 

creation of a trailhead on city property.

377/2. (cont from comment no. 1) We support 

this effort and encourage the Forest 

Service to further discuss options with 

Sturgis City Officials.** “Meade County 

finds all of the Action Alternatives (B, C, 

D, and E) unacceptable. Thus we request 

that at this time the Forest Service 

continue with Alternative A, the “no 

action” Alternative, pending further 

revision....We insist on additional meetings 

organized under Title 36CFR212.53 where 

the managing agency, states, tribal 

governments, counties, municipalities, and 

other local governments coordinate on an 

equal basis to create a travel management 

plan. We further request that these 

meetings be conducted under Roberts 

Rules of Order with documented agendas 

and minutes, rather than through the 

Thank you for your comment. The FS will continue to 

work with the City of Sturgis as the motorized travel 

system is developed.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1677
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

625

dialogue to consensus or facilitated 

meeting process.

378/11. Folks need a place to get gas and a snack. 

From Mystic Hills campground to 

Boondocks 1/2 mile is missing. The 

number is 558-1 and U070182 and should 

be included to connect. [Users] need more 

connectors and trailheads.

FSR 558 was analyzed in all Alternatives. The routes going 

to Boondocks and Mystic Hills are on private property and 

not under Forest Service Jurisdiction. Varying numbers of 

trailheads were analyzed in all Alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1678

379/12. In the Northern Hills there are not 

enough trails. Trails that are there are not 

well connected. This deprives that region 

of revenue, and deprives enthusiasts of 

recreational opportunities and needs to be 

remedied. There are no trails near Sturgis. 

Need access to Camp 5 off of road 171.1B 

for motorcycles and ATVs. Will have 

conflict on 170.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171.1B and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration to 

future trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1679

390/11. [Respondent] needs access at Camp 5 off 

of 171.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1680

391/11. [Respondent] needs to access Camp 5 off 

of 171.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1681

392/11. [Respondent] needs to be able to access 

Camp #5 off #171 when coming from 

Sturgis.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1682

394/11. There needs to be a connection of 171 to 

camp 5 so we [ATV riders] do not need to 

use the gravel roads. This is a hazard to us 

and vehicles using the road.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the Camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1683

395/11. My family rides out of Sturgis on 171 and 

a connector to Camp 5 is needed.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1684

397/11. In all Alternatives there are extremely 

limited trails in the Hell Canyon District 

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and those 

chosen will be documented in the Record of Decision. It is 

Route 

Specific 

1685
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

626

(Southern Hills). This deprives that region 

of revenue, and deprives enthusiasts of 

recreational opportunities and need to be 

remedied. Camp 5 access off trail 171.

possible that, in the future, additional routes will be 

designated as the need arises.

Comment

398/1. Our limited partnership owns private land 

in the area of the old town known as 

Welcome, Wyoming which is at the base 

of Mineral Hill. In reviewing the plan, I 

looked at the map of the area and it 

appears that you have designated the 

private roads on our private land as either 

“Other Public Roads” or “Seasonal 

Designation.” The roads on our private 

land are not public roads and the Forest 

Service has adequate roads on their own 

land. I most strenuously object to any 

claims or assertions that our private roads 

are public roads. I find this to be a 

materially misleading, if not fraudulent 

representation. If our roads are mislabeled, 

how am I to trust that other roads on your 

maps are correctly identified? Without 

having a truthful basis, how can anyone 

make an informed comment? I believe 

that accurate and truthful maps should 

first be presented and then to allow 

comments. Any action taken upon the 

basis of false, misleading or fraudulent 

maps should be invalid and subject to 

being vacated by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. I would urge that this process 

be continued until after complete and 

accurate mapping is provided to the 

public, which will then be able to make 

meaningful comments.

The "Other Public Roads" classification was used to 

identify roads outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service 

such as Federal, State, and County Roads or roads that are 

historically known to be open to public travel. The Forest 

Service does not promote any type of motorized traffic on 

these routes. Routes listed with "Seasonal Designation" are 

Forest Service roads or the Forest Service has easements 

for those routes. The question of jurisdiction is continually 

being reviewed for more accurate information. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1686

399/4. 285.1A immediately borders our 

homesteads for more than a mile. From a 

personal perspective, designating this 

route as an ATV trail is severely 

incompatible with historic private land 

I appreciate your comments and concerns related to private 

property and specifically Forest Service Roads 285.1A, 

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

Alternatives analyzed have designated any of these routes 

as trails. The three routes you have identified as dead ends 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1687
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

627

use. We are also very concerned that there 

are a considerable number of roads and 

trails that dead end at private property 

boundaries, i.e. 285.1H, 477.2C, 298.1E. 

These will invite violations of the 

Management Plan. Damage to private 

property will increase, as has already been 

an issue in our location. Some riders will 

not want to return on the same route and 

cross private property instead, leaving 

gates open which manage livestock and 

increasing danger of fire during times of 

tall grass and drought.

to private property (285.1H, 477.2C, and 298.1E) are 

included in all Alternatives. However, in Alternative D, 

FSR 285.1A is not included as an open road. The Decision 

Maker will consider your concerns and make a decision 

based on the analysis of effects within all Alternatives.

400/1. Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: If 

designated, it would be the only 

designated trail-type route in a polygon of 

land embraced by Merritt-Estes Road, 

Nemo Road, Norris Peak Road, and 

Bogus Jim Road. We walked this proposed 

route May 3, 2009 and found that the 

portion south of Merritt-Estes Road is 

extremely steep and erosion would 

certainly become an issue.

CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

Route

Specific 

Comment

1688

400/2. Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: 

CZ-4910 is not an established route - it 

does not actually exist. It has had a dirt 

bike or two on it, most likely when it was 

GPSed for purposes of proposing it as a 

trail. It is not established north of MerrittEstes Road either. The intent of the 2005 

Final Travel Management Rule was not to 

have people go out and „find‟ new routes 

in excess of those that were already 

established.CZ-4910 was „created‟ illegally, 

is poorly located, and would cause 

unacceptable environmental impacts if 

adopted as part of the designated trail 

system.

CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1689

400/3. Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and Route 1690
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

628

Since it would take motorcycles away from 

the main focus of the trail system north of 

Merritt-Estes Road and law enforcement 

efforts there, we feel that the area south of 

the road would be at risk of abuse 

(renegade trails). We feel that we could 

very well be the only ones interested in 

whether or not renegade routes were being 

established in the area and really do not 

want to shoulder that burden. We do a lot 

of volunteer work for the Forest Service 

as it is.

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

Specific 

Comment

400/4. Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: 

With a trail there, the area would be 

subject to the accompanying problem of 

invasive weeds (a major threat to forest 

health), something that currently seems to 

be plaguing the forest. At this point, that 

land is free of invasives and is well 

supplied with native plant species. We 

would like to see it stay this way.

CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1691

400/5. After the 2005 Travel Rule was 

announced, a broad area in this vicinity 

[Merritt-Estes Road, Nemo Road, Norris 

Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] was 

subjected to a frenzy of methodical 

ferreting for new trails. We are aware of 

motorcycle and rock crawler routes that 

were illegally created in this manner. This 

was not the intent of the travel rule. 

Undoubtedly, there are other such trails 

that we are not aware of, but this trail that 

most certainly falls into that category and 

should be removed from any final travel 

plan: CZ-4835.

CZ-4835 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1692

400/6. After the 2005 Travel Rule was 

announced, a broad area in this vicinity 

[Merritt-Estes Road, Nemo Road, Norris 

Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] was 

CZ-4880 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. Trails are not completely excluded from the 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1693
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

629

subjected to a frenzy of methodical 

ferreting for new trails. We are aware of 

motorcycle and rock crawler routes that 

were illegally created in this manner. This 

was not the intent of the travel rule. 

Undoubtedly, there are other such trails 

that we are not aware of, but this trail that 

most certainly falls into that category and 

should be removed from any final travel 

panics-4880, also, much too close to a 

delicate intermittent stream that has been 

known to have beavers in the past. It is in 

the WIZ [Water Influence Zone].

WIZ. Design criteria specifically for trails in the WIZ will 

be applied to minimize the impacts on the water resource.

400/7. After the 2005 Travel Rule was 

announced, a broad area in this vicinity 

[Merritt-Estes Road, Nemo Road, Norris 

Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] was 

subjected to a frenzy of methodical 

ferreting for new trails. We are aware of 

motorcycle and rock crawler routes that 

were illegally created in this manner. This 

was not the intent of the travel rule. 

Undoubtedly, there are other such trails 

that we are not aware of, but this trail that 

most certainly falls into that category and 

should be removed from any final travel 

plan: CZ-4870.

CZ-4870 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1694

400/8. After the 2005 Travel Rule was 

announced, a broad area in this vicinity 

[Merritt-Estes Road, Nemo Road, Norris 

Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] was 

subjected to a frenzy of methodical 

ferreting for new trails. We are aware of 

motorcycle and rock crawler routes that 

were illegally created in this manner. This 

was not the intent of the travel rule. 

Undoubtedly, there are other such trails 

that we are not aware of, but this trail that 

most certainly falls into that category and 

should be removed from any final travel 

MY51 was included in Alternative C as a special 

designation route, but was eliminated from Alternatives D 

and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1695
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

630

plan: MY51, delicate, unspoiled ecosystem, 

newly pioneered for trail system. This 

route did not actually exist when we 

photographed it May 2006 - it had only 

been (apparently accidently) marked on a 

OHV enthusiast‟s map that went public. 

Additional areas were marked on these 

maps that were apparently similarly viewed 

(as potential trails for illegal development). 

400/9. Pilot Knob Trailhead currently has some 

problems that affect the Water Influence 

Zone of Jim Creek. Part of the trailhead is 

in the WIZ (inconsistent with the Design 

Criteria stated in the DEIS). What appears 

to be a „sediment basin‟ is apparently 

inadequate during times when the ground 

is saturated, the basin is full, and it rains 

even just a little. Consequently, sediment 

is running off the steep, wide, and long 

stretch of motorized trail heading up from 

the trailhead. We have witnessed times 

when Jim Creek is very clear before the 

trailhead, and then very, very murky after 

the trailhead.

Pilot Knob is an existing trailhead on the motorized 

portion of the Centennial trail. It was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and E and removed from Alt D. The 

design criterion to keep trailheads out of the WIZ is for 

new trailheads and expansions of existing ones. If the 

trailhead is impacting the stream, then mitigations will need 

to be applied to minimize the impacts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1696

400/10. Somewhat related is the fact that 

immediately east of the Pilot Knob 

Trailhead, FSR 208 (the Merritt-Estes 

Road) looks like it is actually missing 2 

culverts or bridges and the creek has been 

displaced out of its natural course.

Thank you for your comment and notification. This 

information has been passed along to our engineering/road 

maintenance department.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1697

400/11. Unrelated to the Designated Trail System, 

but relevant to Travel Management are 

spurs related to FSR 706.1, the route we 

use to access our place. Our concerns are 

with 706.1A and 706.1B which should 

remain closed year-round. The current, on 

the ground status, is what we prefer, and 

as far as we can tell, this also works very 

well for both the Forest Service and the 

FSR706.1A and 706.1B are both currently listed as open 

system roads. They were analyzed in Alternatives B, C and 

E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and removed 

from Alternative D. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1698
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

631

Public. Currently, a gate is locked yearround, keeping vehicles off 706.1A and 

706.1B. These routes are now wellvegetated and erosion-free. The gate has 

been very good for protecting Jim Creek, 

which would have to be forded to access 

both 706.1A and 706.1B.

400/12. Unrelated to the Designated Trail System, 

but relevant to Travel Management are 

spurs related to FSR 706.1, the route we 

use to access our place. Our concerns are 

with 706.1A and 706.1B which should 

remain closed year-round. After the first 

crossing, 706.1A actually crosses the [Jim] 

Creek multiple more times and is certainly 

not a good place to encourage vehicular 

traffic any time of the year. Our 

understanding years and years ago was that 

these rocked crossings were going to be 

restored after the logging projects of the 

day were completed. For the benefit of the 

creek and its associated plant and animal 

life, this would still be a good thing to do.

Comments on restoration of rock crossings on 706.1A are 

beyond the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1699

400/13. Unrelated to the Designated Trail System, 

but relevant to Travel Management are 

spurs related to FSR 706.1, the route we 

use to access our place. Our concerns are 

with 706.1A and 706.1B which should 

remain closed year-round. Alternatives A, 

B, C, and E in the Travel Management 

DEIS have these roads marked as 

Seasonal Designation, which we 

understand to mean that they would be 

open some of the time - this is not a good 

option. Having these routes closed yearround seems to allow for plenty of 

hunting, hiking, Christmas tree cutting, 

etc. for the public and yet keeps things like 

toilet paper, car and yard waste, and 

appliance dumping to a manageable 

FSR706.1A and 706.1B are both currently listed as open 

system roads. They were analyzed in Alternatives B, C and 

E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and removed 

from Alternative D. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1700
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

632

minimum. Alternatively, they could be 

handled as in Alternative D, which has 

these roads as not even part of the system 

(non-existent), which may be the best 

description of them - they could always be 

reinstated as needed in the future for 

management projects. We encourage you 

to keep the status quo situation with these 

roads gated year long, as it is working well 

or, better yet, do what is in Alternative D 

and decommission them.

401/2. I feel even Alternative D doesn‟t go far 

enough, because, to my understanding, it 

still allows ATVs on Centennial Trail. I 

love Centennial Trail, and have been 

enjoying it for 20 years. I was at the 

opening ceremony near the Rapid Creek 

Trailhead, below Pactola Dam. At the 

ceremony, and on the sign at every 

trailhead, it says Centennial is a lasting 

legacy for future generations. As 

Centennial Trail turns 20 this year, I have 

to wonder. The sections the ATVs have 

been allowed on haven‟t been treated very 

well. Not even one generation later, some 

ATVs sections are abused so badly, they 

make another trail alongside. This braided 

trail, disposable trail philosophy, lacks 

respect for the Hills, and the others who 

use it. Centennial, 76, Dugout, Big Hill, 

and other areas all have excellent hiking 

trails that should not be compromised. I 

don‟t like the noise, I don‟t like the trail 

damage, and I don‟t like the invasion of 

ATVs on hiking trails. More walk-in and 

wilderness areas should be set aside while 

it‟s still possible.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1701

401/3. I‟m disturbed by the number and locations 

of some of the proposed ATV trailheads. 

Big Hill, Sundance, Pilot Knob, Samelius, 

Various numbers of trailheads were proposed in all of the 

Alternatives. Big Hill and Pilot Knob are existing trailheads 

and were included in all Alternatives. Any decision about 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1702
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

633

and others are all too close to existing 

hiking trailheads. And what about 

camping? The traffic and noise that goes 

with ATVs will take away parts of the 

appeal people go to these places in the 

first place.

selected trailheads will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

401/4. I favor Alternative D, would like to see 

ATVs kept off of Centennial Trail, and 

more walk-in and wilderness areas.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1703

402/3. The Shank‟s Quarry area is of particular 

concern in Plan [Alternative] C. Shank‟s 

Quarry has served as a biking venue for 

the last 15 years, and is in close proximity 

to Buzzards Roost which is currently 

being developed as a non-motorized 

recreation area. The trails on the Rim that 

parallel Highway 44 west as well as a 

majority of trails shown to be motorized 

were developed by mountain bikers, and 

the previous 15 years of permitting for 

events will show this. I do feel the current 

numbered official FS roads off of 

Schroeder Road and Shank‟s Quarry 

would work as a gateway trail to the 

specific motorized venues. The BHMBA 

[Black Hills Mountain Bike Association] 

does not support shared use with 

motorized or equestrians on purpose built 

bike trails. The cost and time to construct 

the trails is immense. Bicycles are not fun 

or easy to ride when conditions are wet, 

therefore biking is avoided during wet 

conditions. Based upon the ruts and holes 

on trails throughout the Black Hills, the

same is not true for horses or motorized 

vehicles in wet conditions.

Many of the routes in the Shank's Quarry area were 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1704

406/3. I feel very strongly that no motorized The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is Route 1705
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

634

vehicles should be allowed on the 

Centennial Trail. I have hiked the entire 

trail from end to end, and was nearly run 

over by young men driving motocross 

vehicles near the Alkali Creek Trailhead. I 

have been passed by ATVs too many 

times to count while on the Centennial 

trail, but the incident I refer to was 

genuinely life threatening.

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. The remainder of the Centennial Trail was 

not analyzed for motorized traffic. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Specific 

Comment

406/4. An item that has me very concerned is the 

concept of the Top 50 ATV park 

proposed for Piedmont. The concept 

would be a boon to manufacturers of 

these ATVs and the entrepreneur seeking 

to create the park and rally event. I simply 

cannot imagine how any police or Forest 

Service personnel will be able to contain 

the damage done to the hills should the 

annual rally become established and 

“flourish.

The Top 50 Trailhead location is not within FS jurisdiction 

and therefore outside of the scope of this DEIS. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1706

409/1. I‟m writing in regard to the proposal of 

making the Peaceful Pines access in Black 

Hawk SD a major trailhead. This is a 

residential area and we have been 

experiencing some issues and safety 

problems that could be made even worse 

with this location becoming a major entry 

spot. I have small kids that do play in our 

yard and on the weekends and summer 

evenings there is an increase in traffic and 

many of the dirt bikes and off road 

vehicles moving past our home are driven 

by youth and at a high rates of speed. The 

posted speed is 15 mph and they are 

traveling at an estimated 35 mph. We live 

in a non incorporated area and the only 

law enforcement is the sheriff and so the 

speed limit is not enforced. I do enjoy 

accessing this are with my Jeep, and hiking 

the area with my kids, the balance between 

The Peaceful Pines trailhead was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Comment has been evaluated and will 

be considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1707
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

635

motorized access and hiking needs some 

sort of balance. If this becomes a major 

motorized access and with the convenient 

access to Rapid City and I 90 I have 

concern for my kids safety, and future 

hiking in the area would become 

unrealistic.

413/1. OHV use in the Southern Hills on Pilger 

Mt. will be very difficult to monitor. 

Because of the lack of rain, any off-road 

excursions create lasting damage to the 

plant life. Fire danger will also increase 

with more ATV use. It is sparsely 

populated and OHV users already feel 

quite free to access forest lands using 

private trails without permission.

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

Under the current proposed Alternatives in the Draft EIS, 

there are no specific trails identified for ATV use. 

However, under Alternatives B, C and D, Forest Service 

Road #645 is not on the map as a proposed route of any 

kind. In Alternatives A and E, this road is identified as 

"open to highway legal only". Concerns with private land 

trespass should be less if the Decision Maker selects from 

Alternatives B, C or D. Additionally, if these routes are not 

open to motorized use or only to highway legal vehicles, 

parking OHV trailers should not be an issue. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1708

413/2. I have concerns about access to the Forest 

lands east of Red Canyon. Road #645 in 

Red Canyon starts on private land. Where 

do OHV users plan to park their trailers?

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

Under the current proposed Alternatives in the Draft EIS, 

there are no specific trails identified for ATV use. 

However, under Alternatives B, C and D, Forest Service 

Road #645 is not on the map as a proposed route of any 

kind. In Alternatives A and E, this road is identified as 

"open to highway legal only". Concerns with private land 

trespass should be less if the Decision Maker selects from 

Alternatives B, C or D. Additionally, if these routes are not 

open to motorized use or only to highway legal vehicles, 

parking OHV trailers should not be an issue. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1709

413/3. I think the Centennial Trail should be 

non-motorized. The Pilot Knob area 

where OHVs have been traveling shows 

considerable damage already. Was this trail 

created with OHV in mind? Let‟s check 

the historic integrity.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. This portion on the Centennial trail has been 

open to motorized traffic since 1989 when it was first 

opened. The remainder of the Centennial Trail was not 

analyzed for motorized traffic. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1710
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

636

414/12. In Table 9 [ATT 1] is a list of areas that 

are impacted by wildlife issues and for 

which we are asking that trails be removed 

(see Appendix B [ATT 6] for more 

information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives. D and E, or are open to

highway legal vehicles only. Jim Creek area/Gingrass 

Draw/ Vanocker Canyon, Lost Soldier Spring and Camp 5 

routes were analyzed in varying capacities as road or trails 

open to all and were removed in alternatives D. In 

alternative E the existing system roads were analyzed to be 

left open to highway legal vehicles. There are no 

designated trails in the Pleasant Valley Walk-in Area. Any 

decision about routes chosen will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1711

414/17. For all Alternatives, the areas in Table [10] 

[ATT 2] should have trails removed to 

conserve and protect USFS sensitive 

species and Black Hills NF plant species 

of local concern. See Appendix B [ATT 6] 

for more information.

For Table 10 of this comment; Dugout Gulch, Cement 

Ridge, and Bearlodge/Beaver Creek apply to the Bearlodge 

RD. Recommendations for removal of routes was 

considered under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS 

with the exception of FS 802.2A as it accesses private 

property. Road 879.1 is listed as "Other Jurisdiction" under 

all Alternatives since it accesses State property. Buskala 

Creek FSR 259.2A was analyzed in alt B and E as highway 

open for highway legal vehicles, in alt C as a road open to 

all and in alt D it was removed. FSR 259 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, D and E as open to highway legal vehicles 

and in alt C as a road open to all. Vanocker Canyon is an 

existing paved Highway and not Forest Service jurisdiction 

and therefore is outside the scope of this document. 

The Camp 5 area--FSR 306 was analyzed in Alternatives B 

and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. FSR 

172.1A was analyzed in Alternatives B, C, D as trail open to 

all and in Alt. E as road open to highway legal vehicles. 

FSR 172.1A was analyzed as seasonal road open to highway 

legal vehicles in alt B and E, and seasonal road open to all 

in Alternatives C and D. FSR 172.1C was analyzed in alt B, 

C, D as trail open to all and in Alt E as open to highway 

legal vehicles. FSR 172.1H was analyzed in all alternatives 

as a seasonal road open to all. U030046 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C as a road open to all and removed in 

alt D. It was analyzed as road open to highway legal in alt 

E. FSR 170.5I and 170.4D were analyzed in Alternatives 

B, C and D as a trail open to all and in Alt E as road open 

to highway legal. CZ0216 was analyzed in alt B and C as a 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1712
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

637

special designation trail and removed in alt D and E. 

U080045 was analyzed as a trail less then 50 inches in alt B, 

C and D and removed from alt E. FSR 567.1F was 

analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D as a seasonal trail less 

the 50 inches and in alt E as a road open to highway legal. 

In the Big Hill area U010071, U0010072, FSR134.2L and 

CZ 0148 were analyzed in Alternatives. B and C as trails 

open to vehicles less then 50 inches and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Ft. Meade Watershed area--U040034 

was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as a road open to all 

and in alt D as a road open to highway legal vehicles and 

removed in alt E. U008156 was analyzed as a special 

designation trail in Alternatives B and C and removed from 

Alternatives D and E. FSRs 139.1 and 139.1A were 

analyzed as seasonal roads open to all in Alternatives B and 

C and removed from alt D. In Alternatives E they were 

analyzed as road open to highway legal vehicles. 

FSR139.1C was analyzed in alt B and E as a road open to 

highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. It 

was removed in alt D. FSR 168.1A was analyzed in alt B 

and E as seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles, in 

alt D it was removed an in alt C as a seasonal road open to 

all. FSR168.1B was analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as 

open to highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open 

to all. FSR 168.2A and 168.2B, 168.2C, were analyzed as a 

seasonal road open to all and was removed in alt. D. FSR 

168.3A and 168.3B, 169.1 were analyzed in Alternatives B, 

D and E as open to highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a 

road open to all. FSR 168.1 . FSR 169.1B was analyzed in 

alt B and C as a seasonal road open to all and in 

Alternatives. D and E as seasonal road open to highway 

legal vehicles. FSR169.1A was analyzed as a seasonal road 

open to all in alt B and C, removed from alt D and road 

open to highway legal vehicles in alt E. FSR 169.1C was 

analyzed as a seasonal road open to all and removed in alt. 

D and analyzed as a seasonal road open to highway legal in 

Alt. E. FSR169.1D was analyzed in alt B and C as a 

seasonal road open to all and in Alternatives D and E as 

seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles. FSR 169.1G 

was analyzed in alt B and C as a seasonal road open to all, 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

638

in alt D it was removed and in alt E as a road open to 

highway legal vehicles. FSR 169.1F was analyzed in alt B 

and C as seasonal road open to all and removed from alt D. 

In alt E it was analyzed as seasonal open to highway legal 

vehicles. FSR 169.1H was analyzed in alt B and E as 

seasonal road open to highway legal, in alt C as seasonal 

road open to all and removed from Alt D. FSR 169.1L was 

analyzed in alt B and C as seasonal road open to all 

removed in alt D and highway legal in alt E. FSR 169.2A 

and 169.2B, 169.2C were analyzed in alt B and E as a 

seasonal road open to highway legal, in alt C as seasonal 

road open to all and it was removed from alt D. Many of 

the motorized routes included in Alt. C in the Silver City 

and Canyon City areas were eliminated from Alternatives D 

and E. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the ROD. 

414/38. Many of the routes suggested for the 

various Alternatives appear to conflict 

with Forest Plan Direction, especially with 

regard to Standards 1203, 1212, 1301, 

1302 and 1304. In Table 8 [ATT 3] is a list 

of areas that are impacted by hydrology 

issues and for which we [Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance] are asking that 

trails be removed (see Appendix B [ATT 

6] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only. Design criteria applied to the 

routes is designed to minimize impacts and meet Forest 

Plan Direction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1713

414/60. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources. Roads in 

conflict with Montane Grassland: Cement 

Ridge, west of Black Buttes, Hardy, and 

Ditch Creek.

Motorized routes in montane grassland in the Ditch Creek 

area and FSR 107 and 180 are existing system roads in 

Alternatives D and E. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS proposed motorized routes on FS 805.1 because it is 

a historical access route to the Cement Ridge fire tower. FS 

878, 872, and 872.1A are not associated with known 

montane grasslands. Various routes were analyzed in the 

Hardy area on alt. B and C and were removed in alt D. 

Any decision about routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1714

414/61. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

In Alternative D west of Hardy the NH District did not 

propose any new routes. Open existing routes were all that 

were considered. In the Clayton Quarry area one route was 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1715
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

639

sensitive natural resources. Roads in 

conflict with Weed Infested Areas: west of 

Hardy, southwest Jewel Cave, and north 

of Clayton Quarry.

considered in Alt D but was dropped in Alt E. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Management of weed infestations will 

not change under any of the alternatives.

414/63. Red Lake Area - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 10 miles 

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 225.1E, 

134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015. These roads are currently closed 

and provide an excellent quiet area for the 

non-motorized enthusiast. With 

Alternatives A, B, and C these roads will 

be opened. How does opening these roads 

affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect 

the non-motorized community? Was that 

analyzed [in the] EIS? Why is no 

consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1716

414/64. Limestone Plateau - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 20 miles 

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 733.2B, 733.2C, 733.3A, 733.3B, 

733.3C, 733.3D, U050089. This currently 

closed area will be opened with 

Alternatives A, B, and C. How does 

opening these roads affect wildlife? Was 

this analyzed in the EIS? How does 

opening the roads affect the nonThese closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1717
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

640

motorized community? Was that analyzed 

[in the] EIS? Why is no consideration 

given to existing non-motorized areas? 

These areas and roads were closed for a 

reason. Why were they closed in the first 

place? The EIS should give a reason and 

show effects of opening these roads and 

areas. The EIS should list every road that 

is currently closed that will be opened so 

that the public knows what is going on 

and what affect this has on all resources.

414/65. Roads off FSR 134 - 134.2B, 134.2L, 

214.1D, U010071, 134.3A, U010072, 

U010060, 134.2U, U710095. These roads 

were closed by a previous ranger and now 

they will be opened [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C]. How does opening these roads 

affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect 

the non-motorized community? Was that 

analyzed [in the] EIS? Why is no 

consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1718

414/66. 639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road 

connects Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. 

Currently closed to motorized use and 

provides a good purpose being close. This 

road will be opened [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C] and provide access to the area 

behind Crow Peak. The roads go directly 

through a quiet area and more than likely 

the ATV will venture off the road and the 

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitat 

are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for conflicts with 

non-motorized recreation opportunities are reflected in 

Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how they address each 

of these issues. FSR 639.1 was analyzed to stay closed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Once a 

decision is made individual users will be expected to stay on 

the designated route. ATV trails were not proposed in nonRoute 

Specific 

Comment

1719
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

641

whole Crow Peak area will be 

compromised. Was there any 

consideration given to not allowing ATV 

access to the non-motorized areas? Also 

this is a known elk calving area. Was any 

consideration given to wildlife in the EIS 

for this planned to be opened area? Why is 

no consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

motorized areas. Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of 

the DEIS.

414/67. Area south of Hanna Campground: Roads 

211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all 

closed roads will be opened [under 

Alternatives A and B]. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

The closed routes south of Hanna Campground were 

analyzed to be opened in Alternative B and removed from 

Alternatives C, D and E. There are no system hiking trails 

near any of the routes mentioned.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1720

414/68. CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of 

the Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It 

makes no sense to expect ATV users to 

turn around. How will you close the end 

of this road? Was any consideration given 

for a non-motorized buffer around our 

[the forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail 

system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

You are correct. In Alternative B, CZ 1403 travels through 

the Spearfish Canyon management area where no off road 

traffic is allowed. This was an error and it was removed 

from Alternatives C, D and E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1721
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

642

414/69. Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be 

designed to a Forest Service Standard? 

Will the current trail locations be reviewed 

by an Engineer and Hydrologist before 

they are opened? For example road 134.2B 

has a 35% grade for 300‟, road U010077 

goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep ruts, 

and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. 

