Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-1

Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues, and 

Alternatives 

2.1 OVERVIEW OF CHANGES FROM DRAFT TO FINAL EIS 

• The Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Detailed Analysis was expanded to include 

additional alternatives identified in comments on the DEIS. 

• Minor changes to Alternative B were made to address new information and make corrections. 

• The Public Participation Summary was updated with information on public involvement for 

the DEIS. 

• The discussion on route maintenance was moved from Chapter 1 to this chapter and expanded. 

2.2 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter reviews the public involvement process, identifies issues, and describes and compares 

three alternatives considered for management of motorized and non-motorized travel. A summary of 

effects by alternative is also displayed at the end of this chapter. 

2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 

Sioux Ranger District Travel Management EIS public participation is summarized in this section. The 

summary describes public involvement, identifies persons and organizations contacted during 

preparation of the EIS, and specifies time frames for accomplishing goals in accordance with 40 CFR 

1506.6 

Public involvement includes the steps necessary to identify and address public concerns and needs. 

The public involvement process assists agencies in: (1) broadening the information base for decision 

making; (2) informing the public about the Proposed Action and the potential impacts that could result 

from the project; and (3) ensuring that public needs are understood by the agencies. 

Public participation is required by NEPA at three specific points: the scoping period, review of the 

Draft EIS, and receipt of the Record of Decision. 

Table 2-1 lists the public meetings conducted in conjunction with the process to date. 

2.3.1 PUBLIC SCOPING 

Scoping is a process used to help identify specific areas of concern related to the proposal during the 

early portion of the detailed environmental analysis. The initial scoping document (see Project 

Record) for this project was distributed on October 22, 2007 to approximately 287 individuals, 

government agencies, tribal governments, news media, businesses, and organizations that have shown 

interest in projects on the Custer National Forest, and in particular on the Sioux Ranger District. The 

scoping document was also posted on the Forest’s web page.The scoping document provided 

information on the purpose and need for the project, described the proposed action, and asked for 

comments. A news release advertisement inviting comments was placed in the Billings Gazette 

(Billings, MT) on October 29, 2007. News releases were sent to local newspapers including the 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-2 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Billings Gazette, Ekalaka Eagle, Fallon County Times in Montana, the Bowman County Pioneer in 

North Dakota, and the Nation’s Center News and Rapid City Journal in South Dakota, and radio 

stations in Rapid City, Bowman, Buffalo, Baker, and Sturgis. These media efforts helped to publicize 

the proposal and comment period. Interested parties were asked to comment within 30 days, which 

ended November 26, 2007. 

Public scoping meetings were held in Camp Crook and Buffalo, South Dakota, and Ekalaka, Montana 

in November 2007 to discuss the proposal (see Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1. Summary of Public Meetings 

Location Date/Time Number of Attendees 

Proposed Action Scoping Meetings 

Camp Crook, SD November 5, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 9

Ekalaka, MT November 7, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 8

Buffalo, SD November 8, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 13

DEIS Public Meetings 

Ekalaka, MT October 22, 2008, 6:00 pm 7 

Buffalo, SD October 23, 2008, 6:00 pm 4 

In response to these efforts, 22 letters, personal comments, emails, or phone calls were received. The 

analysis of electronic, written, and verbal comments preliminarily identified several potential issues. 

Three of these issues were identified as significant issues and were used to formulate elements of the 

alternatives (see Issues section below). 

2.3.2 NOTICE OF INTENT 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2008. The NOI 

stated that when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was distributed, the public would have a 

45-day comment period from the date when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Also, a news release will be provided to local news 

media at the beginning of the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be made 

available to interested parties identified in the updated District Travel Management Planning EIS 

mailing list. 

2.3.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR THE DEIS 

The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register October 3, 2008 

which began a 45-day comment period. News releases were provided to local news media at the 

beginning of the comment period. The DEIS was distributed to the public on September 26, 2008 and 

posted on the Forest’s web page. The Forest conducted two public open houses to provide 

information and encourage input on the DEIS (see Table 2-1). The public open house meetings 

provided the public with the opportunity for one-on-one discussions with interdisciplinary team 

members. In response to the comment period, the Forest received 11 comment letters, e-mails, and 

documented phone conversations on the DEIS. Three of the 11 letters were received after the 

comment period deadline. Further information on commenters, substantive comments identified in 

the letters, e-mails, and phone conversations, and agency responses to comments can be found in 

Chapter 5. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-3

2.4 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

One purpose of scoping is to identify the significant issues that should be analyzed in depth within an 

EIS (40 CFR 1501.7). The significant issues become the focus of the analysis and guide alternative 

development. All public scoping comments were considered by the interdisciplinary team and 

Responsible Official, and are documented in the project record. 

The IDT used the public comments on the scoping document, along with internal scoping, to develop 

a list of issues related to potential effects of this project. The IDT and the District Ranger went 

through a process to identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS versus those 

which are not significant and therefore only warrant brief discussion of why they are not considered 

significant. In general, the significant issues identified through that process represent those resources 

with the greatest potential to be significantly impacted by the project. Significant issues pertain to 

resources or other components of the environment that are of public value or interest and that are 

sensitive to potential changes in travel management. The Forest Supervisor concurred with the list of 

significant and other than significant issues. These issues were used to develop the range of 

alternatives and are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. The list of other than significant issues are 

addressed in Section 2.4 

No additional significant issues were identified during the comment period for the Draft EIS. 

2.4.1 RECREATION 

Concern about motorized recreation opportunities. Reductions in the amount of routes available 

for motorized use could reduce the opportunities available for motorized recreation, diminish the 

ability to retrieve big game using motorized routes, and reduce dispersed camping opportunities. 

Alternative A was developed to respond to this issue. 

Indicators: 

• Acres in rural, roaded natural, and semi-primitive motorized ROS settings within the 

District. 

• Miles of motorized system roads and trails to be designated on the District. 

Concern about non-motorized recreation opportunities. Increases in the amount of routes 

designated for motorized use could reduce the quality of non-motorized recreation experiences, reduce 

opportunities for non-motorized big game hunting opportunities, and reduce opportunities for solitude, 

away from noise generated by motorized vehicles. Elements of Alternative B were developed in 

response to this issue. 

 Indicators: 

• Acres in semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive ROS settings within the District. 

Concern about opportunities for off-highway vehicle operation. The use of unlicensed offhighway vehicles on roads is not consistent with State of Montana and South Dakota motor vehicle 

laws. Designating roads (as opposed to motorized mixed use roads or motorized trails) would limit 

opportunities for off-highway vehicle use. This issue was used in designing Alternatives A and B. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-4 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

 Indicators: 

• Miles of mixed use system roads in the project area. 

• Miles of motorized system trails in the project area. 

Concern about impacts on personal recreation experiences. The Forest Service and commenters 

recognized the potential for travel management changes to not only impact individual’s personal 

experiences and connection to forest lands, but it also has the potential to increase or decrease conflict 

between forest users, particularly between motorized and non-motorized uses. Alternative B was 

developed in part to address concerns such as these. 

2.4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Concern about protection of archeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and traditional 

practices. Actions associated with designation, such as converting non-system routes to system 

routes, have the potential to adversely impact the scientific, traditional, cultural, and intrinsic values of 

archeological, cultural, and historic sites. In addition, proposed actions could have an adverse effect 

to certain areas of traditional importance to local tribes. 

 Indicators: 

• Total number of cultural resource sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

• Number of priority asset sites within the APE. 

• Number of culturally sensitive sites within the APE. 

2.4.3 WILDLIFE 

Concern about disturbance of wildlife and impacts to wildlife habitat. Human use associated with 

system and non-system road and trail designation has the potential to disturb wildlife through noise 

and visual effects. Human use can disrupt activities such as foraging habits, resting location selection 

and duration, nesting, and denning. In addition, changes in road densities can affect the quality of 

wildlife habitat. The Forest Service identified and analyzed the effects of travel management 

alternatives on federally threatened, Forest Service sensitive, big-game, and other wildlife species and 

their habitat. 

 Indicators: 

• Effects determinations for federally listed threatened or endangered species, Forest Service 

sensitive species, Custer National Forest management indicator species, and other species 

of concern. 

• Deer and Elk – Motorized Route Density and Percent secure habitat within deer and elk 

habitat on the District. 

• General wildlife – Percent of land unit that is core wildlife habitat based on motorized and 

non-motorized routes on the District. 

2.5 OTHER ISSUES 

The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act states that agencies should discuss, “only briefly issues other than significant ones” (40 CFR 

1500.4[c]). The following issues were determined to not be significant issues because they did not 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-5

drive development of alternatives or major components of alternatives, there were no significant 

effects associated with the proposed actions, or both. 

