The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply 

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-

6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade and Pennington Counties, South Dakota 

and Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest 

Responsible Official: Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor 

1019 N 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730 

For Information Contact: Tom Willems, Travel Management Planner 

 (605) 673-9217 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) documents the analysis of five alternatives 

to manage motorized vehicle travel on the Black Hills National Forest (the Forest). This DEIS was 

prepared following extensive public comment including collaboration with the National Forest Advisory 

Board, scoping, several open houses, and public meetings and workshops. Alternative A, no action, 

proposes a continuation of the current condition. Alternative B, the modified proposed action, would 

develop a motorized recreational system, while considering effects to natural and cultural resources. It 

would allow public motorized vehicle travel on 4,129 miles of routes, and limited motorized crosscountry travel for game retrieval and dispersed camping on 179,000 acres. Alternative C would maximize 

motorized road and trail use. It would allow motor vehicle travel on 4,353 miles of routes, and limited 

motorized cross-country travel for game retrieval and dispersed camping on 473,500 acres. Alternative D 

would provide a smaller motorized transportation system with fewer motorized trails. It would allow 

public motorized vehicle travel on 3,197 miles of routes and prohibit motorized cross-country travel. 

Alternative E represents the minimum action required to designate a motorized travel system and comply 

with the Travel Management Rule. It would allow motorized vehicle travel on 3,776 miles of routes and 

prohibit motorized cross-country travel. At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a preferred 

alternative. 

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful 

to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of 

timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative 

review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments 

submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not 

provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews. 

Send Comments to: BHNF Travel Mgmt Plan DEIS 

P.O. Box 162909 

Sacramento, CA 95816-2909 

E-mail to: BHNFcomments@fscomments.org

Fax to: 916-456-6724 

Date Comments Must Be Received: May 4, 2009 

i 
Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ATV – All-Terrain Vehicle 

BMP – Best Management Practice 

CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations 

CMUA – Concentrated Motorized Use Area 

CWA – Clean Water Act 

DBH – Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FS – Forest Service 

FSH – Forest Service Handbook 

FSM – Forest Service Manual 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

HRV – Historic Range of Variability 

ID Team – Interdisciplinary Team 

LMP – Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

MIS – Management Indicator Species 

MVUM – Motor Vehicle Use Map 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NFAB – National Forest Advisory Board 

NFMA – National Forest Management Act 

NFS – National Forest System 

NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NVUM – National Visitor Use Monitoring 

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory 

ORV – Off-road Vehicle 

OHV – Off-highway Vehicle 

R2 – Region 2 (Rocky Mountain Region) of the Forest Service 

RMBO – Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

ROS – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office 

SIO – Scenic Integrity Objectives 

SOLC – Species of Local Concern 

USC – United States Code 

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI – United States Department of the Interior 

UTV – Utility Terrain Vehicle 

WCPH – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 

WIZ – Water Influence Zone 

ii 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary 

In November 2005, the Forest Service issued the final Travel Management Rule (the Rule, or travel 

management rule - Federal Register, 70FR68264). This Rule specifically requires that any roads, trails, 

and areas that are to be open to motor vehicle use on a National Forest be officially designated. The Rule 

also directs that designations be made by class of vehicle and by season of use, where appropriate and 

necessary. Motor vehicle use would be prohibited on routes and areas not designated open to use. 

To comply with the Rule, the Forest Service proposes to designate certain roads and trails open to 

motorized travel on the Black Hills National Forest. Class of vehicle and season would be assigned to the 

designated roads or trails. Motorized travel, as allowed on designated routes and areas, would be depicted 

on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). The motor vehicle use map would be the primary tool used to 

determine compliance and enforcement of motorized vehicle use on the ground. Existing Forest Service 

system routes and other routes not designated on the motor vehicle use map would be legally closed to 

motorized travel. 

The designated route system would reflect current and anticipated travel needs, offer a variety of 

recreational opportunities, and provide for administrative access, while balancing the physical, biological, 

and social attributes of the Forest. The area affected by the proposal includes roughly 1.2 million acres of 

National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest, within the proclaimed 

Forest boundary. The decisions on motorized travel would not include snowmobiles or existing winteruse recreation or South Dakota snowmobile trails. 

This action is needed to: 

 Identify an official travel system and update the Forest travel map; 

 Develop a transportation system to meet the increasing demand for recreational travel 

opportunities and to provide a range of quality experiences for a wide variety of Forest users; 

 Reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged cross-country and road and trail usage in order to 

maintain and conserve the condition of ecosystems and watersheds; 

 Specify roads, trails and areas open to motorized use; and, 

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

management capability. 

Based upon the analysis of the effects of the alternatives as disclosed in the final EIS and in the project 

record, the Forest Supervisor as the responsible official would make the following decisions. 

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

motorized use. 

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

those improvements. 

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

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

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

management alternative. 

To develop this proposal, the Forest worked closely with the National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB), 

which developed a number of recommendations for a motorized travel system. The Forest also consulted 

iii 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

many user groups and individuals via public meetings and workshops, and questionnaires. During the 

scoping process, the Forest received comments on the proposed action from the public, Indian tribes and 

State and Federal agencies. The Forest evaluated these comments and developed four issue statements to 

guide development of alternatives to the proposed action. The significant issues used to develop 

alternatives and analyze effects are: 

1) effects on natural and cultural resource effects; 

2) effects on recreational opportunities; 

3) effects of transportation system design on management capabilities; and 

4) social and economic concerns. 

These issues led the agency to develop the following range of alternatives. 

Alternative A - No Action. Alternative A would continue the current situation. Current management 

plans would continue to guide project area management. Cross-country motorized use would continue on 

864,000 acres in an unregulated manner. The official motorized trail system would consist of the existing 

36 miles of trails. No motor vehicle use map would be issued. User compliance and law enforcement 

would continue to be difficult without an approved motor vehicle use map. It is expected that motorized 

cross-country travel and route proliferation would continue to occur in areas of the Forest. Resource 

damage and conflicts with nonmotorized recreationists would continue to take place, and motorized users 

would not enjoy a planned travel system designed to meet their needs. 

Action Alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would comply with the Travel Management Rule and 

meet the purpose and need to designate selected roads and trails open to motorized vehicle travel on lands 

administered by the Forest. Designations would be made by class of vehicle and by season. A motor 

vehicle use map would be published depicting designated roads and trails. All of these alternatives would 

amend the Forest Plan to allow motorized use levels and to specify that motorized use must be conducted 

in compliance with the motor vehicle use map. 

A major consideration in this analysis is motorized-mixed use, or the use of both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal motor vehicles on NFS roads. Alternatives B, C and D would pre-empt (not be in accord 

with) South Dakota State law, which currently requires that only highway-legal motor vehicles may use 

public roads. Alternatives B, C and D would comply with Wyoming State law by enrolling all designated 

roads in the Wyoming Off-Road Recreational Vehicle program. All alternatives would be consistent with 

laws in both states requiring licensing of vehicle operators. 

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action. Alternative B represents the original proposed action. 

It has been modified to correct data errors, but the intent of this alternative is the same as the original 

proposed action on which the public was asked to comment. This alternative would meet most NFAB 

recommendations to provide an active (designed) travel system while protecting resources and 

reducing conflicts with other users. It would provide 3,466 miles of roads including 2,226 miles of 

motorized-mixed-use roads; boost motorized trails to 663 miles; and limit cross-country motorized 

use to 179,000 acres only for the purposes of game retrieval (elk only) or dispersed camping. The 

motor vehicle use map would make user compliance and law enforcement easier. Resource damage 

and conflicts with nonmotorized recreationists would be reduced, and motorized users would find a 

planned travel system designed to meet their needs. 

Alternative C. Alternative C would provide the largest motorized travel system. It would provide 

3,582 miles of roads including 2,878 miles of motorized-mixed-use roads; boost motorized trails to 

771 miles; and limit cross-country motorized use to 473,500 acres only for the purposes of game 

retrieval (elk and deer) or dispersed camping. The motor vehicle use map would make user 

iv 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

compliance and law enforcement easier. Higher user numbers could bring more business to adjacent 

communities, and motorized users would find a planned travel system designed to meet their needs. 

Alternative D. Alternative D would provide the smallest motorized travel system. It would reduce 

impacts of motorized travel on natural and cultural resources, reduce conflicts with nonmotorized 

recreationists, and would promote a safer environment for motorized users. It would provide 2,877 

miles of roads including 580 miles of motorized-mixed-use roads; and 320 miles of motorized trails, 

and prohibit motorized cross-country use for any reason, with exceptions. The motor vehicle use map 

would make user compliance and law enforcement easier. Resource damage, conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists and system maintenance costs would be reduced, and motorized users 

would find a planned travel system designed to meet their needs. 

Alternative E. Alternative E would take the minimum actions necessary to comply with the Travel 

Management Rule. It would provide a motor vehicle use map designating the existing travel system. 

Alternative E would provide 3,740 miles of roads including 160 miles of motorized-mixed-use roads; 

and 36 miles of motorized trails. It would prohibit motorized cross-country use for any purpose, with 

exceptions. The motor vehicle use map would make user compliance and law enforcement easier. 

Resource damage, conflicts with nonmotorized recreationists and maintenance costs would be 

reduced. Motorized users would find a minimal planned travel system designed to meet their needs. 

Major Conclusions 

Concerning effects of the alternatives on natural and cultural resources (Issue 1), all action alternatives 

would reduce current levels of effects from motorized use. All action alternatives would reduce the miles 

of motorized routes in several important habitats and across the Forest, would limit or prohibit motorized 

cross-country use, and would reduce the number of points at which motorized routes cross streams and 

wetlands. These reductions would improve habitat conditions for a variety of species of plants and 

wildlife. Alternatives D and E would generally present the most improvements in habitat conditions, 

followed by Alternatives B and C. 

Concerning recreation opportunity (Issue 2), route miles available to drivers of highway-legal machines 

on trails and mixed-use roads would be greatest under Alternative C, followed by Alternatives B and D. 

Alternatives A and E would offer much less route mileage for drivers of both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal machines. Mileage available to unlicensed drivers (on trails only) would be greatest under 

Alternative C, followed by Alternatives B, D, and E. Motorized cross-country use for any purpose would 

be available only under Alternative A. Limited motorized cross-country use for game retrieval or 

dispersed camping would be offered under Alternatives B and C; such use would be prohibited under 

Alternatives D and E. 

Regarding effects on management capabilities (Issue 3), motorized travel use would be more easily 

enforced under any of the action alternatives than under Alternative A because a motor vehicle use map 

would be issued. Users not in compliance with the motor vehicle use map could be cited. Considering 

the total miles of trails, number of trailheads and miles of roads that could be closed, Alternatives C and B 

would be most costly to implement, in that order, followed by Alternative D. Alternative A would have 

the highest maintenance costs, followed by Alternatives C, B, D, and E. 

Regarding social and economic concerns (Issue 4), Alternatives B and C would offer the highest number 

of trailheads within 3 miles of communities, which could induce more user-related business in those 

communities. Alternative D would have the lowest potential for disturbance from noise and dust from 

motorized use near private lands. The population in the Black Hills region would continue to grow under 

all alternatives, as would recreational use of the Forest. Forest visitors will continue to expect diverse 

v 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

vi 

recreational opportunities. The reduction or loss of opportunity for motorized cross-country use would be 

partially offset by the enhanced OHV trail system opportunities under Alternatives C, B, and D, in that 

order. Private recreational opportunities could be developed to provide other opportunities, but none of 

the alternatives would be expected to create any measurable social or economic effects in the Black Hills 

region. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents 

Summary........................................................................................................................................iii

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action.......................................................................................1

Document Structure....................................................................................................................1

Location......................................................................................................................................1

Background ................................................................................................................................3

Travel Management Rule .......................................................................................................3

Legal Framework....................................................................................................................5

Purpose and Need for Action .....................................................................................................7

Decision Framework ..................................................................................................................8

Proposed Action .........................................................................................................................9

Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................12

Issues........................................................................................................................................13

Significant Issues and Indicator Measures ...........................................................................13

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ............................................................17

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................17

Alternative Development .........................................................................................................17

Relationship of Alternatives to Forest Plan Direction..........................................................17

Features Shared by All Alternatives.....................................................................................18

Description of the Alternatives.............................................................................................19

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .............................................33

Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................35

Comparison of Alternatives by Issue....................................................................................38

Implementation.........................................................................................................................41

Monitoring................................................................................................................................42

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.........................................45

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................45

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities..........................................................45

General Assumptions for All Alternatives ...........................................................................46

Recreation ................................................................................................................................46

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................46

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction.......................................47

Methodology.........................................................................................................................49

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................50

Environmental Effects Analysis...........................................................................................51

Engineering and Transportation ...............................................................................................66

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................66

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction.......................................69

Methodology.........................................................................................................................71

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................73

Environmental Effects Analysis...........................................................................................85

Socio-Economic Concerns.......................................................................................................89

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................89

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction.......................................91

Methodology.........................................................................................................................92

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................92

Environmental Effects Analysis...........................................................................................97

Soils........................................................................................................................................100

Introduction ........................................................................................................................100

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction.....................................100

vii 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Methodology.......................................................................................................................101

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................104

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................104

Hydrology...............................................................................................................................114

Introduction.........................................................................................................................114

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction .....................................114

Methodology.......................................................................................................................116

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................117

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................119

Monitoring and Recommendations.....................................................................................131

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................131

Fisheries..................................................................................................................................132

Introduction.........................................................................................................................132

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction .....................................132

Methodology.......................................................................................................................134

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................135

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................136

Wildlife...................................................................................................................................143

Introduction.........................................................................................................................143

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction .....................................143

Methodology.......................................................................................................................144

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................146

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................175

Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................................229

Plants and Botanical Resources..............................................................................................231

Introduction.........................................................................................................................231

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction .....................................232

Methodology.......................................................................................................................232

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................235

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................241

Scenery ...................................................................................................................................252

Introduction.........................................................................................................................252

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction .....................................252

Methodology.......................................................................................................................253

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................256

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................258

Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................264

Introduction.........................................................................................................................264

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction .....................................265

Affected Environment:........................................................................................................265

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................266

Consultation ........................................................................................................................272

Range and Weeds ...................................................................................................................272

Introduction.........................................................................................................................272

Applicable Forest Plan Direction........................................................................................272

Methodology.......................................................................................................................272

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................274

Environmental Effects Analysis..........................................................................................274

Invasive Species (Noxious Weeds) ........................................................................................276

Introduction.........................................................................................................................276

Applicable Forest Plan Direction........................................................................................276

viii 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Methodology.......................................................................................................................277

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................278

Environmental Effects Analysis.........................................................................................278

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ........................................................................280

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................................280

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.....................................................280

Other Required Disclosures ...................................................................................................281

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................283

Preparers and Contributors.....................................................................................................283

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................285

Appendices.................................................................................................................................293

Appendix A: Travel Management Rule......................................................................................295

Appendix B: Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives........................................................305

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................307

Hydrology and Fisheries ........................................................................................................308

Appendix C: Literature Cited .....................................................................................................313

Appendix D: Content Analysis for Travel Management Planning.............................................327

Introduction ............................................................................................................................327

Black Hills Travel Management Planning..........................................................................327

Summary Comments ..........................................................................................................327

How Public Concern Statements Relate to Issues..................................................................335

Appendix E: Cumulative Effects................................................................................................337

Appendix F: Proposed Forest Plan Changes for Travel Planning Alternatives..........................339

Alternative B Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the Following Ways.339

Alternative C Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the Following Ways.342

Alternative D Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the Following Ways.346

Alternative E Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the Following Ways.349

Appendix G: Glossary ................................................................................................................353

Appendix H: U.S. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Known from the Black Hills 

with Rationale for Further Analysis ...........................................................................................360

Appendix I: Map Packet.............................................................................................................365

Index...........................................................................................................................................367

List of Tables 

Table 1. Indicators of motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative A (no action) .............21

Table 2. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative B, the proposed action.....................24

Table 3. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative C......................................................26

Table 4. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative D......................................................29

Table 5. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative E......................................................31

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

alternative .............................................................................................................................32

Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives ..................................................36

Table 8. Hunting in the Forest for 2006 as represented in reports from Wyoming and South 

Dakota Game and Fish Departments....................................................................................48

Table 9. Black Hills National Forest ROS classes........................................................................51

Table 10. Miles of road within semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM) and roaded natural 

nonmotorized (RNNM) areas...............................................................................................53

Table 11. Alternative A roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized areas ...........................................................53

Table 12. Analysis indicators for Alternative A...........................................................................54

ix 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 13. Alternative B roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized area .............................................................57

Table 14. Analysis indicators for Alternative B............................................................................57

Table 15. Alternative C roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized areas............................................................59

Table 16. Analysis indicators for Alternative C............................................................................61

Table 17. Alternative D roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized areas............................................................63

Table 18. Analysis indicators for Alternative D ...........................................................................64

Table 19. Analysis indicators for Alternative E............................................................................65

Table 20. Miles of inventoried road by system for the Black Hills National Forest ....................67

Table 21. Miles of road by maintenance level for Forest Service-jurisdiction roads within the 

Black Hills National Forest...................................................................................................69

Table 22. Summary of State law requirements.............................................................................75

Table 23. Annual and deferred maintenance costs for Forest Service System roads on the Black 

Hills (2007 figures)...............................................................................................................78

Table 24. Road and trail management funding sources................................................................79

Table 25. Miles of roads open to all vehicles (motorized-mixed use) by alternative ...................86

Table 26. Miles of routes near lands of other ownership and nonmotorized trails by alternative 87

Table 27. Miles of routes near lands of other ownership and nonmotorized trails by alternative 87

Table 28. Miles of various roads and trails by alternative ............................................................88

Table 29. Water resource indicators by alternative. These indicators are also applicable to the 

fisheries resource. ...............................................................................................................123

Table 30. Existing motorized recreation information for ponderosa pine habitat ......................147

Table 31. Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat on the Forest ....................................148

Table 32. Miles of motorized routes in mountain mahogany habitat..........................................148

Table 33. Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species analyzed ...................................................156

Table 34. Black Hills species of local concern ..........................................................................172

Table 35. Species of conservation concern and Wyoming PIF priority 1 species.....................174

Table 36. Black Hills species of local concern and disposition of effects analysis....................223

Table 37. Routes requiring design criteria, removal or rerouting to avoid impacts to special 

status plant species or areas ................................................................................................234

Table 38. Current conditions for hardwoods and associated motorized recreation ....................236

Table 39. Species potentially impacted and routes that will be designed, rerouted or removed to 

avoid the known occurrences in the identified alternatives ................................................248

Table 40. Indicators for Alternative B ........................................................................................260

Table 41. Indicators for Alternative C ........................................................................................261

Table 42. Indicators for Alternative D........................................................................................261

Table 43. Motorized use in total miles by all scenic integrity objectives...................................264

Table 44. Comparison of indicator measures and alternatives for range ....................................275

Table B-1. Routes requiring design criteria ................................................................................305

Table B-2. Routes closed seasonally (April 1–August 15) to protect nesting goshawks............311

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Black Hills National Forest planning area (Source: USDA Forest Service 2004)..........2

Figure 2. Acres open to motorized cross-country use under each alternative (NOTE: Crosscountry travel in Alternatives B and C would be for limited purposes only) .......................32

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

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

shown as cross-country use in Figure 2)...............................................................................33

x 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

xi 

Figure 4. Trail mileage in each alternative by vehicle type..........................................................33

Figure 5. A maintenance level 2 road with damage caused by ATV track following. The damage 

is increased by erosion when the tracks channel water down the road.................................81

Figure 6. A maintenance level 2 road with erosion damage accelerated by ATV traffic loosening 

soils on steep section ............................................................................................................82

Figure 7. A motorized section of the Centennial Trail less than one year after it underwent an 

expensive reconstruction ......................................................................................................83

Figure 8. Bridge crossing on motorized section of Centennial Trail............................................84

Figure 9. Total population for the seven-county study area, 1990 – 2000 (Source: U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2002)..........................................................................................93

Figure 10. Example of sediment being added to a stream from a user-created route in a crosscountry-use area..................................................................................................................120

Figure 11. Example of streambank instability from a user-created route in a cross-country-use 

area .....................................................................................................................................121

Figure 12. Examples of stream widening and potential effect to water temperature from usercreated routes when crossings are not hardened or properly mitigated..............................121

Figure 13.Example of wetland crossing from a user created route in a cross-country use area .122

Figure 14. Example of filling across a floodplain creating an effective dike or dam that affects 

flood flows..........................................................................................................................122

Figure 15. General distribution of beaver on the Black Hills National Forest (Source: NRIS 

Fauna database) ..................................................................................................................153

Figure 16. Miles of seasonal and year-long motorized routes by alternative on the Black Hills 

National Forest ...................................................................................................................176

Figure 17. Acres open to motorized game retrieval by alternative on the Black Hills National 

Forest ..................................................................................................................................176

Figure 18. Acres open to motorized dispersed camping by alternative on the Black Hills National 

Forest ..................................................................................................................................177

Figure 19. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine habitat by alternative on the Black Hills 

National Forest ...................................................................................................................177

Figure 20. Miles of motorized routes in spruce habitat by alternative on the Black Hills National 

Forest ..................................................................................................................................178

Figure 21. Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat by alternative on the Black Hills 

National Forest ...................................................................................................................179

Figure 22. Miles of routes within 400 feet of riparian habitat by alternative .............................180

Figure 23. Miles of motorized routes in grassland cover types by alternative ...........................181

Figure 24. Miles of motorized routes in primary brown creeper habitat by alternative .............184

Figure 25. Miles of motorized routes in aspen by alternative on the Black Hills National Forest

............................................................................................................................................187

Figure 26. Comparison of winter open route density (miles/sq mile) in management areas 5.4 and 

5.43 by alternative ..............................................................................................................192

Figure 27. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5 by alternative

............................................................................................................................................201

Figure 28. Miles of motorized routes in burned habitat by alternative.......................................202

Figure 29. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine structural stages 4A and 5 by alternative

............................................................................................................................................207

Figure 30. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 by 

alternative ...........................................................................................................................212

Figure 31. Miles of motorized routes in high-value marten habitat by alternative.....................215

Figure 32. Miles of motorized routes within bighorn sheep use areas by alternative ................219

Figure 33. Miles of motorized routes in mountain goat use areas by alternative .......................227

Figure 34. Landscape distance zones (USDA Forest Service 1995, Chapter 4, p. 5)................254

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 

Document Structure 

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and 

State laws and regulations. This DEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental effects that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document 

is organized as follows: 

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

of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for 

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

public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

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

detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternatives designed to 

resolve issues and achieve the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on 

significant issues raised internally, by the public and by other agencies. This discussion also 

includes design criteria. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the expected environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and 

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

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

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

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

presented in the environmental impact statement. 

 Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. 

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

underlying the analysis, and other planning documents, may be found in the project planning 

record located at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Custer, South Dakota. 

Location 

The project area consists of Federal lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest, 

comprising approximately 1.2 million acres in western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming 

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

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

administrative boundary of the Forest depicted in Figure 1 is 1.5 million acres. Approximately 

300,000 acres of lands of other ownerships lie within the Black Hills, and are seen in Figure 1 as 

white inclusions in the gray background. A small amount of this is in federal ownership (just 

under 2,600 acres comprise Jewel Cave and Mount Rushmore National Monuments, and the 

Bureau of Land Management manages lands around Lead and Deadwood), but most is in State 

or private ownership. Most of the lands on the periphery of the Forest are also non-federal land 

and privately owned. Much of the private land on the periphery of the Forest and within the 

Forest is prized for private subdivision development, private recreational ranches, and land 

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

1 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

consideration in management of the Forest. 

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

2 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Background 

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

the National Forest System (NFS). Motorized vehicles are used on NFS lands for a variety of 

purposes, including access to private property, harvesting timber and herding cattle, accessing 

recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and camping, for sport and simply driving for 

pleasure. Nearly everyone who uses NFS lands – even those seeking nonmotorized pursuits – 

uses motorized vehicles in some fashion. 

There are many types of motorized vehicles operating on NFS lands. These include highwaylegal sedans, four-wheel-drive vehicles (4x4s), pickup trucks, and off-highway vehicles (OHVs) 

including all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), “dirt bike” motorcycles, and specialized vehicles such as 

rock crawlers. OHV use has become particularly popular in the last few decades. Nationally, 

OHV owners and users have increased in numbers from about 5 million in 1972 to 51 million in 

2004. OHV users account for 11 million visitors annually to the National Forests and Grasslands 

(USDA Forest Service 2004b). The West (including Wyoming) and the Midwest (including 

South Dakota) as regions rank first and second, respectively, in percentage of residents 

participating in OHV activities. The states of Wyoming and South Dakota rank second- and 

seventh-highest in the nation, respectively, in percentage of residents participating in OHV 

recreation (USDA Forest Service 2005c). 

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

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

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

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

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

“open unless designated closed”. Roads and trails that are not part of the official transportation 

system are often referred to as non-system or unauthorized routes. This varying regulatory 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004b). 

Travel Management Rule 

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

by the issuance of a new Travel Management Rule (the Rule, or travel management rule -- 

Federal Register, 70FR68264, incorporated here by reference). The final Rule amended 

regulations at 36 CFR 212, 251 and 261, and removed obsolete direction at 36 CFR 295. This 

Rule specifically requires the designation of any roads, trails, and areas that are to be open to 

motor vehicle use on a National Forest. The Rule also directs that designations be made by class 

3 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

of vehicle and by season of use, where appropriate and necessary. Motor vehicle use would be 

prohibited on routes and areas not designated open to use. The Rule provides the motivation for 

this travel planning effort. It is a major reason why this EIS is being prepared, and it is the 

reason why the Forest is proposing to designate routes open to use in contrast to the approach 

used previously. 

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

Hills National Forest (the Forest) is open to 

cross-country motorized travel, and has been 

for many years. There are over 10,000 

miles of authorized roads and trails, 

unauthorized routes, and other-jurisdiction 

routes on the Forest. The authorized roads 

are referred to as system roads. They have 

been constructed and are maintained to 

provide administrative and public access to 

the Forest. System roads are considered 

necessary for the proper management of the 

Forest. Some of these system roads are 

high-speed gravel or paved routes, but most 

are lower-standard “dirt” roads with native 

surface material. Many are open on a yearround basis; others are restricted seasonally, 

typically being closed in the winter and 

early spring to provide undisturbed wildlife 

winter habitat and to protect the roadbeds 

during wet periods. 

Definitions (36 CFR 212.1) 

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches 

wide, unless identified and managed as a 

trail. 

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

route over 50 inches wide that is identified 

and managed as a trail. 

Forest road or trail – A road or trail wholly 

or partially within or adjacent to and serving 

the NFS that the Forest Service determines 

is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the NFS and 

the use and development of its resources 

Unauthorized Route – A route that is not a 

forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail 

and that is not included in a forest 

transportation atlas. 

Unauthorized roads and trails include a variety of routes. Some are old routes that were either 

constructed or used for forest management activities on a temporary basis. Users adopted these 

routes over time and have used them, in some cases for decades. Other routes are user-created. 

These routes were developed by repeated driving cross-country on the same path winding 

through the trees or across openings. User-created routes have not been designed by engineers 

and are sometimes situated in poor locations on the landscape. Other-jurisdiction roads include 

State highways, county and private roads. 

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

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

other jurisdictions. This document does not address travel by over-the-snow machines. This EIS 

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

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

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

motorized use, what types (class) of vehicles should be used on various routes, which routes 

should be open yearlong and which ones seasonally, and whether limited cross-country 

motorized travel should be allowed for purposes of retrieving downed game and/or dispersed 

camping. 

4 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Legal Framework 

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

lands. Some of the more important of these relating to travel management planning and 

implementation are as follows. 

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

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

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

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

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

services obtained therefrom.” 

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

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

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

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

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

development of Forest Plans, but requires also that project decisions such as will be made 

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

Revised Forest Plan for the Black Hills National Forest, as amended. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

document is being prepared in direct response to the direction in this Rule. 

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

requires Federal land management agencies to establish policies and procedures for 

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

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

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

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

implementing these executive orders. 

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

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

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

5 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

programs and recommendations of comprehensive wildlife planning efforts. Chapter 3 

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

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

plans. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deems desirable. 

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

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

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

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

the Forest Service and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), Maintenance Level 3, 

4 and 5 roads are subject to “open to public travel” regulations. 

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

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

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

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

analysis incorporates by reference the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) for the Black Hills National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II Amendment 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a), and the entire record for this project. 

Consistency between Federal Management and State Law 

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

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

CFR 212.5(a)(1, 2)). It is the intent of the Forest Service to comply with state laws while 

providing for a reasonable and safe range of travel and recreation options. However, if the 

Forest Service allows a road designation that varies from state designation, a road-use analysis 

will be completed prior to the decision to inform the decisionmaker of the safety implications. 

A potential point of conflict between state law and any 

decision on this project could involve motorized mixed use 

on public roads. Motorized mixed use is defined for 

purposes of this analysis as the designation of a NFS road 

for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal 

motor vehicles (USDA Forest Service 2005d). The 

Motorized Mixed Use – The 

use of both highway-legal 

and non-highway-legal 

vehicles on a NFS road. 

6 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

concept of motorized mixed use pertains 

entirely to the licensing and registration of 

vehicles under state law. The concept is 

independent of the licensing of vehicle 

operators. This DEIS does not consider 

alternatives to current state law regarding 

operator licensing. 

Maintenance level – This concept 

defines system roads by the level of 

service they provide and the 

maintenance they require. 

Maintenance level 1 (ML1) – Roads 

closed to vehicular traffic; may be open 

and suitable for nonmotorized uses. 

Maintenance level 2 (ML2) – Roads 

open for use by high-clearance vehicles 

but not passenger cars. Typically 

involve low traffic volume and low 

speed. 

Maintenance level 3 (ML3) – Roads 

open for travel by prudent drivers in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort 

and convenience are low priorities. 

Typically single-lane, low-speed routes. 

Maintenance level 4 (ML4) – Roads 

providing a moderate degree of user 

comfort and convenience. Typically 

double-lane and aggregate-surfaced, 

with moderate traffic volume and 

speed. 

Maintenance level 5 (ML5) – Roads 

providing a high degree of user comfort 

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

volume and speeds. 

South Dakota State laws related to roads fall 

under South Dakota Codified Laws Title 32, 

Motor Vehicles (SDCL 32-20). South Dakota 

law requires that motor vehicles operated on 

public roads within the state be highway-legal. 

This means the vehicle must be properly 

equipped and must be registered with a valid 

license plate. The State of South Dakota has 

interpreted this requirement to apply to all 

Forest Service Maintenance Level 2, 3, 4, and 

5 roads. The law also requires that the 

operator possess a valid state driver’s license. 

Wyoming State law allows the mixed use of 

properly outfitted, licensed, highway-legal 

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

under the State ORV (off-road vehicle) 

Program. Roads designated under this 

program are referred to as “enrolled roads”. 

The law also requires that motor vehicle 

operators possess a valid state driver’s license 

while operating on roads. 

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

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

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

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

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

decisionmaker. The motorized-mixed-use analysis will be completed when the Final EIS for this 

project is developed. The Forest Supervisor will consider both when deciding what network of 

roads will be open to OHV use. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

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

within the Black Hills National Forest in accordance with regulations at 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 

261, and 295, and as described in Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor 

Vehicle Use; Final Rule (70FR68264). This action is needed to: 

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

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

7 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 Develop a transportation system to meet the increasing demand for recreational travel 

opportunities and to provide a range of quality experiences for a wide variety of Forest 

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

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

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

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

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

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

hunting and motorized travel (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

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

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

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

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

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

opportunities given the change in demand. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and trail structures on unauthorized routes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maintenance and administration are available. Proactively designating and actively managing 

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

resources. 

Decision Framework 

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

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

8 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

travel on the lands in the project area: 

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

for motorized use. 

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

nature of those improvements. 

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

parking. 

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

travel. 

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

travel management alternative. 

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

construction and reconstruction of trails. However, interdisciplinary (ID) team specialists did 

not evaluate the physical decommissioning of roads or trails, thus no decision to physically close 

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

Proposed Action 

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

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

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

National Forest Advisory Board Efforts 

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

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

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

Board established the Travel Management Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) to develop 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

community members. 

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

issued a report on June 8, 2006 (Blair et al. 2006). The report contained eleven core 

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

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

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

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

9 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

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

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

context of overall motorized uses, which provides for a variety of opportunities but does 

not dominate or unreasonably interfere with other multiple uses on the Forest.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transportation systems) on NFS lands.” 

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

“Gateway Communities” or of at least connecting/tying in communities in some fashion. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Subcommittee recognized that concentrating motorized use near populated areas 

“can be a nuisance for some and cause conflicts” and that efforts should be made to 

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

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

the entire process.” 

7. Game Retrieval – “The Subcommittee recommends that allowances be made for game 

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

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

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

10 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

operations.” 

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

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

collect firewood: 

a. Require a firewood permit. 

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

needed.” 

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

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

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

site.” 

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

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

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

nature of these designated areas. 

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

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

Forest Service Efforts 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 2006, the Forest conducted four “Travelways” workshops. The purpose of these 

workshops was to gather public input and ideas for developing a proposed action. Individuals 

attending these workshops identified routes they felt should remain open for public use on Forest 

lands, and suggested changes or additions to the travel system. Participants at these workshops 

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

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

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

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

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

to implement. 

Proposed Action 

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

open to wheeled, motorized-vehicle travel on lands administered by the Forest. The agency 

believes it is appropriate and necessary to assign a class of vehicle and season of use to these 

designated roads or trails. The agency also believes that the proposed, consciously designed, or 

11 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

“active” motorized travel system would improve on the current “passive” unmanaged system, 

which has evolved in an unplanned manner over time. An active system would meet a variety of 

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

recreation on natural resources and neighbors. 

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM): 

A map reflecting designated 

roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger 

District of the NFS (36 CFR 212.1). 

Specifically, the action proposed by the Forest 

Service would greatly increase the miles of motorized 

trails from the current 36 miles to 663 miles. This 

would provide over 400 miles of trails for vehicles 50 

inches or less in width, and 76 miles of motorcycle 

trails. This proposal would further designate 2,226 

miles of road to fill out the system for motorized mixed use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal vehicles. An additional 1,242 miles of road would be open to highway-legal 

vehicles only. These routes open to public use would be officially designated on a Forest motor 

vehicle use map. Routes not shown would be closed to motorized use. Map display would make 

it easier for recreationists to comply with the system, and for the agency to enforce it. Finally, 

cross-country travel would be allowed on 177,000 acres of NFS land for the purposes of 

retrieving downed game and dispersed camping. This would reduce cross-country travel from 

the current 864,000 acres with the intent to improve natural resource conditions. This proposal is 

further described in Chapter 2, Alternatives, under Alternative B. 

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

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212). As a result of these travel management decisions, the 

Forest would produce a motor vehicle use map depicting those routes and areas on the Forest 

that would be open to motorized travel. The motor vehicle use map would be the primary tool 

used to determine compliance and enforcement with motorized travel designations on the 

ground. All other routes, including existing Forest routes and user-created routes not designated 

open on the motor vehicle use map, would be closed to motorized travel. This would represent a 

major change from the current situation in which routes and areas are generally considered open 

to motorized travel unless specifically closed. 

Public Involvement 

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

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

section. 

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

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

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

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

public comment over a 60-day period ending November 13, 2007. As part of the scoping 

process in September 2007, the Forest hosted four public meetings in Wyoming and South 

Dakota. These meetings were attended by over 700 people. The purpose of the public meetings 

was to introduce the Travel Management Plan process and solicit additional comments. Open 

houses were also held in October 2007 at the four Forest ranger district locations, at which the 

district rangers were present. The public provided additional site-specific route input at these 

open houses. Several of the comments obtained at the open houses provided specific 

information concerning the current inventory of non-system (unauthorized) roads, trails, and 

12 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

areas. Information pertaining to the current inventory of non-system roads, trails, and areas was 

used to update the computerized inventory base layers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 of this document. 

Issues 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant Issues and Indicator Measures 

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

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

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

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

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

associated indicators are described below. 

Issue 1: Effects on natural and cultural resources 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may have effects on natural and cultural resources. 

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

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

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

use to a managed system of designated roads and trails, identifying specific seasons of use, and 

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

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

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

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

individual resource discussions in Chapter 3. 

13 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Indicators 

Botanical indicators 

 Miles of motorized routes 

 Acres open to dispersed camping and game retrieval 

 Miles of new routes and reopened closed roads 

 Acres of trailheads 

Wildlife 

 Miles of motorized routes 

 Acres open to cross-country use 

 Acres open to game retrieval 

 Acres open to dispersed camping 

Fisheries and Hydrology 

 Number of route crossings on perennial streams 

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

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

Soils 

 Acres open to cross-country use 

 Acres open to game retrieval and dispersed camping 

Cultural Resources 

 Miles of routes closed 

 Reopen a closed road 

 Trail converted from road 

 New routes 

Range and Noxious Weeds 

 Miles of motorized routes 

 Acres open to game retrieval 

 Acres open to dispersed camping 

 Number of motorized trailheads 

Issue 2: Effects on recreational opportunities 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may have effects on the amount of available 

recreational opportunities provided on the Forest, including motorized use on roads and trails, 

motorized-mixed-use roads, dispersed camping, big game retrieval, motorized trailheads and 

nonmotorized opportunities. Effects to the recreational opportunities by alternative are identified 

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

effects on recreational opportunities. 

14 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Indicators 

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

 Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Miles of trail open to all vehicles (includes vehicles wider than 50 inches) 

 Miles of trail open to wheeled vehicles (50 inches wide or less) 

 Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Miles of special designations (rock crawling) 

 Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 

 Acres open to cross-country use 

 Acres open to game retrieval 

 Acres open to dispersed camping 

 Number of motorized trailheads 

Issue 3: Effects of transportation system design on management capabilities 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may have effects on the Forest’s ability to proactively 

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

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

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

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

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

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

on the miles of motorized-mixed-use roads. Any roads identified for motorized mixed use will 

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

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

issue. 

Indicators 

 Miles of road open to all vehicles 

 Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Miles of trail open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less 

 Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Number of trailheads 

 Number of perennial stream crossings 

 Miles of open roads to be closed 

 Miles of closed roads to be reopened 

 Miles of road converted to trails 

 Miles of new routes to be converted from unauthorized. 

 Number of dead-end spurs 

 Miles of motorized-mixed-use roads open yearlong 

 Miles of motorized-mixed-use roads open seasonally 

 Total miles of motorized-mixed-use roads 

 Miles of roads at maintenance levels 3, 4 and 5 

15 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

16 

Issue 4: Social and Economic Concerns 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may affect the economic sustainability of local 

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

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

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

analyze this issue. 

Indicators 

 Miles of motorized routes within 0.5 miles of a nonmotorized trail 

 Miles of NFS motorized routes through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands 

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

 Miles of motorized routes 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this document. 

Alternative Development 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Looped OHV trail opportunities 

 Access points (trailheads) 

 Noise 

 Conflicts with other uses of the National Forest including nonmotorized recreation 

 Effects on cultural resources 

 Effects on natural resources including plants, wildlife and watersheds 

 Spread of noxious weeds 

 Education and law enforcement 

 Economic feasibility 

 Administrative access 

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

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

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

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

checked for consistency with the Forest Plan. 

Relationship of Alternatives to Forest Plan Direction 

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

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

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

that direction, the project may be modified to make it consistent; it may be dropped; or, the Plan 

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

17 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

direction are proposed to update Plan direction and allow implementation of each action 

alternative. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas with very different management emphasis. 

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives 

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

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

Forest Plan include: 

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

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

ecosystems. 

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

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

communities. 

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

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

while coordinating planning and project implementation. 

 (Goal 8) Promote rural development opportunities. 

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

Chapter 3, and can be reviewed in the Forest Plan. 

Features Shared by All Alternatives 

Any selected alternative would provide for the following: 

18 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

management prohibitions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative Access - The Forest Service would retain administrative access authority 

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

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

maintaining roads and other facilities, etc. 

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

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

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

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

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

Federal agencies to manage their adjacent or isolated parcels. 

If a NFS road or a specially designated OHV trail is needed for timber or fuels management or 

fire suppression, all OHV use, both highway-legal and non-highway-legal, would be temporarily 

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

designated. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

allow motorized game retrieval under the guise of collecting firewood. 

Description of the Alternatives 

The alternatives, including no action and proposed action, are designed to provide a range of 

options from which the responsible official can make an informed choice. The alternatives, 

which were developed by an interdisciplinary team of specialists, differ by the relative emphasis 

given to individual issues and public concerns. After reviewing the issues and grouping them in 

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

19 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

in different ways. 

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

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

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

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

issues are addressed by the alternative. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

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

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

no action and proposed action alternatives. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Alternative A would continue the current 

situation. Cross-country motorized use 

would continue on 864,000 acres in an 

unregulated manner. The trail system 

would consist of the existing 36 miles of 

motorized trails. User compliance and law 

enforcement would continue to be difficult 

without an approved MVUM. Resource 

damage and conflicts with nonmotorized 

recreationists would continue to take 

place, and motorized users would not 

enjoy a planned travel system designed to 

meet their needs. 

NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14 

require that “agencies shall...include the 

alternative of no action.” This is intended 

to provide a baseline against which the 

effects of other alternatives can be 

measured. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

change from present management. Current 

management plans would continue to guide 

motorized travel in the project area. 

Current travel patterns, modes of use and 

enforcement actions would be expected to 

continue. 

There are presently 10,280 miles of existing routes on NFS lands, including some 4,109 miles of 

known unauthorized routes. There are about 820 miles of other public roads on NFS lands, 

which would not be affected by the decision on this project. This alternative would continue the 

current “passive” travel system, meaning a travel system that was not designed to accommodate 

recreational motorized use of various types. Continuation of use on the current system would 

not meet the recommendation of the NFAB Travel Subcommittee to establish an “active” 

motorized travel system. The sheer size of the existing system would continue to present the 

Forest Service with many maintenance challenges. 

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

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

result, if this alternative were selected the Forest Service would not comply with the 2005 travel 

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

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

system by selecting this alternative. 

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

and bear a vehicle license (highway-legal). Wyoming State law allows use of both highwaylegal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles on certain enrolled roads. 

20 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

vehicles on public roads be operated only by licensed drivers. 

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

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

general OHV recreational traffic. 

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

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

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

the bounds of Federal regulation if it is not damaging natural resources. Such motorized use is 

also generally legal within the bounds of state law if the vehicle is highway-legal and the 

operator is licensed. Attempts by Forest Service law enforcement personnel to successfully 

prosecute citations for resource damage in courts of law are made more difficult by the need to 

witness the accused in the act of damaging resources. Since law enforcement officers do not 

witness most such instances, many cases are not prosecuted fully. If Alternative A were selected, 

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

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

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

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

Indicators Alternative A 

(current condition) 

Roads 

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

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

prohibited) 3,580 

Total miles of roads 3,740 

Trails 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 0 

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

Miles of motorcycle trail 0 

Miles of special designations 0 

Total miles of trails 36 

Total miles of proposed motorized routes 3,776 

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7 

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use 

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 864,000 

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 

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

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

additive) 864,000 

21 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

alternative to others. 

Action Alternatives – Alternatives B through E 

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

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

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

concerns expressed by the public about the proposed action. 

Features Common to Action Alternatives 

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

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

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

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

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

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

261). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enforcement and prosecution of violations. 

Sound - A stationary sound limit of 96 decibels (dB(A)) is proposed for OHVs including 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C, and D involve designating between 181 and 460 miles of routes as trails 50 inches or less in 

width (year-round and seasonal), between 21 and 134 miles of motorcycle trails, and between 23 

and 34 trailheads. Many of the trails proposed to be designated are roads currently closed 

(Maintenance Level (ML) 1), low-standard roads (ML 2), unauthorized routes that were old 

roads, routes that were pioneered by cross-country travel, or trails that are proposed but currently 

have no physical form on the ground. Construction efforts needed to provide an environmentally 

sustainable trail system from these beginnings would include several different tasks. These 

would include reconstructing some existing ML 1 roads and some old roadbeds to support and 

endure concentrated ATV or motorcycle traffic, constructing new engineered trails where only 

tracks now exist, constructing stream crossings (bridges, culverts, etc.) where needed, and 

constructing new trailheads. The construction methods would vary depending on the level of 

22 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

effort needed, and could involve use of equipment ranging from a small trail dozer to a road 

grader to rework existing roadbeds or create a parking lot for a trailhead. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crossing wetlands would not be allowed. 

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action 

Alternative B would meet most NFAB 

recommendations to provide an active 

travel system while protecting resources and 

reducing conflicts with other users. It would 

provide 2,226 miles of mixed-use roads and 

boost motorized trails to 663 miles, and limit 

cross-country motorized use to 179,000 acres 

for game retrieval and dispersed camping 

only. The MVUM would make user 

compliance and law enforcement easier. 

Resource damage and conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists would be 

reduced, and motorized users would find a 

planned travel system designed to meet 

their needs. 

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

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

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

action on which the public was asked to comment at scoping. Alternative B incorporates, to a 

greater degree than any other alternative, the initial input from the National Forest Advisory 

Board and Travel Subcommittee, and citizen-user input received during the scoping process, 

public meetings and workshops. This alternative also incorporates agency knowledge of 

resource conditions and risks of damage 

to resources. 

The intent of this proposal is to provide 

for diverse motorized recreation 

opportunities on an active (consciously 

designed) motorized travel system of 

designated roads and trails. The system 

would limit effects to natural resources, 

as well as conflicts with nonmotorized 

recreationists. This alternative would 

limit cross-country motorized travel to 

specified distances from certain roads for 

the sole purposes of game retrieval and 

dispersed camping, with certain 

exceptions provided by law. This would 

represent a major reduction from the 

current situation in terms of the total area on which motorized cross-country travel would be 

allowed, and the types of use allowed on that area. This alternative would designate almost as 

many miles of motorized routes near adjacent private lands as in Alternatives A, C and E. 

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

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

from 160 to 2,226 (a 2,066-mile increase; see Table 2). The number of motorized-use trailheads 

23 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

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

decrease). Total NFS route mileage used would decrease by over 4,000 miles to 4,950 miles, 

and the number of motorized road and trail crossings on perennial streams would decrease by 

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

and to compare this alternative to others. 

Table 2. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative B, the proposed action 

Indicators Alt. B Current 

condition 

Roads 

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

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

Total miles of roads 3,466 3,740 

Trails 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 147 0 

Miles of trail open to vehicles 50” or less in width 414 36 

Miles of motorcycle trail 76 0 

Miles of special designations 25 0 

Total miles of trails 663 36 

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

Number of motorized-use trailheads 31 7 

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use 

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

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

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

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

(Note: not additive) 

179,000 

(limited) 864,000 

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

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

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

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

CMUA (Concentrated 

Motorized Use Area) – a 

defined area featuring 

smaller-scale loop routes 

and other motorized travel 

opportunities.

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

non-highway-legal motor vehicles) on a designated system 

of roads (primarily Level 2 with some Level 3, 4 and 5 

roads). In response to recommendations from the NFAB, 

and scoping comments, this system would feature travel 

loops within concentrated motorized use areas (CMUAs), 

and routes connecting CMUAs. 

Vehicles - By providing for use by both highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal motor vehicles, this alternative, if 

24 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

selected, would pre-empt (not be in accord with) South Dakota State law in its current form, 

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

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

roads officially recognized (enrolled) by the State. If this alternative were selected, the Forest 

Service would comply with Wyoming State law by enrolling all designated roads in the 

Wyoming program. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

alternative. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

179,000 acres. 

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

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

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

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

would be updated to conform to the Final Rule and amended regulations, to provide that 

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

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

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

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

Alternative C 

Alternative C would provide the largest 

travel system. It would provide 2,878 miles 

of mixed-use roads and boost motorized 

trails to 771 miles, and limit cross-country 

motorized use to 473,500 acres for game 

retrieval and dispersed camping only. 

The MVUM would make user compliance 

and law enforcement easier. Higher user 

numbers could bring more business to 

adjacent communities, and motorized 

users would find a planned travel system 

designed to meet their needs. 

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

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

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

of game retrieval or dispersed camping in 

specified areas. Allowing higher levels of 

motorized recreation use on the Forest and 

close to communities is intended to provide 

more economic opportunity for nearby 

communities and businesses. To a lesser 

degree, this alternative considers effects of 

use on natural resources, and the concerns 

of adjacent landowners, by allowing more 

miles of use near adjacent private lands. 

Alternative C would increase the number of 

miles of motorized forest trails from 36 to 

25 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

771 miles; and increase the mileage of forest roads where motorized mixed use is allowed from 

160 to 2,878 miles (see Table 3). The number of motorized-use trailheads would increase from 7 

to 34. Three small concentrated motorized cross-country areas are proposed in this alternative. 

These three areas total 10 acres in size. Two would be located on the Bearlodge Ranger District 

(Bearlodge Pit on the north end, and Hain Spring Pit in the south); a third would be located on 

the Northern Hills Ranger District at the Spearfish Quarry near the City of Spearfish. These 

areas could serve as practice areas for novice riders, or play areas for younger riders. Other than 

these three areas, motorized cross-country use would be reduced from 864,000 acres to 473,500 

acres, for the sole purposes of game retrieval or dispersed camping. Total NFS route mileage 

used would decrease from 8,971 to 5,173 miles, and the number of motorized road and trail 

crossings on perennial streams would decrease from over 1,700 to 536. Permits would need to 

be secured prior to any in-water construction work on five proposed new perennial stream 

crossings, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see Appendix B, design criteria for 

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

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

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

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

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

comments, this system would feature travel loops within concentrated motorized use areas, and 

routes connecting CMUAs. 

Table 3. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative C 

Indicators Alt. C Current 

condition 

Roads 

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

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highwaylegal vehicles prohibited) 704 3,580 

Total miles of roads 3,582 3,740 

Trails 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 154 0 

Miles of trail open to vehicles 50” or less in width 460 36 

Miles of motorcycle trail 134 0 

Miles of special designations 22 0 

Total miles of trails 771 36 

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

Number of motorized-use trailheads 34 7 

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use 

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

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 373,000 864,000 

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

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

(Note: not additive) 

473,500 

(limited) 864,000 

26 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

this alternative, if selected, would pre-empt (not be in accord with) South Dakota State law in its 

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

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

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

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

roads in the Wyoming program. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compare this alternative to others. 

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

concentrated cross-country areas as described earlier. Other than this, limited motorized crosscountry use would be allowed to retrieve harvested elk and deer in certain large designated areas; 

and, for motorized dispersed camping within 300 feet of certain designated roads. Motorized 

cross-country travel would not be allowed for any other purpose or in any other location, with 

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

in this alternative would be 473,500 acres. 

In their scoping comments, the State wildlife management agencies of South Dakota and 

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

harvested game using motorized vehicles. The Forest Service attempted to plot a one-mile 

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

found that this approach left slivers and small areas of land on which this use would not be 

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

the allowed distances off of roads. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alternative may require some modification to comply with the Travel Rule. 

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

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

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

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

would be updated to conform to the Final Rule and amended regulations, to provide that 

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

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

27 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

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

Alternative D 

Alternative D would provide the smallest 

motorized travel system, and would 

emphasize user safety. It would provide 580 

miles of mixed-use roads and 320 miles of 

motorized trails, and prohibit motorized 

cross-country use for any reason, with 

exceptions. 

The motor vehicle use map would make 

user compliance and law enforcement 

easier. Resource damage, conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists and system 

maintenance costs would be reduced, and 

motorized users would find a planned travel 

system designed to meet their needs. 

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

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

under this alternative. The intent of this alternative is to limit the level and likelihood of effects 

on natural and cultural resources through a smaller motorized travel system. This alternative is 

intended to reduce conflicts with nonmotorized recreationists and could provide more area and 

solitude for these users. Alternative D would allow less motorized use near adjacent private 

landowners than any other alternative, 

and would provide fewer trailheads near 

adjacent communities and businesses. 

Alternative D would increase the number 

of miles of motorized forest trails from 

36 to 320 miles; and increase the mileage 

of forest roads where motorized mixed 

use is allowed from 160 to 580 miles (see 

Table 4). The number of motorized-use 

trailheads would increase from 7 to 23. 

No motorized cross-country use would be 

allowed for any purpose (with exceptions 

for emergency and administrative access 

as described above). Total NFS route 

mileage used would decrease from over 

8,900 miles to 4,018 miles, and the 

number of motorized road and trail crossings on perennial streams would decrease from over 

1,750 to 455. Permits would need to be secured prior to any in-water construction work on two 

proposed new perennial stream crossings, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see 

Appendix B, design criteria for fisheries and hydrology). Stormwater permits under Section 402 

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

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

alternative to others. 

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

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

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

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

within concentrated motorized use areas. No motorized mixed use would be allowed between 

CMUAs. This means that users of non-highway-legal vehicles transiting from one CMUA to 

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

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

such use would still be allowed on 118 miles of Level 3, 4 and 5 roads currently enrolled in the 

Wyoming ORV program. 

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

this alternative would pre-empt (not be in accord with) South Dakota State law in its current 

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

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

28 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

Table 4. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative D 

Indicators Alt. D Current 

condition 

Roads 

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

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highwaylegal vehicles prohibited) 2,297 3,580 

Total miles of roads 2,877 3,740 

Trails 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 112 0 

Miles of trail open to vehicles 50” or less in width 181 36 

Miles of motorcycle trail 21 0 

Miles of special designations 6 0 

Total miles of trails 320 36 

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

Number of motorized-use trailheads 23 7 

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use 

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

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

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

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

(Note: not additive) 0 864,000 

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

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

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

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

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

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

this alternative. 

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

with certain exceptions as described earlier. 

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

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

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

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

would be updated to conform to the Final Rule and amended regulations, to provide that 

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

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

29 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

these proposed changes would constitute a minor or non-significant Forest Plan amendment. 

Alternative E 

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

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

amend the Forest Plan to accommodate this system. A motor vehicle use map would be issued, 

designating a minimally active motorized travel system to accommodate motorized recreation 

desires. This alternative would not allow any motorized cross-country travel. 

Alternative E would provide an MVUM 

showing the existing travel system. 

Alternative E would provide 160 miles of 

motorized-mixed-use roads and 36 miles of 

motorized trails. It would prohibit motorized 

cross-country use for any purpose, with 

exceptions. 

The MVUM would make user compliance 

and law enforcement easier. Resource 

damage, conflicts with nonmotorized 

recreationists and maintenance costs would 

be reduced. Motorized users would find a 

minimal planned travel system designed to 

meet their needs. 

The intent of this alternative is to reduce implementation costs and the impacts of motorized use 

to natural and cultural resources, and to maximize the effectiveness of limited management 

resources. To a lesser degree, this alternative addresses the issues of recreational user experience 

and socioeconomic effects. This 

alternative would allow the same level 

and miles of motorized uses on routes 

near adjacent private lands as Alternative 

A, but would allow no motorized use in 

areas off designated routes. No 

concentrated motorized use areas 

(CMUAs) would be provided in this 

alternative. 

Alternative E would provide the same 

number of miles of motorized forest 

trails (36), and the same mileage of 

forest roads where motorized mixed use 

is allowed (160) as Alternative A (see 

Table 5). The number of motorized-use 

trailheads would remain at 7. No 

motorized cross-country use would be allowed for any purpose (with exceptions for emergency 

and administrative use as described above). Total NFS route mileage used would decrease from 

over 8,600 miles to 4,596 miles, and the number of motorized road and trail crossings on 

perennial streams would decrease from more than 1,700 to 547, as in Alternative B. No new 

stream crossings are proposed in this alternative. Please refer to Table 7 for parameters further 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enrolled in the Wyoming ORV program. 

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

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

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

30 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

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

alternative. 

Table 5. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative E 

Indicators Alt. E Current 

condition 

Roads 

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

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

Total miles of roads 3,740 3,740 

Trails 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 0 0 

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

Miles of motorcycle trail 0 0 

Miles of special designations 0 0 

Total miles of trails 36 36 

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

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7 7 

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use 

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

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

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

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

(Note: not additive) 0 864,000 

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

with certain exceptions as described earlier. 