These have been listed as examples of 

many more problem areas. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

OHV routes would be required to meet Forest Service 

standards for trails. Some routes may be easy and some 

very difficult. Routes that traverse a steep slope would be 

engineered with climbing turns and water crossings would 

be upgraded or built to standard where necessary. Not all 

routes would be available to use the first year after the 

decision is made and would be opened up after mitigations 

are completed. The current Forest motorized trail system 

in South Dakota consists of only 12 miles. Much 

motorized use currently takes place on trails not designated 

for such use, which can result in conflicts with other users. 

The selection of any of the action alternatives described in 

the EIS would alleviate this situation by designating routes 

for certain uses. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1722

414/70. Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located 

on the Bearlodge District in the area of 

Sand Creek. A portion of this trail - miles 

of the total trail length of - miles [distances 

not provided] will be converted into an 

ATV trail [under Alternatives A, B, and 

C]. This trail is in a semi-primitive nonmotorized management area, within a 

botanical area and eight years ago the 

Forest Service spent $112,000 on 

developing this trail for non-motorized 

users. The entire trail will be affected 

because the noise of ATVs on the upper 

loop will ruin the quiet area on the lower 

section. Was any consideration given for a 

non-motorized buffer around our [the 

forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail 

system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

Alternative A represents the existing condition for 

motorized opportunities on the Black Hills NF which does 

not include motorized opportunities on the Dugout Trail. 

The portion of Dugout trail considered under Alternatives 

B and C for motorized opportunities is an existing road 

that doubles as a trail for non-motorized activities and 

motorized administrative activities. No funding was spent 

on this road for development of the trail. For trails that are 

not defined roads, motorized opportunities were restricted.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1723

414/71. Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system Route 1724
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

643

(733.1A, 733.1K) will go right into the 

middle of the Eagle Cliff Trail System 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C]. Noise is 

an issue. Some ATV users will get lost and 

start following the hiking trails. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in Alternatives B, 

C and E, and analyzed to be closed in Alternative D. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. Common to all 

alternatives noise level will be set at 96 decibels for OHV's. 

Specific 

Comment

414/72. Little Spearfish Trail - All alternatives have 

a road 734.1 which dead ends at the trail. 

This will encourage ATVs to follow the 

Little Spearfish Trail. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to be 

left open in all alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1725

414/73. Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes 

right up against the Rimrock Trail. Just 

when you think you get away an ATV 

comes past you. Encourages use [by ATV 

users] of Rimrock Trail. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B and 

C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1726

414/74. Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized 

section of Centennial Trail from Dalton 

Lake to Pilot Knob. This trail section is in 

horrible condition due to overuse. Most 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob are 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1727
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

644

non-motorized users know to never go on 

this section of trail due to the heavy ATV 

use. Roads 137.1B, 137.1C, 137.D and 

137.1E [are] currently closed roads. By 

opening them [under Alternatives A, B, 

and C] access is provided to a secluded 

part of Centennial Trail. Roads 703.1C 

and 703.1D are planned to be opened and 

are within mere feet of Centennial Trail. 

Roads 224.1D and 224.1E dead end at 

Centennial Trail. By opening these roads it 

will be near impossible to keep ATVs off 

Centennial Trail. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around 

our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized 

trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

documented in the Record of Decision. Roads 137.1B, 

137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be open in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently seasonally opened 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in all 

Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are currently 

seasonally opened system roads. They were analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed in Alternative 

D. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

414/75. Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails -

Many sections are motorized. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on existing 

Forest System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside the 

scope of the DEIS analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1728

414/76. Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is 

not a system trail it is probably the most 

popular mountain bike trail in the 

Northern Hills. In fact, Mountain Bike 

Magazine picked the Tinton Trail as the 

best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given 

whatsoever. ATV trails cross it and follow 

it in many locations. Was any 

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that cross 

this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals with 

motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1729
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

645

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience. The EIS should list how 

many motorized trails are within a quarter 

mile of a hiking trail and how many 

motorized trails actually take over the 

hiking trail.

419/2. Who is going to enforce the closures? The 

FS at the present time does not have the 

means to enforce what few regulations 

there are. The FS cannot even enforce the 

snowmobile closures on the Eagle Cliffs 

Cross Country Ski Area. I have a concern 

with this major closure and no feasible 

way to enforce the closure.

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. (16)

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1730

419/7. How do you proposed to enforce the 

closures in the addition areas west of 

Sundance? One of the reasons for the 

closures was for environmental damage 

caused by erosion.

The Forest Service is at the mercy of the private 

landowners surrounding these National Forest properties 

west of Sundance, Wyoming. No public access is available 

to these parcels and no administrative access has been 

obtained from the landowners. No enforcement would be 

conducted due to lack of access.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1731

420/2. There is a small road that has been made 

by off roaders that goes easterly off 201.2. 

It is between the junctions of 201.2j and 

the Lawrence/Pennington county line 

where there is a FS gate and a road to 

679.1A. The area where this unmarked 

dead-end informal road goes is to a 

meadow for wildlife and an abandoned 

mine that is home to bats. Please block off 

this road and restrict bicycle, motorcycle, 

4x4 travel.

No routes were analyzed in the area you describe for 

inclusion in the motorized travel routes. The only 

motorized routes in this area are Forest System Roads open 

to highway legal vehicles only in all alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1732

422/2. Alternative D is as close as miles away 

from what seems acceptable to me only 

Speculation about possible future events such as rock 

crawling events is beyond the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

1733
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

646

because it has the lesser miles of impact as 

compared to the other alternatives. But, 

Alternative D allows for rock crawlers 

very near forest access provided by Sturgis 

city and Meade county entities that seek a 

no holds barred style of economic 

development. It is fully plausible that the 

residents and visitors in the Galena and 

Vanocker areas could experience an adult 

concert Buffalo Chip play ground type of 

venue featuring motorized rock crawlers 

that would literally devastate heritage areas 

and the quietude human beings seek in the 

He Sapa.

Comment

423/3. The next issue is the dust and fumes 

created by OHV and dirt bike users down 

roads located near private landowners. For 

instance, on F.S. road 248 you can 

continuously witness OHV groups of 4-6 

and even 15 using various articles of 

clothing to cover their faces because of 

the dust. The dust is something they 

themselves don‟t even wish to breathe, 

yet, my family and I are subjected to the 

dust and fumes, which is a health hazard. 

They are told to head down our road only 

for the vast majority of them to reach the 

end and come back down because the 

road leads to nowhere. A road that runs 

parallel to 248 is 247, which the owners of 

the B&B express the desire to have these 

OHVs run past their property and this 

road leads to other trails unlike 248, where 

I live. I cannot see any positives coming 

from the use of F.S. 248, which dead ends 

and consists of mostly private property. 

Many of these property owners do not 

want the OHV and dirt bike travel down 

this road. Closure of our road is the best 

solution for the problem.

FSR 248 was analyzed as a highway legal road in 

Alternatives B, C and E and as a road open to all in 

Alternative C. Closure of this road is not an option as it 

provides access to private land owners. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1734
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

647

424/1. When I was younger I was dismayed by 

the number of tourists using the [Black] 

Hills for their entertainment. I understand, 

I‟ve been a tourist too, and I‟ll make 

allowances for their urges and ignorance. 

But when I just couldn‟t take it anymore, 

around 20 years back, I got hold of your 

wonderful map of the [Black] Hills and 

began to explore away from the pavement. 

And I was blown away. The [Black] Hills 

were peaceful and beautiful away from the 

tourist enclaves, and there seemed to be a 

lot of them. So for 20 years I have hiked 

part or all of the Centennial Trail. I have 

been doing it less and less often, or 

sticking to the short stretches where it is in 

relatively well preserved states. An 

incident with dirt bikes at Dalton Lake 

about six years back convinced me I had 

to let the Centennial [Trail] go too. The 

shortcutting on switchbacks, the noise, 

and the floury dust were not what I 

wanted from a trail. Then a couple 

summers back I did a three-day walk 

through the Alkali section and was 

impressed by the rerouting away from 

roads, even though I really missed Camp 4 

Spring. So I convinced a couple of my 

friends who had tried Wind Cave out on 

my urging that the Centennial [Trail] could 

be almost that good. So last fall I took 

them into the Box Elder Fork area and set 

out for the Alkali trailhead. Big mistake. 

The damage to Box Elder trails was 

shocking. Then I got to the Nemo to 

Dalton Lake segment and spent the day 

apologizing to my buddies. At one point 

we saw nearly 40 - 40! -ATVs go by in one 

caravan - several families, each with his or 

her own individual ATV, even the 8 and 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1735
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

648

10-year-olds and grannies. They were not 

only rude for no reason, but they trashed 

the trail, damaged turns, cut corners, 

widened ruts, and raised a continual 

ruckus and dust cloud. After resting an 

hour at Little Elk Creek by Dalton Lake, 

with continual traffic going by (60 ATVs 

in less than 2 hours), two of my friends 

elected to bail.

424/2. (cont from comment no. 1) I told them 

the best section was just to come - and it 

was better - but they were not willing to 

try it. They still ridicule me when I‟m 

visiting them in their home states. And I 

couldn‟t really deny their point. I am 

embarrassed by what has been done, first 

to the campgrounds at Dalton and Box 

Elder, and then to the trail and (natural?) 

surroundings. I do not feel right about 

going back to Centennial [Trail] since. I 

don‟t know if I will walk it ever again. It is 

just heartbreaking to see people who do 

not care a whit about a place I love, and in 

a personal way. That‟s all right. When I 

first saw the OHVs doing their dance on 

my favorite trail, I thought, there‟s lots 

more [Black] Hills out there. I‟ll just work 

out my own routes. And that‟s what I‟ve 

been doing for the last eight years as I‟ve 

weaned myself from Centennial [Trail]. 

Using topographical maps and four wheel 

excursions and day hikes, and by trial and 

error backpacks for up to two weeks, I 

have finagled several beautiful routes in 

the [Black] Hills north of Deerfield and 

Pactola, all the way to my porch in 

Spearfish, and have dreamt of extending 

my routes farther south... But now I‟m not 

so sure that‟s going to work either. There‟s 

been more timbering, so I‟ve rerouted to 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1736
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

649

avoid it. I am used to cows pasturing, and 

have either made my peace with their 

company or routed around them. And the 

number of No Trespassing signs has 

increased every year - but I‟ve worked that 

out too, by rerouting. But more and more 

I come across ATVers running on roads 

that are posted and blocked off at their 

access points. More and more I see major 

damage done, like what has been 

happening to the north end of Johnston 

Gulch near my home in Spearfish. And I 

don‟t mean the huge hole dug by the five 4-wheelers in spring of „08 - I mean the 

trails through the bottoms where the creek 

runs in the ATV ruts because the ruts are 

deeper than the streambed.

424/5. Why do you despise us walkers, bikers, 

horseback riders, birdwatchers, and other 

fans of the wild? Not only is Dalton Lake 

being made even more into a sacrifice 

area, but the trail is being opened to them 

all the way past Pilot Knob and on to 

Pactola. Is it because they‟ve done such a 

fine job taking care of the trail to Pilot 

Knob? Running ATVs on a designated 

light use trail like the Centennial [Trail] is 

not just foolish, it is evil. Maybe if I could 

be more abusive to my surroundings, I 

could get such a reward! But then, I am 

not organized and bankrolled as well as 

OHV enthusiasts. I can see why you guys 

are intimidated. You‟re just our 

representatives of the government, and 

our caretakers of the National Forest. Why 

should you stick your chin out?

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1737

424/6. Places I have been hiking the last eight 

years are being sacrificed too. I can‟t get 

away from them! Black Fox CG and 

environs - turned over for thorough 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1738
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

650

destruction to the OHV people. Eagle 

Cliffs, currently well barricaded and one of 

the better preserved areas - to be open for 

destruction and noise and dust. Limestone 

Plateau! One of my favorite spots for 

peace and quiet, for clean camping with 

good views - to be sacrificed to the 

heathens who don‟t love it at all. Little 

Spearfish Creek, a honey of a valley, even 

with the timbering that‟s been loosed on it 

in recent years - lost to noisemakers who 

will widen the mud holes, deepen the 

track, scare off the mountain lions, and 

probably trash the wild irises and clumps 

of mushrooms that pop up along the side 

of the road. Cement Ridge, already pretty 

much hammered by tourism and offroading, but to be opened up for more 

hammering. For God‟s sake, it used to be 

a peaceful night with a campfire up there -

now you‟ve got fool kids trashing the fire 

tower, ATVs cutting 2 to 3 new trails 

every year - last weekend I just saw a 

couple new ones through where the 

flowers up there should have been 

blossoming this next week. And so it goes. 

Where you haven‟t opened the roads up to 

them, you are allowing the ATVs to cross 

or come up to a roadblock - as if that will 

stop them! Let‟s just tease and tempt them 

onto new trails they didn‟t know yet could 

be trashed.

428/2. Regarding the proposed plans which were 

presented at the public meetings, I have 

concerns about plan [Alternative]‟C‟. The 

area around Shank‟s Quarry includes a 

number of established hiking, running, 

and cycling routes. This area is also very 

close to the non-motorized trail system 

currently being built at Buzzard‟s Roost.

Many of the routes in the Shank's Quarry area were 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1739
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

651

430/12. The short trail from High Meadows 

Development to the trail between 

Woodland Hills and Piedmont Fire trail 

(that will be open all year) should also be 

open all year as well to give communities 

access to the open trails.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

This comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1740

433/2. Regarding the proposed plans which were 

presented at the public meetings, I have 

concerns about plan [Alternative]‟C‟. The 

area around Shank‟s Quarry includes a 

number of established hiking, running, 

and cycling routes. This area is also very 

close to the non-motorized trail system 

currently being built at Buzzard‟s Roost.

Many of the routes in the Shank's Quarry area were 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1741

434/3. The area immediately adjacent to Rapid 

City (a kidney shaped lobe from Hayward, 

to Rockerville, to Victoria Lake, to 

Buzzard‟s Roost, to Schroeder Road, to 

Nemo Road) is a vital need to non 

motorized uses. This area should be highly 

limited in use to motorized activity. This 

helps the community thrive and protect 

and respect the public land that buffers

Rapid City to the west.

Many of the routes in this area were eliminated from 

Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1742

436/4. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of trail CZ-1790 because 

of its close proximity to sensitive botanical 

areas and the water supply for surrounding 

communities.

CZ 1790 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D as a 

special designation route. It was removed from Alternative 

E. Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1743

436/5. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of the proposed trailhead 

at NH9 in Piedmont because it is 

redundant

There is no proposed trailhead on NFS lands in the vicinity 

of NH9.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1744
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

652

436/6. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of trails 777.1C and 

149.5B as reflected in Alternative D to 

protect wildlife, watersheds and 

communities in that area from damage, 

noise and pollution. As well as the 

removal of the proposed trailhead at 

Forest Service Road 126 and trails 

U150012 and CZ1758.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route

Specific 

Comment

1745

436/7. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of Dutch Creek and 

Victoria trailheads and all trails in the 

Victoria Lake area that is north of 

Sheridan Lake Road. It is an area that is 

already severely damaged by vehicle travel, 

garbage, illegal dumping and illegal firearm 

discharging.

Dutch Creek Trailhead was not included in Alternatives D 

or E. Parking areas provide a point of contact for better 

enforcement, education, and management. There are no 

trails in the Victoria Lake area in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1746

436/8. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of Samelius trailhead and 

the trails in the surrounding area on either 

side of US Hwy 16 between Keystone and 

Three Forks, extending to the Black Elk 

Wilderness area.

Samelius Trailhead is not included in Alternatives D or E. 

Many of the routes in this area were either removed from 

Alternatives D and E, or are open to highway legal vehicles 

only.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1747

436/9. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of all trails at and near 

Rockerville near Storm Mountain and 

Silver Mountain Road and all trails 

Motorized routes in the Rockerville area north of Highway 

16 to Sheridan Lake Road are open to highway legal 

vehicles only in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1748
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

653

extending north to Sheridan Lake Road.

436/10. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of all trails from 

Piedmont that lead to Dalton Lake, and all 

trails surrounding Dalton Lake.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1749

436/11. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of all trails marked 722.1 

in the Hisega area out US Hwy 44.

Most of the routes in this area are not included in 

Alternatives D or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1750

436/12. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of all trails off Forest 

Service Road 166 (U200069, U200255, 

166.1J, 721.1A, CZ-4884) and all trails 

extending from Forest Service Road 166 

to US Hwy 385 north of Hwy 44.

Many of these routes were eliminated from Alternatives D 

and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1751

436/13. I support the removal of this 

trailhead/trails from the DEIS because I 

want to see these areas survive and thrive 

in their natural state for the generations to 

follow. Removal of the Nemo/South Box 

Elder trailhead (CZ-1151) and all trails in 

that area.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1752

437/1. I have lived here for 7 years and the 

number of ATVs/dirt bikes has grown by 

leaps and bounds. The problem that I am

seeing is that at least half of these vehicles 

do not have licenses and the driver‟s are 

underage. The vehicles are going up and 

down our road to get to their trails. The 

road that they are using is a Dead End 

Road that ends at Bear Butte Creek. In 

This is a county road, state traffic law applies. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1753
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

654

order to get to their trails they have to 

cross the creek, which is illegal. What I 

would like to see is signage: at the 

beginning of Galena Road, and at the 

intersection of Spring Run and the Galena 

Road. The signage would inform the riders 

of the laws for their vehicles (age and 

license).

439/7. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Continue 

513.1B to FH 17 using U120166. This will 

get riders to FH 17 so riders can then go 

into Rochford. By including the trail it will 

create a continuous route and help keep 

off-road vehicles off of gravel roads thus 

increasing safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1754

439/8. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Connect 

217.1A to 203.1F with CZ-0591. By 

including the trail above it will create a 

continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1755

439/9. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative due to 

resource issues and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. Routes not included in this decision may be 

considered in the future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1756
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

655

Crossing Campground area. Include 

U120153 to connect 204.2G to U120153. 

By including the trail above it will create a 

continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

439/10. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Include 

U120077 to get motorcycles and ATVs off 

of 204.2 for safety. By including the trail 

above it will create a continuous route and 

help keep off-road vehicles off of gravel 

roads thus increasing safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1757

439/11. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Include CZ2644, CZ-0635, U120091 and U120135 

for a continuous route. By including the 

trail above it will create a continuous route 

and help keep off-road vehicles off of 

gravel roads thus increasing safety of the 

riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1758

439/12. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Include CZ4840 between 204.1 and 204.1B. By 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1759
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

656

including the trail above it will create a 

continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

439/13. This is a connection to proposed trails and 

roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and is a 

necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Continue 

513.1 to 231.2 for access to Rochford. By 

including the trail above it will create a 

continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

This route CZ-0594 was analyzed in Alternative B and 

removed from Alternative C, D and E due to resource 

concerns. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1760

439/14. Have a trailhead at the intersection of 

231.2 and 231.2A. This is a flat area that 

has been used as a parking area for years 

and has easy access. Connect 231.2A with 

the proposed system to the north.

FSR 231.2A was analyzed in Alternative E and removed 

from Alternative B, C and D due to resource concerns. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. No trailhead location was evaluated at 

this location and is therefore outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1761

439/15. A single tract motorcycle trail that many 

riders have requested of us (ORA [OffRoad Riders Association]) to be kept open 

is CZ-4912 and CZ-48.14 to the east and 

south of Nemo. Skilled dirt-bikers enjoy 

this trail. There are places of steep grade 

but we feel by rerouting the trail in a few 

places any problems can be mitigated.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1762

439/16. Many off-roaders leave Sturgis by 171.1 

through the SD SDGFP [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks] 

land and head for the Camp 5 area. A trail 

linking 171.1B with the Camp 5 area needs 

to be included.

Due to resource concerns no routes were analyzed between 

171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside the 

scope of this document. Any consideration to future trails 

will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1763

439/17. To get to Camp 5 as shown on Alternative 

C a rider would have to go down to gravel 

road 170.1C then west to 170.4C. By 

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1764
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

657

routing the riders onto a gravel road we 

believe it is placing their safety in jeopardy.

trails will be handled by the individual District.

439/19. Trails CZ-1825 and CZ-1090 parallel road 

144.1 on the northwest side, between 

U140124 and 226.1. These trails should be 

open so trail vehicles can get off of the 

road as soon as possible. This will reduce 

different vehicle type conflicts on road 

144.1 and be a safer route for trail type 

machines.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1765

439/20. There is a trail that leaves from the 

Piedmont Trailhead area that starts where 

144.1 starts to go uphill. It is in the 

southwest corner of section 9, T103N, 

R6E and goes into section 8 and finally 

intersects 144.2C. This should be included 

as [it] will allow trail vehicles to get off of 

road 144.1 as soon as possible and be safer 

for trail riders. The trail will help in 

making a more complete “Trail” between 

Piedmont and Nemo where there is a lack 

of trail, and help keep ATVs and dirt bikes 

off of the roads and make a more 

enjoyable ride for off-roaders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1766

439/21. Trail CZ-1121 is an important trail to 

have. It follows an old railroad grade for 

much of its length. It is a good sightseeing 

trail with the way the railroad bed was cut 

into the side of the valley. The trail will 

help in making a more complete “Trail”

between Piedmont and Nemo where there 

is a lack of trail, and help keep ATVs and 

dirt bikes off of the roads and make a 

more enjoyable ride for off-roaders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1767

439/22. Trails CZ-4917 and CZ-4916 between 

CZ-1121 and 546.1A should also be 

considered for inclusion in the system. 

This will make a complete loop from 

546.1A instead of dead ending and is also 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1768
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

658

a scenic route.

439/23. CZ-4837 and CZ-2659 in the Northern 

Hills District are very good trails that need 

to be included to help complete a 

motorcycle trail that matches CZ-4856 in 

the Mystic district.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1769

444/3. I especially enjoyed the town of Spearfish. 

I can envision retiring in there. I 

understand that there are few meaningful 

connections of the trail system to gateway 

communities such as Deadwood-Lead, 

Sturgis, Hill City, and even Spearfish. I 

would like to suggest that trails in and out 

of these town would be economically 

beneficial as people need food, lodging, 

gas, etc.

Alternative B and C connect communities to the extent 

possible but opportunities are limited due to private 

property, paved highways, and other jurisdictions.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1770

445/8. Motorized and non motorized use of the 

forest both has a huge impact on the 

social and economic impact of the Black 

Hills area. Your DEIS states that the 

impact is minimal and this is simply not 

true. Ask the Sugar Shack on Hwy 385 if a 

clear example is needed.

A comprehensive economic impact analysis was conducted. 

The results are described in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1771

445/11. Forest Service road 150/1E needs to 

remain open to allow climbing 

opportunities in Victoria Canyon to 

continue. If this road is closed, the area 

becomes landlocked by private property 

and no longer accessible to the roped rock 

climbing that has existed there since the 

mid 1980‟s.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1772

453/8. [There] should be a trail open to all 

vehicles [within the Northern Hills 

District]. It is not challenging enough to 

designate [it] as a specialty rock crawling 

trail, although it is definitely a high 

Thank you for your comment. It will be considered in the 

final EIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1773
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

659

clearance vehicle trail on which 4WD 

would be required. Maps attached [ATT 3 

and ATT 4].

453/9. Specialty rock crawler trails are missing. 

Trails identified by users are drawn in on 

the attached map [ATT 3] were turned in 

by Dakota Territory Cruisers and 

SDOHVC [South Dakota Off Highway 

Vehicle Coalition] during scoping. This 

area should not be seasonal. Both of these 

trails are rock crawling trails that are 

popular for added challenge to the 

adjacent trails. Map attached [ATT 3].

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative. Routes not 

included in this decision may be considered in the future on 

individual District projects. CZ5319 was not included 

because it is in a goshawk territory. Routes in this area 

were closed by previous management decisions because 

they lead into the Ft. Meade Watershed that is closed to off 

road traffic. CZ5322 was not included and I do not know 

why and could possible be included in a future District 

decision. All routes in this area are in management area 5.4 

Big Game winter range emphasis and should be seasonal.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1774

453/10 Trail referred to by the community as 3.9 

is missing. This trail starts from an 

established trailhead and ends at a popular 

road open to all vehicles seasonally. It is 

easily accessed and does not encroach 

upon sensitive areas. Map attached [ATT 

5].

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1775

453/11. Trail [in Ricco Fire area, adjacent to 

1442G] drawn in on attached map is 

missing. It was submitted during scoping. 

This established trail is very popular with 

hard core rock crawlers. At one time it 

was a designated 4WD trail on earlier 

BHFS maps. It offers easy access and is 

also connected by an open to all vehicles 

FS road and an all vehicle trail. Inclusion 

of this trail will help enhance the multi-use 

opportunities in this area.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1776

453/12. A 4WD trail exists in this area [indicated 

on ATT 4, adjacent to FH 26], and should 

be considered for designation as a special 

use permit only trail. This trail is a historic 

4 WD trail that offers a challenge in an 

easily accessible area. This trail was 

historically permitted for many of the 

4WD events that are held each year by the 

Due to resource concerns this route was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. Routes not included in this decision may be 

considered in the future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1777
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

660

Black Hills 4 wheelers, Dakota Territory 

Cruisers and the Black Hills Jeeps. It has 

been a destination that has been passed 

over several times due to the fickleness of 

the creek that runs over this hard rock 

bed. The water completely disappears for 

years on end. This trail has only been run 

during those dry spells, dictating when this 

very fun and unique trail can be run. A 

favorite of local and tourists alike. Map 

attached [ATT 4].

453/13. This trail [adjacent to trail CZ-1111 and 

U140062] is mislabeled on the map, it is 

listed as open to vehicles 50" or less but 

this trail should be designated as open to 

all vehicles. Restricting this trail to 50" or 

less creates two dead ends. It would make 

for a better trail experience to keep the 

trail consistent in its designation for its full 

length. There is also a trail that runs 

adjacent to this that should be designated 

as open to vehicles 50" or less as well. The 

two trails run parallel where one should be 

50" or less with the other a trail open to 

all. Map attached [ATT 5].

FSR 144.1A was analyzed as a trail open to all in 

Alternatives B, C, and D and as open to highway legal in 

Alternative E U140062 was analyzed as a trail open to 50 

inch or less in Alternative B and C and dropped in D and 

E. Your comment that the route should be all one 

designation will be considered. Any decision on routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1778

453/14. Rock crawling trail goes through a draw 

next to FS road 529. The trail runs on the 

north side of the road. The road is marked 

as a trail yet the trail runs adjacent to the 

actual road. The road is needed for access 

to the trail. Map attached [ATT 6].

According to our information, the requested route was not 

previously submitted, therefore it is outside the scope and 

cannot be considered at this time.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1779

453/15. Two rock crawl trails in this area are 

important, please consider for future 

development. Map attached [ATT 6].

A portion of the rock crawl route requested is a single-track 

route in Alternative C. According to our information, the 

remainder of the requested route was not previously 

submitted, therefore it is outside the scope and cannot be 

considered at this time.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1780

453/16. Trail is designated as 50" or less but 

should be designated as open to all 

vehicles. This trail [201.1I] is the access 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1781
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

661

road for part of the rock crawl trail that is 

designated in this area. Full size vehicles 

need to be able to get to the beginning of 

the rock crawl trail in order to run it. The 

trail in question is indicated as 201.1I. We 

recommend it be changed to a trail open 

to all. Map attached [ATT 6].

453/17. A rock crawl trail needs to go all the way 

through to road as it does now [in 

Spearfish Peak area, adjacent to 220.1C 

and 220.1D, marked NHNEW_SD]. Dead 

end trail makes the routes difficult for 

more than one vehicle. Turning around 

and going back against trail traffic is very 

difficult and creates large turnarounds, off 

trail excursions and widens the trail as 

vehicles try to pass alongside each other. 

Map attached [ATT 7].

This route was analyzed in Alt C. This is a small area rather 

then a dead end trail. If this route is selected the District 

will engineer the route to ensure it is safe for vehicles to 

pass alongside each other. Any decision on routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1782

453/18. Rock crawl trail exists in this area [In Pilot 

Knob area, adjacent to 201.2D]. It was 

submitted during scoping but is not on the 

map. Map attached [ATT 8].

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1783

453/19. [The trail in Pilot Knob area, adjacent to 

202.2C and U130236] should be 

designated as a trail open to all vehicles. 

Map attached [ATT 8].

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1784

453/20. Road from Castle Peak campground over 

divide road should be a trail open to all 

vehicles similar to Alternative B, but with 

the added ATV trails from Alternative C. 

Map attached [ATT 9].

At this time, there is not an easement for FSR 238 across 

private property to connect Castle Peak Campground to 

the Divide Road. Nor is there an easement for FSR181 

across private property. FSR 238.1K and 1L are open to 

highway legal vehicles in Alternatives C, D, and E. The 

Mystic Road is not Forest Service jurisdiction. The 

remaining routes are open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives C, D, and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1785

453/21. Add loop and connection as indicated. 

Map attached [ATT 10].

This route was analyzed in Alternative C for vehicles less 

the 50 inches. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1786

453/22. Add trails from Alternative B to 

Alternative C to enhance experience. Map 

The routes in the Stageyard area were analyzed in 

Alternative B. Some of those routes were not analyzed in 

Route 

Specific 

1787
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

662

attached [ATT 11]. Alternative C to meet the public need of more loops and 

less dead-end routes. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Comment

453/23. Road 264.1A has been a historical 4WD 

trail on many maps printed by the BHNF. 

This road should be included in the trails 

map as it was one of the only trails marked 

on previously published maps of the 

BHNF as a 4WD trail in the Black Hills. It 

currently is a border road to a sensitive 

study area but does not ever encroach on 

the study area. This trail should be 

designated as a trail open to all vehicles. It 

creates a very enjoyable experience 

climbing up the spine of a wild west type 

hill. It ends at Summit Peak and the return 

ride back down road 264 Boles Canyon 

makes for an enjoyable off road 

experience. Map attached [ATT 12].