2.5.1 WATER QUALITY, FISHERIES, AND AQUATICS 

The action of adding routes to the system has the potential to influence water quality indirectly 

through on-site erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Actions can also influence water quality 

and channel processes as a result of improper route location. 

Indicators: 

• Miles of actions that decrease risks on routes within the project area. 

• Miles of actions that increase risks on routes within the project area. 

• Effects determinations for listed Forest Service sensitive species and other species of 

concern. 

2.5.2 SOILS 

Adding routes to the transportation system on high and medium risk soils could increase the potential 

to compact, displace, or erode soils such that there is a loss of soil productivity. 

 Indicator: 

• Miles of motorized and non-motorized routes by high/very high and medium erosion 

hazard rating on the District. 

2.5.3 VEGETATION 

Concerns have been expressed about the effects of designating routes on native and rare vegetation 

found on the District. Designation of additional system roads and trails, along with the associated 

dispersed vehicle camping, has the potential to cause ground disturbance that could lead to noxious 

weed establishment and/or encouraging spreading. 

 Indicators: 

• Acres and Percent of potential vegetation impacts by moderate risk category for motorized 

routes on the District. 

• Weed susceptible Acres within designated road corridors within the project area. 

• Total weed infested Acres within motorized route potentially affected corridor. 

• Effects determinations for listed Forest Service sensitive species and other species of 

concern. 

2.5.4 ECONOMICS 

The functional economic area that surrounds the District consists of Carter County in Montana and 

Harding County in South Dakota and the immediate surrounding counties. For the two-county 

functional economic area evaluated, the total economic effects of recreation overall, and specifically 

recreation tied to motorized and non-motorized activities, are very small compared to the total 

economic activity in the area. Though changes in use attributable to the alternatives outlined in the 

economic report are difficult to estimate (see Project Record), the dominance of hunting as a 

recreation choice and the expectation that the number of hunters using the District is not expected to 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-6 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

change as a result of the alternatives (see Chapter 3 Recreation) means that the proposed travel 

management changes would have little effect on the overall economy of the two-county area. 

Given this information, no further discussion of this issue is included in the EIS. 

2.5.5 AIR QUALITY 

There is concern that the addition of routes to the transportation system may lead to an adverse impact 

on air quality. Encountering motorized use emissions and fugitive dust on Forest roads and trails 

could have an undesirable effect on the quality of a recreational experience. These effects are 

typically transitory in nature and not long lasting. There are typically good air dispersion 

characteristics and low inversion potential across the District. In addition, traffic is generally at lower 

speeds that result in less dust generation. 

Air quality across the District is considered good to excellent. All areas within and immediately 

adjacent to the District currently meet all state and federal air quality standards (MTDEQ, 2008 and 

SD DENR, 2008). There are no non-attainment areas in South Dakota. The nearest Montana nonattainment area for particulate matter is Lame Deer, MT (approx. 150 miles west) and Laurel, MT 

(approx. 300 miles west) with sulfur dioxide concerns. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives is expected to maintain air quality conditions due to 1) good 

dispersion characteristics across the District, 2) low inversion potential across the District, 3) low 

emissions from vehicles relative to other potential sources, and 4) reduced or equivalent route miles 

open to motorized vehicles under all alternatives compared to the existing condition. Compliance 

with State and Federal air quality standards would occur under all alternatives. Given this 

information, no further discussion of this issue is included in the EIS. 

2.5.6 CLIMATE CHANGE 

A January 13, 2009 Forest Service document titled Climate Change Considerations in Project Level 

NEPA Analysis states, “It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or 

multiple projects on global climate change and therefore determining significant effects of those 

projects or project alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale.” (USDA Forest 

Service, 2009) This project only has the potential to have indirect effects on global climate change, if 

any, and will not have any direct effects, because the scope of the project is limited to designating 

routes for motor vehicle use. Given this information, no further discussion of this issue is included in 

the EIS. 

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

In response to agency and public issues, two action alternatives were developed. Alternatives A and B 

were analyzed in detail along with the No Action Alternative. A general description of each of the 

alternatives is provided below. 

Table 2-4 summarizes important features and rationale for each of the alternatives. Detailed 

information on the alternatives is displayed on the comparison maps (see Map Package) and in the 

route specific tables provided in Appendix C. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-7

Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-9 are intended to provide readers with comparative information about the 

alternatives that is not strictly focused on changes from no action. For the action alternatives, the 

figures in the tables represent the total miles available under each table category if that alternative is 

implemented. The figures used for the No Action Alternative represent the current miles for each of 

the categories listed. 

2.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A (EXISTING CONDITION) 

Alternative A was developed in response to multiple public comments expressing a desire to designate 

most or all of the motorized routes identified in the 1999-2000 inventory of the District for public 

motorized use. This alternative consists of all routes identified during the 1999-2000 inventory, 

excluding: 

1. Routes that have been decommissioned, obliterated, or are otherwise unavailable for public 

motorized use based on documented decisions since 2000. 

2. Routes for which the Forest Service has no legal right-of-way for public use. This is necessary 

to be in compliance with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule guidance and to make this 

alternative viable for implementation. These routes were either identified as candidates for 

decommissioning/obliteration or, if an administrative need was identified, they were proposed 

for administrative use only. This affects 31 miles of routes. 

3. Two miles of existing administrative routes that would remain administrative use only. 

Consequently, Alternative A includes designating the majority of both system and non-system routes 

on the District for public motorized use. Primary motorized travelways would either be designated as 

roads, or where appropriate, as mixed motorized use roads. For the most part, all other routes would 

be designated as motorized trails. To maximize motorized opportunities, no season of use would be 

designated on any routes, and motorized trails would be designated for use by all motor vehicles. This 

alternative approximates the existing condition (e.g. motorized use of existing system and non-system 

routes). 

Designation of motorized trails under this alternative is intended to: 1) expand opportunities for 

motorized recreation opportunities, and 2) more accurately describe the characteristics and nature of 

these routes. In other words, routes proposed to be motorized trails do not display characteristics 

typically associated with roads, such as surfacing, engineering, and prescribed clearing widths. In 

many cases, the routes were not engineered, do not have any surfacing which has resulted in rutting 

and no defined drainage, and they may become impassable when wet. 

 

This alternative includes the following actions (see Appendix C for route specific actions and 

rationale): 

• Add 101 miles of non-system routes to the transportation system as either roads or motorized 

trails; 91 miles for public motorized use and 10 miles for administrative use. 

• Identify 0.40 miles of system roads (two roads) as candidates for decommissioning. 

• Identify 24 miles of existing system roads for administrative use. 

• Convert 210 miles of system roads to system motorized trails open to all motor vehicles. 

• Designate 116 miles of system roads for mixed motorized use. 

• Remove season of use designations on 148 miles of system roads. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-8 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

• Eliminate dispersed vehicle camping along 10 miles of system routes. 

The 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision authorized dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of motorized 

routes on the District. During the past eight years, the District has not observed unacceptable adverse 

impacts from this activity that warrants proposing a change to this activity under this alternative. 

However, due to safety and health concerns related to past mining activities, 10 miles of motorized 

routes would not be designated for dispersed vehicle camping in the North Cave Hills. 

The tables at the end of this section provide a summary of the elements associated with this alternative 

(Table 2-4) and a summary of alternative mileages (Tables 2-2 and 2-3). Appendix C provides a list 

of the route specific actions proposed under this alternative. 

2.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative B consists of designating a system of motorized routes that provides the public with 

motorized recreation opportunities, while addressing resource concerns and recreation opportunity 

concerns. Primary travelways included in this alternative would be designated as roads, or where 

appropriate, as mixed motorized use roads, and, for the most part, all other routes would be designated 

as motorized trails. Designation of motorized trails under this alternative is intended to: 1) expand 

opportunities for motorized recreation opportunities, and 2) more accurately describe the 

characteristics and nature of these routes. In other words, routes proposed to be motorized trails do 

not display characteristics typically associated with roads. They are in many cases very primitive. 

The Forest Service followed this general screening process to develop this alternative: 

1. System and non-system routes for which the Forest Service did not have a legal right-of-way 

for public motorized use were evaluated to determine if administrative use was needed. If 

needed, the routes were proposed for administrative use, if they were not needed they were 

identified as candidates for decommissioning or obliteration. 

2. Recent decisions on actions within the District were reviewed to determine if there were any 

new circumstances that would prompt proposing changes, and if not, then to insure that 

information about these decisions were incorporated. 

3. The remaining system and non-system routes were evaluated to determine if there was an 

administrative, utilization (including recreation), resource, or protection need for the route. If 

a need existed, system routes were proposed for designation and non-system routes were 

proposed to be added to the system and designated. If no need was identified, system routes 

were identified as candidates for decommissioning and non-system routes were identified as 

candidates for obliteration. 