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

and guidelines would be updated to conform to the Final Rule and amended regulations, to 

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

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

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

anticipated that these proposed changes would constitute a minor or non-significant Forest Plan 

amendment. 

31 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

alternative 

Alternative 

Non-hwylegal vehicles 

allowed on 

SD public 

roads?* 

Valid State 

Operator 

License 

Required? 

Motorizedmixed-use 

road miles 

(non-hwylegal use 

allowed) 

Motorized 

trail miles 

(non-hwylegal use 

allowed) 

Total nonhighway-legal 

vehicle travel 

mileage to 

designate 

Original 

Proposed 

Action 

No Yes 

Alt. A No Yes 160 miles 36 miles 196 miles 

Alt. B Yes** Yes 2226 663 2889 

Alt. C Yes** Yes 2878 771 3649 

Alt. D Yes** Yes 580 320 900 

Alt. E No Yes 160 36 196 

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

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

enrolled in the State program. 

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

requirement for operator licensing. 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

Acres

ABCDE

Alternatives

Acres Open to Motorized Cross-Country Use in Some Form

Acres Game Retrieval Acres Disp.Camping Total Acres Open

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

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

32 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Route 

Miles

A BCDE

Alternatives

Trails and Mixed-Use Roads

Trail Miles

Mixed-Use Rd. Miles

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

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

cross-country use in Figure 2) 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Trail 

Miles

ABCDE

Alternatives

Trail Miles by Vehicle Type

Miles special

Miles motorcycle 

Miles 50-inch or less

Miles Open to All

Figure 4. Trail mileage in each alternative by vehicle type 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

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

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

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

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

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

33 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

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

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

discussed below. 

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

Numerous inaccuracies were found in the data, requiring corrections. Also, based on 

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

were added or deleted to better meet the NFAB recommendations. It became increasingly 

apparent that the original proposed action was obsolete, and for these reasons, it was 

dismissed. The modified proposed action (Alternative B) carries forward the intent of this 

original proposal. 

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

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

approach were suggested by several parties during scoping, including wildlife and fish 

management agencies from the states of South Dakota and Wyoming. The Forest Service 

found that a strict application of this approach would have created small isolated areas in 

some places that would not have been open to these activities. These isolated areas would be 

difficult for National Forest users and law enforcement personnel to identify, and thus would 

be difficult to comply with as well as to enforce. For these reasons, this alternative was 

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

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

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

description of Alternative C on page 25.) 

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

on large areas. The Travel Rule allows this use of NFS lands subject to site-specific 

analysis. The Forest Service considered permitting such use on large areas but dismissed it 

from detailed consideration for several reasons. First, current relatively unrestricted 

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

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

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

resources that could become unacceptable. Allowing such effects could conflict with both 

the agency conservation mission and the recommendation in the NFAB Travel Management 

Subcommittee report that no unacceptable resource damage should occur as a result of crosscountry motorized activity. 

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

concept of concentrated motorized use areas, or CMUAs, in which high-density motorized 

road and trail opportunities would be offered. While these would not provide true crosscountry experiences, the Forest Service believes that these areas could meet the desires of 

many users for a similar experience, without the potential for incurring off-route resource 

damage. Motorized cross-country recreation opportunity is currently offered at other places 

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

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

activity is included in Alternative A as part of the current condition. Limited motorized 

cross-country use would also be allowed under Alternatives B and C in the form of game 

retrieval and dispersed camping, and in Alternative C in the form of three small crosscountry practice areas. 

34 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

35 

4) Various individuals and groups suggested that numerous individual routes that are not 

included in any of the action alternatives be opened or remain open to motorized use. 

Existing and proposed routes were individually evaluated by ranger district and ID Team 

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

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

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

jurisdiction; or because they may not have fit the concept of one or more of the alternatives. 

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

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

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

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

Areas” was evaluated by the ID team and dismissed for several reasons. First, the purpose 

and need for this project is to bring the Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; designation of nonmotorized routes is not 

the focus of this project. Second, the Forest Plan currently contains direction regarding 

nonmotorized trail opportunities. Regarding motorized trails that might affect these areas, 

the analysis in this document will consider the effects of motorized route designation on 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Finally, the Forest Service incorporated concepts in 

the Norbeck Society recommendation into Alternative D, and believes that the concern 

underlying this recommendation is addressed in that alternative. 

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

consider an alternative that would maximize motorized recreation opportunities. Alternative 

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

considered other alternatives that would provide even higher levels of motorized recreation 

opportunity. These alternatives were evaluated by the ID team and dismissed from further 

consideration for several reasons. First, it was found that motorized recreation at higher 

levels than shown in Alternative C violated Forest Plan standards for protection of resources. 

Second, it was found that many additional motorized routes that were considered did not 

enhance or fit with the concept of Alternative C. Specifically, many of these routes did not 

provide looped route opportunities or did not connect looped routes to form a coherent, 

manageable travel system. Third, some routes evaluated were found to cross other 

jurisdictions that would have required additional work and NEPA analysis in order to acquire 

easements or rights-of-way to allow public use. And finally, the addition of some proposed 

routes would continue or increase high sound or noise levels from motorized use near 

adjacent private lands. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table7 provides information related to the indicators listed for each issue in Chapter 1. 

Following this table is a summary narrative comparison of the alternatives that interprets 

information shown here. This information is derived from the more extensive analysis and 

discussion in Chapter 3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives 

Alternative 

Indicator Measure 

A B C D E 

ISSUE 1 – Effects on Natural and Cultural 

Resources 

Botanical Resources 

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

Miles of routes within 400 feet of riparian 

areas 2,050 2,186 2,271 1,739 2,050 

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

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

Wildlife Habitat Resources 

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

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

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 179,000 373,000 0 0 

Acres open to cross-country travel (non-game 

retrieval) 864,000 0 0 0 0 

Total area open to motorized cross-country 

travel (acres) (Note: acres not additive) 864,000 179,000 473,500 0 0 

Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine 

habitat 2,661 2,968 3,156 2,266 2,661 

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

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

Miles of routes within 400 feet of riparian 

areas 2,050 2,186 2,271 1,739 2,050 

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

Hydrology and Fisheries 

Number of motorized road and trail crossings 

on perennial streams 1,778 547 536 455 547 

Miles of road/trail within 30 feet of a perennial 

stream 59 20 20 16 17 

Miles of road/trail within 119 feet of a 

perennial stream 285 125 125 100 110 

Motorized access for fisheries management 

and angler access Available No change 

No 

change 

No 

change 

No 

change 

Miles of motorized routes in walk-in fisheries 0.0 0.0 Less than 

0.5 0.0 0.0 

Soils 

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

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

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 179,000 373,000 0 0 

Acres open to cross-country travel (non-game 

retrieval) 864,000 0 0 0 0 

Total area open to motorized cross-country 

travel (acres) (Note: not additive) 864,000 179,000 473,600 0 0 

Range and Noxious Weeds 

Total miles of open NFS motorized routes 3,776 4,131 4,353 3,197 3,776 

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

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 179,000 373,000 0 0 

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7 31 34 23 7 

36 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

37 

Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives 

Alternative 

Indicator Measure 

A B C D E 

ISSUE 2 – Effects on Recreation 

Opportunities 

Forest Roads (ML 2-5) 

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorizedmixed-use) 160 

(WY only) 

2,226 

(SD & 

WY) 

2,878 

(SD & 

WY) 

580 

(SD & 

WY) 

160 

(WY only) 

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles 

only (not mixed-use) 3,580 1,240 704 2,297 3,580 

Total miles of open NFS forest roads 

(Maintenance Levels 2-5) 3,740 3,466 3,582 2,877 3,740 

Forest Trails 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 0 147 154 112 0 

Miles of trail open to vehicles 50 in. or less in 

width 36 414 460 181 36 

Miles of motorcycle trail 0 76 134 21 0 

Miles of special designations 0 25 22 6 0 

Total miles of open NFS forest trails 36 663 771 320 36 

Total miles of open NFS

 forest roads and trails 3,776 4,129 4,353 3,197 3,776 

Miles of NFS forest roads open to public use: 

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

ML 3 510 493 497 490 510 

ML 4 143 142 142 142 143 

ML 5 4 4 4 4 4 

Total miles of open NFS

 forest roads, ML 2-5 3,740 3,467 3,582 2,878 3,740 

Public road miles of other jurisdictions across 

NFS 820 820 820 820 820 

Total miles of forest trails 36 663 771 320 36 

Unauthorized route miles used on NFS lands 4,375 0 0 0 0 

Total route miles used on NFS lands 8,971 4,950 5,173 4,018 4,596 

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7 31 34 23 7 

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

Acres open to motorized game retrieval 864,000 179,000 373,000 0 0 

Acres open to cross-country travel (non-game 

retrieval) 864,000 0 0 0 0 

Total area open to motorized crosscountry travel (acres) (Note: not additive) 864,000 

179,000 

(limited 

use) 

473,500 

(limited 

use) 

0 0 

Concentrated cross-country areas less than 5 

acres 

0 

3 areas; 

10 acres 

total 

0 0 

Affecting nonmotorized opportunity 

Miles of NFS motorized routes within 1⁄2-mile 

of a nonmotorized trail 318 358 382 211 318 

Miles of road or trail closed to motorized use 

in SPNM or RNNM ROS classes 

72 miles/ 

333 miles 70 / 331 70 / 311 84 / 363 72 / 333 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

38 

Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives 

Alternative 

Indicator Measure 

A B C D E 

ISSUE 3 – Effects of Transportation 

System Design on Management 

Capabilities 

Miles of road converted to trail (may incur 

higher maintenance costs) 0 207 205 146 0 

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

Miles of ML 3, 4 and 5 roads with motorized 

mixed use 111 312 340 118 112 

Total miles of ML 2-5 roads with motorized 

mixed use (expect higher maintenance 

costs from higher use levels) 

160 2,226 2,878 580 160 

Number of motorized trailheads (will incur 

costs to maintain, and to rehabilitate if 

vandalized) 

7 31 34 23 7 

Number of dead-end spurs less than or equal 

to one mile in length/miles of these spurs 

(may require more vigilant law enforcement 

patrol) 

1,739 / 

774 miles 

1,301 / 

597 mi 

1,318 / 

612 mi 

1,035 / 

463 mi 

1,739 / 

774 mi 

Miles of NFS forest roads by maintenance 

level (ML): 

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

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

ML 3 510 493 497 490 510 

ML 4 143 142 142 142 143 

ML 5 4 4 4 4 4 

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

Total miles of forest trails 36 663 771 320 36 

Total NFS forest road and trail miles to 

maintain 5,092 5,487 5,613 5,259 5,092 

Unauthorized routes used on NFS lands (Not 

maintained, but may need rehabilitation) 4,375 0 0 0 0 

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

Miles of designated NFS motorized routes 

through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands 504 490 500 423 504 

Number trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway 

community 0 10 11 7 0 

Total miles of proposed routes open to 

motorized use 3,776 4,129 4,353 3,197 3,776 

Comparison of Alternatives by Issue 

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

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

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

well. The environmental consequences that could be expected from implementing each of the 

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

project file. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Issue 1 – Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources 

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

Alternative A, followed by Alternatives C, B, D, and E. Reducing the area open to motorized crosscountry use would also give the greatest benefit to retaining or improving vegetative productivity of 

the soil resource. Levels of road and trail miles open to motorized use could indirectly affect soils 

through more OHV parking on the edge of the road or trail, more route maintenance needed, and 

more time needed for recovery. Alternatives C, B, and A would have the greatest effects, with 

Alternatives D and E less. 

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

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

in effects to each other and would have less adverse effects than the current situation (Alternative A). 

Alternatives B, C, and E reduce the number of water crossings by almost 70 percent, and Alternative 

D by 75 percent. With respect to miles of roads and trails within 30 and 119 feet of perennial 

streams, Alternatives B and C reduce the mileage by over 50 percent, and Alternatives D and E by 

over 60 percent. 

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

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

open to some form of cross-country use would potentially have more effects on wetlands, with 

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

respectively, and both would limit motorized cross-country use to game retrieval and dispersed 

camping only. Alternatives D and E would have by far the least acreage open to this use. 

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

alternatives due to the closing of areas to motorized cross-country travel. Alternative D would be the 

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

Alternatives B and C could be expected to be minor. Alternative C would have the most road and 

trail miles open to motorized use, and would be expected to displace wildlife more than any other 

alternative, followed by Alternatives B, A, E, and D. 

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

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

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

of motorized cross-country game retrieval on plant species in Alternatives B and C is expected to be 

minor since the use would occur outside the reproductive season for most species. Alternative D 

would have the lowest number of route miles in hardwood habitat and within 400 feet of riparian 

areas, and thus show the greatest benefit; Alternatives B and C would have the highest number of 

route miles and show the least benefit; and Alternatives A and E would be between these. In spruce 

habitat, Alternative D would have the lowest number of route miles, decreasing about 17 percent 

from current levels; Alternatives A, B, C and E would be about equal in route mileage. All species of 

sensitive plants would be expected to persist in the project area if design criteria are implemented to 

avoid known occurrences. The action alternatives would provide a net benefit to these species by 

reducing or eliminating motorized cross-country travel. 

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

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

open to motorized cross-country use. Alternative A contains the highest concentration of routes, 

including unauthorized routes, and allows unrestricted access to the greatest acreage. This 

contributes to matting down or removing area of vegetation, harassment of livestock, and potential 

for weed spread. Alternatives C, B, E, and D, in that order, would reduce the number and mileage of 

39 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

motorized routes and acreage open to motorized cross-country use. Alternatives D and E would 

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

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

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

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

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

routes within corridors, which could increase the potential severity of impacts to resources in these 

areas, but this potential could be reduced by site-specific protection measures. Alternative D would 

have the least impacts overall by reducing the motorized route mileage and eliminating cross-country 

travel. 

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

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

development would be provided as appropriate and necessary. 

Issue 2 – Effects on Recreation Opportunities 

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

C, then B, with much less route mileage under Alternative D. Vehicle registration would be required 

under Alternatives A and E, with much less route mileage available. Route opportunity available to 

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

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

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

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

would be allowed on less area in Alternatives C and B, with the largest area in Alternative C. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and RNNM classes would decrease from current levels in Alternatives B and C, representing less 

potential for nonmotorized route opportunity in these areas; and would increase in Alternative D, 

representing more potential nonmotorized route opportunity. 

Nonmotorized trail opportunity across the Forest is currently 311 miles on 35 trails, with another 

12 miles of the Centennial Trail shared with motorized users. This opportunity would remain the 

same under all alternatives. However, based on the number of miles of motorized trail within 1⁄2-mile 

of a nonmotorized trail, Alternative D would have by far the lowest potential for noise disturbance to 

nearby nonmotorized users, followed by Alternatives A and E, with Alternatives B and C about equal 

in higher potential to disturb nearby nonmotorized users. 

Issue 3 – Effects of Transportation System Design on Management Capabilities 

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

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

40 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

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

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

on these, Alternative D would have much lower costs, with Alternative C and B the most costly, in 

that order. 

Based on the total number of system road and trail miles, Alternative A would have the highest 

maintenance costs, followed by Alternatives C and B. Alternatives E and D would have the lowest 

costs, in that order. Increased costs of vandalism could be expected with higher numbers of 

trailheads. Alternatives B and C have the highest number, with Alternative D less and Alternatives A 

and E the lowest number. 

Based on the number of miles of roads open to motorized mixed use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal vehicles, Alternative D would be the safest, followed by Alternatives B and D, and 

then Alternative C. 

Issue 4 – Social and Economic Concerns 

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

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

within 3 miles of a gateway community. Based on the number of miles of trail within 300 feet of 

adjacent private land, Alternative D would have the lowest potential for noise disturbance and 

increased road and trail dust to neighbors. The other alternatives would all have higher potential, at 

about the same level. 

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

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

to be diverse. The loss of OHV recreational opportunities from limiting or prohibiting cross-country 

motorized travel would be at least partially offset by the enhanced OHV trail system opportunities 

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

develop on adjacent private properties to provide cross-country areas for OHV users seeking 

opportunities for activities such as hill-climb, motocross, mud-bogging, or rock-crawling. None of 

the alternatives would be expected to create any measurable social or economic consequences on the 

Black Hills region. 

Implementation 

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

Rule: 

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

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

public by vehicle type and season of use. The map would be available to the public at no 

cost. The motor vehicle use map would be published annually. Based on any issues 

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

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

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

environmental impacts, changes in demand, route construction, and monitoring conducted 

under the final rule may lead responsible officials to considering revising designations. Any 

signage implemented on the ground would coincide with the motor vehicle use map but legal 

enforcement would be based on the motor vehicle use map, not on on-site signage. 

41 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Publishing a motor vehicle use map is the only legal requirement that must be met to 

establish and enforce the rule. 

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

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

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

will likely require that certain design criteria or mitigating measures be put in place prior to 

full implementation. As these measures identified in the analysis are completed, the 

associated routes will be designated on the motor vehicle use map and opened for use as 

appropriate. 

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

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

available law enforcement staff by increasing field presence of uniformed Forest employees, 

Forest Protection Officers, and coordinating with other agency enforcement personnel. All 

Forest personnel have been directed to observe, record, and report violations of our 

regulations. 

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

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

nonmotorized recreation user groups, conservationists and others to provide access to NFS 

lands on routes and in areas that are environmentally and socially sustainable. Currently, 

many of the Forest’s motorized routes and areas are maintained and improved through 

cooperative relationships. 

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

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

home page of the Forest Internet website; the motor vehicle use map in easily usable form, 

hardcopy and electronic; appropriate route signing; interpretive signs on routes and at 

trailheads; advertisements and notices in newspapers of record; and other tools as 

appropriate. 

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

volunteer groups might participate. Participating volunteer groups would (1) engage users in 

the management of their National Forest, (2) promote safe and responsible riding, (3) inform 

and educate riders about trail rules and proper land use, (4) monitor trail activity and 

reporting unsafe trail conditions or illegal activities, (5) perform light trail maintenance, and 

(6) respond to and assist trail emergencies. 

Monitoring 

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

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

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

effectiveness of standards and guidelines. 

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

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

management is being effectively managed on the Forest. Monitoring motorized use as part of the 

Forest’s Plan is required in 36 CFR 212.57. The Forest would reference the Forest Plan monitoring 

strategy where appropriate. The ID team also has compiled additional monitoring needs in the 

project area, which are needed to validate assumptions used in this planning process, and to verify 

that the plan is being implemented as intended. Monitoring items will be prioritized by the 

responsible official if funding is not available to implement all objectives or items listed or 

referenced in the monitoring plan. 

42 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

43 

The stream crossing inventory protocol needs to be completed. The purpose is to find crossings not 

meeting current standards, to prescribe and implement rehabilitation measures to reduce impacts at 

these crossings. This should be completed by stream, beginning with the streams that are listed as 

impaired due to temperature and continuing on to the streams with the most crossings. It should be 

completed for the entire stream, in order to identify abandoned crossings that are no longer used. 

See Appendix B to the water resource specialist’s report. 

The effects analysis assumes that monitoring of plant occurrences will occur and that any impacts 

discovered will be mitigated. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

Introduction 

This chapter describes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project 

area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. The effects analysis 

and disclosure presented here is tiered to the analysis presented in the Final EIS for the Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 

1996a), and the Final EIS for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource 

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

This chapter presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives 

presented in Chapter 2. Analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives was 

completed by the ID team incorporating field observations, surveys and review; aerial 

photography; resource modeling; literature review; past experience and professional judgment; 

information obtained through monitoring; Forest Plan direction and analysis; and public 

participation. Direct and indirect effects are effects that could be expected from the 

implementation of this project. Direct effects are those occurring at the same time and place as 

the initial cause or action. Indirect effects occur later in time or in a different space than the 

activity. Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives were analyzed over a 

period extending ten years into the future, unless stated otherwise. 

Cumulative effects are effects of this project when added to the effects of other actions. 

Cumulative effects analysis accounts for the incremental addition of direct and indirect effects of 

this project, added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable effects from other sources. The 

area analyzed for cumulative effects is the area within the Forest boundary, unless otherwise 

stated. The time horizon evaluated for cumulative effects analysis was generally ten years into 

the future, unless otherwise stated. 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 

Past actions are addressed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the following 

manner: “Generally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing 

on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of 

individual past actions.” (CEQ Memo of June 24, 2005.) In other words, the effects of all past 

actions have created the current affected environment and existing condition; consequently, 

specific past actions do not need to be identified for the cumulative impacts analysis. In general, 

past actions that have taken place over the last 100 years include grazing, timber harvest, mining 

and exploration, recreational camping and travel, wildfires, prescribed burning, and small 

product removal (i.e., post and poles, and firewood). 

Present actions are typically ongoing activities and are treated similarly to past actions. These 

activities include winter recreation such as snowmobiling and skiing; summer recreation such as 

hunting, dispersed camping and off-highway vehicle use; commodity uses such as gathering of 

fuelwood and other forest products, and livestock grazing; timber harvest and commercial fuel 

management, and associated road construction and reconstruction; wildfire suppression; noxious 

weed treatments; and other activities. 

45 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Reasonably foreseeable actions are those Forest Service actions that are formal proposals or 

decisions not yet implemented at the time of the analysis, and those non-Forest Service actions 

whose implementation is no longer speculative. Activities that add to the effects of designated 

travel routes include wildfires, timber harvesting, fuel reduction, livestock grazing, and 

recreational uses (hunting, hiking, motorized recreation, etc.). In general, it is assumed that 

Forest actions will continue at roughly the rate experienced over the last 10 years. It is assumed 

that the rate of private land subdivision and development, and the requests for access to these 

private parcels, will increase over what has been seen in the last 10 years. 

The existing condition described in Chapter 2 for Alternative A is the baseline for the affected 

environment and environmental consequences that are discussed in the sections below. This 

existing condition includes cross-country travel and route proliferation on the Forest. 

See Appendix E for a partial listing of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project. 

General Assumptions for All Alternatives 

In developing the range of alternatives, the following assumptions were used. Under any of the 

action alternatives: 

 The public would observe and comply with the proposed transportation system. 

Specifically, motorized users would use only motorized routes designated on the motor 

vehicle use map, and would refrain from using routes not designated on that map. 

 Motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping activities do not enter into or cross 

perennial streams. 

 More areas open for motorized game retrieval would generally be expected to generate 

more use of these areas. 

 Concentrating vehicle use to reduce effects on routes and areas not designated will 

increase use and possibly effects on routes and areas that are designated. 

Recreation 

Introduction 

The analysis for the recreation resource includes all the lands within the Black Hills region of 

South Dakota and Wyoming. These lands could be in Federal, State, or private ownership. The 

analysis is largely based on information from: 

 Attributes contained in GIS for roads and recreation. 

 Personal knowledge of recreation resources. 

 Personal experience from working with various recreation user groups. 

Recreation in the Black Hills has been occurring for centuries. In the early days, activities that 

are considered recreational today were more of a way of life. Native Americans used the lands 

as hunting grounds and places to collect medicinal plants. With General Custer’s expedition in 

1874 came an influx of white settlers into the region in search of gold. Mining towns soon 

began springing up everywhere, establishing travelways that are still used today. The National 

Park Service established some of the first parks within and around the Black Hills, which 

increased tourism opportunities. These included Wind Cave National Park in 1903, Devil’s 

46 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Tower National Monument in 1906, Jewel Cave National Monument in 1908, and Mount 

Rushmore National Park in 1927. 

By 1933, the arrival of the Civilian Conservation Corps helped to improve roads, bridges, and 

trails to access the area and improve the resources of the region. By the 1960s, Forest managers 

wanted to increase tourism activities. Campgrounds, picnic areas, and other recreational 

infrastructure, such as cabins and hiking trails were developed to provide places for people to 

recreate. 

Today, visitors to the Black Hills enjoy a variety of recreational opportunities such as developed 

and dispersed camping, picnicking, driving along scenic byways, hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, wilderness experience, fishing and hunting, rock climbing, water-related 

activities, winter activities, interpretive and educational sites, fire lookout towers, and 

observation sites. Motorized users of the Black Hills include a variety of off-highway vehicles, 

such as all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, jeeps, and off-highway motorcycles as well as a 

variety of highway-legal vehicles such as passenger cars, trucks, vans, buses, motorhomes, and 

touring motorcycles. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Providing outdoor recreation opportunities with minimum impacts to natural resources is a 

primary goal in the Forest Service strategic plan (USDA Forest Service 2004). OHV use has 

been allowed on National Forest System lands since prior to the 1970s and is one of the fastest 

growing recreational activities on public lands. Two objectives of the strategic plan are to (1) 

emphasize improvement of public access and (2) improve the management of OHV use to 

protect natural resources, promote safety, and minimize conflicts among users (USDA Forest 

Service 2004). 

Variation in State Laws for Motorized Activities - The Forest is split between two states: 

South Dakota (83%) and Wyoming (17%). Each State has different laws that impact the 

motorized travel opportunities on the Forest. In 2002, the Wyoming legislature signed into law 

Wyoming Statute 311-101, which resulted in a recreational program for registering OHVs on 

designated trails, routes, and areas. The Bearlodge Ranger District, which lies entirely in 

Wyoming, enrolled 24 miles of roads to be open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less (to be 

managed as motorized trails for public use) and about 258 miles of roads open to all vehicles. 

Wyoming State law allows drivers of any age on the routes designated as trails. Trails enrolled 

under the program require an OHV sticker, while enrolled roads require a licensed driver and the 

vehicle to display either an OHV sticker or license plate. 

South Dakota currently does not have an OHV program. South Dakota State traffic law 32-20-

12 regulates motorized opportunities on highways and roads within the Forest. Roads classified 

as “public roads” require licensed drivers and motor vehicles be registered; otherwise motor 

vehicles are allowed to operate in the outer edge of road ditches. Roads under Forest Service 

jurisdiction and open to motorized use are considered as public roads. 

State Law for Dispersed Camping - Dispersed camping sites are widespread through the Black 

Hills, especially in Wyoming. The lower density of dispersed camping in South Dakota is likely 

due to the restriction on open fires by South Dakota State statue 34-35-15, established in 1941. 

Visitors recreating in South Dakota are only allowed to have campfires in developed 

campgrounds with established fire grills. Wyoming does not restrict open fires except by special 

orders during periods of extreme drought. Different user groups have developed the existing 

47 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

sites based on their accessibility and the experiences they are seeking. Dispersed campsites 

across the Forest are occupied primarily in the summer recreation season and during the fall 

hunting season. Most of the campsites lie within 300 to 500 feet of open roads. 

Forest Plan Direction for Recreation Opportunities - One of the goals of the Forest Plan is to 

provide a range of recreational opportunities. Several management aspirations are as follows: 

Forest trails will provide recreation opportunities for person with disabilities, hikers, mountain 

bikers, cross-country skiers, snowmobiles, horseback riders, ATVs, motorbikes, and four-wheel 

drive vehicles. Trails typically will be managed to minimize user conflicts. The trail system will 

link many recreation points of interest, other agency trails, and communities to provide a diverse 

array of recreational opportunities and travel routes. The majority of trail opportunities will be 

oriented towards day use with opportunities for multi-day trips on a system of interconnecting 

trails (USDA Forest Service 2006a). 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Direction - The Forest Plan identified all ROS classes as 

guidelines with the exception of Management Emphasis Area 2.2, Research Natural Areas, in 

which the semi-primitive nonmotorized ROS class is a standard (USDA Forest Service 2006a). 

As a Forest guideline, dispersed recreation is discouraged within 100 feet from lakes and streams 

unless exceptions are justified by terrain (USDA Forest Service 2006a). A Forest standard for 

dispersed camping within the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (MA 4.2A) prohibits camping within 

300 feet of highways and Forest development roads, except in developed campgrounds (USDA 

Forest Service 2006a). 

Developed recreation sites, such as trailheads, are not to be located in or immediately adjacent to 

known locations of R2 sensitive or plant species of local concern (USDA Forest Service 2006a). 

Forest Special Orders Affecting Travel Management - An executive special order, signed on 

June 17, 1992, prohibits dispersed camping within the Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway. 

(Executive Order 23) 

Hunting - The Forest is open to public hunting for a variety of game species including turkey, 

elk, deer, mountain goat, and mountain lion. Mountain goat and mountain lion hunt seasons are 

very limited in terms of animal quota and amount of hunt time. The majority of the hunters 

come to the Forest for elk, turkey, and deer seasons in the fall between August and December. 

Below is a table indicating the number of licenses sold and animals harvested from the Forest in 

2006 for elk and deer species. National Forest System lands account for the majority of public 

lands within the hunt areas. 

Table 8. Hunting in the Forest for 2006 as represented in reports from Wyoming and South Dakota 

Game and Fish Departments 

Location and Animal Hunt Areas Licenses Sold Animal Harvests 

South Dakota 

 Elk 

 Deer 

Black Hills 

Black Hills 

2,670 

8,932 

1,358 

6,810 

Wyoming 

 Elk 

 Deer 

 Mule Deer 

1; 116 

2; 4 

2; 4 

505 

2,619 

2,619 

225 

3,566 

1,124 

48 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Methodology 

Recreation is a social resource in that it’s based on personal interpretation. What might be 

considered a quality experience for one, may not necessarily apply to another. No amount of 

research can adequately be utilized to measure the effects on the quality of recreation someone 

may encounter. Research documents were reviewed to provide an understanding of how 

different experiences could impact recreation activities. The analysis is largely based on 

information from: 

 Attributes contained in GIS for roads and recreation. 

 Personal knowledge of recreation resources. 

 Personal experience from working with various recreation user groups. 

During the scoping process the public indicated that the relationship of motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation was one the most important issues. There is a desire for quality 

recreation experiences, while addressing potential conflicts between the different users. Concern 

was expressed regarding potential impacts to nonmotorized recreation uses including damage to 

trail surfaces, noise, safety, and reduction in quality of nonmotorized recreation experience due 

to user conflicts. Concern was also expressed regarding potential impacts between different 

motorized user groups. 

Issues 

From the public involvement, the Forest identified public concerns that should be analyzed in 

detail in the EIS. Three of the issue statements relate to the recreation resources: 

Issue 2 - Effects on recreational opportunities. Recreational opportunities can be divided into 

two categories; motorized and nonmotorized. The designation of motorized opportunities, 

particularly the designation by vehicle class, may affect nonmotorized opportunities. With the 

variety of motorized vehicles on the market, recreational experiences between the motorized 

users could be impacted when travel routes are shared. The opportunities for motorized dispersed 

camping and motorized game retrieval could also be impacted as a result of designating travel 

routes. 

Indicators 

 Miles of road open to all vehicles 

 Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

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

 Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Miles of special designations (including rock crawling) 

 Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 

 Acres open to game retrieval 

 Acres open to dispersed camping 

 Number of motorized trailheads 

Issue 3 - Effects of transportation system design on management capabilities. How 

particular routes are classified for motorized-mixed-use opportunities could impact unlicensed 

drivers opportunities to recreate with families. 

49 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Indicator 

 Miles of roads converted to trail 

Issue 4 - Social and economic concerns. How the motorized travel routes are identified could 

impact businesses and private property. 

Indicators 

 Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of non-Forest lands. 

 Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway community. 

Affected Environment 

The Forest is a regionally important recreation destination in South Dakota and Wyoming. The 

natural and cultural diversity within the rugged hills provides the basis for a wide variety of 

recreational activities and is vital to the area’s recreation and tourism industries. Interspersed 

within the Forest are five National Park units including Devil’s Tower National Monument and 

Mount Rushmore National Park. Custer and Bear Butte State Parks, Bureau of Reclamation 

lands, and historic towns also lie within the area. 

Since the Forest is a popular recreational destination, visitors to the Forest use motorized access 

to a high degree. In 2004, the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey for the Black Hills 

estimated that 1.2 million people visit the region annually. “Driving for pleasure” was identified 

as one of the top five activities, and as the second highest reason people visit the Forest. In 

2006, based on the survey information, the Forest Supervisor developed a marketing strategy for 

the Forest, “Access for the Ages”, which focuses recreation opportunities on specialized 

campgrounds, roaded recreation opportunities and a system of trails connecting communities 

showcasing the user-friendly access provided by the Forest to year-round family activities. The 

Forest offers hundreds of miles of Federal and State highways, County roads and Forest roads, 

including the Norbeck and Spearfish Scenic Byways. 

As stated earlier, the forest visitors enjoy a wide variety of recreation opportunities, including 

on- and off-road motorized use. Some motorized use is required to access most of these 

opportunities, no matter what the visitor’s recreational preference may be. 

To provide a variety of recreational experiences for the visitor, the Forest utilized a classification 

system referred to as Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). ROS is a planning and 

management tool that categorizes recreation opportunities into six settings, ranging from 

primitive to urban (see Glossary). The Forest Plan identified four of the six settings for its 

management emphasis including primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive 

motorized and roaded natural. The roaded natural category was further expanded to add another 

category called roaded natural nonmotorized to provide the Forest with additional diversity. A 

breakdown of acres and percent of Forest within each of the ROS classifications can be found in 

the table below. Within ROS classes, visitors can expect to find a variety of recreational 

activities, including developed and dispersed, motorized and nonmotorized opportunities. 

The majority of the motorized travel system on the Forest is accessible by passenger type 

vehicles including cars, trucks, vans, buses, motor homes, SUVs, and touring motorcycles. Offhighway vehicles, including ATVs, jeeps, and off-highway motorcycles were sampled in the 

2004 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey, but ranked only 11th (2.99%) among the 25 types 

of recreational activities sampled as the primary purpose for visits to the Forest. 

50 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 9. Black Hills National Forest ROS classes 

ROS Acres Percent of National Forest Acres 

Primitive 14,847 1.19% 

Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized 36,237 2.91% 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 11,996 0.96% 

Roaded Natural 1,105,582 88.71% 

Roaded Natural Nonmotorized 78,177 6.27% 

Total 1,246,839 

Motorized recreation on the Forest can be divided into five user groups including passenger 

vehicles, four-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, and off-highway 

motorcycles. Each group represents a different motorized need for their experience. Some prefer 

roads, some trails, and some prefer the freedom to traverse the forest environment. Scoping 

comments on the proposed action indicated that the customers of the Black Hills prefer to see a 

variety of motorized recreation opportunities. 

In February 2008, the report, “Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Use in the United States” was 

produced to identify statistical information about OHV use. A phone survey was conducted to 

measure participation in outdoor recreation. Nearly 92,000 people were surveyed between 1999 

and 2007. The report showed a dramatic increase in retail sales nationwide of ATVs and offhighway motorcycles between 1995 (368,600 total units sold) and 2003 (8,010,000 total units 

sold). The report also provided data by individual states for the amount of population 16 years 

and older participating in an OHV program. Interestingly, Wyoming ranked highest in the nation 

for percentage of state population participating in OHV use, while South Dakota ranked eighth in 

the nation (Cordell 2008). 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A – No Action 

The Forest currently has 3,740 miles of NFS roads open to motorized travel yearlong or 

seasonally, excluding roads under other jurisdiction and 864,000 acres, (72%) of NFS lands open 

to off-road (cross-country) motorized travel for recreation and game retrieval. Approximately 12 

miles of motorized trails exist in South Dakota, while Wyoming has designated 24 miles of 

closed FS system roads open to motorized vehicles 50 inches wide or less under the Wyoming 

OHV program. Also, in Wyoming, all NFS roads open to motorized vehicles have been enrolled 

in the Wyoming OHV program; thus requiring all vehicles to either be highway-legal or display 

an OHV sticker. Across the Forest, current management direction closes all unclassified routes 

to motorized use. In addition, under this alternative there is no special designation for 

motorcycle trails or rock crawler areas. 

Motorized opportunities. The NFS roads currently open to all forms of motorized travel will 

continue to provide access for highway-legal vehicles for a variety of recreational activities. It is 

important to note that roads determined to be unclassified, without road numbers, are closed to 

all forms of motorized use. Many of the unclassified roads are not physically barricaded or 

signed as closed and have been used by the recreating public for motorized access. Unclassified 

51 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

roads could occur anywhere on the Forest, including in areas open or closed to cross-country 

travel. 

The motorized opportunity on the Forest is a shared component with all motorized users. The 

limited amount of motorized trails open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less means that these users 

are mixing with full-size vehicles on higher speed roads creating a safety concern for accidents. 

In an effort to avoid these conflicts, ATVs and motorcycle users usually find their own places to 

recreate, thus creating their own trail systems. Some of these trails are along old roads that may 

have been used for logging or other resource activity (unclassified roads). Some trails are 

illegally created from repeated use by motorized users; these can cause environmental harm if 

located in environmentally sensitive areas. 

Motorized vehicles that are not highway legal in South Dakota will be restricted to designated 

trails. Roads under Forest Service jurisdiction open to motorized use will require motorized 

vehicles to be highway-legal and have licensed drivers. In Wyoming, vehicles that are not 

highway legal must have an OHV sticker under State law and must be operated by a licensed 

driver on National Forest roads. Family units with unlicensed drivers and non-highway-legal 

vehicles will be restricted to trails only. This limits families with unlicensed drivers to 12 miles 

of trails in South Dakota and 24 miles of trails in Wyoming. 

Private land, State and other Federal ownership (non-FS) accounts for 20 percent of the acreage 

within the Black Hills National Forest boundary. Many landowners are concerned that the 

motorized activities in the Black Hills will impact their land and access; while others are 

concerned that they would not be able to access the designated trail system from their homes, 

requiring them to trailer to designated trailheads. Under Alternative A, 504 miles of Forest 

Service roads, 4 miles of trails, and 523 miles of other jurisdiction roads (such as County or 

Federal highways) would be located within 300 feet of private property and open to motorized 

use either seasonally or yearlong. 

Cross-country travel. As a result of the continued cross-country travel opportunities, there 

would be continued confusion to recreation users with regards to travel management policy and 

restrictions. In areas where roads are closed to motorized use, but the Forest land surrounding 

the roads is open to motorized use, visitors are likely to utilize the closed road illegally rather 

than traverse the Forest. 

Recreation conflicts occur when participation in one recreation activity reduces the recreation 

experience of another user. Conflicts are usually between motorized and nonmotorized 

recreationists. However, conflicts can also occur between motorized users when cross-country 

travel leaves unsightly damage to the land and motorized users fail to implement the “Tread 

Lightly” principles. User conflicts would continue to increase, under this alternative, as more 

motorized recreation occurs on lands with unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. 

Motorized recreation use is increasing and as this use increases, more people would travel crosscountry in places where it is allowed. Conflict from motorized cross-country travel would be 

reduced when site-specific planning is completed and implemented, or when emergency closures 

are put into effect. 

There would be no effect on people with disabilities or those people not physically fit to walk 

distances, because the same opportunities for motorized travel would continue to be available. 

Recreation opportunity spectrum. Only 10 percent of the Forest has been designated as 

primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, or roaded natural nonmotorized ROS classes. These 

52 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

ROS classes are designed to offer the public an opportunity for a quiet experience. Some of these 

areas have designated nonmotorized trail systems for hiking, horseback riding, or mountain 

biking opportunities. Others offer opportunities for the public to explore on their own. All areas 

have unclassified or low maintenance roads that the public is free to use for nonmotorized 

activities. The table below indicates the total number of miles of roads and their maintenance 

level that would likely be found within a semi-primitive nonmotorized or roaded natural 

nonmotorized area. 

Table 10. Miles of road within semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM) and roaded natural 

nonmotorized (RNNM) areas 

Road Type SPNM - miles RNNM-miles 

ML 1 31 152 

ML 2 23 65 

ML 3 5 22 

ML 4 4 6 

Other jurisdiction 5 13 

Unclassified/User created 42 182 

Table 11. Alternative A roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized areas 

SPNM RNNM 

Roads or trails open to motorized activities 36 miles 107 miles 

Roads or trails closed to motorized activities 72 miles 333 miles 

Although the desired condition of these ROS classes is to offer a solitude experience, many are 

impacted by existing roads open to motorized activities. Of the semi-primitive nonmotorized 

class, only the Research Natural Areas and Fort Meade Watershed restrict or close roads to 

motorized use inside the boundary of ROS designation. Of the roaded natural nonmotorized 

class, only 5 of the 22 areas restrict motorized access inside the designated boundary. For some 

of the areas, such as Little Spearfish Creek, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, or McIntosh Fen semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, access roads are main system Level 4 roads or Federal highways 

that provide access to other parts of the Forest. In other cases, the access roads are low-level 

maintenance roads that provide access to the areas or trailheads, such as Sand Creek, Lower Hell 

Canyon, Eagle Cliff, and Pactola Spillway. The smaller the nonmotorized area, the bigger an 

impact motorized access has on it. Regardless of the purpose of the road, motorized access into 

nonmotorized areas affects the quiet and serene experience that some visitors desire. 

Continued implementation of this alternative would not be consistent with a Forest Plan 

guideline for ROS designation. Motorized opportunities would continue to impact the semiprimitive nonmotorized and roaded natural nonmotorized designation. The Forest Plan ROS 

standard for Management Emphasis 2.2, Research Natural Areas, has been achieved for all five 

areas by eliminating or restricting motorized access within the designated areas. The two areas 

identified as primitive ROS setting, Black Elk Wilderness, and Inyan Kara Inventoried Roadless 

Area, also meet the Forest Plan ROS guideline by restricting motorized access within their 

boundaries. 

53 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 12. Analysis indicators for Alternative A 

Indicators Unit of Measure 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

148 miles 

12 miles 

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

2,924 miles 

656 miles 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

0 miles 

0 miles 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

12 miles 

24 miles 

Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

0 miles 

0 miles 

Miles of special designation (rock crawling) 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

0 miles 

0 miles 

Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 0 areas 

Acres open to motorized cross-country travel 864,000 acres 

Acres open to motorized game retrieval 864,000 acres 

Acres open to motorized dispersed camping 864,000 acres 

Number of motorized trailheads 7 trailheads 

Miles of roads converted to trail 0 miles 

Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of non-Forest lands 504 miles 

Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway community 0 trailheads 

Dispersed camping. Motorized dispersed camping would continue to occur anywhere on the 

Forest with minimal restrictions with the exception of the Norbeck area, wilderness, research 

natural areas, and Spearfish Canyon. 

Game retrieval. The greatest impact to hunters occurs when motorized vehicles access areas 

designated nonmotorized. Under this alternative, with 72 percent of the Forest’s land base open 

to cross-country travel, big game hunters have many opportunities to utilize any motorized 

vehicle to retrieve their harvests for any game species, including turkey, elk, deer, mountain lion, 

and mountain goat. For the nonmotorized hunter, 28 percent of the National Forest System land 

area is restricted for motorized access. 

When motorized hunters impact the nonmotorized areas during hunting seasons, it affects those 

hunters whose methods of accessing, scouting, stalking, and retrieving are by foot or horse. To 

some extent, even in open cross-country areas, those motorized hunters who stay on roads and 

trails can be affected by hunters who travel cross-country. Their hunting experience may be 

reduced or spoiled by others using motorized vehicles to travel cross-country to scout for game, 

access favorite hunting areas, and drive or chase game for a better shot or to retrieve game. For 

many, the noise created by motorized vehicles diminishes the hunting experience because it 

disturbs and displaces game animals from the immediate area. The effects are more pronounced 

where motorized cross-country use is more common, such as on flatter or more open terrain. 

Fewer hunters are affected in the heavily timbered and or steeper areas where there is less 

54 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

opportunity for motorized cross-country travel, or in areas currently closed to cross-country 

travel. 

Continued forest management activities, such as timber harvesting or prescribed burning, can 

also displace game species and affect a successful hunt. Some hunters have complained that if 

an area of the Forest restricts motorized access, it should restrict that access to all, including 

Forest managers and its contractors and permittees. 

Alternative B - Modified Proposed Action 

This alternative proposed a total of 4,129 miles of motorized opportunities on roads and trails be 

designated yearlong or seasonally for all types of vehicles. Motorcycle trails would account for 

76 miles, while trails 50 inches wide or less would account for 414 miles. Twenty-five miles of 

routes would be designated as special designation for rock crawling areas. Most seasonal 

designation of trails and roads would overlap with snowmobile trails or big game habitat areas. 

Dispersed camping would be restricted to within 100 feet of designated roads only, while game 

retrieval would be restricted to 300 feet off of designated routes for retrieval of elk only. 

Motorized opportunities. The proposed routes for motorized designation consist mostly of a 

variety of roads. Those using passenger type vehicles would not experience any change in 

access to developed sites or recreational trailheads. Users desiring off-road opportunities would 

experience changes with the closure of cross-country travel and the limitation to designated 

routes. Motorized users who desire challenging experiences they previously found with crosscountry travel may find a road-based system dull and not challenging enough. The relatively 

few designated rock-crawling areas identified under this alternative may become over-run as 

users look to these areas to fulfill the challenging rides they once experienced through crosscountry travel. The increased use of these areas may result in higher maintenance needs and 

eventually lead to closure if resource damage becomes too great. 

To provide the desired trail experience, some roads would be restricted to vehicles 50 inches 

wide or less to reduce conflicts with larger vehicles. These roads have grass or native surfaces 

rather than gravel and can provide for a narrower trail experience that some visitors prefer if 

managers choose to limit maintenance along the road to a 50-inch width. Over time, these routes 

would narrow as vegetation naturally encroaches on the road. However, if these routes are 

needed for future management activities, such as logging activity, the trail experience would be 

lost at least temporarily as the roads are reconstructed to a wider width to accommodate logging 

vehicles. In Wyoming, these trail areas would require an OHV sticker and be open to drivers of 

any age to operate vehicles 50-inches wide or less, while in South Dakota these areas would be 

available for both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. 

Although there would be more opportunities for motorized recreation for vehicles 50 inches 

wide or less as a result of restricting motorized access on some NFS roads under this alternative, 

conflicts between motorized users would continue to occur on all designated routes. Also, 

conflicts between management activities and motorized users could occur on routes designated 

as trails if administrative use of these routes allows access by full size vehicles. Safety concerns 

for head-on collisions, particularly along blind corners, could occur on any road designated for 

motorized use between full-size vehicles and vehicles 50 inches wide or less. Another conflict 

between motorized users exists when ATVs access motorcycle trails. Please refer to the 

Engineering section in this document for further discussion of safety of motorized mixed uses on 

roads and trails. 

55 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Due to the purpose for which many roads were constructed or established, it is likely that the 

motorcycle trails have sufficient width to accommodate ATVs. Over time, ATVs create two 

tracks, which could make it difficult for single-track vehicles (motorcycles) to negotiate the trail. 

Since the designated system consists mostly of roads that were designed for management 

activities, the recreating public may be impacted by logging traffic, road equipment, fire 

equipment, etc., as the Forest continues to manage the resources of the land. Some routes may 

be closed temporarily to reduce user conflicts and safety hazards until management activities are 

completed. These temporary closures would displace motorized user to other locations, which 

could increase resource impacts and possibly damage. 

Under this alternative, more opportunities exist for non-highway-legal vehicles to traverse the 

designated system. Any route identified open to all motorized use would be open to nonhighway-legal vehicles for South Dakota only; Wyoming would still require non-highway-legal 

vehicles to display an OHV sticker. State law still applies for both states, in that drivers are 

required to carry a driver’s license when operating on public roads. Designated trails will offer 

the only opportunities for unlicensed drivers to travel. Family units with unlicensed drivers 

would likely enjoy the motorized opportunities designed in this alternative. This alternative 

offers 638 miles of trails and 2,226 miles of roads open to a variety of motorized use either 

yearlong or seasonally. 

For private, State, and other (non-FS) Federal ownership lands, this alternative accounts for 490 

miles of Forest Service roads, 30 miles of trails, and 523 miles of other jurisdiction roads (such 

as County or Federal highways) located within 300 feet of private property open to motorized 

use either seasonally or yearlong. 

Trailheads. Thirty-one trailheads have been identified for this alternative to provide parking 

opportunities. Of these, only 10 are within 3 miles of communities that offer amenities such as 

hotels, gas stations, and restaurants. 

Recreation opportunity spectrum. As compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would open 

additional roads to motorized opportunities inside areas with ROS settings for nonmotorized 

activities. For semi-primitive nonmotorized areas, three areas – Dugout, Cook Lake, and 

Sundance Burn – would have roads open to motorized use. On the other hand, Beaver/Bear 

Gulch and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve would see roads closed to motorized use. All other semiprimitive nonmotorized areas remain unchanged from Alternative A. Both Cook Lake and 

Dugout would offer opportunities to connect motorized trails 50 inches wide for looping 

opportunities, while Sundance Burn would identify a trail to an overlook. Overall, this 

alternative would open 3 miles of new routes to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized areas. 

Of the roaded natural nonmotorized areas, Bogus Jim, Smith Draw, Eagle Cliff, Forbes Gulch, 

and Wood Canyon would see new roads opened to motorized use. Forbes Gulch would have 

approximately 6 miles of motorized trail designated open to all vehicles by special permit only 

for motorized events. Smith Draw, Wood Canyon, and Bogus Jim would see an increase in 

motorized use through designation of trails open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less or 

motorcycles, while Black Fox, Lower Rapid Creek, Battle Creek, Swede Gulch, Pactola 

Spillway, Buckhorn/Bear Gulch, and Big Game Resource Production would see reductions in 

motorized access by the closing of open roads. Overall, this alternative would open 3 miles of 

new routes to motorized use within roaded natural nonmotorized areas. 

56 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 13. Alternative B roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized area 

SPNM RNNM 

Roads or trails open to motorized activities 38 miles 109 miles 

Roads or trails closed to motorized activities 70 miles 331 miles 

This alternative would not be consistent with a Forest Plan guideline for ROS designations in 

that motorized opportunities would continue to impact the semi-primitive nonmotorized, and 

roaded natural nonmotorized designations. The Forest Plan ROS standard for Management 

Emphasis 2.2, Research Natural Areas, has been achieved for all five areas. The two areas 

identified as primitive ROS setting are Black Elk Wilderness and Inyan Kara Inventoried 

Roadless Area, which would also meet the Forest Plan ROS guideline by restriction of motorized 

access within their boundaries. 

Table 14. Analysis indicators for Alternative B 

Indicators Unit of Measure 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

1,638 miles 

588 miles 

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

991 miles 

249 miles 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

95 miles 

52 miles 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

142 miles 

272 miles 

Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

75 miles 

1 miles 

Miles of special designation (rock crawling) 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

13 miles 

12 miles 

Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 0 areas 

Acres open to motorized cross-country travel 0 acres 

Acres open to motorized game retrieval – 300 feet 179,000 acres 

Acres open to motorized dispersed camping – 100 feet 63,500 acres 

Number of motorized trailheads 31 trailheads 

Miles of roads converted to trail 207 miles 

Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of non-Forest lands 490 miles 

Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway community 10 trailheads 

Cross-country travel. This alternative would eliminate recreational experiences associated with 

cross-country driving. Recreation conflicts associated with cross-country travel would also be 

eliminated. Over time, illegally created trails within open cross-country areas would revegetate. 

57 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Motorized users desiring the experience of cross-country travel may find other areas to recreate 

on neighboring lands including the Railroad Buttes motorized use area. 

Most National Forest System lands would still be accessible to some degree by motorized 

vehicles under this alternative as the road and trail network is generally dense enough that people 

would not have to walk more than a mile to reach a road or trail. Some people may view these 

changes as a loss of recreation opportunity. Restricting motorized cross-country travelers to 

roads and trails would have little to no effect on motorized visitors who only use roads and trails 

now. 

Dispersed camping. Dispersed camping would be restricted to 100 feet off of designated roads, 

although not all areas along designated roads are suitable for dispersed camping due to 

topography and vegetation. This could result in campsites being very close to motorized roads. 

Dust and noise from adjacent roads could impact campsites. No motorized dispersed camping 

would be allowed from any designated motorized trail. Therefore, dispersed campers desiring 

more distance off a road would be displaced. For Alternative B, the current management 

direction that restricts motorized dispersed camping would be the same as Alternative A. 

Game retrieval. Off-road motorized game retrieval opportunities under this alternative would 

be restricted to 300 feet for elk season only off of designated routes. Limiting motorized hunters 

to this specific distance for elk retrieval only would reduce the conflicts between motorized and 

nonmotorized hunters, but could create more illegal road hunting problems for game 

enforcement officers. Under Alternative B, motorized hunters would not be allowed to scout for 

game, access favorite hunting areas, and drive or chase game for a better shot and retrieve game. 

Alternative C 

This alternative proposes a total of 4,353 miles of motorized opportunities on roads and trails 

that would be designated yearlong or seasonally for all types of vehicles. Motorcycle trails 

would account for 134 miles, while trail 50 inches wide would account for 462 miles. Twentythree miles of routes would be designated as special designation for rock crawling areas. Most 

seasonal designation of trails and roads would overlap with snowmobile trails or big game 

habitat areas. In addition to the designation of roads and trails, three small areas, less than 5 

acres each, would be set up as learning areas. Dispersed camping would be restricted to within 

300 feet of designated roads only, while game retrieval would be allowed in a designated area of 

about 373,000 acres open for cross-country retrieval of downed elk or deer. 

Motorized opportunities. This alternative would designate more routes open to all vehicles, 

thus giving all vehicle types more access to the Forest. Family units or motorized clubs that may 

have both UTVs (utility terrain vehicles) and ATVs would be able to travel together on more 

routes, with the exception of trails open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. However, all 

motorized users would be competing for access along routes, thus possibly increasing conflicts 

between motorized user groups. Some routes may not be wide enough to accommodate passage 

of two vehicles and additional safety concerns could result. Please refer to the Engineering 

section of this document for further information on safety implications of the alternatives. 

Passenger type vehicles would not experience any change in access to developed sites or 

recreational trailheads. 

As with Alternative B, the designated system of Alternative C would consist mostly of roads that 

were originally designed for management activities. As the Forest continues to manage the 

resources of the land, the recreating public could be impacted by logging traffic, road equipment, 

58 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

fire equipment, etc. Some routes may be closed temporarily for public safety until management 

activities are completed. These temporary closures would displace motorized users to other 

locations, which could increase resource impacts and possibly resource damage. 

Under this alternative, opportunities for motorized travel would increase for highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal vehicles. Any route identified open to all motorized use would be open to 

non-highway-legal vehicles for South Dakota only; Wyoming would still require non-highwaylegal vehicles to display an OHV sticker. State law would still apply for both states, in that 

drivers would be required to carry a driver’s license when operating on public roads. Designated 

trails would offer the only opportunities for unlicensed drivers to travel. Family units with 

unlicensed drivers would find this alternative more accommodating with the addition of trails to 

explore with their children. This alternative would offer 749 miles of trails and 2,878 miles of 

roads open to a variety of motorized use either yearlong or seasonally. 

For private, State, and other Federal ownership lands, this alternative accounts for 500 miles of 

Forest Service roads, 32 miles of trails, and 523 miles of other jurisdiction roads (such as County 

or Federal highways) located within 300 feet of private property open to motorized use either 

seasonally or yearlong. 

Trailheads. Thirty-four trailheads would be identified in this alternative to provide parking 

opportunities. Of these 34 trailheads, only 11 would be within 3 miles of communities that offer 

amenities such as hotels, gas stations, and restaurants. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Alternative C would have more impacts to the 

nonmotorized ROS classes than Alternative B due to additional routes proposed for motorized 

access. Some nonmotorized areas have been improved through new motorized road closures 

while others have increased motorized opportunities. The greatest new motorized access would 

occur in the Smith Draw roaded natural nonmotorized, Sundance Burn semi-primitive 

nonmotorized, and Lower Rapid Creek and Pactola Spillway roaded natural nonmotorized areas. 

Alternative C would open 3 miles of new routes to motorized use as compared with Alternative 

A. For the roaded natural nonmotorized, this alternative would open 22 miles of new routes to 

motorized use. 

Table 15. Alternative C roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized areas 

SPNM RNNM 

Roads or trails open to motorized activities 38 miles 129 miles 

Roads or trails closed to motorized 

activities 70 miles 311 miles 

This alternative would not be consistent with a Forest Plan guideline for ROS designations in 

that motorized opportunities would continue to impact the semi-primitive nonmotorized and 

roaded natural nonmotorized designations. The Forest Plan ROS standard for Management 

Emphasis 2.2, Research Natural Areas would be achieved for all five areas. Two areas identified 

as primitive ROS setting are Black Elk Wilderness and Inyan Kara Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Black Elk Wilderness and Inyan Kara would also meet the Forest Plan ROS guideline by 

restricting motorized access within their boundaries. 