Forest Service Road 264.1A is available for high clearance 

vehicles. This road is currently very rough and therefore 

not very suitable for anything other than 4-wheel drive 

vehicles. Designation of this route as a trail may be 

considered sometime in the future. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1788

453/24. Gillette Canyon is one of the only 4WD 

trails marked on previously published 

maps by the BHNF. Currently the trail is 

impassable due to leftover Jasper fire 

debris. We would like it put into inventory 

as a possible Rock crawl trail in the future. 

The local 4WD clubs would be happy to 

volunteer in a cleanup effort to see this as 

a 4WD trail in the future. Map attached 

[ATT 13].

Gillette Canyon Road is a main route for both Forest 

visitors and for landowners who require access to their 

private property. This road, as well as others across the 

Forest, may at times have debris across it due to wind 

events or wildlife activity. For those routes, such as the 

Gillette Canyon Road, where public access is necessary on a 

daily basis, debris is cleared as quickly as possible. 

Designation of this road as a trail would not be in the best 

interest of the many who require this road as a main access 

route. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1789

453/25. On map #18 [ATT 13] there is a small 

draw that the only thing it would need to 

be a premier rock crawling experience is 

the permission to drive up the draw. There 

are no trees and only the fast growing after 

fire vegetation in the way. It begins at the 

bottom on road 281 and climbs up the 

draw to road 281.1W and both of these 

roads are currently roads open to all 

vehicles. Map attached [ATT 13].

This route is not proposed under any Alternative. If it does 

not cross private land, then it may be possible to consider 

this as a rock crawler (special designation) trail in the 

future. However, if it crosses private land, then the Forest 

Service does not have the authority to designate a trail of 

any kind on private land.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1790
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

663

453/26. There are several popular rock crawling 

trails in this area [in Craven Canyon, 

multiple trails on ATT 14]. The local 4WD 

enthusiasts have been in contact with the 

new ranger of the Hell Canyon districts 

and they have gone out and toured these 

trails with FS personnel when they were 

discovered to have been left off any of the 

proposed alternatives. The new Ranger 

expressed no concerns at that time to 

designating these as 4WD trails. The state 

of South Dakota has deemed this area as 

unremarkable in its attributes. We believe 

that the past Ranger for this district did 

not want any trails in his area and 

therefore just left them off the map. Map 

attached [ATT 14].

Several of these routes have been reviewed further by the 

District staff and may be considered as a special 

designation trail for Rock Crawling. The Decision Maker 

will consider this in his decision for the Black Hills Travel 

Management Plan.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1791

453/27. There is a rock quarry at the end of 

135.2m that is a perfect place for the 

multiuse OHV area. This area is accessible 

and a completely existing man made area. 

Map attached [ATT 4].

This rock quarry was not analyzed in any Alternative as it is 

an active quarry. Therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1792

453/28. Road number 186.2 at Maurice needs to 

be added as a trail open to all vehicles. 

Map attached [not attached].

FSR 186.2 was not analyzed since there is no ROW 

through the private property. It therefore outside the scope 

of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1793

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 

Thompson Canyon access. Although Forest Service road 

# 816 provides access into Thompson Canyon, it must 

cross other ownership, and therefore cannot be designated 

as a trail. The Forest Service does not have the authority to 

designate a trail that crosses or enters other private 

ownership. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1794
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

664

that could be done. If this road is closed 

the whole canyon will become the 

“private” backyard of the west landowner, 

as he will have the right to control access 

to this land. He already claims it as his and 

this will make it impossible.

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.

Portions of this road are designated as a trail open to 

vehicles 65" or less in Alternatives B and C on the South 

Dakota side. On the Wyoming side, Stots Canyon lies on 

private land. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1795

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 then for years and do not see 

any reason to deny motor vehicle access to 

this area.

Portions of this road cross onto private land. The Forest 

Service does not have the authority to designate any travel 

routes onto or through private land. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1796

454/4. Closing of Road #189.4B in section #: 

This is a major graveled road that provides 

access to the old Crooks Lookout Tower. 

This road is in between 2 roads that are 

open and it provides a more direct access 

to the area. I do not see any reason to 

close this road.

This road was closed in order to protect wildlife security 

and habitat needs in this area. This decision was made in a 

previous NEPA analysis and decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1797

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.

This road is designated as open to highway legal vehicles in 

all alternatives.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1798

456/21. Centennial Trail: Page 40 of the DEIS 

states “Non-motorized trail opportunity 

across the Forest is currently 311 miles on 

35 trails, with another 12 miles of the 

Centennial Trail shared with motorized 

users. This opportunity would remain the 

same under all alternatives.” This is not a 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob are 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. FSR 613, 746, 746.1B, 1D, and 1F in the 

area of Deer Creek Trailhead were inadvertently included in 

Alternatives B and C as motorized routes, but were 

removed from Alternative D. Your comment has been 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1799
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

665

true statement. It would appear from the 

maps for Alternatives B and C that most, 

if not all, of the Centennial Trail from the 

Pilot Knob Trailhead south to the Deer 

Creek Trailhead is to be open to 

motorized trail. Hence, this additional 

section of the Centennial Trail would be 

“shared” with motorized users as well. On 

page 35 of the DEIS the USFS 

emphatically stated, “designation of nonmotorized routes is not the focus of this 

project." However, it is apparent that 

designating of non-motorized routes as 

motorized routes is part of the project. It 

is very disturbing that changing the part of 

the Centennial trail to a motorized status 

was done with no acknowledgement of 

the deplorable action in the DEIS.

evaluated. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

456/22. Appendix B [ATT 14] has a list of routes 

that the Norbeck Society is recommending 

closure under the various alternatives. In 

Table 4 [ATT 4] is a list of areas that are 

impacted by recreational issues and for 

which we are requiring that trails be 

removed (see Appendix B [ATT 4] for 

more information).

Many of the routes listed in Appendix B have been 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E. A range of 

alternatives for motorized opportunities was considered in 

the DEIS and FEIS. Recommendations in the comment 

for the Bearlodge RD are included under Alternative D. 

Two specific routes mentioned for removal were not 

considered; FS 802.2A accesses private property and FS 

839.1 accesses a trailhead. Route 879.1 is listed as a "Other 

Jurisdiction" road under all alternatives since it accesses 

State property. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1800

456/24. Trailheads and access points are proposed 

in some areas where either (1) there are no 

adjacent trails for access, or (2) trailheads 

are sited within close proximity of 

another, or (3) trailheads and access points 

are in/near communities who oppose 

them, or (4) there is coincidence with 

existing hiking trailheads or other nonmotorized activity with consequent 

potential for social conflicts. The DEIS 

offers little in the way of specifications for 

trailheads. On page 106 of the DEIS it 

Some of the trailheads listed in Appendix C were removed 

in Alternative D, and Alternative E does not include any 

trailheads. Moving the Sundance Trailhead (known as the 

Reuter Trailhead) to sections 29/20 of T52N R63W would 

be in conflict with private property and inefficient for 

snowmobile and cross-country trail access in the winter. 

The trailhead was designed to provide access to all users of 

the National Forest. Various numbers of trailheads were 

analyzed in Alternatives B through E with Alternative E 

showing only currently existing trailheads including Big 

Hill. Any decision on trailheads selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1801
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

666

states, “The designation of trailhead 

facilities (estimated at up to five acres in 

size for this analysis) would further 

implement that design criteria.” Up to 5 

acres is potentially a very large area for 

parking. Also even the DEIS warns on 

page 41 “Increased costs of vandalism 

could be expected with higher numbers of 

trailheads.” We recommend that the 

minimum number of trailheads and access 

points be maintained in order to achieve 

economic and environmental 

sustainability. We are recommending the 

following motorized trailheads for 

removal (See Appendix C [ATT 15] for 

more information):Beretta Trailhead, Big 

Hill Trailhead, Bloody Gulch Trailhead, 

China Trailhead, Clayton Quarry 

Trailhead, Custer Peak Trailhead, Dalton 

Lake Trailhead, High Meadows Access 

Point, Mystic Trailhead, Peaceful Pines 

Trailhead, Pilot Knob Trailhead, Red Fern 

Trailhead, Rolling Hills Trailhead, 

Samelius Trailhead, Schroeder Trailhead, 

Shanks Quarry Trailhead, South Box Elder 

Trailhead, Stageyard Trailhead, Sundance 

Trailhead, and Victoria Dam Trailhead.

456/34. [In the Stagebarn-Piedmont area, trails 

located on erodible Opeche shale should 

be removed] (See Appendix B [# 15][ATT 

14] for more information).

While routes were evaluated for inclusion into the 

designated system, there may be sections of a designated 

transportation system under the decision that may be 

located on a geologic formation where the transportation 

facility will likely require more trail design, maintenance, 

application of surfacing materials to maintain the system 

for use without resulting in impacts to adjacent resources 

located immediately adjacent to the designated 

transportation facility. Please see the decision for 

transportation facility designation and Appendix B of the 

FEIS for the transportation design criteria common to all 

alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1802
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

667

456/39. The Norbeck Society notes that several 

routes in Alternatives B and C have public 

safety issues where, for example, FSR 

201.1 and 202.2 provides multiple 

connections onto the designated trail 

system including at least two (CZ4870 and 

CZ 4835) that utilize a blind corner on 

201.2 as part of a loop. Similar issues arise 

on FSR 141 (CZ4852) and FSR 208.1 (CZ 

4910). These instances are of particular 

concern partly because they are trails for 

dirt bikes, OHVs that are more often than 

not unlicensed, and operated by 

unlicensed, uninsured, under-aged drivers. 

These alternatives essentially dump these 

operators onto roads open to licensed 

vehicles only, a practice that could only be 

described as „poor‟ in concept and design 

and thus pose a threat not only to users of 

the designated trail system, but also to 

those who use the regular roads in their 

daily lives.

Routes selected as part of the motorized travel system 

would include measures to ensure the safety of the users. 

Adjustments to the system can be made as a result of 

monitoring of use. Routes may be temporarily closed by 

special order as needed to protect resources or for safety 

reasons. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1803

456/62. The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail and the area around 

Dalton Lake have been significantly 

degraded by OHV incursions that have 

resulted in a significant amount of 

resource damage. These areas were 

historically designated as being areas of 

non-motorized recreation. However, in 

the DEIS, these areas, and the Centennial 

Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

been re-designated as motorized 

recreation areas. The Norbeck Society 

views this re-designation of traditionally 

non-motorized trails as dominating 

multiple uses of the forest. The following 

two photos [ATT 7 and 8] are examples of 

the currently designated motorized trails 

on the Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1804
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

668

Centennial Trail. [These photos] [ATT 7 

and 8] reflect the heavy damage that has 

been caused in the past and still exists 

today. In order to redress the domination 

of multiple uses of the forest by the OHV 

community, the Norbeck Society requests 

that the USFS re-designate all sections and 

trailheads of the Centennial Trail as nonmotorized, place priority on rehabilitation

of “user-created” trails within a 1-mile 

buffer of Dalton Lake.

456/77. In Table 7 [ATT 9] is a list of areas that 

are impacted for socio-economic reasons 

and for which we [the Norbeck Society] 

are asking that trails be removed (see 

Appendix B [ATT 14] for more 

information).

Many of the routes listed in Table 7 are not included in 

Alternative D, or are open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1805

456/79. We [the Norbeck Society] want to 

emphasize the Botany Canyon area and 

High Meadows residential area. The rock 

crawler area including the routes U140092 

and CZ1790 that are hazardous, unstable, 

and on a steep canyon wall. The 

motorized group is requesting access 

through High Meadows residential area so 

they can access the above mentioned usercreated routes. We insist on the removal 

of MYJ148, CZ1790 and U140092.

Routes were analyzed to be included in Alternatives B, C 

and D and were left off of Alternative E. The portion of 

U140092 that is in Botany Canyon is not included as a 

motorized route in any of the alternatives. CZ-1790 is not 

included as a motorized route in Alternative E. FSR 148 is 

open to highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, 

and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1806

456/86. Many of the routes suggested for the 

various alternatives appear to conflict with 

Forest Plan Direction, especially with 

regard to Standards 1203, 1212, 1301, 

1302 and 1304. In Table 8 [ATT 10] is a 

list of areas that are impacted by 

hydrology issues and for which we [the 

Norbeck Society] are asking that trails be 

removed (see Appendix B [ATT 14] for 

more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 attached to 

the comment were removed from Alternatives D and E, or 

are open to highway legal vehicles only. In the table, 

Cement Ridge applies to the Bearlodge Ranger District. 

The recommendation to remove routes was considered in 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS with the exception of 

FS 802.2A which accesses private property. Design criteria 

applied to the routes would minimize impacts and meet 

Forest Plan direction under all alternatives. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1807

456/102. In Table 9 [ATT 11] is a list of areas that Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were Route 1808
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

669

are impacted by wildlife issues and for 

which we are asking that trails be removed 

(see Appendix B [ATT 14] for more 

information).

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only.

Specific 

Comment

456/107. For all alternatives, the areas in the Table 

[10][ATT 12] should have trails removed 

to conserve and protect USFS sensitive 

species and Black Hills NF plant species 

of local concern (SOLC). See Appendix B 

[ATT 14] for more information.

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 10 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only, to conserve and protect USFS 

sensitive species and Black Hills NF plant species of local 

concern (SOLC). See Appendix B [ATT 14] for more 

information.. In the table referenced, Dugout Gulch, 

Cement Ridge, and Bearlodge/Beaver Creek apply to the 

Bearlodge RD. The recommendation to remove routes 

was considered under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS 

with the exception of FS 802.2A as it accesses private 

property. Road 879.1 is listed as "Other Jurisdiction" under 

all alternatives since it accesses State property. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1809

456/139. The Norbeck Society recommends 

modifications to the USFS DEIS 

alternatives. In order for the new Travel 

Management Plan to be sustainable, while 

at the same time preserving the forest and 

its wildlife and botanical populations to 

meet the needs of all user groups, the 

Norbeck Society has recommended: 

Elimination of routes listed on the 

Norbeck Society spreadsheet (See 

Appendix B [ATT 14]: Routes to be 

eliminated). Column “Changes Proposed” 

lists the proposed route changes, and 

Column “Justification” provides a brief 

justification for the specific action.

A range of alternatives for motorized opportunities was 

considered in the DEIS and FEIS. Many of the routes 

listed in Appendix B to the comment letter have been 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E. Recommendations 

in the comment for the Bearlodge RD are included under 

Alternative D. Two specific routes mentioned for removal 

were not considered; FS 802.2A accesses private property 

and FS 839.1 accesses a trailhead. Route 879.1 is listed as 

an "Other Jurisdiction" road under all alternatives since it 

accesses State property. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1810

456/140. The Norbeck Society recommends 

modifications to the USFS DEIS 

alternatives. In order for the new Travel 

Management Plan to be sustainable, while 

at the same time preserving the forest and 

its wildlife and botanical populations to 

meet the needs of all user groups, the 

Norbeck Society has recommended: 

Some of the trailheads listed in Appendix C to the 

comment letter were removed in Alternative D, and 

Alternative E does not include any new trailheads. Moving 

the Sundance Trailhead (known as the Reuter Trailhead) to 

sections 29/20 of T52N R63W would be in conflict with 

private property and inefficient for snowmobile and crosscountry trail access in the winter. The trailhead was 

designed to provide access to all users of the National 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1811
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

670

Elimination or moving of trailheads listed 

on the Norbeck Society spreadsheet (See 

Appendix C [ATT 15]: Trailheads to be 

changed).

Forest.

457/1. 567/1. 568/1. 569/1. 

570/1. 571/1. 573/1. 575/1. 

576/1. 

As a supporter of the Top 50 Trailhead 

project, I understand and agree that the 

development of this trailhead will create a 

“gateway community” for the Piedmont 

area. This gateway community will create 

an infrastructure that combines 

government agencies, communities and a 

local social entrepreneur working together 

to achieve one common goal... create a 

low expense, easy access gateway to our 

new recreational Black Hills trail system. 

This generates large positive impacts on 

the regions, economy, ecology, safety, and 

education.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1812

457/2. 567/2. 568/2. 569/2. 

570/2. 571/2. 573/2. 575/2. 

576/2.

The location of the Top 50 Trailhead at 

exit at exit 46 off I-90 is ideal for local and 

out of state visitors enjoying motorized 

and non-motorized outdoor recreational 

activities. This easy access convenient 

location provides a maintained 2 acre 

location for loading, unloading, short term 

and long term parking at no charge as 

visitors enjoy the Black Hills.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1813

457/3. 567/3. 568/3. 569/3. 

570/3. 571/3. 573/3. 575/3. 

576/3.

The private development of this particular 

trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] eliminates 

costly construction, renovation, and any 

necessary maintaining by local or state and 

governmental agencies.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1814

457/4. 567/4. 568/4. 569/4. 

570/4. 571/4. 573/4. 575/4. 

576/4.

This convenient trailhead [Top 50 

Trailhead] also provides year round access 

for the following uses: USFS Maintenance, 

Patrolling, and Training. Community 

Education activities, training and 

programs. Emergency Services and 

Rescues.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1815
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

671

457/5. 567/5. 568/5. 569/5. 

570/5. 571/5. 573/5. 575/5. 

576/5.

The development of this easily accessible 

trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] affects the 

economy of the entire Black Hills and 

directly affects surrounding communities 

and counties. Multiple users, local and out 

of state, motorized and non-motorized, 

can benefit from and enjoy an extended 

tourism season. Trails give visitors access 

to many small communities. Allowing 

multiple local businesses the ability to sell 

a wide range of goods and services. 

National publicity provided by Top 50 

Trailhead and its events encourages 

tourism utilizing the Black Hills trail 

system as a top destination for recreational 

use.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1816

457/6. 567/6. 568/6. 569/6. 

570/6. 571/6. 573/6. 575/6. 

576/6.

Centralized access to the trail system 

eliminates the need to create new 

trailheads, trails and OHV ditch usage 

thereby eliminating unnecessary soil 

erosion and dust pollution. Top 50 

Trailhead offers a mud bog area designed 

to allow motorized vehicle enthusiasts to 

enjoy the activity without destroying the 

designated trail system or public land.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1817

457/7. 567/7. 568/7. 569/7. 

570/7. 571/7. 573/7. 575/7. 

576/7.

Top 50 Trailhead leads visitors on a 

maintained trail under the highway and 

directly to the trail system. This eliminates 

injuries and deaths caused by blacktop 

pack OHV usage, highway and private 

driveway crossings, and OHV ditch usage. 

The trailhead will also provide well lit 

loading and unloading areas to both single 

and multi-day visitors both motorized and 

non-motorized. Sewer and freshwater will 

be available on the property as well.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1818

457/8. 567/8. 568/8. 569/8. 

570/8. 571/8. 573/8. 575/8. 

576/8.

With over 2 acres of private land for 

public access and use, the Top 50 

Trailhead serves as an education and 

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1819
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

672

training location for the National Guard, 

USFS, and other safety and safety 

equipment. Elementary through college 

students have a way to access and learn 

about the Black Hills first hand. 

Information on the Black Hills trail 

system, ecology, geography, and botany 

will be posted on site. Information on 

training courses, state and area attraction 

and South Dakota Department of 

Tourism maps will be available on site.

457/9. 567/9. 568/9. 569/9. 

570/9. 571/9. 573/9. 575/9. 

576/9.

I feel the development of the Top 50 

Trailhead will benefit the Black Hills area 

in numerous ways and fully support its 

further development.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1820

458/28. In Table 5 [described below] is a list of 

areas that are impacted by soils issues and 

for which we are requiring that trails be 

removed (see Appendix B [not attached] 

for more information) [Table 5 shows that 

in the Stagebarn-Piedmont area, trails are 

located on erodible Opeche shale.].

While routes were evaluated for inclusion as part of the 

future designated system, there may be portions or sections 

of any designated transportation system under the decision 

that may be located on a geologic formation where the 

transportation facility can require more extensive trail 

design, maintenance, application of aggregate or other 

surfacing materials to limit erosion of the trail surface and 

maintain the system for use without resulting in impacts to 

adjacent resources located immediately adjacent to the 

designated transportation facility. Please see the decision 

for transportation facility designation and Appendix B of 

the FEIS for the transportation design criteria common to 

all alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1821

458/57. The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail and the area around 

Dalton Lake have been significantly 

degraded by OHV incursions that have 

resulted in a significant amount of 

resource damage. These areas were 

historically designated as being areas of 

non-motorized recreation. However, in 

the DEIS, these areas, and the Centennial 

Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1822
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

673

been re-designated as motorized 

recreation areas. The Norbeck Society 

views this re-designation of traditionally 

non-motorized trails as dominating 

multiple uses of the forest. The following 

two photos [not included] are examples of 

the currently designated motorized trails 

on the Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail and reflect the heavy 

damage that been caused in the past and 

still exists today. We [Black Hills Group -

Sierra Club] join with the Norbeck Society 

in requesting the BHNF re-designate all 

sections and trailheads on the Centennial 

Trail as non-motorized, and place a 

priority on the rehabilitation of ORV 

“user-created” trails within a 1-mile radius 

of Dalton Lake.

458/64. Many of the routes suggested for the 

various alternatives appear to conflict with 

Forest Plan Direction, especially with 

regard to Standards 1203, 1212, 1301, 

1302 and 1304. In Table 8 [ATT 6] is a list 

of areas that are impacted by hydrology 

issues and for which we are asking that 

trails be removed (see Appendix B [not 

attached] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 of the 

comment letter were removed from Alternatives D and E, 

or are open to highway legal vehicles only. In Table 8, 

Cement Ridge applies to the Bearlodge RD. The 

recommendation to remove routes was considered under 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS with the exception of 

FS 802.2A which accesses private property. Design criteria 

listed in Appendix B of the EIS are to be applied to any 

selected trail system in order to meet the Forest Plan 

direction mentioned here.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1823

458/67. The second table on page 308 [of the 

DEIS] lists routes and streams for which 

resource damage is a concern, [[Absent 

any mitigation measures,]] none of the 

routes associated with or planned for these 

stream should be adopted unless steps are 

taken to minimize resource damage by 

application of the design options given.

Design criteria listed in Appendix B of the EIS will be 

applied to the crossings listed in table that is referred to. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1824

458/78. In Table 9 [ATT 7] is a list of areas that 

are impacted by wildlife issues and for 

which we are asking that trails [[and 

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1825
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

674

motorized uses]] be removed (see 

Appendix B [not attached] for more 

information).

458/83. For all alternatives, the areas in Table [10] 

[ATT 8] should have trails removed to 

conserve and protect USFS sensitive 

species and Black Hills NF plant species 

of local concern (SOLC). See Appendix B 

[not attached] for more information.

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 10 of the 

comment letter were removed from Alternatives D and E, 

or are open to highway legal vehicles only. In Table 10, 

Dugout Gulch, Cement Ridge, and Bearlodge/Beaver 

Creek apply to the Bearlodge RD. The recommendation to 

remove routes was considered under Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS with the exception of FS 802.2A as it 

accesses private property. Road 879.1 is listed as "Other 

Jurisdiction" under all alternatives since it accesses State 

property.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1826

460/7. There is a lack of access to services in all 

alternatives. Trails need to connect to 

towns or businesses that will provide 

services to trail users such as food, fuel, 

repairs, camping and motels. Trailheads 

are not well placed, and do not contribute 

to access to these services. Special 

attention should be given to businesses 

that rely heavily on OHV traffic. Some of 

these businesses include: Moonshine 

Gulch Saloon, Rochford, SD; Sugar Shack 

on Highway 385; Nemo Guest Ranch, 

Nemo, SD; Covered Wagon Resort, 

Piedmont, SD; Wild Bill‟s Campground, 

Highway 385 near Deadwood, SD; Custer 

Crossing Campground on Highway 385 

near Deadwood, SD; Deerfield Lake 

Resort, Deerfield, SD; and Mad Mountain 

Adventures, Deadwood, SD.

This DEIS addresses only areas under FS jurisdiction. The 

businesses you listed are on private property and therefore 

outside the scope of this project. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1827

460/17. The 4x4 rock crawling trails known as the 

Buzzworms [Upper and Lower] have 

challenged the 4x4 community for many 

years, and have offered world class trail 

experience for people from all over the 

United States at events held in the Black 

Hills. This area has proven that limited 

The Buzzworms trails were not analyzed under any 

Alternative and are therefore outside the scope of this 

project. Any consideration for future trail locations will be 

dealt with as individual projects by Districts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1828
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

675

use in the right conditions can be managed 

as sustainable for 4x4 enthusiasts and 

minimize interaction with the locals.

460/18. The Camp 5 area is perhaps becoming one 

of the most used 4x4 trail connectors in 

the Black Hills. At this time, the area 

doesn‟t see so much use that it is difficult 

to find a place enjoy the particular kind of 

activity you enjoy, but I could see this area 

becoming more and more popular in the 

near future, especially as trail systems 

become identified, and people has less 

places to go. This area is primarily used by 

larger Jeep and pickups modified for 

extreme terrain, however, it‟s increasingly 

becoming popular with the ATV and 

single track use for connectors for the area 

(map below)[ see ATT 2].

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1829

460/20. The access to Boulder Canyon makes this 

an excellent Trailhead for base camps for 

both weekend getaways and daily outings. 

It‟s close proximity to Deadwood and 

Sturgis also add food, fuel, and lodging at 

a short distance away from this area (map 

below)[ATT 3].

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1830

460/22. There are a couple of trails [near Camp 5. 

see ATT 4] that are not currently being 

utilized in this area that could be utilized 

for extreme rock crawling activities.

CZ 5322, CA 0228 and CZ 0026 were not analyzed in any 

alternatives and therefore are beyond the scope of this 

project. Any consideration for future trail locations will be 

dealt with as individual projects by Districts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1831

460/24. There is a dry creek bed along CZ-0216, 

known as Calamity Canyon that is a runoff 

rock bed that runs into the dry creek bed 

in the Camp 5 area. There are 2 other 

runoff areas that form a natural rock 

terrain that is similar to Camp 5 that 

connect to the dry creek and road in 

Camp 5. These trails are identified on my 

included map Camp 5-5, trail NS190RC 

and NS189RC (map below)[see ATT 5].

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on your 

map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1832
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

676

460/26. A former rock crawling trail shown on 

included Camp 5-4, trail NS788RC, should 

be designated as a trail, even though this 

trail may need some stricter guidelines 

than others in this area. This trail has since 

been closed because of a small stream of 

water coming out of the rocks on the 

upper part of the trail that runs down part 

way, and returns underground. This trail 

had been run for years without water 

running down the trail and it wasn‟t until 

several wet spring seasons that the water 

opened up and drained down the trail. 

This would lead me to believe in a dryer 

year, the water would no longer emerge 

and the trail could be reopened. It has a 

defined exit at the top of the draw as well 

(map below).

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on your 

map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1833

460/28. I would like to show a correction of a 

proposed ATV connector trail to 

FS567.1C and FS567.1E, which would be 

better suited to a multiuse trail, as there is 

no width restrictions for vehicles, and the 

connector would lead to scenic 

opportunities for all. This route can be 

seen on my included map Camp 5-6, route 

NS225MU. There is another connector as 

well that is a main road that would be a 

natural connector to FS172.1 (map 

below)[see ATT 7].

The connector you speak of U070030 was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

project. The other route passes through non-Forest 

Service jurisdiction with no ROW and was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. Any consideration for future trail locations will 

be dealt with as individual projects by Districts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1834

460/30. A trail named Full Size was not included 

in the proposal as a 4x4 designated Rock 

Crawling Trail [see ATT 8]. This trail had 

the entrance obliterated, mistakenly from 

my understanding, and was to be 

reopened last summer. As far as I know it 

has not yet been reopened. This trail 

provided lesser modified 4x4‟s a short run 

through rocks to challenge lesser modified 

vehicles and/or skill levels. This trail has 

The trail known as Full Size was analyzed in Alternatives B, 

C and D as a trail open to all and removed from Alternative 

E. The trail being mistakenly closed is beyond the scope 

of this document. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1835
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

677

been permitted for 4 X 4 events for years, 

and I have not seen any changes in 

condition of trail, proving it is sustainable.

460/32. A loop trail that would add to the 

Raspberry Ridge permitted 4x4 trail would 

be the small easy, rocky section of trail 

that loops to the South of the current 

Raspberry Ridge Trail shown on the 

Raspberry Ridge Trail map, NS231MU 

and return to Raspberry Ridge to the 

North on an existing FS 202.2C. Most of 

the trail would be considered multiuser 

trail, so changes would be minimal. The 

trail has existing fences for cattle grazing (I 

believe), and is a road that is currently 

being used by recreationists in the area.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1836

460/40. Elbow Canyon Trail, Southern Black Hills, 

South Dakota: The trail starts 

approximately at 43°26‟45.31N / 

103°50‟13.85W, and ends at 43°27‟04.77N 

/103°51‟24.38W. There is an alternate 

route that may make another sustainable 

route through the area south of the main 

trail. The rock crawling trails in the 

Southern Hills are essential for the trail 

system because to have a diversified trail 

system that is manageable, usable, and 

enforceable, it must be able to deal with 

issues of overcrowding, over-use, and 

encroachment of houses near forest 

property. Lack of trails in the Southern 

Hills is a major concern of the 4x4 

community, as this may provide a year 

round opportunity for recreation as the 

area does not usually see as much snowfall 

as in the Northern part of the Hills. The 

proximity to small communities will 

benefit from having the recreation as this 

would offer an economic boost in the 

form of lodging, food, and fuel to the 

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan and 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Under Alternatives B and 

C in the Draft EIS, there are trails designated for ATV 

motorized use. Although the number of miles designated 

are less than in other areas of the Forest, it is possible that 

additional trail designation could be considered in the 

future. Thank you for your comments regarding the 

Southern Black Hills and specifically the Elbow Canyon 

Trail. On April 18, 2009 both the Hell Canyon District 

Ranger, Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, 

Anthony King hiked this trail to become familiar with the

interest and concerns with this trail. This trail was 

requested as a rock crawling trail route. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible that in 

the future additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1837
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

678

local communities. The area has been 

home to local organized mud bogs on 

private land, and the community has 

welcomed the recreation and opportunity. 