4. At the same time, the Forest Service also assessed whether routes were parallel with each 

other, i.e. routes that were within 1⁄2 mile of each other. Where parallel routes existed, only 

one route was generally selected for public motorized designation. 

5. Finally, based on public input, a season of use that limited motorized travel on some of the 

land units was developed. The purpose of this measure was to provide additional wildlife 

security and increase opportunities for non-motorized hunting. Forest Service personnel 

identified adjacent routes that would create consolidated areas accessible by primary 

travelways and proposed restricting motorized travel within those areas during rifle big-game 

hunting seasons – October 15 to November 30. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-9

 

This alternative includes the actions shown in Table 2-4 (see Appendix C for route specific actions 

and rationale). 

• Add 66 miles of non-system routes to the transportation system as either roads or motorized 

trails; 23 miles for public motorized use and 43 miles for administrative use. 

• Identify 22 miles of system roads as candidates for decommissioning. 

• Identify 100 miles of existing system roads for administrative use. 

• Convert 72 miles of system roads to system motorized trails open to all motor vehicles. 

• Designate 57 miles of system roads for mixed motorized use. 

• Designate a season of use on 37 miles of system roads and motorized trails. 

• Remove season of use designations on 4 miles of system roads. 

• Eliminate dispersed vehicle camping along 10 miles of system routes. 

The 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision authorized dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of motorized 

routes on the District. During the past eight years, the District has not observed unacceptable adverse 

impacts from this activity, such as moderate to severe vegetation denuding or rutting that would cause 

water quality issues that warrant proposing a change to this activity under the alternative. However, 

due to safety and health concerns related to past mining activities, 10 miles of motorized routes would 

not be designated for dispersed vehicle camping in the North Cave Hills. 

Alternative B includes the designation of a combination of roads, mixed motorized use roads, and 

motorized trails. 

 

The tables at the end of this section provide a summary of the elements associated with this alternative 

(Table 2-4) and a summary of alternative mileages (Tables 2-2 and 2-3). Appendix C provides a list 

of the route specific actions proposed under this alternative. 

 

2.6.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative consists of designation of the existing system roads1

 on the District. This 

is different from Alternative A (existing condition) which proposes to designate both existing system 

and non-system routes. The No Action Alternative also includes the existing vehicle types and 

seasons of use currently in force on the District (see Table 2-4 for details). 

Designation of the existing network of system roads would not require any further NEPA and 

represents the starting point for any proposed changes to the routes or areas available for public 

motorized use. Based on this information, no action was determined to be designation of the existing 

system roads and trails. 

1

 The decision to use existing system roads as the foundation for no action stems from 2005 Motorized Travel Rule guidance, including 

the following: 

 The Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized Use (USDA Forest Service, 2005) guide prepared by 

the Forest Service to aid in implementing the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule affirms that the starting point for travel analyses is

the current network of system roads. 

 The Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide (version 111705) (USDA Forest Service, 2005) states, “There is no 

need to initiate a NEPA process to designate those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are already managed 

for motor vehicle use where that use will continue unchanged, or to retain existing restrictions on motor vehicle use.” 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-10 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

System roads that the Forest Service does not have legal right-of-way for public access to use will be 

included in this alternative, unlike the action alternatives. This is because not designating these 

system roads would constitute an action, which would be inconsistent with the premise of the No 

Action Alternative. 

Table 2-2. Summary of miles2 of roads and trails by alternative.

Route Designation Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Road: All types allowed 

 (motorized mixed use) 116 57 0 

Road: Highway legal vehicles 70 159 399 

Trail: All types allowed 280 84 0 

Public motorized 

use 

Subtotal 466 300 399 

Administrative use 36 145 2 

Total miles of system routes 502 445 401 

National 

Forest 

System 

Roads and 

Trails 

System roads not designated for public motorized 

or administrative use 0 23 0 

Non-System 

Routes 

Non-system routes not converted to system roads 

or trails 3 37 104 

Total Miles of Routes not designated or not 

converted for public motorized or administrative 

use 3 60 104 

Total 505 505 505 

Table 2-3. Miles of system roads and trails designated for public motorized use by proposed 

season of use designation for each alternative.

Season of Use Alternative A Alternative B No Action

Yearlong 466 184 251 

December 1 – October 15 

(Provide Non-Motorized Hunting) 0 116 148 

Total 466 300 399 

 

2 Mileage comparison between tables may not be exact due to rounding differences. 
Chapter 2: Public Particip

Table 2–4. Summary of Elements for Each Alternative 

Element Alternative A (Existing Condition) Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) N

Type of Vehicle Designations 

Roads: In general, primary travelways would be designated as system roads available for use by highwaylegal vehicles. 

Motorized Trails: A significant portion of high clearance vehicle roads (Maintenance Level 2) would be converted to system trails open to all motor vehicles. Mixed Use Roads: A limited number of roads would be designated as mixed motorized use where connections between proposed motorized trails were important. (The map package displays the type of vehicle designation for each route.) 

Same as Alternative A. System roads 

highway lega

Season of Use Designations 

Season of use for all designated routes is yearlong. Season of use for all designated routes is 

yearlong except for the following seasons of use. 

December 1-October 14 – A portion of the motorized trails on several of the land units would have this season of use designation to provide additional wildlife security and to increase opportunities for non-motorized hunting. See Appendix C and the map package for the specific routes involved. 

Season of use yearlong exceuse. 

December 1-roads in the Lthis season of additional wiopportunities Appendix C aspecific route

Dispersed Vehicle Camping Designations 

Access for dispersed vehicle camping would be allowed within 300 feet of all designated system roads and 

motorized trails on the District, except for 10 miles of 

motorized routes in the North Cave Hills. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alte

Administrative Use 

Roads identified for administrative use would not be designated for public motorized use for the following 

reasons: 1) the lack of legal right-of-way for public access, 2) to protect the public from hazardous situations, 3) existing administrative use roads at administrative 

sites, 4) prior decisions. Appendix C includes all nonsystem roads that would be converted to system roads and identified for administrative use, as well as any additional system roads that would be identified for administrative use. 

Same as Alternative A. Roads identif

not be designthe following administrativsites, and 2) pincludes only for administr

Page 2-11 Sioux Travel Mana
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-12 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

2.6.4 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

2.6.4.1 Administrative Exemptions 

Exemptions for off road travel as described in 36 CFR 212.51(a) would be allowed. Exemptions 

include administrative activities such as law enforcement, fire, emergencies, military operations, 

noxious weed control, permit activities, and other official business purposes. All such use requires 

authorization from or coordination with the appropriate Line Officer, detailing when, where, who, and 

under what circumstances motorized travel would be allowed. 

2.6.4.2 Administrative Sites 

System roads associated with administrative sites will not be designated for public motorized use, 

except those roads that provide access to visitor services. 

2.6.4.3 System Roads with Forest Service Maintenance Obligations 

System roads that the FS has a legal obligation to maintain will not be removed from the system, but 

may or may not be designated for public motorized use. 

2.6.4.4 Roads Under Permit 

In instances of special use permits for ingress/egress to private inholdings, a road will generally be 

designated for public motorized use when the Forest Service has road maintenance responsibilities. In 

instances of road use permits, a road may be closed to public use when the permit holder is assigned 

road maintenance responsibilities. 

2.6.4.5 No Legal Right-of-Way for Public Access 

Routes that the Forest Service has no legal right-of-way to access will not be designated for public 

motorized use. 

2.6.4.6 Designated Routes Required to be Part of the National Forest System 

In accordance with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, only system routes can be designated for public 

motorized use. If motorized routes that are currently non-system routes are desired for public 

motorized use, an action is required to add them to National Forest transportation system. 

2.6.4.7 Dispersed Vehicle Camping Authorized Only on National Forest System Lands 

Under alternatives that allow access for dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of a motorized 

route, access is only authorized on NFS lands, not on private, state, or other federal lands that may be 

within 300 feet of designated routes. 

2.6.4.8 Implementation 

In order to implement this project, the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule requires the Forest to make a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map available to the public, free of charge. The Forest also expects to install signs 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-13

on all designated routes, undertake an estimated two year education campaign regarding new travel 

management direction and rules, and patrolling. These activities, other than publishing the MVUM, 

may vary in extent subject to the availability of funding. 

Until the Record of Decision (ROD) for this project is implemented, the current decisions for the 

existing network of system roads remain in effect. The ROD and its implementation will supersede 

the existing network of motorized system roads when the Motor Vehicle Use Map is published and 

any associated orders are in place. 