59 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Cross-country travel. As with Alternative B, this alternative would close the Forest to crosscountry travel. Users desiring off-road opportunities would be limited to designated routes. 

Those who desire challenging experiences typical of cross-country travel may find a road-based 

system dull and not challenging enough. The few designated rock-crawling areas identified 

under this alternative could become over-run as users look to these areas to fulfill the challenging 

rides they once experienced through cross-country travel. The increased use of these areas may 

result in higher maintenance and eventually lead to closure if resource damage becomes too 

great. 

To accommodate beginning motorized users, three areas would be provided as training areas. 

These areas would be small in scale, less than 3 acres, but would provide sufficient room to learn 

to operate an off-highway vehicle in a controlled setting. The effects of designating only three 

areas could create problems for managers if this activity is highly desired by the public, and 

users could soon overwhelm the small areas, resulting in conflicts between users and potential 

safety concerns. As use increased in these areas and track patterns become set, racetracks could 

ultimately develop. 

Dispersed camping. Under this alternative, motorized dispersed camping would be restricted to 

300 feet off of designated routes only. Not all areas along designated routes may be suitable for 

dispersed camping due to topography and vegetation. The increased distance, as compared with 

Alternative B, would allow additional space for users to pull off the motorized road and reduces 

the impacts from dust and noise related to camping on the edge of a road. Most dispersed 

campsites in the Forest are within 300 feet of a designated motorized road. Those campsites that 

are further away would be closed for use and rehabilitated. 

Game retrieval. During the initial scoping period for this project, South Dakota Game, Fish and 

Parks Department offered an alternative to the proposed action of designating a distance of up to 

one mile either side of any motorized road or trail for big game retrieval. The Forest Service 

reviewed this proposal, and determined it would result in little or no change from the current 

condition of the Forest, thus the proposal was eliminated from further consideration. 

However, the Forest Service developed Alternative C, which would designate an area for offroad motorized game retrieval on approximately 373,000 acres (31%) of the Forest. This area is 

considerably smaller than Alternative A, but would allow unrestricted off-road game retrieval 

opportunities for the motorized hunter during elk and deer season only (September to December) 

for South Dakota and Wyoming. The designated area proposed in this alternative has 

traditionally been open year-round to cross-country travel and would not likely create any new 

effects to the nonmotorized hunter. There is no data available to determine how many Black 

Hills hunters are motorized users, and it is possible that this smaller area could be heavily 

impacted, creating the potential for an increase in hunting accidents. However, it is likely that 

the designated area would continue to see management complications in areas where roads are 

closed to motorized use, but the land area is open to off-road motorized game retrieval since this 

is the case with the current management (see Alternative A discussion under cross-country 

travel). Only hunters would be allowed to travel off-road for game retrieval of downed animals. 

No recreational off-road travel would be allowed in this alternative. 

Outside of the designated off-road motorized game retrieval area, the density of motorized routes 

proposed would be relatively high allowing good access to the Forest. This alternative would 

require that animals harvested be dragged to a designated motorized route from as little as a halfmile to two miles distant, depending on the hunt area. 

60 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 16. Analysis indicators for Alternative C 

Indicators Unit of Measure 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

1,956 miles 

922 miles 

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

634 miles 

70 miles 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

91 miles 

63 miles 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

191 miles 

269 miles 

Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

109 miles 

25 miles 

Miles of special designation (rock crawling) 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

9 miles 

13 miles 

Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 3 areas 

Acres open to motorized cross-country travel 0 acres 

Acres open to motorized game retrieval – designated area 373,000 acres 

Acres open to motorized dispersed camping – 300 feet 184,000 acres 

Number of motorized trailheads 34 trailheads 

Miles of roads converted to trail 205 miles 

Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of non-Forest lands 500 miles 

Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway community 11 trailheads 

Alternative D 

This alternative proposes a total of 3,197 miles of motorized opportunities on roads and trails to 

be designated yearlong or seasonally for all types of vehicles. Motorcycle trails would account 

for 21 miles, while trails of 50 inches or less would account for 181 miles. Six miles of routes 

would be designated as special designation for rock crawling areas. Most seasonal designation 

of trails and roads would overlap with snowmobile trails or big game habitat areas. No dispersed 

camping or game retrieval would be allowed under this alternative. Vehicles that are not 

highway legal would be restricted in South Dakota to concentrated motorized use areas 

(CMUAs); whereas in Wyoming, these vehicles would be required to purchase a State OHV 

sticker to ride designated roads and trails. 

Motorized opportunities. Reduction of motorized access would concentrate motorized use into 

smaller areas, which could create additional environmental impacts and more conflicts between 

motorized users. The biggest reduction of motorized access would be seen on routes designated 

as trails for ATV and motorcycles, and special designated areas such as rock crawlers. As with 

the above alternatives, passenger type vehicles would continue to have access to popular 

recreation places such as campgrounds and picnic areas. 

With the reduction of motorized trail opportunities, users would share motorized routes similar 

to Alternative A. Highway-legal ATVs and UTVs would be able to travel the same routes as full 

61 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

size vehicles, thus creating the same conflicts between motorized user groups as the other 

alternatives. Motorcycle users would see their trail experience opportunity reduced to less than 

21 miles. The repeated use of these 21 miles could create additional rutting and possibly 

resource damage. Rock crawlers would also see increased use in their areas as users looking for 

challenges would be concentrated on 6 miles of designated trails. 

The smaller number of trail opportunities relative to other alternatives would concentrate 

management activities and recreating public into smaller areas. Impacts from vehicle traffic 

associated with management activity could also increase road closures to the public for safety 

reasons and further concentrate motorized recreation, particularly for the non-highway legal 

vehicles, which could increase resource impacts and resource damage. 

For this alternative, public safety was given additional consideration. Vehicles that are not 

highway legal would be restricted in South Dakota to only trail systems and a few designated 

roads that connect the trails. As with Alternatives B and C, any route identified open to all 

motorized use would be open to highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles for South Dakota 

only; while Wyoming would still require non-highway-legal vehicles to display an OHV sticker. 

State law would still apply for both states, in that drivers would be required to carry a driver’s 

license when operating on public roads. Designated trails would offer the only opportunities for 

unlicensed drivers to travel. This alternative would offer 314 miles of trails and 580 miles of 

roads open to a variety of motorized use either yearlong or seasonally. 

For South Dakota, seven concentrated motorized use areas were designed to provide nonhighway legal vehicles a place to recreate. Some areas provide a good day’s ride (perhaps about 

40 to 60 miles of interconnecting routes) while others are small (perhaps several miles to about 

20 miles of routes). These smaller areas may provide beginners opportunities to learn to ride; 

however, experienced riders will soon become bored with the short distances. There are also 

many dead end routes and trails that will require users to traverse back to the beginning. None 

of the CMUAs are linked together with trails or routes, forcing non-highway-legal motorized 

users to use trailers between the areas. 

Not all the routes designated open to non-highway-legal vehicles have designated trailheads, so 

users will be required to park on the roadsides in order to access the route. Continual use of 

these routes may create resource damage from repeated roadside parking. Competition between 

users, highway legal and non-highway legal, to access this limited area is expected to be high 

since these areas offer trail opportunities rather than roads to ride. Trails offer a more narrow 

experience that most motorized riders desire. 

For private, State, and other (non-FS) Federal ownership lands, this alternative would account 

for 423 miles of Forest Service roads, 22 miles of trails, and 523 miles of other jurisdiction roads 

(such as County or Federal highways) located within 300 feet of private property open to 

motorized use either seasonally or yearlong. Under this alternative with more routes identified 

as open to highway legal only, landowners would be required to license their recreational 

vehicles to travel from their homes or trailer their non-highway-legal vehicles to designated 

trailheads. 

Trailheads. Twenty-three trailheads would be identified for this alternative to provide parking 

opportunities. Of these, only 7 would be located within 3 miles of communities that offer 

amenities such as hotels, gas stations, and restaurants. In addition, since non-highway-legal 

vehicles would be restricted to trail areas, only 14 trailheads would be connected to the 

designated trail system, while the others are connected to highway-legal-only roads. 

62 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Under this alternative, alignment of motorized travel with 

ROS nonmotorized classes would be improved considerably over Alternative A; however, where 

other jurisdiction roads or FS maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 coincide with nonmotorized areas the 

potential for motorized conflict would still exist. As compared with Alternative A, no additional 

routes would be open for motorized use and new road closures are proposed for 12 miles and 30 

miles in semi-primitive nonmotorized and roaded natural nonmotorized, respectively. In 

addition to closures inside designated ROS nonmotorized classes, some roads outside these 

boundaries would also be closed to motorized use, thus providing more nonmotorized 

experience. 

Table 17. Alternative D roads or trails open or closed to motorized use within semi-primitive 

nonmotorized or roaded natural nonmotorized areas 

SPNM RNNM 

Roads or trails open to motorized activities 24 miles 77 miles 

Roads or trails closed to motorized activities 84 miles 363 miles 

This alternative would not be consistent with a Forest Plan guideline for ROS designations in 

that motorized opportunities would continue to impact the semi-primitive nonmotorized and 

roaded natural nonmotorized designation. The Forest Plan ROS standard for Management 

Emphasis 2.2, Research Natural Areas, would be achieved for all five areas. The two areas 

identified as primitive ROS setting, Black Elk Wilderness and Inyan Kara Inventoried Roadless 

Area, would also meet the Forest Plan ROS guideline by restricting motorized access within 

their boundaries. This alternative would offer the best opportunities for the solitude experience 

desired by nonmotorized users as routes proposed for new closures extend outside of many of 

the nonmotorized ROS classes. 

Cross-country travel, dispersed camping, and game retrieval. This alternative would restrict 

motorized use to designated routes only and would offer no off-road opportunities anywhere on 

the Black Hills for any recreation purpose. Cross-country travel effects are similar to above 

alternatives. Users desiring a more rugged means of travel may find the rock crawling areas to 

their satisfaction. However, the reduction in rock crawling areas under this alternative would 

tend to concentrate users, creating additional motorized conflicts as motorized users try to 

experience their desired activity. 

The prohibition of motorized dispersed camping would be greatly felt during the fall hunting 

season within both states. The Black Hills has hundreds of dispersed campsites along roads that 

are currently open to motorized vehicles during deer and elk hunting seasons. These campsites 

provide the hunter easy access to their desired hunting grounds. Without this dispersed camping 

opportunity, hunters might utilize developed campgrounds creating overflow situations and 

increases in maintenance and resource damage. 

Dispersed camping by recreationists during the summer would be impacted more in Wyoming 

than South Dakota since the latter state has a ban on open fires. Many visitors who camp during 

the summer in Wyoming are in large groups of 4 to 8 campers, and tend to be family units. The 

opportunity to dispersed camp currently allows these groups to be louder than would be 

acceptable in developed campgrounds, and to have a larger campfire for a group setting. Under 

this alternative, these groups might also seek out developed campgrounds, thus creating conflicts 

with other campers. 

63 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The prohibition on motorized off-road game retrieval would limit access for hunters. Hunters 

would have to use existing motorized roads and trails for game retrieval, which could create 

more road hunting situations for game enforcement officers. Depending on the location of the 

hunt, hunters might have to drag their animal from one-half mile to two miles to the nearest 

motorized route. Hunters incapable of this physical activity might have to find alternative 

means, such as outfitters, horses, etc., to get their downed animal to a motorized route. 

Table 18. Analysis indicators for Alternative D 

Indicators Unit of Measure 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

315 miles 

265 miles 

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

1,936 miles 

361 miles 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

67 miles 

45 miles 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

88 miles 

93 miles 

Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

21 miles 

0 miles 

Miles of special designation (rock crawling) 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

3 miles 

3 miles 

Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 0 areas 

Acres open to motorized cross-country travel 0 acres 

Acres open to motorized game retrieval 0 acres 

Acres open to motorized dispersed camping 0 acres 

Number of motorized trailheads 23 trailheads 

Miles of roads converted to trail 146 miles 

Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of non-Forest lands 423 miles 

Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway community 7 trailheads 

Alternative E 

This alternative proposes the same designated motorized system as Alternative A, but would 

eliminate all motorized opportunities for dispersed camping and game retrieval. A total of 3,776 

miles of motorized routes and trails, seasonally or yearlong, would be available for all types of 

vehicles. Of this, only 36 miles would be designated as trails open to vehicles 50 inches or less 

in width, and no trails would be designated for motorcycle or rock crawler opportunities. 

Motorized opportunities and recreation opportunity spectrum. Under Alternative E, since 

the motorized routes are the same as Alternative A, effects to motorized opportunities and ROS 

would be the same as those under Alternative A. 

64 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Cross-country travel and dispersed camping, and game retrieval. Alternative E proposes no 

cross-country travel, no motorized dispersed camping, and no off-road motorized game retrieval. 

Effects to these recreation opportunities would be the same as those under Alternative D. 

Table 19. Analysis indicators for Alternative E 

Indicators Unit of Measure 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

148 miles 

12 miles 

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

2924 miles 

656 miles 

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

0 miles 

0 miles 

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

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

12 miles 

24 miles 

Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

0 miles 

0 miles 

Miles of special designation (rock crawling) 

 Yearlong 

 Seasonally 

0 miles 

0 miles 

Concentrated, cross-country travel areas less than 5 acres 0 areas 

Acres open to motorized cross-country travel 0 acres 

Acres open to motorized game retrieval 0 acres 

Acres open to motorized dispersed camping 0 acres 

Number of motorized trailheads 7 trailheads 

Miles of roads converted to trail 0 miles 

Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of non-Forest lands 504 miles 

Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a gateway community 0 trailheads 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for the recreation resource includes other public lands, including 

those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the States of South Dakota and Wyoming, 

National Park Service, Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, and Thunder Basin National 

Grasslands, and private properties within 2 hours drive of the Forest. 

As the Federal Travel Management Rule is implemented on National Forest System lands, a 

reduction in cross-country motorized travel will occur on these lands. New motor vehicle 

restrictions imposed on Thunder Basin and Buffalo Gap would also displace motorized users that 

desire this type of riding under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Areas that might be designated on 

these lands under future travel management decisions could become overrun with motorized 

users, increasing resource impacts and management concerns. Other Federal properties could 

also see an increase in motorized use if cross-country travel is made available. Users who till 

now have had the freedom to choose their own routes to ride could find it difficult to adapt to the 

new designated system. Some public lands could provide only a small mileage of motorized 

trails or roads, causing motorized users to relocate to find more opportunities. 

65 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Under all alternatives, designated routes that dead-end may be points for creation of illegal trails, 

which would pose additional burdens on law enforcement and cause resource damage. These 

illegal trails could increase the need for additional restrictions or closures for motorized use, and 

thus reduce motorized opportunities even more over time. However, it is also likely that as the 

designated motorized system is implemented over the next several years, new routes could be 

added to connect these dead-end routes and improve looping opportunities for users. Additional 

environmental analysis through vegetation management activities could provide more 

opportunities for motorized access and for improvements to the designated system. 

Under Alternatives D and E, the prohibition on cross-country game retrieval could cause 

motorized users to choose to hunt on private property rather than Federal lands. This could 

result in an increased number of game animals on Federal lands, and create other management 

problems, such as more competition for forage. 

In the future, demand for motorized opportunities is likely to continue to increase as OHV sales 

and the population increase in the Black Hills. More trail demands would occur as more family 

units with young children utilize motorized travel as a form of recreation. Despite the fact that 

increases in fuel prices are not likely to reduce OHV recreation activities, more locals (those 

users living within a 2 to 3 hour drive) would utilize the Black Hills for their recreation 

preference. In addition, business opportunities could develop on private properties, within the 

cumulative effects analysis area, to provide cross-country areas for motorized users seeking 

opportunities to hill climb or mud-bog. 

Engineering and Transportation 

Introduction 

Beginning in the 1880s, railroads and stagecoach lines were built to accommodate the thousands 

of people who were coming to the Black Hills in response to the discovery of gold. An extensive 

rail system was developed to haul mining timbers from the forest to the mines. Large tracts of 

forest were cut in order to provide timber to the growing mining industry and to provide housing 

for the people living in the Black Hills. In 1897, the Black Hills Forest Reserve was established, 

and in 1898, the first timber sale was sold to Homestake Mining Company. By the 1920s, a 

major highway system was developed and a Forest road system was initiated. Tourism also 

justified the construction of a transportation system that was adequate for automobiles, which 

during the 1930s was augmented by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Subsequent years 

have seen further augmentation providing a well-spaced, efficient system of roads of all 

maintenance levels for many different users. 

The transportation system currently in place within the Forest is a result of the historic uses 

described above and the public’s expectation that the Forest is available for their use through an 

extensive road system. The area has since been extensively managed for timber production, 

livestock grazing, mining activities, big game hunting, wildlife, insect and disease risk, fuels; 

and for recreational activities along roads and trails that include hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain bike riding, off-road vehicle use and snowmobile riding. 

Use of ATVs and other OHVs boomed nationwide in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has 

continued to grow. The physical characteristics of these vehicles have changed as well towards 

larger, more powerful machines. The increased flexibility of these new machines and increased 

marketing emphasis from industry has resulted in an increased popularity for recreational riding 

66 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

and access, and for utilitarian purposes such as livestock management. As use of these machines 

has increased, there has been a corresponding increase in conflicts with other motorized and 

nonmotorized users, and an increase in resource impacts. 

Concerns over the high level of conflicts and resource impacts led to the creation of the Forest 

Service 2005 Travel Management Rule requiring the Forest Service to address these issues in a 

standard fashion nationwide. This analysis and subsequent decision will result in a Travel 

Management Plan for the Black Hills. The Travel Management Plan by direction will 

concentrate on motorized travel opportunities while considering nonmotorized activities and will 

close all non-designated, cross-country motorized travel. The engineering and transportation 

aspects analyzed here are centered on the criteria identified in 36 CFR 212.5 

There are currently 9,985 miles of inventoried roads and routes that are within or cross the Forest 

boundary. These routes fall under multiple systems as listed in Table 1. 

Table 20. Miles of inventoried road by system for the Black Hills National Forest 

System Miles of Route Density (miles/square 

mile) 

National Forest Roads 5,056 2.11 

County, State & Federal Roads (Other Public 

Roads) 820 0.34 

Non-System – Unauthorized Roads / Routes 4,109 1.72 

Total 9,985 4.18 

Note: These figures were taken from the Forest Service Infrastructure GIS database. The analysis area encompasses 

2,391 square miles within the Forest Boundary. 

Forest Road Density 

The average density of all Forest System and other public roads within the Forest boundary was 

calculated to be 2.45 miles/square mile. For comparison, the density of unauthorized roads was 

1.72 miles/square mile. 

Forest Service roads within the Black Hills National Forest generally display an even 

distribution with pockets of higher density around cities and major points of interest. Road 

densities for the NFS roads network have been calculated at several scales. Results at the levels 

of the management area, ranger district, Forest, and range allotments and maps showing road 

density polygons by system type are shown in the Appendix of the 2007 Black Hills Travel 

Analysis Report. 

Regional Connectivity 

The Forest is highly connected to the wider region by 12 Forest highways designated under the 

Public Lands Highways Program of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). 

These roads are owned by the State, County, or Forest Service, and qualify for Federal funding 

for improvement or enhancement. Interstate 90 skirts the periphery of the Forest crossing South 

Dakota from west to east and passes along the east central and northeastern edges of the Black 

Hills. I-90 serves as a major access corridor to the Forest. 

Forest Roads 

The roads that are maintained and used for Forest management and other uses are referred to as 

National Forest System roads (NFSRs). These roads are maintained to various standards 

67 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

depending on their function, level of use, and management. Of the approximately 9,985 miles of 

inventoried routes on the Forest, there are 5,056 miles of NFSRs. Roads across the forest fall 

within multiple jurisdictions as described in the following paragraphs. 

The 5,056 miles of NFSRs are under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and are identified with 

a NFSR number. The Forest Service has direct maintenance and repair responsibilities for 

NFSRs. Roads across Forest land but under other jurisdictions such as private or other agency 

such as county are numbered, maintained and repaired by that specific jurisdiction. Several of 

the longer, cross-forest roads have sections that are Forest Service jurisdiction and sections that 

are county jurisdiction. The county sections primarily serve portions of the Forest with high 

private land density and or high public traffic volumes. Some high-speed arterial roads, such as 

Deerfield Road and Sheridan Lake Road (both paved), are entirely under the jurisdiction of the 

counties. County and Forest Service representatives meet periodically to discuss issues related 

to county and Forest Service-jurisdiction roads that are of joint interest particularly if a major 

change such as realignment or a surfacing change is planned for a road. Road jurisdictions are 

periodically transferred as situations change. Roads across Forest land but under State 

jurisdiction are maintained and repaired by the State and have State road numbers. Similar 

meetings are held with State representatives on issues of joint interest. 

Roads within the NFS network are categorized into three functional classes: arterial, collector, 

and local roads. Arterial roads are the primary roads of the forest, providing connections 

between human populations, major recreation sites, highways, and collector routes. Collector 

roads are those that collect and distribute traffic to multiple access points or local roads. Local 

roads provide access to smaller and specific sites and form a network within the Forest to 

provide administrative, commercial, and recreation access. The local roads can also be singlepurpose roads (e.g., used for timber, recreation or mineral extraction access) that are designed for 

intermittent use and are generally closed to vehicular traffic when not in use. 

Maintenance Levels 

As described on page 7, Forest Service policy establishes five maintenance levels, which define 

the level of service provided by and maintenance required for a specific road. 

ML 2 roads are primarily one lane, native surface roads for high-clearance vehicles. They are 

usually very low speed with minimal traffic volumes. They are used for activities such as 

hiking, biking, OHV riding, forest management, and resource extraction. ML 1 roads have been 

closed to vehicular traffic for periods of over 1 year. Resource protection measures have been 

performed if necessary, usually resulting in a grassed-over roadbed (i.e. these roads are ‘put in 

storage’ until the time they are needed again for resource management). 

ML 3, 4, and 5 roads are typically crowned, bordered with vegetated ditches, and have cross 

drains that are generally appropriately spaced for erosion control purposes. ML 5 roads provide 

the highest standard of maintenance, are generally two lanes, and paved. ML 4 roads provide a 

moderate level of user comfort, can be single- or double-lane, and have mostly aggregate 

(gravel) surfacing. ML 3 roads are typically single-lane with aggregate surfacing. 

68 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 21. Miles of road by maintenance level for Forest Service-jurisdiction roads within the Black 

Hills National Forest 

Maintenance Level Miles Percentage of Total 

1 1,316 26.0% 

2 3,083 61.0% 

3 510 10.1% 

4 143 2.8% 

5 4 0.1% 

Total 5,056 

Unauthorized Routes 

The 4,109 miles of non–system routes in the Forest are not maintained by the Forest Service. 

They are referred to in the Travel Management Rule as unauthorized roads and routes because 

they are not part of the forest transportation system and are not officially recognized by the 

Forest Service. This statistic represents 41 percent of all inventoried roads and routes and is a 

number equivalent to 81 percent of all NFS roads in the Forest inventory. The nature of these 

roads varies, but they are primarily two-track roads that came into being by vehicles leaving NFS 

roads. The routes were traveled with sufficient frequency to leave an easily noticeable traveled 

way. Many of these routes are relatively short. Because they are unplanned, they are more 

likely to be poorly located on the landscape and more likely to have higher erosion potential. 

The positions of these routes were obtained primarily from interpretation of aerial photographs 

and input from users. Many of them have not been ground verified. Attempts are made to close 

problem routes when possible; however, funding and physical location of the routes often limit 

these efforts. A large number of the non-system routes are also temporary roads that were 

constructed for vegetation or timber management, and mining and homestead access. They have 

a road template but they have been closed, revegetated, and not put on the system. 

Forest Service Trails 

The trails that are maintained and used for forest management and other uses are referred to as 

National Forest System trails. There are 35 hiking trails that are maintained to various standards 

depending on their function, level of use, and management. There are 323 miles of inventoried 

hiking trails on the Forest; 14 miles of these on the Centennial trail are designated for motorized 

use. Mountain bikes are prohibited from using trails that are located in the Black Elk 

Wilderness. There are 22 miles of roads on the Bearlodge Ranger District that are currently 

managed as motorized trails for vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches in width. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Travel Management Rule – 2005 

The Travel Management Rule (the Rule -- Federal Register, 70FR68264, see Appendix A) 

amended regulations at 36 CFR 212, 251 and 261, and removed obsolete direction at 36 CFR 

295. This Rule specifically requires the designation of any roads, trails, and areas that are to be 

open to motor vehicle use on a National Forest. The Rule also directs that designations be made 

by class of vehicle and by season of use, where appropriate and necessary. Motor vehicle use 

would be prohibited on routes and areas not designated open to use. 

69 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The decision resulting from this EIS will be used to generate a motor vehicle use map that 

provides the designation information. The modes of travel categories that can be designated are 

listed below. The designation “Roads Open to All Vehicles” includes smaller off-highway 

vehicles that may or may not be licensed for highway use, or highway-legal (motorized mixed 

use). 

Modes of travel 

 Roads open to all vehicles 

 Roads open to all vehicles - seasonally 

 Roads open to highway legal vehicle only 

 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only – seasonally 

 Trails open to all vehicles 

 Trails open to all vehicles - seasonally 

 Trails open to vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches 

 Trails open to vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches - seasonally 

 Trails open to motorcycles only – single track 

 Special designations (such as rock crawling vehicles) 

State Laws Concerning Vehicle and Operator Licensing 

South Dakota and Wyoming State Laws describe the legal requirements for motorized vehicles 

and operators using public highways in the Black Hills. These laws currently require that 

motorized vehicles operating on public highways be registered and licensed by the State (or be 

highway-legal), and that operators have a valid state driver’s license. Forest Service roads in the 

Black Hills are considered public highways. Wyoming has an additional statute that allows 

unlicensed or non-highway-legal vehicles to drive on selected “enrolled” roads if they display a 

Wyoming OHV sticker. The Travel Management Rule allows the Forest to make designations 

under 36 CFR 212.55 concerning motor vehicles that are not in accordance with State law under 

appropriate circumstances. State traffic laws do not apply to National Forest System trails; 

therefore, non-highway-legal vehicles and unlicensed operators are allowed on designated Forest 

Service motorized trails. 

Applicable South Dakota laws are SDCL 32-20-2 Driver License; SDCL 32-20-12 Operation; 

and SDCL 32-20-13 Licensing. Wyoming Statute 311-101 resulted in establishment of the OHV 

program, which includes enrolled roads and a sticker program. 

National Highway Safety Act of 1966 – 23 U.S.C. 402 

The Forest Service works with the Federal Highways Administration under the authority of the 

Highway Safety Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-564) to make travel on National Forest System roads as 

safe as practicable. This Federal law authorizes State and local governments and participating 

Federal agencies to identify and survey accident locations, design, construct, and maintain roads 

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

to promote pedestrian safety. Forest Service policy (FSM 7733.03) is to operate and maintain 

NFS roads that are managed as public roads to provide for safe passage by prudent drivers in 

standard passenger cars (NFS ML 3, 4 and 5 roads). 

Forest Plan Direction 

Listed below are some of the current Forest Plan Goals that are applicable to transportation. 

70 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Goal 3, Discussion Section: 

“The density of the Forest Development Road system where timber will be harvested will 

generally range between two and five miles per square mile, with the average density 

around 2.6 miles per square mile.” 

Goal 4, Objective 416: 

“Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table:” 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (1996) 14 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, or conversion 

from road to motorized trail 15 miles (per decade)

Total forest trail system 526 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Reconstruction 100 miles (per decade)

Goal 4, Objective 421: 

“Provide the following road system:” 

Roads (By the end of the first decade) 

Suitable for public use 4,700 miles

Passenger car -1,200 

High clearance vehicles – 3,500

Roads closed to vehicles 500 miles

TOTAL 5,200 miles 

Guideline 9205: 

When maintaining all roads, use the following requirements: 

a. All arterial and collector roads – Maintenance Levels 3, 4, 5; 

b. Local roads open to low-clearance vehicles – Maintenance Levels 3, 4, 5; 

c. Local roads open to high-clearance vehicles – Maintenance Level 2; and, 

d. Local roads closed between resource management activities – Maintenance Level 1. 

Methodology 

The Forest Service identified public concerns with the proposed action during scoping. Those 

concerns were summarized as general issues. Characteristics of the travel management systems 

were identified to help define and evaluate the alternatives. The characteristics were 

summarized as indicators and were used to evaluate the effects of implementing each alternative. 

The following issues and their indicators apply to the engineering and transportation analysis: 

Issue 3 - Effects of transportation system design on management capabilities. The 

alternatives considered in the DEIS may have effects on the Forest’s ability to proactively 

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

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

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

71 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

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

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

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

on the miles of motorized-mixed-use roads. Any roads identified for motorized-mixed use will 

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

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

issue. 

Indicators 

 Miles of road open to all vehicles 

 Miles of road open to highway-legal vehicles only 

 Miles of trail open to all vehicles 

 Miles of trail open to vehicles 50 inches or less 

 Miles of motorcycle trail 

 Number of trailheads 

 Number of perennial stream crossings 

 Miles of open roads to be closed 

 Miles of closed roads to be reopened 

 Miles of road converted to trails 

 Miles of new routes to be converted from unauthorized. 

 Number of dead-end spurs 

 Miles of motorized-mixed-use roads open yearlong 

 Miles of motorized-mixed-use roads open seasonally 

 Total miles of motorized-mixed-use roads 

 Miles of roads at maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5 

Issue 4 - Social and Economic Concerns. The alternatives considered in the DEIS may affect 

the economic sustainability of local businesses and communities. Effects may be related to 

sound level (noise), dust (air quality), trespass and access to private property, distance from 

motorized routes to private land, traffic levels, and miles of routes open to motorized use. The 

following are the indicators used to analyze this issue: 

Indicators 

 Miles of motorized routes within 0.5 miles of a nonmotorized trail 

 Miles of NFS motorized routes through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands 

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

 Miles of motorized routes 

Assumptions 

 Roads & trails that make up the Forest transportation system will be constructed and 

maintained, to the extent practical, in accordance with Forest Service design standards 

and South Dakota Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

72 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 Current Forest funding resources will be augmented to the extent necessary to develop 

and maintain a resulting transportation system by fees, grants, partnerships, and 

cooperative agreements. 

 A sound emission limit for ATVs and motorcycles will be established and enforced at 96 

DB(A) using the SAE J-1287 measurement standard. 

 Law enforcement activity, voluntary compliance, and active public information efforts 

will result in the recreating public complying for the most part with the modes of travel 

designations to be established by this decision and as published on the upcoming motor 

vehicle use map. 

 Maintenance level 2 Forest roads that are being actively used for timber hauling will be 

temporarily closed to OHV use even if they have been officially designated for use on 

the motor vehicle use map. 

 Roads and trails will be adequately signed. 

Affected Environment 

Safety – Mixed-Use Analysis 

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. 

In addition, several roadway factors and traffic uses will be considered in the study. Factors 

could include such things as prudent driver expectations, traffic type, volume, speed, and road 

conditions such as surfacing, sight distance, alignment, roadside conditions, etc. The motorizedmixed-use analysis will also identify management options that can be implemented to reduce the 

risk to a manageable level. 

Note that the 2005 Travel Management Rule defines mixed-use on a road as the mixing of 

highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles on the same road. It does not say mixing of ATVs 

with cars and trucks. On the mixed-use roads, non-highway-legal OHVs could mix with 

highway-legal ATVs registered as motorcycles and full-sized vehicles. On highway-legal-only 

roads, highway-legal ATVs and motorcycles could still be present with full-sized vehicles. 

South Dakota State Law Considerations 

South Dakota State Law permits properly outfitted OHVs to be licensed as highway legal and, 

when operated by a licensed driver with proof of insurance, they can be driven on public roads 

and highways (except the interstate). 

National Forest System roads that are open to (not necessarily maintained for) passenger car 

traffic are considered public highways, which include maintenance level 2 - 5 roads. It is the 

opinion of the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office that unlicensed (non-highway-legal) 

OHVs are prohibited from National Forest System road maintenance level 2 - 5 roads, where 

passenger car travel is allowed (letter from the Assistant Attorney General of South Dakota, 

December 7, 2007). Allowing unlicensed (non-highway-legal) vehicles on National Forest 

System roads that allow for passenger car travel would not be in accordance with South Dakota 

State law. 

73 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Alternatives B, C, and D contain roads that are proposed to be designated for motorized-mixed 

use. Such a designation would allow mixing of highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles 

on designated National Forest System roads. This designation that departs from State law is 

allowed under the Travel Management Rule. However, it creates a difficult situation for law 

enforcement officers who must determine whether or not vehicles are highway legal and if they 

are on a designated route. The departure from state law in South Dakota in this case relates only 

to the portion of the law defining which OHVs are highway legal, determined by how they are 

outfitted, registered and licensed. All other provisions of the state law defining the legal use of 

public highways such as valid drivers license, liability insurance, age requirements and helmets 

for those under 18 will still be in effect on National Forest System Roads. 

Wyoming State Law Considerations 

Wyoming also allows multipurpose vehicles (MPVs) to be outfitted, licensed, and ridden as 

highway-legal vehicles on roads. Unlike South Dakota, motorized mixed use of MPVs in 

Wyoming on public highways is allowed under a special program. The State of Wyoming has 

implemented an Off-road Recreational Vehicle (ORRV) Program to help manage MPVs in 

Wyoming. The program describes vehicle requirements, operator licensing, and road types and 

includes a registration sticker program to help fund the program. Roads and trails that have been 

designated by land managers for non-highway-legal vehicle travel are referred to as “enrolled”. 

The ORRV program has no specific safety evaluations necessary to enroll a road. Designating 

motorized-mixed use on a public highway in Wyoming that is not enrolled would not be in 

accordance with Wyoming State law. However, it is the intent of the Forest to enroll all roads 

designated for motorized-mixed use in the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills in the Wyoming 

State ORRV program if warranted by a mixed-use analysis if warranted. 

As in South Dakota, roads in Wyoming designated as “open to highway-legal only” will allow 

highway legal OHVs to mix with cars and trucks on public highways. Roads designated as 

“open to all vehicles” (motorized-mixed use) will allow non-highway-legal MPVs to mix with 

highway legal MPVs and cars and trucks. The difference between highway legal and nonhighway legal is how the vehicle is outfitted with lights, horns, mirrors, etc. All other 

requirements to operate a vehicle, such as driver’s license, liability insurance, helmets under 18, 

etc., remain in place. A summary of the State law requirements for both states is in Table 22. 

Safety – Motorized-mixed-use Indicator Measures 

By the State laws in effect, South Dakota and Wyoming have determined that OHVs that are 

properly outfitted and ridden are safe enough to be on roads with full-sized vehicles. This 

situation is common to all alternatives. The difference between the alternatives is in the miles of 

roads of each maintenance level that are proposed for motorized-mixed use. The Forest Service 

will need to complete the motorized-mixed-use analysis, in some form, to inform the 

decisionmaker of the safety risks prior to designation of motorized mixed use. In general, roads 

with motorized-mixed use will likely have a higher safety risk than those without mixing 

because there may be OHVs present that do not have all of the equipment required for highwaylegal vehicles. At this point in the analysis, miles of proposed mixed use can be used to compare 

alternatives. 

74 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 22. Summary of State law requirements 

South Dakota Wyoming 

Roads 

ML 2, 3, 4, 5 

Hwy Legal Machine 

Drivers License (16) 

Insurance 

Min Age 14 (Restricted) 

Ditches – Min 12 years 

Hwy Legal Machine 

Drivers License (17) 

Insurance 

Min Age 14 (Restricted) 

Enrolled 

Roads NA 

WY Sticker 

Drivers License 

OR 

WY License Plate 

Drivers License 

Proof of Insurance 

Need Lights at Night 

Don’t need horn or mirror 

Mixed Use 

Roads 

Everything required by SD State Law except a 

Hwy Legal Machine 

(Includes a Drivers License) 

Is similar to WY enrolled roads 

Intent is to enroll all mixed use 

Roads in Wyoming 

Trails 

Non Hwy Legal Machine 

No Age Limit 

Black Hills Sticker (Being Explored) 

Intent is to enroll all Forest trails 

in Wyoming 

Enrolled Trails NA 

Non-Hwy-Legal Machine 

allowed 

No Age Limit 

WY Sticker 

Enforcement 

The Black Hills National Forest does not currently have a published Forestwide guidance 

document addressing motorized-mixed use on National Forest System roads; however, this use is 

occurring. Current Forest Service law enforcement resources alone are not at a level that would 

make enforcement of the prohibition of mixed use effective. Local and State law enforcement 

officer resources are stretched thin also. Successful enforcement of the recent mixed-use opinion 

from the South Dakota State Attorney General’s Office would have immediate impacts on outof-state riders without license plates and local individuals who do not have a driver’s license or 

who ride machines that are not highway legal in South Dakota. 

The enforcement of motorized-travel restrictions is an important part of the successful 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Current law enforcement success has been 

limited by scarce resources, an uninformed public, and a complex matrix of closure orders. 

Limited enforcement success has likely contributed to increased road and area use violations, 

user conflicts, and resource damage. 

In some respects, 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 

75 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

significantly in informing the relatively small group that is either uninformed or unwilling to 

recreate in a manner that is legal and responsible. 

Signs 

Clearly marked roads and trails aid all users in knowing what to expect on the route ahead. 

Trails can be signed for user restrictions, difficulty levels, distance, connections, etc. A properly 

signed trail is important to the success of the trail system. Installation and maintenance costs for 

trail signing must be considered when designing the sign plan for a trail system. Signs will be an 

important mitigation tool if roads are designated as open to all vehicles to inform the public of 

the potential presence of non-highway legal OHVs. 

It is possible that vandalism of Forest signs will decrease after implementation of the Rule if 

Forest users recognize that destroying a sign that locates a route that is open to motorized travel 

will reduce the usability of the system overall. A road and trail system map will be available but 

the loss of signs will make it more difficult for users to determine where travel is legal. New or 

increased funding sources will likely be necessary to provide signs for a new trail system. 

Future signing efforts will likely reflect a selective process based on monitoring and evaluation 

of need. 

The 2005 Travel Management Rule reduces reliance on signing on the ground somewhat with 

the requirement of the production and use of a motor vehicle use map. The motor vehicle use 

map describes the vehicle types and time periods that are legal on designated roads and trails and 

places the burden on the user to know their location. With the availability of the motor vehicle 

use map to the Forest user, their presence on a route or in an area that is prohibited will be all 

that is required for a citation to be upheld; however, a current and effective system of signs 

should be very helpful in reducing citations. 

Sound Levels 

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. Feedback resulting 

from requests for comments here in the Black Hills has indicated serious concerns from 

nonmotorized users and adjacent landowners about sound levels as OHV motorized recreation 

escalates. The effect of high sound levels on wildlife is also of concern. The Forest Service does 

not currently have a stationary sound limit for the Black Hills. 

There is an industry standard applied to many OHVs for the sound level produced by the 

machines when manufactured. However, because of aftermarket changes and deterioration of 

mufflers with use, many of those machines exceed the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

levels. The sound level of some machines has produced a negative attitude toward some OHV 

recreation and has likely contributed to the loss of OHV riding areas across the country. 

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. This limit is common to all alternatives. Limiting 

the allowable sound level for OHVs to a level of 96 DB(A) would very likely help mitigate some 

of the user conflicts on the forest. 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). This noise 

76 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

level would be measured based on the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) stationary test 

standard J1287. 

Using the OEM standard sound level would also help reduce the costs to the motorized users if 

they purchase a machine that complies with the standard, maintain the mufflers and spark 

arrestors, and avoid replacing the original equipment with equipment at a higher sound level. 

Recreationists who currently use machines that exceed the limit would have to make the 

necessary modifications. Equipment that meets the sound limits is available for most machines 

in use today. 

Sound limits and sound measurements are being used successfully in other forests and natural 

resource areas. Enforcement of the sound level limit is key to the success of those programs. A 

simple sound measuring instrument is available at a reasonable cost. Testing using the SAE 

Standard J-1287 is relatively fast and straightforward; however, proper equipment and training is 

necessary. Testing could be performed by dealers, cooperators, volunteers, and Forest Service 

law enforcement officers. Testing could be conducted at dealerships, trailheads, and spot 

checkpoints to assist OHV users in determining if they are within the limit. An appropriate fine 

for exceeding the sound limits such as $100 for the first offense, $500 for the second offense, 

and confiscation of the machine for the third offense might also be necessary for success. 

Indicator measures that allow determining the differences between alternatives relating to sound 

level conflicts have been developed. The first indicator measure is the distance that a designated 

route is away from private land. Many private landowners value quiet, natural landscapes and 

privacy, and close proximity would present a risk of conflict with those values. A secondary risk 

would be presented by the opportunity close proximity would present for unauthorized incursion 

onto private land. 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. This ending sound level assumes normal attenuation based on distance only; 

however, it is probable that there would be additional attenuation in most situations based on 

interference from topography and vegetation. The expected resulting sound level would not 

equate to a forest setting on a quite night; however, it would not be expected to be much higher 

than ambient noise during the day with normal human activity and the wind blowing. 

The second indicator measure is the distance that a designated route is away from nonmotorized 

trails. Many nonmotorized users of the forest value quiet, wildlife viewing, and natural 

landscapes, and close proximity with motorized users and high sound levels would present a risk 

of conflict with those values. Again, a secondary risk would be presented by the opportunity 

close proximity would present for unauthorized incursion onto nonmotorized trails. A distance 

of 0.5 mile from nonmotorized trails 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 30 DB(A) which is the sound level of a whisper. This ending 

sound level assumes normal attenuation based on distance only; however, again it is probable 

that there would be additional attenuation in most situations base on interference from 

topography and vegetation. The expected resulting sound level would not equate to a forest 

setting on a quite night; however, it would not be expected to be much higher than ambient noise 

during the day with normal human activity and the wind blowing. 

77 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Dust 

Air quality impacts from National Forest System roads are associated with vehicle emissions and 

dust from traffic on unpaved roads. These effects typically are localized and temporary, and 

their extent depends on the soil types, moisture levels and the amount of traffic. Most of the 

unpaved ML 3 and 4 roads under Forest jurisdiction are located in unpopulated areas with 

relatively low traffic volumes. Dust issues on ML 2 roads typically are less severe. Dust 

abatement is a relatively expensive activity and is dependent on budget levels and priorities. 

Historical budgets have not been sufficient to support other than minimal abatement activities on 

roads with high logging truck activity. 

Concentrating motorized use on roads and trails and developing trailheads can potentially 

increase the amount of dust created in some areas. Converting roads to trails or otherwise 

creating new motorized trails will create an opportunity to route trails through materials that are 

less likely to give off dust; to bring in stable, low-dust, surfacing materials; and to try new 

surface stabilization chemicals. A new or increased source of trail-related funding would likely 

have to be found to do this. 

An indicator measure that would help determining the differences between alternatives related to 

conflicts related to dust is the miles of routes within 300 feet of non-forest land. 

Costs 

Economic Feasibility 

The monetary costs associated with the road system in the Black Hills are substantial to the 

Forest Service, the counties and the State & Federal highway organizations. The estimated costs 

to the Forest Service to manage NFS roads to standard, for the long term, are calculated using 

the Forest Service Infrastructure (INFRA) database. The INFRA database summarizes annual 

and deferred maintenance costs and overhead. 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. These costs could include 

aggregate replacement, and culvert and sign replacement. The estimated costs for ML 1, 2, 3, 4, 

and 5 roads for annual and deferred maintenance are shown below. 

Table 23. Annual and deferred maintenance costs for Forest Service System roads on the Black Hills 

(2007 figures) 

Maintenance 

Level Miles Annual Maintenance 

Cost 

Deferred Maintenance 

Cost 

1 1,310 * ** 

2 3,117 ***218,260+ ** 

3 510 6,408,940 11,712,273 

4 143 1,539,646 4,210,111 

5 4 73,544 750,097 

Total 5,084 $8,240,390+ $16,672,481+ 

*These roads are closed to motorized traffic. They are left to revegetate and are typically not maintained unless 

monitoring efforts have identified a need to prevent or mitigate erosion damage. 

** There is not sufficient data in INFRA to formulate an accurate estimate for deferred maintenance on these roads. 

*** The INFRA data is not complete for these roads. This estimate was based on local estimated blading costs per mile 

and maintaining each road once every five years. It does not include the maintenance costs of gates, signs and 

culverts, which if known would add to the total. 

78 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The historical resources expended to perform the reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of all 

Forest Service roads and trails are shown in the following table.

Table 24. Road and trail management funding sources 

Funding 

Source Type FY 2003 FY 2004 FY-2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Road 

Construction / 

Maintenance 

Fund 

$3,244,000 $2,934,600 $2,324,784 $2,132,596 $3,085,900 $2,818,400 

FS – 

Congressional 

Appropriations Trail 

Construction / 

Maintenance 

Fund 

$270,900 $236,700 $209,700 $148,000 $174,000 $161,400 

Road & Trail 

Deposits 

(Timber 

Receipts) 

10 % Fund 

(LG) $400,000 $77,100 $45,000 $243,733 $211,800 $304,400 

Forest 

Service Total $4,033,400 $3,248,400 $2,579,484 $2,524,329 $3,645,000 $3,284,200 

TS Road 

Reconstruction $496,265 $839,280 $182,560 $413,308 $258,968 $265,829 

TS Road 

Maintenance $67,200 $55,055 $72,124 $115,884 $95,528 $158,129 

Maintenance 

Deposits $4,928 $6,111 $8,068 $0 0 $1,228 

Surface Rock 

Replacement $120,169 $75,491 $89,464 $42,175 $37,621 $179,240 

Timber Sale 

(TS) 

Purchasers 

Direct 

Reconstruction 

Deposits $201,358 $100,834 $141,372 $95,682 $56,654 $74,285 

Timber 

Purchasers 

Total 

$889,920 $1,076,771 $493,588 $667,049 $448,717 $678,711 

Total 

Funding $4,923,320 $4,325,171 $3,073,072 $3,191,378 $4,093,717 $3,962,911 

The congressional appropriation budget for planning, construction, capital improvement, and 

maintenance of forest roads and trails on the Black Hills National Forest has been fluctuating 

noticeably in the six years detailed above. The road funding decreased from $3.2 million in 

2003 to $2.1 million in 2006, a 34 percent decrease. Much of that decrease rebounded in 2007 

and 2008; however, the long-term trend is down, especially if inflation is considered. Trail 

funding followed a similar trend but did not recover substantially. Future allocations are based 

on political priorities that are based only partially on the need and are difficult to predict. 

Road and trail deposits (10% Fund) are 10% of Black Hills National Forest timber receipts that 

are returned to the Forest Service. The amount of this fund that is available for road and trail 

maintenance varies directly with the amount of timber sold and with internal Forest allocation 

priorities. Large variations in the amount of timber sold will have an impact on this source of 

funds. 

Capital improvement funds acquired to conduct trail and road improvement work necessary to 

bring the system up to the desired objective have been sporadic and minimal in past years. 

However, the Forest has benefited from a regional bridge program that has funded 11 bridge 

replacements in the last 7 years. 

79 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

A portion of the road maintenance on Forest roads is performed by timber purchasers and fuels 

treatment contractors on roads where timber products are being transported. The cost of road 

maintenance work performed by the purchasers is shown in Table 24. The level of expenditure 

is linked to the volume of timber, number of sales, and the miles of road needed to remove the 

timber from the Forest. Road maintenance needed due to impacts from timber sales is funded by 

the purchasers in two ways. The first is road-maintenance work performed by the purchasers 

directly. The second is payments for maintenance and surface rock replacement that are made to 

the Forest Service, who then contracts or performs the work. In addition, timber sale receipts are 

used for road reconstruction deposits that fund engineering services necessary to design the 

reconstruction elements of the timber sale road specifications. These road reconstruction funds 

are collected based on the actual cost to the Forest Service for these services. 

The Forest encompasses 418 miles of county roads. These roads are integral to the Forest 

transportation system. In some cases, the Forest Service and the counties have jurisdiction over 

different sections of the same road. The counties receive payments from the Forest Service that 

can be used to support these roads under two programs, Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and the 

25 Percent Funds. The PILT funds are based on the acres of Forest land in the county and are 

intended to help compensate for the loss of taxable base. The expenditure of PILT funds is at the 

discretion of the counties. In 2007, the counties with boundaries within the Forest received PILT 

funds of $1,529,146. The 25 Percent Funds are those portions of receipts the Forest Service 

receives each year primarily from the sale of timber. The 25 Percent Fund Act provided for 25 

percent of actual receipts to be paid to the counties. The Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act of 2000 provided the option for counties to receive the average of the 

three highest 25 Percent Fund payments made annually from 1986 to 1999. All counties within 

the Black Hills elected to receive payments by this leveled method. Therefore, the impact of 

fluctuating timber receipts is minimized. The use of these funds is limited to roads and schools. 

In 2007, the counties received $4,323,739, which is a figure that has been adjusted for inflation 

since 2001. In recent years, Congress has been increasingly hesitant to re-authorize the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. As of September 23, 2008, the Act has 

not been passed to allow level payments in fiscal year 2009. If it is not passed, payments to the 

counties under the 25 Percent Fund Act will fall to a level that represents 25 percent of current 

timber receipts, which are significantly lower now than those used to establish the high-three 

level of payments. 

The overall level of Federal funding and timber purchaser expenditures is not sufficient to 

perform the short- and long-term maintenance needs identified for NFS roads in general. The 

annual road maintenance resources are approximately 50 percent of what is needed based on the 

INFRA database. The Federal portion of that funding is trending downward. If the INFRA 

Database funding needs estimates are reasonably accurate, without new resources, the long-term 

condition of NFS roads is expected to deteriorate. The increased use of roads, particularly the 

ML 2 roads, subsequent to the implementation of the Rule could put increased pressure on 

limited maintenance resources. 

Trails 

The current trail system on the Forest is made up of 35 hiking trails for a total of 323 miles. 

Twelve miles of the Centennial Trail are also designated as motorized yearlong. There are 24 

miles of seasonal motorized trails in the Bearlodge Ranger District in Wyoming. Those trails are 

on road templates that have been restricted to trails 50 inches or less in width. The section of the 

Centennial Trail that is motorized is heavily traveled resulting in significant maintenance costs 

80 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

every one or two years. A one-mile reconstruction contract in 2006 cost $17,000. The condition 

of the trails varies widely depending on the type of trail (Forest, national, wilderness, motorized, 

etc.), the volume of use, the terrain, and the type of soil. Current maintenance funds are not 

sufficient to maintain the current trail system to standard. An increase in the number of miles of 

motorized trail would not be environmentally sustainable in the long term without an appropriate 

increase in the trail construction and maintenance resources. 

Cost of Maintaining Roads with Increased or Concentrated OHV Traffic 

Alternatives B and C involve designating the majority of the open ML 2 roads to allow ATV use 

with either a highway-legal or a non-highway-legal machine. In many situations, ATVs tend to 

follow the same path even when traveling on a 12-foot ML 2 surface. This practice, along with 

the aggressive tire tread design and the native soil surfaces on these roads, leads to two-track 

rutting similar to what is shown in the picture below (Figure 5). The rate at which the rutting 

occurs is related to the amount of traffic, the erosion characteristics of the soil, the grade of the 

road, and the number of curves in the road. 

Figure 5. A maintenance level 2 road with damage caused by ATV track 

following. The damage is increased by erosion when the tracks channel 

water down the road. 

The current maintenance goals for ML 2 roads are to check them once every 5 years and address 

maintenance issues if necessary. Some roads have grown grass and have little traffic; this allows 

them to go many years without any ground-disturbing maintenance such as blading, 

reconstructing rolling dips, and cleaning culverts. Others require maintenance every 5 years or 

sooner because of deterioration from high use, poor soils, high rain events, use when wet, or 

steep topography. The exact impact to ML 2 roads from closing the Forest to off-road use and 

forcing more of the existing ATV traffic onto roads, especially ML 2 roads, is hard to predict. It 

is predictable that the ATV traffic on ML 2 roads will increase and the increase will vary based 

on the location of the road and how the road connects with access points and the rest of the 

system. The increased traffic should increase the frequency of maintenance needed for these 

81 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

roads in general. Estimates from other Region 2 forests that maintain ML 2 roads under these 

conditions average $350 per mile. 

The level of maintenance will also likely be affected. ATV ruts, even though they are only a 

percentage of the road width, will result in the entire roadbed being bladed to repair them. 

Roads that may have remained stable and/or grown grass under larger vehicle traffic will now 

more frequently have the native surface exposed to the elements of erosion after blading. The 

ATV track damage and increased erosion also have a more significant effect on rolling dips 

causing them to fail more quickly. This failure is usually in the form of a track cut in the crossroad berm that allows water to pass down the road and/or the dip filling with sediment more 

quickly allowing water to pass down the road. 

Alternatives B, C, and D also involve designating some roads that are currently closed (ML 1) 

for use as motorized trails, and designating some unauthorized routes, that are actually old 

constructed roadbeds, as trails. If these routes are not redesigned and reconstructed as motorized 

trails, the problems and costs associated with maintaining them will likely be similar, if not more 

difficult and costly, than those of maintaining ML 2s. Many of them may have missing drainage 

structures that were removed when they were closed. These routes will have many of the same 

physical characteristics of an ML 2 but they are likely to be more heavily traveled. It is also 

possible that one of the reasons that they were no longer being used is that they were located in 

difficult terrain that made erosion likely. 

Figure 6. A maintenance level 2 road with erosion damage accelerated by 

ATV traffic loosening soils on steep section 

The Forest also has 653 miles of gravel roads (ML 3s and ML 4s). The surfaces are hardened 

and are less susceptible to damage from ATV traffic. These roads are currently open to highway 

legal ATVs with little, if any, maintenance problems reported that are due specifically to ATVs. 

It is possible that higher usage rates or concentrated usage around trailheads and popular 

visitation sights will present maintenance issues; however, they would be difficult to estimate at 

this time. 

82 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Cost of Building and Maintaining Motorized Trails 

Alternatives B, C, and D involve designating from 181 to 460 miles of routes as trails 50 inches 

or less in width (year round and seasonal). These trails are currently closed roads (ML 1), 

unauthorized routes that were old roads, unengineered routes that were pioneered by crosscounty travel, and trails that are proposed but have no physical form currently on the ground. 

Generally, for a motorized trail to be environmentally sustainable, it should be engineered and 

constructed as a motorized trail. ATVs can be hard on trail surfaces. Experience maintaining the 

12 miles of motorized Centennial trail has shown that ATV traffic can quickly put this trail in a 

state of disrepair, even though it has been engineered and reconstructed as a motorized trail. We 

do not yet have a vehicle-per-day use rate but we know that it is high, especially in the summer. 

Current maintenance activities are not frequent enough to keep the trail in good condition. A lot 

of the damage occurs when the trail surface is wet and soft as there is not currently a procedure 

to close the trail when it is wet. 

Designating motorized trails that have not been specifically designed and constructed for ATV 

use runs the risk of creating a system that will be difficult to maintain. Trails that are on old 

roadbeds could have the problems described above. New trails that have not been located on the 

ground with the features like proper grades, drainage structures, curve radius, and soils can 

quickly deteriorate and accelerate erosion and sediment transport. The rate of deterioration will 

depend a great deal on the amount of traffic and the firmness of the soil. A trail across rocky 

ground will hold up quite well even under heavy traffic. Likewise, a trail with light traffic on 

erosive soils may be unsustainable even in the short term. A long-term average figure for 

motorized trail maintenance is not available from experience on the Black Hills because of the 

small number of miles of motorized trail however estimates obtained from other Region 2 

Forests that do have large systems average $350 per mile. 

Figure 7. A motorized section of the Centennial Trail less than one year 

after it underwent an expensive reconstruction 

83 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Figure 8. Bridge crossing on motorized section of Centennial Trail 

The cost of motorized trail construction will vary based on the equipment used, the type of soil, 

the topography, the number of drainage structures needed and the number of stream crossings. 