This is one of many trails that have been 

submitted during scoping via Jon Wermers 

with SDOHVC, at the public input 

meetings in Custer and Rapid City, and 

hand-delivered to the Hell Canyon acting 

district ranger. It has also been hiked with 

numerous officials. Elbow Canyon was 

hiked on April 18, 2009 with SDOHVC 

[South Dakota Off Highway Vehicle 

Coalition] , Black Hills Jeeps, and Black 

Hills 4X4 representatives, U.S. Forest 

Service Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell 

Canyon District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. 

The trails in the Southern Hills seem to 

have been ignored in the system by the 

previous District Ranger. Please see the 

map included named Elbow Canyon Trail 

[ATT 14 and 15]. Included is a copy of the 

map in both large scale [ATT 14] and 

close up scale [ATT 15], in jpg and pdf, 

and gpx file of the area.

460/43. The following are connection to proposed 

trails and roads that the Off-Road Riders 

Association has been permitted and used 

in recent years for poker runs and are 

necessary connections to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer 

Crossing Campground area. Continue 

513.1B to FH 17 using U120166. This will 

get riders to FH 17 so riders can then go 

into Rochford (map below)[ATT 16].

This route U120166 was not analyzed in any Alternative 

and therefore is outside the scope of this document. 

Routes not included in this decision may be considered in 

the future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1838

460/45. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1839
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

679

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Connect 217.1A to 203.1F with CZ0591.

460/47. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Include U120153 to connect 204.2G 

to U120153.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1840

460/49. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Include U120077 to get motorcycles 

and ATVs off of 204.2 for safety.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1841

460/51. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Include U120091 for a continuous 

route.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1842

460/53. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Include CZ-2644 and CZ-0635 for a 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1843
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

680

continuous route.

460/55. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Include U120135, U120134, and CZ4222 for a continuous route.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1844

460/57. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Include CZ-4840 between 204.1 and 

204.1B.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1845

460/59. The following are connections to 

proposed trails and roads that the OffRoad Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections 

to a continuous route between Rochford 

and the Custer Crossing Campground 

area. Continue 513.1 to 231.2 using 

CZ3588 for access to Rochford. By 

including the trails above it will create a 

continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

The route CZ 3588 was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes not 

included in this decision may be considered in the future on 

individual District projects.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1846

460/61. Have a Trailhead at the intersection of 

231.2 and 231.2A. This is a flat area that 

has been used as a parking area for years 

and has easy access. Connect 231.2A with 

the proposed system to the north using 

U120162.

FSR 231.2A was analyzed in Alternative E and removed 

from Alternative B, C and D due to resource concerns. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. No trailhead location was evaluated at 

this location and is therefore outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1847

460/62. A single track motorcycle trail that many This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and Route 1848
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

681

riders have requested of us (ORA) to be 

kept open is CZ-4912 and CZ-48.14 to the 

east and south of Nemo. Skilled dirtbikers enjoy this trail. There are places of 

steep grade but we feel by rerouting the 

trail in a few places any problems can be 

mitigated.

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Specific 

Comment

460/63. Many off-roaders leave Sturgis by 171.1 

through the SD GF&P land and head for 

the Camp 5 area. A trial linking 171.1B 

with the Camp 5 area needs to be 

included. To get to Camp 5 as shown on 

Alternative C a rider would have to go 

down to gravel road 170.1C then west to 

170.4C. By routing the riders onto a gravel 

road, we believe it is placing their safety in 

jeopardy.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are outside 

the scope of this document. Any consideration to future 

trails will be handled by the individual District.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1849

439/18. 460/65. There is no way for trail vehicles to access 

the west side of Vanocker Canyon Road 

once they come to the west end of 139.1. 

A trail needs to be established using 

135.2G and 135.2E to connect to 541.1 so 

access to the trails to the west can be 

maintained.

FSR 135.2G and 135.2E are closed system roads. They 

were not included in any Alternative and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Routes not included in 

this decision may be considered in the future on individual 

District project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1850

460/67. Trails CZ-1825 and CZ-1090 parallel road 

144.1 on the northwest side, between 

U140124 and 226.1. These trails should be 

open so trail vehicles can get off of the 

road as soon as possible. This will reduce 

different vehicle type conflicts on road 

144.1 and be a safer route for trail type 

machines.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

Route 

Specific

Comment

1851

460/69. There is a trail (U140113) that leaves from 

the Piedmont Trailhead area that starts 

where 144.1 starts to go up hill. It is in the 

southwest corner of section 9, T103N, 

R6E and goes into section 8 and finally 

intersects 144.2C. This should be included 

as it will allow trail vehicles to get off of 

Route U140113, CZ4907, CA1092 and CZ4857 are within 

an existing area closure due to fire. They were not 

considered in any Alternative and are therefore outside the 

scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1852
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

682

road 144.1 as soon as possible and be safer 

for trail riders. Needed trails would 

include CZ4907, CZ1092 and CZ4857.

460/70. Trail CZ-1121 is an important trail to 

have. It follows an old railroad grade for 

much of its length. It is a good sightseeing 

trail with the way the railroad bed was cut 

into the side of the valley. The above two 

trails will also help in making a more 

complete “Trail” between Piedmont and 

Nemo where there is a lack of trail, and 

help keep ATVs and dirt bikes off of the 

roads and make a more enjoyable ride for 

off-roaders.

Route CZ1141 is within an existing area closure due to fire. 

They were not considered in any Alternative and are 

therefore outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1853

460/71. Trails CZ-4917 and CZ-4916 between 

CZ-1121 and 546.1A should also be 

considered for inclusion in the system. 

This will make a complete loop from 

546.1A instead of dead ending and is a 

scenic route.

Route CZ4917 and CZ4916 are within an existing area 

closure due to fire. They were not considered in any 

Alternative and are therefore outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1854

460/72. CZ-4837 and CZ-2659 in the Northern 

Hills District are very good trails that need 

to be included to help complete a 

motorcycle trail that matches CZ-4856 in 

the Mystic District.

Due to resource issues CZ 4837 and CZ 2659 were not 

included on any Alternative and are therefore outside the 

scope of this document. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1855

460/74. There are many good trails that need to 

connect in the Southern Hills. Some 

examples are CZ-2787, which leads to an 

awesome overlook, with picturesque 

views. Another overlook opportunity is at 

the end of 680.1A, and at North Pole 

Road in the vicinity of Dandy Park 

between CZ-2835 and 287.1B. Yet 

another opportunity is a connection to 

Bear Mountain Lookout from 285. There 

are hundreds of trails that were not 

included in any Alternative in the 

Southern Hills, and we [Off-Road Riders 

Association need to know why. The 

These routes were considered by the Hell Canyon District 

staff and specialists. However, at this time these routes 

were not considered because of resource concerns. 

Although these routes are not considered in any of the 

alternatives for this project, it is possible that in the 

foreseeable future they could be considered in a separate

environmental analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1856
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

683

district completely ignored our requests 

for trails, submitted during scoping and 

following the proposed action. We are 

asking for them once again, as part of this 

DEIS.

460/75. There should be a trailhead at Comanche 

Park, south of Hwy 16 near 402. This area 

attracts a lot of riders and is in a perfect 

location for parking and information. 

Another opportunity for a great trailhead 

is at the Red Bank campground near 

294.2A. Trailheads on this system are 

vitally important for its success, because 

we can no longer pull off the trail into a 

meadow and unload. The policy proposed 

allowing us only one vehicle length from a 

designated trail for parking is not enough, 

and could be a safety issue, depending on 

the traffic there. You need more room to 

maneuver. Trailheads are a much better 

solution, however in order to work they 

need to make sense and be plentiful 

enough so they aren‟t congested.

A trailhead was considered at Comanche Park, but was not 

analyzed as part of this project. It may be considered as 

part of a foreseeable future trailhead designation. This 

would have to be considered in a separate environmental 

analysis at some point in the future. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1857

460/76. In the area near CZ-0773, there is a very 

good trail that should be included, 

however, a bridge, culvert, or other type of 

stream crossing needs to be constructed 

before designating. We [Off-Road Riders 

Association] understand that many of 

these routes have risks or other reasons 

for not including in the alternatives. 

Specifically, what are they? If we knew, we 

could offer mitigation to alleviate the risk 

associated with that particular route. 

Please provide the data for each route so 

we can develop a plan.

This route lies just on the Mystic Ranger District and 

connects to both the Power line Trail and other trails in 

that area. It is already proposed in Alternatives B and C. 

CZ-0773 is a trail open to vehicles <50” in Alternatives B, 

C, and D.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1858

460/77. A good opportunity for a trail is at 

U220012, which is on private property. 

However, the landowner has authorized 

This route lies just east of Moon and is almost entirely on 

private land. It does connect to Forest Service lands on the 

south end. Designation of this route as a trail was not 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1859
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

684

access in the past, and would consider 

granting an easement, I believe. These 

opportunities must be pursued. With so 

much private property and in holdings in 

the Black Hills, these areas need to be 

considered for access to the trail system 

where appropriate. Not everybody wants 

to keep OHV out of their property, and 

many landowners welcome the 

opportunity to be right on the trail system. 

Much like the snowmobile trail, this new 

system will bring many economic 

opportunities for entrepreneurs catering to 

OHV riders. In the south project area, 60 

miles of roads were closed. Why can‟t they 

be designated as “Trails Open to All”? 

Since they won‟t be available in the

inventory anyway, why not include them 

in the trail system for all users?

considered because it does cross private land and we do not 

have the authority to designate trails on private land.

460/78. Near the Wyoming/SD border south of 

CZ0772 there is a natural archway that 

should be on the trail system. These types 

of wonders are a great destination for 

riders and should not be excluded from 

their experience. Another destination is 

Stotts Canyon, just across the border into 

Wyoming to the West. Please keep these 

destinations open for me and my family to 

enjoy on our ATVs. See highlighted maps 

of the Southern Hills [not attached]-These 

all have very high recreational value and 

each one should be considered on its 

merits. Also see the dataset 

billdeem_addon.shp for an idea on the 

available trails in this area, an image of 

which is below [see ATT 28].

Route CZ0772 lies within Stots Canyon on the South 

Dakota side of the state line with Wyoming. This route 

was not considered because it is within a riparian drainage 

and any designated trail would need to be constructed 

outside of this drainage. ATV use across the state line into 

Wyoming would be under the jurisdiction of either BLM or 

the State of Wyoming.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1860

460/80. Should be a trail open to all vehicles; it is 

not challenging enough to designate as a 

specialty rock crawling trail, although it is 

definitely a high clearance vehicle trail on 

CZ4591 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C, and D as a 

special designation route. Your comment will be 

considered. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1861
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

685

which 4WD would be required [see ATT 

29, on trails CZ-4591 and U080109].

460/82. Trail referred to by the community as 3.9 

is missing. This trail starts from an 

established trailhead and ends at a popular 

road open to all vehicles seasonally. It is 

easily accessed and does not encroach 

upon sensitive areas. Map below [see ATT 

30].

Trail 3.9 is partially within an existing closure area due to a 

fire and was not analyzed in any Alternative and is 

therefore considered outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1862

460/84. Trail drawn in on attached map [ATT 31] 

is mission that was submitted during 

scoping is missing. This established trail 

[near Ricco Fire] is very popular with hard 

core rock crawlers. At one time it was a 

designated 4WD trail on earlier BHFS 

maps. It offers easy access and is also 

connected by an open to all vehicles FS 

road and an all vehicle trail. Inclusion of 

this trail will help enhance the multiuse 

opportunities in this area.

The route on your map is within an existing area closure 

due to fire. It was not considered in any Alternative and 

are therefore outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1863

460/86. A 4WD trail exists in this area [of 

Northern Hills Ranger District, see ATT 

32], and should be considered for 

designation as a special use permit only 

trail. This trail is a historic 4WD trail that 

offers a challenge in an easily accessible 

area. This trail was historically permitted 

for many of the 4WD events that are held 

each year by the Black Hills 4 Wheelers, 

Dakota Territory Cruisers and the Black 

Hills Jeeps, It has been a destination that 

has been passed over several times due to 

the fickleness of the creek that runs over 

this hard rock bed, The water completely 

disappears for years on end, This trail has 

only been run during those dry spells, 

dictating when this very fun and unique 

trail can be run. A favorite of local and 

tourists alike.

Due to resource issues U08147 (Buzzworms) was not 

included on any Alternative and are therefore outside the 

scope of this document. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1864
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

686

460/88. This trail [adjacent to U140063] is 

mislabeled on the map [see ATT 33], it is 

listed as open to vehicles 50" or less but 

this trail should be designated as open to 

all vehicles. Restricting this trail to 50" or 

less creates two dead ends. It would make 

for a better trail experience to keep the 

trail consistent in its designation for its full 

length. There is also a trail that runs 

adjacent to this that should be designated 

as open to vehicles 50" or less as well. 

U140063 was analyzed in Alternatives B. C as a trail less 

then 50 inches. It was removed from Alternatives D and 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1865

460/90. Rock crawling trail goes through a draw 

next to FS road 529 [see ATT 34]. The 

trail runs on the north side of the road. 

The road is marked as a trail yet the trail 

runs adjacent to the actual road. The road 

is needed for access to the trail.

According to our information, the requested route was not 

been previously submitted, therefore it is outside the scope 

and cannot be considered at this time.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1866

460/92. Two rock crawl trails in this area [of 

Mystic District, see ATT 30] (shown in 

green) are important [to add to the trail 

system], please consider for future 

development.

A portion of the rock crawl route requested is a single-track 

route in Alternative C. According to our information, the 

remainder of the requested route was not previously 

submitted, therefore it is outside the scope and cannot be 

considered at this time.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1867

460/94. This trail [in the Mystic District adjacent 

to trail U200008 and 201.1F, see ATT 36] 

is designated as 50" or less but should be 

designated as open to all vehicles. This 

trail is the access road for part of the rock 

crawl trail that is designated in this area. 

Full size vehicles need to be able to get to 

the beginning of the rock crawl trail in 

order to run it.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1868

460/96. [A] rock crawl trail needs to go all the way 

through to road as it does now [See ATT 

37, a map of unknown area of Black Hills]. 

Dead end trail makes the routes difficult 

for more than one vehicle. Turning 

around and going back against trail traffic 

is very difficult and creates large 

turnarounds, off trail excursions and 

This proposed rock crawling area was analyzed in 

Alternative C. No routes were analyzed to continue all the 

way to another road so are outside the scope of this DEIS. 

Possible routes may be analyzed in future projects. Any 

decision to include this route will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1869
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

687

widens the trail as vehicles try to pass 

alongside each other.

460/98. [A] rock crawl trail exists in this area [of 

the Mystic District, adjacent to trail 

201.2D and 201.2E, see ATT 38] (shown 

in green). It was submitted during scoping 

but is not on the map.

FSR 201.2D is open to all vehicles in Alternative C. 

According to our records the remainder of the requested 

route was not previously submitted, and therefore is 

outside the scope and cannot be considered at this time.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1870

460/100. [This trail in Mystic District] [unknown 

trail] Should be designated as a trail open 

to all vehicles.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1871

460/102. The road from Castle Peak campground 

over divide road should be a trail open to 

all vehicles similar to Alternative B, but 

with the added ATV trails from 

Alternative C (shown below in red [see 

ATT 34]).

At this time, there is not an easement for FSR 238 across 

private property to connect Castle Peak Campground to 

the Divide Road. Nor is there an easement for FSR181 

across private property. FSR 238.1K and 1L are open to 

highway legal vehicles in Alternatives C, D, and E. The 

Mystic Road is not Forest Service jurisdiction. The 

remaining routes are open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives C, D, and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1872

460/104. Add loop and connection [to trail in 

Northern Hills adjacent to 209.3B, see 

ATT 41] as Trail Open to Vehicles 50" or 

Less in Width.

This route was analyzed in Alternative B and not in 

Alternatives C, D, and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1873

460/108. Road 264.1A has been a historical 4WD 

trail on many maps printed by the BHNF. 

This road should be included in the trails 

map as it was one of the only trails marked 

on previously published maps of the 

BHNF as a 4WD trail in the Black Hills. It 

currently is a border road to a sensitive 

study area but does not ever encroach on 

the study area. This trail should be 

designated as a trail open to all vehicles. It 

creates a very enjoyable experience 

climbing up the spine of a wild west type 

hill. It ends at Summit peak and the return 

ride back down road 264 Boles Canyon 

makes for an enjoyable off road 

experience. Map below [See ATT 43].

Forest Road 264.1A is located in an area that is designated 

as a wildlife protection area, and is closed to motorized use.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1874

460/110. Gillette Canyon is one of the only 4WD We appreciate your willingness to assist the Forest with Route 1875
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

688

trails marked on previously published 

maps by the BHNF. Currently the trail is 

impassable due to leftover Jasper fire 

debris. We [Off-Road Riders Association] 

would like it put into inventory as a 

possible Rock crawl trail in the future. The 

local 4WD clubs would be happy to 

volunteer in a cleanup effort to see this as 

a 4WD trail in the future. Map below [See 

ATT 44].

needed improvements and seek opportunities to develop 

partnerships and volunteer agreements to accomplish a 

variety of tasks.

Specific 

Comment

460/112. On map # 18 [see ATT 45] there is a 

small draw that the only thing it would 

need to be a premier rock crawling 

experience is the permission to drive up 

the draw (shown in green below). There 

are no trees and only the fast growing after 

fire vegetation in the way. It begins at the 

bottom on road 281 and climbs up the 

draw to road 281.1W and both of these 

roads are currently roads open to all 

vehicles.

This route was not considered as a designated trail because 

it does follow a riparian area that could be easily damaged 

when wet. This area could be considered in the future, 

however the route would need to be re-located out of the 

drainage.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1876

460/114. There are several popular rock crawling 

trails (shown in green) in this area [near 

Craven Canyon, See ATT 46]. The local 

4WD enthusiasts have been in contact 

with the new ranger of the Hell Canyon 

district and they have gone out and toured 

these trails with FS personnel when they 

were discovered to have been left off any 

of the proposed alternatives. The new 

Ranger expressed no concerns at that time 

to designating these as 4WD trails. The 

state of South Dakota has deemed this 

area as unremarkable in its attributes. We 

believe that the past Ranger for this 

district did not want any trails in his area 

and therefore just left them off the map.

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan and 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Under Alternatives B and 

C in the Draft EIS, there are trails designated for ATV 

motorized use. Although the number of miles designated 

are less than in other areas of the Forest, it is possible that 

additional trail designation could be considered in the 

future. Thank you for your comments regarding the 

Southern Black Hills and specifically the Elbow Canyon 

Trail. On April 18, 2009 both the Hell Canyon District 

Ranger, Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, 

Anthony King hiked this trail to become familiar with the 

interest and concerns with this trail. This trail was 

requested as a rock crawling trail route. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible that in 

the future additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1877
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

689

460/116. There is a rock quarry at the end of 

135.2m that is a perfect place for the 

multi- use OHV area [See ATT 47]. This 

area is accessible and a completely existing 

man made area.

This rock quarry is currently actively being used and would 

not be a safe location for an OHV area. It was not 

analyzed in any Alternative and is there fore outside the 

scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1878

460/118. Road number 186.2 at Maurice needs to 

be added as a trail open to all vehicles [See 

ATT 42].

FSR 186.2 was not analyzed since there is no ROW 

through the private property. It therefore outside the scope 

of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1879

462/13. In Table 9 [ATT 1] is a list of areas that 

are impacted by wildlife issues and for 

which we are asking that trails to be 

removed (see Appendix B [ATT 9] for 

more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1880

462/18. For all alternatives, the areas in Table [10] 

[ATT 2] should have trails removed to 

conserve and protect USFS sensitive 

species and Black Hills NF plant species 

of local concern. See Appendix B [ATT 9] 

for more information.

Buskala Creek FSR 259.2A was analyzed in alt B and E as 

highway open for highway legal vehicles, in alt C as a road 

open to all and in alt D it was removed. FSR 259 was 

analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as open to highway 

legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. Vanocker 

Canyon is an existing paved Highway and not Forest 

Service jurisdiction and therefore is outside the scope of 

this document. The Camp 5 area--FSR 306 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. FSR 172.1A was analyzed in Alternatives B, C, and D as 

trail open to all and in Alt. E as road open to highway legal 

vehicles. FSR 172.1A was analyzed as seasonal road open 

to highway legal vehicles in alt B and E, and seasonal road 

open to all in Alternatives C and D. FSR 172.1C was 

analyzed in alt B, C, D as trail open to all and in Alt E as 

open to highway legal vehicles. FSR 172.1H was analyzed 

in all alternatives as a seasonal road open to all. U030046 

was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as a road open to all 

and removed in alt D. It was analyzed as road open to 

highway legal in alt E. FSR 170.5I and 170.4D were 

analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D as a trail open to all 

and in Alt E as road open to highway legal. CZ0216 was 

analyzed in alt B and C as a special designation trail and 

removed in alt D and E. U080045 was analyzed as a trail 

less then 50 inches in alt B, C and D and removed from alt 

E. FSR 567.1F was analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1881
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

690

as a seasonal trail less the 50 inches and in alt E as a road 

open to highway legal. In the Big Hill area U010071, 

U0010072, FSR134.2L and CZ 0148 were analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C as trails open to vehicles less then 50 

inches and removed in Alternatives D and E. Ft. Meade 

Watershed area--U040034 was analyzed in Alternatives B 

and C as a road open to all and in alt D as a road open to 

highway legal vehicles and removed in alt E. U008156 

was analyzed as a special designation trail in Alternatives B 

and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. FSRs 

139.1 and 139.1A were analyzed as seasonal roads open to 

all in Alternatives B and C and removed from alt D. In 

Alternatives E they were analyzed as road open to highway 

legal vehicles. FSR139.1C was analyzed in alt B and E as a 

road open to highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road 

open to all. It was removed in alt D. FSR 168.1A was 

analyzed in alt B and E as seasonal road open to highway 

legal vehicles, in alt D it was removed an in alt C as a 

seasonal road open to all. FSR168.1B was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, D and E as open to highway legal vehicles 

and in alt C as a road open to all. FSR 168.2A and 168.2B, 

168.2C, were analyzed as a seasonal road open to all and 

was removed in alt. D. FSR 168.3A and 168.3B, 169.1 

were analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as open to 

highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. 

FSR 168.1 . FSR 169.1B was analyzed in alt B and C as a 

seasonal road open to all and in alternatives. D and E as 

seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles. FSR169.1A 

was analyzed as a seasonal road open to all in alt B and C, 

removed from alt D and road open to highway legal 

vehicles in alt E. FSR 169.1C was analyzed as a seasonal 

road open to all and removed in alt. D and analyzed as a 

seasonal road open to highway legal in Alt. E. 

FSR169.1D was analyzed in alt B and C as a seasonal road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as seasonal road 

open to highway legal vehicles. R 169.1G was analyzed in 

alt B and C as a seasonal road open to all, in alt D it was 

removed and in alt E as a road open to highway legal 

vehicles. FSR 169.1F was analyzed in alt B and C as 

seasonal road open to all and removed from alt D. In alt E 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

691

it was analyzed as seasonal open to highway legal vehicles. 

FSR 169.1H was analyzed in alt B and E as seasonal road 

open to highway legal, in alt C as seasonal road open to all 

and removed from Alt D. FSR 169.1L was analyzed in alt 

B and C as seasonal road open to all removed in alt D and 

highway legal in alt E. FSR 169.2A and 169.2B, 169.2C 

were analyzed in alt B and E as a seasonal road open to 

highway legal, in alt C as seasonal road open to all and it 

was removed from alt D. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the ROD.

462/45. The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail and the area around 

Dalton Lake have been significantly 

degraded by OHV incursions that have 

resulted in a significant amount of 

resource damage. These areas were 

historically designated as being areas of 

non-motorized recreation. However, in 

the DEIS, these areas, and the Centennial 

Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

been re-designated as motorized 

recreation areas. BCA [Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance] views this redesignation of traditionally non-motorized 

trails as dominating multiple uses of the 

forest. The following two photos [ATT 4 

and 5] are examples of the currently 

designated motorized trails on the Pilot 

Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial 

Trail. [These photos] [ATT 4 and 5] reflect 

the heavy damage that has been caused in 

the past and still exists today. In order to 

redress the domination of multiple uses of 

the forest by the OHV community, the 

Norbeck Society requests that the USFS 

re-designate all sections and trailheads of 

the Centennial Trail as non-motorized, 

place priority on rehabilitation of “usercreated” trails within a 1-mile buffer of 

Dalton Lake.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1882
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

692

462/55. Many of the routes suggested for the 

various alternatives appear to conflict with 

Forest Plan Direction, especially with 

regard to Standards 1203, 1212, 1301, 

1302 and 1304. In Table 8 [ATT 6] is a list 

of areas that are impacted by hydrology 

issues and for which we [Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance] are asking that 

trails be removed (see Appendix B [ATT 

9] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only. In the Cement Ridge area, 

recommendations for removal of routes were considered 

under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS with the 

exception of FS 802.2A which accesses private property. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1883

462/75. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources. Areas with 

high riparian risk: - Big Hill - Road 626. -

Spearfish Canyon - location 5N 2E.

The proposed routes in the Big Hill and FSR 626 areas 

were analyzed in Alternatives B and C. Other then open 

existing system roads they were removed from Alternatives 

D and E. The only route proposed in T5N R2E Spearfish 

Canyon is the paved highway that is currently there and 

under other jurisdiction. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1884

462/76. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources. Roads in 

conflict with Botanical Management 

Areas: - Higgins Gulch - location 6N 1E. -

Upper Sand Creek - 51N 60W. -

Northwest of Custer Peak - Roads 228 

and 205.

Upper Sand Creek was not proposed for any motorized 

opportunities under any Alternative in the DEIS and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1885

462/77. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources. Roads in 

conflict with Montane Grassland:- Cement 

Ridge - 50N 60W.- West of Black Buttes -

Roads 878, 872, and 1A.- Hardy - Roads 

107, 108, 183.- Ditch Creek - location 1S 

2E.

Motorized routes in montane grassland in the Ditch Creek 

area and FSR 107 and 180 are existing system roads in 

Alternatives D and E. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS proposed motorized routes on FS 805.1 because it is 

a historical access route to the Cement Ridge fire tower. FS 

878, 872, and 872.1A are not associated with known 

montane grasslands.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1886

462/78. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources. Roads in 

Motorized routes in the FSR 107 , 108 209, 210 and 232 are 

existing system roads, with no changes proposed, in all 

alternatives. They were analyzed in Alt B, D and E as hwy 

legal roads and in Alt C as roads open to all. Any decision 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1887
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

693

conflict with Weed Infested Areas:- West 

of Hardy - Roads 107, 108.- South West 

Jewel Cave - Roads 1A, 1B.- North of 

Clayton Quarry - Roads 209, 210, and 232.

about routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. Management of weed infestations will not change 

under any of the alternatives.

462/79. It is requested that the Forest Service 

withdraw any motorized routes in these 

areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

sensitive natural resources. Roads 

prohibited within Management Areas: -

Between Dugout Gulch and Crow Peak -

6N 1E. - South of Crook Mountain -

Roads 1D, 542.

For Dugout Gulch - the DEIS and FEIS under Alternative 

D eliminated all opportunities for motorized access, except 

for administrative purposes.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1888

462/80. Red Lake Area - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 10 miles 

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 225.1E, 

134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015. These roads are currently closed 

and provide an excellent quiet area for the 

non-motorized enthusiast. With 

Alternatives A, B, and C these roads will 

be opened. How does opening these roads 

affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect 

the non-motorized community? Was that 

analyzed [in the] EIS? Why is no 

consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1889

462/81. Limestone Plateau - This area is in the 

Northern Hills approximately 20 miles 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

Route 

Specific 

1890
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

694

south of Spearfish adjacent to FSR 134. 

The following roads are included in this 

area: 733.2B, 733.2C, 733.3A, 733.3B, 

733.3C, 733.3D, U050089. This currently 

closed area will be opened with 

Alternatives A, B, and C. How does 

opening these roads affect wildlife? Was 

this analyzed in the EIS? How does 

opening the roads affect the nonmotorized community? Was that analyzed 

[in the] EIS? Why is no consideration 

given to existing non-motorized areas? 

These areas and roads were closed for a 

reason. Why were they closed in the first 

place? The EIS should give a reason and 

show effects of opening these roads and 

areas. The EIS should list every road that 

is currently closed that will be opened so 

that the public knows what is going on 

and what affect this has on all resources.

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Comment

462/82. Roads off FSR 134 - 134.2B, 134.2L, 

214.1D, U010071, 134.3A, U010072, 

U010060, 134.2U, U710095. These roads 

were closed by a previous ranger and now 

they will be opened [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C]. How does opening these roads 

affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect 

the non-motorized community? Was that 

analyzed [in the] EIS? Why is no 

consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened in 

Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be left 

closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife were 

analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. Recreation was 

analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1891
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

695

462/83. 639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road 

connects Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. 