Sign purchase and installation is a one time cost, but the remaining costs such as patrolling and Motor 

Vehicle Use Map production would be incurred annually. Annual funding levels may vary. 

2.6.4.9 Enforcement 

Public comment related to law enforcement issues focused on enforcing regulations, providing more 

law enforcement presence, and providing the public with signing and education. These comments 

tended to concentrate on motorized activities on the forest, and were raised by both motorized and 

non-motorized recreationists. A number of comments highlighted impacts associated with the lack of 

enforcement, such as resource damage and diminished recreation experience for other forest visitors. 

Some comments suggested that there was a need for additional law enforcement personnel to handle 

the increase of motorized use on the forest. 

Background 

2005 Motorized Travel Management Rule. Until recently, travel restrictions could only be enacted 

through two means on National Forests: the 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261 Subpart A 

(restrictions or general prohibitions), and the 36 CFR 261 Subpart B (prohibitions that are created 

through special order). 

 

The Subpart A prohibitions that apply to the use of roads and trails have historically dealt primarily 

with violations of applicable state laws that regulate licensing, noise, safe operation of vehicles, 

damaging roads or trails, interfering with road or trail use, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, 

careless or reckless operation or in a manner in which damages resources or wildlife (36 CFR 

262.12[a.]-[d.] and 36 CFR 261.13 [a.]-[i.]). These general prohibitions of the CFRs are considered 

“strict liability” prohibitions. This means that it is the user’s responsibility to know and adhere to 

these regulations without any additional notification or posting on the part of the agency. Recent 

changes to CFR regulations have added off-route motor vehicle travel to the Subpart A restrictions. 

(See further discussion below on this subject.) 

Most travel restrictions that historically prohibited some sort of travel on National Forest were 

implemented through the 36 CFR subpart B authority for special orders, specifically 36 CFR 261.53 

(special closures), 36 CFR 261.54 (use of Forest development roads), 36 CFR 261.55 (use of Forest 

development trails), and 35 CFR 261.56 (use of vehicles off Forest development roads). These 

specific sections of the CFRs permit the agency to prohibit certain uses of roads and trails to limit use 

to specific vehicle types and to prohibit off road travel. 

The situation that especially hampers enforcement of these special order restrictions is the 36 CFR 

261.51 (a) and (b) requirement for posting of these prohibitions. 36 CFR 261.51 (a) states, “Placing a 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-14 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

copy of the order imposing each prohibition in the Offices of the Forest Supervisor and District 

Ranger, or equivalent Officer who has jurisdiction over the lands affected by the order AND 

(emphasis added),” 36 CFR 261.51 (b) states, “Displaying each prohibition imposed by an order in 

such locations and manner as to reasonably bring the prohibition to the attention of the public.” The 

latter requirement becomes very problematic when attempting to post area closure or trail restrictions 

on the ground across large areas. The simple issue is that without adequate posting on the ground, 

special order restrictions are less enforceable. Lack of maintenance and vandalism of posted 

prohibition signing creates ongoing issues, and has the effect of negating or jeopardizing the 

effectiveness of special order closures. 

In 2005, the Motorized Travel Rule changed the legal authority for regulating off-route travel of motor 

vehicles. The final rule modified regulations in 36 CFR 295 which historically governed the 

management of OHVs on National Forests. In addition, the rule changed the enforcement authority 

for motor vehicle restrictions from 36 CFR 261 Subpart B: Special Orders to the Subpart A: General 

Prohibitions section, making motor vehicle violations in the future a strict liability infraction. This 

change relieves the Agency of the posting and signing requirements of 36 CFR 261 Subpart B and 

authorizes map notification to be the enforcement tool in the future. The decision mandates that 

Districts and administrative units complete a travel management review with public involvement to 

designate motorized roads, trails, and areas and produce Motor Vehicle Use Map that identifies these 

designations (36 CFR 212.56). Once this is completed, travel management restrictions may be 

enforced under Subpart A without being required to post and maintain prohibition signs in the field. 

The Forest Service’s Washington Office has established the format and the majority of the text that 

will appear on all MVUM maps prepared by the Forest Service. The text on these maps will include 

standardized information on the purpose and content of the map as well as a statement about 

motorized vehicle operator’s responsibilities and fines. The text states, “It is prohibited to possess or 

operate a motor vehicle on National Forest System lands on the Sioux Ranger District other than in 

accordance with these designations (36 CFR 261.13). Violations of 36 CFR 261.13 are subject to a 

fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months or both (18 U.S.C. 3571(e)).” 

Staffing. There is one full-time Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) stationed on the Custer National 

Forest. The District also has five permanent staff trained as Forest Protection Officers (FPO). FPOs 

have limited law enforcement authority and responsibilities compared to LEOs, but are capable of 

issuing citations for travel management violations associated with the prohibition created under the 

2005 Motorized Travel Rule found at 36 CFR 261.13. Increasing the number of LEOs or FPOs is 

primarily a function of Forest and District budget and priorities. Changes in the budget to facilitate 

increases in law enforcement capability can be accomplished through changes in allocations within 

Forest and District budgets, securing additional budget funding from within the Northern Region, or 

supplementing budgets with grants and similar funds. Based on past practices, additional funding 

would most likely be used to hire additional seasonal FPOs, rather than full-time FPOs or LEOs. 

Changes in Forest priorities to increase law enforcement capability would most likely occur through 

two options. First, the Forest can determine which programs, such as developed recreation, travel 

management enforcement, wildlife, etc., should be emphasized and allocate the funds to accomplish 

objectives related to those priorities. Another method is to prioritize the work of existing permanent 

and seasonal employees so that more than the current number of staff have the training and 

supervisory support to enforce violations of travel management decisions. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-15

Post-Motor Vehicle Use Map Enforcement 

This analysis will fulfill the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule requirements of review and public 

involvement for each of the action alternatives and no action. Upon publishing the MVUM for the 

selected alternative, the new 2005 Motorized Travel Rule regulations will become enforceable on the 

District (36 CFR 261.13). The MVUM would display those routes open to motorized travel by the 

public, along with the types of vehicles and seasons of use. The District intends to post route number 

signs on the open routes to correspond with numbers shown on the MVUM. These actions are 

expected to greatly enhance the ability to enforce travel management decisions. The regulatory 

requirements for posting prohibitions will no longer be applicable, and the problems associated with 

implementing and maintaining extensive prohibition posting will be eliminated. Hard-copy and 

electronic versions of the MVUM will be available to forest users and will identify those roads and 

trails available for motorized use by the public. This is expected to reduce confusion about where 

motorized vehicle use is legal. In addition, LEOs and FPOs will have clear authority for issuing 

citations for violations of motorized travel management decisions. 

Although new travel restrictions may be less complex, the changes would require a period of 

adjustment for Forest visitors. Inadvertent violation of new travel restrictions is expected initially, but 

is also expected to diminish over the first several years after implementation. Enforcement of new 

travel restrictions would require additional emphasis by the Custer National Forest, with assistance 

from the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and Montana Department Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, and the public. 

Having a clear, enforceable travel plan will facilitate being able to involve groups and individuals that 

have expressed interest in assisting the District with volunteer “patrols” to provide an additional 

presence in-the-field. Volunteers can provide District visitors with information about legal motorized 

use, avoiding activities that have adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources, and report 

violations when they are observed. 

2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM DETAILED 

ANALYSIS 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed 

in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided 

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives 

may have been outside the scope of travel management, duplicative of the alternatives considered in 

detail, incorporated into alternatives considered in detail, determined to be components that would 

cause unnecessary environmental harm, or are already addressed by law, regulation or policy. 

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for the 

reasons summarized below. 

2.7.1 MOTORIZED DESIGNATED AREAS 

The preamble to the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule indicates that designated areas “would have natural 

resource characteristics that are suitable for motorized vehicle use or would be so significantly altered 

by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate.” (Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, p. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-16 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

68274) This language was included in the January 2009 Forest Service Manual and Handbook. (FSM 

7715.73 (2)) 

The Forest Service considered lands within the Sioux Ranger District, but did not identify any areas 

that “have natural resource characteristics that are suitable for motorized vehicle use”. No naturallyoccurring tract of land on the District that does not possess natural resources that would be adversely 

impacted by long-term cross-country vehicle travel designation was identified. 

The Forest Service also reviewed District lands for areas “significantly altered by past actions”, 

including mining, vegetation management, natural disasters, or other activities such that they are 

suitable for motorized cross-country vehicle travel. There are some lands that meet this definition in 

the Cave Hills land unit. These areas are the result of past mining. However, these areas contain 

health and safety hazards in the form of radioactive soils exposed or deposited during mining 

activities. The Forest Service has taken measures to limit human exposure within these areas (i.e. area 

and road closures, silt catchments, water testing). Designating cross-country vehicle travel in these 

areas would be counter to these activities and pose a health and safety hazard. No other tracts of land 

that met this definition were identified. 