Estimates to construct a new trail under a contract, both here and in other Region 2 forests have 

ranged up to $20,000 per mile. Constructing a motorized trail on or near a previous road 

template may result in lower costs than constructing across unbroken ground; however, the 

amount of work required will still be significant. The routes that have been selected for 

designation as trails 50 inches or less in width in the action alternatives have been reviewed in 

general by District personnel. They have not yet undergone a detailed engineering analysis to try 

to predict how they would hold up under ATV traffic. It is possible that many of them can be put 

into use as they currently exist; however, they should be monitored closely and mitigated or 

closed should problems arise. Further engineering observations on some routes may suggest that 

they not be implemented until serious issues can be mitigated. 

Cost of Building and Maintaining Motorcycle (Single-Track) Trails 

Alternatives B, C, and D outline between 21 and 134 miles of single-track motorcycle trails. No 

trails currently in the Black Hills National Forest are designed and maintained by the Forest 

Service specifically for motorcycle use. The trails being considered are user-created and were 

requested by current users. They have not been designed and constructed for such use. Because 

of their smaller footprint, their potential for erosion and sedimentation damage are less than trails 

50 inches or less in width, and roads, if located properly on the landscape. As with trails 50 

inches or less in width, the cost of constructing single-track motorized trails will depend 

primarily on the type of equipment used, topography, and soils, but on average, the costs should 

be less than for trails 50 inches or less in width. 

Costs of Building and Maintaining Trailheads 

Alternatives B, C, and D call for between 23 and 34 trailheads for motorized users. There are 

currently seven trailheads in use. The cost of the trailheads will depend on the topography, size, 

and anticipated use rate. Smaller trailheads may be able to start with minimal construction and 

then be reconstructed as use rates increase. 

84 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Cost of Mitigating Perennial Stream Crossings 

Alternatives B, C, and D describe motorized trail systems that involve numerous perennial 

stream crossings. Mitigations for these crossings include concrete mats, culverts, and trail 

bridges. The costs will be associated with the size of the crossing, soils, topography, and type of 

crossing. Estimates for “average” crossings include: 

 Trail Bridge - $10,000 to $15,000 

 Concrete mats (4 x 16 feet) - $700 

 Culvert (30 inches) - $600 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

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. The objective of these reports was to 

provide information to assist managers in making decisions concerning the environmental 

sustainability, socially acceptability, and economic feasibility of the Forest transportation system. 

The information in these reports was used in varying degrees in developing the environmental 

analysis here and throughout the specialist’s reports for this DEIS. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct Effects 

If implemented, this alternative would result in little change from the current situation. Users 

would likely continue to create unauthorized routes. Mixed use and use of roads by unlicensed 

operators would likely continue on all Forest roads unless the recent interpretation from the 

States Attorneys Office is released to the public in an effective public information campaign and 

the restriction of non-highway-legal vehicles on all Forest roads are enforced. 

User conflicts over excessive sound levels would likely continue at the current level or increase. 

This would likely be most serious near private property in or near the Forest. Certain users 

would likely continue to modify stock exhaust systems to increase sound emissions. 

Citizen complaints concerning dust levels created primarily from ATVs would likely continue at 

the present rate or increase with the projected increase in ATVs. 

Funding for maintenance and repair of roads and trails would likely continue to vary subject to 

changing Federal budgetary priorities. The material condition of the road and trail system would 

likely deteriorate over the long term. The costs to repair damage caused by unauthorized routes 

would likely increase. 

Indirect Effects 

In the absence of any outside changes at the state and county level that would effect the 

operation of non-highway legal vehicles, the overall risk to the safety of non-highway-legal 

operators on the Forest could increase. Projects to close and repair resource damage related to 

unauthorized routes would likely compete with other worthwhile projects for funding. 

85 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

User conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized advocates and the resultant animosity that is 

sometimes demonstrated will likely increase. The backlash from nonmotorized users is likely to 

continue or increase. 

Action Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Roads Open to All Vehicles (Motorized-Mixed Use) 

Direct Effects - If implemented, Alternative E would likely present the safest overall system of 

the action alternatives based solely on the number of miles open to all vehicles. It is similar to 

the no action alternative in the amount of mixed-use designated; however, its restricting of OHV 

traffic to roads and trails should result in less accidents because the travel would be on roads 

with less steep grades than the off-road topography that would be allowed under A. This 

assumes that public information and enforcement activities are successful in restricting the 

majority of the OHV traffic to the Forest roads. Alternative D would be the next safest 

alternative based on the number of miles and that the mixed use should occur in more limited 

areas. Alternatives B and C, with the high number of miles of mixed-use roads would be the 

least safe of the alternatives with B being slightly safer. 

Table 25. Miles of roads open to all vehicles (motorized-mixed use) by alternative 

Indicator Measure in Miles Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Roads Open to all Vehicles - Yearlong 148 1,638 1,956 315 148 

Roads Open to all Vehicles - Seasonally 12 588 922 265 12 

Total Roads Open to all Vehicles 160 2,226 2,878 580 160 

The small number of miles for Alternatives A and E reflect the roads enrolled in the Wyoming 

Off-Road Recreational Vehicle (ORRV) Program. They are the only roads where motorizedmixed use is currently legal under State law. 

Indirect Effects - The implementation of any of the action alternatives could reduce the risk of 

accidents involving non-highway-legal vehicles and operators by effectively reducing that traffic 

on Forest. This assumes that enforcement of applicable State laws and the resultant Travel 

Management Decision are advertised and enforced at an adequate level. 

Sound Levels 

Direct Effects - All of the action alternatives contain the proposal to establish a sound level 

restriction of 96 DB(A) as measured by SAE Standard J-1287. This restriction alone, if 

effective, should reduce the number of user conflicts and complaints that are based on sound. It 

would establish a framework for testing vehicles for sound emission and allow law enforcement 

to issue citations. 

Concerning the indicator designed to approximate the effect of sound levels on conflicts and 

complaints from private landowners in the Forest (miles within 300 feet), implementation of 

Alternative D should provide the best results. Alternatives B, C, and E are relatively equal in the 

number of miles of routes that are near private land. 

86 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 26. Miles of routes near lands of other ownership and nonmotorized trails by alternative 

Sound Level Indicator Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Miles of routes within 300 feet of lands 

of other ownership 504 490 500 423 504 

Miles of routes within 0.5 mile of a 

nonmotorized trail 318 358 382 211 318 

The indicator designed to compare the relative quiet experienced by users on nonmotorized trails 

is the number of miles of motorized routes within 0.5 miles of nonmotorized trails. If 

implemented, Alternative D should be significantly more effective in this area. Alternative C, B, 

and E would be less effective in that order. 

Indirect Effects - The establishment of maximum sound emission levels could sensitize the 

general public to the importance of the issue and could have impacts outside the Forest as well. 

It is possible that moving existing cross-county traffic onto designated roads and trails will 

increase the average sound levels in some areas. 

Dust 

Direct Effects - This indicator was designed to allow comparison of the possible dust levels 

experienced by owners of private land in or near the forest. If implemented, Alternative D again 

should be more effective in this area based on it having the lowest number of miles in this 

category. Alternatives B, C, and E would be less effective and are relatively equal in the number 

of miles of routes that are near private land. 

Table 27. Miles of routes near lands of other ownership and nonmotorized trails by alternative 

Dust Indicator Measure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Miles of routes within 300 feet of lands 

of other ownership 504 490 500 423 504 

Indirect Effects - It is possible that moving existing cross-country traffic onto designated roads 

would increase the dust levels in some areas. 

Cost 

Direct Effects - The number and uncertainty of the variables involved in estimating projected 

costs for implementing the action alternatives makes that task very difficult and the answers 

perhaps unrealistic at this time. The exact, long-term effect of increased use of OHVs (mostly 

ATVs) on ML 2 roads on this forest is unknown although it is expected to increase the need for 

maintenance activities. The cost to create and maintain new trails 50 inches or less in width, and 

motorcycle single-track trails will vary significantly based on the soils and the topography. The 

cost of perennial stream crossings would depend on the size of the streams and the type of 

crossings. The final size, location, and complexity of trailheads would have a significant impact 

on the cost. The detailed engineering design work has not yet been completed on which to base 

reasonable cost estimates for the above indicators for each alternative. 

87 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 28. Miles of various roads and trails by alternative 

Cost Indicator Measures Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Miles of Road Open to All Vehicles 160 2,226 2,877 580 160 

Miles of Road Open to Highway Legal 

Vehicles Only 3580 1,240 704 2297 3580 

Miles of Trail Open to All Vehicles 0 147 154 112 0 

Miles of Trail Open to Vehicles 50 

Inches or Less 36 414 460 181 36 

Miles of Motorcycle (Single Track) Trail 0 76 134 21 0 

Number of Trailheads 7 31 34 23 7 

Number of Perennial Stream Crossings 1,778 547 536 455 547 

Miles of Open Roads to be Closed 0 267 282 830 0 

Miles of Closed Roads to be Reopened 0 224 331 90 0 

Miles of Roads to be converted to Trails 0 207 205 146 0 

Miles of New Routes to be Converted 

from Unauthorized 0 396 527 168 0 

To fully implement alternative B, C or D would be quite costly and beyond the reach of any 

funding currently available. If implemented, Alternative E would not create a motorized trail 

system outside of using existing roads and would be the most supportable with current funding. 

Maintenance cost for ML 2 roads would increase at a rate relative to the increased use of those 

roads as the years progress. Activities are ongoing towards identifying additional resources of 

different kinds to implement and maintain a system outlined in the upcoming final decision. The 

success of those efforts will determine in large part the rate at which such a system could be 

implemented and its long-term size. 

The indicators in Table 28 are useful in providing a relative cost comparison of Alternatives B, 

C, and D. Miles of trails, number of trailheads, miles of roads to be closed, and number of 

perennial stream crossings would have the largest effect on long-term costs. These indicators 

show that Alternative D would have significantly lower costs than Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative C would be the most costly, with Alternative B a close second. 

Indirect Effects - The successful implementation and financing of an appropriately sized OHV 

recreational system in the Black Hills could increase local involvement in the direct support of 

the system in the form of individual and user group volunteer efforts, partnerships, and co-op 

programs. It could increase the level of voluntary compliance with the rules, thus augmenting 

law enforcement efforts. A viable system could also have significant long-term economic benefit 

to local businesses and communities from steady or increased motorized recreation users from 

local areas and out of state. Successful implementation could also serve as an example that 

could be emulated statewide. The need for funding of a successful system may also have an 

influence on State legislation in the long term. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions 

The cumulative effects area for engineering and transportation includes the area within and 

immediately adjacent to the Black Hills National Forest boundary. A time scale of 5 to 15 years 

is based on the time over which one can expect to predict reasonably foreseeable actions. 

88 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

As local communities continue to grow and as tourism continues to increase, more people may 

come to the Forest to visit and recreate. The easier it is for people to visit and recreate on the 

Forest, the greater the demand on the transportation system. The increased demand would likely 

lead to increased maintenance needs. 

Over time, and as funding permits, the travel management plan will be implemented on the 

ground. Recreationists would benefit from precise maps and signs guiding their travels. 

Damage and repair costs associated with the motorized use of undesigned, unauthorized roads 

and trails should decrease as these routes grow grass or are rehabilitated. 

The enforcement of State laws concerning the use of highway-legal vehicles and licensed 

operators on NFS roads should improve the safety environment involving OHV recreation. The 

enforcement of the new sound limit on OHVs could reduce their effect on wildlife and result in 

less animosity from nonmotorized users of the Forest. 

The transportation system will continue to evolve in an effort to meet future access needs for 

commodities and recreational opportunities across the Forest. The size of the transportation 

system would also change to respond to any negative environmental effects of certain routes 

discovered during monitoring efforts and any fluctuations to available resources. The 

designation of roads and trails for OHV use would evolve guided by environmental analysis 

conducted for vegetation management projects. 

Implementation and enforcement of policies outlined in the Travel Management Decision could 

have an effect on the policies of surrounding city, county, and State governments. 

Implementation and Monitoring 

The transportation system that will be designated by this decision has the potential to be very 

large and quite complex. It is also likely that there will be numerous changes to the existing 

system. Implementation of a fully developed motorized trail system will, by necessity, have to 

be a staged process. Roads and trails whose existing condition are adequate to hold up under the 

designated traffic could be shown on the first edition of the motor vehicle use map and be 

available for use immediately. Trails that need to be constructed or reconstructed from roads 

should not be opened until resources are available and construction or reconstruction and signing 

are complete. The timetable for implementing this part of the system will depend directly on the 

rate at which resources become available. 

The road and trail system will have to be monitored on a continuing basis to evaluate how each 

section is holding up to the designated use. Maintenance schedules will be set based on wear 

related to use, location, soils, etc. Some routes that are not sustainable will have to be rerouted 

or closed. Any conditions that result in significant user conflicts will also have to be monitored 

and modified as necessary. 

Socio-Economic Concerns 

Introduction 

Socio-economic concerns are an important consideration for Forest Service management of 

public lands. The study area for the socio-economic discussion focuses on public lands managed 

by the Black Hills National Forest, which includes portions of northeastern Wyoming and 

southwestern South Dakota. The social and economic discussion attempts to identify potential 

effects that Forest Service travel management decisions may have on people using and valuing 

89 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

the natural resources that the Black Hills National Forest provides and on local, county, and 

regional economic systems. 

User conflicts are primarily related to social values among motorized and nonmotorized users of 

the Forest. Some of the conflict is “related to the rate of speed at which their preferred 

recreational activities take place and the noise generated by recreational machines (Thompson et 

al. 2007).” Travel management decisions are most likely to affect tourism-related sectors. Direct 

economic impacts on the Black Hills region derive from users who purchase services and goods 

associated with their motorized activities on the Forest. 

The effects of the proposed project on social and economic resources were incorporated into the 

development of key issues. This section addresses the potential social and economic effects of 

the alternatives. 

Background 

Preliminary public involvement was initiated in 2003 in an effort to familiarize the public and 

stakeholders throughout the Black Hills region with the objectives of travel management. 

Between 2003 and 2007, the Black Hills National Forest hosted and participated in numerous 

public meetings and workshops in Wyoming and South Dakota. 

Between 2004 and 2006, the Off Highway Vehicle and Travel Management subcommittees of 

the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board conducted a number of public meetings to solicit 

general comments on travel management. The meetings were held in South Dakota and 

Wyoming to discuss and review Subcommittee objectives and the current Forest Service national 

OHV policy direction, and to outline plans for the future. The purpose of these meetings was to 

gather input to help develop recommendations for future OHV policy planning. 

The Travel Management Subcommittee also distributed a User Needs Assessment Questionnaire 

to solicit comments from both OHV and non-OHV users to evaluate the potential for 

establishing a designated OHV trail system on the Black Hills National Forest. The 559 

comments submitted helped the Subcommittee define opportunities for an OHV trail system and 

understand potential conflicts with other users. 

The National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) in cooperation with the 

Black Hills National Forest conducted an OHV Route Designation Workshop in October 2006 

for agency personnel and the public. The purpose of this workshop was to assist the Forest 

Service and the public in effective implementation of the Travel Management Rule. 

Four “Travelways” Workshops were conducted by the Forest during November, 2006. The 

purpose of these workshops was to gather public input and ideas for the development of a 

proposed action. A product from these workshops was a collection of forest site-specific 

information from participants after they completed a mapping exercise. 

The public was also asked to provide input to the Forest on routes they wanted to remain open 

and/or those routes that may be in conflict with other desired conditions sought by the public on 

National Forest System lands. This initial public involvement resulted in the agency receiving 

numerous comments on individual routes, a large number of general comments, and some areawide comments. This preliminary public input helped the Forest to develop a proposed action. In 

response to the proposed action and public meeting, 756 comments were received. 

90 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Based on the public scoping comments, along with resource-related input from the 

interdisciplinary team, a set of key issues were developed to carry forward into the 

environmental analysis process. The effects of the proposed project on social and economic 

resources were also incorporated into key issues during the DEIS development process. That 

issue is discussed below. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

There are a number of laws, regulations, and policies that provide regulatory and agency 

guidance for the preparation of social and economic analyses, such as: 

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

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) – 42 U.S.C. 4321 

 Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. 

There are also Forest Service Handbooks and Manuals that include social and economic analysis 

requirements based on other resource direction. 

Forest Plan Direction 

Forest Plan Goal 8. Promote Rural Development Opportunities. “Rural development” is the 

management of human, natural, technical, and financial resources needed to improve living 

conditions, provide employment opportunities, enrich the cultural life, and enhance the 

environment of rural America. In the Forest Service, rural development will be accomplished 

through partnerships. 

Forest Plan Objective 801. Through the Forest Service’s “Strategic Plan for the 90s,” provide 

leadership in working with rural people and communities to develop natural resource-based 

opportunities and enterprises that contribute to the economic and social vitality of rural 

communities. 

Forest Plan Objective 802. Promote sustainable development in cooperation with local, county, 

State, and American Indian partners. 

Forest Plan Objective 803. Recognize the nature and extent of local economic dependencies on 

National Forest activities. Give special attention to resource programs that help diversify rural 

economies. 

Forest Plan Objective 804. Coordinate with local communities to recognize local goals to 

maintain desired life styles and social values to participate with and provide appropriate 

assistance to development groups, and to be a reliable partner in giving sufficient advance notice 

about potential changes that may affect local economies. 

Forest Plan Objective 805.Utilize human resource programs to achieve employment 

opportunities while meeting natural resource objectives. Provide human resource programs for 

208 enrollee-years each year including the Job Corps and the Senior Community Service 

Employment Program. 

91 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Methodology 

As part of the current analysis, a review was performed of previous Forest Service travel 

management NEPA analyses, Forest Service technical references, and internal and external 

research reports. A limited range of trend estimates exist for the study area and are included or 

referenced in this section. 

This analysis focuses on the social and economic concerns related to the travel management 

proposal: 

Issue 4: Social and Economic Concerns. The alternatives considered in the DEIS may affect 

the economic sustainability of local businesses and communities. Effects may be related to 

sound level (noise), dust (air quality), trespass and access to private property, distance from 

motorized routes to private land, traffic levels, and miles of routes open to motorized use. The 

following are the indicators used to analyze this issue (also see recreation and transportation 

sections for additional discussion). 

Indicators 

 Miles of motorized routes within 0.5 mile of a nonmotorized trail 

 Miles of NFS motorized routes through or within 300 feet of lands outside the National 

Forest 

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

 Miles of motorized routes 

Assumptions 

 A sound emission limit for ATVs and motorcycles will be established and enforced at 96 

DB(A) using the SAE J-1287 measurement Standard. Implementation of this feature may 

require a Forest special order. 

 Current Forest funding resources will be augmented to the extent necessary to develop and 

maintain a resulting transportation system by fees, grants, partnerships, and cooperative 

agreements. 

 Roads and trails will be adequately signed to show their designated use and be in accordance 

with the motor vehicle use map. 

 Law enforcement activity, voluntary compliance, and active public information efforts will 

result in the recreating public complying for the most part with the modes of travel 

designations to be established by this decision and as published on the upcoming Motor 

Vehicle Use Map. 

Affected Environment 

Study Area 

The social and economic analysis includes seven counties within the study area: Crook and 

Weston Counties in northeastern Wyoming; and Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, and 

Pennington Counties in southwestern South Dakota. This resource report summarizes 

community information presented in the Final EIS for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). The Forest Plan should be referred to for additional social and economic 

information. 

92 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Social Elements 

Social elements that highlight the lifestyle, quality of life, economy, and level of interest and 

issues associated with Forest management are summarized in the social affected environment 

section in the Phase II FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a), which includes a description of each 

county in the study area. 

Population 

The structure of the area’s population can influence the ability of the area to absorb or adapt to 

changes. It is important to consider any potential changes within the context of trends that are 

occurring outside forest planning activities. The FEIS for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a) presented information on population for the seven 

counties in the Black Hills. The Phase II FEIS provides information on population by county 

using the 1990 and 2000 Census (Figure 9). 

From 1990 to 2000, the populations of South Dakota and Wyoming grew by 58,840 (8.5% 

change) and 40,194 (8.9% change), respectively. At an annual rate, this represents an increase of 

less than 1 percent in both states (Olson 2006). The 2007 population of South Dakota was ranked 

46th in the nation at 796,214 (BEA 2008). The 2007 population of Wyoming was 522,830, 

ranking 50th in the nation (ibid.). Decelerating and steady population growth is expected in 

Wyoming throughout the next 10 years (Lui 2007). 

Figure 9. Total population for the seven-county study area, 1990 – 2000 (Source: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 2002) 

OHV Demographic Characteristics 

This section briefly describes the demographic characteristics of OHV recreation in the study 

area. In February of 2008, a research report (USDA Forest Service 2008b) in the Internet 

Research Information Series (IRIS), titled Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States 

and its Regions and States: An Update National Report from the National Survey on Recreation 

and the Environment (NSRE), was published to provide statistics describing OHV recreational 

use and users in the United States. 

The IRIS report describes the “population size, percent of U.S. population, sample size, OHV 

participation rate, estimated number of OHV participants, and the proportion that each state 

93 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

contributes to the national total of 43 million OHV users.” Of special interest to the Black Hills 

study area, Wyoming has the highest participation rate by percentage (34.3%) of population in 

the nation. South Dakota is in the top 10, listed as number 8 (27.0%). 

The user demographic characteristics were divided into five major regions of the country, North, 

South, Midwest, West, and Pacific. South Dakota was considered to be in the Midwest region. 

The IRIS report states “Twenty-one percent, or 3.2 million of the Midwest’s 15.4 million 

residents, participated in OHV recreation.” Wyoming was included in the West region, which 

was described as having the highest OHV participation rate (28 percent) of all the regions. 

The IRIS report further indicates that OHV users participated in 47 other outdoor recreation 

activities. As a whole, OHV users were found to be more active in other outdoor recreation 

activities than OHV riding, relative to the general population, age 16 and older. For some 

activities, OHV users were reported to participate at more than twice the national rate. In 

particular, OHV users were about three times more likely to participate in the three types of 

hunting (big game, small game, and migratory bird) than was the general public. The 2008 

update to the National Visitor Use Monitoring project reflects that only 1.9 percent of National 

Forest recreational visitors listed their primary activity as OHV use (USDA Forest Service 

2008c). 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to focus attention on human health and 

environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. The purpose 

of the executive order is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations. 

In the Phase II FEIS, Tables 3-59 and 3-60 highlight the demographic statistics for identifying 

potential communities of concern. None of the counties in the study area contain low-income or 

minority populations as defined by Executive Order 12898. No additional outreach or analysis 

has been performed, as there will be no disproportionate negative effect on such communities 

under any of the alternatives. 

Sound Levels (Noise) 

An increasingly important issue in the Black Hills and across the nation is the sound level 

associated with off-highway vehicles. Feedback resulting from requests for comments here in 

the Black Hills has indicated concerns from nonmotorized users and adjacent landowners about 

sound levels as OHV motorized recreation use grows. The Forest Service does not currently have 

a stationary sound limit for the Black Hills. There is an industry standard applied to many OHVs 

for the sound level produced by the machines when manufactured. However, because of 

aftermarket changes and deterioration of mufflers with use, many of those machines exceed the 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) levels. The sound level of some machines has 

produced a negative attitude toward some OHV recreation (see transportation section). 

Air Quality (Dust) 

Air quality impacts from NFS roads are associated with vehicle emissions and dust from traffic 

on unpaved roads. These effects typically are localized and temporary, and their extent depends 

on the soil types, moisture levels and the amount of traffic. Most of the unpaved ML 3 and 4 

roads under Forest jurisdiction are located in unpopulated areas with relatively low traffic 

94 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

95 

volumes. Dust issues on ML 2 roads typically are less severe. Dust abatement is a relatively 

expensive activity and is dependent on budget levels and priorities. Historical budgets have not 

been sufficient to support other than minimal abatement activities on roads with high logging 

truck activity. Concentrating motorized use on roads and trails, and developing trailheads can 

potentially increase the amount of dust created in some areas (see transportation section). 

Trespass and Access 

According to the Travel Management Rule, areas and routes not designated on the motor vehicle 

use map will be closed to motorized use. This would be a change from the current situation on 

the Black Hills National Forest that allows motorized use unless designated as closed. The 

alternatives include the following elements: 

 Limiting highway-legal-motorized-vehicle use to high-speed roads suitable to passenger 

cars, low-speed roads suitable to high-clearance vehicles, and motorized trails. 

 Limiting non-highway-legal-motorized-vehicle use to high-speed roads suitable to 

passenger cars, low-speed roads suitable to high-clearance vehicles, and motorized trails. 

 Cross-country motorized vehicle use in most areas currently open to motorized vehicles 

would be prohibited. 

Problems related to OHV use that have developed or intensified over the last several years 

include noise disturbance to nearby residences, proliferation of trash on the land, traffic through 

residential neighborhoods, trespass onto adjacent ownerships, no legal public right-of-way 

access to some areas of the Forest, and damage to sensitive plant communities and riparian areas. 

Economic Elements 

Economic elements are summarized in the economic affected environment section in the Phase II 

FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005a), which includes a description of employment, income, 

recreation, and tourism. 

Within the study area, only Wyoming has completed a statewide survey and economic 

assessment project focusing on what the study refers to as off-road vehicle (ORV) 1

 use (Foulke 

2006). OHV use has profound implications for public land managers, small businesses, and rural 

homeowners. The intent of the Wyoming survey was to provide a better understanding of the 

impacts associated with ORV use and assist land managers in future ORV-related planning. 

Wyoming instituted an ORV permit program in 2002. In order to better serve trail users, 

Wyoming provided project funding to the University of Wyoming to conduct a broad-based 

economic assessment of ORV use in Wyoming. The project estimated the economic contribution 

of ORV use to Wyoming’s economy. The estimate was based on a mail survey of a random 

sample of approximately 1,000 resident and 1,000 non-resident purchasers of 2004 ORV permits. 

In addition, a random-digit-dial survey of over 600 Wyoming households was conducted. The 

results of both surveys were analyzed and used to estimate the extent of ORV use in Wyoming 

and the economic impact of ORV use on the state’s economy. This was the first project to collect 

socio-economic data focused solely on ORV use in Wyoming. 

 

1

 The State of Wyoming has used the term ORV in its Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Act and program. 

This document may use the term ORV in those contexts, but for purposes of consistency will generally use 

the term off-highway vehicle (OHV) to describe all such vehicles. The terms are synonymous. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The survey results indicate that ORV use in the State of Wyoming is widespread and virtually a 

year-round activity. Based on the approximately 150,000 ORVs in the state, residents spent over 

$189 million on ORVs and related expenses in a 12-month period. During the same period, nonresident ORV users spent an estimated $8.4 million in the state. The project results also show 

that an estimated 679 new jobs and almost $18 million in potential earnings are contributed to 

the state’s economy by non-resident ORV users. State and local government also benefit from 

ORV expenditures of approximately $18.5 million in sales tax, gasoline tax, lodging tax, and 

permit fees. 

Another interesting aspect of the survey focused on the multi-use nature of ORVs that lends them 

to use in other activities. The primary activity was not necessarily riding ORVs solely for that 

experience, but rather as part of participation in hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. 

Wyoming residents indicated that if ORV use were restricted, they would simply shift to another 

outdoor recreational activity. This response appears to be supported by the previous discussion 

relating to the IRIS report (USDA Forest Service 2008b) and the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring project (USDA Forest Service 2008c). However, non-residents indicated that, given 

similar restrictions, they would stop coming to Wyoming and pursue ORV opportunities in 

another state. This would result in a potential loss of tourism related dollars to Wyoming’s 

economy (Foulke 2006).” 

It is uncertain if the Wyoming ORV survey and economic assessment project results can be 

applied to the entire Black Hills study area, which also includes Forest land in South Dakota. An 

economic assessment survey similar to the one conducted in Wyoming is in the planning stages 

for South Dakota, but it is unlikely that it will be completed prior to the Forest’s travel 

management decision, currently scheduled for late 2009. 

Employment and Income 

Employment is important to consider because one of the main functions of a region’s economy is 

to provide jobs for residents. Personal income measures the dollars that area residents have to 

spend and save. The general trends in employment and income of a region put the potential 

impacts of changes in forest management in context of current trends and changes. In this 

section, general trends are outlined along with specific trends occurring in those sectors, 

primarily in recreation and tourism, likely to be most affected by changes in Forest Service 

management. 

Recreation and tourism activities are an important part of the study area economy. Defining 

tourism is a difficult task as the outputs associated with the industry are more abstract than 

extraction or manufacturing industries. Tourism is not a single sector that can be looked at for 

trends – activity occurs in many sectors, often the same sectors in which local residents purchase 

goods and services for their own use, adding to the complexity of the evaluation. 

Several measures can be used to highlight the current tourism activity in the study area. Foulke 

(2002) states “Probably the most direct indicator of the tourism industry is hotel and lodging. 

While only part of the expenditure, it most directly reflects the industry since a majority of 

visitors will need overnight accommodations.” Sales taxes associated with lodging as well as 

food services can be used as a proxy of tourism trends in an area. Because the study area 

counties are in two different states, direct comparison among counties is difficult, but general 

trends can be highlighted. 

96 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The majority of employment and income in South Dakota and Wyoming is nonagricultural. 

Wyoming’s total job growth rate of over 5 percent, recorded in December 2006, was the highest 

in the country. The energy industry contributed approximately one third of both the state’s total 

earnings growth and job growth (Lui 2007). Wyoming’s per capita income growth rate of 9 

percent recorded in 2006 was the highest in the nation. The $40,655 of per capita income in 2006 

also earned Wyoming a rank of sixth in the nation. With a growth rate of 6.3 percent between 

2006 and 2007, Wyoming is still ranked sixth in the nation with a per capita income of $43,226 

(BEA 2008). In 2006, South Dakota ranked 38th, with a per capita income of $32,030. With a 

growth rate of 5.9 percent between 2006 and 2007, South Dakota’s rank increased to 34th with a 

per capita income of $33,905 (ibid.). 

Forest Contribution 

The Forest is currently studying the feasibility of initiating a Trail Ranger Volunteer Program to 

assist in the management of an OHV trail system. In addition, the Black Hills National Forest 

Advisory Board is currently working with the Forest to develop recommendations and a business 

plan for a new OHV user fee proposal. 

Travel management decisions are likely to affect tourism-related sectors in the Black Hills. 

Direct economic impact on surrounding areas is based on users who purchase goods and services 

on their way to or returning from an activity on the Black Hills National Forest. The economic 

impact of access for mining, oil and gas, livestock grazing, and wood products activities would 

not be affected by the decision on this project. These impacts would be evaluated at the project 

level and will not be discussed further in this section. 

Acceptable Uses 

The Forest Service strives to offer multiple uses on National Forest System lands. Not every acre 

is available or suitable for every use, but there is a place for many if not most recreational uses to 

occur. In some cases, the Forest Service has determined that private lands are the most 

appropriate places for some specific activities, such as motocross tracks; however, with 

management and resource protection, many recreational uses can be acceptable and encouraged 

on forest lands. Juxtaposition of various uses can create some social values conflicts because not 

everyone values or is tolerant of recreational activities they may perceive as inappropriate or 

undesirable. These conflicts will persist unless and until the current and future uses of the forest 

are tolerated and accepted by all user groups. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Impacts to communities from motorized access would continue under all alternatives. 

Implementation of any action alternative would significantly reduce the recreational 

opportunities currently available on approximately 864,000 acres for motorized users of the 

Forest. The lack of any large areas open to motorized cross-country travel may cause some OHV 

users to feel displaced. This feeling of displacement on the part of OHV users may result in 

increased trespass on lands outside of National Forest and a tendency for noncompliance with 

motor vehicle use map designations. The reduction in current motorized recreation opportunities 

and the concentration of OHV use on the designated transportation system could intensify 

conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized trail users, as well as private and other public 

landowners, due to such things as increased dust and noise. However, prohibiting motorized 

97 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

cross-country travel on approximately 864,000 acres may significantly decrease user conflict, 

especially with hunters and other nonmotorized recreational users. 

It is expected that active management of OHV use could be costly (see Engineering and 

Transportation section). The construction of new trails and trailheads, maintenance of trails and 

related facilities, education and enforcement, and the need for increased staff will likely strain 

already declining Forest Service budgets. The long-term successful management of the 

transportation system under any of the action alternatives would require user support in terms of 

volunteer services and user fees. Effective management of the OHV trail systems represented in 

Alternatives B and C would require higher levels of user support than those represented in 

Alternatives D and E. 

Based on the IRIS report and National Visitor Use Monitoring results (USDA Forest Service 

2008b and 2008c), it is unlikely that travel management decisions related to the recreational use 

on the Forest would cause significant changes in the larger economy. Recreational use on the 

Forest is increasing (see recreation section), so the economies of communities surrounding the 

Forest are expected to remain stable or increase under any action alternative. [Note: See Table 7

in the Comparison of Alternatives section of Chapter 2 for the miles of routes and acres open to 

public by indicator measure and use type.] 

Alternative A – No Action 

Alternative A reflects the current situation of the Forest transportation system. No additional 

management or changes would be implemented. This alternative does little to reduce the 

temptation for illegal activity or curtail the increasing incidence of resource damage. This 

alternative also makes no changes to achieve the desired conditions of the Forest Plan or 

expectations that arose from the Plan decision. Therefore, approximately 864,000 acres of the 

Forest would remain open to motorized cross-country travel. Because some trails do not allow 

motorized vehicle use, there is some level of separation of uses. However, no additional 

separation of uses would be implemented. Those conflicts that currently exist would likely 

continue under this alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Implementation of either Alternative B or C would allow for the addition of a large number of 

new OHV trails and roads open to both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles 

(motorized mixed use). Some areas would remain open to motorized travel, but only for the 

limited purposes of dispersed camping and game retrieval. These alternatives would separate 

some uses and would meet Forest Plan desired conditions by creating a transportation system 

that allows both motorized and nonmotorized uses. Alternative C also considers adding 

additional motorized routes that may be necessary for creating higher-quality OHV user 

experiences than may be found under Alternative B. 

There is an attempt to separate some uses by designing an OHV trail system to meet the desires 

of certain user types. The OHV trail system proposed in both alternatives includes a number of 

concentrated motorized use areas (CMUAs). The CMUAs would be connected by a series of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. However, given the finite transportation system and lack of any 

areas open to motorized cross-country travel, some OHV users may feel displaced. Others will 

enjoy the experience if the OHV trail system adequately accommodates their preferred uses. 

Because the system would have limits, and resource values must be maintained, many locations 

would have to be shared by different user types, and conflict could occur in these areas. 

98 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The attempt to balance all uses, reduce conflict, and minimize impacts to resources leads to the 

need to balance the volume of use with how much recreational opportunity is available. The 

routes with heavier use would tend to see more conflicts between users. Those areas also tend to 

be easier to access and/or are close to the urban interface. These alternatives attempt to clearly 

define user expectations for experiences by showing recreationists where the various uses would 

be allowed or prohibited. 

Alternative D 

This alternative would implement a limited, but practical OHV trail system, to meet 

transportation and social recreation needs. Alternative D would allow more separation of uses, 

but would also significantly reduce the opportunities for users of non-highway-legal vehicles, 

and would concentrate areas where these vehicles would be allowed. This would likely affect the 

recreation experience of those who are accustomed to using Forest system roads and currently 

open areas. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E reflects the current Forest transportation system, without any areas open to 

motorized vehicles or adding any user-created routes. There would be a significant increase in 

the separation of uses due to implementation of the travel management rule, primarily due to 

prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles in areas currently open to such use. Conflicts between 

users could continue, especially in areas of the Forest that have shared uses or in areas where 

user solitude would be disrupted by neighboring motorized activities. This alternative would also 

present adverse implications to the quality of the recreational experience for OHV users by 

designating roads in the South Dakota portion of the Forest as open to highway-legal vehicles 

only. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area for social and economics includes the area within and immediately 

adjacent to the Black Hills Forest boundary. A time scale of 5 to 15 years is based on the time 

over which one can expect to predict reasonably foreseeable actions. 

As local communities continue to grow and as tourism continues to increase, more people will 

come to the Forest to visit and recreate. The easier it is for people to visit and recreate on the 

Forest, the greater will be the potential social and economic impacts. 

In the future, demands for motorized opportunities are likely to continue to increase as OHV 

sales and the population increase in the Black Hills region. More trail demands would occur as 

more family units with young children use motorized travel as a form of recreation. Increases in 

fuel prices are not expected to reduce the level of OHV recreation activities, and more local 

residents would likely use the Black Hills National Forest for their recreation preference. The 

loss of OHV recreational opportunities by limiting or prohibiting cross-country motorized travel 

would be partially offset by the enhanced OHV trail system opportunities under Alternatives B, 

C, and to a limited extent, Alternative D. In addition, commercial opportunities could develop on 

adjacent private properties to provide cross-country areas for OHV users seeking hill-climb, 

motocross, mud-bogging, or rock-climbing type activities. 

Changes based on economy, age distribution, and population can affect how people recreate. The 

population in the study area is expected to continue to grow and Forest use will likely increase. 

The state of the economy, gas prices, food prices, and housing costs can affect how much 

discretionary income people have for recreation. As the population ages, some uses may increase 

99 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

100 

in popularity while others may taper. Technological advances in equipment and trends also can 

affect the activities in which people choose to participate. Based on the economic and 

demographic forecasts for South Dakota and Wyoming discussed in this section, it appears that 

none of the alternatives would create any measurable cumulative social or economic effects on 

the Black Hills region. 

Soils 

Introduction 

Soils of the Black Hills National Forest (the analysis area) have generally been mapped and 

described at an Order 3 (USDA Forest Service 1991) level2

. General background soil resource 

information for the Forest is available in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest (USDA Forest Service 1996a), and 

in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Forest (Phase II FEIS; USDA Forest Service 

2005a). An extensive amount of information on various specific components for Forest soil map 

unit resources have been and are periodically updated (such as through the 2007 update to the 

Lawrence County Soil Survey) by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and have 

become available to the public through an the NRCS website located at http://soils.usda.gov/. 

Soil information was available for the 2007 Travel Analysis Process Report for the District route 

selection process and is not presented again for this Forestwide document. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

The primary law that applies to the soil resource is the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

(16USC 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614), which directs that management prescriptions 

conserve the soil resource and not allow significant or permanent impairment of land 

productivity. 

Standards, guidelines and management directives set forth in the Revised Forest Plan as 

amended (USDA Forest Service 2006a) include measures for the conservation and protection of 

the soil resource on National Forest System lands. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the 

soil resource considered applicable to the travel management plan include: 

1. Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally 

compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit. (Standard 

1103; see similar worded R2 Soil Management Handbook and R2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook direction below). 

2. Minimize soil compaction by reducing off-road vehicle passes, by skidding on snow, 

frozen or dry soil condition or by off-ground logging systems (Guideline 1104). 

3. Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to 

control erosion. (Standard 1106) 

4. Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands. 

(Standard 1109) 

 

2 Need definition of what Order 3 level means 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

101 

No soil resource specific direction exists in Forest Plan management area direction. Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for the conservation and protection of soil resource productivity apply 

to all management areas. 

Region 2 Soil Management Direction 

The Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18, R2 Supplement) provides standards to ensure 

soil quality maintenance. The following standard applies: 

“2.23. No more than 15 percent of an activity area will be left in a detrimentally compacted, 

displaced, puddled, severely burned and/or eroded condition. This does not include the 

permanent transportation system.” 

Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Direction 

The Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook also provides direction with similar 

wording to Forest Plan standard 1103 and the R2 Soil Management Handbook. The following 

Management Measure 13 from that handbook applies: 

“Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally 

compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of an activity area3

 (commonly a 

timber sale cutting unit, prescribed fire burn unit or an allotment pasture).” 

Methodology 

The USDA Forest Service Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1992) 

contains direction targeted at protecting soil resources and soil productivity, which includes the 

inherent capacity of a soil under management to generally support the growth of specified plants, 

plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. The R2 Soil Management Handbook 

and the WO Amendment to FSH 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook (USDA Forest Service 

1991) include information that applies to areas where vegetation management prescriptions are 

being applied, including timber production sites and livestock forage production areas within 

allotments. The Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 

2006c) reiterates that the National Soil Handbook (FSH 2509.18) soil quality standards are 

intended for areas where management prescriptions are being applied, such as timber harvest 

areas and range allotments. They are not intended to apply to administrative sites or other areas 

with dedicated uses such as the designated permanent Forest transportation system. Roads, 

trails, trailheads and specified parking zones along routes are dedicated to a specific management 

use that precludes other uses of the land (such as for growing trees for harvest or forage for 

wildlife or livestock) and removes the majority of the productive capability of soils at the 

specific location where they occur. Therefore, the soils analysis is primarily focused at the 

various land areas in action alternatives that are designated open to cross-country motorized 

travel. Alternatives that contain land areas open to cross-country motorized travel off of 

designated transportation facilities include Alternatives A (existing condition), B, and C. 

Alternatives D and E restrict motorized travel to the designated transportation system facilities 

with no areas open for motorized cross-country travel. 

 

3

 An activity area is defined as an area of land impacted by a management activity or activities. It can 

range from a few acres to an entire watershed depending on the type of monitoring being conducted. It is 

commonly a timber sale cutting unit, a prescribed fire burn unit, or an allotment pasture. Soil quality 

standards do not apply to administrative sites or other areas with dedicated uses, including the permanent 

Forest Transportation System. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The following indicators were used to measure the effects to the soil resource across the range of 

alternatives: 

Indicators 

 Acres open to unlimited motorized cross-country travel 

 Acres open to limited motorized cross-country travel (motorized game retrieval, 

motorized dispersed camping). 

Potential effects of the alternatives to the soils resource was part of Issue 1. These effects are 

considered in the DEIS to compare how well each alternative meets soil protection requirements. 

The acres open to motorized cross-country travel and the amount and timing of that use can 

potentially alter surface vegetation or soil conditions to a level that soil productivity at specific 

locations could be expected to be impacted. 

Assumptions 

Based on the information available in Chapters 1 and 2 of the DEIS a number of assumptions 

were made for the soils analysis. 

 As identified, interdisciplinary teams on each of the Forest ranger districts identified routes to 

be included in the various alternatives. A component of the purpose and need as well as the 

route location selection process for the action alternatives was to identify opportunities to 

limit the potential for resource impacts and to select routes with the expectations that a trail 

system could be sustained with expected limited funding available for maintenance (see 

Chapters 1 and 2). Therefore, a primary assumption for the soils analysis is that a number of 

routes or motorized use sites contributing to soil resource impacts known by “on-the-ground” 

District Resource Travel Management Team specialists and through information contained 

within the Forestwide Travel Analysis Process Report (USDA Forest Service 2007a) were not 

included in the action alternatives other than in Alternative E (existing routes alternative). In 

addition, the assumption also includes expectations that routes included in the alternatives are 

to be adequate and sustainable for use in their current condition. There may be limited repairs 

or adjustments needed at a limited number of points to prevent unacceptable impacts from 

occurring to adjacent soil resources. 

 For comparing alternatives, designated Forest transportation facilities for each of the 

alternatives are considered to cause equal amounts of disturbance to the adjacent soil 

resources that are not allocated to the transportation facility. While it is recognized that not all 

of the transportation facilities cause equal amounts of disturbance (it can vary based on slope 

gradients, intensity of use, timing and volume of precipitation, etc.), designated transportation 

facilities can be designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Region 2 

Watershed Conservation Practices (see Design Criteria in Appendix B and the management 

strategies list in the Implementation section of Chapter 2). Such measures would help ensure 

that any potential effects are within an acceptable level to protect and maintain soil 

productivity conditions. 

 Not designating routes that currently have less than desired condition elements would likely 

remove from the public transportation system those routes that would be expected to require 

the greatest amount of maintenance. This would likely contribute to a greater effectiveness 

for the limited maintenance resources that would be available. 

 Since the motor vehicle use map is to be updated annually (see motor vehicle use map 

management strategy identified under the Implementation section in Chapter 2), an annual 

102 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

update would require periodic documented route reviews or inspections, as well as timely 

maintenance throughout the year to address and correct identified resource impacts, including 

any to adjacent soil resources. In addition, if inspections or reviews identified that a 

designated route or cross-country motorized use area could not be managed to standard (see 

Design Criteria in Appendix B and the management strategies identified under the 

Implementation section in Chapter 2), action would be taken to close the specific 

transportation facility or area, such as through a road closure or area closure order until a new 

motor vehicle use map would take effect, and the original facility or area would be reclaimed 

or rehabilitated. 

 Administrative access (see Chapter 2 Legal Framework and General Assumptions sections) 

would be limited in nature (estimated at generally less than 5 vehicle passes per year) and 

would retain vegetative cover or allow for regrowth to the level that water runoff velocity 

would be at significantly lower levels as compared to a designated open transportation facility 

that experiences multiple passes in the same day. While administrative access for fire 

generally results in significant soil disturbance and removal of vegetative cover associated 

with fire suppression activities (such as during dozer line construction) suppression 

rehabilitation activities are implemented to meet Water Conservation Practices Handbook 

Management Measure (design criteria h) (USDA Forest Service 2006c) to limit the extent and 

duration of effects. Part of the burned area rehabilitation process could also be expected to 

include an area or route closure period, as needed, to allow vegetation of the general area to 

establish prior to reinitiating any OHV use. 

Design Criteria 

No additional design criteria specific to the soil resource were included for the action 

alternatives. Dedication of sites to designated routes and trailheads that incorporate the design 

criteria for protecting water resources and limiting the number of acres and the number of 

opportunities (reduced number of trips) for cross-country travel generally addresses design 

criteria that would have been included for meeting the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

Region 2 Soil Quality standards listed above. 

Field information and Other Analysis Information 

The soil resource evaluation was developed using information presented to the extended team 

(soils was a component of the extended team) from the core transportation management 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) specialists, background information from existing knowledge of the 

Black Hills and professional judgment. 

For this analysis, effects were discussed for the Forest soil resource as a whole rather than 

addressed by each soil map unit across the Forest because 1) the analysis covers such a large area 

(Forestwide) containing a large number of soil map units, 2) we are assuming that sustainable 

and safe travel would be limited to specific slopes with a limited amount of use, and 3) the motor 

vehicle use map could change use areas on an annual basis. 

Since specific research is not known to be available for the general Black Hills area, some of the 

most recent literature (Ouren et al. 2007) and other Forest travel management analysis 

documents were reviewed to understand impacts associated with OHV use in other areas. 

Acreage and mileage figures provided are and should be considered approximate since 

information included in Chapters 1 and 2 indicate that motor vehicle use maps are likely to be 

changed as necessary to address resource protection and conservation needs. 

103 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Affected Environment 

As described in Chapter 1, approximately 4,109 miles of unauthorized OHV routes (not currently 

part of the designated Forest transportation facilities) currently exist on the Forest (see 

Alternative A map in Appendix I, map packet). These routes are generally associated with the 

extensive area of the Forest that is currently open to unlimited cross-country motorized travel. As 

indicated above, these generally were not planned routes with engineering design specified for 

Forest projects; therefore, effects to soil productivity were generally never analyzed. OHV trails 

and use areas currently occur at various concentrations and intensity of use levels throughout the 

Forest. In comparison to designed native surfaced roads, these unauthorized routes are generally 

narrower (50 inches in width or less) than roads tend to lack drainage structures, and some have 

been observed to occur on steep gradients (for additional information see the Transportation 

section of this chapter). Based on mostly undocumented observations, impacts to soil resources 

currently exist at various levels and locations along unauthorized routes in the open crosscountry motorized use areas. In these areas, vegetative ground cover has been removed, surface 

soil layers have become eroded, soil structure has been altered, surface soil layers have become 

mixed with subsurface layers, or tracks have extended to the bedrock layer. Some trails have 

been observed to contribute to the concentration of water runoff associated with snowmelt or 

precipitation events and have contributed to erosional features (ruts and gullies) at track 

locations (see some of these effects featured in some of the photos located throughout the DEIS). 

The public can readily observe some of these motorized use areas and associated erosional 

features when traveling on some of the main roads or highways located throughout the Forest. 

Past Forest documents have included information regarding impacts to soil resources associated 

with OHV use on Forest lands and closure orders have been issued to reduce impacts to a variety 

of resources. Local newspaper articles in recent years have also reported on various OHV effects 

that have occurred on the Forest and the actions taken to address those effects. Some limited 

funds have become available periodically, which have been used to attempt to reclaim some 

areas, primarily focused at sites near to or that cross perennial streams (to restore some level of 

vegetation with the intent to reduce sedimentation). 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

It is important to clearly understand that reclamation or rehabilitation of previously used 

unauthorized user-created routes or OHV-disturbed areas across the Forest is not included as part 

of any of the action alternatives or as part of the decision to be made for this project; therefore, 

this is not addressed in the effects analysis for any of the alternatives. Those activities would 

only occur if proposed through other project planning processes and decisions. 

The decision to allow or prohibit the use of motorized OHV on designated open routes (the 

Forest transportation facility) would generally be expected to have limited effects on adjacent 

soil resources. A route designation decision does have the potential to affect soils indirectly to 

the extent that it may affect the concentration of use on roads and trails. For example, increased 

use in some areas may result in greater levels of OHV parking on the edge of the trail, prompting 

the need for more routine maintenance, and affecting the potential for impacted areas to recover. 

In general, more motorized routes and motorized use on National Forest System lands could be 

expected to contribute more potential site disturbances that could impact Forest soil resources. 

Based on the assumptions listed near the beginning of this section and the sites to be designated 

on the Forest transportation system, 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. While expected to be very limited, the 

104 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

potential increase in water runoff velocities from designated facilities can potentially contribute 

to erosion of soil resources located immediately adjacent to transportation facility components. 

Therefore, the amount of area open to motorized cross-country travel is the overriding indicator 

used to evaluate the level of effects to soils, with some minor considerations given to designated 

transportation facilities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A - No Action 

Indicators 

 Acres open to unlimited motorized cross-country travel: 864,000 

 Acres open to limited motorized cross-country travel (motorized game retrieval, 

motorized dispersed camping): 864,000 

This alternative retains the current 864,000 acres open to motorized unlimited cross-country 

travel, which occurs throughout the entire year. While 864,000 acres is what is “mapped” it is 

somewhat misleading regarding what can be expected for potential site and soil disturbances 

created by OHV use. OHV use would likely occur on less than 864,000 acres because 

accessibility is restricted due to natural or human-developed barriers (vegetation, steep slopes, 

rock outcrops, private land and Forest fences, lakes or other water features, etc.) No changes to 

cross-country motorized dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval would be expected. 

This alternative would be expected to have direct and indirect effects similar to some conditions 

that have been observed on the Forest to date (see those discussed in the Affected Environment 

section above) and what has been documented from elsewhere (Ouren et al. 2007). Unregulated 

off-road motorized activities can contribute to disturbed conditions that can result resulting in 

unacceptable levels of soil degradation. A variety of effects associated with OHVs, including 

those to the soil resource, has been compiled and published (Ouren et al. 2007). Abrasion 

removes surface vegetation and roots, which can further contribute to water runoff and erosion. 

Compaction reduces soil voids to various degrees, which can result in limitations to various site 

productivity factors such as the water-holding capacity of the soil or restricting or altering 

vegetative root growth (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Any potentially new or existing 

unauthorized roads and trails in Alternative A would likely continue to contribute to the spread of 

invasive weed species (see the Noxious Weeds section). Various invasive non-native competitive 

plant species including cheatgrass are generally recognized to be less valuable at preventing or 

limiting soil erosion than plant species native to an area. 

Depending on the level of use and various site conditions that exist along routes, uncontrolled 

motorized vehicle use off roads and trails can alter soil conditions in areas that are not part of the 

permanent transportation system and contribute to a lowered soil productivity condition than 

what would generally occur naturally at a site. As compared to a designed or designated open 

system, unauthorized roads and trails have greater potential for more impacts to soils due to lack 

of design and placement in a specified location. 

While direct and indirect effects would be expected to continue under the no action alternative, 

closure orders would still be a tool for closing areas where resource damage occurs. 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

The Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 13 addresses 

soil quality as follows: 

105 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

“Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, 

eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of an activity area (commonly a timber sale cutting 

unit, prescribed fire burn unit or an allotment pasture).” 

While slightly different (since it was based on a previous version of the Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook Forest Plan standard 1103 has similar wording: 

“Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded 

and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit.” 

The Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 13 addresses 

soil quality as follows: 

“Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, 

eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of an activity area (commonly a timber sale cutting 

unit, prescribed fire burn unit or an allotment pasture).” 

While slightly different (since it was based on a previous version of the Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook), Forest Plan standard 1103 has similar wording: 

“Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded 

and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit.” 

Although the R2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook management measure, the R2 soil 

quality standard and Forest Plan standard 1103 are primarily targeted at timber, prescribed fire, 

and range activities, it is also applicable to other human disturbance activities on Forest land. 

Components of the action alternatives can be expected to benefit or potentially contribute to 

reducing detrimental soil quality conditions that currently exist and would continue under 

Alternative A. The action alternatives would significantly limit or eliminate all acres open to 

motorized cross-country travel; but quantitative benefits are immeasurable at a Forest scale. 

However, the decrease or elimination of areas available for motorized cross-country travel and 

the designation of specific routes open for public wheeled-motor-vehicle use would concentrate 

use to designated sites and would comply with design criteria 1 (a) of Management Measure 13 

(USDA Forest Service 2006c): 

“Restrict roads, landings, skid trails, concentrated-use sites, and similar soil disturbances to 

designated sites.” 

Designating the greatest amount of OHV use to Forest transportation facilities and to specific use 

areas would implement that design criteria. While concentrated use along designated 

transportation routes could contribute to some effects (such as increasing water runoff velocities 

that could cause erosion on adjacent soils), specifying designated routes, trailheads and parking 

zones, could lead to sustainable maintenance and soil protection standards specified for 

transportation facilities (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS). At this time, the amount of maintenance an 

open route would require and receive in the future is unknown; however, an increase in annual 

maintenance opportunities and levels would help address and limit effects of concentrated use 

and keep it within a manageable level. 

The designation of trailhead facilities (estimated at up to five acres in size for this analysis) 

would further implement that design criteria. Trailheads are generally expected to occur on 

slopes of 5 percent or less to provide for ease of parking trailers and the loading and unloading of 

OHVs. The numbers of trailheads are 34 in Alternative C, 31 in Alternative B, 23 in Alternative 

106 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

107 

D, and 7 each in Alternatives A and E. Even at five acres, the total acreage trailhead designation 

would be less than 200 acres that could contribute to water runoff to contribute to any effects to 

adjacent soil resources. By actually designating such facilities, concentrated OHV loading and 

unloading can be limited to specific locations with the expectation that the facilities can be 

maintained to specific standards (see Design Criteria in Appendix B and the management 

strategies identified under the Implementation section in Chapter 2) with a greater likelihood of 

preventing impacts to adjacent soil resources. 

Mass movement of land surfaces have occurred on the Forest with generally the greatest 

potential for occurrence in the Bear Lodge Mountains. The geology of some areas in the Bear 

Lodge Mountains have characteristics that contribute to a greater likelihood of naturally 

occurring failures on steep slopes or human-caused failures in association with site disturbances 

such as highway and road construction or vegetation removal activities. It is important to note 

that soil displacement in the form of mass movement (also known as slope failures or 

landslides), has not been observed to occur on the Forest with cross-country motorized use. Mass 

movement increases as identified in the R2 Soil Quality Handbook, R2 Water Conservation 

Practices Handbook, and in Forest Plan standard 1103 are not expected to be an issue since no 

roads would be designed or constructed as part of this decision. Designation of transportation 

facilities in the Bear Lodge Mountains under any of the action alternatives is not expected to 

increase the likelihood of mass movement. The only routes to be designated under any of the 

action alternatives are located on existing routes that currently have some level of drainage 

features designed into them. No user-created routes were included as designated open routes 

within the alternatives for that portion of the Black Hills National Forest. In addition, removal of 

timber canopy is not a part of the activities or decision to be made for this project. Therefore, 

mass movement potential is not expected to increase or decrease as part of this project. 