Currently closed to motorized use and 

provides a good purpose being close. This 

road will be opened [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C] and provide access to the area 

behind Crow Peak. The roads go directly 

through a quiet area and more than likely 

the ATV will venture off the road and the 

whole Crow Peak area will be 

compromised. Was there any 

consideration given to not allowing ATV 

access to the non-motorized areas? Also 

this is a known elk calving area. Was any 

consideration given to wildlife in the EIS 

for this planned to be opened area? Why is 

no consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads 

were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should 

give a reason and show effects of opening 

these roads and areas. The EIS should list 

every road that is currently closed that will 

be opened so that the public knows what 

is going on and what affect this has on all 

resources.

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitat 

are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for conflicts with 

non-motorized recreation opportunities are reflected in 

Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how they address each 

of these issues. FSR 639.1 was analyzed to stay closed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Once a 

decision is made individual users will be expected to stay on 

the designated route. ATV trails were not proposed in nonmotorized areas. Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of 

the DEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1892

462/84. Area south of Hanna Campground: Roads 

211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all 

closed roads will be opened [under 

Alternatives A and B]. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

The closed routes south of Hanna Campground were 

analyzed to be opened in Alternative B and removed from 

Alternatives C, D and E. There are no system hiking trails 

near any of the routes mentioned.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1893

462/85. CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of 

the Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It 

makes no sense to expect ATV users to 

You are correct in Alternative B, CZ 1403 travels through 

the Spearfish Canyon management area where no off road 

traffic is allowed. This was an error and it was removed 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1894
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

696

turn around. How will you close the end 

of this road? Was any consideration given 

for a non-motorized buffer around our 

[the forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail 

system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

from Alternatives C, D and E. 

462/86. Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be 

designed to a Forest Service Standard? 

Will the current trail locations be reviewed 

by an Engineer and Hydrologist before 

they are opened? For example road 134.2B 

has a 35% grade for 300‟, road U010077 

goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep ruts, 

and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. 

These have been listed as examples of 

many more problem areas. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

OHV routes will meet FS standards for trails. Some routes 

may be easy and some very difficult. Routes that traverse a 

steep slope will be engineered with climbing turns and 

appropriate water crossings will be built where necessary. 

Not all routes will be available to use the first year after the 

decision is made and will be opened up after mitigations are 

done.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1895

462/87. Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located 

on the Bearlodge District in the area of 

Sand Creek. A portion of this trail - miles 

of the total trail length of - miles [distances 

not provided] will be converted into an 

ATV trail [under Alternatives A, B, and 

C]. This trail is in a semi-primitive nonmotorized management area, within a 

botanical area and eight years ago the 

Forest Service spent $112,000 on 

developing this trail for non-motorized 

users. The entire trail will be affected 

because the noise of ATVs on the upper 

loop will ruin the quiet area on the lower 

Alternative A represents the existing condition for 

motorized opportunities on the Black Hills NF which does 

not include motorized opportunities on the Dugout Trail. 

The portion of Dugout trail considered under Alternatives 

B and C for motorized opportunities is an existing road 

that doubles as a trail for non-motorized activities and 

motorized administrative activities. No funding was spent 

on this road for development of the trail. For trails that are 

not defined roads, motorized opportunities were restricted.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1896
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

697

section. Was any consideration given for a 

non-motorized buffer around our [the 

forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail 

system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

462/88. Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails 

(733.1A, 733.1K) will go right into the 

middle of the Eagle Cliff Trail System 

[under Alternatives A, B, and C]. Noise is 

an issue. Some ATV users will get lost and 

start following the hiking trails. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in Alternatives B, 

C and E, and analyzed to be closed in Alternative D. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. Common to all 

alternatives noise level will be will be set at 96 decibels for 

OHV's. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1897

462/89. Little Spearfish Trail - All alternatives have 

a road 734.1 which dead ends at the trail. 

This will encourage ATVs to follow the 

Little Spearfish Trail. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to be 

left open in all alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1898

462/90. Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes 

right up against the Rimrock Trail. Just 

when you think you get away an ATV 

comes past you. Encourages ATV use of 

Rimrock Trail. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around 

our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized 

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B and 

C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be expected to 

stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1899
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

698

trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

462/91. Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized 

section of Centennial Trail from Dalton 

Lake to Pilot Knob. This trail section is in 

horrible condition due to overuse. Most 

non-motorized users know to never go on 

this section of trail due to the heavy ATV 

use. Roads 137.1B, 137.1C, 137.D and 

137.1E [are] currently closed roads. By 

opening them [under Alternatives A, B, 

and C] access is provided to a secluded 

part of Centennial Trail. Roads 703.1C 

and 703.1D are planned to be opened and 

are within mere feet of Centennial Trail. 

Roads 224.1D and 224.1E dead end at 

Centennial Trail. By opening these roads it 

will be near impossible to keep ATVs of 

Centennial Trail. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around 

our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized 

trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on an 

existing hiking trail. This pretty much 

ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to be

open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Roads 137.1B, 

137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be open in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently seasonally opened 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in all 

Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are currently 

seasonally opened system roads. They were analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed in Alternative 

D. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1900

462/92. Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails -

Many sections are motorized. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on existing 

Forest System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside the 

scope of the DEIS analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1901

462/93. Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that cross Route 1902
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

699

not a system trail it is probably the most 

popular mountain bike trail in the 

Northern Hills. In fact, Mountain Bike 

Magazine picked the Tinton Trail as the 

best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given 

whatsoever. ATV trails cross it and follow 

it in many locations. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing 

non-motorized trail system? In many cases 

the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This 

pretty much ruins the non-motorized 

users‟ experience.

this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals with 

motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized system is 

beyond the scope of this project.

Specific 

Comment

463/2. Of the DEIS options, [Alternatives] A, C, 

and E are the ones that would allow 

continued access to forest trails from 

Palmer Gulch. Without trail access from 

an out-of-state visitor accommodation, 

such as Palmer Gulch, many enthusiasts 

would have to trailer their ATVs behind 

their RVs and find a place to park and 

unload them at a trailhead. Not only 

would that be a burden at the trailheads, 

many visitors would find that too 

burdensome and go to other destination 

areas rather than the Black Hills. This 

could seriously impair our [Recreation 

Adventure Co.] current and future 

economic opportunities and impact the 

other visitor service businesses in the 

Black Hills as well.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1903

463/3. I find that Option [Alternative] C strikes a 

good balance between resource protection 

and recreation opportunity. It has a 

road/trail that would allow motorized 

recreation enthusiasts the ability to leave 

their campsite at Palmer Gulch and access 

trails between us and Hill City and to 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1904
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

700

make connection to the larger Black Hills 

trail system, as proposed. This vital 

connection enables us to maintain our 

current guests and to meet the demand for 

forest recreation as motorized recreation 

continues to develop. It also provides 

economic opportunity in the area, 

particularly in Hill City which would gain a 

connection to all of the Palmer Gulch 

guests.

463/5. For Option [Alternative] C, I have a 

couple of suggestions to improve the 

proposal. The first one is that Road 357 

serving as the trail connector just north of 

our location, be designated a Trail For All 

Vehicles rather than a Road. Because we 

[Recreation Adventure Co.] deal mainly 

with out-of-state guests, many of whom 

come from states without a licensing 

option for ATVs, our guests would not 

have licensed ATVs to travel on the 

portion designated “Road”, whereas they 

could legally traverse a “Trail”. The 

classification correction would only 

involve about a half a mile of “Road” in 

order to provide access to miles of trails 

otherwise unreachable by unlicensed 

vehicles from Palmer Gulch.

The route going north out of the KOA is not Forest 

Service jurisdiction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1905

463/6. The trail [FS Road 357] we [Recreation 

Adventure Co.] are discussing passes 

adjacent to my house. I would respectfully 

request consideration of “No Dust Zone” 

signage on the trail that would alert users 

to slow down past any residences on any 

part of the motorized recreation system at 

the request of the residence owner.

The route going north out of the KOA is not Forest 

Service jurisdiction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1906

464/2. It is disturbing to us [Spearfish Creek 

Owners Association] to see on the 

proposed maps for Alternatives B 

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed along 

FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected will 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1907
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

701

(preferred option of USFS) and C, areas 

designated for “ Dispersed Camping (100 

feet) and Game Retrieval (300 feet)” on 

either side of Forest Road 196 from just 

south of USFS Hanna Campground all the 

way to and through Hanna to the south. 

We do not believe that OHVs should be 

allowed to depart the roadway anyplace 

between Cheyenne Crossing and Forest 

Road 209 south of Hanna at minimum, 

and better, further south ~0.8 miles to the 

bottom of “Cyclone Hill”. They can use 

Hanna Campground and the one USFSdesignated picnic area just south (~0.4 

miles) of the Hanna campground. USFS 

directive and guidelines (see Attachment 

2) [ATT 2] recommend against disturbing 

perennial streams and riparian areas. There 

should not be any access endangering the 

riparian areas bordering Spearfish Creek 

or any of its tributaries, including Hanna 

Creek in this. Hanna Creek, for a large 

part of the distance from the USFS 

Campground to Hanna and south to it, 

and its riparian areas should not be subject 

to any wheeled motorized travel 

(snowmobile trails only begin at Road 209 

and are to present in the Canyon bottom 

north of 209). A USFS designated picnic 

area has existed (0.4 miles south of the 

Campground) between the Campground 

and Hanna for some years and we would 

suggest there not be increased travel into 

this area.

be documented in the Record of Decision.

464/3. It is disturbing to us [Spearfish Creek 

Owners Association] to see on the 

proposed maps for Alternatives B 

(preferred option of USFS) and C, areas 

designated for “ Dispersed Camping (100 

feet) and Game Retrieval (300 feet)” on 

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed along 

FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1908
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

702

either side of Forest Road 196 from just 

south of USFS Hanna Campground all the 

way to and through Hanna to the south. 

We do not believe that OHVs should be 

allowed to depart the roadway anyplace 

between Cheyenne Crossing and Forest 

Road 209 south of Hanna at minimum, 

and better, further south 0.8 miles to the 

bottom of “Cyclone Hill”. They can use 

Hanna Campground and the one USFSdesignated picnic area just south (0.4 

miles) of the Hanna campground. The 

Hanna Creek headwaters in this area, 

specifically at Hanna and just to the south 

of Hanna include parts of the LeadDeadwood water system with DENR 

[Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources] designated water rights 

(Peake Ditch, Spearfish Ditch, Ward 

Draw, etc.

464/4. It is disturbing to us [Spearfish Creek 

Owners Association] to see on the 

proposed maps for Alternatives B 

(preferred option of USFS) and C, areas 

designated for “ Dispersed Camping (100 

feet) and Game Retrieval (300 feet)” on 

either side of Forest Road 196 from just 

south of USFS Hanna Campground all the 

way to and through Hanna to the south. 

We do not believe that OHVs should be 

allowed to depart the roadway anyplace 

between Cheyenne Crossing and Forest 

Road 209 south of Hanna at minimum, 

and better, further south 0.8 miles to the 

bottom of “Cyclone Hill”. They can use 

Hanna Campground and the one USFSdesignated picnic area just south (0.4 

miles) of the Hanna campground. The 

private properties in the Hanna area and 

Hanna itself could be subjected to

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed along 

FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Common to all alternatives the 

sound levels for OHV traffic will be set at 96 decibels/

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1909
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

703

increased traffic and increased noise, dust, 

etc., by the encouragement of off-road 

activities to the north and south of Hanna. 

Attachment 3 [ATT 3] provides some 

comments as to the feasibility of enforcing 

a 96dB(A) noise level for OHVs.

464/7. The Annie Creek Road, which is open to 

OHVs has been used for OHV travel up 

that road, but repeatedly over the past few 

years, some operators have illegally 

departed that road and traveled off-road 

through the forest down the north side of 

Annie Creek Canyon to Hwy 14A north of 

the Annie Creek (One can see the 

resultant tire trails departing Hwy 14A 

north of the Annie Creek passage under 

the highway, just north of Woodchuck 

Lane). These illegal operations have been a 

continuing problem for USFS and SCOA 

[Spearfish Creek Owners Association] in 

trying to curtail them, since they are illegal 

and have done damage to the forest on 

that north side of Annie Creek Canyon. It 

is noted that there exist USFS 

Campgrounds along Little Spearfish Creek 

(2 on Route 222), plus a picnic area at 

Roughlock Falls, a USFS Campground 

along Forest Road 196 to Hanna plus one 

USFS picnic area there, and picnic 

grounds along Hwy 85 to the west of 

Cheyenne Crossing. These campgrounds 

and picnic areas provide ample 

opportunity for all vehicles, including 

OHVs, to enjoy the environment of Little 

Spearfish and Hanna Canyons, as well as 

that of Spearfish Creek on Hwy 85, 

without further exposure of these Creeks 

and riparian areas to wheeled motorized 

traffic. Illegal operations such as the Annie 

Creek area violations will be difficult to 

Thank you for you comment. Once the motor vehicle use 

map is published all motorized traffic will be expected to 

abide by the rule.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1910
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

704

stop, given that there probably will be 

some few violators of the OHV-planned 

roads/trails/access. In the past, there have 

not been significant or repeated offroading violations to my knowledge in the 

Hannah Creek, Spearfish Creek and Little 

Spearfish Creek reaches and adjacent 

riparian areas noted. SCOA believes the 

only way to continue to protect these areas 

is to deny any OHV operations including 

dispersed Camping and Game Retrieval in 

them.

464/8. There is one area depicted on the 

Alternative B and C maps, which show the 

short, approximate (one quarter) mile road 

branching off Hwy 14A into Raspberry 

Gulch, designated as “Roads open to 

Highway Legal”. Since this road extends 

only for the quarter-mile, and serves only 

four private lots as an access road, it is 

recommended that the road should not be 

open to general public OHV travel.

FSR 584.1 was analyzed as a road open to all in Alt C and 

as road open to highway legal in Alternatives B, D and E. 

If the road is open to highway legal vehicles for the 

residences then it must be open to all vehicle traffic that is 

highway legal. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1911

464/9. SCOA [Spearfish Canyon Owners 

Association] can support Alternative B if 

the OHV dispersed camping and game 

retrieval activities are restricted in: (1) 

Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway; (2) 

Hanna Canyon from Cheyenne Crossing 

south past Road 207 to Cyclone Hill 

(approximately 0.8 miles south of Hanna); 

(3) Hwy 85 west from Cheyenne Crossing 

to the Lead-Deadwood water intake 

(approximately 6 miles west of Cheyenne 

Crossing); and (4) Little Spearfish Canyon 

along Road 222 west of Savoy to where 

Little Spearfish Creek flows into Little 

Spearfish Canyon. This restriction should 

include no motorized dispersed camping 

or game retrieval off these roads adjacent 

to the Creeks and their riparian areas.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1912
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

705

464/13. [From ATT 2] Page v. Major Conclusions: 

“...all action alternatives would reduce 

current levels of effects from motorized 

use...” This statement is not true for the 

proposed initiation of off-road dispersed 

camping/game retrieval along Hanna 

Creek, Spearfish Creek west of Cheyenne 

Crossing and Little Spearfish Creek along 

Route 222.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1913

464/21. [From ATT 2] Page 55. Alternative B: 

“Most seasonal designation of trails and 

roads would overlap with snowmobile 

trails.” The Black Hills Snowmobile Trails 

maps do not include any trails in Spearfish 

Canyon other than access to the trail 

system from Savoy up Route 222. The 

trails do travel along Route 209 south of 

Hanna. It would seem that this OHV plan 

would use those conditions as a guideline 

and should not allow additional operations 

in the Hanna area, including dispersed 

camping game retrieval. In addition, 

snowmobiling along these Hanna Creek 

headwaters south of 207 is done over 

deep, packed snow. During seasons 

without this snow cover, wheeled 

motorized vehicles would quickly damage 

this riparian area further south along 

Hanna Road to the bottom of “Cyclone 

Hill” approximately 0.8 miles south of 

Hanna. These are still headwaters of 

Hanna Creek.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1914

464/24. [ATT 2] Page 104 Environmental Effects 

Analysis: “...the greatest potential for 

effects to soils from motorized recreation 

are likely to be associated with potential 

disturbances from areas used for dispersed 

camping, followed by areas open to game 

retrieval. Neither should be allowed along 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West and 

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed along 

FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Dispersed camping is currently not 

allowed along Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish Creek 

and they were not analyzed in Alternatives B and C for 

dispersed camping Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1915
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

706

Little Spearfish Creek.

464/38. SCOA [Spearfish Canyon Owners 

Association] recommends no general 

public OHV operations in Alternative B 

from Hwy 14A into Raspberry Gulch near 

Cheyenne Crossing.

FSR 584.1 was analyzed as a road open to all in Alt C and 

as road open to highway legal in Alternatives B, D and E. 

If the road is open to highway legal vehicles for the 

residences then it must be open to all vehicle traffic that is 

highway legal. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1916

465/21. By comparing the DEIS with other maps, 

we [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club and 

South Dakota Wildlife Federation] realized 

that motorized trailhead locations should 

be far away from hiking trailheads or other 

non-motorized sites, leave some campsites 

and lakesides away from motorized 

trailheads, not adjacent to primitive 

management areas, Beaver Park, etc.

Various numbers of trailheads were analyzed in 

Alternatives B through E with Alternative E showing only 

currently existing trailheads. Some of the trailheads in 

Alternative C were removed in Alternative D, and 

Alternative E does not include any trailheads. Your 

comment will be considered and any decision on trailheads 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1917

465/24. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. RMEF [Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation] Purchased lands Managed by 

BHNF. Most of the sportsmen and 

women in BH Sportsmen‟s Club and SD 

Wildlife Federation, also contributed 

finances and man-power to Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation to purchase 

these lands for wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

We do not wish to see roads in these 

parcels or motorized recreational trails

designated immediately outside the 

FSR 209.3B, 209.3A, 209.3J and 206.1A (Besant Park) 

were analyzed in Alternative B, C, D and E to be a road 

open to all..U100073 was analyzed in Alternative B as a trail 

open to vehicle 50 inches or less and removed from 

Alternatives C, D and E. FSR 256.1S and 219.1G 

(Gonzales) were analyzed in all alternatives as road open to 

all. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1918
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

707

boundaries. Custer Crossing (Gonzales) 

Besant Park: We cannot support an ATV 

trail outside Besant‟s fence line. Close 

U100073, 209.3B. Tilson Spring, Meeker 

Creek (Ina Davis), Wildcat Canyon other 

than occupant/permittee needs, Beaver 

Creek (one main road through this parcel 

is OK, but do not allow other roads).

465/25. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Pleasant Valley Walk-in Area: 

RMEF [Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation] 

and SDGFP [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] know that elk 

use these lands for calving. Herd is 

estimated at about 100 head. Creation of 

this walk-in would give solitude to the 

herd and create an elk emphasis area for 

viewing publics and hunters. We [Black 

Hills Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] supported closures in 

a recent timber sale and ask that this DEIS 

not re-open those routes. 715.3D, South 

077,316.1M, 316.1N, U420010, U420017, 

U420009, CZ-3236, 31631H, 315.1U, 

315.1R, 3153JQ, South 076.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Pleasant 

Valley Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been reviewed 

and will be considered by the Decision Maker at the time of 

Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1919

465/26. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Fire Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker at 

the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1920
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

708

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Roger‟s Shack Fire Walk-in 

Area:307, 3071A, 307.1D, 307.1F, 307.1C, 

307.1E, 307.1G, 402, 402.1C, 402.1B, 

402.1F, 4021D, 409, 445, 715.3J, 275, 

275.1C, 275.1D, 715.31, 715.3E, 715.3M, 

715.3L, 310.1H, 310.1G, 310.1D, 507, 

715.3E, 715.3K, 275.1A, 275.1B, 715.3P, 

715.3O, 715.3N, 409.1A, U350143, 

310.1E

465/27. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Jasper Fire-Hell Canyon 

Walk-in Area: 282.2K, 282.1A, 282.1F, 

284.2G, 284.2F, 284.2D, 284.2A, 284.2B, 

284.2A, 2842J, 284.2F, 284.2J, 284.2T, 

681, 681.1A, 680.1B, 680, 681, 681.1D, 

284.2C.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Jasper 

Fire-Hell Canyon Walk-in Area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1921

465/28. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Park 

Complex and French Creek Walk-in Area you suggest 

adding has been reviewed and will be considered by the 

Decision Maker at the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1922
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

709

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Park Complex and French 

Creek Walk-in Areas: Along the 

boundaries of Custer State Park [CSP] 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Wind Cave 

National Park [WCNP].As stated in 2007, 

it is critical to protect boundaries of SCP, 

WCNP, Norbeck and the Meeker parcel. 

Close 373.1B, 435, 340, 337.1D, 342.1Q, 

(and adjacent southern spur too short to 

see number on BHNF map) 339.1B, 

343.1J, 343.1F, 345.1A, 349.1A, 349.1D, 

349.1E.

465/29. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Roger‟s Shack Spring Walk-in 

Area: 272.2I, 272.2H, 272.2D, 272.2C, 

272.2E, 272.2F, 276.1T, 276.1D, U410011, 

CZ-3942, 276.1F, 272.2B.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Spring Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker at 

the time of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1923

465/30. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

FSR 606 is open seasonally in Alternatives C, D, and E as it 

provides access to the Deerfield Trail at Flannigan's Cabin. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1924
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

710

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. McVey Burn-Silver City 

Walk-in Area: One of the most traditional 

sought-after areas for big game hunting. 

U190001, 142.1B, 142, 436, 251.1G, 

249.3A, 249.2H, 249.2G, 606 (909?).

465/31. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Silver Mountain Walk-in 

Area: U260047, 358.1B DE, 674.

U260047, FSR 358.1B, and FSR 674 are not included in 

Alternative D, and are open to highway legal vehicles only 

in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1925

465/32. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Horse Creek Walk-in Area: 

257.1A, 257, 257.1B, 257.1C, 710, 710.1A, 

FSR 257.1B, 257.1C, 710, and 710.1A are closed in 

Alternative D. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1926
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

711

U190099.

465/33. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Swede Gulch Walk-in Area: 

231.4B, 234.1, un-numbered spur in Sec. 

33 off 206.1, 206.1G, 206,1D, 206.1E

FSR 231.4B accesses recreation cabins that are under 

special use permit. This road was analyzed to remain open 

in all alternatives to provide access. FSR234.1 and 231.5J 

(referred to as unnumbered spur) are open system roads 

that is not within the Swede Gulch non-motorized area. It 

was analyzed to remain open in Alternatives B, C and E 

and was removed from Alt D. FSRs 206.1G, 206.1D and 

206.1E are open system roads that were analyzed in all 

alternatives to remain open. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1927

465/34. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Black Fox Botanical Walk-in 

Area: 233.3A, 190.1R, 125, 125.1D, 

191.1B, 190.1J.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1928

465/35. Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future 

but should remain in a primitive or semiprimitive designation. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] have worked closely 

with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

U080156 in management area 4.1 was analyzed in 

Alternative B an C and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. Other then existing open system roads there were no 

new routes proposed in management areas 4.1 or 3.32

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1929
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

712

Wildlife, to propose creation of more 

contiguous acreages for “walk-in” areas. 

Some roads numbers were missing or hard 

to read so our proposals are best effort 

suggestions. Beaver Park Inventoried 

Roadless Area: We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation] question a user 

created (U080156) route through an area 

identified as MA [management area] 4.1 

Limited Motorized Use and MA 3.32 

Backcountry Non-Motorized Recreation.

467/2. Three Blind Mice was hiked on April 25, 

2009 with SDOVHC [South Dakota OffHighway Vehicle Coalition] and Black 

Hills Keeps representatives, U.S. Forest 

Service Archeologist Tony King, and Hell 

Canyon District Ranger Lynn Kolund. No 

sufficient reasons for excluding these trails 

were found during these hikes other than 

maintenance concerns; however, local club 

representatives and members have 

volunteered to deal with issues concerning 

trail maintenance. This trail starts out at 

approximately 43[degrees]34‟31.51N / 

103[degrees]51‟41.05W, and ends 

respectively at 43[degrees]36‟46.29N / 

103[degrees]50‟40.56W. The trail offers a 

wide variety of challenges and bypasses 

around the most difficult obstacles if the 

option is taken. Some fallen trees may or 

may not need to be moved to access the 

area, but minimal work would be needed 

to open these trails. This trail is in close 

vicinity of a number of other trails in the 

area, which would be a great play area for 

hours and hours of entertainment.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. With respect to your concerns for 

youth under 16 years of age, this is a licensing requirement 

of the State of South Dakota, which the Forest Service has 

no control of.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1930

469/1. The Camp 5 area is perhaps becoming one 

of the most used 4x4 trail connectors in 

the Black Hills. At this time, the area 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1931
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

713

doesn‟t see so much use that it is difficult 

to find a place [to] enjoy the particular 

kind of activity you enjoy, but I could see 

this area becoming more and more 

popular in the near future, especially as 

trail systems become identified, and 

people have fewer places to go. This area 

is primarily used by larger Jeep and 

pickups modified for extreme terrain, 

however, it‟s increasingly becoming 

popular with the ATV and single-track use 

for connectors for the area. The access to 

Boulder Canyon makes this an excellent 

Trailhead for base camps for both 

weekend getaways and daily outings. It‟s 

close proximity to Deadwood and Sturgis 

also add food, fuel, and lodging at a short 

distance away from this area.

469/2. There are a couple of trails in the area that 

are not currently being utilized in this area 

that could be utilized for extreme rock 

crawling activities. There is a dry creek bed 

along CZ-0216, known as Calamity 

Canyon that is a runoff rock bed that runs 

into the dry creek bed in the Camp 5 area. 

There are 2 other runoff areas that form a 

natural rock terrain that is similar to Camp 

5 that connect to the dry creek and road in 

Camp 5. These trails are identified on my 

included map Camp 5-5 [ATT 4], trail 

NS190RC and NS189RC.

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on your 

map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1932

469/3. A former Rock crawling trail shown on 

included Camp 5-4 [ATT 3], trail 

NS788RC, should be designated as a trail, 

even though this trail may need some 

stricter guidelines than others in this area. 

This trail has since been closed because of 

a small stream of water coming out of the 

rocks on the upper part of the trail that 

runs down part way, and returns 

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on your 

map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1933
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

714

underground. This trail had been run for 

years without water running down the trail 

and it wasn‟t until several wet spring 

seasons that the water opened up and 

drained down the trail. This would lead 

me to believe in a drier year, the water 

would no longer emerge and the trail 

could be reopened. It has a defined exit at 

the top of the draw as well.

469/4. I would like to show a correction of a 

proposed ATV connector trail to 

FS567.1C and FS567.1E, which would be 

better suited to a multi-use trail, as there is 

no width restrictions for vehicles, and the 

connector would lead to scenic 

opportunities for all. This route can be 

seen on my included map Camp 5-6 [ATT 

3], route NS225MU. There is another 

connector as well that is a main road that 

would be a natural connector to FS172.1.

The connector you speak of U070030 was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

project. The other route passes through non-Forest 

Service jurisdiction with no ROW and was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. Any consideration for future trail locations will 

be dealt with as individual projects by Districts.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1934

469/5. A trail named Full Size was not included 

in the proposal as a 4x4 designated Rock 

Crawling Trail. This trail had the entrance 

obliterated, mistakenly from my 

understanding, and was to be reopened 

last summer. As far as I know it has not 

yet been reopened. This trail provided 

smaller 4x4‟s a short run through rocks, 

suitable for smaller 4x4‟s or to challenge 

less built vehicles and/or skill levels. This 

trail has been permitted for our events for 

years, and I have not seen any changes in 

condition of trail, proving it is sustainable.

The trail known as Full Size was analyzed in Alternatives B, 

C and D as a trail open to all and removed from Alternative 

E. The trail being mistakenly closed is beyond the scope 

of this document. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1935

470/4. (cont. from comment no. 3) [Elbow 

Canyon Trail, Three Blind Mice Trail, 

Edgemont Trail A-C, See ATT 1] All these 

trails have been submitted through the 

proper channels via Jon Wermers with 

SDOHVC, at the public input meetings in 

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1936
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

715

Custer and Rapid City, and hand delivered 

to the Hell Canyon Acting District Ranger 

in addition to being hiked with the 

aforementioned officials.

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. With respect to your concerns for 

youth under 16 years of age, this is a licensing requirement 

of the State of South Dakota, which the Forest Service has 

no control of.

470/6. After attending the Edgemont town hall 

meeting and receiving the draft 

environmental impact statement, a 

concern over the proposed Alternative 

Maps A through E has arisen. Absolutely 

none of the submitted trails [Elbow 

Canyon Trail, Three Blind Mice, and 

Edgemont Trails A-C] are in any of the 

maps.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. With respect to your concerns for 

youth under 16 years of age, this is a licensing requirement 

of the State of South Dakota, which the Forest Service has 

no control of.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1937

472/2. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to 

Boulder Park Area: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] recognize this area as a 

popular recreational area. We support 

using U07031 to connect FSR 567.1 and 

FSR 172.4 to Galena. We support using 

U070032 to connect FSR 170.4 to Galena. 

Utilizing previously traveled trails in the 

Forest makes more sense than trying to 

gain access across private property. We 

also strongly support using connector 

routes through BLM lands to connect to 

The roads identified in the comment, U7031 and U7032, 

are existing roads on which it was determined the Forest 

Service does not have jurisdiction. As such neither could 

be designated in any decision on this project. The Forest 

will continue to work with local governments to provide 

access to communities. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1938
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

716

the Deadwood/Lead areas. Those routes 

will get ATV traffic off paved highways, 

such as SD Hwy 14A.

472/3. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to 

Boulder Park Area: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] recognize this area as a 

popular recreational area. We disagree 

with the comment that FSR 535.1 is not 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service. We believe that road is under your 

jurisdiction because of your intention to 

close it last year. That road is used as the 

emergency access connecting the Two Bit 

Road with the Upper Two Bit Road 

(which is ultimately a connector of SD 

Hwy 385 and SD Hwy 14A). We 

requested, and again request, that you 

leave that road open for emergency access 

in case of fire or other catastrophic event. 