2.7.2 DESIGNATE GAME RETRIEVAL USE FROM 10:00 AM TO 2:00 PM ON ROUTES 

NOT OTHERWISE DESIGNATED FOR PUBLIC MOTORIZED USE 

This alternative is indirectly addressed by Alternative A, since all routes would be available for game 

retrieval under that alternative. Applying this approach to Alternative B was not considered practical 

or suitable. Affected routes would require additional signing, could create enforce issues, and could 

potentially confuse users. Furthermore, proposals in Alternative B to not designate a route for public 

motorized use or to have a season of use on a route were done to avoid resource impacts and enhance 

non-motorized recreation opportunities. Including this proposal to allow use of these routes would 

undermine several of these objectives. 

2.7.3 A MOTORIZED RECREATION ALTERNATIVE WITH A RECREATION 

OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) COMPARABLE TO THE SURROUNDING ROS 

AVAILABLE FOR NON-MOTORIZED RECREATIONISTS 

Initial ROS mapping for Alternatives A and B indicates that there are more acres in motorized ROS 

settings than there are in non-motorized settings. This appears to address the concern that there are 

more non-motorized ROS settings than motorized ROS settings in the project area. 

In addition, prescribing that a specific amount of ROS settings be provided is often not practical or 

prudent management. Limitations such as legal rights-of-way for public access and guidance 

associated with the Forest Plan are just two examples of circumstances that can (and should) drive the 

type and location of recreation activities that are appropriate on National Forest System lands. 

2.7.4 THE FOREST SERVICE SHOULD CONSIDER CLOSING THE LOWER SECTION OF 

ROUTE #381612 

The lower section of route #381612 (i.e. the portion below the top of the butte) provides the only legal 

access to the state land in adjacent Section 36, and there are no identified resource concerns with this 

section of the route. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-17

2.7.5 IMPLEMENT A 100 FOOT FIXED LIMIT FOR DISPERSED VEHICLE CAMPING 

The Custer National Forest has allowed dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of motorized 

routes since the July, 2001 Forest Order that implemented the 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision. Impacts 

observed in association with dispersed vehicle camping, if any, have been minor - limited to very 

localized, short-term effects. Consequently, it is not evident that there is a need to change the existing 

dispersed vehicle camping policy based on biophysical resource impacts. 

2.7.6 IDENTIFY WHERE PARKING ALONG ROUTES WOULD BE UNSAFE OR CAUSE 

RESOURCE DAMAGE AND DO NOT DESIGNATE 

Parking is not an activity that is required to be authorized separately from designation of routes. 

Parking within a vehicle length of a route is considered inherent with designation of motorized routes. 

Cross-country travel for dispersed vehicle camping does require designation. Initial scoping indicated 

areas in the North Cave Hills where dispersed vehicle camping could have human health and safety 

hazards. These areas would not be designated for dispersed vehicle camping in either action 

alternative. If any additional areas with either safety or resource impact issues are identified during 

the process, additional measures will be considered to address the issue. 

2.7.7 SEASON OF USE DESIGNATIONS RATHER THAN NO DESIGNATION, 

ESPECIALLY TO ADDRESS WILDLIFE NEEDS 

This alternative proposal was dropped because there were no routes that were not designated in either 

Alternative A or Alternative B due to wildlife needs. In Alternative B, route designation was based on 

specific objectives. Where those objectives could be achieved with a season of use designation, such 

designation was proposed. Alternative B includes all existing routes except those that the Forest 

Service does not have a legal right-of-way for public access. This alternative proposal appears to be 

addressed by Alternative A, and does not appear to be appropriate for Alternative B. 

2.7.8 SEASON OF USE DESIGNATION FOR ROUTES WITHIN 200 FEET OF RAPTOR 

NESTS 

The District will continue to manage and evaluate species of concern in compliance with the Custer 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies. The effects of the alternatives on 

raptors was analyzed and no significant impacts were identified, and therefore no mitigation measures 

were proposed. 

2.7.9 DO NOT DESIGNATE DISPERSED VEHICLE CAMPING IN AREAS WITH STEEP 

TOPOGRAPHY AND SENSITIVE RESOURCES TO AVOID POTENTIAL ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

This concern was indirectly considered when developing Alternative B. No site-specific areas of 

concern with dispersed vehicle camping were identified. In determining whether to designate 

dispersed vehicle camping, the IDT did consider: 1) that there have not been any specific issues 

identified during the last 8 years of this activity that indicate the 300 foot allowance has been an issue; 

2) the period of highest use on the District is during the fall, when conditions are at their driest 

reducing the potential for soil, water quality and similar resource impacts; 3) many sensitive areas are 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-18 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

not desirable for dispersed vehicle camping (wetlands, grades greater than 6%, etc.); 4) terrain tends 

to limit where visitors tend to camp; 5) typically, heavy use occurs in same location every year and 

these locations have not been in sensitive areas. 

2.7.10 FURTHER REDUCE MOTORIZED USE TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR 

SPREAD OF NOXIOUS WEEDS 

Alternative B would not designate routes that bisect the most problematic weed infestations. Weeds 

will continue to spread as a result of motorized and non-motorized resource management activities, 

recreational use, wildlife, and natural processes. In compliance with the 2006 Custer National Forest 

Weed EIS and ROD, the Forest Service will monitor routes for early detection of new weed 

infestations and treat them, and will treat road corridors to reduce the effects of weed spread. 

2.7.11 IMPROVE ENFORCEABILITY BY DESIGNATING ONLY SYSTEM ROADS SO THAT 

ALL MOTORIZED VEHICLES HAVE LICENSE PLATES FOR IDENTIFICATION 

Motor vehicle enforcement will be improved simply by having a Motor Vehicle Use Map - i.e. an 

enforceable travel plan, which does not presently exist. The Forest does not believe that eliminating 

opportunities for motorized trails and mixed motorized use roads in an attempt to ensure that every 

vehicle may potentially be identifiable by a license plate at the time an illegal act is committed is not 

warranted. By and large, the majority of forest visitors are law abiding – the percentage of violation 

notices is very small compared to the total number of forest visitors. When taken into consideration 

together, the above items suggest that the trade-off in lost recreation opportunities compared to the 

gain in potential enforceability by only designating system roads open to highway legal vehicles (i.e. 

licensed vehicles) is not desirable or warranted. 

2.7.12 ROAD #38161 SHOULD BE CLOSED OR NOT DESIGNATED AS A SYSTEM ROAD OR 

TRAIL TO PREVENT NEW ROUTES FROM BEING CREATED AND IMPACTING 

FIGHTING BUTTE 

There are no identified resource impacts associated with route #38161 and this route is known to 

access an area with traditional camping and picnicking. Assuming that designation of the route for 

public motorized use will result in the creation of new routes onto Fighting Butte is speculative. 

2.7.13 THERE SHOULD BE NO NET LOSS OF MOTORIZED OPPORTUNITIES TO 

COUNTER THE CUMULATIVE LOSS OF OTHER MOTORIZED OPPORTUNITIES 

No net loss of motorized opportunities is assumed to mean no net loss in the current miles of system 

and non-system motorized routes on the District. Crafting an alternative that yielded no net loss of 

motorized opportunities would require construction of new motorized routes to offset routes that 

cannot legally be designated (no legal public right-of-way) or are irresponsible to designate (human 

health and safety or resource concerns). Construction of routes is outside the scope of this process; 

therefore technically it is not feasible under this proposal to create an alternative that will result in no 

net loss of motorized opportunities as defined above. However, the addition of nearly all of the nonsystem motorized routes on the District is considered in Alternative A. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-19

2.7.14 PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MOTORIZED OPPORTUNITIES BY DESIGNATING 

ROUTES CLOSED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ACCOMMODATE A FULL-SIZE 

VEHICLE FOR 50 INCH WIDE OR LESS VEHICLES 

In Alternative B, routes that were not designated were done so because of resource concerns; human 

health and safety concerns; the route has naturally re-vegetated; the route is parallel to another 

motorized route; or because there was no legal public right-of-way. Designating these routes for 

motorized use would be counter to the rationale used to develop Alternative B. In Alternative A, only 

a limited number of routes were not designated, which would not be designated regardless of vehicle 

type (i.e. no legal public right-of-way). 

2.7.15 CONSIDER ALL IDENTIFIED MOTORCYCLE TRACK FOR DESIGNATION AS 

MOTORIZED TRAILS 

The Tri-State OHV considered game and livestock trails with motorized "regular use and continuous 

passage over a period of years" as motorized routes. No single track routes of this nature have been 

identified on the Sioux RD. 