When wet, various native surface roads and trails with low strength characteristics4

 can be 

susceptible to rutting. Rutted conditions can result in a desire by users to circumvent the 

designated transportation facilities and to access areas not designated as open on the motor 

vehicle use map. Rutted conditions have been observed to contribute to trail widening as 

vehicles avoid the rutted trail locations, and can result in unacceptable impacts to the 

transportation surfaces or drainage features and limit their effectiveness (see the transportation 

report for further information), resulting in concentrating water runoff that can lead to varying 

levels of gully erosion depending on site characteristics. If rutting of routes occurs, the 

assumption is that maintenance of designated routes would occur in a timely manner according 

to protective standards, and users would not feel the need to divert off the route where soils 

would be impacted. Therefore, effects to adjacent soil resources would be kept at a minimum 

level. 

Effects Specific to Alternative B 

Indicators 

 Acres open to unlimited motorized cross-country travel: 0 

 Acres open to limited motorized cross-country travel (motorized game retrieval, 

motorized dispersed camping): 177,000 (approximately 14% of NFS lands) 

 

4

 low strength characteristics can be obtained from the NRCS Soils website at 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter6a.html#1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Based on the assumptions listed earlier and the indicators above, this alternative can be expected 

to have some of the same direct and indirect effects as those in the no action alternative but to a 

much lesser degree. The greatest potential for effects to the soil resource under this alternative 

from motorized recreation is likely to be associated with potential disturbances from areas used 

for dispersed camping, followed by areas open to game retrieval. 

Motorized game retrieval can affect soils through disturbance of vegetation. However, under this 

alternative, very few or no effects to the soil resource would be expected. Only one vehicle is 

allowed for a retrieval of a harvested animal although more than one pass by the vehicle is 

allowed, only as needed, and no resource damage is allowed for the retrieval of an animal (see 

game retrieval information provided in Actions Common to All Action Alternatives Section in 

Chapter 2). Based on the size of the animal, it can generally be assumed that only a single entry 

would be needed to retrieve a deer. Since elk are larger animals, it may be possible, depending 

on the size of the OHV available, that up to four passes may be needed for a small vehicle to 

retrieve an elk (one quarter of the animal per pass), while a larger vehicle may only need one 

entry. Therefore, since the number of passes to retrieve an animal would generally be four entries 

or less, such a level of use would have limited potential for causing altered soil condition t that 

would impact soil productivity conditions of a site. In addition, game retrieval would generally 

be limited to less than five months a year (September through January), during a period when 

soil moisture conditions are generally lower than what occurs during higher precipitation months 

or frozen conditions may be present (climate information for Black Hills can be viewed by 

following the links provided by the High Plains Regional Climate Center at 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/). The hunting period is also at the end or after the growing season 

period for most plants. Based on the soil moisture conditions at this time of the year and the 

entry limitations to retrieve game, there would be a very limited potential to no likelihood of 

soils to be compacted to a detrimental level in areas open to that activity. In addition, the entry 

limitation during the hunting season would result in little to no observable reductions of 

vegetative ground cover, or reduce ground cover to the point below that expected to keep erosion 

within tolerable limits (approximately 50 to 70 percent for soils within the Black Hills). 

Recognizing that natural and human restrictive features and conditions prevent access to some of 

the areas open for motorized cross-country travel, it is likely that fewer acres than the total listed 

will be accessed. For example, in considering slope, an assumption can be made that there may 

be hunter safety concerns and that there are limitations to the stability of vehicles on certain 

slopes. Slopes of various soil map units were reviewed through a geographical information 

system (GIS) query. While it is likely that the general hunting public would probably limit 

motorized removal of big game to slopes of 15 percent or less, there may be some people that 

operate their vehicles on steeper slopes; therefore, an even greater conservative query was 

reviewed. Simply based on eliminating soils with slopes of 30 percent and greater, game 

retrieval acreage for Alternative B would generally be less than 161,000 acres (approximately 13 

percent of the Forest). An assumption is that the total acres that would actually be accessed for 

game retrieval would be even further limited by site factors that are not as easily mapped. These 

restrictive features can include rock outcrops, soil surface rock fragments or boulders, dense 

understory shrub conditions, private land fences limiting access to public lands, lakes and other 

water features, or some other site condition that would limit the desired or safe operability of 

motorized OHV equipment. Based on the information available and presented, risk of impacts to 

a detrimental level for soils associated with game retrieval as is specified in Alternative B is 

considered to be at a low level. 

108 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

As mentioned above, motorized use off of designated routes can disturb vegetation, which could 

contribute to some impacts to soils. Motorized dispersed camping is associated with access to 

and from trails and parking, which can disturb vegetation and in turn can contribute to effects to 

soils. The total amount of acres actually available for dispersed camping (observations in recent 

years is that the majority is of a motorized nature), and considered to be more desirable for 

camping, is significantly less than the total of what is listed for each alternative. Based on sitelimiting factors not conducive for locating or setting up campsites, a primary and easily mapped 

feature is slope, which limits the use of a variety of camping equipment and camper comfort (the 

assumption is that the majority of motorized or pull type campers or camping equipment would 

generally access and set up on areas of off-road slopes of 10 percent or less). Recognizing there 

may be a very limited number of campers that may actually access slopes greater than 5percent, 

a query of soil map units of less than 10 percent slope was made to estimate the majority of acres 

where motorized dispersed camping and access would be expected to occur. The review of that 

query indicates that only about 1/3 of the total acres listed as available to motorized use could or 

would likely be used under Alternative B with that use identified (less than 24,000 acres or 2 

percent of the Forest). The percentage of the Forest desirable or available for motorized camping 

would likely be even significantly less based on a number of other site factors, which are 

generally not as easily mapped as slope, but have been observed. Other factors that limit the 

desirability or limit the conditions of site suitability for motorized camping can include rock 

outcrops, soil surface rock fragments or boulders, presence of poison ivy, presence of various 

noxious weeds (such as Canada thistle), dense understory shrub conditions, high tree stem 

densities, private land fences, presence of Forest livestock and odor of livestock excrement, road 

noise, and presence or lack of surface water. 

Total acres of motorized cross-country travel can not be calculated by adding game retrieval and 

motorized dispersed camping acres for Alternative B. Motorized dispersed camping in 

Alternative B is included entirely within areas where game retrieval is identified; therefore, total 

acres of all cross-country travel for Alternative B is 177,000 acres (approximately 14 percent of 

National Forest System lands). The existing condition (or the no action alternative) currently 

allows season-long, unlimited motorized cross-country travel activities on 864,000 acres 

(approximately 70% of National Forest System lands). The reduction in the percentage of the 

Forest open to motorized cross-country travel in Alternative B identifies the level of potential 

benefits that can likely be realized to various areas of Forest soil resources. In addition, 

significantly fewer passes by motorized vehicles would be expected to occur on those lands. 

Areas designated as part of the permanent transportation facility are no longer managed as a soil 

resource and therefore were not used as an indicator. If the permanent transportation facility 

components (considered to be the routes designated, the adjacent parking zones along the routes, 

and the trailheads) are managed to the standard specified in Appendix B and discussed in the 

hydrology section of this DEIS, any indirect effects associated with the routes to adjacent Forest 

soil resources are expected to be very limited in spatial extent. Implementation of Alternative B 

would have approximately half as many miles used by motorized vehicles as compared to the 

existing condition (Alternative A, no action). 

Effects Specific to Alternative C 

Indicators 

 Acres open to unlimited motorized cross-country travel: 0 

 Acres open to limited motorized cross-country travel (motorized game retrieval, 

motorized dispersed camping): 473,600 (approximately 39% of NFS lands) 

109 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Based on the assumptions listed earlier and the indicators above, this alternative can be expected 

to have some of the same direct and indirect effects as those in the no action alternative but to a 

much lesser degree. The greatest potential for effects to the soil resource under this alternative 

from motorized recreation is likely to be associated with potential disturbances from areas used 

for dispersed camping, followed by areas open to game retrieval. 

Direct and indirect effects of game retrieval in Alternative C would be similar to those identified 

and discussed under Alternative B, but could be expected to occur over a larger area since more 

acres would be available and a greater potential for more game-retrieval-entry opportunities. The 

same GIS slope query exercise used in Alternative B was used for Alternative C analysis. The 

results indicate that less than 325,000 acres (approximately 26 percent of the Forest) would be 

available for motorized game retrieval. Alternative C differs from B in that it allows game 

retrieval off of the designated Forest transportation system for both elk and deer (deer have far 

more tags available than elk); therefore, not only does Alternative C have more acres available 

for big game retrieval as compared to Alternative B, more cross-country motorized entries can be 

expected in Alternative C as compared to Alternative B, which has elk-only game retrieval 

specified (see the Wildlife Section for additional information). While more opportunities are at a 

greater potential for risk of effects to the soil resource based on acres and more entries as 

compared to Alternative B, the other information presented in Alternative B would also indicate 

that risks of detrimental impacts to the soil resource would be low for Alternative C if game 

retrieval would be implemented to the standard specified for that alternative. 

Direct and indirect effects for dispersed camping in Alternative C would be similar to those 

identified and discussed in Alternative B but would occur over a slightly larger area since more 

acres are available for that recreational activity in Alternative C. A similar GIS query was 

completed for Alternative C as to the query that was completed for Alternative B to indicate the 

amount of acres that might actually be used for dispersed camping. Similar to Alternative B, the 

review of that query indicates that only about 1/3 of the total acres listed as available to 

motorized dispersed camping use would likely be used in Alternative C (less than 58,000 acres 

or approximately 5 percent of the Forest). As with Alternative B, within even those acres, 

desirable or available camping would likely be even significantly less based on a number of 

other site factors listed in the discussion for Alternative B above, which are generally not as 

easily mapped as slope, but have been observed. Based on that information, less than 5 percent 

of the Forest for the implementation of Alternative C would likely be used for motorized 

dispersed camping if Alternative C were implemented. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C 

would have the greatest number of acres likely to be used for motorized dispersed camping, 

followed by Alternative B. 

As with Alternative B, total acres of motorized cross-country travel for Alternative C cannot be 

calculated by adding game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping acres together. Unlike 

Alternative B, motorized dispersed-camping areas are not entirely inclusive in the game retrieval 

areas of Alternative C; however, there is some overlap resulting in a total area of 473,600 acres 

(approximately 39 percent of National Forest System lands) available for specific, limited 

motorized cross-country activities. As compared to the existing condition, the percentage of the 

Forest open to motorized cross-country travel in Alternative C would be reduced by 30 percent, 

resulting in potential benefits to various areas of soil resources. In addition, fewer passes by 

motorized vehicles would be expected to occur on these lands. 

Areas designated as part of the permanent transportation facility are no longer managed as a soil 

resource and therefore were not used as an indicator. If the permanent transportation facility 

110 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

components (considered to be the routes designated, the adjacent parking zone along the routes 

and the trailheads) are managed to the standard specified in Appendix B and discussed in the 

hydrology section of this DEIS any indirect effects associated with the routes to adjacent Forest 

soil resources are expected to be very limited in spatial extent. Like Alternative B, 

implementation of Alternative C would have approximately half as many miles used by 

motorized vehicles as compared to the existing condition (Alternative A, no action). 

In addition, various seasonal closures are identified associated with big game winter range or 

goshawks (see design criteria in Appendix B and the alternative maps in Appendix I, map 

packet). Both seasonal closure periods overlap with all or portions of the season when the 

greatest precipitation is generally experienced (High Plains Regional Climate Center information 

indicates this as the beginning of April until the end of June) and soil moisture is generally at 

some of the highest levels of the year. While uncertain, there could be additional benefits to the 

soil resources adjacent to routes with seasonal closures as compared to routes that are designated 

open year round. Seasonally closed routes may experience some vegetative growth during 

closure periods, thereby contributing to limiting water runoff velocities, which in turn would 

contribute to reductions in erosional forces on adjacent soil surfaces located downslope of 

transportation facilities. 

Effects Specific to Alternative D 

Indicators 

 Acres open to unlimited motorized cross-country travel: 0 

 Acres open to limited motorized cross-country travel (motorized game retrieval, 

motorized dispersed camping): 864,000 

In this alternative, no motorized game retrieval off of motorized routes or dispersed camping 

would occur; therefore, no impacts to the soil resource associated with these activities would be 

expected. 

Areas designated as part of the permanent transportation facility are no longer managed as a soil 

resource and therefore were not used as an indicator. If the permanent transportation facility 

components (considered to be the routes designated, the adjacent parking zone along the routes 

and the trailheads) are managed to the standard specified in Appendix B and discussed in the 

hydrology section of this DEIS any indirect effects associated with the routes or other designated 

transportation facilities to adjacent Forest soil resources are expected to be very limited in spatial 

extent. Implementation of Alternative D would have about 40 percent of motorized use route 

miles as compared to the existing condition (Alternative A, no action). 

Effects Specific to Alternative E 

Indicators 

 Acres open to unlimited motorized cross-country travel: 0 

 Acres open to limited motorized cross-country travel (motorized game retrieval, 

motorized dispersed camping): 864,000 

In this alternative, no motorized game retrieval off of motorized routes or motorized dispersed 

camping would occur; therefore, no impacts to the soil resource associated with these activities 

would be expected. 

111 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Areas designated as part of the permanent transportation facility are no longer managed as a soil 

resource and therefore were not used as an indicator. If the permanent transportation facility 

components (considered to be the routes designated, the adjacent parking zone along the routes 

and the trailheads) are managed to the standard specified in Appendix B and discussed in the 

hydrology section of this DEIS any indirect effects associated with the routes to adjacent Forest 

soil resources are expected to be very limited in spatial extent. Implementation of Alternative E 

would have the same number of designated routes of NFS lands open for motorized use as the 

existing condition and no action alternative, but none of the unauthorized routes would be open 

to motorized use in Alternative E; therefore, Alternative E would have approximately 46 percent 

of the route miles as compared to the existing condition (Alternative A, no action). 

Cumulative Effects 

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis selected is the entire Forest. Some 

general similarities exist in soils and climates within this area that are within the Black Hills. A 

larger area would include the surrounding lower elevation plains areas outside of the Black Hills, 

but these include a different suite of soils and climatic conditions. A temporal scale of 10 years 

was used and is based on (1) the time over which one can expect to predict reasonably 

foreseeable actions and (2) the time over which one can expect to predict effects of ongoing and 

proposed activities. 

The cumulative effects analysis for the soils resource generally considers impacts of the 

alternatives when combined with the following past, present, and foreseeable future actions and 

events including: (1) designated Forest transportation facility maintenance; (2) closure or 

rehabilitation efforts on routes not open for public use or not maintained for administrative use; 

(3) vegetation treatments; (4) urban interface growth and increased Forest use; and (5) future 

road or trail realignment, reconstruction, or decommissioning. Management actions can 

contribute to alterations in user concentrations, creation of unauthorized routes, maintenance 

needs and levels, the effectiveness of closures, and rehabilitation or some level of recovery of 

closed routes. Cumulatively, these actions can influence vegetative growth and soil erosion. 

The designation of a transportation system does not limit the ability of the Forest to use closure 

orders for areas where unacceptable resource damage is identified. This important management 

tool can limit the duration and extent of effects if resource damage is beginning to occur. Effects 

to the soil resource, such as soil erosion features being present, may be reason for the 

implementation of this tool if corrective maintenance is not successful. 

Some erosional or drainage issues have periodically been identified for Forest transportation 

facilities and may be tied to inadequate design, maintenance, inspections or repairs, or from a 

climatic event (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Roads that are regularly used, such as those used 

for timber entries, are generally inspected and maintained according to timber sale contract 

specifications. Other transportation facilities on the Forest are assigned a maintenance level and 

follow a Forest maintenance schedule (refer to the Transportation section of this Chapter). 

Various portions of the Forest experienced high-intensity precipitation events in 2008. The 

volume of water was to the level that floodplains and components of the Black Hills 

transportation system (both Forest and other systems) were flooded and impacted and various 

Black Hills communities closed roads, both for human safety and repair needs. Transportation 

facility inspections conducted on the Forest noted slope failures, washouts, and other damage 

associated with the high-intensity precipitation events. The assumption for this analysis is if 

there are similar future precipitation events, there would likely be similar maintenance and repair 

112 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

implementation, or temporary route closures for Forest motorized trail and trailhead facilities 

since they will be designated as part of the Forest transportation system. 

The Forest-urban interface in the vicinity of Rapid City is one of the most rapidly growing areas 

in the State of South Dakota. The rapid population growth has likely contributed to the 

popularity of all-terrain vehicles and the demand for this type of motorized recreation can be 

expected to continue to increase (see Chapter 1). Therefore, it is likely that demand would 

concentrate or use levels would increase on open routes within this general area. Areas with 

concentrated use will wear on drainage structures, which could contribute to increased erosion 

and deposition of material on adjacent soil resources. However, the assumption is that by 

reducing the number of routes inspections would be timely and maintenance would occur soon 

after an issue was identified and any impacts to adjacent Forest soil resources would be kept to a 

minimum. 

Following this travel management decision, and potentially concentrating use, there may be a 

need to reroute or rehabilitate some routes. Rehabilitation and relocation activities typically 

results in some level of soil disturbance. However, the long-term effects of rehabilitation actions 

would likely contribute to reducing impacts to soil resources, by reducing the potential for soil 

erosion of a site. If a rehabilitation project would be determined to consist of something other 

than routine maintenance of a designated transportation facility, environmental analysis specific 

to the rehabilitation is expected to occur. 

A variety of activities, such as vegetation management activities, recreational activities and other 

management activities are expected to continue on the Forest. Road construction, reconstruction, 

and decommissioning as part of managing the Forest designated transportation system are 

expected to continue to move towards Forest Plan Objective 309 (USDA Forest Service 2006a). 

As identified in previous documents, these activities would likely have various levels of effects 

to soils as identified in the Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 1996a) and in the Phase II 

Amendment EIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

As indicated in the Direct and Indirect Effects section above, implementation of any of the action 

alternatives (B, C, D and E) would be expected to significantly reduce the amount of area open 

to cross-country travel as compared to Alternative A. No rehabilitation of unauthorized routes or 

other disturbed areas associated with OHV use within areas not to be designated open is included 

in any of the action alternatives and no roads are to be closed under this decision. Therefore, no 

immediate beneficial rehabilitation is anticipated or expected to occur off of designated routes. 

Over time, various exposed areas can be expected to establish some level of a vegetation 

component (not necessarily what existed at the site prior to the disturbance) and organic litter 

layers on exposed mineral soils or materials would exhibit fewer features of active erosion over 

time. The progression of vegetation establishment has been observed on the Forest (e.g., 

following fire events) and occurs at various rates based on variability in site characteristics. 

These include soil moisture conditions and retention capabilities, other continuing site 

disturbances, precipitation patterns, and seed source availability. In addition, the amount of 

surface soil components remaining at a disturbed site contribute to the length of time it can take 

areas to establish vegetation and organic litter. Sites with no remaining surface soil layers, or 

where OHV tracks are compacted, may no longer have site characteristics to support vegetation 

establishment and vegetative litter accumulation to a level (generally 50 to 70 percent) that 

would successfully prevent erosion without active rehabilitation efforts. Rehabilitation efforts at 

disturbed locations may occur through the implementation of future Forest project planning 

efforts. 

113 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

An assumption from Chapter 2 is that the public is generally expected to observe and fully 

comply with the requirements of the designated transportation system with no unauthorized 

access following this travel management decision. As with effects to other resources, the extent 

and degree of effects to the soil resources would be expected to depend to a certain extent on the 

timeliness and effectiveness of maintenance as well as timeliness and effectiveness of future 

closures if designated routes or trailheads could not be maintained to standard (see Chapter 2). 

The assumption is that if transportation facilities are maintained to standard, they would meet 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Regional Watershed Conservation Practices. Therefore, 

while the potential for effects associated with motorized dispersed camping and game retrieval 

are expected to be minimal, the implementation of Alternative D could contribute the greatest 

benefit to soil resource conditions by having the least area available to cross-country travel (no 

motorized game retrieval and no dispersed camping) and the least total miles of designated 

motorized routes. 

Hydrology 

Introduction 

This section describes and analyzes effects to the water resource in relation to motorized travel 

on the Black Hills National Forest. One of the key issues identified with this proposal is that the 

number of miles and location of routes proposed for motorized use could affect natural and 

cultural resources. Specifically, motorized activity could alter aquatic habitat conditions through 

soil erosion and sedimentation and changed hydrology patterns. 

Research has shown and personal knowledge confirms that roads are a major source of sediment 

delivered to streams in watersheds. Research has not established consistent numerical criteria 

for determining when roads are likely to contribute sediment to streams that causes adverse 

affects. Direct, quantitative, cause-and-effect links between roads and the condition of aquatic 

habitat and species have been difficult to document (Gucinski et al. 2001). 

From the standpoint of aquatics, it is desirable to have as little impact to the water resource as 

possible. Stream crossings would allow for passage of flow and sediment, withstand flood 

flows, allow free movement of aquatic life, and maintain current stream dimensions. Sediment 

would not be introduced to the streams from the roads and trails, floodplains and flood flows 

would not be changed or impacted, and riparian and wetland areas would not be impacted. 

The area of analysis for the water resource includes all of the water resources contained within 

the Black Hills National Forest. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Three major laws and regulations apply to the water resource. 

Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. 

The principal body of law currently in effect is based on the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Amendments of 1972, which significantly expanded and strengthened earlier legislation. Major 

amendments were enacted in the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987. 

Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the Act established the symbolic goals of eliminating 

releases of high amounts of toxic substances to water, eliminating additional water pollution by 

1985, and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and 

114 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

recreation by 1983. The Act regulates discharges of pollutants from point sources through a 

permitting system. Nonpoint source pollution is controlled through the use of best management 

practices (BMPs) per State nonpoint source management plans. 

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management 

Executive Order 11988 requires Federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible long- and shortterm adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to 

avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall provide leadership and shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains 

in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following actions: (1) acquiring, managing, and 

disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted 

construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting 

land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and 

licensing activities (FEMA 2008a). 

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands 

The purpose of Executive Order 11990 is to "minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of 

wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands". To meet 

these objectives, the Order requires Federal agencies, in planning their actions, to consider 

alternatives to wetland sites and limit potential damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot 

be avoided. The Order applies to: (1) acquisition, management, and disposition of Federal lands 

and facilities construction and improvement projects which are undertaken, financed or assisted 

by Federal agencies and (2) Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not 

limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing activities (FEMA 

2008b). 

Forest Plan Direction 

Presented here are the Forest Plan standards that directly apply to travel management relating to 

the water resource. Listed below some of the Forest Plan standards are design criteria that are in 

the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Some of the 

Forest Plan standards are Watershed Conservation Practices. 

Forest Plan Standard 1203 – Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream 

structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and 

allow free movement of resident aquatic life. 

a. Install stream crossings to meet Corps of Engineers and State permits, pass normal flows, 

and be armored to withstand design flows. 

b. Size culverts and bridges to pass debris. Engineers work with hydrologists and aquatic 

biologists on site design. 

c. Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to flow 

as practicable, and to provide passage of fish and other aquatic life. 

d. Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep 

streambeds and banks resilient. Favor bridges, bottomless arches or buried pipe-arches for 

those streams with identifiable flood plains and elevated road prisms, instead of pipe 

115 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

culverts. Favor armored fords for those streams where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or 

temporary, or the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension. 

Forest Plan Standard 1212 – Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from 

surface and ground water. 

Forest Plan Standard 1301 – In the water influence zone (WIZ) next to perennial and 

intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve 

long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition. 

Forest Plan Standard 1302 – Maintain long-term ground cover, soils structure, water budgets, 

and flow patterns in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulation. 

a. Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow 

or 2 inches of frozen soil. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands. 

b. Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative. If 

roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to 

sustain flow patterns. Set crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet 

meadow surfaces. Avoid actions that may dewater or reduce water budgets in wetlands. 

e. Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs. 

Forest Plan Standard 1304 – As opportunities arise, and need dictates, relocate or implement 

mitigation measures for roads, trails, water tanks, ponds, water catchments, and similar facilities 

currently located in the WIZ. 

Methodology 

Indicators 

The following indicators will be used to measure the effects to the water resource across the 

range of alternatives: 

 the number of road/trail crossings on perennial streams, 

 miles of road/trail within 30 feet of a perennial stream (floodplain), and 

 miles of road/trail within 119 feet of a perennial stream (WIZ). 

Assumptions 

The analysis presented here is based on the following assumptions: 

 citizen routes are currently established on the ground 

 unclassified routes are currently established on the ground 

 proposed district routes are not established on the ground 

 design criteria would be implemented and adequate funding would be provided for 

implementation, monitoring and enforcement 

Design Criteria 

Design criteria developed to conserve and protect the hydrologic resource is located in Appendix 

B. 

116 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Field Surveys and Other Analysis Information 

The analysis is largely based on three sources of information: 

 Attributes contained in GIS concerning the relationships between water resources and 

roads 

 Field surveys containing information of condition of the water resources and roads over 

the years 

 Personal knowledge of the water resources and roads by resource specialists 

Affected Environment 

The affected environment for the water resource is described in detail in the Forest Plan EIS and 

will not be repeated here. What will be discussed here are the components that have the 

potential to be affected by travel management and relate to the major laws and regulations listed 

above. The agency has provided guidance for NEPA analysis and different components that 

should be considered in the analysis. The areas that will be discussed are aquatic ecosystems 

relating to sediment, bed and bank stability, and temperature, wetlands, and floodplains. 

Aquatic Ecosystems 

Aquatic ecosystems are water dependent 

and the main areas of concern of streams. 

Streams are classified perennial, 

intermittent, or ephemeral and are defined 

in the Watershed Conservation Practices 

Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006c; 

see text box). 

There are almost 3,500 miles of drainages 

on the Black Hills National Forest. It is 

not clear how many are intermittent and 

ephemeral drainages. There is an 

estimated 950 miles of perennial streams 

within the boundaries of the National 

Forest with an estimated 515 miles on 

National Forest System lands. Sediment, 

bed and bank stability, and temperature 

are the physical components of concern. 

Sediment 

Most sediment delivered to streams comes 

from a source zone along streams whose 

width depends on topography, soils, and ground cover. Connected disturbed areas like roads and 

other disturbed soils near streams can deliver sediment during runoff events. Sediment deposits 

in streambeds harm insect populations and fish reproduction. Road and stream crossings on the 

Black Hills National Forest are a big concern. There are an estimated 1,778 road/perennial 

stream crossings on the current road system (including unclassified roads and citizen routes), an 

estimated 59 miles of road within 30 feet of a perennial stream, and an estimated 285 miles of 

road within 119 feet of a perennial stream. Most of the sediment is generated when the road is 

closest to the stream and is best reflected with the miles within 30 feet. No streams in the Black 

Perennial stream - A stream or reach of a 

channel that flows continuously or nearly 

so throughout the year and whose upper 

surface is generally lower than the top of 

the zone of saturation in the areas 

adjacent to the stream 

Intermittent stream - A stream or reach of 

stream channel that flows, in its natural 

condition, only during certain times of the 

year or in several years. Characterized by 

interspersed, permanent surface water 

areas containing aquatic flora and fauna 

adapted to the relatively harsh 

environmental conditions found in these 

types of environments 

Ephemeral stream - A stream that flows 

only in direct response to precipitation in 

the immediate locality (watershed or 

catchment basin), and whose channel is 

at all times above the zone of saturation. 

117 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Hills National Forest are listed as impaired due to pollutants such as sediment derived from 

roads (SD DENR 2008). 

Bed and Bank Stability 

Bed and bank stability can be damaged from trampling by animals or humans, vehicle impacts, 

degraded bank vegetation, or excessive flow augmentations. Streams can be made wider and 

shallower, pools and overhanging banks can be destroyed, and much sediment can be added to 

streams. Vehicle impacts are of concern where off-road travel is permitted and streams are 

crossed by vehicles breaking down the streambanks. There are an estimated 1,000 crossings on 

user-created routes. 

Temperature 

Summer water temperature is increased, and winter water temperature is decreased, by removing 

shade, reducing low flows, or damaging banks so streams are wider and shallower. Dissolved 

oxygen is usually reduced when summer water temperature is increased. Such impacts impair or 

destroy the suitability of water bodies for aquatic biota. This is affected by road crossings that 

remove riparian vegetation, unmitigated low-water crossings, and from off-road vehicles 

crossing streams. Vehicles crossing streams tend to remove riparian vegetation and widen the 

streams, increasing water surface area. Removing riparian vegetation and increasing the water 

surface area increases the solar radiation input in the summer, which increases water 

temperature. It is unknown how many low-water crossings are on the current transportation 

system of an estimated 750 crossings and user-created routes of an estimated 1,000 crossings. 

There are several streams listed within the Black Hills National Forest as impaired and not 

supporting designated beneficial uses due to temperature (SD DENR 2008). They are Battle 

Creek, Bear Butte Creek, Elk Creek, Grizzly Bear Gulch, North Fork Rapid Creek, Rapid Creek, 

Spring Creek, and Victoria Creek. All are streams listed as impaired due to natural sources. 

West Strawberry Creek is also listed as impaired due to temperature, but a cause is not listed. 

French Creek is listed as impaired due to dissolved oxygen from natural and drought-related 

sources. Dissolved oxygen and temperature are directly related. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands control runoff and water quality, recharge ground water and provide special habitats. 

Actions that may alter their ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, drainage patterns and 

long-term plant composition can impair these values. The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

completed mapping of wetlands for the National Wetland inventory that includes the Black Hills 

National Forest. This was completed through aerial photo mapping. It is a starting point for 

identifying wetlands. No determination can be made as to whether they are jurisdictional 

wetlands without a site visit to confirm that the three components of a wetland (hydrology, soils 

and vegetation) are in place. Generally, if any component is missing, it is not a jurisdictional 

wetland unless the area has been disturbed, and in that case, all three components are not 

required. 

A large portion of the mapped wetlands is along ephemeral drainages. From personal 

observations, the hydrology and vegetation are not present to support a jurisdictional wetland 

along these drainages. The water regime modifier in many cases is seasonally flooded. With 

this information and looking at the modifiers, a query of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 

layer was performed using modifiers that suggest more permanent water, such as saturated, semipermanently flooded, and permanently flooded. A list of possible modifiers can be found in 

118 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A to the water resource specialist’s report in the project file. This resulted in 120 miles 

of linear wetlands and 1,800 acres of polygon wetlands. 

Wetlands are broken down into different categories. On the Black Hills National Forest, there 

are three categories: 

 Lacustrine - Relating to lakes and a system of inland wetlands and deep-water habitats 

associated with freshwater lakes and reservoirs, characterized by the absence of trees, 

shrubs, or emergent vegetation; 

 Palustrine - Relating to a system of inland, nontidal wetlands characterized by the 

presence of trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that is rooted below water 

but grows above the surface). Palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated or 

flooded land (as in marshes, swamps, and lake shores) to land that is wet only seasonally 

(as in vernal pools); and, 

 Riverine - Relating to, formed by, or resembling a river and to a system of inland 

wetlands and deep-water habitats associated with nontidal flowing water, characterized 

by the absence of trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation. 

The linear wetlands consist of 1 percent palustrine and 99 percent riverine. The polygon 

wetlands are 91 percent lacustrine, 9 percent palustrine, and less than 1 percent riverine. Ninetysix percent (96%) of the lacustrine wetlands are the surface waters of Deerfield Lake, Pactola 

Reservoir, and Sheridan Lake. 

Floodplains 

Floodplains are natural escape areas for floods that temper flood stages and velocities. 

Floodplains occur on every stream. Floodplains store water, serve as natural sponges to 

moderate the release of high waters and act as filters to trap sediment and pollutants (Greater 

Yellowstone Coalition 2006). They are important because the loss of the function of floodplains 

can change the timing and peak of floods. 

Mapped floodplains for the entire Black Hills National Forest do not exist. FEMA has 

completed maps of counties that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. This 

includes all counties within the Black Hills National Forest within South Dakota. There are 

11,000 acres of mapped 100-year floodplain on National Forest in South Dakota. No 

information or data could be located for Wyoming. 

The Forestwide Travel Analysis Process Report (USDA Forest Service 2007a) used a buffer of 

30 feet on perennial streams to address the encroachment into floodplains. The number of road 

crossings and miles of road within 30 feet would be a good indicator of possible impacts to the 

floodplain. 

The current transportation system and user-created routes on the Black Hills National Forest 

currently have an estimated 750 perennial stream crossings and 59 miles of road within 30 feet 

of a perennial stream. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

The effects analysis encompasses the effects resulting from the use, construction, and 

maintenance of designated motorized road and trial systems. 

119 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Sediment 

Ouren et al. (2007) state “Where OHV activity occurs, networks of OHV routes proliferate. 

Wheel cuts and tracks within these networks may serve as water conduits that channel and direct 

water flow containing sediments and contaminants into aquatic ecosystems”. 

There are several ways routes provide direct paths for accelerated runoff transporting sediments 

and road-associated contaminants to natural drainage channels. They include “(1) inboard 

ditches delivering runoff to a stream at a road-stream crossing, (2) inboard ditches delivering 

water to a cross-drain, (3) where sufficient discharge is available to create a gully or sediment 

plume that extends to the stream channel, (4) roads sufficiently close to streams so that the fill 

slope encroaches on the stream and (5) landslide scars on the road fill” (Ouren et al. 2007). 

Sediments can be minimized 

from roads and trails. Research 

shows that where cross drains 

were positioned at sufficient 

distances from streams, the 

drainage discharge infiltrated 

the soil and did not contribute to 

sedimentation in streams (Ouren 

et al. 2007). The Forestwide 

Travel Analysis Report states 

“The major potential effect of 

roads on streams and lakes is 

related to sedimentation. 

Serious sedimentation in some 

streams would effect some fish 

and bird populations” (USDA 

Forest Service 2007a). See 

Figure 10. Figure 10. Example of sediment being added to a stream from 

a user-created route in a cross-country-use area 

The indicators for sediment are 

1) the number of road and trail stream crossings, 2) miles of road and trail within 30 feet from a 

stream, and 3) miles of road and trail within 119 feet of a stream (to lesser extent). The closer 

the road and trail are to the stream, the greater the chance to introduce sediment to the stream. 

Bed and Bank Stability 

Bed and bank stability along a stream is affected when crossings are not designated or designed. 

This is related to traveling cross-country and pioneering new crossings or crossings that are not 

hardened. When a crossing is not hardened, it can become impassable and then users move to a 

new site, disturbing and destabilizing new banks (see Figure 11. 

120 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Temperature 

Temperature of the streams 

can be affected when 

crossings are not designated 

or designed. Crossings not 

designated are related to 

traveling cross-country and 

pioneering new crossings, 

which tend to widen the 

streams at the crossings. 

Crossings not designed are 

generally low water 

crossings on roads that have 

evolved over the years (see 

Figure 12). Widening of the 

stream provides more water 

surface area to be exposed to 

solar radiation, thus having 

the potential of increasing water temperature. One widened stream crossing may not be a 

concern, but several can effectively raise the temperature of a stream. 

Figure 11. Example of streambank instability from a user-created 

route in a cross-country-use area 

Figure 12. Examples of stream widening and potential effect to water temperature from usercreated routes when crossings are not hardened or properly mitigated 

Wetlands 

Roads can affect wetlands in several ways. Roads can alter surface water runoff patterns and 

contribute sediment or other contaminants. Road construction can fragment or remove wetland 

habitat. Roads can contribute to the spread of invasive species (including noxious weeds) 

resulting in greater competition with native species for resources. Finally, roads increase access 

for people and livestock, which can lead to trampling, cropping, and collecting of riparian plant 

species. Road systems are more likely to affect wetlands in valley bottom locations where 

121 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

wetland sites and road locations are 

more likely to coincide, than on 

drier, upland sites (USDA Forest 

Service 2007a). Road and trails 

that are not designed and are 

impacting wetlands are related to 

cross-country travel. They can 

disrupt flow patterns, contribute 

sediment, and remove vegetation, 

as well (Figure 13). 

Roads and trails can be designed to 

avoid wetlands and wet areas or 

minimize the effects to wetlands, 

which would result in minimal 

impacts to wetlands. The design 

criteria related to wetlands (see 

Appendix B) would help protect 

and minimize the impacts from designed roads and trails. 

Figure 13.Example of wetland crossing from a user created 

route in a cross-country use area 

Floodplains 

The travel analysis report (USDA Forest Service 2007a) discusses how floodplains function in 

the hydrologic environment and how roads can affect them: 

 “Roads can directly affect physical channel dynamics where they encroach on floodplains or 

restrict channel migration. Floodplains help dissipate excess energy during high flows and 

recharge soil moisture and groundwater. The functions of a floodplain are compromised when 

roads encroach on or isolate floodplains. This can increase discharge velocities during peak flows 

and result in increased bed and/or bank erosion and overall channel in stability. Roads that reduce 

the storage capacity of floodplains can also affect flood magnitudes downstream of the affected 

area. Restricting channel migration can cause channel straightening which increases the stream 

energy available for channel erosion. This can also result in channel instability. Altering channel 

pattern affects a stream’s ability to 

transport materials, including 

wood and sediment”. 

Figure 14. Example of filling across a floodplain creating 

an effective dike or dam that affects flood flows 

Roads can impact floodplains and 

affect flood flows in the watershed. 

Road and stream crossings can 

impact a floodplain when the 

floodplain is filled to accommodate 

the crossing (see Figure 14). This 

fill can create an effective dike or 

dam and allow water to pass only 

through the opening of the bridge 

or culvert. This would usually back 

up the floodwaters and can raise the 

flood elevation. This also causes 

increased velocity at the 

constriction and can cause scour of 

122 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

the stream channel and possible channel incision. The number of road/stream crossings on 

perennial streams is a good indicator of the effects on floodplains. Currently there are 1,778 

road crossings on perennial streams. 

Constructed roads in close proximity to the creek can also affect floodplains. Road fill would 

occupy floodplains and reduce the area flood are allowed to spread out. With less floodplain 

area, the elevation of the flood would be raised. Miles of roads and trails within 30 feet of a 

perennial stream is another good indicator. Currently there are 59 miles of road within 30 feet of 

a perennial stream. 

Comparison of Effects for all Alternatives 

Table 29 displays the water resource indicators by alternative. It is presented here to give a 

display of all alternatives in one central location. Discussion of the effects will take place under 

each alternative discussion. 

Table 29. Water resource indicators by alternative. These indicators are also applicable to the 

fisheries resource. 

Indicator Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

Number of road/trail 

crossings on perennial 

streams Forestwide 

1,778 547 536 455 547 

Miles of road/trail within 

30 feet of perennial 

streams Forestwide 

59 20 20 16 17 

Miles of road/trail within 

119 feet of perennial 

streams Forestwide 

285 125 125 100 110 

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Sediment 

This alternative would have the most impacts to the water resource from sediment because of the 

sheer number of unmitigated crossings and miles of road in proximity to streams, as illustrated in 

Table 29. Also, new user-created routes can be added under this alternative, because the Forest 

would be open to cross-country travel. No other alternative would have this kind of impact with 

the potential to add sediment to the streams and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the crossing can 

have disastrous effects as illustrated in Figure 10. 

Bed and Bank Stability 

This alternative would have the greatest effects on bed and bank stability because off-road travel 

and pioneering new trails with stream crossings would continue to occur. None of these new 

crossings and many of the existing crossings would not be mitigated to harden the crossings, thus 

contributing to increased bed and bank instability at the crossings. This is illustrated in Figure 

11. 

Temperature 

This alternative would have the greatest effects on temperature because of the sheer number of 

unmitigated stream crossings. Also off- road travel and pioneering new trails with stream 

123 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

crossings would continue to occur, widening the streams. Figure 12 illustrates widening of 

streams with unmitigated stream crossings. 

Wetlands 

This alternative has the largest area available to off-road travel and consequently the greatest 

potential impacts to wetlands. The greatest potential effects to wetlands are from creating new 

routes by traveling off roads and trails and big game retrieval or dispersed camping. Creating 

new trails and off-road travel through wet areas can have detrimental impacts as illustrated in 

Figure 13. 

Floodplains 

As indicated by the numbers in Table 29, this alternative would have the most potential impacts 

related to effects to floodplains just by the sheer number of crossings and miles in proximity to 

streams. No other alternative would have this kind of impact. All routes would remain and all 

fills would remain in the floodplains. New user-created trails generally would not introduce fill 

into the floodplain, and thus could be expected to have little effect. 

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Sediment 

This alternative will have the second most impact to the aquatic ecosystems from sediment but is 

very similar to Alternatives C and E. There would be a 69 percent reduction in the number of 

stream crossing as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be 

reduced by 66 percent and a 56 percent reduction in miles of road would be achieved within 119 

feet of streams. All crossings would have the design criteria applied to them over time, thereby 

reducing impacts to the aquatic resource from sediment. 

Game retrieval and dispersed camping under this alternative is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on the water resource and sediment. Guidelines 9107 and 9108, listed in the design 

criteria (Appendix B), would prevent or minimize impact to the water resource from sediment. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 Water conservation Practices 

Handbook Management Measure 3 and design criteria ‘e, which directs the Forest to locate new 

concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (minimum 100 feet from waters edge) if 

practicable and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to avoid adverse indirect effects to the water resource from 

sediment. 

Sediment being added to the streams under this alternative would be minimized when the design 

criteria are implemented to harden the crossings, provide drainage for roads and trails, and 

provide buffers for trailheads. Even with the design criteria in place, sediment would not be 

completely eliminated under this alternative. 

Bed and Bank Stability 

This alternative would not have an effect on bed and bank stability of the streams. All crossings 

would be designated and have design criteria applied that would harden all crossings so the bed 

and banks would be protected and remain stable. No other bank instability should occur. 

124 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Game retrieval and dispersed camping under this alternative is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on the water resource and bank and stream stability. Guidelines 9107 and 9108 listed in 

the design criteria (Appendix B) would prevent or minimize impacts to the water resource and to 

bed and bank stability. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource related to bed and bank stability. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 

Water conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, and design criteria ‘e’, which 

directs the Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if 

practicable) and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to protect the bed and bank of the streams. 

Temperature 

This alternative would have the second most impact to the aquatic ecosystems due to 

temperature but is very similar to Alternatives C and E. There would be a 69 percent reduction 

in the number of stream crossings as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of 

streams would be reduced by 66 percent. All crossings would have design criteria applied to 

them over time to maintain or reduce stream width, thereby reducing the impacts to the aquatic 

resource from potential temperature increases. Riparian vegetation that provides shade to the 

streams will always be permanently altered at crossings but maintaining proper stream width will 

help minimize impacts. 

Game retrieval and dispersed camping under this alternative is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on the water resource and temperature. Guidelines 9107 and 9108, listed in the design 

criteria section (see Appendix B), would prevent or minimize impact to the water resource from 

temperature. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource related to stream temperature. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 

Water conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, and design criteria ‘e’, which 

directs the Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if 

practicable) and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to protect the temperature of the streams. 

Wetlands 

This alternative has the third largest area available to off-road travel and consequently the third 

most potential for impacts to wetlands. The potential impact would come from big game 

retrieval and dispersed camping if off-road travel occurs through wetlands or wet areas. 

Floodplains 

This alternative would have the second most impact to floodplains but is very similar to 

Alternatives C and E. There would be a 69 percent reduction in the number of stream crossings 

as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be reduced by 66 

percent. The design criteria requiring crossing rehabilitation and reducing fill in floodplains (see 

Appendix B) would reduce impacts and restore the floodplains when implemented. 

125 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Alternative C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Sediment 

This alternative would have the third most impact to the aquatic ecosystems from sediment but is 

very similar to Alternatives B and E. There will be a 70 percent reduction in the number of 

stream crossings as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be 

reduced by 66 percent and a 56 percent reduction in miles of road would be achieved within 119 

feet of streams. All crossings would have design criteria (see Appendix B) applied to them over 

time, thereby reducing impacts to the aquatic resource from sediment. 

Game retrieval and dispersed camping under this alternative is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on the water resource. Guidelines 9107 and 9108 (see Appendix B), would prevent or 

minimize impacts to the water resource from sediment. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 Water conservation Practices 

Handbook Management Measure 3 and design criteria ‘e, which directs the Forest to locate new 

concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone if practicable and outside riparian areas 

and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would provide an adequate vegetative buffer to 

avoid adverse indirect effects to the water resource from sediment. 

Sediment being added to the streams under this alternative would be minimized when the design 

criteria are implemented to harden the crossings, provide drainage for roads and trails, and 

provide buffers for trailheads. Even with the design criteria in place, sediment would not be 

completely eliminated under this alternative. 

Bed and Bank Stability 

This alternative would not have an effect on bed and bank stability of the streams. All crossings 

would be designated and have design criteria applied that would harden all crossings so the bed 

and banks would be protected and remain stable. No other bank instability should occur. 

Game retrieval and dispersed camping under this alternative is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on the water resource and bank and stream stability. Guidelines 9107 and 9108 listed in 

the design criteria (Appendix B) would prevent or minimize impacts to the water resource and to 

bed and bank stability. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource related to bed and bank stability. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 

Water conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, and design criteria ‘e’, which 

directs the Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if 

practicable) and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to protect the bed and bank of the streams. 

Temperature 

This alternative would have the third most impact to the aquatic ecosystems due to temperature 

but is very similar to Alternatives B and E. There would be a 70 percent reduction in the number 

of stream crossing as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be 

reduced by 66 percent. All crossings would have design criteria applied to them over time to 

maintain or reduce stream width, thereby reducing the impacts to the aquatic resource from 

potential temperature increases. Riparian vegetation that provides shade to the streams will 

126 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

always be permanently altered at crossings but maintaining proper stream width will help 

minimize impacts. 

Game retrieval and dispersed camping under this alternative is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on the water resource and temperature. Guidelines 9107 and 9108, listed in the design 

criteria section (see Appendix B), would prevent or minimize impact to the water resource from 

temperature. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource related to stream temperature. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 

Water conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, and design criteria ‘e’, which 

directs the Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if 

practicable) and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to protect the temperature of the streams. 

Wetlands 

This alternative has the second largest area available to off-road travel and consequently the 

second most potential for impacts to wetlands. The potential impact would come from big game 

retrieval and dispersed camping if off-road travel occurs through wetlands or wet areas. 

Floodplains 

This alternative would have the third most impact to floodplains but is very similar to 

Alternatives B and E. There would be a 70 percent reduction in the number of stream crossings 

as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be reduced by 66 

percent. The design criteria requiring crossing rehabilitation and reducing fill in floodplains (see 

Appendix B) would reduce impacts and restore the floodplains when implemented. 

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Sediment 

This alternative will have the least impact to the aquatic ecosystems from sediment. There 

would be a 76 percent reduction in the number of stream crossings as indicated in Table 29. 

Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be reduced by 73 percent and a 65 percent 

reduction in miles of road would be achieved within 119 feet of streams. All crossings would 

have design criteria (see Appendix B) applied to them over time, thereby reducing impacts to the 

aquatic resource from sediment. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 Water conservation Practices 

Handbook Management Measure 3 and design criteria ‘e, which directs the Forest to locate new 

concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone if practicable and outside riparian areas 

and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would provide an adequate vegetative buffer to 

avoid adverse indirect effects to the water resource from sediment. 

Sediment being added to the streams under this alternative would be minimized when the design 

criteria are implemented to harden the crossings, provide drainage for roads and trails, and 

provide buffers for trailheads. Even with the design criteria in place, sediment would not be 

completely eliminated under this alternative. 

127 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Bed and Bank Stability 

This alternative would not have an effect on bed and bank stability of the streams. All crossings 

would be designated and have design criteria applied that would harden all crossings so the bed 

and banks would be protected and remain stable. No other bank instability should occur. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource related to bed and bank stability. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 

Water conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, and design criteria ‘e’, which 

directs the Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if 

practicable) and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to protect the bed and bank of the streams. 

Temperature 

This alternative would have the least impact to the aquatic ecosystems due to temperature. There 

would be a 76 percent reduction in the number of stream crossing as indicated in Table 29. 

Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be reduced by 73 percent. All crossings would 

have design criteria applied to them over time to maintain or reduce stream width, thereby 

reducing the impacts to the aquatic resource from potential temperature increases. Riparian 

vegetation that provides shade to the streams will always be permanently altered at crossings but 

maintaining proper stream width will help minimize impacts. 

The designation of new trailheads in this alternative is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

the water resource related to stream temperature. All new trailheads meet Standard 1301, R2 

Water conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, and design criteria ‘e’, which 

directs the Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if 

practicable) and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would 

provide an adequate vegetative buffer to protect the temperature of the streams. 

Wetlands 

This alternative, along with Alternative E, would have the least impact to wetlands. No off-road 

travel would be allowed with this alternative, which would result in no impacts to wetlands. 

Trail systems would generally avoid wetlands and wet areas. 

Floodplains 

This alternative would have the least impact to the floodplains. There will be a 76 percent 

reduction in the number of stream crossings as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 

feet of streams would be reduced by 73 percent. The design criteria requiring crossing 

rehabilitation and reducing fill in floodplains (see Appendix B) would reduce impacts and restore 

the floodplains when implemented. 

Alternative E - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Sediment 

This alternative would have the fourth most impact to the aquatic ecosystems from sediment but 

is very similar to Alternatives B and C. There would be a 70 percent reduction in the number of 

stream crossings as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be 

reduced by 66 percent and a 56 percent reduction in miles of road would be achieved within 119 

feet of streams. All crossings would have design criteria (see Appendix B) applied to them over 

time, thereby reducing impacts to the aquatic resource from sediment. 

128 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Sediment being added to the streams under this alternative would be minimized when the design 

criteria are implemented to harden the crossings, provide drainage for roads and trails, and 

provide buffers for trailheads. Even with the design criteria in place, sediment would not be 

completely eliminated under this alternative. 

Bed and Bank Stability 

This alternative would not have an effect on bed and bank stability of the streams. All crossings 

would be designated and have design criteria applied that would harden all crossings so the bed 

and banks would be protected and remain stable. No other bank instability should occur. 

Temperature 

This alternative would have the fourth most impact to the aquatic ecosystems due to temperature 

but is very similar to Alternatives B and C. There would be a 69 percent reduction in the number 

of stream crossings as indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be 

reduced by 71 percent. All crossings would have design criteria applied to them over time to 

maintain or reduce stream width, thereby reducing the impacts to the aquatic resource from 

potential temperature increases. Riparian vegetation that provides shade to the streams will 

always be permanently altered at crossings but maintaining proper stream width will help 

minimize impacts. 

Wetlands 

This alternative, along with Alternative D, would have the least impact to wetlands. No off-road 

travel would be allowed with this alternative, which would result in no impacts to wetlands. 

Trail systems would generally avoid wetlands and wet areas. 

Floodplains 

This alternative would have the fourth most impact to the floodplains but is very similar to 

Alternatives B and C. There will be a 69 percent reduction in the number of stream crossings as 

indicated in Table 29. Miles of road within 30 feet of streams would be reduced by 71 percent. 

The design criteria requiring crossing rehabilitation and reducing fill in floodplains (see 

Appendix B) would reduce impacts and restore the floodplains when implemented. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area is bounded in space as the forest boundary and in time as the next 5 

to 15 years. Activities considered in this cumulative effects analysis include road and trail use 

and management, mining, recreation, timber harvest, grazing, and reservoir use and 

management. 

Sediment 

Cumulative impacts to streams from sediment can come from roads, trails, mining, recreation, 

timber harvest, and grazing that occur near streams. Roads and trails would add sediment at 

crossings if not properly designed and mitigated. Mining would contribute point-source impacts 

adding sediment at specific locations. Mining areas are generally historic sites and any new 

mining activities would have BMPs implemented to minimize or eliminate sediment added to 

streams. Recreation impacts tend to be minimal, but some are associated with fishing as trails 

are developed along streams. Timber harvest can add sediment if equipment tracks across 

streams to get to units or if skidding occurs along or across streams. This is generally avoided or 

129 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

minimized with the implementation of BMPs. Grazing impacts can add sediment along streams 

when cattle trample the banks as they access water. 

There would be no cumulative impacts from travel management due to sediment with any of the 

action alternatives. This is because the number of stream crossings would be reduced and those 

crossings that remain would be mitigated with design criteria to reduce impacts from sediment. 

There would be cumulative impacts from the no action alternative, Alternative A, with the 

continued proliferation of trails with stream crossings and continued use of unmitigated stream 

crossings. 

Bed and Bank Stability 

Cumulative impacts to bed and bank stability can come from roads, trails, mining, recreation, 

timber harvest, and grazing that occur near streams. Roads and trails can have impacts at a 

crossing if it is not properly mitigated. When not properly mitigated, crossings can become 

impassable and new crossings may be developed, impacting more bank areas or causing wave 

action to erode unprotected banks. Mining will generally not impact banks unless it occurs in the 

stream itself. Recreation impacts tend to be associated with fishing as trails are developed along 

streams. Timber operations will generally avoid streambanks except at designated crossings that 

can impact bank stability at the crossing. This is generally avoided or minimized with the 

implementation of BMPs. Grazing impacts can impact bed and bank stability along streams 

when cattle trample the banks as they access water. 

There would be no cumulative impacts from travel management to bed and bank stability with 

any of the action alternatives. This is because the number of stream crossings would be reduced 

and those crossings that remain would be mitigated with design criteria to reduce impacts from 

users finding new passable crossings. There would be cumulative impacts from the no action 

alternative, Alternative A, with the continued proliferation of trails with stream crossings and 

continued use of unmitigated stream crossings that may cause users to find a new crossing that 

they can navigate. 

Temperature 

Cumulative impacts to streams from temperature can come from roads, trails, mining, recreation, 

timber harvest, grazing, and reservoirs that occur on or near streams. Roads and trails can have 

impacts at a crossing if it not properly mitigated. When not properly mitigated, crossings can 

become very wide. Mining would generally not impact temperature unless the mining occurs 

close enough to the stream and removes streamside vegetation. Recreation can impact the water 

temperature of a stream when activities are heavy enough along streams to remove or reduce the 

streamside vegetation. Timber operations, with the implementation of BMPs, would avoid 

streams and generally not affect the vegetation shading along the stream. Grazing impacts occur 

along streams and could impact temperature through bank trampling and stream widening when 

cattle access the water and reduce the vegetation that shades the streams. Reservoirs on the 

stream provide more surface area that absorbs solar radiation. The absorption of solar radiation 

can increase surface water temperature of the reservoir and water that flows off the top of the 

reservoir would increase temperature downstream. 

There would be no cumulative impacts from travel management from temperature with any of 

the action alternatives. This is because the number of stream crossings would be reduced and 

those crossings that remain would be mitigated with design criteria to reduce the width of the 

crossing to match the stream width. There would be cumulative impacts from the no action 

alternative, Alternative A, with the continued proliferation of trails with stream crossings 

130 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

increasing stream width and continued use of unmitigated stream crossings that usually 

continually get wider. 

Wetlands 

Cumulative impacts to wetlands can come from roads, trails, mining, recreation, timber harvest, 

and grazing. Roads, trails and mining would contribute point source impacts affecting wetlands 

at specific locations and would be permanent. Recreation would impact wetlands along streams 

primarily where trails are developed. Timber can affect wetlands if equipment tracks through 

them to get to units, but they are generally prohibited from doing so. Grazing impacts can occur 

across the entire area because of the mobility of stock animals and if they are allowed to be in 

the area too long, impacts can occur from trampling and browsing of the vegetation. 

There would be no additional cumulative impacts from travel management to wetlands with any 

of the action alternatives. This is because all of the trails generally already exist on the 

landscape, and any new trails would avoid wetlands. Any trails that are impacting wetlands 

would be mitigated or moved. There would be cumulative impacts from the no action 

alternative, Alternative A, with the continued proliferation of trails and direct impact to wetlands 

if the new trails go through wetlands. 

Floodplains 

Roads have the biggest potential impacts to floodplains. Other impacts can come from mining 

and private land development. All activities can fill and encroach on floodplains. All of these 

activities can have a cumulative effect and if enough impacts occur in a watershed, they could 

potentially change the character of floods downstream. 

There would be no cumulative impacts from travel management to floodplains with any of the 

action alternatives. This is because all crossings of floodplains already existing on the landscape 

would be mitigated with design criteria to reduce or minimize the fill across floodplains. In 

addition, the number of floodplain crossings would be reduced and eliminated. The no action 

alternative, Alternative A, would not have a cumulative effect on floodplains even with the 

continued proliferation of trails because these new trails generally do not fill in the floodplain 

and will not restrict flood flows. 