We aren‟t asking for any improvements or 

designation in the trail system, just left 

open for emergency purposes.

The Forest Service portion of FSR 535.1 was analyzed as a 

road open to highway legal vehicles in Alternatives B, D, 

and E and as road open to all in Alt C. The FS will 

continue to work with other local governments to provide 

access into the surrounding communities. Any decision 

about route selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1939

472/4. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to 

Boulder Park Area: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] recognize this area as a 

popular recreational area. We have no 

problem using that portion of the Yellow 

Creek Road under county jurisdiction as 

this could be a connector to Lead. 

Permission to cross BLM lands may also 

be needed.

The FS will continue to work with other local governments 

to provide access into the surrounding communities 

including the connector into Yellow Creek road.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1940

472/5. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to 

Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] recognize this area as a 

popular recreational area. We support the 

use of NH7 (snowmobile trail) to make 

the connection to the Steel Wheel and the 

Hwy 385 corridor.

The route from Steele Wheel to the Hwy 385 corridor was 

analyzed in various portions from road open to all to trail 

open to all to trail less then 50inches. The FS will continue 

to work with other local governments to provide access 

into the surrounding communities.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1941

472/6. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to FSR 133.1 to Denver street was analyzed in alternatives as Route 1942
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

717

Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] recognize this area as a 

popular recreational area. We have no 

problem using the portion of the road 

north out of Deadwood Denver Street 

that is under county jurisdiction. This 

would have to be coordinated with the 

BLM also.

being under other jurisdiction. The FS will continue to 

work with other local governments to provide access to the 

Mt. Roosevelt area from Deadwood.

Specific 

Comment

472/7. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to 

Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] recognize this area as a 

popular recreational area. We strongly do 

not want Maitland Road out of Central 

City used in the trail system. This road has 

too much traffic already and we don‟t see 

the benefit of OHV traffic directed that 

way when there aren‟t many trails to 

access.

Maitland road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1943

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.

Vanocker Canyon and Galena Road were analyzed as other 

jurisdiction. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1944

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.

The FS will continue to work with other local governments 

to provide access when possible to these locations.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1945

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 

Nemo road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1946
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

718

maintenance and the traffic already is 

heavy.

472/11. Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] could support a crossing 

on County Road 44 (Elk Creek) to access 

the Galena area.

The FS will continue to work with other local governments 

to provide access into the surrounding communities.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1947

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.

Englewood road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1948

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.

The Custer Peak road was analyzed as other jurisdiction 

and the connection roads (FSR 516) to Custer Peak were 

analyzed in Alt C as a road open to all and Alternatives B, 

D and E as a road open to highway legal. The FS will 

continue to work with other local governments to provide 

access into the surrounding communities.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1949

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.

The Custer Crossing road was analyzed in all alternatives as 

a route under other jurisdiction. It was reviewed on the 

ground by agency staff. The agency recognizes the road is 

heavily used currently. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1950

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.

The Rochford Road was analyzed in all alternatives as other 

jurisdiction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1951

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 Box Elder Forks road 

usage to connect Nemo to the Centennial 

Merritt Estes road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. The 

Centennial trail was analyzed as a trail less then 50 inches in 

Alternatives B, C, and E. It was removed from Alt D. The 

portion of the South Boxelder road that connects to the 

Centennial trail was analyzed as other jurisdiction. The FS 

will continue to work with other local governments to 

provide access into the surrounding communities.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1952
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

719

Trail and the Nemo area.

472/17. Spearfish: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] do not support usage of 

FSR 134 Tinton Road (the portion under 

county maintenance) as an access to 

Spearfish as this is a residential area and 

would enter into Spearfish residential 

areas.

FSR 134 Tinton Road was analyzed in all alternatives as 

open to highway legal vehicles only. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1953

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 non-motorized 

trail, but there are parking issues for 

motorized vehicles who wish to travel to 

the Iron Creek/Higgins Gulch areas.

Big Hill trailhead was analyzed in all alternatives as an 

existing facility. Any decision about trailheads selections 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1954

473/12. [From ATT 1] The perennial stream 

crossing proposed for three years of 

monitoring includes two impaired water 

bodies, Elk Creek and Victoria Creek, and 

EPA recommends that those crossings be 

eliminated from the travel system (DEIS 

page 309).

None of the alternatives include motorized routes that 

cross Victoria Creek. Many existing system roads cross Elk 

Creek in many different locations. These routes were 

analyzed in various alternatives as road open to all or road 

open to highway legal vehicles. No new routes were 

proposed to cross Elk Creek. Current and any future 

crossings will be mitigated with proper stream crossing 

devices such as culverts or bridges. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1955

474/1. We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been 

especially dismayed by the soil erosion 

potential of OHV trails on BHNF land 

adjacent to our property [HES 102.59-10, 

T2N, and R5E]. Proposed user-created 

Motorcycle Trails #CZ-4835 and CZ-4870 

pass perpendicular to topographic contour 

lines on steep erodible slopes, and pass 

through the intermittent stream and 

riparian habitat in Spruce Draw west of 

our land. With no procedure in place to 

close these routes during wet periods (pg. 

88 DEIS), the problems already 

experienced maintaining the nearby 

Centennial Trail (pg. 83 DEIS) will likely 

be repeated. We now notice more 

CZ4835 and CZ4870 were included in Action Alt. B as 

open year round and in Action Alternative C as open 

seasonally. They were not included in Alternatives D and 

E. Any routes selected will have design criteria put in place 

to minimize impacts. Any decision about routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. While 

routes were evaluated for inclusion as part of the future 

designated system, there may be portions or sections of any 

designated transportation system under the decision that 

may be located on a geologic formation where the 

transportation facility can require more extensive trail 

design, maintenance, application of aggregate or other 

surfacing materials to limit erosion of the trail surface and 

maintain the system for use without resulting in impacts to 

adjacent resources located immediately adjacent to the 

designated transportation facility. Please see the decision 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1956
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

720

turbidity in our pond, downstream from 

Pilot Knob Trailhead, even when there 

has not been recent rain.

for transportation facility designation and Appendix B of 

the FEIS for the transportation design criteria common to 

all alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources.

474/2. We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been 

especially dismayed by the soil erosion 

potential of OHV trails on BHNF land 

adjacent to our property [HES 102.59-10, 

T2N, and R5E]. Proposed Motorcycle 

Trail CZ-4835, (running within 17 to 300 

ft. and paralleling our south and west farm 

boundaries for approximately one-half 

mile) actually crosses the steep banks of 

Jim Creek near the trail‟s juncture with 

Bogus Jim Rd. (FS# 201). This is not 

evident on the trail map, but is obvious on 

site inspection of the path taken by bikers. 

This trail also crosses another riparian area 

associated with the intermittent stream 

located in Spruce Draw. With no 

procedure in place to close these routes 

during wet periods (pg. 88 DEIS), the 

problems already experienced maintaining 

the nearby Centennial Trail (pg. 83 DEIS) 

will likely be repeated. We now notice 

more turbidity in our pond, downstream 

from Pilot Knob Trailhead, even when 

there has not been recent rain.

CZ4835 and CZ4870 were included in Alternative B as 

open year round and in Alternative C as open seasonally. 

They were not included Alternatives D and E. Any routes 

selected will have design criteria put in place to minimize 

impacts. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. While routes 

were evaluated for inclusion as part of the future designated 

system, there may be portions or sections of any designated 

transportation system under the decision that may be 

located on a geologic formation where the transportation 

facility can require more extensive trail design, 

maintenance, application of aggregate or other surfacing 

materials to limit erosion of the trail surface and maintain 

the system for use without resulting in impacts to adjacent 

resources located immediately adjacent to the designated 

transportation facility. Please see the decision for 

transportation facility designation and Appendix B of the 

FEIS for the transportation design criteria common to all 

alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1957

474/3. We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been 

especially dismayed by the soil erosion 

potential of OHV trails on BHNF land 

adjacent to our property [HES 102.59-10, 

T2N, and R5E]. Proposed Motorcycle 

Trail # CZ-4880 utilizes the valley bottom 

followed by the intermittent stream in 

Spruce Draw, crossing the stream at 

multiple sites. Throughout the 1990‟s, and 

again during the last year and a half, this 

stream has carried water along much of its 

course and has provided habitat for beaver 

CZ-4880 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any routes selected 

will have mitigation measures put in place for stream 

crossings. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1958
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

721

during the last two decades. With no 

procedure in place to close these routes 

during wet periods (pg. 88 DEIS), the 

problems already experienced maintaining 

the nearby Centennial Trail (pg. 83 DEIS) 

will likely be repeated. We now notice 

more turbidity in our pond, downstream 

from Pilot Knob Trailhead, even when 

there has not been recent rain.

474/4. We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been 

especially dismayed by the soil erosion 

potential of OHV trails on BHNF land 

adjacent to our property [HES 102.59-10, 

T2N, and R5E]. Proposed All-Vehicle 

Trail #CZ-0301 passes through an oldgrowth aspen grove which was clear-cut 

some years back with a view to stimulating 

regeneration of the trees and improving 

wildlife habitat.

CZ0301 was analyzed in Alt B as a special designation trail 

(rock crawling) and in Alt C as a seasonal trail open to all. 

Any routes selected will have design criteria put in place to 

minimize impacts. Any decision about routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1959

474/5. We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been 

especially dismayed by the soil erosion 

potential of OHV trails on BHNF land 

adjacent to our property [HES 102.59-10, 

T2N, and R5E]. Proposed Special 

Designation Rock Crawler #CZ-0301, 

utilizes very steep terrain that leads into 

the riparian habitat of Spruce Draw.

CZ0301 was included in Alt B as a special designation trail 

(rock crawling) and in Alt C as a seasonal trail open to all. 

Any routes selected will have design criteria put in place to 

minimize impacts. Any decision about routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. While routes 

were evaluated for inclusion as part of the future designated 

system, there may be portions or sections of any designated 

transportation system under the decision that may be 

located on a geologic formation where the transportation 

facility can require more extensive trail design,

maintenance, application of aggregate or other surfacing 

materials to limit erosion of the trail surface and maintain 

the system for use without resulting in impacts to adjacent 

resources located immediately adjacent to the designated 

transportation facility. Please see the decision for 

transportation facility designation and Appendix B of the 

FEIS for the transportation design criteria common to all 

alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1960

474/6. We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been CZ0303 was included in Action Alt B as a special Route 1961
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

722

especially dismayed by the soil erosion 

potential of OHV trails on BHNF land 

adjacent to our property. [HES 102.59-10, 

T2N, R5E]. Proposed Special Designation 

Rock Crawlers #CZ-0303, #U130185.

designation trail (rock crawling) and in Action Alt C as a 

seasonal trail open to all. Any routes selected will have 

mitigation measures put in place for stream crossings or 

steep slopes. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. While routes were 

evaluated for inclusion as part of the future designated 

system, there may be portions or sections of any designated 

transportation system under the decision that may be 

located on a geologic formation where the transportation 

facility can require more extensive trail design, 

maintenance, application of aggregate or other surfacing 

materials to limit erosion of the trail surface and maintain 

the system for use without resulting in impacts to adjacent 

resources located immediately adjacent to the designated 

transportation facility. Please see the decision for 

transportation facility designation and Appendix B of the 

FEIS for the transportation design criteria common to all 

alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources.

Specific 

Comment

474/7. For the 22 years we [Don and Kim Kelley] 

have lived on and tended our land, we 

have devoted literally thousands of hours 

to eradicating noxious weeds from our 

property, [HES 102.59-10, T2N, R5E] 

despite continuous heavy re-seeding from 

surrounding USFS land. Our requests for 

weed control efforts on adjacent FS land 

by Agency employees have resulted in 

only cursory and largely ineffective 

measures. This is to some degree 

understandable in view of forest wide FS 

budgetary constraints and the large areas 

disturbed annually by logging and other 

vehicular traffic. Increasing this soildisturbing activity through sanctioned 

OHV traffic is a very discouraging 

prospect to those of us trying to reduce 

the impact of invasive weed species in the 

Black Hills. As cited (DEIS pg. 277), these 

vehicles readily transport weed seeds from 

See Chapter 3, Noxious Weeds. Each Action Alternative 

will overall have a positive affect on the spread of weeds. In 

some areas, increased use will occur, the likelihood is that 

will continue without travel management or Alternative A, 

the current situation. Alternative A has much less control 

over where travel can occur than the action alternatives. 

CZ-4835, CZ-4870, were analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

as motorcycle routes and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. CZ 0301 , CZ-0303, CZ 0295, CZ-0298 and U130385 

were analyzed as special designation in Alternative B and as 

seasonal trails open to all in Alternative C. They were 

removed from Alternatives D and E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1962
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

723

other areas in their undercarriages. If new 

stands of thistle are established and new

species of invasive weeds introduced along 

the above mentioned proposed trails [CZ4835, CZ-4870, CZ0301, CZ-0303, CZ029.8, CZ-0295, U130385], the prevailing 

wind will seed our meadow first.

474/9. Another area we [Don and Kim Kelley] 

have been concerned with for many years 

is a segment of Jim Creek in sections 10 

and 11, east of our land. Large numbers of 

vehicles have left Bogus Jim Road there, 

crossed Jim Creek in many places and 

driven in the creek bed for considerable 

distances. Dispersed camping close to this 

perennial stream has also taken place since 

the 1990s, apparently in violation of the 

FS guideline (DEIS pg. 48) which 

encourages that dispersed activity take 

place 100 ft. or more from a stream and 

SD State law (DEIS pg. 47) which only 

allows campfires in developed 

campgrounds with established fire grills. 

At the suggestion of our closest neighbors, 

we petitioned for the installation of a 

guardrail at the side of Bogus Jim Road. 

USFS personnel instead placed large 

boulders across the entrance to the usercreated trail. These were quickly moved 

and the incursions continue. 

Administrative action means that the law 

enforcement officials also drive through 

and along Jim Creek to access the 

campsites. We are hopeful that this area 

will be effectively closed to motorized use 

and that dispersed camping will be limited, 

owing to the close proximity of Bogus Jim 

Road to Jim Creek, and to allow the 

riparian habitat time to recover.

The DEIS and FEIS addressed a variety of alternatives for 

motorized opportunities for the Bogus Jim area. While 

Alternative A has the area open to off-road motorized 

opportunities, all the other alternatives close the area to 

off-road use, thus helping to ensure protection of the 

creeks from motorized impacts. Motorized dispersed 

camping in the DEIS analyzed opportunities anywhere on 

the National Forest under Alternative A, but restricted to 

100 feet of designated routes under Alternative B and 300 

feet under Alternative C, and not allowed at all under 

Alternatives D and E. Alternative D for Bogus Jim area 

offers the greatest restrictions of motorized use to help 

protect the area. Decisions for the Travel Management 

Program will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Motorized users will be expected to stay on the routes once 

the selections are made and the rule goes into effect on the 

BHNF. Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

National Forest resources. The Forest Service also 

maintains cooperative relationships with many State and 

local law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support enforcement 

efforts by promoting voluntary compliance. Campfires are 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1963

474/12. We [Don and Kim Kelley] have several Illegal activity has been reported to law enforcement, Route 1964
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

724

concerns regarding management 

capabilities of the BHNF if large 

motorized trail networks and dispersed 

camping (as differentiated from game 

retrieval) are legitimated. Public Safety: a) 

Merritt-Estes Rd. (FS #208) follows a 

steep talus slope east of our house and a 

blind curve with no guardrail turns north 

at the highest point of the road. This 

dangerous site feature is not easily mapped 

and has been the cause of several 

accidents. We have responded to many 

incidents on this curve, and to our 

knowledge, none have been reported to 

law enforcement. We worry that 

unlicensed drivers who choose to go off 

of the nearby motorized trail, and licensed 

but inexperienced young riders will be 

vulnerable.

resulting in more patrols by law enforcement officers and 

Forest Protection Officers. Design standards for trails 

address road crossings, and improvements can be made as 

needed. 

Specific 

Comment

474/13. We have several concerns regarding 

management capabilities of the BHNF if 

large motorized trail networks and 

dispersed camping (as differentiated from 

game retrieval) are legitimated.[Public 

Safety:]Bogus Jim Road (FS #201) is 

currently classified as a “roaded, natural 

non-motorized area” (DEIS pg. 56). It 

also has numerous blind curves, is narrow 

and rocky in many places. We have 

responded to one accident involving an 

ATV on this road and frequently 

encounter large groups of ATVs speeding 

along on both of these roads.

The area surrounding FSR 201on the Northern Hills 

Ranger District is Management Area 5.4, big game winter 

range, and the recreation opportunity spectrum for this area 

is roaded natural. Forest Service law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance with 

laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting National Forest resources. The Forest Service 

also maintains cooperative relationships with many State 

and local law enforcement agencies that provide mutual 

support across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support enforcement 

efforts by promoting voluntary compliance. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1965

474/15. According to the BHNF (DEIS PG. 9) 

“dispersed camping” and “off-road 

parking” are interchangeable. While the 

Pilot Knob Trailhead may be the 

recommended parking location for OHVs 

on trailers in our [Don and Kim Kelley] 

area, there are numerous other access 

The comment states that the DEIS, page 9, stated that 

dispersed camping and off-road parking are 

interchangeable. The DEIS identified on page 9 the 

decision to be made for this motorized travel program, 

which includes whether to authorize dispersed camping or 

off-road parking. These are two separate activities of the 

travel program for the Black Hills and are not 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1966
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

725

points where trailers may be parked and 

vehicles off-loaded. How can law 

enforcement be expected to patrol so 

many locations, distinguish the trail the 

OHV rider intends traveling and hope to 

find those riders in violation of the rules?

interchangeable. Dispersed camping was evaluated for 

various distances from a designated route, while off-road 

parking only allows a vehicle width from a designated 

route. With regards to law enforcement concerns, there is 

an expectation that most of the motorized users of the 

Black Hills National Forest will comply with the new 

requirements to help protect the resources of the Forest for 

future generations. Illegal motorized use of the Forest does 

leave evidence behind that law enforcement can use to 

locate and fine violators. The public is encouraged to assist 

law enforcement by providing information about violators, 

such as license plates, vehicle descriptions, time of 

violation, type of violation, etc., to maintain the integrity of 

the travel program.

474/17. The proposed motorcycle trails listed at 

the beginning of our letter [CZ-4835, CZ 

4870, CZ 4880, CZ-0300, CZ-0303, CZ0298, CZ-0295, and V130185] will be very 

difficult for FS personnel to patrol or even 

access.

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1967

474/22. We [Don and Kim Kelley] have noticed 

increased noise pollution resulting from 

large numbers of trail bikes, ATVs, and 

hill climbing 4WD‟s in our immediate 

vicinity during recent years. It is not 

unusual to encounter convoys of 12-18 

4WD rock-crawlers, plus up to two dozen 

ATVs and trail bikes traveling the MerrittEstes and Bogus Jim roads past our place, 

layering clouds of dust along the Jim 

Creek Valley. We are negatively affected 

by noise on the adjacent user-created 

trails, several portions of which are located 

within 17 to 300 ft. of our western 

boundary.

Common to all alternatives the sound limit will be set at 96 

decibels for all OHV traffic. This restriction should reduce 

the number of user conflicts and complaints that are based 

on sound.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1968

475/5. Seasonal Closure of certain specific The area that you describe is a very popular area for ATV Route 1969
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

726

roads/trails for protection of wildlife and 

hunters: After spending most of the 

month of October 2007 in the BHNF in 

pursuit of elk in the BHNF, I strongly 

recommend seasonal closure of some 

roads to permit wildlife to have refuge and 

for hunters to have the opportunity for a 

hunt uninterrupted by vehicle traffic. My 

hunting effort was focused in the BHNF 

in the vicinity of Moon, which can sustain 

quite intense hunting pressure at times. 

Many of the roads/trails are in the center 

of meadows and in close proximity to 

springs and waterholes, and vehicle traffic 

can keep wildlife from the water and ruin 

the opportunity for the hunter who has set 

up on the waterhole. Specifically, I would 

again strongly recommend seasonal 

closure (from September 1 through 

December 31) of all trails shown in red 

(seasonal closure) on the current Trail 

Map which are West of FR 117, between 

the intersections of FR 117 and FR 284 

and FR 117 and FR 294. In addition, I 

would recommend the seasonal closure of 

the following roads: FR376.2F, 2H, 2I, 2J, 

2K, 2L, and 2M; FR 117.5A, 5A, 5R, 5T, 

5U, 5V, 4A, and 4C; FR 112.1A, 1B and 

1C; FR 157.2A; FR 294.2J, 2L, and 2M. 

Seasonal closure would provide protection 

of wildlife from vehicle harassment, and it 

would provide hunters with a walk-in 

hunting opportunity free from intrusion 

by vehicles.

and UTV trail riding. It is also an area that generally 

receives significant snowfall during November through 

April. For these reasons this area was not consider for 

seasonal closure for the protection of wildlife and hunters. 

There are several walk-in hunting areas that are proposed in 

Alternatives B and C that will be considered by the 

Decision Maker in the final Decision. These areas are 

located within the Jasper Fire Area, Pleasant Valley, and 

Norbeck.

Specific 

Comment

479/4. We [Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike 

Association] have noted on many 

occasions the trespass of motorized 

vehicles in non-motorized areas such as at 

the gate at Sandpit, which ATV and 

motorcycle have gone over the hill and 

Once motorized routes are designated motor vehicles will 

be expected to stay on them. Individual responsibility of 

machine maintenance is outside the scope of this DEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1970
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

727

around the gate. Which now unhindered 

has created eyesores, erosion control 

problems, and resource damages. We have 

also found multiple ATV parts, oil spills 

and gasoline spills from non-motorized 

users, whom won‟t take the care needed to 

maintain their equipment, or aren‟t 

responsible enough to operate their 

machines with some care and diligence. 

We have found this to be true, in Ogden 

Creek, Peterson trail, and off certain roads 

near Surprise Gulch, School House Gulch, 

Tinton Rd and surrounding areas.

479/7. On several occasions we have witnessed 

elk herds in the Dugout area, and 

observed them from several hundred 

yards. The uniqueness of this trail is that it 

is off the beaten path, it has limited usage; 

and due to that-it seems unspoiled. It is 

wild and natural as can be without 

designation as an RNA or Wilderness area. 

We [Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike 

Association] believe that once motorized 

vehicles are allowed this will be spoiled 

within a week. You will have resource 

damage, vegetation contamination, and elk 

herds that frequent the area will move out, 

and become scarcer. This would also 

include raptors, mountain lions, and many 

other species that would be affected.

Alternatives A, D, and E of the DEIS and FEIS addressed 

this concern and eliminated motorized opportunities, 

except administrative purposes within the Dugout Gulch 

area. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1971

481/1. As a supporter of the Top 50 Trailhead 

project, I understand and agree that the 

development of this trailhead will create a 

“gateway community” for the Piedmont 

area. The location of the Top 50 Trailhead 

at exit 46 off I-90 is ideal for local and out 

of state visitors enjoying motorized and 

non-motorized outdoor recreational 

activities. This easy access convenient 

location provides a maintained 2 acre 

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and outside of FS 

jurisdiction and is therefore outside the scope of this 

document. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1972
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

728

location for loading, unloading, short term 

and long term parking at no charge as 

visitors enjoy the Black Hills. I feel the 

development of the Top 50 Trailhead will 

benefit the area fully support its further 

development.

482/1. We are landowners on North Bogus Jim 

Road (FS#201) and we are concerned 

about the motorcycle trails proposed in 

Alternatives A, B and C that will be 

concentrated in this area. First, we would 

like to point out that these trails have been 

used very infrequently in the past. In fact, 

these trails were illegally created in the 

summer of 2006 just after it was 

announced that user trails were going to 

be used to create the trail system that is 

currently being proposed. They have been 

very rarely used since then. Putting these 

trails in this area is not an historic use of 

the area and will constitute introducing a 

user group that has not been in this area in 

the past. If these trails are included on the 

final map, the area will go from very 

infrequently used by motorcycles to a 

heavily used and intensely concentrated 

motorcycle area - significantly impacting 

other forest users, landowners and 

travelers.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1973

482/2. Concern - Safety: As we expressed to 

Forest Supervisor Craig Bobzien and 

Northern Hills District Ranger Rhonda 

O‟Byrne when they visited the area to 

meet with us, our primary concern, above 

all, is safety on FS#201 and FS#202. It 

seems in the headlong rush to put this 

Travel Management plan in place, 

concerns for safety were put aside. Several 

BHNF employees stated that prior to 

these [motorcycle] trails appearing on the 

On routes selected in the decision on this project measures 

will be put in place to provide for safety. The Forest 

Service assumes that users generally will comply with use 

regulations, and enforcement will be undertaken as needed. 

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1974
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

729

initial proposed travel map, no BHNF 

employees had visited the area. GPS 

coordinates were provided by off-road 

motorcycle riders and the BHNF had not 

looked at the area for suitability or safety. 

In Alternatives B and C the maps show 

there are areas of concentrated trails 

designated for single track off-road 

motorcycle use-only on the ridges above 

these roads. There are several roads and 

trails coming off the ridges connecting 

these roads (FS#201 and FS#202) with 

the single track trails above them. FS#201 

and FS#202 are narrow (basically one lane 

requiring a vehicle to pull off the road 

when passing oncoming traffic), winding, 

hilly and have many blind corners and a 

one lane bridge. On many occasions we 

have encountered vehicles traveling at 

high rates of speed around blind corners 

and have had several near misses including 

incidents with illegally riding unlicensed 

off-road motorcycles. If these trails go in 

and the trails connecting them to these 

roads stay in place, there will be a 

significant amount of motorcycle and 

vehicle traffic

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

482/3. (cont from comment no. 2) The vast 

majority of off-road motorcycles are sure 

to be unlicensed, uninsured and 

unidentifiable. Although these roads do 

not allow such unlicensed use, there is 

sure to be large numbers of people riding 

these roads to get to other trails due to the 

concentrated use in this area. Of all the 

off-road groups, the one group most 

prone to riding aggressively at a high rate 

of speed, more than any other group, are 

these off-road motorcycles. Mixing these 

types of riders with passenger vehicles is 

The alternatives in the EIS vary in how they address 

motorized recreation opportunity and safety. Alternatives 

B and C provide more mileage of routes, including mixeduse routes. Alternative D provides a lower total mileage of 

motorized mixed-use roads to reduce the safety risk to 

users of non-highway-legal OHVs and motorcycles from 

larger vehicles on higher-speed roads. The Forest Service 

assumes that users will generally comply with guidance on 

the MVUM, but enforcement will be undertaken as needed. 

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1975
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

730

creating an unsafe situation that puts the 

health and safety of our family and the 

public in general in danger and puts a 

great deal of liability on the insured 

motorist due to the high potential for 

accidents. It would be irresponsible for 

these trails and roads connecting the single 

track motorcycle trials to FS#201 and 

FS#202 to be included in the final Travel 

Management Plan. Several BHNF 

employees have stated that nothing can be 

done about the hazards involved until 

something happens. This puts a huge 

amount of liability on the Forest Service 

by recognizing the danger but not acting 

to stop it. There will be accidents with 

great potential for serious injuries and/or 

fatalities. It seems to us that waiting for a 

serious accident or fatality to occur before 

addressing a known hazard would 

constitute gross negligence and subject the 

Forest Service to large law suits.

relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

482/4. In order to help mitigate the safety issues 

of travel on FS#201 and FS#202, we 

suggest eliminating off-road motorcycle 

access from these trails to FS#201 and 

FS#202. Our understanding of the 

proposed trails is that they are for off-road 

single track motorcycle use. Allowing 

access from FS#201 and FS#202 is 

condoning illegal use by encouraging 

unlicensed, uninsured off-road 

motorcycles to use these roads. A better 

idea would be to allow access only from 

designated trailheads off of major 

roadways such as Hwy 44 and Hwy 385. 

In addition, there is already a trailhead at 

Pilot Knob on FS#208 (Merritt Estes Rd) 

and a trailhead could be established on 

FS#202 just east of the intersection with 

The alternatives in the EIS vary in how they address 

motorized recreation opportunity and safety. Alternatives 

B and C provide more mileage of routes, including mixeduse routes. Alternative D provides a lower total mileage of 

motorized mixed-use roads to reduce the safety risk to 

users of non-highway-legal OHVs and motorcycles from 

larger vehicles on higher-speed roads. The Forest Service 

assumes that users will generally comply with guidance on 

the MVUM, but enforcement will be undertaken as needed. 

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many State and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with 

users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1976
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

731

Hwy 385. These off-road motorcycle 

groups want single track off-road use, so 

there is no reason they should be traveling 

on other Forest Service roads in this area. 

Limiting their access to trailheads-only 

would allow the Forest Service to more 

successfully control off road use and 

mitigate the safety hazards by keeping 

them away from FS#201 and FS#202. 

This would make it easier for the BHNF 

to prevent illegal activity (i.e. unlicensed 

motorcycles on the roads) and help 

remove a large part of the burden of law 

enforcement. They will not have to 

constantly patrol these roads to stop illegal 

use that is sure to occur by allowing access 

to FS#201 and FS#202. This suggestion 

would also make it easier for the BHNF to 

manage the off-road single track 

motorcycle trails rather than creating a 

free-for-all that will be totally 

unmanageable.

482/5. Concern - Impact of Trails on Residents: 

The Bogus Jim Valley has seen very little 

off-road use historically. The majority of 

property owners in the area are horse 

owners. This is an extremely quiet valley 

and you will create a great deal of conflict 

by encouraging the off-road single track 

motorcycle users access the FS#201 

(Bogus Jim Rd) and FS#202. All 

residences along these roads will be 

adversely impacted by the illegal activity 

the BHNF will be encouraging by allowing 

access to these roads. They will be 

adversely affected by increased travel on 

the road, the loud noise of the off-road 

motorcycles, the increased dust due to 

increased traffic, the deteriorating road 

conditions due to the high traffic volume 

The majority of FSR 201 through Bogus Jim Valley is not 

Forest Service jurisdiction. The portion of FSR 201 that is 

Forest Service jurisdiction, and FSR 202 are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E. 