2.7.16 THE FOREST SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZED TRAILS TO PROVIDE EQUAL AMOUNTS OF OPPORTUNITIES 

Forest Service policy is to provide a range of recreation opportunities in compliance with the Forest’s 

Land and Resource Management Plan. The Custer NF Land and Resource Management Plan does not 

mandate that equal quantities of recreational opportunities be provided across the Forest. 

Furthermore, balancing the miles of motorized and non-motorized trail would be arbitrary because it 

would not be a decision based on considerations such as resource availability and suitability, demand, 

agency policy, laws, and regulations. 

2.7.17 USE A ONE MILE BUFFER (RATHER THAN .5 MILES) TO SCREEN OUT 

PARALLEL ROUTES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NON-MOTORIZED 

OPPORTUNITIES AND WILDLIFE SECURITY 

All of the land units achieve the minimum 30% during the critical big-game hunting season, except 

for one land (South Cave Hills) unit which is unlikely to achieve 30% even if one mile buffers were 

used given the size of the unit and proximity of the access routes. In addition, the .5 mile buffer used 

for determining wildlife security is based on established, peer-reviewed protocol. There is no 

scientific basis for using different protocol. 

It would be extremely costly to gather user information to determine if there is a need for more nonmotorized opportunities. It is questionable if there is a need for additional non-motorized 

opportunities given the limited amount of observed motorized use in much of the area outside of the 

fall hunting seasons. 

2.7.18 THERE SHOULD BE NO NET GAIN OF SYSTEM ROUTES 

The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule permits the addition of non-system routes to the Forest 

transportation system. It does not require maintaining the existing miles of routes on a District or 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-20 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Forest, but rather requires designation of system routes based on consideration of a number of criteria 

including, such as natural and cultural resource impacts. 

2.7.19 FURTHER REDUCE MILES OF ROUTES IN SOIL MAPPING UNITS IDENTIFIED AS 

HAVING A HIGH RISK OF SOIL EROSION TO REDUCE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 

In compliance with NEPA, this EIS includes sufficient analysis of these two "other issues", water 

quality and soils, to substantiate that the proposed actions would not have significant impacts to these 

resources. This proposal was not intended to resolve all issues with existing routes, nor was the 

analysis for soils and water quality intended to pinpoint what effect specific routes proposed to be 

added to the system may have on individual watersheds. It was used to indicate if the proposal moved 

water quality and soils impacts in a beneficial or adverse direction on a watershed basis. 

Opportunities to further reduce risks and/or mitigate impacts that are outside the scope of this analysis 

are identified in Appendix D. 

2.7.20 DO NOT ADD ROUTES OR FURTHER REDUCE MILES OF ROUTES IN MODERATE 

AND HIGH RISK SOILS AND THAT HAVE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS IN HIGH 

RISK WATERSHEDS, TO REDUCE IMPACTS IN THOSE WATERSHEDS. 

In compliance with NEPA, this EIS includes sufficient analysis of these two "other issues", water 

quality and soils, to substantiate that the proposed actions would not have significant impacts to these 

resources. This proposal was not intended to resolve all issues with existing routes, nor was the 

analysis for soils and water quality intended to pinpoint what effect specific routes proposed to be 

added to the system may have on individual watersheds. It was used to indicate if the proposal moved 

water quality and soils impacts in a beneficial or adverse direction on a watershed basis. 

Opportunities to further reduce risks and/or mitigate impacts that are outside the scope of this analysis 

are identified in Appendix D. 

2.8 COMPARISON OF EFFECTS 

Table 2-9 (found at the end of the chapter) provides a summary of the effects of implementing each 

alternative. Information in Table 2-9 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of 

effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Detail 

effects analysis for each alternative is found in Chapter 3. 

2.8.1 ROUTE MAINTENANCE NEEDS 

Introduction 

Commentors indicated concerns that adding system roads and trails could increase the need for 

maintenance. Commentors also questioned whether converting a road to a trail would mean the route 

would receive less maintenance. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule also includes a criterion related to 

maintenance needs that must be considered. This section is intended to address that criterion by 

considering the maintenance of motorized routes. 

Regulatory Framework 

Road Maintenance guidelines are prescribed in Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 Road System 

Operations and Maintenance Handbook and Forest Service Manual 7730 -Road Operation and 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-21

Maintenance. Trail Maintenance guidelines are prescribed in Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 Trails 

Management Handbook and Forest Service Manual 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related 

Resource Management, Chapter 2350 – Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities. The 

Forest’s road and trail activities are conducted in compliance with these directives. 

The Forest is required to maintain National Forest System roads in a condition to safely accommodate 

intended use in accordance with the maintenance objective for that road. Trail maintenance is 

intended to preserve the trail and related facilities to meet established objectives for that trail. 

Maintenance Standards 

The Forest Service has established national maintenance standards/criteria for both roads and trails. 

The standards/criteria establish the corporate level of quality the Forest Service expects to provide. 

These standards/criteria include key measures related to health; safety; facility conditions; and 

compliance with laws, regulations, and policies. The trail standards also identify critical standards 

that if not met would pose “a high probability of immediate or permanent loss to people or property.” 

Immediate actions must be taken to correct or mitigate the problem if one arises, such as closing the 

route to the public until the issue is addressed. 

Each route is assigned a maintenance level or trail class which reflects the routes operation and 

maintenance standards/criteria. The higher the maintenance level or trail class number (1-5) the higher 

the standard of maintenance. 

Maintenance Funding Overview 

Based on past funding levels, the Forest is unlikely to have sufficient funding to maintain to standard 

all of the routes necessary for the administration, utilization, and protection of the District for the 

foreseeable future. As a result, the Forest prioritizes maintenance work and routinely applies for 

additional/supplemental funding to increase the number of miles of road and trail maintenance 

completed. 

Road and trail maintenance funding can only be applied to system roads and trails. Similarly, road 

funding can only be used for road maintenance, and trail funding can only be used for trail 

maintenance. Because the District does not currently have any system trails, trail maintenance funds 

have not been expended on the District in the past. The Forest receives an annual trail maintenance 

allocation, which would be the source for any trail maintenance conducted on the District, in addition 

to any supplemental funding (ex: state trails grants) that can be secured. 

Maintenance does not occur on every mile of road or trail every year. As mentioned above, 

maintenance is prioritized across the Forest and accomplished based on the funding received. Over the 

past 6 years, the Forest annual road maintenance accomplishment ranges any where from 0 to 4% of 

high clearance vehicle roads (Maintenance Level 2), 21 to 39% of passenger vehicle suitable roads 

(Maintenance Level 3) on the District. The following table displays the miles of road receiving 

annual maintenance on the District from 2001 to 2007. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-22 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Table 2-5. Summary of Road Miles Receiving Annual Maintenance3 by Maintenance Level. 

Fiscal Year 

Sioux District (October 1 – September 30) 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

2 - High Clearance Vehicles - - 12 6 1 - 10 

3 - Suitable For Passenger Cars 39 21 31 22 35 30 27 

Evaluation Methodology 

There are many factors to consider when determining maintenance needs such as volume, type, class, 

and composition of traffic. For this evaluation, the miles of system routes by maintenance level/trail 

class and route designation was used to determine the relative maintenance needs for each alternative. 

Evaluation of Route Maintenance Needs 

The following table displays the miles of motorized system routes by the proposed road maintenance 

level/trail class and the proposed route designation for each alternative. 

Table 2-6. Miles of System Routes by Maintenance Level/Trail Class and Route Designation for 

Each Alterative

Maintenance Level or 

Trail Class Trail Class 2 Road Maintenance Level 2 Road Maintenance Level 3 

Route Designation Open to Public 

Motorized Use 

Open to Public 

Motorized Use 

Administrative 

Use 

Open to Public 

Motorized Use 

Administrative 

Use 

Alternative A 283 78 36 105 0 

Alternative B 84 111 146 105 0 

No Action 0 288 2 111 0 

Routes designated for administrative use would only be used by Forest Service personnel, or by 

permit holders, contractors, etc. through a written authorization issued under federal law or regulation. 

These routes have extremely low traffic volumes and are controlled by the authorizing permit which 

in some cases also requires the permittee or contractor to provide route maintenance. For these 

reasons, route maintenance needs for routes designated for administrative use are typically much less 

than comparable routes designated for public motorized use. 

The miles of Maintenance Level 3 routes designated for public motorized use are the same for 

Alternatives A and B. The No Action Alternative includes 6 more miles than the action alternatives. 

In general, Trail Class 2 and Maintenance Level 2 routes have similar maintenance needs based on the 

roads and trails maintenance handbooks (FSH 7709.59 and FSH 2309.18). 