Monitoring and Recommendations 

A stream-crossing inventory protocol needs to be completed for the transportation system that is 

adopted. The purpose is to find crossings not meeting current standards so a fix can be 

prescribed and implemented to reduce the impacts of the all crossings. It is recommended that 

this be completed by stream, starting with the streams that are listed as impaired due to 

temperature, and continuing on to the streams with the most crossings. It should be completed 

for the entire stream, catching crossings that were abandoned and are no longer used. A list of 

the streams in recommended order for completion of the protocol can be found in Appendix B to 

the water resource specialist’s report in the project file. 

Conclusion 

Implementing any alternative other than Alternative A would have great benefits on the water 

resource. The number of road and trail stream crossing would be drastically cut and new ones 

would not be pioneered in the future. Roads and trails in proximity to a stream would be 

reduced and new ones would not be pioneered. There would be an overall reduction of sediment 

131 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

introduced into streams and low-water crossings would be improved and controlled to reduce the 

impacts due to water temperature. 

The requirements of the Clean Water Act would be met by monitoring and completing the 

stream-crossing protocol. This would identify abandoned crossings that need rehabilitation and 

existing crossings that need to have the design criteria applied to the stream crossings on the road 

and trail system. When the design criteria are applied to the crossings, they would minimize and 

prevent sedimentation of the streams. It would narrowing existing crossings and prevent new 

crossings from widening the stream. This would meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act 

by keeping sedimentation and stream temperature in check at the crossings. Streams that are 

listed as impaired would be completed first. 

The Executive Order for Floodplains would be complied with when the design criteria, to 

minimize fill in floodplains to facilitate crossings to allow flood flows to pass with minimal 

interruption, is implemented for new roads and trails and when old road and trails are obliterated 

and fill in the floodplains is removed. 

The Executive Order for Wetlands would be complied with when the design criteria are 

implemented. They include (1) areas not connected to streams that are wet and have riparian and 

wetland vegetation would be avoided and runoff from the roads and trail would not be drained 

into these areas, and (2) avoid creating elevated roads and trails through wetlands which disrupt 

the flow of water through the wetland. 

Forest Plan compliance would be achieved by meeting the requirements of the above laws and 

regulations and implementing the design criteria referenced here and outlined in Appendix B. 

Fisheries 

Introduction 

This section describes and analyzes effects to the fisheries resource in relation to designation of a 

motorized road and trail system on the Black Hills National Forest. This analysis tiers to and 

incorporates by reference information in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

prepared for the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; USDA Forest 

Service 1996a) and the FEIS and Biological Evaluation for the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). Additional information on watershed, riparian and aquatic 

resources can be found in the Wildlife, Plants and Botanical Resources, or Hydrology sections of 

this document and in the project record. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

The Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (Forest Service Handbook 

2509.25) contains proven watershed conservation practices to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian 

systems. If used properly, the watershed conservation practices will meet applicable Federal and 

State laws and regulations, including State Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

Executive Order 12962 – Recreational Fisheries, dated June 7, 1995, directs federal agencies to 

manage for increased recreational fishing opportunities by providing access for public 

participation and enjoyment of recreational fishery resources. 

Executive Order 13474 – Amendments to Executive Order 12962, dated September 26, 2008, 

directs federal agencies to ensure that recreational fishing is managed as a sustainable activity. 

132 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Forest Plan direction specific to fisheries is identified below. Additional direction that 

indirectly benefits fisheries through aquatic and riparian habitat protection is identified in the 

Hydrology Specialist Report. 

Goal 2. Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse ecosystems. 

 Objective 217. Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state objectives in 

effect in 1996. 

 Objective 219. Maintain or improve instream fisheries habitat. Cooperate with state 

agencies in aquatic ecosystem improvements to meet mutually agreed-upon objectives. 

 Objective 221. Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and species of local 

concern (SOLC). Monitoring will be conducted at a Forestwide level, not at the project 

level, and will be done for habitats or populations. 

 Objective 238d. Maintain or enhance habitat quality and connectivity for mountain 

suckers, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to aquatic resources (e.g. Objectives 

103, 104, 219, Standards 1201, 1203, 1205, Guideline 1115). 

Goal 4. Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities and protection of cultural 

resources in response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest visitors and local 

communities. 

The following Forest Plan standards and guidelines are pertinent to the fisheries resource. Some 

redundancy with the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (Forest Service 

Handbook 2509.25) is noted. 

 Standard 1105. Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, 

width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local 

topography, and climate (Regional WCP Handbook Management Measure 9). 

o Design Criteria h. Designate, construct, and maintain recreational travelways for 

proper drainage and armor their stream crossings as needed to control sediment. 

 Standard 1201. Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are 

maintained or improved toward robust stream health (Regional WCP Handbook 

Management Measure 5). 

 Standard 1203. Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream structures 

to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow 

free movement of resident aquatic life (Regional WCP Handbook Management Measure 

4). 

o Design criteria a. Install stream crossings to meet Corps of Engineers and State 

permits, pass normal flows, and be armored to withstand design flows. 

o Design criteria c. Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, 

as perpendicular to flow as practicable, and to provide passage of fish and other 

aquatic life. 

o Design criteria d. Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, 

depth, and slope and keep streambeds and banks resilient. Favor bridges, bottomless 

arches or buried pipe-arches for those streams with identifiable flood plains and 

elevated road prisms, instead of pipe culverts. Favor armored fords for those streams 

where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or temporary, or the ford design maintains the 

channel pattern, profile and dimension. 

133 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 Guideline 1205. When projects are implemented which can affect large, woody debris, 

retain natural and beneficial volumes of large, woody debris for fish habitat, stream 

energy dissipation, and as sources of organic matter for the stream ecosystem. 

 Standard 1301. In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, 

lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream 

health and riparian ecosystem condition (WCP Handbook Management Measure 3). 

o Design criteria c. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except 

to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected 

by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment 

out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, and emergence periods. 

 Guideline 3212. Manage for high quality riparian communities; (a) Provide stable 

stream banks; (b) Retain woody vegetation along streams and lakes to provide shading 

for aquatic life and habitat for terrestrial species; (c) Provide large woody material for 

aquatic life. 

 Guideline 9109. Walk-in fisheries are closed to motorized travel. 

There is no additional management area direction specific to fisheries resources. 

Methodology 

The area of analysis includes perennial waterbodies (streams and lakes) that provide suitable fish 

habitat on the Forest. The following indicators were used to evaluate the effects on natural and 

cultural resources (Issue 1). 

Indicators 

The following indicators will be used to measure the effects to the fisheries resource: 

 Number of motorized road and trail crossings on perennial streams. This indicator 

evaluates the relative risk that road and trail-stream crossings create in regard to stream 

fragmentation (barriers to fish passage) and habitat degradation (sediment input, loss of 

riparian vegetation, bank instability and increased stream channel width at crossings). 

 Miles of motorized road and trail within 30 feet and 119 feet of perennial streams or 

lakes. Miles of road within 30 feet of a stream is a good initial indicator of where the 

road system might be affecting physical channel dynamics (USDA Forest Service 

2007a). A buffer width of 119 feet was used as a long term, worst-case buffer width for 

capturing 97 percent of the sediment from a road in an area of highly erosive soils 

(USDA Forest Service 2007a). 

Assumptions 

This analysis assumes that all road and trail crossings of perennial streams have the same impact 

on stream connectivity and aquatic habitat quality. This assumption is justified due to the lack of 

a Forestwide inventory of stream crossings. It is also assumed that new stream crossings affect 

10 feet of streambank. 

Design Criteria 

Design criteria developed to protect and conserve the fisheries resource can be found in 

Appendix B. 

134 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Field Surveys and Other Analysis Information 

Site-specific field surveys were done on June 22, 2008, August 13, 25, 27 and 29, 2008 and 

September 18 and 19, 2008 to evaluate 121 perennial stream crossings identified as new 

nonsystem routes considered for designation on the motor vehicle use map. A random sample of 

closed roads that are proposed to be opened was also sampled on some of the above dates. 

Perennial stream crossings were identified through a geographic information system (GIS) 

exercise that intersected the Forest stream layer with the travel management routes layer. 

Similarly, a GIS exercise was done to buffer the perennial streams layer and intersect this buffer 

with routes to determine the miles of routes in close proximity to water. 

Affected Environment 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2006a) provides background 

information on fisheries. This information is incorporated by reference and summarized below. 

Additional information on watershed, riparian and aquatic resources can be found in the 

Wildlife, Plants and Botanical Resources or Hydrology sections of this document. 

Historically, the diversity of fish species was limited in the Black Hills. Native species include 

suckers, chubs and dace. The finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus), lake chub (Couesius 

plumbeous) and mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) are Region 2 sensitive fish 

species. These species are analyzed in detail in the biological evaluation (BE) for this project. 

The mountain sucker is also designated as a management indicator species (MIS). Of these three 

species, the mountain sucker is the most widely distributed on the Forest. There are no federally 

listed threatened or endangered fish species on the Forest. 

Today, the majority of fish species on the Forest are non-native species introduced primarily to 

provide for recreational fishing opportunities. The primary game species include brook, brown, 

and rainbow trout. Other game species, such as bass, perch, pike and bullheads, are also present. 

Some species have been introduced illegally. Limited administrative access is currently needed 

to manage fisheries. The vast majority of waterbodies that are stocked, surveyed, or fished are 

motor vehicle accessible because other developed recreational facilities exist for camping, 

swimming, picnicking, or boating or access to the more heavily used recreational fishing streams 

occurs along paved or well-maintained roads. 

Seven walk-in fisheries were designated in Travel Management Order 11, dated November 29, 

1989 (USDA Forest Service 1989). Guideline 9109 closes walk-in fisheries to motorized travel, 

with the exception of administrative access. 

Other undesirable aquatic species occur on the Forest. The diatom (single-celled algae) 

Didymosphenia geminata (didymo) was first documented in Rapid Creek downstream of Pactola 

Dam in 2002. This species forms dense mats of vegetation on the streambed. These mats affect 

habitat conditions and food production for fish. Didymo is able to survive and remain viable in 

cool, damp, dark conditions for at least 40 days (Spaulding and Elwell 2007). 

Fish habitat on the Forest falls within two general categories: streams and creeks (flowing water 

or lotic habitat) and reservoirs, lakes, and ponds (standing water or lentic habitat). 

Approximately 950 miles of perennial streams exist within the Forest boundary. Slightly more 

than half of these miles flow through National Forest System lands; the remainder flows 

primarily through private lands. Aquatic habitat conditions are influenced by precipitation, 

geology, and other watershed characteristics. Stream connectivity is influenced by these natural 

135 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

conditions as well as other manmade structures (dams) or barriers at road-stream crossings, such 

as impassable culverts. 

There are no natural lakes in the Black Hills (Stewart and Thilenius 1964) but there are a number 

of manmade impoundments that provide fish habitat. These waterbodies range in size from 852 

acres (Pactola Reservoir) to less than an acre (Strawberry Pond). Not all of these waterbodies are 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Many of these sites have additional recreational 

facilities for boating, camping, picnicking, or swimming and are accessible by motorized 

vehicles. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects (mortality or injury) to fish would only occur where motor vehicles drive through 

perennial streams or where in-water construction activities occur to install new structures 

(culverts, bridges, etc.) or to rehabilitate existing stream crossings. This impact relates primarily 

to fish eggs and fry that are immobile and more vulnerable to injury and more so to trout, which 

deposit their eggs in the stream substrate in concentrated areas (redds). Juvenile and adult fish 

are likely to swim away to avoid injury. 

The magnitude of this impact is likely negligible. Habitat conditions at road and trail stream 

crossings are usually degraded. Therefore, these sites are less suitable for trout spawning, egg 

incubation, hatching, or the rearing of fry, so these life stages are less likely to be abundant at 

these sites. These crossing locations also make up a very small percentage of the available 

spawning habitat Forestwide. Direct effects to the most vulnerable life stages and fish species are 

further avoided and minimized through conservation measures for instream activities. These 

measures include Forest Plan Guideline 9107, which prohibits land vehicles from entering 

perennial streams where resource damage may occur except to cross at specified points. Also, the 

Regional Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook provides direction to keep heavy 

equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes (except to cross at designated points, build 

crossings, or do restoration work), and to keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish 

spawning, incubation, and emergence periods. Additional design criteria that define more 

specific seasonal in-water timing restrictions to protect fall-spawning brook and brown trout will 

also be implemented to further avoid direct effects. 

Potential indirect effects to fisheries include a reduction in stream connectivity, the loss or 

modification of riparian and aquatic habitat, and the degradation of water quality due primarily 

to sediment input. Additional discussion of these effects to the physical and chemical aspects of 

water resources can be found in the Hydrology section. 

Gucinski et al. (2001) provide a synthesis of scientific information on the effects of Forest roads. 

Roads may result in aquatic and riparian habitat loss due to floodplain encroachment or stream 

channel realignment. Unpaved road surfaces are a long-term source of sediment input. Roads 

may divert and concentrate surface flows, altering the normal runoff pattern transporting more 

sediment into streams, lakes, or wetlands. Poorly designed, installed, or maintained culverts may 

create barriers to fish passage, fragment aquatic habitat, and contribute sediment during their 

placement or removal or if fill material is washed-out due to debris blockage or overtopping of 

culverts during high-flow events. 

136 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Structures, particularly culverts, at road-stream crossings can block the movement of fish. 

Generally, this restriction is on upstream migration and is due to a change in water surface levels 

(a waterfall) at the culvert outlet, increased water velocities and/or inadequate water depth in the 

culvert. Fish passage needs are species-specific. For example, trout are generally stronger 

swimmers and better jumpers than suckers or minnows. A positive habitat effect often observed 

at perched culvert outfalls is the creation of a plunge pool. These deeper pools provide suitable 

fish habitat, especially in the fall and winter months when stream flows are at their lowest level. 

The number of perennial stream crossings, and therefore the potential for adverse effects, are 

greatest under Alternative A. New barriers to fish passage are avoided under Alternative A 

through the implementation of Standard 1203, which requires that all stream crossings and 

instream structures be designed and constructed to allow free movement of aquatic organisms. 

In aquatic ecosystems, adverse effects from roads are often associated with sediment delivery. 

Increased amounts of sediments may degrade high-quality spawning habitat or decrease the 

volume of pool habitats (Isaak et al. 2003). This may result in less successful spawning activity, 

a change in the macroinvertebrate populations, or a change in the aquatic plant community 

(Gucinski et al. 2001). Guidelines 9107 and 9108 reduce these adverse impacts. Guideline 9107 

prohibits land vehicles from entering perennial streams where resource damage would occur 

except to cross at specified points. Guideline 9108 restricts vehicular traffic to roads and trails in 

riparian areas. 

Alternative A has the greatest potential of all the alternatives to affect fisheries from motorized 

big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping based on the acres where this activity is 

currently allowed. However, motorized big game retrieval in Alternative A is likely having a 

negligible effect on fisheries because this activity only occurs for a few months out of the year. 

The majority of motorized dispersed camping sites have already been established from historic 

use at the most favorable locations, so limited new adverse impacts to fisheries are anticipated. 

Alternative A should have negligible indirect effects to fisheries with the implementation of 

Guidelines 5301, 9107 and 9108. Guideline 5301 discourages dispersed camping within 100 feet 

of lakes and streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain. 

Motor vehicle access to recreational fishing sites would be maintained under this alternative 

consistent with Executive Orders 12962 and 13474. Administrative access to conduct fisheries 

management activities on roads not open to the public is allowed per Guideline 9104. 

Motor vehicle use has the potential to spread aquatic nuisance species through the direct transfer 

from one waterbody to another or by providing easier and quicker access than nonmotorized 

methods. The greatest threat of aquatic nuisance species introduction or spread likely occurs 

from people using developed recreation sites, such as Pactola or Sheridan reservoirs or at 

Spearfish, Castle, and Rapid Creeks, where there is more boat or vehicle traffic entering the 

water and this traffic arrives from the largest geographic area. Currently, off-highway vehicle use 

is likely having a negligible effect related to the incidental transfer of aquatic nuisance species 

from one waterbody to another. 

Alternative A maintains species viability for the three sensitive fish species (finescale dace, lake 

chub, and mountain sucker) that occur on the Forest. Due to the direct and indirect effects 

described above, the determination for Alternative A for these three species is “may adversely 

impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, or 

cause a trend toward federal listing”. 

137 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The Forestwide population and habitat trend for the mountain sucker was assessed given its 

status as a management indicator species. The Forestwide population trend for mountain sucker 

is one of decline when comparing past to present occurrence (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Alternative A would maintain stream connectivity because no additional instream structures are 

proposed that would impede mountain sucker passage, consistent with Standard 1203. 

Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Regional Watershed Conservation 

Practices are intended to maintain habitat quality through riparian and aquatic conservation. 

Subsequently, Alternative A meets the intent of Objective 238d to maintain or enhance mountain 

sucker habitat quality and connectivity. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

The action alternatives share the same direct and indirect effects that result from stream 

crossings and roads and trails that are in close proximity to waterbodies as described for 

Alternative A. These similarities are represented by the same indicators summarized in Table 29

of the Hydrology section (page 123); in general, the larger the number, the greater the potential 

for adverse effects to fisheries. 

New barriers to fish passage are avoided under all action alternatives through the implementation 

of Standard 1203, which requires that all stream crossings and instream structures be designed 

and constructed to allow free movement of aquatic organisms. All of the nonsystem routes that 

are proposed to be designated on the motor vehicle use map have low-water crossings (fords) 

that are not barriers to fish passage. Existing stream crossings on routes that would not get 

designated on the motor vehicle use map may continue to fragment stream habitat if an instream 

structure, such as a perched culvert outfall, occurs at these crossings and blocks the passage of 

fish. 

The potential effects on fisheries management and recreational fishing opportunities were 

evaluated. Guideline 9104 is common to all action alternatives and states that motorized vehicles 

may be used on restricted areas and roads to accomplish administrative purposes. Therefore, 

motorized vehicle access to streams and lakes to conduct fisheries surveys or to stock fish would 

be the same for all the action alternatives (B, C, D, or E) as compared to current management 

(Alternative A). Access to developed recreational sites and more heavily used recreational stream 

fisheries would continue to be open to motorized vehicle use under Alternatives B, C, D, or E. 

Subsequently, all of the action alternatives provide recreational fishing access similar to 

Alternative A and are consistent with Executive Orders 12962 and 13474. 

The potential introduction or spread of aquatic nuisance species or other undesirable aquatic 

species was evaluated. Off-highway vehicle use is likely to have minimal adverse effects related 

to the incidental transfer of aquatic nuisance species from one waterbody to another. As 

previously stated, all Alternatives maintain the same level of motorized vehicle access to the 

primary recreational fishing sites on the Forest. Therefore, the risk of aquatic nuisance species 

introduction or spread is similar to Alternative A. 

All action alternatives maintain the same level of motorized vehicle access to streams and lakes 

for fisheries management activities because administrative access (Guideline 9104) will continue 

to be provided on routes not open to the public. All action alternatives maintain the same level of 

access for recreational fishing opportunities consistent with Executive Orders 12692 and 13474 

because the primary recreational fisheries are located in association with developed recreation 

sites, such as campgrounds or boat ramps, or they are accessed by roads that are proposed to 

remain open. 

138 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The designation of new trailheads in Alternatives B, C and D is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on fisheries. All new trailheads will be consistent with Standard 1301 and R2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measure 3, design criteria “e”, which directs the 

Forest to locate new concentrated-use sites outside the water influence zone (if practicable), and 

outside riparian areas and wetlands. Compliance with this direction would provide an adequate 

vegetative buffer to avoid adverse indirect effects to fish habitat. 

The site-specific effects to the finescale dace, lake chub and mountain sucker are disclosed in the 

biological evaluation and summarized here. The effects determination for these three sensitive 

fish species for all action alternatives is “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the planning area, or cause a trend toward federal listing”. 

Impacts to individuals are primarily associated with indirect effects resulting from potential 

stream fragmentation due to instream barriers at motorized road or trail crossings on perennial 

streams and/or aquatic and riparian habitat loss or degradation. Additional stream fragmentation 

is avoided given the lack of new instream structures, such as culverts, that may be barriers to fish 

passage. All the action alternatives provide less risk to these three sensitive fish species than 

Alternative A; therefore, species viability would continue to be maintained. 

All action alternatives would have a positive effect on the Forestwide mountain sucker 

population and/or habitat trend by maintaining or improving stream quality and connectivity. No 

additional instream structures are proposed that would impede mountain sucker passage, 

consistent with Standard 1203. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

Regional Watershed Conservation Practices are intended to maintain habitat quality through 

riparian and aquatic conservation. Therefore, all action alternatives meet the intent of Objective 

238d to maintain or enhance mountain sucker habitat quality and connectivity. 

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Compared to the existing condition, this alternative would reduce the number of stream crossings 

by 69 percent and the miles of routes within 30 feet and 119 feet of perennial streams by 66 

percent and 56 percent, respectively. This would be a positive impact. Six new perennial stream 

crossings are proposed. A total of about 60 feet of stream channel would likely be modified at 

these crossings. Water quality standards would be maintained and seasonal in-water work 

restrictions would be employed during the construction of these new crossings to avoid adverse 

effects to fish. 

Motorized big game retrieval in Alternative B would likely have a negligible effect on fisheries 

for the same reasons mentioned for Alternative A. The potential for effects to fisheries is further 

reduced because it is allowed on the least area Forestwide and is only for the retrieval of elk. 

Alternative B would reduce the potential for adverse effects to fisheries from motorized 

dispersed camping when compared to the current condition because the distance (100 feet) from 

routes and the area available for this activity would be greatly reduced. In principle, Alternative 

B should have negligible effects with the implementation of Guideline 5301. This guideline 

discourages dispersed camping within 100 feet of lakes and streams unless exceptions are 

justified by terrain. 

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative has effects very similar to Alternative B. It would reduce the number of stream 

crossings by 70 percent and the miles of routes within 30 feet and 119 feet of perennial streams 

by 66 percent and 56 percent, respectively. This would be a positive impact. Five new perennial 

139 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

stream crossings are proposed. A total of about 50 feet of stream channel is likely to be modified 

at these crossings. Water quality standards would be maintained and seasonal in-water work 

restrictions would be employed during the construction of these new crossings to avoid adverse 

effects to fish. 

Overall, motorized big game retrieval in Alternative C would likely have a negligible effect on 

fisheries for the same reasons mentioned for Alternative A. Motorized big game retrieval in 

Alternative C would have more potential to affect fisheries than Alternative B because it includes 

motorized retrieval of both deer and elk and it includes more area open to motorized retrieval. 

Alternative C would reduce the potential for adverse effects to fisheries from motorized 

dispersed camping when compared to the current condition because the distance (300 feet) from 

routes and the area available for this activity is reduced. In principle, Alternative C should have 

negligible effects with the implementation of Guideline 5301. This guideline discourages 

dispersed camping within 100 feet of lakes and streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain. 

Alternative C is not consistent with Guideline 9109 in relation to walk-in fisheries and motorized 

use. This alternative proposes designating a single-track trail (route CZ-4895) that crosses Rapid 

Creek below Pactola Dam within the Rapid Creek walk-in fishery. Designation of this route 

would result in some loss of the “walk-in” fishing experience due to the motorized vehicle noise 

that would occur. The magnitude of this impact is difficult to predict, but would depend on the 

level of use and the overlap in time between anglers and motorized recreationists. 

This same route (CZ-4895) crosses Rapid Creek where didymo, an aquatic nuisance species, is 

present. If dirt bikes cross Rapid Creek, there is the potential to pick up and transfer didymo to 

another waterbody, though this risk is low. Installation of a bridge on the abandoned railroad 

grade prior to this route segment being designated on the motor vehicle use map would eliminate 

the potential risk of didymo transfer and would also reduce negative impacts to water quality and 

riparian vegetation. 

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Compared to the existing condition, this alternative would reduce the number of stream crossings 

by 74 percent and the miles of routes within 30 feet and 119 feet of perennial streams by 73 

percent and 65 percent, respectively. This alternative would have the greatest positive benefit to 

fisheries. Two new perennial stream crossings are proposed. A total of about 20 feet of stream 

channel would likely be modified at these crossings. Water quality standards would be 

maintained and seasonal in-water work restrictions would be employed during the construction 

of these new crossings to avoid adverse effects to fish. 

Both the motorized retrieval of big game and motorized dispersed camping are prohibited in this 

alternative. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to fisheries are anticipated from those 

activities. 

Alternative E – Direct and Indirect Effects 

Compared to the existing condition, this alternative would reduce the number of stream crossings 

by 69 percent and the miles of routes within 30 feet and 119 feet of perennial streams by 71 

percent and 61 percent, respectively. This would be a positive impact. Similar to Alternative D, 

both the motorized retrieval of big game and motorized dispersed camping are prohibited in this 

alternative. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to fisheries are anticipated from those 

activities. No new stream crossings are proposed. 

140 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Cumulative Effects 

Stream connectivity is affected by a number of factors. Both large and small dams occur 

Forestwide that fragment the stream system both on National Forest System lands and other land 

ownerships. These dams are likely to persist because they serve one or more purposes related to 

flood control, recreation, or water supply. Roads to private lands and other roads outside 

National Forest have impassable fish barriers at road-stream crossings that are likely to persist. 

The likelihood of additional instream barriers exists as development of private inholdings 

continues and additional motor vehicle access is needed. 

Historic and ongoing mining, grazing, logging, water storage and diversion, and recreational and 

road-related activities have modified stream habitat conditions. Efforts to improve stream 

crossings and aquatic habitat conditions will continue through focused program efforts, such as 

the Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Program, through timber sale area improvement activities and 

through special emphasis programs, such as the Legacy Roads and Trails Program. These 

activities are likely to continue at levels similar to the current condition. Administrative access 

on routes not designated on the motor vehicle use map will continue. This will result in the 

continued use of some stream crossings and routes in close proximity to streams that are 

otherwise closed to the public. This ongoing use will slow or impede the natural recovery of 

these sites dependant on the level of motorized traffic. 

The introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species can have dramatic negative effects on 

aquatic ecosystems. Activities, such as nonmotorized trail use, boating, fishing, water quality 

monitoring, fisheries surveys, or aquatic habitat restoration have the potential to introduce or 

spread aquatic nuisance species. Given the ever-expanding global spread of aquatic nuisance 

species, it is likely a matter of time before additional aquatic nuisance species occur on the 

Forest. 

Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The cumulative effects area for fisheries is bounded in space as the Forest boundary and in time 

as the next 5 to 15 years. This temporal scale is based on: (1) the time over which one can expect 

to predict reasonably foreseeable actions and (2) roughly the time until the next Forest Plan 

Revision. The Forest boundary was chosen because it encompasses similar ecosystem 

components and species that occur on the Forest. A larger area would include the surrounding 

plains, which includes a vastly different suite of species and ecosystem components. 

All action alternatives would have a positive incremental impact on stream connectivity and 

aquatic habitat quality because they would reduce the number of stream crossings and the miles 

of routes within 30 and 119 feet of perennial streams. The number of perennial stream crossings, 

and therefore the potential for adverse effects, are greatest under Alternative A. Alternative D has 

the fewest crossings. Alternatives B, C and E have about the same number of crossings. 

Alternatives B, C and D would have 6, 5 and 2 new stream crossings, respectively, but stream 

connectivity and habitat quality would not be reduced with the implementation of standards and 

guidelines and regional watershed conservation practices. All other stream crossings already 

exist on system or non-system roads and trails. 

The designation of existing user-created routes on the motor vehicle use map is not likely to have 

an additive incremental impact on stream connectivity because these routes are all low-water 

crossings that lack instream structures (culverts), thereby avoiding barriers to fish movement. 

Opening a closed road to motor vehicle use, changing the use from a road to a trail or closing a 

road is not likely to have an additive incremental impact on stream connectivity because these 

141 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

routes were engineered when they were constructed and the structures or improvements are in 

place at stream crossings. 

Alternative D would have the greatest positive incremental impact on habitat quality because it 

results in the lowest number of stream crossings and lowest mileage of motorized roads and 

trails in close proximity to streams. Alternatives B, C and E are fairly similar in their number of 

streams crossings and route mileage in close proximity to perennial streams. Alternative A would 

have the largest adverse affect based on the indicators. All action alternatives have the positive 

incremental impact that no additional user-created or unclassified routes would be created, 

though additional new routes may be added in the future. Those routes not designated on the 

motor vehicle use map would rehabilitate naturally over time (except where administrative 

access may continue to occur) or quicker if site-specific remedial action is taken sooner. 

Routes with new perennial stream crossings would result in the additive incremental impact of 

60, 50, and 20 feet of stream channel modification in Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. This 

impact is minor in a Forestwide context, but could be reduced slightly if two new route 

segments/crossings (CZ-0631 and MY3) are not designated on the motor vehicle use map. These 

routes are redundant with other existing routes in the immediate vicinity. Non-designation of 

these two routes/crossings would reduce the incremental impact to 40 feet in Alternative B and 

40 and 10 feet, respectively, in Alternatives C and D. 

The designation of non-system roads and trails on the motor vehicle use map may result in 

additional use on these routes in the future. This would likely have a negative additive 

incremental impact resulting in additional stream channel widening, decreased bank stability, 

loss of riparian vegetation, and increased sediment input at low-water stream crossings due to the 

more frequent and higher volume of use. This will likely be most apparent on some single-track 

(dirt bike) routes that are currently hard to detect on the ground due to the limited use now. A 

design criterion to monitor and remediate these crossings has been identified to lessen this 

impact. 

None of the action alternatives have an additive incremental impact on fisheries management 

activities requiring motor vehicle access because heavily used recreational fishing sites would 

still be accessible via motor vehicles and administrative access would be provided (Guideline 

9104) when needed to access routes not open to the public. Subsequently, no cumulative effects 

would occur. 

None of the action alternatives have an additive incremental impact on access to recreational 

fishing opportunities because the primary fisheries occur at developed recreation sites or along 

the larger perennial streams adjacent to level 3, 4, or 5 roads that remain open to public motor 

vehicle use. Alternative C is likely to have a negative cumulative effect on the Rapid Creek 

walk-in fishery experience because it proposes a new motorized route in this stream reach that 

would likely reduce the quality of the fishing experience for which this area was originally 

designated. 

Generally, Alternatives B, D, and E are likely to have a similar or a slightly reduced level of 

additive incremental impact compared to Alternative A in regards to the potential introduction or 

spread of aquatic nuisance species. Alternative C with its one new proposed stream crossing in 

Rapid Creek within the current distribution of didymo, could potentially transfer didymo to other 

waterbodies, but this risk is probably less than the potential spread due to foot traffic that occurs 

in this reach by anglers and hikers. A bridge rather than a lower water crossing of Rapid Creek 

would eliminate this concern. All alternatives maintain the same level of motor vehicle access to 

142 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

streams and lakes that have developed recreation sites. These sites are likely to get the highest 

recreational visitor use from the broadest geographic area and therefore have the highest risk of 

aquatic nuisance species introduction. 

Wildlife 

Introduction 

This section discusses the analysis of effects of the proposed action and alternatives on 

management indicator species (MIS), threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, 

species of local concern (SOLC), demand species, and migratory birds. Each of these categories 

of species is defined in their respective sections. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). This document analyzes and determines the likely effects of 

the alternatives on federally listed threatened and endangered species. Section 7(a) (1) of the 

ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. 

Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species, or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical habitat. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Provide for a diversity of plant and animal 

communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet 

overall multiple use objectives of a land management plan. 

FSM 2620.44 (4). Evaluate the cumulative effects of proposed management on habitat 

capability for wildlife, including endangered, threatened, and sensitive animal species. 

FSM 2620.01 (Black Hills Supplement). Provides direction to consider species of local 

concern during project design and evaluate the effects to the species from alternatives considered 

through the NEPA process. 

FSM 2670. Provides direction to evaluate the effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species as part of the biological evaluation and NEPA process. 

Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. The following Forest Plan objectives, 

standards, and guidelines provide direction for management of wildlife species and their habitat 

on the Black Hills National Forest. Due to the extensive number of objectives, standards and 

guidelines that are applicable to wildlife management, the details of each are not provided here. 

Please refer to the Wildlife specialist report or the Forest Plan for more information. 

Objectives: 105, 110, 112, 113; 201, 202, 205, 239-LVD, 211, 213, 217, 218, 220, 221, 230, 

231, 237, 238 (a-d); 309; 5.4-207, and 5.43-205. 

Standards: 1113, 1301, 1302, 1401 (a, b), 2301 (a, b), 2305, 3101 (a-d), 3102, 3103 (a-e), 3108 

(a, b), 3111, 3116, 3123, 3204, 3207, and 3215 

Guidelines: 3202, 9107, and 9108 

143 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Methodology 

A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records and 

describe habitat needs and ecological requirements for each species. Sources of information 

included Forest Service records and files, NRIS FAUNA database, South Dakota Game, Fish, 

and Parks (SDGFP), Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and published research (citations). 

This information served as the basis for determining the effects of the alternatives on wildlife 

species. In addition, publications based on field work conducted by other parties in the Black 

Hills and elsewhere were also used as appropriate. 

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

requirements for each species. The habitat requirements for each species were used to determine 

the effect of the alternatives on each wildlife species. The habitat impacts and risks to species on 

the Forest were estimated based on the best available science and data. The overall conclusions 

were derived from anticipated trends, probable risks, and degree of uncertainty under each 

alternative. 

Determinations for each threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are made as a result of the 

existing information gathered during the pre-field review and evaluated in the effects analysis. 

The basis for each determination is potential habitat, expected occurrence, distribution, effects 

from proposed activities, and proposed design features used to alleviate the potential effects 

resulting from management activities. 

The analysis of effects for wildlife is based primarily on the direct impacts on wildlife 

(collisions, etc.) and the indirect impacts of disturbance to wildlife. The analysis of effects 

includes only a limited discussion of habitat alteration because the amount of habitat lost to 

different types of roads is subjective and not standardized. Many of the roads and trails 

identified in the alternatives are either part of the current Forest transportation system or have 

been used unofficially and exist on the ground. The amount of habitat gained or lost by closing 

or opening roads, trails or areas would be minimal and immeasurable at a Forest scale. The 

primary impact of the project on wildlife is expected to be disturbance, not habitat alteration. 

The effects of disturbance to wildlife are based on the miles of motorized routes in a species 

habitat and the acres of habitat open to motorized cross-country travel. Geographic information 

systems data were used to query the miles of motorized routes and acres open to motorized 

cross-country travel in different habitat types used by each species. 

The indirect and cumulative effects analysis is bounded in time as the next 5 to 15 years. This 

temporal scale is based on: (1) the time over which one can expect to predict reasonably 

foreseeable actions and (2) roughly the time until the next Forest Plan Revision. 

For wildlife species, the spatial scale for cumulative effects analysis generally encompasses the 

area within the Forest boundary. This area was chosen because it encompasses similar 

ecosystem components and species that occur on the Forest. A larger area would include the 

surrounding plains, which includes a vastly different suite of species and ecosystem components. 

Indicators 

The wildlife effects analysis uses the following as indicators of effects for each alternative. 

 Miles of motorized routes forestwide 

 Acres open to motorized cross-country use 

144 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 Acres open to motorized game retrieval 

 Acres open to motorized dispersed camping 

 Miles of routes in general wildlife habitat components 

o Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine habitat 

o Miles of motorized routes in spruce habitat 

o Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat 

o Miles of routes within 400 feet of riparian areas 

o Miles of motorized routes in grass cover-types 

o Miles of routes in mountain mahogany (shrubland) habitat 

 Miles of routes in species-specific habitat or use areas. 

 Routes identified with a relative risk to dippers in the Forestwide Travel Analysis Report 

(September 2007). 

 Winter open route density in Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43. 

Assumptions 

 There would be little new construction needed on newly added routes. There may be minor 

repairs needed at water crossings or other points, but the majority of the routes are adequate 

for use in their current condition. 

 The amount of direct wildlife mortality as a result of vehicle collisions is correlated with the 

miles of motorized routes in wildlife habitat and the acres of habitat open to motorized crosscountry travel. This makes sense generally at the Forest scale. Different types of roads likely 

pose different levels of risk, but most of the roads being considered in the alternatives for 

closure or addition to the system are of similar maintenance level (lower maintenance level, 

with slower speeds). 

 Disturbance impacts to a species from motorized users are correlated with the miles of road 

within the species’ habitat and the acres of habitat open to motorized cross-country travel. 

 All motorized routes are equally disturbing to wildlife or a specific species. In reality, all 

routes are probably not equally disturbing. However, the different types of routes and the 

difference in effects from those routes can’t be teased out at the Forestwide scale. Since one 

is unable to determine where and when these different disturbances would occur and whether 

an animal would be nearby, it is assumed for analysis purposes that all motorized routes are 

about equal relative to wildlife disturbance. 

Design Criteria 

Design criteria developed to protect and conserve wildlife species and their habitats can be found 

in Appendix B. 

Field Surveys 

No wildlife surveys were done specifically for this project. For most wildlife species, 

information on presence or relative abundance of the species would not improve project design 

to reduce adverse effects, or allow better assessment of effects. Information on the presence of 

northern goshawk nests and snail colonies (Oreohelix sp.) may improve project design to reduce 

adverse effects, but it was not feasible to complete surveys. It could take several years to 

complete surveys using a method that would determine presence of most goshawk nests and 

snail colonies. Therefore, existing data was used. Field reconnaissance has continued to be 

145 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

gathered during work on other projects and Forestwide monitoring efforts. The information 

gathered from these surveys and stored in the NRIS FAUNA database provided information on 

distribution and habitat associations for species and helped to determine effects of the 

alternatives. 

Routes and trailheads were visited if the pre-field review showed a potential conflict with Forest 

Plan standards. In most cases, the routes or trailheads were consistent with Forest Plan 

standards. Routes and trailheads with field verified conflicts with Forest Plan standards were 

modified according to design criteria to be consistent with Forest Plan standards. 

Affected Environment 

General Wildlife and Habitat Components 

Roads affect wildlife species through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat 

alteration, spread of exotics, and disturbance through increased human use (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000). Direct mortality can occur from vehicle collisions or by being run over by 

vehicles (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Collisions are less likely to occur on primitive roads 

and trails where traffic is slower than on more well-developed roads and highways (Oxley et al. 

1973). Some collisions likely occur on all route types, but there no data available documenting 

the current number of collisions on the Forest. In general, the more motorized routes and 

motorized use in wildlife habitat, the more potential there is for wildlife and vehicle collisions. 

Cross-country travel (off roads and trails) can also cause direct mortality. The loss of habitat to 

road or trail construction is unknown, but is often estimated at 5 acres per linear mile (Rowland 

at al. 2004). Different types of roads and trails result in different levels of habitat loss. A singletrack route that winds among the trees obviously results in less habitat loss than a forest road. 

Cross-country motorized travel can also reduce habitat through repeated use by killing the 

vegetation. 

Roads can also promote habitat fragmentation for some species. Roads can fragment habitat into 

smaller patches and increase the ratio of edge to forest interior areas. More road miles mean a 

reduction in the amount of available interior habitat for requisite interior species, such as marten 

and brown creepers (Reed et al. 1996). 

Disturbance from motorized recreation may cause animals to abandon favored habitat or expend 

more energy. Noise might affect predator avoidance, food intake, social interactions, 

reproductive activities, or parenting (Bowles 1995). Animals can habituate to noise, but the 

process is slow (Bowles 1995). Animals are more likely to habituate to noises that occur on a 

regular basis; for example, constant traffic on a well-used road. If animals respond as soon as 

they hear a noise, vehicles would affect them at greater ranges than humans. However, if the 

animals are habituated to vehicle noise, humans laughing and yelling can cause responses at 

greater ranges (Bowles 1995). Off-highway vehicles may represent a combination of irregular 

traffic patterns that prevent habituation and more frequent stops with resulting human activities 

(laughing and talking). 

Non-native invasive plants can adversely affect native plant communities by aggressively 

competing for nutrients, water, and sunlight. As a result, sensitive plants, forage quantity and 

quality, and soil stability can be negatively impacted. 

146 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Ponderosa Pine Habitat 

Ponderosa pine is the dominant tree species on the Forest and occurs from low to high elevations 

on all soil types and aspects (USDA Forest Service 2005a). As a result, ponderosa pine serves as 

a habitat component for most wildlife species on the Forest. The ponderosa pine cover type is 

broken into nine structural stages based on tree size and canopy closure because some species 

use certain structural features on ponderosa pine. There are about 1,037,000 acres of ponderosa 

pine on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Much of the ponderosa pine habitat is 

currently open to motorized cross-country travel. Existing motorized route information in 

ponderosa pine habitat is shown below. 

Table 30. Existing motorized recreation information for ponderosa pine habitat 

Structural Stage Miles of Motorized Routes 

1 333 

2 104 

3A 125 

3B 145 

3C 55 

4A 969 

4B 698 

4C 226 

5 6 

Total 2,661 

White Spruce Habitat 

The Black Hills has one of the southern-most populations of white spruce in the United States. 

White spruce is the most shade tolerant of the Black Hills tree species, enabling regeneration and 

growth under closed canopy conditions. The cool, moist environments of white spruce stands 

provide habitat diversity in a ponderosa pine-dominated landscape. Spruce provides habitat for 

many species including golden-crowned kinglets (MIS), brown creepers (MIS), northern flying 

squirrels, and land snails. Spruce habitat currently occupies about 26,500 acres on the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b). Much of the spruce habitat is currently open to cross-country 

travel and approximately 100 miles of motorized routes are in spruce habitat. 

Hardwood Habitat 

Quaking aspen and bur oak are the principle upland hardwoods (i.e., broad-leaved deciduous 

trees) on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Other hardwood trees in the Black Hills 

include narrowleaf cottonwood, plains cottonwood, paper birch, American elm, green ash, and 

boxelder. Hardwood forests, with their associated understory shrub components are an important 

source of forage for all browsing ungulates, especially white-tailed deer. Hardwoods provide 

habitat for many wildlife species including elk, beaver, ruffed grouse, black-and-white warblers, 

butterflies, and snails. The current condition for hardwoods and associated motorized recreation 

is shown below. 

147 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 31. Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat on the Forest 

Hardwood Cover 

Type 

Current Acres on the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b) 

Miles of Currently Open-Motorized 

Routes within Habitat 

Aspen 45,560 150 

Bur Oak 12,879 22 

Paper Birch 3,212 6 

Other Hardwoods 970 1 

Total 62,621 179 

Snag Habitat 

Snags are an important habitat component for cavity nesting birds and mammals. The majority 

of snags on the Forest are ponderosa pine. The Forest currently exceeds the Forest Plan 

objective of three snags per acre (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Riparian Habitat 

Riparian habitat is located along the edges of streams. It is the transition zone between the 

aquatic habitat and the upland terrestrial habitat. Riparian habitat is important to most terrestrial 

and aquatic species because of its association with water. There are about 76,900 acres of 

riparian habitat on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Effects to riparian habitat and the 

species that use it are based on acres of habitat open to cross-country travel and miles of 

motorized routes within 400 feet of riparian areas. The 400-foot distance was based on Forest 

Plan Guideline 9204 that states, if topography allows, roads should not be constructed with 400 

feet of a meadow. Riparian areas include meadows although not all riparian areas are classified 

as meadows. Much of the riparian habitat on the Forest is open to cross-country travel and 

approximately 2,050 miles of motorized routes are within 400 feet of riparian areas. 

Grassland Habitat 

Grasslands on the Black Hills provide habitat for many wildlife species including, deer, elk, 

northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, and grasshopper sparrow. The most recent estimate of 

grassland habitat on the Forest is approximately 110,000 acres (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Much of the grassland habitat on the Forest is open to cross-country travel and approximately 

650 miles of motorized routes are within grassland habitat. 

Shrubland Habitat 

Mountain mahogany shrublands are the most extensive shrubland type on the Black Hills and are 

most common in the west-central portion (east of Newcastle, Wyoming) of the Black Hills on 

low-elevation limestone. These shrublands are patchy and have a relatively sparse herbaceous 

understory dominated by side-oats grama. Three-leaved sumac is usually present in mountain 

mahogany shrublands and Rocky Mountain juniper and ponderosa pine occur as scattered 

individuals (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Mountain mahogany is a habitat component for mule 

deer, some open-country raptors, and other migratory birds. 

Table 32. Miles of motorized routes in mountain mahogany habitat 

Current Acres on the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b) 

Miles of Currently OpenMotorized Routes within Habitat 

Mountain Mahogany 4,597 5 

148 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Management Indicator Species 

The Forest Service Manual defines management indicator species as “...plant and animal 

species, ... selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during Forest Plan 

implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and 

the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent” 

(FSM2620.5). Forestwide wildlife MIS are: 

 Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) 

 Brown creeper (Certhia americana) 

 Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

 Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

 Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

 Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

 Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

 White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

All Forest MIS are discussed in this document because this project covers the entire Forest. All 

Forest MIS occur and have habitat within the project area. 

Black-Backed Woodpecker 

The black-backed woodpecker was selected as a Forest MIS to address Forest condition and 

habitat diversity, specifically the occurrence and distribution of mature and late-successional 

forest, burned forest, insects, and snags on the landscape. The black-backed woodpecker is also a 

Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to this species are evaluated under the Sensitive Species 

section and in the biological evaluation. 

Brown Creeper 

The brown creeper is selected as a Forestwide MIS to address forest condition and habitat 

diversity, particularly availability of spruce and late-successional and dense mature pine stands. 

The brown creeper occurs in low abundance in coniferous forest in the Black Hills and is largely 

tied to late-successional pine and white-spruce habitats (Panjabi 2003, 2004, Giroir et al. 2007) 

but also occurs in other ponderosa pine successional stages (Giroir 2007). A small, wellcamouflaged tree climber, the brown creeper is often observed scaling the bark of trees gleaning 

spiders, beetles, moths, and other insects from crevices and behind pieces of loose bark (Wiggins 

2005). 

The brown creeper is found most abundantly in mature, old-growth-coniferous and mixedconiferous-deciduous forests. The preferred nesting habitat for this species is mature, old growth 

forest that is undisturbed and contains a closed canopy (Wiggins 2005). Brown creepers tend to 

prefer dense, late-successional coniferous, deciduous, or mixed habitats (Wiggins 2005). Panjabi 

(2001, 2003, 2004, 2005) found that brown creepers are closely associated with dense mature 

and late-successional ponderosa pine stands (structural stages 4C and 5) and white spruce in the 

Black Hills. They are also found in lower densities in other structural stages of ponderosa pine 

(Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Giroir 2007). Evidence also suggests that this species is 

sensitive to the effects of forest fragmentation (Wiggins 2005). 

Other important habitat requirements for the brown creeper are areas of large trees (greater than 

10 inches in diameter); loose bark, areas infested with bark beetles, and snags (Wiggins 2005). 

149 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Dead or decaying trees and snags provide substrate for nests and foraging. Habitat trend appears 

to be stable on the Black Hills. Acres of white spruce and ponderosa pine structural stages 4C 

and 5 are stable, acres of ponderosa with a tree size of very large are stable, and snag density is 

above the Forest Plan objective (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Brown creeper populations appear stable on the Forest. Brown creepers have been monitored on 

the Black Hills since 2001 in cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Panjabi 

2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007). Brown 

creepers are well distributed in low abundance throughout the Black Hills. The Migratory Bird 

Breeding Habitat (MBBH) program was designed to statistically detect population trends over a 

longer time period than the seven years that it has been implemented. Natural variability in the 

data and other factors preclude a short-term, meaningful analysis. However, a less rigorous 

analysis of the data reveals varying densities across the years, with no obvious upward or 

downward Forestwide population trend (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Relative densities 

showed a significant drop in 2007 (Blakesley et al. 2008) but it is unclear if this is annual 

fluctuation or the beginning of a downward trend. 

Golden-crowned Kinglet 

Golden-crowned kinglets were selected as Forestwide MIS to address forest condition and 

habitat diversity, specifically abundance, distribution, and condition of spruce habitat. Goldencrowned kinglets that breed in the Black Hills are disjunct from their main breeding range across 

the boreal forests of Canada and in the Western United States. The golden-crowned kinglet is an 

uncommon permanent resident at higher elevations in the Black Hills, where they are found 

primarily in white-spruce forests (SDOU 1991; Panjabi 2003, Giroir et al. 2007). Goldencrowned kinglets are uncommon in winter in the Black Hills, but are common spring and fall 

migrants (SDOU 1991). 

Golden-crowned kinglets are found primarily in white-spruce forests (SDOU 1991; Panjabi 

2003, Giroir et al. 2007). Panjabi (2003) also found them in small numbers in mature ponderosa 

pine, aspen, and wet meadows, although these areas likely had a spruce component. Goldencrowned kinglets on the Black Hills are likely limited by the abundance, distribution, and 

condition of spruce habitat. Golden-crowned kinglet habitat (white spruce) appears relatively 

stable or slowly increasing on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Spruce habitat is 

naturally patchy and of low abundance on the Black Hills. White spruce occurs at high 

elevations on north aspects and in cool canyon bottoms of the Forest. MBBH data suggests the 

golden-crowned kinglet is distributed primarily in the northern half of the Black Hills, although 

it is also found in more localized areas of the central Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains as well 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Golden-crowned kinglets have been monitored on the Black Hills National Forest since 2001 in 

cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 

Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007). The MBBH program was designed to 

statistically detect population trends over a longer time period than the seven years that it has 

been implemented. However, a less rigorous population trend analysis suggests an increase 

through 2006 (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Habitat trend for the golden-crowned kinglet has 

increased over the long term. Recent trends appear to be stable (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Because of its association with intermediate and taller vegetation, the grasshopper sparrow 

habitat and/or population trends are likely a good indicator of prairie grassland habitat condition. 

150 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The grasshopper sparrow was selected as an MIS on the Forest to address abundance, 

distribution, and condition of grassland habitat. The grasshopper sparrow is also a Region 2 

sensitive species. The effects to this species are evaluated under the Sensitive Species section 

and in the biological evaluation. 

Ruffed Grouse 

The ruffed grouse was selected as an indicator of aspen quantity and vigor in pure and mixed 

stands. Ruffed grouse was selected as an MIS for the Forest to address forest condition and 

habitat diversity, specifically aspen distribution and condition. Ruffed grouse is a year-round 

resident in the Black Hills and occurs widely but in low abundance (Panjabi 2003). Ruffed 

grouse is classified by state wildlife agencies (South Dakota and Wyoming) as an upland game 

bird. There is an annual fall hunting season for these birds. Distribution on the Black Hills 

roughly correlates to the distribution of Aspen. Aspen is more abundant in the northern and 

central Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains. Aspen becomes sparse in the southern Black 

Hills. 

Ruffed grouse are strongly associated with aspen throughout much of their range (Wiggins 

2006). Ruffed grouse use a variety of aspen age classes for foraging, nesting, brood rearing and 

predator avoidance (ibid.). Ruffed grouse nest in forests or woodlands with some deciduous 

trees and is closely associated with hardwoods, particularly aspen (ibid.). On the Forest, this 

species is associated with aspen in a variety of structural stages. The species feeds on aspen buds 

and catkins in the winter and spring, respectively (ibid.). In South Dakota, ruffed grouse is 

typically found in young to medium-age aspen stands, other hardwood stands, and open pine 

forests (SDOU 1991). The Forestwide habitat trend loss of aspen over the past 11 years is 

slightly downward (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Aspen stands have been replaced by pine and 

spruce in many areas of the Forest, and may have declined since pre-settlement times (Parrish et 

al. 1996), resulting in a net loss of ruffed grouse habitat. 

Although quantitative data are lacking, grouse appear to be less common in the Black Hills than 

they were historically (Wiggins 2006). The Forest is currently working with the South Dakota 

Game, Fish, and Parks and the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station to develop a 

new monitoring protocol for ruffed grouse. Data was collected for the first time in 2007. 

Preliminary data from 2007 show a probability of occupancy of 0.133 (Hansen et al. 2008). This 

data would serve as baseline data for future trend assessments. 

Song Sparrow 

The song sparrow was selected as an MIS for the Forest to address riparian condition. This 

species is expected to be a good supplemental indicator of riparian habitat condition in addition 

to Beaver. Song sparrows are found throughout much of the Black Hills, but are more common 

in the north part. Song sparrows occur mainly in streamside thickets, especially willows, and are 

dependant upon these habitats (Panjabi 2001). Panjabi (2001, 2003) found them in the highest 

density in riparian habitat. Song sparrows were also found in white spruce adjacent to riparian 

stringers. 

The song sparrow breeds in a wide range of forest, shrub and riparian habitats, but in dry areas is 

normally limited to those close to fresh water (Arcese et al. 2002). Year-round residents are often 

found near breeding areas during winter (Arcese et al. 2002). The highest densities have been 

found in riparian habitat (Panjabi 2001, 2003; Hutton et al. 2007; Giroir et al. 2007). Riparian 

areas account for approximately 1 percent of public and private land in the Black Hills and are 

typically located adjacent to streams and around natural springs, seeps, fens, and reservoirs. Due 

151 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

to the presence of water, these areas frequently receive a disproportionate amount of use from 

wildlife, livestock, and humans. 

Riparian habitats have decreased in quality since the pre-European settlement era, indicating a 

long-term declining habitat trend. More recent, shorter-term riparian trends are unclear. Small 

riparian protection projects have improved riparian conditions in some areas. 

Song sparrows have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2001 in cooperation with the 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO; Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Beason et al. 2006, 

Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007). The MBBH program was designed to statistically detect 

population trends over a longer time period than it has been implemented. However, a less 

rigorous analysis of the data suggests a stable Forestwide population trend since 2003 (USDA 

Forest Service 2007b). 

Beaver 

Beaver was selected as an MIS for the Forest to address hardwood and riparian/aquatic habitat 

condition. This species was selected due to its relationship to riparian/aquatic habitat condition, 

status as a keystone species, available monitoring protocols, and dependence on riparian forest 

and shrub habitat. Beavers are found in suitable habitat throughout much of North America, 

ranging as far south as northern Mexico; they are widely distributed throughout South Dakota. 

The beaver is North America’s largest rodent, with adults weighing 30 to 60 pounds (Higgins et 

al. 2000). Beavers are semi-aquatic and widely distributed in large rivers and lakes with constant 

water levels, marshes, small lakes, and streams with weak flows adequate for damming (ibid.). 

Beavers are adversely affected by predation, loss of food base due to wildfire or habitat overuse, 

and drought. Direct impacts to beavers by humans typically are caused by trapping and hunting. 

Indirect impacts to beavers are any impacts that affect their specific habitat requirements for 

perennial water and deciduous riparian woody vegetation. 

General habitat requirements of beavers include suitable riparian habitat dominated by stands of 

willow, aspen, or cottonwood (Olson and Hubert 1994). Beavers are not found in areas without 

permanent water and suitable woody vegetation; they build dams by cutting down trees and 

shrubs and packing mud between the branches. They also build lodges with feeding and sleeping 

chambers that are accessed through underwater entrances. The beaver is nocturnal and active 

year-round. It is vegetarian, preferring aspen, willow, cottonwood, and alder (Higgins et al. 

2000). 

At one time, beavers were likely the most important biological influence on riparian systems of 

the Forest. Through dam construction, they can enhance and maintain aquatic and riparian 

communities by elevating water tables; reducing stream velocity and subsequent sedimentation 

and bank erosion; improving water quality; improving stream flow stability; and enhancing fish 

and wildlife habitat (Olson and Hubert 1994). 

Riparian habitats have decreased in quality since European settlement, and the total amount of 

aspen has decreased over at least the past 30 years. Both of these indicate a long-term declining 

habitat trend for beaver. More recent, shorter-term riparian trends are unclear. Small riparian 

protection projects on the Forest have improved riparian conditions in some areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b). 

Historically, beaver were heavily trapped in the Black Hills. By the late 1880s, populations were 

low and restricted to remote areas (Parrish et al. 1996). Beaver have increased since then and are 

152 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

now widely distributed in both South Dakota and Wyoming. Beaver can be legally harvested in 

both states, but hunting regulations moderate the effect on populations. Limits to persistence 

include degradation and/or loss of riparian shrubs and forests due to historical management 

activities, as well as the loss of hardwood components on adjacent uplands. Baseline beaver 

surveys were conducted on the Forest during September 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Beaver and their habitats were most common in the Bear Lodge Mountains and in the central 

Black Hills, although they were present in other areas as well. A total of 74 active and 5 inactive 

beaver colonies were observed on National Forest System lands during aerial and ground-based 

surveys. 