The proposed single track route was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C and was removed from Alternatives 

D and E. Noise issues are common to all alternatives and 

will be regulated at 96 decibels. Any decision to include 

this route will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1977
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

732

and lack of maintenance. Our property 

comes within 100 feet of FS#201.2D 

which is part of the proposed off-road 

single track motorcycle trail (#CZ-4870) 

that starts on FS#201. Our quality of life 

will be significantly impacted by noise, 

dust, property value, etc. By changing the 

historic use of this area you will be 

adversely impacting many people who are 

residents in the area.

482/6. Concern - Wildlife: FS#201 and FS#202 

are adjacent to a large Wildlife Winter 

Closure area. The Bogus Jim valley is a 

spring and fall migration route for large 

numbers of deer and elk. Clearly the 

wildlife would be dramatically affected by 

a high volume of traffic on these roads 

and loud motorcycles traveling at high 

rates of speed. Keeping the motorcycles 

out of the valley and off of FS#201 and 

FS#202 would eliminate this issue.

Routes in winter range areas are being analyzed for seasonal 

use in Alternative C and year round access in Alternative B. 

The majority of FSR 201 through Bogus Jim Valley is not 

Forest Service jurisdiction. The portion of FSR 201 that is 

Forest Service jurisdiction, and FSR 202 are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1978

482/7. Concern-Law Enforcement: Under 

Alternatives A, B and C, there will be 

many unlicensed vehicles riding illegally on 

FS#201 and FS#202. Forest-wide the 

Forest Service has extremely limited law 

enforcement capability making it 

impossible for them to uphold the law. 

The argument that off road groups will 

police themselves isn‟t going to happen. 

They don‟t do it now and they won‟t do it 

then. The off-road groups have no 

enforcement capability and to think peer 

pressure will work amounts to wishful 

thinking.

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 along with peer pressure to also encourage 

compliance. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1979

482/10. Eliminate the [motorcycle] trails coming 

down from the off-road trails to FS#201 

and FS#202.

The motorcycle routes were analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed from Alternatives D and E on the NH 

district. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. There are no trails 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1980
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

733

open to motorcycles only that connect with FSR 201 and 

202 in any of the alternatives on the Mystic District.

488/8. Trail 141.1D should be eliminated. This 

trail starts on the north on Silver City 

Road. From there it goes uphill for a few 

hundred feet until it forks into two. The 

left fork joins up again with Silver City 

Road at the top of the hill while the right 

fork continues on and dead-ends close to 

Trail #40 (Deerfield Trail). The left fork is 

very muddy and the right fork is a trail at 

the bottom of the drainage. The trail 

doesn‟t offer any aesthetic value and 

therefore provides no specific purpose. 

Recommendation: Eliminate Trail 141.1D.

FSR 141.1D is closed in Alternative D. Comment has been 

evaluated and will be considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1981

488/9. FSR 249.3A is a road that is currently 

gated. This road is part of the Rapid Creek 

drainage. The meadows at the top of this 

trail are home to year-round elk. As the 

trail starts to descend towards Rapid Creek 

it crosses a year-round spring. Because of 

the spring and the disruption of wildlife, it 

would be better to leave this trail closed. 

Recommendation: Eliminate FSR 249.3A 

from the travel map.

FSR 249.3A is closed in Alternative D. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1982

488/10. The trails U190186, U190187, and 

U190188 are very pretty trails with 

aesthetic appeal. However these trails have 

some seasonal water running through 

them. That general area has many trails in 

much better shape than this trail; therefore 

it begs the question, why did the Forest 

Service pick this trail and leave all the 

others out. I would ask you to revisit this 

trail and if you are going to leave it in the 

map then make sure it is designated only 

as a seasonal trail. Recommendation: 

Trails U190186, U190187, and U190188 

should be seasonal only.

These routes are closed in Alternatives D and E. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1983
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

734

488/11. Trails 249.2A, 2B, 2D, and 2E are 

currently closed and are all dead-end trails. 

Recommendation: Eliminate 249.2A, 

249.2B, 2492D, 249.2E.

FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2D, and 2E are closed in Alternatives D 

and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1984

488/12. Road 675.1A is currently closed yearround. Road 249 is currently closed in the 

winter. Streams cross over both of these 

roads. The water feeds Rapid Creek and 

Pactola. Recommendation: 675.1 and 249 

should be designated as seasonal through 

their entire lengths.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from 

just north of FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in 

Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1985

488/13. A quick view of the Google Earth maps 

show that under some of the alternatives, 

the Centennial Trail is being opened to 

vehicles just north of the Deer Creek 

Trailhead. This trail is used by many users 

and it is well known that this trail is nonmotorized (except for Pilot Knob). The 

area of the trail north of Deer Creek 

Trailhead is a favorite of mountain bikers 

because of the single track and multiple sturns. Recommendation: Leave the 

Centennial Trail as a non-motorized trail.

FSR 613, 746, 746.1B, 1D, and 1F in the area of Deer

Creek Trailhead were inadvertently included in Alternatives 

B and C as motorized routes, but were removed from 

Alternative D. Your comment has been evaluated and will 

be considered in the Record of Decision. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1986

488/15. Roads 671, 671.1B, and 141.2B are narrow 

roads on the bottom of gulches. 

Motorized game retrieval on these two 

roads is not practical since it is very steep 

on both sides of the road. There are other 

better roads nearby where game retrieval 

could be easier. Recommendation: 

Eliminate game retrieval from 671, 671.1B 

and 141.2B. Add game retrieval to 261 and 

672.

FSR 141.2B, 671, and 671.1B are open to highway legal 

vehicles only and not open to game retrieval in Alternatives 

C, D, and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1987

489/2. Some trails located in this [Edgemont] 

area [See ATT 1]: All these trails [ATT 1] 

have been submitted through the proper 

channels via Jon Wermers with SDOHVC 

[South Dakota Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition], at the public input meetings in 

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1988
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

735

Custer and Rapid City, and hand-delivered 

to the Hell Canyon Acting District Ranger 

in addition to being hiked with numerous 

officials. Elbow Canyon was hiked on 

April 18, 2009 with SDOVHC, Black Hills 

Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 representatives, 

U.S. Forest Service Archeologist-Tony 

King, and Hell Canyon District RangerLynn Kolund. Next, Three Blind Mice was 

hiked on April 25, 2009 with SDOVHC 

and Black Hills Jeeps representatives, U.S. 

Forest Service Archeologist-Tony King, 

and Hell Canyon District Ranger-Lynn 

Kolund.

Finally, Edgemont Trails A-C were hiked 

on May 09, 2009 with SDOVHC, Black 

Hills Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 

representatives, and Hell Canyon District 

Ranger-Lynn Kolund. No sufficient 

reasons for excluding these trails were 

found during these hikes other than 

maintenance concerns; however, local club 

representatives and members have 

volunteered to deal with issues concerning 

trail maintenance.

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis.

490/2. Some trails located in this [Edgemont] 

area are [See ATT 1]: All these trails [ATT 

1] have been submitted through the 

proper channels via Jon Wermers with 

SDOHVC, at the public input meetings in 

Custer and Rapid City, and hand-delivered 

to the Hell Canyon acting district ranger in 

addition to being hiked with numerous 

officials. Elbow canyon was hiked on 

April 18, 2009 with SDOHVC [South 

Dakota Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition], 

Black Hills Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 

representatives, U.S. Forest Service 

Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell Canyon 

District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. Next, 

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern Black 

Hills, both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn Kolund 

and the District Archeologist, Anthony King hiked some of 

these trails to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns. These trails were submitted as a rock crawling 

trail route to be considered in the Travel Management 

planning process. The Decision Maker will consider this 

request. If this trail is not designated during this planning 

process it is possible that in the future additional trails 

could be designated in the Southern Hills. However, this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1989
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

736

Three Blind Mice was hiked on April 25, 

2009 with SDOVHC and Black Hills Jeeps 

representatives, U.S. Forest Service 

Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell Canyon 

District Ranger-Lynn Colon. Finally, 

Edgemont Trails A-C were hiked on May 

09, 2009 with SDOVHC, Black Hills 

Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 representatives, 

and Hell Canyon District Ranger-Lynn 

Kolund. No sufficient reasons for 

excluding these trails were found during 

these hikes other than maintenance 

concerns; however, local club 

representatives and members have 

volunteered to deal with issues concerning 

trail maintenance.

491/6. Trail closure. We noticed several trails that 

we have used in the past being proposed 

closed. These are in three general areas: 

711, 110.4A, 110.4B, and 110.4G; 117.5Q 

and 117.5X, 117.5Y; and 502.1A, 502.1C, 

502.1E, and 502.1I. Could you please 

explain the rational for proposing these 

trails closed?

These roads were constructed to access timber harvest 

units in the past and are no longer needed for resource 

management. They are spur roads that dead end. After 

review by District resource specialists, these roads were 

deemed un-necessary and were closed by physical barriers 

and removed from the Travel information maps and Travel 

Management DEIS Alternative maps. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1990

492/5. I would like to see the Buzzworms historic 

off road trail opened during the summer 

months after the spring runoff. This 30+ 

year old trail is a favorite for locals and 

visitors alike. It offers a challenging rock 

crawling route that is near other rock 

crawl trails that could be interconnected 

into a wonderful loop near the Piedmont 

area.

Due to resource concerns this trail was not analyzed in any 

Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1991

494/15. Winter is [the] best time to ride without 

impact on environment. ATV motorized 

vehicles don‟t chase deer and there are a 

lot less riders who choose to ride in winter 

due to temperature, i.e. 727.1A open all 

year! Open more access in winter.

FSR 727.1A remains seasonally closed in Alternatives C, 

D, and E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1992
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

737

508/12. The trails in and around Cement Ridge are 

steep, but if you were to partner with off

road clubs they could be reworked to 

make them more sustainable.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1993

508/14. Hill City is one town that would very 

much like to have a trailhead - a portion of 

the Mickelson Trail could be paralleled or

designated motorized with very reduced 

speed limits.

The Mickelson Trail is not Forest Service jurisdiction. 

Alternative C connects communities to the extent possible 

but opportunities are limited due to private property, paved 

highways, and other jurisdictions

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1994

511/13. There is a lack of access to services in all 

alternatives. Trails need to connect to 

towns or businesses that will provide 

services to trail users such as food, fuel, 

repairs, camping and motels. Trailheads 

are not well placed, and do not contribute 

to access to these services. Why can‟t I get 

to or from Sturgis? And Top 50 Rally 

park?

The towns and services you refer to, including City of 

Sturgis and Top 50 are on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction and therefore are outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1995

519/2. The Piedmont Trailhead is extremely 

important to my family and myself as we 

currently use this area very regularly. We 

live in the Piedmont area and love to be 

able to go riding after work for a couple of 

hours without having to travel very far. 

My biggest concern with the Piedmont 

trailhead is that my ten-year-old son will 

not be able to ride with us from this 

trailhead if licensing is required. It is 

extremely important to us to have this 

family recreation. I would like to see a way 

for us to at least utilize the Piedmont 

Trailhead and at least have the opportunity 

to get to a point on the trail system that is 

designated trail and not road. Although we 

would utilize the Piedmont trailhead most 

often, I am also looking forward to the 

implemented trail system as a way to 

explore other areas of the forest that we 

would not go to - afraid of crossing 

The piedmont fire trail was analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and D as a road open to all and in Alt E as a road open to 

highway legal vehicles. Any decision about routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. NM: 

State of South Dakota traffic laws apply. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1996
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

738

private property or poorly marked closed 

areas.

519/5. Access to Ice Cave (trail 144 21), Bat Cave 

as well as the top of Botany Canyon is 

very important to us, as we like to visit 

these places. We love to hike down Botany 

Canyon several times a year and access to 

the top of this area would be extremely 

beneficial as the bottom is bordered by 

private property and landowners who 

dislike anyone to travel on their private 

road, since the Stagebarn Cave has been 

closed. We also like to camp at Dalton 

Lake and ride from there to the Ice Cave, 

Bat Cave and Botany Canyon.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

1997

524/1. I spent the afternoon hiking along the 

546.1 road this past Sunday and noticed 

that the Forest Service has placed more no 

travel signs in areas that are being abused 

by ATVs. But even with the new signs 

there are still ATVs off roading in these 

areas. Not only are they ignoring the signs 

but they are destroying them. This 546.1 

road and its other roads 546.2A, 546.2B 

and all its user created trails continues to 

be abused and the violators continue to 

get away with it. I propose that 546.1 and 

this area be closed to all motorized travel. 

This road leads to private land that also 

continuous to be abused even with all the 

no trespassing signs. I believe this area is 

easily accessed from the Piedmont fire trail 

by hiking, mountain bike, or horseback. 

The closing of this road will no doubt 

upset a few off-road people. But I feel that 

if you don‟t close it the resource damage 

will only continue. And I‟m sure there are

many others that will also enjoy this area if 

they didn‟t have to compete with road 

traffic. The off-road enthusiasts have had 

FSR 546 was analyzed in Alternative B, C and D as a 

seasonal road open to all. It was analyzed in Alt E as a 

seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles. FSR 546.2B 

and 546.2A were analyzed in Alt B as a seasonal road open 

to all and in Alternatives C, D and E as a seasonal road 

open to highway legal vehicles. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1998
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

739

their chance to do what‟s right for many 

years in this area. Now let the rest of us 

enjoy it.

526/5. I would like to see the Buzzworms historic 

off road trail opened during the summer 

months after the spring runoff. This 30+ 

year old trail is a favorite for locals and 

visitors alike. It offers a challenging rock 

crawling route that is near other rock 

crawl trails that could be interconnected 

into a wonderful loop near the Piedmont 

area.

Due to resource concerns this trail was not analyzed in any 

Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

1999

527/1. I am an avid hiker who seeks to preserve 

the pristine trails and quiet solitude of 

Botany Canyon and Little Elk Canyon for 

my grandchildren as well as future 

generations. It is extremely important to 

take out CZ 1790 in order to prevent any 

additional damage to the fragile 

environment of Botany Canyon which 

contains many ferns and plant specimens 

dating back to prehistoric times and to 

allow turn around.

CZ-1790 was included in Alternatives C and D as a special 

designation route, but was removed from Alternatives D 

and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2000

529/3. We feel opening botanical trails, such as 

the Dugout Gulch Botanical Hiking Trail 

would be a mistake, especially if they are 

currently designated semi-primitive and 

non-motorized. So also would we oppose 

converting to OHV trails areas like the 

following: FDR 134 (Tinton Road), areas 

adjacent to FDR 134 (Red Lake and 

Limestone Plateau), the connector road 

through the Crow Peak non-motorized 

area, an OHV trail on and into the middle 

of the Eagle Cliff Trail System, and the 

area south of Hanna Campground. Surely 

there are already enough OHV 

trails/roads that there shouldn‟t be a need 

to open roads and areas specifically 

A range of alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS was 

considered for these areas.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2001
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

740

designated for non-motorized recreational 

experience and/or use. These areas are 

special in part because motorized use was 

not allowed in them. If OHV riders want 

to experience these areas they can always 

get off their vehicles and hike into them.

529/4. We are concerned with the segment of 

trail south of Piedmont, South Dakota 

(NH9) the one on the correction for 

Alternative C. We believe this is the 

section line that Jessie Jurrens of the Top 

50 Rally Park wants opened to the public 

so he can use the Top 50 as a trailhead. 

We absolutely oppose this road being 

opened to OHVs and/or designated a 

trailhead. We live across Sturgis Road 

from the main entrance to the Top 50. We 

have already had to deal with problems 

when the Top 50 has had Labor Day 

Rallies. Our subdivision is a nice 

residential area (built years before the Top 

50) and within the city limits of Piedmont.

As homeowners and taxpayers, we feel we 

should be able to enjoy our home and 

investment. The residents of our 

neighborhood would have to deal with 

increased noise, traffic, litter, and 

inconsiderate activities of Top 50 visitors.

NH 9 was analyzed in Alternative C as a seasonal trail open 

to all and was removed from Alternatives B, D and E. Any 

decision about routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2002

529/5. We believe opening NH9 to OHVs would 

also be dangerous because they would 

have to travel on the highway from the 

Top 50 to reach the trail segment. Sturgis 

Road was recently widened and rebuilt, 

and no travel is allowed or possible in the 

ditches. The OHV riders would have to 

cross the highway at some point; and this 

could be particularly dangerous because of 

traffic on the highway and the fact there is 

an elementary school near the proposed 

trail segment.

NH 9 was analyzed in Alternative C as a seasonal trail open 

to all and was removed from Alternatives B, D and E. Any 

decision about routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Crossing of the highway is outside FS 

jurisdiction and outside the scope of this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2003
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

741

529/6. Piedmont already has one trailhead, and 

that should be developed further and 

should be enough for this area. The loop 

the NH9 segment is proposed to connect 

with is close to and already accessed by the 

Piedmont Trailhead. We do not see the 

need to add another access or trailhead to 

support the commercial interests of the 

Top 50.

NH 9 was analyzed in Alternative C as a seasonal trail open 

to all and was removed from Alternatives B, D and E. Any 

decision about routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2004

529/7. We are also concerned that the proposed 

NH9 trail segment and access to BHNF is 

close to the Botany Canyon area and 

Stagebarn Canyon. We feel this trail 

segment is too close to Botany Canyon 

and too much traffic in this area would 

endanger its unique and fragile ecosystem.

Speculation about someone breaking the future travel 

management regulations are beyond the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2005

534/1. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: Open FS 727.1a to all year 

travel like in Alternative B and turn it into 

a trail open to all vehicles, all the way to 

FS 386.

FSR 727.1A remains seasonally closed in Alternatives C, D, 

and E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2006

534/2. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: Add MY63 and MY64 to 

Alternative C as mixed-use road.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2007

534/3. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: Turn 386.1 into a trail open 

to all vehicles.

FSR 386.1 is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives C, D, and E due to safety considerations.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2008

534/4. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: In Alternative B, FS 385 is a 

mixed use road to FS 396.1E. Continue 

that in Alternative C and CZ 3017 and CZ 

0776 in Alternative B are trails; restore 

them to trails. (CZ0776 appears to move 

location from Alt B to Alt C).

FSR 396.1E does not exist. CZ0776 has been eliminated 

due to cultural resources. A portion of FSR 385 is a road 

open to all vehicles in Alternative C and D. Comment has 

been evaluated and will be considered in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2009

534/5. I support Alternative C. I recommend Savoy is on private property and also within the Spearfish Route 2010
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

742

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: There is no trailhead in the 

Savoy area the only trailhead is across US 

85 in the Hanna area which is accessible 

on the proposed routes.

Canyon management area which prohibits off road travel. 

No trailheads were analyzed here as it is outside the scope 

of this project.

Specific 

Comment

534/6. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: None of the mixed use 

roads cross the Hwy [85] at a 90-degree 

angle and some user created trails that 

have been submitted do cross US 85, 

doesn‟t the snowmobile trail system cross 

US 85?

Snowmobile trails are beyond the scope of this document. Route 

Specific 

Comment

2011

534/7. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: FS 209.1 needs to be a 

mixed use road in Alternative C just like in 

Alternative B.

FSR 209.1 was analyzed in Alt B as a road open to all and 

in Alt C, D, and E as a road open to highway legal vehicles. 

Any decision about routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2012

534/8. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: Add 209.2F to Alternative 

C as a 50 in. or less trail.

FSR 209.2F was analyzed in Alt B as a seasonal trail to 

vehicles less then 50 inches. In Alt E it was analyzed as a 

road open to highway legal vehicles. It was removed from 

Alt C and D. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2013

534/9. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: Add 211.2D and 211.2C to 

Alternative C just like in Alternative B.

FSR 211.2D and 211.2C were analyzed in Alt B as a 

seasonal trail to vehicles less then 50 inches. In Alt E they 

were analyzed as roads open to highway legal vehicles. 

They were removed from Alt C and D. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2014

534/10. I support Alternative C. I recommend 

these trails and roads be added to 

Alternative C: In Alternative C there is no 

mixed-use road that connects the 

Stageyard Campground to the roads south 

of it as there is in Alternative B.

FSR 209 that connects Stageyard trail head to other routes 

was analyzed in Alternative B as a road open to all and in 

Alt C, D and E as a road open to highway legal vehicles. 

Any decision about routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2015

534/17. Over 60 miles of roads were closed in the 

South Project in the Hell Canyon district. 

Since nobody is going to get to use these 

roads, they might as well be used for trails.

Trails and routes were considered in the South Project area. 

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the South Project 

worked with the Forest Travel Planning, addressing both 

routes to be closed and routes to be open, as well as the 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2016
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

743

possibility of a trail system within the South project 

boundary. These discussions are documented in the South 

Project Planning Record. The Decision Maker for this 

Travel Management Plan could consider trail designation 

within the South Project area as part of this decision, or 

under a separate decision in the future. 

536/9. The Area between Sheridan Lake Road, 

Highway 385, and Highway 44 is 

particularly isolated - From both the north 

and south. Add at least one connecting 

trail across the highways to the north, 

south, and west.

Topography associated with the Rapid Creek corridor is 

not conducive to a trail connecting to the north. In 

addition, trails crossing high speed highways is a safety 

concern, and such highways are not Forest Service 

jurisdiction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2017

536/24. The section of USFS 159 in Sec 35, T1N, 

and R7E should be open to mixed use or a 

motorcycle trail designated just to the 

north of it.

The referenced portion of FSR 159 is open to highway 

legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E. A road 

open to all vehicles goes north off FSR 159 in this area in 

Alternative C.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2018

536/25. USFS 150.1E in Sec 24, T1N, R7E should 

be extended north to the east side of 

Victoria Creek canyon near Rapid Creek 

along the existing two track. There is an 

excellent rock climbing area along Victoria 

Creek near Rapid Creek. The closest 

access is from Dark Canyon, but is across 

private property. Access from FS land 

requires hiking down into the canyon a 

fair distance.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2019

538/11. Let me describe my idea of what an ideal 

trail system would contain. I imagine 

comparing it to a large downhill or even a 

cross country ski area. There would be a 

system of connecting trails that would 

leave from points of interest (POI) and 

arrive at POI‟s. Along the trail I imagine 

scenic views as well as beautiful places to 

stop and have picnics. The trails range in 

difficulty from easy to challenging and are 

marked indicating the level. I enjoy just 

cruising down an easy trail but I also enjoy 

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

2020
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

744

some challenge. I would like to see easy 

going trails as well as trails that involve 

perhaps some maneuvering, some inclines, 

and maybe some rocks or downed trees to 

climb over. I am basically a Northern Hills 

rider and I like to leave from Spearfish, 

stop at the Iron Creek Lake Store, have a 

picnic at Cement Ridge and take a 

different route back to Spearfish. When I 

leave for a day of ATVing I tend to rack 

up about 100 miles. I enjoy sightseeing 

and looking for some history to include 

old cabins, old mines, etc.

538/12. It would be nice to be on a trail where I 

do not have to worry about a full size 

vehicle driving fast. So I prefer to be off 

of Tinton Road as soon as possible after 

leaving Spearfish even if the ATVs have to 

travel parallel with the road at times.

Thank you for your comment. Route 

Specific 

Comment

2021

538/17. I foresee ATV riders camping at Rod & 

Gun and Timon Campgrounds and likely 

accessing the area of FS Road 733 and 

736. I like the trails in around FS Road 

733 but would like to see more of them 

connecting and making more loops. I 

would also like to see an ATV trail loop 

which includes the FS Road 736.1 area. It 

would be nice to have 736 and 736.1A 

connect to make a loop. A trailhead near 

Rod and Gun Campground would make 

sense so the ATV traffic could depart 

from that location and proceed up FSR 

223.1. This area is not hiked much and it 

offers the ATV rider some awesome 

views.

Thank you for your comment. No trailhead locations were 

analyzed near Rod and Gun Campground and is therefore 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2022

538/19. I would like to see the Forest Service work 

with SD GF&P to come to an agreement 

that would allow riders to travel to the end 

of FS 626.1 and continue on through the 

FSR 626 was analyzed in Alterative B, C and D as a 

seasonal road open to all. The Forest Service will continue 

to work other local governments but the continuation of 

this road onto SD GFP lands is beyond the scope of this 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2023
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

745

Higgins Gulch State Farm down to 

Higgins Gulch. By doing this you will 

create a nice ATV trail/loop that will use 

an existing road/trail. I was up there last 

year but at that time the SD GF&P [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks] had the gate locked. This loop 

would be a convenient loop with awesome 

views.

document.

538/20. I would like to see an ATV trail that 

would follow FS 626.1 up and over the hill 

connecting Higgins Gulch and Tinton. 

This is a challenging spot but not a 

problem for experienced riders. The trail 

that is currently located in this spot has 

been in use since 1975 or before. I realize 

it is near the closed area but with an 

approved trail perhaps it would be 

possible to allow ATV travel.

Due to resource concerns no routes were analyzed in that 

area and therefore beyond the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2024

538/21. An ATV trailhead near FSR 801.1 would 

make sense because many ATV riders 

come in from the Gillette/Sundance side 

and use FSR 801.1 to offload and head up 

to the Cement Ridge area.

No suitable National Forest land was located along FSR 

801.1 for development of a trailhead to park multiple 

vehicles with potential trailers.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2025

540/2. FS Roads #105.1D, #105.1C which are 

accessible from FS Road #105.1 (Wagon 

Canyon Rd.) are of prime concern to me 

to close off to motorized vehicle use. 

FS#105.1D provides access to headwaters 

of Middle Beaver Creek which has a 

ponds, marshy areas and yearlong stream 

flow all the way to its intersection to the 

east with North Beaver Creek. The area is 

a prime calving ground for elk and deer in 

the spring and summer months as well as 

a major breeding ground for elk in the fall 

of the year. This area is circumnavigated 

with FS Roads #222, #850.1, #804.1, 

#104.1 and #105.1 and is approximately 1 

FSR 105.1C was analyzed in Alt B D and E as road open to 

highway legal vehicles and in Alt C as road open to all. 

FSR 105.1D was analyzed in Alt B and C as a road open to 

all. It was removed from Alt D and analyzed as a road open 

to highway legal vehicles in Alt E. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. Motorized visitors will be expected to stay on 

the designated roads and trails once a use map is published.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2026
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

746

Ѕ to 1 ѕ miles across from any of these 

surrounding FS Roads. FS Road #105.1C 

has a trail at the north end of the road that 

ties across to FS #105.1D and also could 

access the wetland area. These two roads 

are the main deep accesses into the area 

but it can also be accessed from #105.1A 

with an old unused trail at the north end 

that joins into #105.1C. #105.1F and 

#105.1G also penetrate portions of the 

area but would be less conducive to 

allowing access to the marshy areas. 

Where #222.1E and 850.1E meet is an old 

trail that was closed with rock barricades 

5-6 years ago that ties into #105.1D. Since 

that time the rocks barricades have simply 

been driven around. This trail needs to 

stay closed to protect the area. It would be 

my utmost desire to have this entire area 

that is now circumnavigated with roads 

kept as a quiet area for wildlife and to 

protect the watershed at the inner core. 

Barring that option the least I would like 

to see is FS Roads #105.1D and C closed 

to motorized travel with the exception of 

ranchers with grazing permits in the area 

and possibly relatives of the two remote 

gravesites located in the Forest Service on 

Middle Beaver.

541/1. We are writing to ask that you keep the 

Forest Service road 150/1E open to 

motorized vehicles for use of Victoria 

Canyon. Without this access, our complete 

enjoyment might not be fulfilled and it 

would be unreasonably difficult for 

anyone to also get pleasure from this 

place. As you might or not might know, 

the entrance from Dark Canyon road is 

now private property at its opening. For 

everything taken in twice as much is taken 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the comment is 

referring to the route extending approximately one-half 

mile north beyond the end of FSR 150.1E. This route was 

not included in any of the alternatives because it is not in 

the Forest Service inventory, nor was it previously 

submitted as a user-requested route. However, based on 

comments received on the DEIS, the one-half mile 

uninventoried route has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2027
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

747

out. This goes for the canyon and 

accessible roads! As local climbers from 

Spearfish, we make a day trip to Victoria 

Canyon which is over two hours round 

trip to enjoy the canyon. It is the only area 

that has many exceptional and tall 

overhung routes and beautiful scenery. 

There are only a few dedicated delicate 

climbers that are willing to make the drive, 

hike, and endure the hard routes, so the 

number of people entering Victoria 

Canyon is minimal. Road 150/1E is the 

only accessible way to get to Victoria 

Canyon. We would much appreciate the 

road being kept open so that we can enjoy 

this beautiful wonder.

557/1. I own 40 acres within the boundaries of 

the BHNF on T1S R4E Section 12. The 

area is known as Union Hill and is a 

subdivision with 11 parcels, four of which 

have already been built. Our closest town 

to get supplies, mail, etc, is Hill City. As 

the crow flies, Hill City is only three miles 

away, however it takes us over 20 minutes 

get there because there is no direct route. 

Open 254.1F and MY65 year-round to all 

vehicles as shown on Alternative #B. By 

opening this road, residents of Union Hills 

will be able to cut four miles from their 

trip to Hill City. All residents of Union 

Hill would be very thankful to you if you 

opened MY65.

In Alternative C FSR 254.1F is a road open to all vehicles 

year-round, and MY65 is a trail open to vehicles <50" yearround. MY65 is not suitable for full-size vehicle use.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2028

557/2. Union Hill used to have a direct route to 

Hill City through 254.1A but it was cut-off 

years ago when the property owner 

fronting the Deerfield Road closed access. 