Given the above information, comparison of maintenance needs by alternative will be based on miles 

of routes available for public motorized use. Miles of administrative use routes is not included 

because generally these routes require less maintenance and maintenance costs are in some cases 

offset. 

 

3

 Based on data specific to maintenance that were readily available. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-23

Table 2-7. Summary of Miles of Maintenance Level 2 and Trail Class 2 

System Routes Open to Public Motorized Use for each Alterative.

Maintenance 

Level/Class Trail Class 2 Road Maintenance Level 2 Total 

Alternative A 283 78 361 

Alternative B 84 111 195 

No Action 0 288 288 

By combining Trail Class 2 and Maintenance Level 2 routes designated for public motorized use, a 

comparison of alternatives can be made. As the above table indicates, Alternative A has the most 

miles designated for public motorized use (361 miles) and therefore the most potential maintenance 

need. The No Action Alternative falls between the two action alternatives at 288 miles. Alternative B 

would be roughly half the amount of Alternative A (195 miles) and two-thirds that of No Action 

Alternative. 

2.9 MONITORING 

Monitoring is one of the cornerstones of contemporary adaptive management. Without monitoring, it 

is difficult to evaluate whether or not management actions are effective or determine how actions 

might be modified to improve effectiveness. Monitoring is vital to inform the Forest Service whether 

or not there is a need to change or make new travel management decisions. Changes to the system of 

designated routes may include new routes, removing designations, or changing designated vehicle 

classes or seasons of use. Revisions to designations are governed by 36 CFR 212.54. In most cases, 

these changes (including connected actions and cumulative effects) can be addressed on a site-specific 

basis and may not trigger reconsideration of decisions governing the entire system of designated 

roads, trails and areas on an administrative unit or a ranger district. 

Travel management monitoring would help answer questions, such as: 

 Are the motorized travel designations having unanticipated impacts, adverse or beneficial, on 

water quality, soils, fisheries, aquatic species, and vegetation? 

 Are the motorized travel designations having impacts, adverse or beneficial, on cultural 

resources? 

 Are the motorized travel designations effective and therefore resulting in the anticipated 

effects on wildlife and recreation opportunities? 

There are two principal sources of new information that the Forest Service may consider in 

determining if there is a need to modify travel management decisions: 1) monitoring – formal and 

informal monitoring, including resource specialist’s field observations, and 2) public feedback. 

Formal and informal monitoring is addressed further below. Public feedback may either be solicited 

by the agency or initiated by the public. Public input on the travel management program of work, 

designations, and route proposals is encouraged and welcomed. 

Travel management monitoring will be tiered to Forest Plan monitoring activities. The level and 

intensity of monitoring will be adapted as needed based on changing needs, findings, and budget 

levels. The results of monitoring and public feedback will be reviewed annually, at a minimum, 

during preparation of the MVUM for the subsequent year. If the District Ranger determines that a 

change to District travel management should be investigated, the process outlined under Forest 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-24 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 18 (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)) will be used to review 

the new information and determine what type of documentation, if any, or other compliance would be 

appropriate to address any proposed change. 

Travel management monitoring will primarily focus on two types of monitoring activites: 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. 

2.9.1 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING 

This monitoring activity will focus on compliance with Forest Service travel management 

implementation requirements, namely (1) producing the annual MVUM and (2) installing and 

maintaining route markers (road and trail numbers) that are consistent with the MVUM. 

Monitoring would consist of: (1) reviewing whether or not the annual MVUM was produced and 

made available to the public in both hardcopy and web-based formats in a timely manner, and (2) 

reviewing whether or not route signing markers have been installed and are reasonably being 

maintained, i.e. deferred route marker maintenance is not accumulating. 

2.9.2 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING 

This monitoring activity will focus on evaluating the effectiveness of management and enforcement in 

achieving the desired outcomes from this decision, including success at restricting motor vehicle use 

to designated routes. 

The following table contains the travel management enforcement monitoring measure identified in the 

Forest Plan, which is anticipated to be a primary source of monitoring information used to determine 

if there is a need for change in the future. 

Table 2-8. Forest Plan Travel Management Effectiveness Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Item Data Source Monitoring Objective 

Variability Which 

Would Initiate 

Further Evaluation 

Corrective 

Measures 

Off-roadvehicle use 

and damage 

and Travel 

Plan 

effectiveness. 

(A-3) 

Travel Plan 

(violation and 

incident reports, 

number of 

variances granted). 

To determine compliance 

with travel plan direction 

(and, therefore, 

effectiveness in achieving 

resource protection 

objectives). To assist in 

determination of 

effectiveness of restriction 

methods, public 

understanding of travel 

plan direction. 

Conflicts with Forest 

Management Area 

goals. 

Review situation for 

change in 

implementation 

techniques such as 

signing, barriers, 

public contacts, etc. 

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act through the Montana Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) and the South Dakota PA established with each State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) is required, and includes monitoring of sites for travel management effects. Cultural resource 

monitoring will be implemented within the Project Area in order to assess the effectiveness of this 

project relative to the protection and preservation of significant heritage resources. This cultural 

resource monitoring program will be based upon an adaptive management approach that may 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-25

necessitate specific changes if site disturbances are observed. Should detrimental effects occur, site 

evaluative testing and formal consultation with the Montana SHPO or the South Dakota SHPO to 

identify measures to reduce, remove or mitigate these effects will be necessary. These monitoring 

results will be presented in the Annual Heritage Reports required by the MT PA and SD PA. 

Additional effectiveness monitoring information is expected to be generated through other ongoing 

monitoring efforts such as the Forest’s annual weed monitoring program and the periodic Best 

Management Practices audits. 

2.9.3 MONITORING PLAN 

The District Ranger will develop an implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan within one 

year of the date of the decision for this project. The monitoring plan will identify monitoring items 

that are most critical to determining if implementation of the decision is satisfactory and if the 

decision has been effective. The plan may include criteria similar to the Forest Plan, such as potential 

data sources/measures, monitoring objectives, thresholds or indicators that change may be needed, and 

potential corrective measures. 

2.10 FOREST SERVICE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Forest Service preferred alternative is Alternative B. Alternative B is the “preferred” alternative 

based on Responsible Official and interdisciplinary team deliberations. This alternative provides the 

road system necessary for the administration, utilization, and administration of the District. It appears 

to respond best to the significant issues related to providing motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities, reduced wildlife disturbance and impacts on habitat, and protection of heritage 

resources based on the analysis in Chapter 3. In particular, Alternative B would provide more nonmotorized hunting opportunities than Alternative A or the No Action Alternative while still 

maintaining ample opportunities for motorized recreation. Other environmental impacts, such as 

water quality, soils, and fisheries, would also generally be reduced under Alternative B when 

compared to Alternative A and the No Action Alternative. 

The Responsible Official (the Custer Forest Supervisor) may select any combination of travel 

management actions as presented and analyzed within this document. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-26 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Table 2-9. Comparison of Effects by Alternative 

Feature Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Recreation

Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Rural ROS (During SOU4/Outside SOU) 2,986/NA5 2,986/2,986 2,986/2,986 

Acres of Roaded Natural ROS (During SOU/Outside SOU) 54,512/NA 53,213/53,253 55,222/55,222 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 109,312/NA 110,510/59,768 119,488/76,668 

Miles of motorized roads and trails (During SOU/Outside SOU) 466/NA 300/184 399/251 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 10,948/NA 10,948/61,690 0/42,820 

Opportunity for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation 

Miles of Mixed Use System Roads 116 57 0 

Miles of Motorized System Trails 280 84 0 

Total Miles available for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation 396 141 0 

Cultural Resources

Total Number of Cultural Resource Sites within the APE 346 252 311 

Number of Priority Assets Sites within the APE 38 35 76 

Number of Culturally Sensitive Sites within the APE 97 68 30 

Wildlife

Threatened or Endangered Wildlife Species

Number of species with No Jeopardy 1 1 1 

Number of species with potential to effect, but not likely to 

adversely affect. 1 1 1 

Number of species with potential to effect, and likely to adversely 

affect 0 0 0 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Number of Species with Beneficial Impact 0 0 0 

Number of Species with No Impact 13 13 13 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or Habitat 

but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or 

Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 9 9 9 

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal listing or 

loss of viability 0 0 0 

Management Indicator Species

Number of Species with Positive Effects 0 0 0 

Number of Species with Neutral Effects 16 16 16 

Number of Species with Negative Effects 0 0 0 

Deer & Elk 

Chalk Buttes 1.16/NA 0.70/0.70 0.99/0.99 

Ekalaka Hills 2.21/NA 1.27/0.90 1.83/1.83 

Long Pines 1.93/NA 1.11/0.44 1.74/0.40 

East Short Pines 1.19/NA 0.69/0.69 1.22/1.22 

West Short Pines 1.76/NA 1.76/1.76 1.76/1.76 

North Cave Hills 1.60/NA 1.14/0.85 1.42/1.42 

South Cave Hills 1.95/NA 1.25/1.25 1.55/1.55 

Motorized Route Density in 

miles per square mile 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 

Slim Buttes 1.12/NA 0.94/0.66 0.82/0.82 

 