Figure 15. General distribution of beaver on the Black Hills National Forest (Source: NRIS Fauna 

database) 

153 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

White-tailed Deer 

White-tailed deer were selected as an MIS for the Forest to address forest condition and habitat 

diversity, including the occurrence of understory shrubs. White-tailed deer occur throughout 

most of the United States and southern Canada and occupy a wide range of habitats. In the Black 

Hills, they are associated with forested habitat (conifer and hardwood) in close proximity to 

water (SAIC 2003). White-tailed deer are mostly migratory in the Black Hills, using lower 

elevations in winter (Stefanich 1995). White-tailed deer move to low-elevation winter range 

from October to January, the timing of which depends on snow and forage conditions (Stefanich 

1995; Griffin et al. 1999). Wooded draws and pine stands with closed canopies provide thermal 

cover while agricultural areas and recently logged and open stands with abundant shrubs are 

important for forage. Bearberry juniper and snowberry provide important winter browse 

(DePerno et al. 2002). 

White-tailed deer in the Black Hills require a diversity of habitat types. Juxtaposition between 

cover and forage for the white-trail deer is crucial year-round. Hardwood stands, which provide 

abundant forage combined with screening cover, were best predictors of white-tailed deer 

diurnal, summer use (Stefanich 1995). Peak use of dense aspen habitats with dense, tall shrub 

cover indicated importance as fawning habitat in the northern and central Black Hills (DePerno 

et al. 2002). Summer nocturnal habitat use is significantly different with use of open habitat 

types of meadows, riparian areas, and/or open pine relative to proximity of dense cover 

(Stefanich 1995). Wet meadows, riparian areas, and open stands of ponderosa pine also provide 

quality forage and water. 

In winter, white-tailed deer in the central Black Hills selected forested habitat with shrubs 1.5 to 

4.7 times more frequently than shrub habitats occurred on the Forest (DePerno et al. 2002). 

Uresk and Severson (1998) found that open-canopy conditions are necessary to get to understory 

shrubs. Closed-canopy stands with minimal understory vegetation represent cover. 

Another factor that can affect deer habitat is road construction and road density. High road 

densities (miles of road/square mile area) alter both human and animal behavior, which 

contribute to animal displacement and stress (SAIC 2003). Roads may cause a direct loss in 

habitat and increased vehicular volume may indirectly degrade habitat quality. In the 1990s, up 

to 1,400 deer per year were killed in vehicle collisions in the Black Hills (Parrish et al. 1996). 

The Arc Habitat Suitability Index (ArcHSI) model was used to provide an index to Forestwide 

deer habitat conditions in 2005. The Forestwide summer habitat trend is increasing, and winter 

habitat trend is stable to slightly decreasing (USDA Forest Service 2006b). The South Dakota 

white-tailed deer population has increased since 2000. In 2005, there were an estimated 50,000 

white-tailed deer (USDA Forest Service 2007b). The Wyoming Game and Fish (WGF) 

Department models estimate that there are about 40,000 white-tailed deer in the Black Hills herd 

unit that includes both private and Forest lands (Sandrini 2007a). The population may be 

beginning to grow based on field personnel observations (Sandrini 2007a). 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The purpose of this section is to analyze and determine effects of the alternatives on species 

listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act. The blackfooted ferret is the only threatened, endangered, or proposed species located on the Forest, or 

located adjacent to project area that could potentially be affected. The species was identified 

through informal consultation with the South Dakota and Wyoming field offices of the U.S. Fish 

154 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a, 2007b). No designated critical 

habitat for the black-footed ferret is presently located on lands administered by the Forest. 

Black-footed Ferret 

Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) are federally endangered throughout their former range. 

In Wyoming, there are historic records of ferrets in the Black Hills area (Luce et al. 1999). 

Ferrets have recently been released in Wind Cave National Park in the southern Black Hills. The 

black-footed ferret is a nocturnal, solitary carnivore with the narrowest range of ecological 

tolerance of any North American predatory mammal (USDA Forest Service 1996a Appendix H). 

In the Black Hills, as elsewhere, the key habitat component for black-footed ferrets is the 

distribution and abundance of prairie dogs (Forrest et al. 1985), its primary food source (see 

discussion for Black-tailed prairie dog on p. 169). Vacated prairie dog burrows also provide 

shelter. 

One prairie dog town is located near Wind Cave National Park. It is located in the small section 

of Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Section 2) near the boundary between Wind Cave National Park 

and Custer State Park and is about 13 acres in size. Ferrets could move out of Wind Cave 

National Park and into this prairie dog town. Norbeck Wildlife Preserve is currently not open to 

public motorized travel. 

Region 2 Sensitive Species 

Region 2 sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester 

for which population viability is of concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density, or in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (USDA Forest Service 2007c). Table 33 lists wildlife and fish 

species designated as sensitive species Region 2 of the United States Forest Service (USDA 

Forest Service 2007c) known or likely to occur on the Forest. 

Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail 

Anderson (2004) lists Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail (Oreohelix cooperi) as the only Oreohelix 

in the Black Hills. Anderson (2004) also notes the taxonomy of this species is confusing with 

the species often classified as Oreohelix strigosa cooperi. Anderson et al. (2006) and Weaver et 

al. (2006) found only one species in the Black Hills, and referred it as O. cooperi. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we consider the two species to be one and the same as suggested by 

Anderson et al (2006), but refer to it here as O. strigosa cooperi since that is the label used on 

Region 2 sensitive species list. Anderson et al. (2006) consider this snail to be widely distributed 

in the Black Hills. Cooper’s snail also occurs in the Judith Mountains in Montana and in the 

Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming (Anderson et al. 2006, Weaver et al. 2006). 

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites 

for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Many of the sites had been surveyed in the early to 

mid-1990s, and some were revisited in 1999 to help assess population changes. More than 100 

new sites were inventoried for the first time. A total of 38 species were identified, including 12 

not documented previously in South Dakota. The surveys also provided information on Cooper’s 

mountain snail. Cooper’s snail was found at 109 sites. Locations are concentrated in the 

northern, central and western Black Hills (Anderson 2004, 2005). 

155 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 33. Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species analyzed 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Invertebrates 

Oreohelix strigosa cooperi Cooper’s mountain snail 

Speyeria idalia regal fritillary 

Reptiles 

Storeria occipitomaculata pahasapae Black Hills redbelly snake 

Amphibians 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog 

Birds 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier 

Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon 

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo 

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl 

Otus flammeolus flammulated owl 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker 

Picoides dorsalis three-toed woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus black-backed woodpecker 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike 

Numenius americanus long-billed curlew 

Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow 

Charadrius montanus mountain plover 

Mammals 

Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Martes americana American marten 

Ovis canadensis Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed prairie dog 

The following discussion is based on information from the Black Hills (Frest and Johannes 

2002). Cooper’s snail was found on calcareous soils; most localities were lowland wooded areas 

and talus slopes, generally but not always with northern or eastern exposures. Many of the 

colonies, including most of the largest, are found in ponderosa pine with a partially closed 

canopy, a secondary deciduous tree component, and diverse understories. At some sites, white 

spruce was common. Riparian woodland communities, often in areas with adjacent steep rocky 

slope bases, were also found to contain some substantial colonies. This species generally 

dominates the mollusk fauna in the area of occurrence, but it has been found to occur with two 

other species of land snail: the callused vertigo and striate disc. 

Litter is an important component for snails as food and cover. In general, snails prefer a welldeveloped litter layer, but not thick or matted (Anderson 2005). In contrast to other land snails, 

Cooper’s snail can thrive with little cover and thin litter (ibid.). Oreohelix have been observed in 

a variety of litter types in the Black Hills, including coniferous needles litter, deciduous litter, 

and areas of thin litter (ibid.). 

156 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Road construction and maintenance can affect snails by eliminating habitat or killing snails. 

Roadside brushing or weed spraying can also damage snails and/or their habitat (ibid.). Several 

known locations of Cooper’s snail are near roads. 

Regal Fritillary Butterfly 

The Black Hills are at the western margin of the regal fritillary’s range, possibly due to increased 

aridity further west (USDA Forest Service 2000b). The regal fritillary requires open prairies 

(Royer and Marrone 1992). In South Dakota, the fritillary is most likely to be found in native 

tall-grass prairies composed of big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), western wheatgrass 

(Pascopyrum smithii), and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula) (ibid.). Continuous prairie greater 

than 1,000 acres may be required for stable populations (ibid.). In smaller habitat patches, 

individuals would move in and out depending on habitat condition and size (Royer and Marrone 

1992, USDA Forest Service 2000b). The Black Hills is primarily forested, and as such, contains 

only relatively small patches. The best habitats within the Black Hills occur in lower elevation 

prairies along the outer Forest boundary and in interior prairies, although tall-grass species are 

not predominant in the interior prairies. 

Adult female regal fritillaries lay eggs near violets. During the following spring, the larvae feed 

exclusively on violet leaves. By late June or early July, juveniles transform to adults (Royer and 

Marrone 1992). Adults require a continuous source of nectar-producing flowers such as 

coneflowers, fleabanes, and thistles (ibid.). 

The primary factor affecting long-term populations is thought to be conversion of native tallgrass prairie habitats to cropland and pasture, which primarily occurs on private lands. It is 

estimated that one-half to two-thirds of the regal fritillary’s original range has been converted to 

cultivated cropland, making it a species that is considered rare rangewide (USDA Forest Service 

2000b). Another risk to this butterfly is exotic weed invasion into prairie habitat (Royer and 

Marrone 1992). 

Northern Leopard Frog 

Northern leopard frogs are considered common in suitable habitat in the Black Hills and are 

found at all elevations, though systematic surveys have not been done in the Black Hills to verify 

this (Smith 2003). The northern leopard frog appears to be more common in the northern Black 

Hills. In the Black Hills, it is believed this species has been reduced from its historical 

abundance due to the loss of wetlands, though population trend and size are speculative due to 

lack of information (ibid.). 

The northern leopard frog occurs in a wide variety of habitats including creeks, lakes, ephemeral 

wetlands, and ponds. Emergent vegetation is important in providing protective cover in ponds 

and lakes that contain predatory fish. After maturing, sub-adult frogs migrate to suitable feeding 

sites that are usually adjacent uplands. These dispersal movements may be along riparian 

corridors or upslope areas. After breeding, adult frogs can be found feeding in upland habitats of 

grasslands, meadows, and pastures adjacent to breeding areas. Adult frogs are highly mobile. 

They have been found up to two miles from water (Smith 2003). 

Risk factors identified by Smith (2003) include inadequate regulatory protection of smaller (less 

than 12 acres) seasonal and semi-permanent ponds, introduced predatory fish, lack of protection 

at overwintering sites, water quality degradation due to chemicals, loss of migratory pathways, 

introduced diseases, and road-related mortality. 

157 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Roads can cause substantial direct mortality from road-kill events (Smith 2003, Smith and 

Keinath 2007). Roadways can also fragment habitat and alter frog dispersal patterns. Road 

construction also causes siltation, which can smother eggs. Runoff from roads can carry oil and 

other automotive pollutants into waterways, adversely affecting frog populations (Smith and 

Keinath 2007). 

Black Hills Redbelly Snake 

The redbelly snake is a nocturnal and secretive snake found in moist sites from the western 

foothills, the limestone plateau, and the central core of the Black Hills (Smith and Stephens 

2003). Sites where the snake has been observed range in elevation from 4,700 to 6,400 feet 

(Peterson 1974). The Black Hills subspecies of the redbelly snake is an isolated population with 

the nearest population of redbelly snakes about 300 miles east near Aberdeen, South Dakota 

(USDA Forest Service 2000b). Biological expert interviews (USDA Forest Service 2000b) 

suggest that the redbelly snake is reasonably common in the Black Hills. 

Although the redbelly snake does not appear to be in danger of extirpation, the population in the 

Black Hills is an isolated subspecies and endemic to the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 

2000b). Little demographic and population trend data are available specific to the Black Hills 

population (Smith and Stephens 2003). This subspecies is considered one of the most poorly 

understood snakes of North America (Bartlett and Tennant 2000). 

Several den sites have been found in the Black Hills with hibernacula located within rock 

fissures (USDA Forest Service 2000b). Observations are concentrated in the central and 

northern portions of the Black Hills. The southern portion of the Black Hills is drier, which may 

affect distribution. 

Black Hills redbelly snakes are associated with mesic sites such as wetlands, riparian areas, and 

wet meadows (USDA Forest Service 2000b). The most serious risk to redbelly snakes 

populations may be the loss of mesic habitats (Smith and Stephens 2003). Suitable 

environments for redbelly snakes are thought to be abundant and broadly distributed across the 

Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2000b). The northern Black Hills, being generally moister 

and more fire-resistant than the rest of the Forest, likely provides more habitat than other districts 

of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2000b). Stumps and downed woody material are important 

in maintaining moist conditions; as roots of stumps decay, they provide cover (USDA Forest 

Service 2000b, Smith and Stephans 2003). 

Road construction and off-highway vehicles can impact redbelly snakes. These activities 

involve the displacement and/or compaction of large amounts of soil, removal of ground litter 

and other debris, and potentially loss of mesic habitat (Smith and Stephans 2003). Direct 

mortality has been observed on existing roads and motorized routes. 

American Three-Toed Woodpecker 

The main range of the three-toed woodpecker extends through the Rocky Mountains and 

laterally across Canada to northern New England (Leonard 2001). The Black Hills population is 

isolated from the main range by nearly 200 miles. In South Dakota, this woodpecker is 

considered a rare yearlong resident limited to the higher elevations of the Black Hills (South 

Dakota Ornithologist’s Union 1991). The three-toed woodpecker may also be found at lower 

elevations, especially in winter (ibid.). The three-toed woodpecker population trend has been 

relatively stable in both the northern Rocky Mountains and Badlands/Prairies physiographic 

158 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

regions. However, Breeding Bird Survey data suggests there may be isolated local declines 

(Sauer et al. 2001). 

In a baseline study of three-toed woodpecker populations in the Black Hills, Mohren (2002) 

estimated that approximately 320 to 440 birds occurred here in 2000-2001, with an average 

Forestwide density of 1 bird per 3,088 acres (0.08 birds/km2

). The estimate applies across all 

habitat types on the Forest, including forest types that the species does not typically inhabit (e.g., 

pure ponderosa pine). According to Mohren (2002), the Forestwide density estimate was similar 

to what has been recorded in other unburned habitats across the species range. 

Late successional spruce-fir forest represents the core breeding and feeding habitat for the 

species (Wiggins 2004). To date, monitoring results show areas in or adjacent to mature white 

spruce stands harbor the highest three-toed woodpecker densities in the Black Hills. Relative 

densities in spruce habitats range from 1 bird per 137 acres ( 1.8 birds/ km2) to 1 bird per 68 

acres (3.64 birds/km2

) (USDA Forest Service 2007b). These figures are 23 to 45 times higher 

than Mohren’s (2002) Forestwide average. Birds were also found in late-successional pine 

habitats and riparian habitats but in much lower densities than in white spruce. Also, spruce 

trees were usually present in those other habitat types where the woodpeckers occurred. 

Spruce habitat is naturally patchy and of low abundance on the Black Hills. White spruce occurs 

at high elevations, on north aspects, and in cool canyon bottoms of the Forest. Fire suppression 

during the last century has allowed spruce to increase in abundance and density in the Black 

Hills, generally at the expense of quaking aspen (Parrish et al. 1996). The white-spruce cover 

type now occurs on 25,000 acres of the Forest. Approximately 90 percent of the spruce on the 

Forest is in mature or late-successional condition (structural stages 4 and 5) and likely provides 

high-quality habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. Three-toed woodpeckers nest mainly in snags 

but would use live trees, especially those with heart rot. Species of nest trees vary and include 

hardwoods as well as conifers. Optimal habitat includes areas with 42 to 52 snags per 100 acres, 

occurring in clumps (Nicholoff 2003). The most important snags are 12 to 16 inches dbh, 20 to 

40 feet tall, and have bark still present (Nicholoff 2003). 

Bald Eagle 

Bald eagles are present in the Black Hills during winter, usually arriving in early November 

(USDA Forest Service 1996a, Appendix H) and leaving by March or April. The bald eagle was 

formerly a rare breeder in the southeastern portion of South Dakota (South Dakota 

Ornithologist’s Union 1991). An unsuccessful nesting attempt was reported adjacent to the 

Forest in the Southern Hills in spring 2004. In 2007, an unsuccessful nest attempt occurred at 

Deerfield Lake on the Forest. This was the first nest attempt on the Forest in recent times. The 

bald eagle nest is again active in April 2008. Most suitable nesting habitat occurs around the 

major reservoirs or along major creeks in the Black Hills. 

Prior to 2006, there were no known traditional (repeated use) or communal roost sites in the 

Black Hills. In 2006, a night roosting area was discovered at Pactola Reservoir. Approximately 

18 to 22 eagles were observed at the roost on four separate occasions between late December 

2005 and late January 2006. The roost covers at least 100 acres of mature to late-successional 

ponderosa pine forest on very steep slopes. Large trees and snags are abundant. The site is 

adjacent to Pactola Reservoir, parts of which were not frozen during the time of the discovery. 

Further monitoring of this roost is needed to clarify the full extent of the roost and its importance 

to bald eagles (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

159 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Key winter habitat components for the bald eagle on the Forest include perch sites, roost sites 

away from human disturbance, and an adequate food supply. The ponderosa pine landscape 

provides suitable roosting habitat. A small population of eagles does winter on the Black Hills. 

This small population appears to rely mainly on a dependable supply of carrion, especially deer 

and small mammals killed by vehicle traffic. Bald eagles are frequently observed feeding on 

carcasses along roads. 

Black-Backed Woodpecker 

The main range of the black-backed woodpecker is in the northern Rocky Mountains and across 

Canada (Dixon and Saab 2000). In South Dakota, this woodpecker is known only in the Black 

Hills, where it is considered an uncommon yearlong resident (SDOU 1991). In Wyoming, the 

species occurs in the northeastern portion of the state as well as in the Black Hills and Bear 

Lodge Mountains. In the Black Hills, black-backed woodpecker distribution and abundance is 

closely associated with recent stand-replacing fires (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Giroir et al. 

2007) and insect outbreaks (Bonnot 2004, Rumble 2002). They also occur at much lower 

densities throughout the remainder of the Forest (Mohren 2002; Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 

Giroir et al. 2007). 

In the Black Hills, black-backed woodpeckers are associated with ponderosa pine habitats that 

have high populations of their main prey: the larvae of wood-boring beetles, engraver beetles, 

and bark beetles (Anderson 2003). Recently burned pine forests and areas infested with 

mountain pine beetles are most preferred by black-backs. The species can also be found in 

forests that are relatively unaffected by beetles, but it is relatively rare in such places. 

Unburned pine stands infested with mountain pine beetles (bark beetles) are also important to 

black-backed woodpeckers. Rumble (2002) found that the density of black-backed woodpeckers 

in the heavily infested Beaver Park area was approximately seven times greater than what 

Mohren (2002) found across all habitats in the Black Hills. The core of the infestation had 

densities that were 32 times higher than the Forestwide average; this is the highest density 

recorded on the Forest although it occurred over a fairly small localized area. 

In unburned, uninfested pine habitat of the Black Hills, black-backed woodpeckers select mature 

or late-successional pine stands with high canopy cover, high tree densities, and high snag 

densities (Mohren 2002; Panjabi 2001; Panjabi 2003; and USDA Forest Service 2000b). These 

conditions are found primarily in structural stages 4C and 5. Black-backs also use sapling-pole 

stands with any amount of canopy cover (i.e., structural stages 3A, 3B, and 3C), but to a lesser 

degree than any of the other habitat structures mentioned thus far (Mohren 2002, USDA Forest 

Service 2000b). Mohren (2002) reported that black-backed woodpeckers avoid mature pine 

stands that do not have high canopy cover (i.e., structural stages 4A and 4B). Black-backed 

woodpeckers nest in hard snags or live trees with diameters of 9 to 18 inches (Anderson 2003). 

Ponderosa pine appears to be the most important nest tree in the Black Hills, as all recent studies 

report nests in only that species (Vierling 2004; Mohren 2002; Rumble 2002). 

Burned habitat has declined because large fires that burned prior to 2002 have aged and become 

less valuable as black-backed habitat. Still, because of other fires since 2002, there is a relatively 

high amount of potential habitat available on the Forest. Habitat provided from mountain pine 

beetle is abundant when compared to 10 years ago and appears to be increasing. 

Forestwide habitat conditions have been favorable for the black-backed woodpecker over the 

past few years due to numerous large fires and beetle outbreaks. Habitat is relatively abundant 

160 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

when compared to 10 to 25 years ago. In the past few years, the habitat trend appears to be stable 

as recently burned areas have declined (aged) and insect caused tree mortality continues to 

increase. The addition of recent wildfires and insect tree mortality results in above 3 snags per 

acre (Forest Plan Objective 211) well dispersed across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

In his baseline population study, Mohren (2002) estimated that approximately 1,200 blackbacked woodpeckers occurred in the Black Hills during 2000, with an average Forestwide 

density of one bird per 883 acres (0.28 birds/km2

). The estimate applied across all habitat types 

on the Forest, excluding large recent burns, which did not exist at the time. According to Mohren 

(2002), the Forestwide density estimate was similar to what has been recorded in other unburned 

habitats across the species range. Since Mohren’s first estimate was derived, several large fires 

occurred in the Black Hills, which has undoubtedly increased the black-backed woodpecker 

population. Black-backed woodpeckers have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2001 in 

cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004; Beason et al. 

2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007). Monitoring was focused on burned habitat in the 

Jasper Fire, which burned in 2000. 

It appears that black-backed woodpecker densities peaked in the 2000 Jasper Burn during the 

second post-fire year when one bird per 36 acres (or 6.9 birds/km2

) were observed (Panjabi 

2003). This is nearly 25 times higher than what Mohren (2002) found as a Forestwide average. 

One year later, densities in the Jasper Burn had declined by nearly half (Panjabi 2004), but they 

were still much higher than what has been found in other habitats. Relative densities in burned 

habitat have continued to decline in the Jasper Burn as expected following a fire (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b). 

Burrowing Owl 

The western burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North 

America, primarily in open areas with short vegetation and bare ground (Klute et al. 2003). The 

northern populations of owls are migratory and may winter in the southwestern U.S. and Mexico 

(Johnson and Anderson 2002). Numerous authors have identified elimination of burrowing 

rodents through control programs as the primary factor in the recent and historical decline of 

burrowing owl populations (Klute et al. 2003). 

Burrowing owl nesting habitat typically consists of level, open landscapes with sparse grassland 

vegetation that either has low structure or is heavily grazed (Johnsgard 1988), either by cattle or 

prairie dogs (Klute et al. 2003). They are dependent on burrowing mammals whose vacant 

burrows are used for nesting and roosting; the burrows of prairie dogs, particularly black-tailed 

prairie dogs, are of central importance (Johnson and Anderson 2002, Klute et al. 2003). 

While burrowing owls nest and roost in shortgrass habitats, they forage over a variety of habitats 

including tall grass, cropland, and fallow fields (Klute et al. 2003). A mosaic of grassland 

habitats is therefore important to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat diversity. Habitat 

for burrowing owls on the Forest is limited; the availability of black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

may be the greatest limiting factor (Johnson and Anderson 2002; see p. 169 for discussion on 

prairie dog colonies). 

A burrowing owl was observed in 2002 (Panjabi 2003), and another observation occurred on the 

Forest in June 2004 by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory during ongoing breeding bird 

monitoring. The 2004 observation was associated with a prairie dog town on the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Seven burrowing owls were observed on the Forest in 2006. Two adults and 

161 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

three chicks were observed at two nests. These are the first nesting burrowing owls documented 

on the Forest for quite some time (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Ferruginous Hawk 

The ferruginous hawk ranges through most of the western United States. Its breeding range 

extends from northern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas north to southern Canada (Collins and 

Reynolds 2005). The bird winters primarily from the southwestern and south central United 

States south to central Mexico (Collins and Reynolds 2005). In South Dakota, it is considered an 

uncommon to fairly common summer resident in prairies, chiefly in the western but also 

northeastern part of the state (South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union 1991). In Wyoming, 

ferruginous hawks are a common resident, with breeding records across most of the state, but 

there is a noticeable drop in numbers in the winter (Luce et al. 1999). 

Rangewide, ferruginous hawks occupy a variety of habitat types including open grasslands, 

shrub-steppe, croplands and desert (Collins and Reynolds 2005). Ferruginous hawks prefer open 

rolling or rugged terrain and avoid high elevations, forest interiors, narrow canyons, and cliffs 

(Collins and Reynolds 2005), which may account for their rarity in the Black Hills. The most 

recent estimate of grass cover-types on the Black Hills is approximately 110,000 acres (USDA 

Forest Service 2007b). Prairie grasslands refer to those grasslands that generally occur on the 

outer perimeter of the Black Hills as a transition between the true prairie ecosystems and the 

forested ecosystems of the foothills and mountains. Interior grasslands occur within the forested 

perimeter of the Black Hills and can include large areas dominated by plant species typically 

associated with prairie systems (e.g., Reynolds and Gillette Prairies). 

Disturbance during the nesting period has been identified as a risk to the species. The increased 

use of recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles is a source of human disturbance that can 

have negative consequences for ferruginous hawks. Recreational vehicles can cause habitat 

alteration through the destruction or degradation of vegetation structure. Noise and other 

disturbances associated with motorized recreation can have equally important effects on 

individual ferruginous hawks physiologically, and may reduce productivity at nest sites (Collins 

and Reynolds 2005). 

Flammulated Owl 

The flammulated owl breeds in mountain ranges from Central America north through the 

western U.S. to southern British Columbia; it winters from Mexico into Central America 

(Johnsgard 1988; Sibley 2000). In the United States and Canada, it lives in montane forest 

habitats dominated by yellow pines (i.e., ponderosa and Jeffrey). Distribution of the owl is 

scattered as a consequence of habitat distribution and the bird’s less-than-full occupation of 

yellow pine habitats (Hayward and Verner 1994). The species is conspicuously absent from 

various yellow pine forests in the western United States, including ponderosa-pine forests in 

Wyoming (e.g., Bighorn Mountains) and eastern Montana. 

In their rangewide assessment of the owl, Hayward and Verner (1994) specifically noted that the 

species was not present in the Black Hills despite the availability of seemingly suitable 

ponderosa pine habitat. Other accounts support the absence by failing to mention species 

presence (e.g., South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union 1991; Peterson 1995; Luce et al. 1999). 

However, there have been two reports of flammulated owls in the past 10 years that could be 

valid sightings. These reports could represent periodic use by transient individuals, or the 

beginning of a range expansion. Establishment of flammulated owls in newly occupied habitat 

could take many years, because the species has a low reproductive potential (Hayward and 

162 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Verner 1994). A concerted effort was made to verify flammulated owls, at the two recent 

observation areas and other seemingly suitable sites during 2003 but the species were not 

detected (Fauna West Wildlife Consultants 2003). 

Flammulated owls are associated primarily with ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine habitats. In the 

Black Hills, only ponderosa pine is present. Flammulated owls select older seral stages for 

breeding and nesting (Hayward and Verner 1994). They are often associated with old-growth 

forests. Interior and exterior forest edge seems to be a desirable if not necessary component of 

flammulated owl habitat (ibid.). Clumped tree distributions, multi-layered canopy, and a welldeveloped shrub component contribute to internal forest edge. Low-to-moderate canopy closure 

prevails in most sites used by the owl (ibid.). The ponderosa pine structural stages corresponding 

most closely to potential flammulated owl nesting and foraging habitat on the Forest are 4A, 4B, 

and 5. 

Flammulated owls appear to prefer denser vegetation for roosting (Hayward and Verner 1994). 

Across the species range, they have been found roosting in mixed-conifer stands, thickets, and 

other conditions with high foliage density or multi-layered canopy that were in close proximity 

to nest sites (e.g., greater than 300 feet). In Oregon and Colorado, the species did not select pure 

stands of ponderosa pine for roosting but instead used mixed-conifer stands where pine was a 

component (Hayward and Verner 1994). Roosting habits are unknown in the Black Hills, but if 

rangewide patterns hold true here, the species may roost in spruce or in stands where pine and 

spruce both occur. In their summary of nest site characteristics across three studies in New 

Mexico and Oregon, Hayward and Verner (1994) found that the owls occurred in snags that 

averaged between 19 and 28 inches dbh. 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

In Wyoming, the grasshopper sparrow breeds mainly in the eastern portion of the state, and 

occurs almost statewide except in the south central portion (Luce et al. 1999). In South Dakota, 

there are breeding records throughout the state, including the Black Hills (Peterson 1995). It is 

considered an uncommon to common summer resident (SDOU 1991). It occurs widely in native 

mixed-grass prairies in the southern Black Hills, and locally further north in the central Black 

Hills (Panjabi 2005). Panjabi (2005) found them in the highest density in mixed-grass prairie 

habitat. They may also occur in other types of grasslands (Panjabi 2003). 

According to Slater (2004), the grasshopper sparrow is found in a variety of open grassland 

types, but appears to be area sensitive, preferring grasslands greater than 20 acres in size. They 

may select larger patches to avoid predation associated with edge habitats. In South Dakota, they 

are primarily found in mixed-grass prairies. Within these grassland patches, they prefer 

grasslands of intermediate height and avoid habitats where vegetation is less than 4 inches. They 

require some areas of bare ground for foraging and some taller vegetation (tall grasses, forbs, or 

scattered shrubs) for singing perches (Slater 2004). 

Panjabi (2005) found that in the Black Hills, grasshopper sparrows can be locally abundant in 

some prairies, especially where there is a greater proportion of tall grass. They occur widely in 

native mixed-grass prairies in the southern Black Hills, and locally further north in the central 

Black Hills. Panjabi (ibid.) found them in the highest density in mixed-grass prairie habitat. 

The Forest’s vegetation database shows increased acres of Black Hills grassland cover-types 

since 1995. Projects across the Forest have been emphasizing meadow and grassland restoration 

through removal of pine encroachment. Some of this, particularly pine removal on the periphery 

163 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

of prairies, is likely contributing to an increased habitat trend for the grasshopper sparrow. 

However, changes in mapping and reporting methods might contribute to at least some of the 

difference (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Grasshopper sparrows have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2002 in cooperation with 

the RMBO (Panjabi 2003, 2005). The monitoring program was designed to statistically detect 

population trends over a longer time period than it has been implemented. However, a less 

rigorous analysis of the data suggests an upward Forestwide population trend between 2002 and 

2004 (USDA Forest Service 2007b). However, this may not be a trend, but instead a short-term 

phenomenon. According to Panjabi (2003), it is possible that numbers would decrease in future 

years as habitat becomes more suitable again on the Great Plains (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Lewis's Woodpecker 

The Black Hills is at the eastern edge of the Lewis’s woodpecker’s range (Sibley 2000). In 

South Dakota, Lewis’s woodpecker is considered a locally uncommon summer resident in the 

Black Hills and a locally rare yearlong resident of adjacent stream bottoms (South Dakota 

Ornithologist’s Union 1991). Breeding has been documented in the Black Hills by Peterson 

(1995) and Vierling (2004). It is an uncommon summer resident in Wyoming, with breeding 

records in the east, north, and western portion of the state (Luce et al. 1999). 

The Lewis’s woodpecker is an edge specialist that prefers open mature pine forests, mature 

cottonwood forests, and areas with large burned trees (Tobalske 1997). Burned stands are used 

most often after they have aged several years (Tobalske 1997). A well-developed shrub layer is 

usually present (Anderson 2003). In the Black Hills, this woodpecker is most often observed in 

burned pine forests, but it could also be found in mature to late-successional ponderosa-pine 

stands that have an open canopy (structural stages 4A and some 5). Lewis’s woodpeckers 

typically excavate nest cavities in soft ponderosa pine or cottonwood snags, although they would 

also re-use cavities made by other woodpecker species. Soft snags are dead trees in advanced 

stages of decay, and they have typically been dead longer than hard snags. Hard snags usually 

become soft snags given enough time. 

Recent bird monitoring on the Black Hills has detected an average of 6 birds each year since 

2001 (Giroir et al. 2007). Breeding Bird Survey data suggests that many populations of Lewis’s 

woodpeckers may have declined since the 1960s (Sauer et al. 2001; Tobalske 1997). However, 

due to the sporadic distribution and cyclical abundance of this species, Breeding Bird Survey 

data may not adequately sample populations. Furthermore, many estimates lack statistical 

significance (Sauer et al. 2001). 

Risks to Lewis’s woodpeckers include activities that reduce open or old-growth ponderosa-pine 

forests and snags (e.g., fire suppression and clearcutting; Anderson 2003). Loss of cottonwood 

riparian habitat and human encroachment on breeding and wintering habitat are also negative 

factors (Tobalske 1997), although little cottonwood habitat exists on the Forest. 

Loggerhead Shrike 

The loggerhead shrike is a fairly common summer resident in Wyoming and South Dakota, with 

breeding records occurring over most of both states (Luce et al. 1999, Tallman et al. 2002, 

Peterson 1995). The bird is rare or casual (out of normal range) in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 

2002, South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union 1991). Breeding records occur near the periphery of 

the Black Hills but not in the interior or at higher elevations (Peterson 1995). Breeding Bird 

Survey data between 1966 and 2000 indicate significant declines in loggerhead shrikes nearly 

164 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

rangewide (Sauer et al. 2001). In South Dakota, a nonstatistically significant decline has been 

shown (Sauer et al. 2001). In Wyoming, populations appear to have increased 3.7 percent per 

year between 1980 and 2000 (Sauer et al. 2001). Regional population declines have been linked 

to shrub conversion for increased livestock forage, wildfires in arid shrublands, insect 

(particularly grasshopper) control programs, and grazing pressure that concentrates in arid shrub 

communities (Beidleman 2000). Wiggins (2005a) lists agricultural conversion, degradation or 

loss of nesting trees and shrubs, and over-grazing as potential threats to the species. 

The loggerhead shrike is associated with open habitats that include scattered or clustered shrubs 

or trees. This includes some types of grasslands, shrublands, and savannas. Wiggins (2005a) 

describes nesting habitat as having trees, shrubs or low bushes and elevated perches for hunting 

and courtship activities. Foraging habitat includes areas of open, short vegetation with some 

bare areas and thorny trees or barbed-wire fence for impaling prey (Wiggins 2005a). These 

habitats are limited in the Black Hills but are provided mainly by mixed-grass prairies, mountain 

mahogany shrublands, and grassy or brushy areas with scattered juniper or ponderosa pine. The 

combination of habitat features described above is distributed primarily along the southern flank 

of the Black Hills, especially in the southwestern portion. Most of the interior Black Hills do not 

provide suitable habitat because tree density is too high. 

Long Billed Curlew 

Long-billed curlews are native prairie specialists, nesting primarily in shortgrass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with flat to rolling topography (Sedgwick 2006). They prefer short vegetation and 

generally avoid habitats with trees, abundant shrubs, and tall, dense grass (Sedgwick 2006). 

Curlews may use taller, denser grass during brood rearing when shade and camouflage from 

predators are presumably more important for chicks (Sedgwick 2006). Long-billed curlews have 

been observed nesting in suitable habitat on the Black Hills, mostly the southern Black Hills, 

during annual bird monitoring efforts. A marginally significant decline has been observed in 

South Dakota (Sedgwick 2006). 

Mountain Plover 

Mountain plovers have specific breeding habitat requirements, preferring flat, open areas with 

very shortgrass and scattered cactus (Graul 1975). Vegetation on shortgrass prairie sites is less 

than 4 inches tall, and nest sites in the shrub-steppe are usually on active prairie dog towns. 

Throughout their range, mountain plovers selectively nest on active prairie dog colonies, 

especially those of the black-tailed prairie dog (Dinsmore 2003). 

Mountain plovers have been observed in the general vicinity of the Wyoming Black Hills, with 

nesting documented in the southern half and north central portion of Wyoming (Luce et al. 

1999). Mountain plovers were formerly rare breeders in southwestern South Dakota, and they 

are currently classified as accidental in South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002). There is one modern 

(1977) record of a mountain plover in Bennett County South Dakota (the south central portion of 

the state), and a few relatively recent, unconfirmed reports of the species (Tallman et al. 2002). 

The current breeding distribution of mountain plovers does not include the Black Hills region 

(Dinsmore 2003). Disturbed and low-growing prairie grassland habitats suitable for mountain 

plover are currently rare within the Forest. There are only10 prairie dog colonies on 386 acres 

across the Black Hills National Forest (see p. 155), which limits their availability of nesting 

habitat. 

165 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Northern Goshawk 

The northern goshawk is considered a common resident of coniferous forests in Wyoming (Luce 

et al. 1999). In South Dakota, this forest raptor is a rare to uncommon permanent resident, 

especially in the higher elevations of the Black Hills (South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union 1991). 

Known nest densities are generally higher in the northern and central hills. Goshawks are 

difficult to monitor because of their secretive nature and use of alternate nests. Goshawk 

monitoring on the Forest consists of monitoring known nests for nesting activity. Goshawk nest 

activity has ranged from 20 to 40 percent of monitored nests being active in a given year (USDA 

Forest Service 2007b). Some territories monitored may have been active but were not 

confirmed, because goshawks are secretive and difficult to detect and often use alternate nests. 

Additional pairs likely occur on the Forest but have not been detected for the same reason. 

There is insufficient information to determine population trends in Region 2 or North America 

(Kennedy 2003). 

Goshawks typically nest in relatively dense (dependent on forest type) forest areas and use a 

mosaic of structural stages for foraging within their home range (Kennedy 2003). Typical nest 

areas for goshawks in the northern Rocky Mountains are single storied, mature or latesuccessional coniferous forest, with high canopy closure, clear forest floors, on north-facing 

moderate slopes (Hayward and Escano 1989; Squires and Ruggiero 1996). Goshawks tend to 

select stands that have relatively large trees and relatively high canopy closure (Kennedy 2003). 

In the Black Hills, the goshawk nests in mature, dense, or moderately dense stands of largediameter pine. Reynolds et al. (1992) characterized the nest area as mature and old stands with 

canopy closure greater than 50 percent. Ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5 (dense mature 

forest and late-successional) at least 30 acres in size likely best meet these conditions in the 

Black Hills. Structural stage 4B (mature forest with 40 to 70 percent canopy closure) may also 

provide some additional nesting habitat. 

According to Reynolds et al. (1992), the post-fledging family area (approximately 420 acres) and 

the foraging area (approximately 5,400 acres) typically include a diversity of forest types and 

conditions including stands of young, mid-aged, mature, and late-successional trees. At least 40 

percent of the home range is recommended to be comprised of mature or late-successional stands 

with greater than 40-to-50 percent canopy closure, which roughly equates to structural stages 4B, 

4C, and 5 on the Black Hills. Snags, downed logs, and woody debris are an important 

component of the post-fledging family and foraging habitat. Downed logs and woody debris are 

also an important component of goshawk habitat. 

Northern Harrier 

The northern harrier is an uncommon migrant and summer resident in South Dakota (Tallman et 

al. 2002). Harriers are relatively absent from the Black Hills (Slater and Rock 2005), but the 

species is occasionally observed here. 

Harriers are open-country hawks that are commonly found in prairies, wetlands, marshes, 

meadows, croplands, and shrublands (Slater and Rock 2005). Associated topography is 

generally flat. Most nest sites are in undisturbed wetlands or grasslands dominated by thick 

vegetation (Slater and Rock 2005). 

Large open areas are limited on the Forest, which probably constitute the most limiting factor for 

harriers on the Forest. Currently, there are approximately 110,000 acres of grasslands on the 

Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007b), but much of this occurs in linear meadows or isolated 

166 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

patches that are likely too small to support birds for a full season or more. The most extensive 

grasslands occur in the southern Black Hills. 

Harriers have not yet been documented in shrublands of the Black Hills, but presumably, they 

could use at least some of this cover type. Shrublands occur on over 5,300 acres of the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b), mostly along the Wyoming-South Dakota boundary east of 

Newcastle. 

Peregrine Falcon 

The peregrine falcon has a worldwide distribution, and breeds on every continent but Antarctica 

(Terres 1991). In the United States, it occurs over much of the West and the eastern seaboard. 

However, because peregrines have very large territories, population densities are low throughout 

its range (Johnsgard 1990). 

The peregrine falcon inhabits a wide variety of open habitats if cliffs are present (Terres 1991). 

Optimal cliffs are generally at least 200 to 300 feet high and dominate the surrounding landscape 

(Sharps and O’Brien 1985). Nest sites are typically on open ledges or shelves that are protected 

by cliff overhangs and tend to be on higher cliffs (Johnsgard 1990). Nest sites are generally 

considered the most limiting factor for the species and have a large influence on where the 

species occurs. Peregrines prefer to hunt in relatively open areas where they can maneuver to 

capture small and medium-sized birds (Terres 1991). 

In the Black Hills, the peregrine falcon is an uncommon spring and rare fall migrant and a rare 

winter visitor (Tallman et al. 2002). Potential nest sites may occur in deep rocky canyons or 

other places with tall vertical cliffs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Historical records 

indicate nesting occurred in the Black Hills in the 1960s (ibid.). The peregrine has not been 

documented breeding in the Black Hills since that time despite efforts to reestablish it through 

cross-fostering and hacking during the late 1970s and late 1990s (USDA Forest Service 1979a, 

Sharps and O’Brien 1985, Tallman et al. 2002). Evaluation of potential peregrine habitat by the 

Peregrine Fund concluded that most of the Black Hills does not provide adequate nesting sites. 

The Monitoring Birds of the Black Hills program has not detected peregrines anywhere in the 

Black Hills since it began in 2001 (Giroir et al. 2007). 

Open areas that could provide foraging habitat in the Black Hills include grasslands, shrublands, 

and structural stages with open canopies (1, 2, 3A, 4A). Currently, there are nearly 600,000 

acres that meet these criteria on the Forest. The main factors that may limit occupation of the 

Black Hills by peregrines are the lack of tall, unbroken cliffs and isolation from established 

breeding populations. 

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 

Yellow-billed cuckoos occur in riparian and other deciduous woodlands throughout the United 

States, except in the Northwest and northern Rocky Mountains (Wiggins 2005b). Although they 

are found throughout most of the West, cuckoos are not common there. In western South Dakota 

and eastern Wyoming, the species is a rare to uncommon breeder (ibid). The yellow-billed 

cuckoo is considered a riparian obligate species (Nicholoff 2003). Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer 

to nest in open woodlands with a dense understory and near water. They typically inhabit 

wooded river valleys in the Great Plains (Wiggins 2005b). 

Breeding habitat in the Black Hills occurs mainly in low-elevation riparian areas. Habitat is very 

limited on the Forest and has most potential to occur where narrowleaf cottonwood or bur oak 

167 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

riparian corridors meet the Forest boundary at the edge of the Black Hills. Breeding has been 

documented in the Bear Lodge Mountains and likely occurs elsewhere at lower elevations 

(Panjabi 2003). The site was a mature, bur-oak woodland that had a well-defined understory and 

very large-diameter trees (Panjabi 2003). Yellow-billed cuckoos are extremely sensitive to 

habitat alterations (Nicholoff 2003, Wiggins 2005b). Major causes of degradation have included 

grazing, placer mining, cultivation, road development, dam construction, channel realignments, 

urbanization, and loss of riparian habitat (Wiggins 2005b). 

American Marten 

The American marten is distributed over much of the western United States where it occurs in 

moist boreal forests (Buskirk 2002). The South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks reintroduced a 

total of 125 individuals into the Black Hills during the 1980s and 1990s (Buskirk 2002). Fecske 

et al. (2003) recently estimated that 124 resident martens occur in high-quality habitat, with 

additional animals occurring at lower density within lower quality habitat. Although considerable 

mortality and reproduction have likely occurred here since reestablishment began, it appears the 

marten population trend is relatively stable in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2004). 

According to a recent marten study (Fecske et al. 2003), the greatest marten concentrations 

appear to be in the northern part of the Forest southwest of Deadwood (northern subpopulation) 

and in and around the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck subpopulation) (Fecske et al. 2003). 

These two dominant subpopulations are likely very important in maintaining species persistence 

in the Black Hills. The Black Hills supports an isolated population, with the nearest neighboring 

population in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming (Buskirk 2002). 

Martens are primarily associated with mature white spruce in the Black Hills. Key habitat 

elements are relatively dense forests with complex physical structure near the ground, abundant 

coarse woody debris, and lengthy fire-return intervals (Buskirk 2002). Martens prefer moist 

coniferous forest types with tree species that have branches on their lower boles. White spruce is 

the tree species on the Forest that provides this condition. Approximately 25,000 acres of whitespruce stands currently occur on the Forest, mostly at high elevations, on north aspects, and in 

cool canyon bottoms. Fire suppression during the last century has allowed spruce to increase in 

abundance, density, and maturity in the Black Hills, usually at the expense of quaking aspen 

(Parrish et al. 1996). 

American marten typically avoid dry ponderosa pine sites; however, due to the limited 

distribution of spruce in the Black Hills, most marten territories undoubtedly contain some 

portion of pine (Buskirk 2002). Mature and late-successional pine stands also help maintain 

connectivity between spruce stands. Martens are sensitive to habitat fragmentation and would 

not move through large, non-forested areas. Fecske et al. (2003) quantified high-quality marten 

habitat on the Forest based on a habitat relation model (Fecske et al. 2002). They estimated 

approximately 131,600 acres of high-quality marten habitat exist on the Forest. About 11 

percent of this is in the spruce cover type. Approximately 91,000 acres of the high-quality 

marten habitat supports the two main subpopulation centers, of which about 14 percent is in 

spruce. Spruce makes up only about two percent of the forested acres Forestwide. This supports 

the literature that marten appear to use spruce disproportionately to its availability in the Black 

Hills. 

Coarse woody debris is an important component of marten habitat. Large logs and other 

structures provide protection from predators, access to the subnivean (i.e., beneath the snow) 

space where most winter prey are captured, and protective thermal conditions, especially during 

168 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

winter (Buskirk and Powell 1994). A variety of structures is used for dens, with trees, snags, 

logs, and rocks accounting for 70 percent of reported den structures (Buskirk and Ruggiero 

1994). 

Motorized recreation can cause increased deaths through vehicle collisions (Buskirk 2002). 

Increased numbers of forest users associated with dispersed recreational use could cause a wide 

range of negative effects on martens, including shooting, killing by dogs accompanying 

recreationists, or providing access to toxins (Buskirk 2002). Off-road vehicles are potentially 

important as they facilitate dispersed recreation, impeded vegetative recovery on abandoned 

roads, and compact snow, facilitating movements by competitors of martens (Buskirk 2002). 

Road-related mortality has been observed along highways and at least one mortality was 

observed along a primitive road. 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog 

Historically, black-tailed prairie dogs were one of the most conspicuous and characteristic 

residents of the shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the United States (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000). At present, the black-tailed prairie dog is found in remnant populations 

throughout much of its former range, and significant range contractions have occurred in the 

eastern portion of the species range, including South Dakota (ibid.). 

Black-tailed prairie dogs are associated with shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies but require sites 

with soils conducive to burrowing. Suitable prairie dog habitat on the Black Hills National 

Forest is limited to non-rocky grassland soils on the Hell Canyon Ranger District. The Forest 

manages for 200 to 300 acres of prairie dog towns in at least three separate towns (Forest Plan 

Objective 237). There are currently 10 known prairie dog colonies on the Forest, covering 

approximately 386 acres of National Forest System land (USDA Forest Service 2006b). All the 

towns are in South Dakota. There are no prairie dog towns on the Wyoming portion of the 

Forest. The three largest towns are about 170, 110 and 40 acres in size. All other towns are less 

than 20 acres. Additional acres occur on adjacent private land. The potential for prairie dog 

expansion on the Forest is limited because prairie dog towns on the Forest quickly reach private 

land or encounter rocky soils that make burrowing difficult. Large areas (greater than 1,000 

acres) of potentially suitable prairie dog habitat are not present on the Forest. The colonies are 

comparatively small and disjunct from adjacent known colonies. Prairie dog towns have 

remained stable or increased in size on the Forest regardless of recreational shooting and disease 

(USDA Forest Service 2006b). 

Fringed Myotis 

The Black Hills population of the fringed myotis is a disjunct population and recognized as 

belonging to a distinct subspecies, Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis. The South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Program gives the fringed myotis a state ranking of imperiled (S2) and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department considers it a species of special concern (Schmidt 2003a). In the 

Black Hills, this species is known in Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, and Pennington counties of 

South Dakota, and Crook and Weston Counties in Wyoming at an elevation between 3,800 and 

6,200 feet (ibid.). The fringed myotis is a year-round resident of the Black Hills. It can be found 

during the summer but is very difficult to locate during the winter (USDA Forest Service 2000b). 

The fringed myotis occupies a variety of habitats including mid-elevation desert, grass, and 

woodland habitats and is found at higher elevations in spruce-fir and in mixed timber (Schmidt 

2003a). In the Black Hills of South Dakota, it is one of the more commonly captured bats during 

summer mist-netting studies and tends to occur along ecotones between ponderosa pine and 

169 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

oak/juniper forests (Schmidt 2003a). Little is known about hibernacula requirements for this 

species. The fringed myotis is known to hibernate in the “Heavenly Room” of Jewel Cave. It 

tends to hibernate in small groups in the head-up position and to isolate itself from other species. 

Snags, caves, mines, and buildings may be used as roosts (Schmidt 2003a). In the Black Hills, 

maternity roosts recorded for this species include rock crevices and ponderosa-pine snags (Cryan 

et al. 2001). 

Riparian areas and water sources are important features of habitat. Open water is important 

because bats obtain water while flying. Riparian habitats are important for insect production and 

provide foraging opportunities (USDA Forest Service 2000b). 

The fringed myotis is more closely associated with the forested environment than other bat 

species and may be fairly sensitive to forest management, particularly the availability of snags as 

roost sites (USDA Forest Service 2000b). The fringed myotis has been documented using 

ponderosa pine snags for roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe 

et al. 1998). 

Human disturbance in or near bat roost sites and hibernacula may cause site abandonment and 

local population losses. Off-highway vehicles that create substantial noise may disturb 

reproductive females during the critical pre-parturition period (Schmidt 2003a). Motorized 

routes may provide access to caves and rock climbing areas, which could lead to disturbance as 

well. Activities that reduce the availability of suitable roost snags can negatively impact these 

bats. Activities in riparian zones that reduces available surface water or reduces mesic 

vegetation may impact site suitability and prey distribution or abundance for bats. 

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat is considered a species of concern through much of its range in the 

western United States. This species is a year-round resident in all South Dakota Black Hills 

counties and reported to be the most numerous bat species in Crook County, Wyoming (Schmidt 

2003b). In 1992, it was reported that there were 1,200 Townsend’s big-eared bats hibernating in 

Jewel Cave, making it the largest known hibernating colony of this species in the western United 

States (Schmidt 2003b). There are four known maternity roosts of these bats in the Black Hills, 

two of which are on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2000a). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats occupy a variety of habitats but are closely associated with caves and 

mines (Schmidt 2003b). They also use riparian areas for foraging, including wetlands and 

meadows (Pierson et al. 1999). Riparian areas account for approximately one percent of public 

and private land in the Black Hills and are typically located adjacent to streams and around 

natural springs, seeps, fens, and reservoirs. Townsend’s big-eared bats feed primarily on moths, 

whose life cycles are dependent upon native forest plants (Schmidt 2003b). 

Key habitat components include suitable maternity roost sites and hibernacula. These bats 

utilize both caves and mines for hibernacula (Schmidt 2003b). In the Black Hills, maternity roost 

sites are often in steep drainages with nearly vertical walls. These bats also utilize caves with 

relatively warm domes or large flat ceilings (Schmidt 2003b). 

This species is very sensitive to activities such as recreational caving and mine closings, 

especially at hibernacula and maternity roosts (Schmidt 2003b). Townsend’s big-eared bats are 

especially susceptible to human disturbance during the active time of year (summer), more so 

than other bat species (USDA Forest Service 2000b). These bats are extremely sensitive to 

170 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

disturbances in the vicinity of their roosts, including loud noises such as those produced by 

motorized off-road vehicles, discharging of firearms, and other such activities (Schmidt 2003b). 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

The range of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep includes southern British Columbia and southwest 

Alberta south to southeast California, Arizona, and New Mexico (Whitaker 1980). Current 

estimate of the population in the Black Hills is approximately 350 sheep (Huxoll 2007). 

There are two main populations of bighorn sheep in the Black Hills. The Custer State Park herd 

is located in Custer State Park and consists of three subherds. The Custer State Park herd 

experienced a recent die-off from disease. The Rapid City herd is located primarily on National 

Forest System land and consists of three subherds: the Sheridan Lake, Dark Canyon, and Spring 

Creek subherds. The Rapid City herd is located between Hill City, Pactola Reservoir, and Rapid 

City (Merwin 2000). There is also a herd in Elk Mountain area in the southern Black Hills. 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep typically inhabit alpine meadows, foothills, cliffs, and rock 

outcrops (Luce et al. 1999; Clark and Stromberg 1987). Alpine habitat is absent in the Black 

Hills. Merwin (2000) noted that bighorn sheep often selected areas with good visibility (less 

than 40 percent canopy closure) within suitable distance of water and escape terrain. Limits to 

persistence include limited availability of habitat on the Forest, vulnerability of habitat to 

residential development on adjacent private lands, and disturbance from recreation (Benzon and 

Halseth 1999). Disease is a major concern as diseases transferred from domestic sheep can 

cause major herd reductions. 

Species of Local Concern 

Species of local concern are plant, fish and wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) 

that do not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with declining 

trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of diversity in a 

local area. The local area is defined as National Forest System lands within the Forest (FSM 

2620.5 Black Hills Supplement 2600-2005-1). All species of local concern on the Forest are 

addressed in this section except bighorn sheep (Table 34). Bighorn sheep have been recently 

added to the Region 2 sensitive species list and are addressed under Sensitive Species and in the 

biological evaluation. 

Demand Species 

Species that are important local game animals but are not MIS, species of local concern or 

sensitive species are demand species. These species are of particular interest to the public 

because they are hunted. This analysis includes three demand species: elk, mule deer, and 

turkey. Elk use a wide variety of vegetation types on the Forest but show a preference for 

forested riparian areas, forested stringers in meadows, and deciduous stands of birch or aspen 

(SAIC 2003). Elk find cover (thermal or hiding or both) on the Forest in the denser stands of 

conifers (summer and winter) and hardwoods (summer only). For forage, however, they rely on 

more open stands and meadows and prairies, all of which may provide an abundance of grasses, 

forbs, and/or shrubs (SAIC 2003). 

171 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 34. Black Hills species of local concern 

Species Habitat 

American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) 

Clear, fast-flowing streams. In the Black Hills, occurs in 

Spearfish Creek and several tributaries. Also has been found 

at Rapid Creek and some of the streams between Rapid Creek 

and Spearfish Creek. Spearfish Creek is considered to be the 

only creek left in the Black Hills capable of supporting a selfsustaining population of dippers 

Black-and-White Warbler (Mniotilta

varia) 

Found in mature and second-growth deciduous and mixeddeciduous-coniferous forests. They are found mostly in bur 

oak woodlands and associated edges 

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo

platypterus) 

Forage in mature to old-growth forests, along forest streams, 

roads, and openings. In the Black Hills, nests primarily in 

ponderosa pine in mixed pine-and-deciduous habitats, 

occasionally with a white-spruce component. 

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Considered a habitat generalist. Known to nest in riparian, 

ponderosa pine, and hardwood forests. 

Northern Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius

acadicus) 

Highest densities tend to be found in coniferous forests. Nests 

in snags in cavities excavated by flickers and other large 

woodpeckers. 

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) 

A primary cavity nester that also uses secondary cavities. 