That access is still being disputed and may 

be lost forever since your maps do not 

include 254.1A all the way to Deerfield 

Road.

FSR 254.1A is open to highway legal vehicles yearlong in 

Alternatives C, D, and E. Routes through private property 

are not Forest Service jurisdiction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2029
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

748

557/3. Eliminate the trailhead at China Gulch 

Road. While trailheads are useful for 

unloading ATVs and Motorcycles, adding 

a new one will be unnecessary since there 

are already many other trailheads in the 

maps. The expense is probably better used 

on other projects.

The China Gulch trailhead is not included in Alternatives 

D and E. Parking areas provide a point of contact for 

better enforcement, education, and management. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2030

558/1. I own 40 acres within the boundaries of 

the BHNF on T1N 05E Section 18 (see 

attached map) [ATT 1]. My legal access is 

through an easement on the private 

property to the south. My comments 

pertain to your plan to open trails and 

roads around the property. Open 675.1 

and 675.1A as shown in map D. Open 

675.1N to reach the private property. 

However, these roads should be open only 

seasonally and only if adequate funding is 

established to build bridges and culverts 

across Middle Nugget Creek. If you are 

going to open 675.1N then I would like to 

ask that you open 675.1N to give me 

access to my property from the north [see 

ATT 1]. It is a short stretch on higher 

ground that should not have an impact on 

any sensitive areas.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2031

558/2. Alternative A misrepresents road 675.1 as 

being open. Today, this road is closed 

year-round on both sides by a series of 

permanent gates, tank traps, and boulders. 

It was closed seven years ago by the 

Forest Service after discussions regarding 

the sensitive riparian areas and the fact 

that the road has multiple perennial 

crossings. It came as a surprise to see this 

road shown as open in all the maps.

Alternatives A and E show FSR 675.1 as a seasonally open 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2032

558/3. The road 675.1 has aesthetic value because 

of the varied vegetation, the winding 

stream with waterfalls, and the old growth 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

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

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2033
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

749

trees. If the Forest Service decides to open 

675.1 it must set aside resources to 

incorporate appropriate stream crossings 

including the building of structures 

(culverts, bridges, etc) and other protective 

measures. The stream is significant enough 

that it carries brown trout. Direct effects 

to fish will occur where vehicles drive 

through the perennial stream or when inwater construction occurs. In August 

2007, Ranger Jeremy Rogers (Mystic 

office) conducted a site visit. During the 

height of the drought it was confirmed by

him that there is a perennial stream down 

that Gulch. The road crosses the stream 

multiple times creating boggy conditions. 

It was originally closed because of the 

damage it was creating. Please get Mr. 

Rogers‟ opinion before deciding to open 

this road.

Alternative E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

558/4. MY90 as shown in Alternative B is nonexistent on the ground. The area is very 

steep and impassable. There is very little 

evidence of any sort of trail there and the 

route has probably not been used in over 

40 years. To make this road usable, the 

Forest Service will have to invest in heavy 

equipment and road construction. Even if 

a road were to be built, it would face north 

and east and therefore be unusable for 

most of the year. Being that there are so 

many trails and roads already open it is not 

recommended to spend time and 

resources in building this new road.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2034

558/5. Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 

675.1H, 675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 

249.2A, 249.2E, and all other spurs and 

connectors. These trails are all currently 

closed behind locked gates. Please leave 

them closed.

Alternative E includes the FSR 675.1X system as seasonally 

closed routes. This is a mapping error, as these routes are 

currently closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E 

are closed in Alternatives D and E. Comment has been 

evaluated and will be considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2035
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

750

558/6. Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 

675.1H, 675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 

249.2A, 249.2E, MY90 and all other spurs 

and connectors. These trails while high 

and dry cannot be connected together 

because of the deep gulch (675.1) that 

separates them. There is no way for them 

to be connected and therefore will remain 

dead-end spurs. It is best to eliminate 

them altogether.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative E includes the 

FSR 675.1X system as seasonally closed routes. This is a 

mapping error, as these routes are currently closed 

yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E are closed

in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2036

558/7. Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 

675.1H, 675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 

249.2A, 249.2E, MY90 and all other spurs 

and connectors. There is already an 

overabundance of trails open north of 

Silver City and therefore it is not prudent 

to open any more south of Silver City. The 

heavy concentration of ATVs and 

motorcycles around this part of the Hills is 

bothersome. As a private owner I would 

prefer to not have any trails or roads open 

in the vicinity of this area.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative E includes the 

FSR 675.1X system as seasonally closed routes. This is a 

mapping error, as these routes are currently closed 

yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E are closed 

in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2037

558/8. Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 

675.1H, 675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 

249.2A, 249.2E, MY90 and all other spurs 

and connectors. Alternatives B and C 

propose opening over 15 trails and roads 

around my property [see ATT 1]. Today 

there is just one. I believe that our 

enjoyment and satisfaction of our land is 

being disproportionately disrupted with all 

these trails. It is hard to see any other 

private owner who is being affected to the 

degree that we are with all the motorized 

activity that you are proposing. Please 

leave the situation in this area as it is 

today. Do not add more trails.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative E includes the 

FSR 675.1X system as seasonally closed routes. This is a 

mapping error, as these routes are currently closed 

yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E are closed 

in Alternatives D and E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2038

558/9. Do not have any year-round connector 

between Hill City and Pactola/Silver City. 

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

2039
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

751

FSR 249 should stay seasonal from the 

intersection of FSR 251 all the way to the 

intersection of FSR 530. Today, the only 

way to go year round between Hill City 

and Pactola / Silver City is through Hwy 

385 or through Mystic (231.1 and 

Rochford Road). It should stay this way. 

The fact is that this area south and west of 

Silver City has steep gulches and narrow 

canyons. It is not conducive for yearround travel .The watershed feeds Rapid 

Creek. In the spring, the water coming 

down nugget creek (FSR 249) can reach 12 

cfs. It is not advisable to have vehicle 

traffic crossing the stream.

Comment

558/10. Do not have any year-round connector 

between Hill City and Pactola/Silver City. 

FSR 249 should stay seasonal from the 

intersection of FSR 251 all the way to the 

intersection of FSR 530. If you absolutely 

need to have a year-round connector from 

Silver City to Hill City, I would 

recommend you establish the current 

route FSR 251 to FSR 244 to FSR 249. 

Please leave 675.1A and 249 as seasonal 

only. They traverse lower elevations and 

therefore carry more perennial streams.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. FSR 

675.1A is seasonally open in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2040

558/11. I am in strong opposition to the way that 

Alternative C and D address the need for 

year-round connectors. The Alternative 

maps show FSR 249 as seasonal but opens 

675.1 for all vehicle year-round travel. 

This will have the effect of moving all 

year-round traffic through 675.1. 

Remember that 675.1 was closed seven 

years ago because of the damage that very 

light traffic was causing on the riparian 

areas. Opening it year-round to all vehicles 

and diverting more traffic through the 

road is completely unworkable and 

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1A as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as these routes are currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a corrected 

Alternative E. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2041
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

752

irresponsible.

558/12. MY13 was built two years ago when the 

Forest Service conducted a controlled 

burn in the area. It is not part of the 

inventory of trails. The trail serves no 

purpose and there is no need to add new 

trails to the system. [Eliminate MY13]

MY 13 was eliminated in Alternatives D and E. Route 

Specific 

Comment

2042

558/13. [Eliminate 244.1A and My13] MY13 and 

244.1A could be opened but only in the 

event that 675.1 were to remain closed. In 

that case MY13 and 244.1A would be 

helpful since they would serve as a 

connector through FSR 244.

FSR 244.1A and MY 13 were eliminated in Alternative D, 

and FSR 244.1A is seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles only in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2043

559/1. [See ATT 1] Great rock crawling in this 

area. Some trails we have been using form 

many years are not shown on Alternative. 

Map not detailed enough to show routes. 

These routes have been turned in but not 

shown. Advanced rock crawling and very 

sustainable routes!

Routes not shown on the Alternative maps were not 

analyzed and are outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2044

559/3. [See ATT 1] This trail used to be a loop 

but rock slide eliminated 4x4 travel. Still a 

great trail along with others in this area are 

not shown on alternatives. May need some 

maintenance due to downed trees. Most of 

the roads in this area should be open to 

mixed use not just 50" or less. Perfect 

areas for loops and lookout areas for 

families and handicapped.

Routes not shown on the Alternative maps were not 

analyzed and are outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2045

559/6. [See ATT 1] Many great trails in this areagood for loops and possibly a “learning 

area.” The sand area is a great destination 

because of the variety and beauty-good 

spot to educate and for others to learn 

about the history of the area.

Routes in this area were not previously submitted, and 

therefore are outside the scope and cannot be considered at 

this time. In addition, this area is under special use permit 

for non-motorized use. The sand area referenced is on 

private property and not subject to Forest Service 

jurisdiction.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2046

559/7. [See ATT 1] Two great trails shown but a 

good area to expand the trail system. Many 

mixed use and rock crawling opportunities 

in this area. Could expand to an “open” 

Routes in this area were not previously submitted, and 

therefore are outside the scope and cannot be considered at 

this time. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2047
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

753

area or used as a way to work with Forest 

Service to see how multi-use this area 

could be.

559/8. [See ATT 1] Amazing area for expanding 

trail system. Basically nothing is shown on 

Alternative for any motorized. A few good 

advanced 4x4 trails exist and have been 

submitted but not shown. The one 50" or 

less should be mixed use because it is a 

great trail with beautiful views and has 

been there for many years. This area is 

perfectly suited for an “open” area. Many 

existing trails along with quarries and 

sustainable riding areas.

Additional trails in this area will be considered by the 

Decision Maker and documented in the Record of 

Decision for this project.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2048

560/1. I am opposed to opening the five trails 

[not identified by respondent] to OHV in 

the Black Hills National Forest currently 

under consideration. I currently utilize 

these areas because they are restricted to 

OHVs. I am not opposed to OHV use in 

designated areas and believe the Black 

Hills has a wonderful trail system for 

OHVs. There are plenty of resources 

available for all to enjoy while respecting 

others choices and the future for all.

While it's uncertain exactly which trails are of concern, 

some non-motorized trails have been included in the 

motorized opportunities since they overlap with existing 

open motorized roads. Various numbers of routes were 

analyzed in Alternatives B through E. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2049

564/1. I am writing in regard to a road that is the 

access to my property and does not show 

up on the maps. It is only about 3/4 miles 

long. The road has been there for 100+ 

years and is partly on my property and 

partly on Forest Service land, 

approximately 50/50. It used to be part of 

the Jenny Gulch Road. In 1972 the Forest 

Service decided to build a new road up on 

the ridge. I gave a small piece of land to

them in order to build the road. The new 

road shows up on the map as 2613. I did 

receive the opportunity to tie into the 

road, which I have done and have 

This route was not considered in any Alternative since it is 

not a Forest System Road, and it was not considered as part 

of the trail system since it dead ends at private property. 

This road will need to be dealt with as an easement issue by 

the Northern Hills Ranger District to allow access to 

private property across NFS lands.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2050
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

754

continued using... I do not mind that it 

doesn't show up on the map, because it 

has been dead ended as per agreement and 

only goes to my property. I just want you 

to know the details as to why the road is 

there.

565/4. Fortunately, the Pleasant Valley area near 

us has very little traffic which should 

warrant that most existing roads and trails 

remain open.

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails off 

of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not designated as 

trails in the alternatives for the DEIS because of resource 

concerns, it is possible that some other routes could be 

considered for designation at some time in the future.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2051

565/6. [From ATT 1] Here are some examples of 

interconnecting trails with designated 

roads: Off of 504 from Wabash Spring Rd 

(781), there is a trail .7 mi. in and another 

.9 mi in. Both of these trails should be 

designated trails open to vehicles 50" or 

less in width (seasonally). They both 

intersect with 654 which then connects to 

Upper French Creek Road (286). If you 

have to stay on 504, it goes south and 

connects to 286 way down by Hwy 16 

which causes the rider to travel much 

farther north on the road instead of in the 

forest. If the ATV is not street legal, the 

rider would have to backtrack.

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails off 

of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not designated as 

trails in the alternatives for the DEIS because of resource 

concerns, it is possible that some other routes could be 

considered for designation at some time in the future.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2052

565/7. [From ATT 1] There is an existing trail off 

of 286 just before Diamond Road which 

drops onto 654.1A.

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails off 

of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not designated as 

trails in the alternatives for the DEIS because of resource 

concerns, it is possible that some other routes could be 

considered for designation at some time in the future.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2053

565/8. [From ATT 1] There are many existing 

trails and logging roads off of 413 between 

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

Route 

Specific 

2054
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

755

286, 284, and 284.1A. recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails off 

of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not designated as 

trails in the alternatives for the DEIS because of resource 

concerns, it is possible that some other routes could be 

considered for designation at some time in the future.

Comment

565/12. [From ATT 1] Please do not allow ATV 

riders to ride in ditches along Hwy 16 west 

of Custer.

The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over the 

ditches in the US16 highway right-of-way, and so cannot 

make decisions on uses allowed there. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2055

566/10. This trailhead [Top 50] is important to 

ensure the Black Hills Travel Management 

system remains socially acceptable, 

economically sustainable, and 

environmentally sound.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2056

567/10. This trailhead ensures access to the hills 

for the public use... whether they use it for 

education, hiking, biking or motorized 

activity.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2057

567/11. Gateway communities like this [Top 50 

Trailhead] are essential to the preservation 

of the forest and the public‟s right to 

access and use the land designated for 

these purposes.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2058

568/10. This project [Top 50 Trailhead] is good 

for the off-road community. It offers 

many benefits to those who will access 

Black Hills trails from the Piedmont area 

and appears to have [no] disadvantages 

whatsoever. Please join me in supporting 

this project.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2059

569/10. This trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] very 

accommodating to get to and its very user 

friendly for all types of hills recreation. 

Excellent location!

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2060

572/10. I strongly support the development of the 

Top 50 Trailhead Project as a gateway to 

the proposed BHNF OHV Trail System.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2061

574/10. This trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] is a 

much needed addition to my business. 

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

Route 

Specific 

2062
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

756

Approximately 60% of the guests at the 

Covered Wagon Resort come here to play 

in the hills. At this time their access to the 

trails is half highway, half ditch. It is 

dangerous, and will not be accessible at all 

from here soon. It is imperative that we 

do something to insure access for 

everyone and this is a perfect solution to 

the problem from this trailhead we can 

endure the proper education is available 

for touring the hills.

document. Comment

575/10. This [Top 50 Trailhead] would be great. If 

it could connect with the Piedmont Fire 

Trail Parking area as well this would make 

a nice loop and provide more 

opportunities to ride different trails. We 

were in Piedmont this year and spent 2 

weeks riding in the Black Hills, it would 

have been nice if more trails joined 

together. We were in Utah last year and 

many of their trails were connected

making large systems containing hundreds 

of miles of trails/roads. Within these 

systems the trails took us to points of 

interests and towns providing food, 

lodging and supplies.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2063

576/10. The same thing [as Top 50 Trailhead] 

should be developed for motorcycle trails 

in the Rochford area.

Rochford in on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2064

577/10. This [Top 50 Trailhead] will be a great 

asset to the Black Hills and surrounding 

communities!

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2065

578/10. There is a dispute between OHV 

promoters and locals in Piedmont about 

the OHV trails near Piedmont. The Top 

50 Rally Park near Piedmont is proposing 

a new off road trail [NH 9] through an 

undeveloped section line into the National 

Forest near Piedmont. The OHV want to 

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2066
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

757

have a trail that some of the locals don‟t 

want. The road the new trail would 

connect to is a road the Forest Service has 

been unsuccessfully trying to close for 

years and that the Norbeck Society has 

proposed be eliminated in the new travel 

management plan, we agree with t hem. 

We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] 

support the use of the Piedmont Fire Trail 

as primary access for OHVers to the 

National Forest in this area.

578/27. We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] 

request a buffer around all Inventoried 

Roadless Areas - attempt to have very low 

road and OHV impacts around them. We 

object to the rock crawler road just south 

of Beaver Park.

Buffered routes around all inventoried roadless areas are 

beyond the scope of this document. The rock crawler 

route U080156 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2067

578/29. Pole Cabin Gulch/Surprise Gulch: Within 

this area we [Prairie Hills Audubon 

Society] object to 803.1B, U710029, 

804.16 (Surprise Gulch/Rattlesnake) and 

to U710034 (Surprise/Guidinger). The 

only road allowed in this area should be 

the main route of Pole Cabin, and lower 

sections of Surprise Gulch road, and main 

route up to Cement Ridge from 

Rattlesnake and connecting to 801/101. 

All the crummy, primitive roads need to 

be deleted to consolidate a large SPM 

[semi primitive motorized], SPNM [semiprimitive non-motorized] and/or RNNM 

[roaded natural non-motorized] area just 

south and east and north of Sand Creek. 

Upper Surprise is a total mud mess in 

spring and Guidinger is not much better.

These routes were eliminated under Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2068

578/30. We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] object 

to 802.1A (Pole Cabin to Spotted tail); it‟s 

a not necessary spur, and eliminate it and 

consolidate a Roadless Area and get rid of 

This route was eliminated under Alternative D of the DEIS 

and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2069
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

758

one useless road.

578/31. One may wish to close either 802.2A near 

Welcome, either a seasonal or permanent 

or partial closure of 802.2A and join with 

the full closure of 802.1A to protect the 

south edge of a Roadless Area and protect 

Spotted Tail creek, which is between 

roads.

Forest Service road 802.2A accesses a private recreational 

cabin. 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2070

578/32. [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] Object to -

U710040 - leads off of Cement Ridge 

heading towards SD - consolidate a large 

SPM,[semi-primitive motorized] SPNM 

[semi-primitive non-motorized] and/or 

RNNM [roaded natural non-motorized] 

area - primitive area by getting rid of roads 

- leads down to large aspen area I think.

Route U710040 was eliminated from motorized 

opportunities under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2071

578/34. We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] are 

concerned for Rodger Shack springs area. 

It is part non commercial timber and 

grassland and part commercial timber. We 

request close all of or the western parts of 

272.2A (and also spur of 272.2B).

Forest road 272.2a is a main gravel road that connects to 

FDR 272. It is heavily utilized by both Forest Service and 

private landowners for access. Forest road 272.2b is a spur 

road that could be considered for closure. The Decision 

maker for this project will consider your request.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2072

585/1. The Black Hawk Trailhead appears to be 

on the edge of private land along Peaceful 

Pines Road and in Piedmont the Trailhead 

appears to be on the edge of the Forest 

near private land. I request a much more 

detailed map of all trailheads that occur in 

or near communities and abut private land 

and detailed discussion about the impacts 

to the communities from the 

concentration of OHVs downloading 

within their neighborhoods. I suggest you 

expand the discussion of what happens to 

people living in communities that host a 

trailhead and that you discuss the 

disruption to our quiet, but also the effect 

on our property values. Anyone who 

follows real estate knows that houses in 

The Peaceful Pines trailhead was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Comment has been evaluated and will 

be considered in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2073
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

759

cities that exist along routes transforming 

to busy arterial streets convert from 

residential to rental and business as the 

people who can afford to live elsewhere 

move inwards away from traffic. 

Residential neighborhoods invaded by 

highways, large streets, railroads or other 

transportation loads eventually downgrade 

and become seedier and less residential. I 

request that within the range of 

alternatives some alternatives provide that 

all trailheads don‟t occur near a 

community or private land, but occur fully 

insulated by over a mile of FS property. I 

request that the Forest Service do sound 

studies on an OHV trailhead noise. Your 

statistics on decibels is for one vehicle not 

many. You need to discuss the noise from 

many OHVs together.

588/16. Access near Piedmont: There is a dispute 

between OHV promoters and locals in 

Piedmont about the OHV trails near 

Piedmont. The Top 50 Rally Park near 

Piedmont is proposing a new off road trail 

[NH9] through an undeveloped section 

line into the National Forest near 

Piedmont. The OHV want to have a trail 

that some of the locals don‟t want. The 

road the new trail would connect to is a 

road the Forest Service has been 

unsuccessfully trying to close for years and 

that the Norbeck Society has proposed be 

eliminated in the new travel management 

plan.

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2074

588/17. The [NH9] trail invades the Stagebarn 

Canyon Complex and the Ricco Fire area 

that offer tremendous potential for 

hunting, elk habitat, horse-back riding and 

other non motorized uses that suffer from 

the harassment of recreational off road 

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2075
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

760

riding.

588/18. The section line and hillside the proposed 

route [NH9] follows is more than twice as 

steep in places as would be allowed under 

current Meade County standards. Giving a 

variance to construct a road in such an 

inappropriate location will create an 

ongoing maintenance and drainage 

problem that will eventually fall on the 

shoulders of tax payers.

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any routes selected would have 

mitigation measures in place for drainage. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2076

588/19. The Forest Service needs to solve the 

problems created by off road traffic 

accessing the Piedmont Fire Trail through 

downtown Piedmont. Having the Top 50 

Trailhead less than a mile away from the 

Piedmont Fire Trail will promote 

ATV/UTV travel between the two 

trailheads. That traffic will have no other 

choice than to travel down city streets and 

alleys, across the drives of private 

residences and down the road ditch of 

Sturgis Rd. That is what happened during 

the three days of the last Top 50 Rally and 

it will happen on a daily basis if the new 

route is approved.

Top 50 trailhead and the town of Piedmont are on private 

properties and not within FS jurisdiction therefore it is 

outside the scope of this document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2077

588/20. I support use of the Piedmont Fire Trail as 

primary access for OHVers to the 

National Forest in this area. The proposed 

Top 50 route is redundant, is utterly 

disrespectful of neighboring residents, and 

accesses a “play area” on unstable, easilyerodible Opeche Shale that has been a 

continuing area of abuse of our public 

lands.

Top 50 Trailhead is on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2078

588/22. Beaver Park: The rock crawler road should 

not be allowed in the MA [Management 

Area] 4.1 just south of the Inventoried 

Roadless Area. The MA 4.1 was part of 

the 1991 Wilderness proposal, which 

U080156 in management area 4.1 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D and 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Buffered quiet zones around 

certain management areas are beyond the scope of this 

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2079
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

761

asked for a larger version of Beaver Park. 

The FS should provide quiet zones in the 

areas around Roadless Areas and others 

areas identified for trails or Primitive, 

Semi-Primitive or RNNM [Road Natural 

Non Motorized] ROS [Recreational 

Opportunity Spectrum] class. Protecting 

the back-country areas is not enough; a 

buffer around special areas is needed.

document.

588/23. High End ROS [Recreational Opportunity 

Spectrum]: While I care about OHV 

impacts to communities. I especially care 

about protecting the back-country. No 

roads or motorized trails should be 

allowed in Primitive, Semi-primitive or 

Roaded Natural Non-motorized areas. 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas should 

not be placed near non-motorized trails 

such as the Centennial Trail.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural non-motorized 

settings on the Black Hills National Forest within the 

Forest Service's jurisdiction. Resource analysis is disclosed 

in Chapter 3. The Centennial Trail is currently motorized 

from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob. Proposed concentrated 

use areas in this vicinity were eliminated in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2080

589/1. Attached find a map with some roads of 

concern near Sand Creek, circled - remove 

roads please.

For the routes indicated on the map for the Bearlodge RD, 

these routes were considered for removal from motorized 

opportunities on Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2081

591/4. Nugget Gulch must be closed during 

winter months as this will leave our elk 

herd undisturbed.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of FSR 

254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2082

592/1. Closing of roads under the guise of 

“protection of habitat”: within 1/2 mile of 

my residence, Forest Service roads #s 396 

and 794 off of Sylvan Lake Road have 

been gated and locked to motorized travel. 

These roads have been used for logging 

and open for timber cutting in the past. I 

am for logging as it opens up the forest 

for better production of browse for deer 

and elk, but please do not insult our 

intelligence by stating the purpose of 

closing these roads and others is for 

“preservation of habitat”. Dragging one 

tree out by logging causes more harm to 

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2083
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

762

the habitat than any ATV would do in a 

lifetime. Horse travel which is expressly 

permitted and not confined to roads (as 

most responsible ATV and 4WD 

operators confine themselves to) does 

more damage to the environment than 

ATV travel.

603/14. I live on Two Bit Road, just outside of 

Deadwood and have enjoyed accessing the 

trails that connect Two Bit Road to Camp 

5 & Galena. None of the proposed plans 

[alternatives] connect to Two Bit Road or 

Galena. With any of these plans I would 

have to trailer my ATVs to get to Camp 5 

and would not be able to access Galena or 

the trails east of Galena.

The routes between Two Bit Road and Galena are on 

private property and not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this document. The FS will 

continue to work with other local governments so that 

access can be provided when possible.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2084

608/4. The BHMBA [Black Hills Mountain Bike 

Association] would like to raise concerns 

about plan [Alternative] C. The area 

around Shank‟s Quarry has been 

established as non-motorized area. Many 

trails have been created by mountain 

bikers and used by runners and hikers. 

This is an area that is in close to Rapid 

City, very accessible to these nonmotorized users and in very close 

proximity of Buzzards Roost.

Many of the motorized routes in the Shank's Quarry area 

were removed in Alternative D, and are limited to highway 

legal vehicles only in Alternative E.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2085

610/2. The modification [to Alternative D] 

involves our [Spearfish Canyon Society] 

request to “keep roads/trails closed that 

had previous USFS public decisionmaking” particularly in the Tinton area 

around Big Hill. We regret that USFS may 

be lacking institutional memory on the 

significance and benefits of these earlier 

decisions.

In both Alternatives D and E roads in the Big Hill area that 

are currently closed were removed.

Route 

Specific 

Comment

2086
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

763

013/3. 024/4. 024/6. 035/2. 

037/6. 038/2. 120/2. 126/12. 

126/20. 126/48. 126/52. 

126/75. 126/77. 126/79. 

126/84. 126/153. 126/154. 

126/160. 126/172. 126/175. 

126/176. 126/177. 126/182. 

126/185. 126/260. 126/269. 

162/3. 312/2. 316/7. 317/28. 

317/29. 317/30. 317/31. 

317/32. 317/33. 317/34. 

317/35. 317/36. 317/37. 

317/38. 317/39. 317/40. 

317/41. 317/42. 317/43. 

317/44. 317/45. 317/46. 

317/47. 317/48. 317/49. 

317/50. 317/51. 317/52. 

317/53. 317/54. 317/55. 

317/56. 317/57. 317/58. 

317/59. 317/60. 317/ 61. 

317/62. 317/63. 319/50. 

319/57. 319/58. 319/80. 

319/83. 320/14. 320/15. 

320/16. 326/47. 346/14. 

346/36. 347/2. 348/2. 348/3. 

348/4. 348/5. 349/2. 349/3. 

350/2. 350/3. 350/4. 350/5. 

359/8. 360/7. 362/25. 367/7. 

377/4. 377/5. 377/6. 377/7. 

402/2. 414/13. 414/18. 414/39. 

414/44. 414/47. 414/80. 434/4. 

447/10. 453/29. 453/30. 

453/31. 453/32. 453/33. 

453/34. 453/35. 453/36. 

453/37. 453/38. 453/39. 

453/40. 453/41. 453.42. 456/6. 

456/15. 456/17. 456/23. 

456/46. 456/54. 456/63. 

456/64. 456/78. 456/87. 

456/103. 456/108. 456/148. 

Attachments (Tables, Figures, Maps, 

Photos), associated with comment letters.

Attachments 2087
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

764

456/149. 456/150. 456/153. 

456/154. 456/155. 458/8. 

458/22. 458/24. 458/41. 

458/49. 458/65. 458/79. 

458/84. 460/16. 460/19. 

460/21. 460/23. 460/25. 

460/27. 460/29. 460/31. 

460/33. 460/34. 460/35. 

460/37. 460/39. 460/41. 

460/42. 460/44. 460/46. 

460/48. 460/50. 460/52. 

460/54. 460/56. 460/58. 

460/60. 460/64. 460/66. 

460/68. 460/79. 460/81. 

460/83. 460/85. 460/87. 

460/89. 460/91. 460/93. 

460/95. 460/97. 460/99. 

460/101. 460/103. 460/105. 

460/107. 460/109. 460/111. 

460/113. 460/115. 460/117. 

460/119. 461/43. 461/44. 

462/14. 462/19. 462/39. 

462/46. 462/47. 462/57. 

462/61. 462/64. 462/97. 

464/10. 464/35. 464/36. 

464/37. 466/1. 466/2. 466/3. 

466/4. 466/5. 466/6. 466/7. 

466/8. 466/9. 466/10. 466/11. 

466/12. 466/13. 466/14. 

466/15. 466/16. 466/17. 

466/18. 466/19. 466/20. 

466/21. 466/22. 466/23. 

466/24. 467/3. 467/4. 467/5. 

467/6. 467/7. 468/2. 469/6. 

469/7. 469/8. 469/9. 469/10. 

469/11. 469/12. 469/13. 

469/14. 470/5. 475/15. 475/16. 

475/17. 475/18. 475/19. 

479/16. 479/17. 479/18. 

479/19. 489/3. 490/3. 539/4. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Concerns and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

765

545/14. 558/14. 559/9. 579/2. 

579/3. 579/4. 579/5. 579/6. 

579/7. 580/4. 580/5. 580/6. 

581/4. 581/5. 581/6. 583/5. 

585/7. 589/2. 611/19.

036/. 147/. 193/. 266/. 290/. 

291/. 352/. 383/. 455/. 466/. 

582/.

Letters assigned a number, but containing 

no comments.

Letters 

Without 

Comments

2088

381/. 476/. 537/. 542/. 543/. 

550/. 551/. 552/. 553/. 554/. 

555/. 556/.

Unassigned Numbers. Unassigned 

Numbers

2089