4

 SOU = Season of Use 

5 NA = Not Applicable
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-27

Table 2-9. Comparison of Effects by Alternative 

Feature Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Chalk Buttes 50/NA 57/57 36/36 

Ekalaka Hills 11/NA 26/43 8/8 

Long Pines 6/NA 28/65 8/64 

East Short Pines 34/NA 44/44 13/13 

West Short Pines 0/NA 0/0 0/0 

North Cave Hills 7/NA 24/35 11/11 

South Cave Hills 7/NA 17/17 7/7 

Percent secure habitat within elk 

habitat 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 

Slim Buttes 30/NA 34/48 32/32 

General Wildlife

Chalk Buttes 45 52 31 

Ekalaka Hills 10 21 7 

Long Pines 5 21 6 

East Short Pines 28 37 8 

West Short Pines 2 2 2 

North Cave Hills 8 19 9 

South Cave Hills 6 14 7 

Percent of Land Unit that is core 

wildlife habitat 

(based on motorized routes) 

Slim Buttes 27 30 26 

Water Quality, Fisheries, and Aquatics

Water Quality 

Miles of actions that reduce risks on routes within the project 

area 24 122 0 

Miles of actions that increase risks on routes within the 

project area 101 67 0 

Sensitive Aquatic Species

Number of Species with No Impact or Beneficial Impact 3 5 3 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or Habitat 

but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing 

or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 2 0 2 

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal 

listing or loss of viability 0 0 0 

Recreational Fish Species

Alternatives with No Impact or Beneficial Impact No Yes No 

Alternatives with potential to effect individuals or Habitat 

but will not Likely Contribute to a Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species Yes No Yes 

Soils

Severe Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use 263 153 223 

Moderate Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use. 176 137 150 

Vegetation

Moderate Risk Areas - Motorized Routes

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas (% of Project Area) 128 (Trace) 90 (Trace) 98 (Trace)

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas (% of Project Area) 2,191 (1%) 1,380 (1%) 1,634 (1%)

Miles in Moderate Risk Area 24 13 17 

Weeds Susceptibility 

Weed Susceptible Acres within designated route corridor 34,572 21,874 30,604 

Weed Infestation

Total Infested Acres within motorized route potentially affected 

corridor 209 149 201 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-28 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Table 2-9. Comparison of Effects by Alternative 

Feature Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Sensitive Plants

Number of Species with No Impact 4 4 4 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or Habitat 

but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or 

Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 2 2 2 

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal listing or 

loss of viability 0 0 0 

Table 2-10. Summary of Changes in Effects Compared to the No Action Alternative

Feature Alternative A Alternative B 

Recreation

Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Rural ROS (During SOU6/Outside SOU) No change 

Acres of Roaded Natural ROS (During SOU/Outside SOU) Reduced by 710 acres/ 

Reduced by 710 acres 

Reduced by 2009 acres/ 

Reduced by 1,969 acres 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS (During SOU/Outside SOU) Reduced by 10,176 acres/ 

Increased by 32,644 acres 

Reduced by 8,978 acres/ 

Reduced by 16,900acres 

Miles of motorized roads and trails (During SOU/Outside SOU) Increased by 67 miles/ 

Increased by 215 miles 

Reduced by 99 miles/ 

Reduced by 67 miles 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 

Increased by 10,948 acres/ 

Reduced by 31,872 acres 

Increased by 10,948 acres/ 

Increased by 18,870 acres 

Opportunity for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation 

Miles of Mixed Use System Roads Increased by 116 miles Increased by 57 miles 

Miles of Motorized System Trails Increased by 280 miles Increased by 84 miles 

Total Miles available for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation Increased by 396 miles Increased by 141 miles 

Cultural Resources

Total Number of Cultural Resource Sites within the APE Increase of 35 sites Decrease of 59 sites 

Number of Priority Assets Sites within the APE Decrease of 38 sites Decrease of 41 sites 

Number of Culturally Sensitive Sites within the APE Increase of 67 sites Increase of 38 sites 

Wildlife

Threatened or Endangered Wildlife Species

Number of species with No Jeopardy No change; no species jeopardized 

Number of species with potential to effect, but not likely to adversely 

affect. 

No change; Actions are not likely to adversely affect the 

single species analyzed 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Change from the No Action Alternative No Change 

Management Indicator Species

Change from the No Action Alternative No Change 

Deer & Elk

Chalk Buttes Density increases by 17% / 

Density increases by 17% 

Density decreases by 29% / 

Density decreases by 29% 

Ekalaka Hills Density increases by 21% / 

Density increases by 21% 

Density decreases by 36% /

Density decreases by 51% 

Motorized Route Density in miles 

per square mile 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 

Long Pines Density increases by 11% / 

Density increases by 383% 

Density decreases by 36% /

Density increases by 10% 

 

6

 SOU = Season of Use 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-29

Table 2-10. Summary of Changes in Effects Compared to the No Action Alternative

Feature Alternative A Alternative B 

East Short Pines Density decreases by 2% / 

Density decreases by 2% 

Density decreases by 43% / 

Density decreases by 43% 

West Short Pines No changes/No change No changes/No change 

North Cave Hills Density increases by 13% / 

Density increases by 13% 

Density decreases by 20% / 

Density decreases by 12% 

South Cave Hills Density increases by 26% / 

Density increases by 26% 

Density decreases by 19% /

Density decreases by 19% 

Slim Buttes Density increase by 37% / 

Density increase by 37% 

Density increases by 15% / 

Density decreases by 20% 

Chalk Buttes Increase of 14% / 

Decrease of 36% 

Increase of 18% / 

Increase of 35% 

Ekalaka Hills Increase of 3% / 

Decrease of 8% 

Increase of 17% / 

Increase of 29% 

Long Pines Decrease of 2% / 

Decrease of 54% 

Increase of 20% / 

Increase of 1% 

East Short Pines Increase of 21% / 

Increase of 21% 

Increase of 31% / 

Increase of 31% 

West Short Pines No change No change 

North Cave Hills Decrease of 4% / 

Decrease of 11% 

Increase of 13% / 

Increase of 24% 

South Cave Hills No change / 

Decrease of 7% 

Increase of 10% / 

Increase of 10% 

Percent secure habitat within elk 

habitat 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 

Slim Buttes Decrease of 2% / 

Decrease of 32% 

Increase of 2% / 

Increase of 16% 

General Wildlife

Chalk Buttes Increase of 14% Increase of 21% 

Ekalaka Hills Increase of 3% Increase of 14% 

Long Pines Decrease of 1% Increase of 15% 

East Short Pines Increase of 20% Increase of 29% 

West Short Pines No change 

North Cave Hills Decrease of 1% Increase of 10% 

South Cave Hills Decrease of 1% Increase by 7% 

Percent of Land Unit that is core 

wildlife habitat 

(based on motorized routes) 

Slim Buttes Increase of 1% Increase of 4% 

Water Quality, Fisheries, and Aquatics

Water Quality 

Miles of actions that reduce risks on routes within the project area 24 miles 122 miles 

Miles of actions that increase risks on routes within the project area 101 miles 67 miles 

Sensitive Aquatic Species

Change from No Action Alternative No change Change 2 species from 

May Impact to No Impact 

Recreational Fish Species

Change from No Action Alternative No change Change from May Impact 

to No Impact 

Soils

Severe Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use Increase of 40 miles Decrease of 70 miles 

Moderate Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use. Increase of 25 miles Decrease of 13 miles 

Vegetation

Moderate Risk Areas - Motorized Routes

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas Increase of 30 acres Decrease of 8 acres 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-30 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2

Table 2-10. Summary of Changes in Effects Compared to the No Action Alternative

Feature Alternative A Alternative B 

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas Increase of 557 acres Decrease of 254 acres

Miles in Moderate Risk Area Increase of 7 miles Decrease of 4 miles 

Weeds Susceptibility 

Weed Susceptible Acres within designated road corridor Increase of 3,968 acres Decrease of 8,730acres 

Weed Infestation 

Total Infested Acres within Motorized Route potentially affected 

corridor 8 additional acres 52 fewer acres 

Sensitive Plants 

Change from No Action Alternative No change; ; Actions are not likely to result in a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability 

- End of Chapter 2 -