Prefer old or mature undisturbed forests, but are also known to 

use open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine. Likely needs 

heterogeneous forests with a mixture of well spaced old trees 

and trees of intermediate age 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter

striatus) 

Nest almost exclusively in conifers. Vegetation at nest sites is 

usually in the early successional stages and extremely dense. 

White spruce could serve as important nesting habitat. 

Bats 

(Myotis evotis, Myotis volans, Myotis 

septentrionalis, Myotis ciliolabrum) 

Found in the wooded riparian zone in badlands and prairies to 

higher elevation coniferous and deciduous woodlands. 

Hibernacula include caves and mines. Day roosts have been 

reported in buildings; under shingles; behind shutters of 

buildings; underneath exfoliating tree bark; inside cavities or 

crevices of trees; and in caves, mines, and quarries. Uses 

ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity roosts. 

Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius campestris) 

Strongly associated with riparian habitats along small streams 

in meadows and habitats beneath forests with an understory of 

deciduous shrubs, grasses, forbs, and fallen logs and is 

presumed to disperse primarily along stream corridors. 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos 

americanus) 

Inhabits rugged terrain including cliffs, rock faces, ledges, and 

talus slopes. Primary range and habitat of the mountain goat in 

the Black Hills is centered around Harney Peak and The 

Needles. The mountain goat population occurs largely within 

the Black Elk Wilderness and the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 

Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus) 

Habitat typically dominated by conifers or mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forests. Found in white-spruce forests in 

moist canyons of the northern Black Hills. Ponderosa pine is 

important foraging habitat in the Black Hills especially areas 

with larger trees and more canopy cover. 

Butterflies 

Atlantis Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapa) 

Tawny Crescent (Phycoides batesii) 

Atlantis fritillary found in wet meadows and moist canyons. 

Tawny crescent is found in open meadows, stream bottoms, 

roads, trails, and riparian woodlands. 

Snails 

(Vertigo arthuri, Catinella gelida, 

Vertigo paradoxa, Discus shimekii) 

Use a variety of habitats: white spruce, hardwoods, mountain 

mahogany, and ponderosa pine. 

172 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Mule deer tend to inhabit more open, rugged habitat and are more abundant in the southern 

Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, where open, rocky habitat is more prevalent (Seig 

and Severson 1996). Meadows and other grass cover types provide forage. Mountain mahogany 

habitat in the southern Black Hills may play an important role in providing mule deer habitat. 

Turkeys occur in a wide variety of vegetation types, including foothill and montane riparian 

associations, pine-juniper shrubland, mixed-grass prairie, and ponderosa pine, white spruce, and 

aspen forest stands (Panjabi 2003). Open areas are important for foraging during the summer, 

though meadows are seldom selected for (Rumble and Anderson 1996). Dense mature ponderosa 

pine serves as winter cover and a source of mast (Rumble and Anderson 1996). During the 

winter, turkeys also prefer south-facing slopes where the sun melts the snow (Rumble and 

Anderson 1996). 

Migratory Birds 

Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally small ranges, loss 

of habitat, observed population declines, and other factors. The Forest recognizes the ecological 

and economic importance of birds and approaches bird conservation at several levels by 

implementing Forest Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines; a Forestwide bird-monitoring 

program; and site-specific mitigation and effects analyses for identified species of concern. 

Forest Plan objectives describe desired resource conditions. The most relevant objectives for bird 

conservation are those relating to vegetation diversity, landscape structural diversity, snags and 

down woody material, riparian condition, habitat improvements, and disturbance processes. 

Standards and guidelines are designed to help achieve those objectives and are implemented at 

the project level. The most relevant standards and guidelines for migratory birds that occur on 

the Forest are presented in discussions of individual birds in the Species of Local Concern and 

Management Indicator Species sections of this document and the Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Region 2 Sensitive Species sections of the biological assessment and biological 

evaluation. 

Bird monitoring is conducted at the Forest level to determine species distribution, abundance, 

and trends (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 

2007). The RMBO designs and conducts the monitoring to provide statistically rigorous 

population trend data for at least 61 species that breed in the Black Hills. Trend data would assist 

the Forest in determining whether additional conservation measures are necessary. Species of 

concern applicable to project-level conservation are identified by many sources including the 

Endangered Species Act; the Region 2 sensitive species list; the Forest MIS list; the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) publication (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2002); and the Wyoming Partners in Flight (PIF) Plan (Nicholoff 2003). All of 

these sources and their respective species of concern except the BCC and Wyoming PIF have 

been examined elsewhere in this document. The BCC 2002 publication partitions North 

America into 37 bird conservation regions (BCRs). The Black Hills is included in BCR 17 – 

Badlands and Prairies. The Wyoming PIF plan identifies three levels of priority birds, with the 

top level (Level 1) representing species that need conservation action. Table 35 shows the 

disposition of migratory birds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BCR-17 list of Birds of 

Conservation Concern and the Level 1 species list of the Wyoming PIF Plan. 

173 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 35. Species of conservation concern and Wyoming PIF priority 1 species 

Species List Disposition 

American Bittern WY PIF No Habitat on Forest 

Trumpeter Swan WY PIF No Habitat on Forest 

Bald Eagle WY PIF Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

Golden Eagle BCR 17 Foraging habitat present. Evaluated below. 

Northern Goshawk WY PIF Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

Swainson’s Hawk WY PIF Occasional on Forest, evaluated below 

Ferruginous Hawk BCR 17, WY PIF Region 2 Sensitive Species, - Addressed in BE 

(shrub-steppe/prairie) 

Prairie Falcon BCR 17 Nesting habitat present. Evaluated below. 

Peregrine Falcon BCR 17, WY PIF Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

Greater Sage Grouse WY PIF No occurrence on Forest, Minimal sage brush 

(40 acres) on Forest in small patches. 

Columbian Sharp-tailed 

Grouse WY PIF No habitat on Forest 

American 

Golden-Plover BCR 17 No habitat on Forest (prairie) 

Mountain Plover BCR 17, WY PIF Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

(shortgrass prairie) 

Upland Sandpiper BCR 17, WY PIF Occurs on and adjacent to the Forest 

(grassland). Evaluated below. 

Long-billed Curlew BCR 17, WY PIF Known occurrences. Discussed in BE. 

Marbled Godwit BCR 17 No habitat on Forest (prairies and prairie 

wetlands) 

Sanderling BCR 17 No habitat on Forest (prairie wetlands) 

Wilson's Phalarope BCR 17, WY PIF No habitat on Forest (prairie wetlands) 

Black-billed Cuckoo BCR 17 Species present on Forest (riparian hardwood 

habitat). Evaluated below 

Burrowing Owl BCR 17, WY PIF Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

Short-eared Owl BCR 17, WY PIF No habitat on Forest (shortgrass prairie) 

Red-naped Sapsucker BCR 17 Nesting habitat present. Evaluated below 

Lewis' Woodpecker BCR 17 Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

Franklin’s Gull WY PIF No habitat on Forest 

Forster’s Tern WY PIF No habitat on Forest 

Black Tern WY PIF No habitat on Forest 

Dickcissel BCR 17 Species present on Forest (prairie habitat). 

Evaluated below. 

Grasshopper Sparrow BCR 17 Region 2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BE 

Sage sparrow WY PIF No Habitat on Forest 

Sprague's Pipit BCR 17 No habitat on Forest (prairie) 

Brewer's Sparrow BCR 17, WY PIF No habitat on Forest (shrub-steppe) 

Baird's Sparrow BCR 17, WY PIF No habitat on Forest (shortgrass prairie) 

Le Conte's Sparrow BCR 17 No habitat on Forest (prairie wetlands) 

McCown's Longspur BCR 17, WY PIF No habitat on Forest (shortgrass prairie) 

Chestnut-collared Longspur BCR 17 No habitat on Forest (prairie) 

174 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components 

Direct mortality from wildlife/vehicle collisions could occur in all alternatives. In all 

alternatives, direct mortality is expected to affect individuals and is not expected to put 

populations at risk because collisions are less likely to occur on primitive roads and trails such as 

those designated in this project (Oxley et al. 1973). In general, the more motorized routes and 

motorized use in wildlife habitat, the more potential there is for wildlife/vehicle collisions. 

The most effects on wildlife from motorized recreation are likely to come in the form of 

disturbance as a result of route or area use. The miles of motorized routes and the amount of area 

open to motorized cross-country travel is used to evaluate the level of effects to wildlife in 

general. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is expected to have the most risk of direct mortality because it has the most area 

open to motorized cross-country travel. Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that 

could further affect habitat through trampling and dust creation. Disturbance would continue 

occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed (about 865,000 acres of the 

Forest). 

Under Alternative A, disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use 

levels increase. User-created routes would continue to be created and incrementally impact 

wildlife and wildlife habitat in general. Also, under Alternative A, new unintended roads and 

trails would continue the spread of invasive weeds and potentially increase it, neither of which 

moves us closer to the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. Alternative A allows game 

retrieval on the most acreage. Alternative A also allows for motorized retrieval of all game, 

which could result in impacts from more hunters. Alternative A has the most acreage open to 

motorized dispersed camping which would provide additional impacts to wildlife. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

All the action alternatives are expected to have less chance of direct mortality than Alternative A 

because they have less area open to cross-country travel. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C 

is expected to have the most effects from direct mortality followed by Alternatives B, E and D, 

respectively, based on the miles of routes open to motorized travel. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Little route obliteration is planned for existing 

routes that are closed under the alternatives. New designated routes are mostly 50 inches or less 

in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Habitat fragmentation is 

expected to be minimal for the same reasons. 

The action alternatives would not allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. These 

alternatives would have a net beneficial affect from closing much of the Forest to motorized 

cross-country travel. Disturbance from cross-country travel would be reduced and there would 

be a beneficial effect of reducing invasive weed spread and disturbance that creates seedbeds for 

invasive species. 

175 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Alternative C would have the 

most miles of motorized 

routes that could disturb 

wildlife, followed by 

Alternatives B, A, E, and D, 

respectively (Figure 16). The 

increase in routes in 

Alternatives B and C would 

likely offset some of the 

benefits of closing areas to 

motorized cross-country 

travel. Still, the net result 

would be a benefit due to the 

amount of area closed to 

cross-country travel. The 

miles of routes in Alternative 

E would remain at the 

existing level. The lack of 

cross-country travel in 

Alternative E is expected to result in a net reduction in disturbance. Alternative D would have 

the least disturbance to wildlife in general because it has the least miles of motorized routes and 

the least area open to cross-country travel. 

Miles of Motorized Routes Forest-wide by 

Alternative

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Miles

Seasonal 692 1,174 1,358 768 692

Year-long 3,084 2,956 2,994 2,429 3,084

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Figure 16. Miles of seasonal and year-long motorized routes by 

alternative on the Black Hills National Forest 

Road and trail use also causes dust, which can affect wildlife. Effects from dust are expected to 

be correlated with the miles of routes as discussed above. 

Motorized game retrieval can affect wildlife through disturbance. The effects of motorized game 

retrieval are expected to be minor. Most motorized game retrieval involves big game, which 

occurs in the fall outside the bird breeding season. Most big game animals are already being 

disturbed by hunters in the woods. Still, there could be some impacts to less mobile species. 

Of the action alternatives, Alterative C would allow motorized game retrieval on the most acres 

followed by Alternatives B, D, and E respectively (Figure 17). Alternative B would reduce 

impacts from existing 

conditions because it only 

allows game retrieval for 

elk, which has far fewer 

hunters that would need to 

retrieve game, and in a 

reduced area. Alternative C 

would reduce impacts from 

existing conditions because 

it has less acreage open to 

motorized game retrieval, 

but may have more impacts 

than Alternative B in the 

retrieval area because it 

allows retrieval of elk and 

deer. Alternatives D and E 

would have the least 

Acres Open to Motorized Game Retrieval Forestwide By Alternative

864,000

179,000

373,000

0 0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Acres

Figure 17. Acres open to motorized game retrieval by alternative 

on the Black Hills National Forest 

176 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

impacts from game retrieval 

because motorized game 

retrieval is not allowed. 

Acres Open to Motorized Dispersed Camping 

Forest-wide by Alternative

864,000

63,500

184,000

0 0

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Acres

Figure 18. Acres open to motorized dispersed camping by 

alternative on the Black Hills National Forest 

Motorized dispersed camping 

can also disturb some wildlife. 

The effects of motorized 

dispersed camping are estimated 

using the acreage open to 

motorized-dispersed camping 

(Figure 18). Of the action 

alternatives, Alternative C has 

the most acreage open to 

motorized dispersed camping, 

followed by Alternatives B, D, 

and E, respectively. 

Overall, the action alternatives would have a net benefit to wildlife due to the closing of areas to 

motorized cross-country travel. Alternative D would have the most benefit because it has the 

fewest motorized routes and the least area open to motorized cross-country travel, followed by 

Alternative E, B, and C, respectively. 

Ponderosa Pine Habitat 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect understory vegetation 

and habitat loss. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country 

travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use 

levels increase. User-created routes would continue to be created and impact wildlife that use 

ponderosa pine habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is 

expected to be minimal for all 

action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of 

this project. Most newly 

designated routes are 50 inches 

or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been 

formally designated. Effects on 

habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Ponderosa Pine 

Habitat by Alternative

2,661

2,968

3,156

2,266

2,661

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 19. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine 

habitat by alternative on the Black Hills National Forest 

The effects of disturbance to 

wildlife that use ponderosa pine 

is based on the miles of 

motorized routes in ponderosa 

pine and the acres of ponderosa 

177 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

pine open to motorized cross-country travel. None of the action alternatives would allow 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This would have a positive effect on wildlife using 

ponderosa pine habitat by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in ponderosa pine habitat, followed by Alternatives B, A, E and D, respectively. Still, the 

action alternatives would have a net positive effect on wildlife using ponderosa pine habitat due 

to the amount of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping in ponderosa pine habitat are 

expected to be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. 

White Spruce Habitat 

Alternative A 

Unrestricted motorized cross-country travel would continue in this alternative in much of the 

spruce habitat. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect understory 

vegetation. The effects of disturbance to wildlife that use spruce habitat is based on the miles of 

motorized routes in spruce and the acres of spruce open to motorized cross-country travel. 

Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where unrestricted motorized cross-country travel 

is allowed. Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation levels 

increase. User-created routes would continue to be created and impact wildlife that use spruce 

habitat. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on spruce habitat are expected to 

be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Spruce Habitat by 

Alternative

100 100 97

83

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 20. Miles of motorized routes in spruce habitat by 

alternative on the Black Hills National Forest 

The effects of disturbance to 

wildlife that use spruce habitat 

is based on the miles of 

motorized routes in spruce and 

the acres of spruce open to 

motorized cross-country 

travel. None of the action 

alternatives would allow 

unrestricted motorized crosscountry travel. This would 

have a positive effect on 

wildlife using spruce habitat 

by reducing disturbance 

impacts. 

178 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternatives A, B and E have the 

most motorized routes in spruce habitat, followed by Alternatives C and D, respectively. Still, 

the action alternatives would have a net positive effect on wildlife using spruce habitat due to the 

amount of habitat closed to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on spruce habitat are expected to 

be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. 

Hardwood Habitat 

Alternative A 

Unrestricted motorized cross-country travel would continue in this alternative. This could lead to 

more user-created routes that could further affect understory vegetation. The effects of 

motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on hardwood habitat are expected to be similar 

to those discussed above for the Forest in general. 

The effects of disturbance to wildlife that use hardwood habitat is based on the miles of 

motorized routes in hardwoods and the acres of hardwoods open to motorized cross-country 

travel. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is 

allowed. Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation levels increase. 

User-created routes would continue to be created and would impact wildlife that use hardwood 

habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance to wildlife that use hardwood habitat is based on the miles of 

motorized routes in hardwoods and the acres of hardwoods open to motorized cross-country 

travel. None of the action alternatives would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. 

This would have a positive effect on wildlife using hardwood habitat by reducing disturbance 

impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and 

trails can also disturb wildlife. 

Alternative C has the most 

motorized routes in hardwood 

habitat, followed by 

Alternatives B, A, E, and D, 

respectively. Still, the action 

alternatives would have a net 

positive effect on wildlife 

using hardwood habitat due to 

the amount of habitat closed 

to motorized cross-country 

travel. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Hardwood 

Habitat by Alternative

179

208

225

154

179

0

50

100

150

200

250

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 21. Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat by 

alternative on the Black Hills National Forest 

179 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Snag Habitat 

Alternative A 

Snag removal through firewood gathering or other means would remain consistent with current 

conditions. Some illegal snag cutting would likely occur. Alternative A is the only alternative 

that would allow unrestricted cross-country motorized travel, which could lead to more illegal 

snag cutting. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Impacts to snag habitat is expected to be minimal and consistent with the Forest Plan (Standards 

2301, 2305) for all action alternatives. None of the action alternatives would authorize the 

cutting or removing of snags. Some illegal snag cutting may occur under all action alternatives. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to have less risk of illegal snag cutting due to less area 

open to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. 

Riparian Habitat 

Alternative A 

Unrestricted motorized crosscountry travel would continue 

in this alternative. This could 

lead to more user-created routes 

that could further affect riparian 

vegetation. The effects of 

motorized game retrieval and 

dispersed camping on riparian 

habitat are expected to be 

similar to those discussed above 

for the Forest in general. 

Disturbance would continue to 

occur in areas where motorized 

cross-country travel is allowed. 

Disturbance impacts would 

continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes would 

continue to be created and impact wildlife that use riparian habitat. 

Miles of Routes within 400 feet of Riparian 

Areas by Alternative

2,050 2,186 2,271

1,739

2,050

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 22. Miles of routes within 400 feet of riparian habitat by 

alternative 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. The effects of motorized game retrieval and 

dispersed camping on riparian habitat are expected to be similar to those discussed above for the 

Forest in general. 

The effects of disturbance to wildlife that use riparian habitat is based on the miles of motorized 

routes in riparian habitat and the acres of riparian habitat open to motorized cross-country travel. 

None of the action alternatives would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This 

would have a positive effect on wildlife using riparian habitat by reducing disturbance impacts. 

180 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in riparian habitat, followed by Alternatives B, A, E, and D, respectively. Still, the action 

alternatives would have a net positive effect on wildlife using riparian habitat due to the amount 

of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Effects to the riparian habitat and associated species are mitigated through a wide variety of 

standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and State BMPs that protect riparian 

areas. Forestwide standards and guidelines protect riparian areas, water influence zones, and 

wetlands. Long-term riparian ecosystem health and ecological function are provided for by not 

allowing actions that would be detrimental to riparian-ecosystem condition (Standards 1301, 

1302). Objective 105 strives to prohibit motorized vehicles in wetlands, wet meadows, and 

riparian areas. Standard 1113 provides direction pertaining to minimizing sediment discharge 

into streams, lakes, and wetlands during road construction and other site disturbances. Guideline 

9107 prohibits land vehicles from entering perennial steams where resource damage would 

occur. Guideline 9108 restricts vehicle traffic to roads and trails in riparian areas. 

Grassland Habitat 

Alternative A 

Unrestricted motorized crosscountry travel would continue 

in this alternative. This could 

lead to more user-created 

routes that could further affect 

understory vegetation. The 

effects of motorized game 

retrieval and dispersed camping 

on hardwood habitat are 

expected to be similar to those 

discussed above for the Forest 

in general. 

The effects of disturbance to 

wildlife that use grassland 

habitat is based on the miles of motorized routes in grass cover-type and the acres of grass 

covertype open to motorized cross-country travel. Alternative A would continue to allow 647 

miles of routes in grassland covertype, which would continue to disturb grassland species. 

Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. 

Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. Usercreated routes would continue to be created and would impact wildlife that use grassland habitat. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Grass Cover-types by 

Alternative

647 673 684

562

647

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

miles

Figure 23. Miles of motorized routes in grassland cover types 

by alternative 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on grassland habitat are expected 

to be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. The effects of disturbance to 

181 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

wildlife that use grassland habitat is based on the miles of motorized routes in grass covertype 

and the acres of grass covertype open to motorized cross-country travel. None of the action 

alternatives would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This would have a positive 

effect on wildlife using grassland habitat by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in grassland habitat, followed by Alternatives B, A, E, and D, respectively. Still, the 

action alternatives would have a net positive effect on wildlife using grassland habitat due to the 

amount of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Shrubland (Mountain Mahogany) Habitat 

Alternative A 

Unrestricted motorized cross-country travel would continue in this alternative. This could lead 

to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in mountain mahogany habitat. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on mountain mahogany habitat 

are expected to be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. 

The effects of disturbance to wildlife that use mountain mahogany habitat is based on the miles 

of motorized routes in mountain mahogany and the acres of mountain mahogany open to 

motorized cross-country travel. Alternative A would continue to allow 5 miles of routes in 

mountain mahogany habitat, which could disturb species using the habitat. Alternative A would 

also continue to allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in much of the mountain 

mahogany habitat. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country 

travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use 

levels increase. User-created routes would continue to be created and would impact wildlife that 

use mountain mahogany habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of mountain mahogany habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action 

alternatives. Little new construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated 

routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. 

Effects on habitat condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on mountain mahogany habitat 

are expected to be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. The effects of 

disturbance to wildlife that use mountain mahogany habitat is based on the miles of motorized 

routes in mountain mahogany and the acres of mountain mahogany open to motorized crosscountry travel. None of the action alternatives would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This would have a positive effect on wildlife using mountain mahogany habitat by 

reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. All alternatives have the roughly 

same amount of motorized routes in mountain mahogany habitat (about 5 miles). The action 

alternatives would have a net positive effect on wildlife using mountain mahogany habitat due to 

the amount of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

182 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Management Indicator Species 

Black-backed Woodpecker 

The black-backed woodpecker is also a Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to this species are 

discussed in detail in the biological evaluation. A summary of effects to all sensitive species 

analyzed is located below on page 193. 

Brown Creeper 

Alternative A 

Habitat availability would remain the same as existing conditions in Alternative A. Effects on 

snags are expected to be minimal. The risk of illegal snag removal would be highest in 

Alternative A because it would allow the most area open to motorized cross-country travel. 

Brown creeper habitat condition and availability would be expected to remain stable on the 

Forest. Habitat fragmentation would remain at existing conditions because no new routes would 

be authorized. 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of brown 

creepers, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on brown creepers. Most game retrieval would 

occur outside the brown creeper nesting season. Spring and summer dispersed camping could 

disturb nesting brown creepers. Effects from dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

general effects to wildlife discussed above. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. White spruce and ponderosa pine structural 

stages 4C and 5 offer the best habitat for brown creepers. Alternative A would also continue to 

allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in much of this habitat. Disturbance would 

continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts 

would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes would 

continue to be created and impact brown creepers. Alternative A would continue to allow 332 

miles of motorized routes in primary brown creeper habitat, which could disturb nesting brown 

creepers. 

Alternative A is not expected to reduce the Forestwide population. Forestwide populations are 

expected to remain stable or increase. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of brown creepers, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, 

they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Brown creepers 

mostly forage in the forest canopy and would have few changes from routes on the ground. 

Effects on habitat condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

183 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Impacts to snag habitat is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. None of the 

alternatives would authorize the cutting or removing of snags. Some illegal snag cutting may 

occur under all alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to have less risk of illegal 

snag cutting due to less area open to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. 

Roads can cause habitat fragmentation for species that tend to use the interior parts of forest 

patches. More roads tend to reduce the patch size and increase the ratio of edge-to interior area. 

This reduces the amount of habitat available to species that prefer these interior forest 

conditions, such as brown Creepers (Reed et al. 1996). Fragmentation of habitat is expected to 

be minimal in all action alternatives. Based on the above analysis, brown creeper habitat 

condition and availability is expected to remain stable on the Forest. All action alternatives 

contribute to conservation and maintenance of brown creeper habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

238). 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on brown creepers for all action alternatives. Most 

game retrieval would occur outside the brown creeper nesting season. Spring and summer 

dispersed camping could disturb 

nesting brown creepers. Effects 

from dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to general 

effects to wildlife discussed above. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Primary Brown 

Creeper Habitat by Alternative

332

383 401

285

332

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 24. Miles of motorized routes in primary brown 

creeper habitat by alternative 

The effects of disturbance are 

estimated using the miles of routes 

in suitable habitat and the acreage of 

habitat open to cross-country travel. 

White spruce and ponderosa pine 

structural stages 4C and 5 offer the 

best habitat for brown creepers. 

None of the action alternatives 

would allow unrestricted motorized 

cross-country travel. This would 

have a positive effect on brown 

creepers by reducing disturbance 

impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in primary habitat, followed by Alternatives B, A, E, and D, respectively. The action 

alternatives would have a net positive effect on brown creepers due to the amount of habitat 

closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Brown creepers are also found in lower densities in other habitats including other structural 

stages of ponderosa pine. Effects of disturbance to brown creepers in ponderosa pine would be 

similar to those discussed earlier for ponderosa pine habitat. 

None of the action alternatives are expected to reduce the Forestwide population. Forestwide 

populations are expected to remain stable or increase in all action alternatives. The action 

alternatives may have a better chance of population increases because of reduced disturbance 

from motorized cross-country travel. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, 

184 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

guidelines, or objectives that provide for brown creeper habitat. Under all alternatives, brown 

creepers are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Golden-Crowned Kinglet 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Kinglets mostly forage in the tree 

canopies and would see little effects from routes on the ground. Effects on habitat condition and 

trend are expected to be minimal. 

Spruce on the Black Hills is naturally distributed as patches at low abundance and there are gaps 

where spruce habitat is absent or only present in low abundance. However, the kinglets are 

mobile and disjunct areas of spruce habitat are typically be large enough and close enough to 

permit dispersal and interaction among subpopulations across the Forest. Conditions similar to 

this are expected to be maintained under Alternative A. Therefore, fragmentation of spruce 

habitat is not expected to adversely affect the species. 

Based on the above analysis, the amount and condition of habitat is expected to remain stable. 

Alternative A contributes to conservation and maintenance of kinglet habitat (Forest Plan 

Objective 238). 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Disturbance effects to kinglets are expected to 

be similar to effects previously described for spruce habitat. 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on kinglets for Alternative A. Most game retrieval 

would occur outside the kinglet nesting season. Spring and summer dispersed camping could 

disturb nesting kinglets. Effects from dispersed camping are expected to be similar to general 

effects to wildlife discussed previously. 

Alternative A is not expected to reduce the Forestwide population. Forestwide populations are 

expected to remain stable or increase. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Kinglets mostly 

forage in the tree canopies and would have few effects from routes on the ground. Effects on 

habitat condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

Spruce on the Black Hills is naturally distributed as patches at low abundance and there are gaps 

where spruce habitat is absent or only present in low abundance. However, the kinglets are 

mobile and disjunct areas of spruce habitat are typically be large enough and close enough to 

permit dispersal and interaction among subpopulations across the Forest. Conditions similar to 

185 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

this are expected to be maintained under all action alternatives. Therefore, fragmentation of 

spruce habitat is not expected to adversely affect the species. 

Based on the above analysis, the amount and condition of habitat is expected to remain stable or 

increase. All action alternatives contribute to conservation and maintenance of kinglet habitat 

(Forest Plan Objective 238). 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on kinglets for all action alternatives. Most game 

retrieval would occur outside the kinglet nesting season. Spring and summer dispersed camping 

could disturb nesting kinglets. Effects from dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

general effects to wildlife discussed previously. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Disturbance effects to kinglets for all action 

alternatives are expected to be similar to effects previously described for spruce habitat. 

Alternatives B and E have the most motorized routes in spruce habitat, followed by Alternatives 

C and D, respectively. Still, the action alternatives would have a net positive effect on kinglets 

due to the amount of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

None of the action alternatives are expected to reduce the Forestwide population. Forestwide 

populations are expected to remain stable or increase in all action alternatives. The action 

alternatives may have a better chance of population increases because of reduced disturbance 

from motorized cross-country travel. 

Under all alternatives, golden-crowned kinglets are likely to persist on the Forest. Spruce habitat 

would continue to be distributed as patches at low abundance and there may be gaps where 

spruce habitat is absent or only present in low abundance. However, the disjunct areas of spruce 

habitat would typically be large enough and close enough to permit dispersal and interaction 

among subpopulations across the Forest. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, 

guidelines, or objectives that provide for kinglet habitat. 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

The grasshopper sparrow is also a Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to this species are 

evaluated in detail in the biological evaluation. A summary of effects to all sensitive species 

analyzed is located below on page 193. 

Ruffed Grouse 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in grouse 

habitat, which could deter from the conservation and maintenance of grouse habitat (Forest Plan 

Objective 238). 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in aspen habitat and the 

acreage of aspen open to cross-country travel. Alternative A would continue to allow 

186 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in much of this habitat. Disturbance would continue 

to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts would 

continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes would 

continue to be created and would impact ruffed grouse. Alternative A would continue to allow 

150 miles of motorized routes in aspen habitat. 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on ruffed grouse. Most game retrieval would occur 

during big game seasons outside the grouse nesting season. Spring and summer dispersed 

camping could disturb nesting grouse. Effects from dispersed camping are expected to be 

similar to general effects to wildlife discussed previously. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface 

is expected to be minimal in the 

action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part 

of this project. Most newly 

designated routes are 50 inches 

or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been 

formally designated. Effects on 

habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

All action alternatives 

contribute to conservation and 

maintenance of grouse habitat 

(Forest Plan Objective 238). 

The action alternatives would 

have a net positive effect by 

closing habitat to cross-country 

travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat 

with routes and cross-country travel. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Aspen by 

Alternative

150

174

185

131

150

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 25. Miles of motorized routes in aspen by alternative on 

the Black Hills National Forest 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in aspen habitat and the 

acreage of aspen open to cross-country travel. None of the action alternative would allow 

motorized cross-country travel. This would have a positive effect on grouse by reducing 

disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in grouse habitat, followed by Alternatives B, A, E, and D, respectively. The action 

alternatives would have a net positive effect on grouse due to the amount of habitat closed to 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on ruffed grouse for all action alternatives. Most 

game retrieval would occur during big game seasons outside the grouse nesting season. Spring 

187 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

and summer dispersed camping could disturb nesting grouse. Effects from dispersed camping 

are expected to be similar to general effects to wildlife discussed previously. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

ruffed grouse habitat. Under all alternatives, adequate habitat is expected to exist and ruffed 

grouse are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Song Sparrow 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in song 

sparrow habitat. This could reduce the Forest’s ability contribute to conservation of song 

sparrow habitat (Forest Plan Objective 238). 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are expected to mimic 

impacts to riparian habitat discussed earlier in the general wildlife effects section. 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on song sparrows in Alternative A. Most game 

retrieval would occur during big game seasons outside the nesting season. Spring and summer 

dispersed camping could disturb nesting song sparrows. Effects from dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those discussed earlier in the general wildlife effects section for riparian 

habitat. 

The amount of riparian area is not expected to change substantially under Alternative A. 

Objectives, standards, and guidelines are designed to maintain or enhance riparian condition. 

Some individuals may be disturbed, but song sparrow populations are expected to remain stable 

in these riparian areas. This alternative would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or 

objectives that provide for song sparrow habitat. There would be adequate habitat for 

maintaining populations of song sparrows. Riparian habitats would be maintained through 

implementation of objectives, standards, and guidelines. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in the action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. For general effects on riparian habitat, see the 

riparian discussion on page 180. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of song sparrow habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

238). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute more to the conservation of habitat by 

188 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

closing areas to unrestricted cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most 

because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are expected to mimic 

impacts to riparian habitat discussed earlier in the general wildlife effects section. 

Game retrieval would have minimal effects on song sparrows for all alternatives. Most game 

retrieval would occur during big game seasons outside the nesting season. Spring and summer 

dispersed camping could disturb nesting song sparrows. Effects from dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those discussed earlier in the general wildlife effects section. 

The amount of riparian area is not expected to change substantially in all action alternatives. 

Objectives, standards, and guidelines are designed to maintain or enhance riparian condition. 

Some individuals may be disturbed, but song sparrow populations are expected to remain stable 

in these riparian areas. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to 

persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines or 

objectives that provide for song sparrow habitat. Under all action alternatives, there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining populations of song sparrows. Riparian habitats would be 

maintained implementation of objectives, standards, and guidelines. 

Beaver 

Alternative A 

Acres of riparian areas and miles of streams are not expected to change under Alternative A. The 

effects on beaver would likely be reflected in the quality of riparian habitat rather than the 

quantity of riparian habitat. Effects to beavers would likely mirror effects to riparian and 

wetland areas. Effects on riparian areas are discussed earlier in the general wildlife section. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in beaver 

habitat. This could reduce the Forest’s ability contribute to conservation of beaver habitat 

(Forest Plan Objective 238). 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to occur, though infrequently. If collisions do occur, 

they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. Alternative A would continue to allow 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel near most beaver colonies. Impacts would continue 

to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes would continue to be 

created and could impact beavers. 

The area open to motorized game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping would be the 

highest in Alternative A. These types of uses would affect beaver streams if they result in 

crossing streams to access game or campsites. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Acres of riparian areas and miles of streams are not expected to change under all action 

alternatives. The effects on beaver would likely be reflected in the quality of riparian habitat 

rather than the quantity of riparian habitat. Direct impacts to riparian and wetland ecosystems 

typically occur from direct disturbances such as the clearing of vegetation; roads or trails (e.g., 

stream crossings); and placement of fill material (e.g., development in a floodplain). Effects to 

189 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

beavers would likely mirror effects to riparian and wetland areas. Effects on riparian areas are 

discussed earlier in the general wildlife section. 

All action alternatives would contribute to conservation and maintenance of beaver habitat 

(Forest Plan Objective 238) by closing areas to unrestricted cross-country travel. Alternative D 

would conserve habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and crosscountry travel. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

beaver habitat. Under all alternatives, there would be adequate habitat for maintaining 

populations for beaver. Beaver populations are likely to remain stable or increase on the Forest in 

the future because hardwood ecosystems are expected to remain stable or increase, and riparian 

and aquatic ecosystem conditions are expected to remain stable. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would reopen a closed road near beaver colonies along Lytle Creek (Bear Lodge 

Mountains). More routes would be added than dropped, which could provide more impacts than 

Alternative A. Motorized game retrieval (elk) and dispersed camping would be allowed along 

some roads near beaver streams. Users would not be allowed to cross the nearby stream to 

access game or campsites, which would avoid impacts. Alternative B closes the Forest to 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel, which would be a benefit to most beaver streams. 

Most user-created routes near beaver streams would no longer be used. Alternative B would 

have a positive net effect on beavers. 

Alternative C 

Effects of Alternative C would be the same as Alternative B, since the same routes near beaver 

colonies would be added, and unrestricted motorized cross-country travel would not be allowed. 

Motorized game retrieval is allowed in some areas of the Forest for deer and elk. Users would 

not be allowed to cross the nearby stream to access game or campsites, which would avoid 

impacts. Dispersed camping would be allowed along some routes near beaver streams. This 

could affect beavers if users cross beaver streams to access campsites. Still, the net effect of 

Alternative C would be positive due to the closure of most of the Forest to unrestricted 

motorized cross-country travel. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would have the least impact to beavers because it does not add new routes near 

beaver colonies, does not allow motorized game retrieval or dispersed camping off established 

routes, and closes the Forest to all motorized cross-country travel. Some existing routes near 

beaver colonies would remain open, so there would still be some level of effects. The net effect 

would be a positive one due to the closure of motorized cross-country travel, game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E would keep the existing road system similar to Alternative A, but would close the 

Forest to all motorized cross-country travel and would not allow motorized game retrieval or 

dispersed camping off established routes. There would still be some effects from existing roads, 

but the net effect would be positive due to the reduction in motorized cross-country travel, game 

retrieval and dispersed camping. 

190 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

White-tailed Deer 

Different structural stages in ponderosa pine offer different levels of habitat requirements for 

deer. Open forest conditions (structural stages 1, 2, 3A, and 4A) offer the best forage, including 

the best potential for understory shrubs. Structural stages 3C, 4C, and 5 offer the best conditions 

for cover including thermal cover. Structural stages 3B and 4B intermediate forage and cover but 

not optimum conditions for both. 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to occur. Most collisions are likely to occur on paved 

highways and on existing gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. Collisions are not likely 

to affect Forestwide populations. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in deer 

habitat. This could reduce the Forest’s ability contribute to conservation of deer habitat (Forest 

Plan Objective 238). 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. White-tailed deer are found in most habitat types 

on the Forest. The effects of disturbance from routes, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those displayed previously in the general effects to wildlife. 

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation) directs the 

Department of Agriculture “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities 

and the management of game species and their habitat.” Alternative A would have the most area 

open to motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping. Access for hunting would remain 

unchanged in this alternative. 

The Forest Plan contains wintertime road density objectives in MAs 5.4 and 5.43 (Objective 5.4-

207 and 5.43-205). These objectives strive for a wintertime open road density of one mile per 

square mile or less in these management areas. The Forest is currently above the objective in 

Management Area 5.4 and is currently meeting this objective in Management Area 5.43. 

Alternative A does not move the Forest towards meeting this objective in Management Area 5.4. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to occur in all action alternatives. Most collisions are 

likely to occur on paved highways and on existing gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. 

Collisions of new routes are expected to be minimal because most are trails with slower traffic. 

Collisions are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in the action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. White-tailed deer are found in most habitat types 

on the Forest. The effects of disturbance from routes, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those displayed previously in the general effects to wildlife. 

191 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Motorized game retrieval can affect the State game agencies’ ability to manage deer herds. It 

can influence how hunters disperse across the hunting units and affect the game and fish 

agency’s ability to meet herd objectives. Alternative C may concentrate hunting in those small 

portions of hunting units open to game retrieval and reduce harvest in areas outside retrieval 

areas. Alternatives B, D, and E could limit State’s ability to manage herds the most since 

motorized retrieval of deer would not be allowed off designated routes. 

Motorized game retrieval may also affect hunter experience. Many hunters depend on their 

ATVs to retrieve downed deer. Hunters that depend on motorized game retrieval would 

experience a reduced opportunity to do so under Alternative C, and a greater reduction in 

opportunity in Alternatives B, D, and E. Alternatives B, D, and E would provide more 

opportunities for hunters who desire a more primitive type of game retrieval (horse or foot). 

None of the alternatives would violate Executive Order 13443 and limit access to hunting areas 

due to the abundance of existing roads on the Forest that would remain open. The action 

alternatives would shift off-road hunting opportunities from motorized to nonmotorized by 

closing areas currently open to unrestricted cross-country travel. Alternative D would shift deer 

opportunities the most from 

roaded hunting opportunities 

to more traditional 

nonmotorized hunting 

opportunities. 

Winter Open Route Density (miles/sq. mile) in 

Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43 by Alternative

0

0.5

1

1.5

Miles/sq. miles

5.4 1.22 1.35 1.38 1.09 1.22

5.43 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.99

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Figure 26. Comparison of winter open route density (miles/sq 

mile) in management areas 5.4 and 5.43 by alternative 

All action alternatives 

contribute to conservation of 

white-tailed deer habitat 

(Forest Plan Objective 238) 

by closing areas to 

unrestricted cross-country 

travel. Alternative D would 

conserve habitat the most 

because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes 

and cross-country travel. 

The Forest Plan contains wintertime road density objectives in MAs 5.4 and 5.43 (Objective 5.4-

207 and 5.43-205). These objectives strive for a wintertime open road density of one mile per 

square mile or less in these management areas. The Forest is currently above the objective in 

Management Area 5.4 and is currently meeting this objective in Management Area 5.43. All 

action alternatives continue to meet the objective for Management Area 5.43. Alternatives B, C, 

and D reduce the density slightly from current conditions in Management Area 5.43. Alternative 

E does not move the Forest towards meeting this objective in Management Area 5.4. 

Alternatives B and C move the Forest away from the objective for Management Area 5.4. 

Alternative D is the only alternative that moves the Forest towards the objective for Management 

Area 5.4. This is based on miles of Forest jurisdiction routes on National Forest System land. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

white-tailed deer habitat. Under all alternatives, there would be adequate habitat for white-tailed 

deer on the Forest. Open forest conditions in ponderosa pine are expected to remain stable across 

the Forest, which would maintain available forage, including understory shrubs. None of the 

192 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

alternatives are expected to effect the Forestwide population of white-tailed deer. There may be 

fewer disturbances under Alternatives B, C, D, and E due to reduced cross-country travel, but the 

population should continue to be stable in the foreseeable future. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Black-footed ferret 

All alternatives are expected to have no effect on black-footed ferrets. The only prairie dog town 

that is likely to have ferrets is the town next to Wind cave National Park in Norbeck Wildlife 

Preserve. The Preserve is currently closed to public motorized travel and would continue to be 

closed under all action alternatives. No new roads are proposed near Wind Cave National Park 

in any alternative. Alternatives B, C, and D close some roads near Wind Cave National Park, but 

not where ferrets are likely to occur. 

Sensitive Species 

Effects to Region 2 sensitive species are discussed in detail in a biological evaluation. The 

effects determinations for Region 2 sensitive wildlife and fish species are summarized below. 

The following R2 sensitive animal species have a determination of “no impact” for all 

alternatives 

 Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) 

 Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

The following R2 sensitive animal species have a determination of “may adversely impact 

individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing” for all alternatives: 

 Cooper’s mountain snail (Oreohelix strigosa cooperi) 

 Regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) 

 Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

 Black Hills redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata pahasapa) 

 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

 Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) 

 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

 Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) 

 Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

 Lewis' woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 

 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

 Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

 Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) 

 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) 

 Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

193 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) 

 American marten (Martes americana) 

 Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) 

 Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) 

Cooper’s Mountain Snail 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for this alternative. Undiscovered colonies could be 

impacted if routes and cross-country travel run through them. The miles of motorized routes on 

the Forest and in suitable habitat and the amount of habitat open to cross-country travel is used 

here to estimate effects to undiscovered colonies. The effects of motorized routes, motorized 

cross-country travel, motorized game retrieval, and motorized dispersed camping on snails are 

expected to be similar to the general discussion on riparian, hardwood and forested habitat under 

General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

The Forest Plan provides direction on managing snail colonies (Standard 3103). No new routes 

are proposed in known sensitive snail colonies. Game retrieval and dispersed camping could 

occur on known snail colonies. 

Road maintenance would likely affect snail colonies in this alternative. Road right-of ways are 

often brushed, including along State highways. This activity would likely continue for public 

safety reasons. The effects from these activities are not expected to change from current levels 

for this alternative. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in snail 

habitat and crush undiscovered snails. This could reduce the Forest’s ability contribute to 

conservation of snail habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for all action alternatives. None of the action 

alternatives propose new routes in known colonies. Undiscovered colonies could be impacted in 

all action alternatives. The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable habitat and 

the amount of habitat open to cross-country travel is used here to estimate effects to 

undiscovered colonies. The effects of motorized routes, motorized cross-country travel, 

motorized game retrieval, and motorized dispersed camping on snails are expected to be similar 

to the general discussion on riparian, hardwood and forested habitat under General Effects to 

Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

The Forest Plan provides direction on managing snail colonies (Standard 3103). No new routes 

are proposed in known sensitive snail colonies. All designed routes in the action alternatives are 

consistent with Standard 3103. Game retrieval and dispersed camping could occur on known 

snail colonies. If conflicts arise, Standard 3103 would be followed. Therefore, all action 

alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Downed woody material is an important habitat feature for snails. Downed wood removal is not 

authorized under any action alternative. Effects are expected to be minimal. 

194 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Road maintenance would likely affect snail colonies in all action alternatives. Road rights-of 

way are often brushed, including along State highways. This activity would likely continue for 

public safety reasons. The effects from these activities are not expected to change from current 

levels for all action alternatives. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of snail habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

The action alternatives are expected to have a net benefit to snails by closing areas to 

unrestricted cross-country travel. Alternative D would have the most net benefit because it has 

the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individuals may be 

directly impacted by vehicles running over them. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of 

the standards, guidelines or objectives that provide for snail habitat. Riparian areas would be 

maintained. The snail-specific direction (Standard 3103) for known snail colonies would be 

followed for all alternatives. 

Regal Fritillary 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions could occur in this alternative. The risk of direct mortality would 

be consistent with existing conditions. However, Alternative A is the only alternative that would 

allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This could lead to more user-created routes 

that could cause additional direct mortality and could further affect vegetation in fritillary 

habitat. This could reduce the Forest’s ability contribute to conservation of fritillary habitat 

(Forest Plan Objective 221). 

The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable habitat and the amount of habitat 

open to cross-country travel is used here to estimate effects to undiscovered occurrences. 

Impacts to fritillary habitat are expected to be similar to those displayed in the general discussion 

section for grassland habitat under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. The 

effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are also expected to be similar to 

those discussed in the General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Invasive weeds can affect butterflies through competition with larval host plants. Effects are 

expected to be similar to those displayed in the general discussion under General Effects to 

Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for all action alternatives. The miles of motorized 

routes on the Forest and in suitable habitat and the amount of habitat open to cross-country travel 

is used here to estimate effects to undiscovered colonies. Impacts to fritillary habitat are 

expected to be similar to those displayed in the general discussion section for grassland habitat 

195 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. The effects of motorized game 

retrieval and dispersed camping on regal fritillary habitat are also expected to be similar to those 

discussed in the General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Invasive weeds can also affect butterflies through competition with larval host plants. Effects 

are expected to be similar to those displayed in the general discussion under General Effects to 

Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of butterfly habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

The action alternatives are expected to have a net benefit to habitat by closing areas to crosscountry travel. Alternative D would have the most net benefit because it has the least amount of 

habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Based on the few observations ever recorded and 

the limited amount of suitable habitat, the Black Hills does not appear to have an established 

population of regal fritillaries. Periodic appearance and disappearance may be a naturally 

occurring pattern for the species in this region (USDA Forest Service 2000b), and therefore, 

management could occasionally have effects to a limited number of individuals. The Forest Plan 

Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project 

would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for regal fritillary 

habitat. 

Northern Leopard Frog 

Eggs, larval, and adult leopard frogs may be killed or injured by variety of activities such as onand off-road vehicle traffic associated with recreation or in the course of vegetation management 

treatments (timber harvest, prescribed burning, wildfire suppression, noxious weed treatment). 

Implementation of standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and State bestmanagement practices (BMPs) emphasize the protection of riparian and aquatic habitats. 

Indirect effects occur to this species in a variety of ways. Motorized vehicle activities may 

displace or compact soils and remove or disturb ground litter. Compaction by any activity can 

reduce infiltration capacity. Stream crossings can damage channel stability and increase 

sediment input. Water quality may be affected by chemical applications or contaminated surface 

water runoff. 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality is possible under this alternative. Implementation of standards and guidelines, 

watershed conservation practices, and State best-management practices (BMPs) emphasize the 

protection of riparian and aquatic habitats but would not completely avoid the direct effects to 

this species. Some individual eggs, larval and adult frogs could be crushed by vehicles crossing 

streams on routes or going cross-country. 

The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable habitat and the amount of habitat 

open to cross-country travel is used here to estimate effects to leopard frogs. Effects from 

motorized routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are expected to be 

similar to those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, especially 

those effects to riparian habitat. 

196 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could further affect vegetation in leopard frog habitat. This could reduce the Forest’s 

ability contribute to conservation of leopard frog habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality is possible under all action alternatives. Implementation of standards and 

guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and State best-management practices (BMPs) 

emphasize the protection of riparian and aquatic habitats but would not completely avoid the 

direct effects to this species. Some individual eggs, larval and adult frogs could be crushed by 

vehicles crossing streams on routes or going cross-country. 

Effects from motorized routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, especially those effects to riparian habitat. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of frog habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). All 

action alternatives are expected to have a net benefit to habitat by closing areas to cross-country 

travel. Alternative D is expected to have the most net benefit because it has the least amount of 

habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. This species is common in 

suitable habitat on the Forest. Individuals may be impacted be vehicles crossing wet habitat. 

Implementation of standards, guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and BMPs would 

maintain and protect aquatic, riparian and upslope areas in a condition and quantity that 

continues to support well-distributed, reproductive populations. The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not 

change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for leopard frog habitat. 

Black Hills Redbelly Snake 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from vehicles could occur in this alternative. Individuals at undiscovered 

hibernacula could be affected access by user-created routes and motorized cross-country travel. 

The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable habitat and the amount of habitat 

open to cross-country travel are used here to estimate effects to redbelly snakes. The effects of 

motorized routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are expected to be 

similar to those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, 

particularly riparian and hardwood habitats. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could further affect vegetation in redbelly snake habitat. This could reduce the 

Forest’s ability contribute to conservation of redbelly snake habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from vehicles could occur in all action alternatives. No new routes are proposed 

at known hibernacula (Standard 3116), but undiscovered ones could be affected. The miles of 

motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable habitat and the amount of habitat open to crosscountry travel are used here to estimate effects to redbelly snakes. The effects of motorized 

197 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, particularly riparian 

and hardwood habitats. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of redbelly snake habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

221). Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to contribute to the conservation of habitat by 

closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D is expected to conserve habitat the most 

because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest if 

Forest Plan standards are followed. This project would not change any of the standards, 

guidelines or objectives that provide for redbelly snake habitat. Black Hills redbelly snakes 

would likely continue to persist across the Forest under all alternatives. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individuals may be 

impacted by being run over by vehicles. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, 

guidelines, or objectives that provide for redbelly snake habitat. Implementation of Forestwide 

objectives, standards, and guidelines would conserve and enhance suitable Black Hills redbelly 

snake habitats and the habitats of important invertebrate prey species. Riparian and hardwood 

areas would be maintained, providing continued habitat for the species. 

American Three-Toed Woodpecker 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions may occur but is expected to be minimal. Due to the 

maneuverability of woodpeckers, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. All alternatives contribute to conservation of 

woodpecker habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221) by maintaining current conditions. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to motorized cross-country travel, game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

Effects of motorized routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, particularly spruce and snag habitat. Alternative A allows the most motorized 

cross-country travel. This would have the most potential for disturbance to three-toed 

woodpeckers. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of woodpeckers, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

198 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to motorized cross-country travel, game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

Effects of motorized routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, particularly spruce and snag habitat. 

All action alternatives would contribute to conservation of woodpecker habitat (Forest Plan 

Objective 221). Alternatives B, C, D and E are expected to contribute to the conservation of 

habitat by closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D is expected to conserve habitat the 

most because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Individuals may be disturbed or killed by 

vehicles, but it is not expected to threaten populations. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of 

the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for woodpecker habitat. All alternatives 

would likely allow the three-toed woodpecker to persist on the Forest. 

Bald Eagle 

Potential impacts from Forest activities could include disturbance at roost or nest sites, changes 

in prey availability, and impacts to forested habitats used for roosting, nesting, and perching. 

Alternative A 

Vehicle-killed wildlife is a major food source for wintering bald eagles on the Forest. Direct 

mortality from collisions is possible in this alternative, given that deer carcasses can occur along 

highly used routes. Collisions are more likely to occur along highways and major gravel roads 

that allow higher vehicle speeds. Lower speed routes such as those on most of the Forest are 

much less likely to result in collisions. Due to the maneuverability of bald eagles, collisions are 

possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

The effects of disturbance to wintering eagles is estimated by using the miles of routes 

Forestwide and the acreage of Forest open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are 

expected to be similar to general effects discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. This alternative has the most potential for disturbance from motorized travel 

because it has the most area open to motorized cross-country travel. This alternative contributes 

to conservation of eagle habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221) by maintaining habitat similar to 

current conditions. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

199 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Effects to the known nest at Deerfield Lake are expected to be minimal. To be consistent with 

Standard 3101, no new routes are proposed near the nest. 

The effects of disturbance to wintering eagles is estimated by using the miles of routes 

Forestwide and the acreage of Forest open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are 

expected to be similar to general effects discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of eagle habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D and E are expected to contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing 

areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D is expected to conserve habitat the most because it 

has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Motorized activity may disturb some individuals 

or flush them from carrion along motorized routes. There is also a slight chance that an eagle 

could be struck by a vehicle as it is flushed from carrion along a route. The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not 

change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that protect bald eagles or provide for 

eagle habitat. 

Black-Backed Woodpecker 

Information on effects of motorized use on black-backed woodpeckers is limited. As with many 

wildlife species, black-backs may be affected by roads through direct mortality, habitat alteration 

and disturbance. 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible. Due to the maneuverability of woodpeckers, 

collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. No new construction is planned as part 

of this alternative. Motorized cross-country travel would continue to be allowed under this 

alternative, which could lead to more user-created routes. This could affect snag habitat through 

increased potential for illegal cutting of snags and could affect the Forest’s ability conserve and 

maintain black-backed woodpecker habitat (Forest Plan Objectives 221 and 238). 

Habitat fragmentation is not expected to be limited under this alternative. Black-backs have 

adapted to take advantage of the sporadic occurrence of fire and insects. They are highly mobile 

and able to colonize habitat, especially burned areas. 

Black-backed woodpecker populations on the Forest are doing well due to the recent fire and 

insect activity over the last 8 years. Black-backed woodpecker populations would likely decline 

from current levels under this alternative because the above average amount of recent insect 

activity and stand-replacing fires would not be sustained. 

Ortega and Capen (2002) found that some forest birds had lower densities near unpaved roads. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Recently burned areas and ponderosa pine 

structural stages 4C and 5 offer the best habitat for black-backs. Alternative A would continue to 

200 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in much of this habitat. Disturbance would 

continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts 

would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes are 

expected to continue to be created and would impact black-backs. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative A would continue to 

allow 348 miles of motorized routes in burned habitat and 332 miles in pine structural stages 4C 

and 5. Disturbance from these routes is expected to continue at the current level. Black-backs 

also use other pine structural stages. Effects in other pine structural stages are expected to be 

similar to those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components (ponderosa 

pine habitat). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible in all action alternatives. Due to the maneuverability 

of woodpeckers, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to 

affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is 

expected to be minimal. Little new 

construction is planned as part of 

this project. Most newly designated 

routes are 50 inches or less in width 

that existed previously but hadn’t 

been formally designated. Effects 

on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

Habitat fragmentation would not be 

limiting to black-backs. Blackbacked woodpecker populations are 

often irruptive as they follow 

outbreaks of wood-boring beetles 

after fires (Dixon and Saab 2000; 

USDA Forest Service 2000a). 

Black-backs have adapted to take advantage of the sporadic occurrence of fire. They are highly 

mobile and able to colonize habitat, especially burned areas. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Ponderosa Pine 

Structural Stage 4C and 5 by Alternative

332

383 401

285

332

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 27. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine 

structural stages 4C and 5 by alternative 

Impacts to snag habitat is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. None of the 

alternatives would authorize the cutting or removing of snags. Some illegal snag cutting may 

occur under all action alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to have less risk of 

illegal snag cutting than Alternative A due to less area being open to cross-country travel. 

Black-backed woodpecker populations on the Forest are doing well due to the recent fire and 

insect activity over the last 8 years. Black-backed woodpecker populations would likely decline 

from current levels under all action alternatives because the above average amount of insect 

activity and stand-replacing fires would not be sustained. 

None of the action alternatives would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This is 

expected to have a positive effect on black-backs by reducing disturbance impacts. 

201 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in primary habitat, followed by Alternatives B, E, and D, respectively. Still, the action 

alternatives would have a net positive effect on black-backed woodpeckers due to the amount of 

habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Black-backs also use other pine structural stages. Effects are expected to be similar to those 

discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components (ponderosa pine habitat). 

None of the action alternatives are expected to cause a reduction of black-backed woodpeckers 

on the Forest. Populations would be more dependent on availability of recently burned forest 

and insect epidemics. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation and maintenance of black-backed woodpecker 

habitat (Forest Plan Objectives 221, 238). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the 

conservation of habitat by closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve 

habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined this species 

is likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any 

of the standards, guidelines, or 

objectives that provide for blackbacked habitat. Under all 

alternatives, black-backed 

woodpeckers are likely to persist on 

the Forest. Populations may return 

to levels found by (Mohren 2002) 

prior to the recent spike in acres 

burned by fire or killed by insects. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely 

impact individuals, but are not 

likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Individuals 

would be affected by disturbance under all alternatives. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of 

the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for woodpecker habitat. All alternatives 

would likely allow the black-backed woodpecker to persist on the Forest. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Burned Habitat by 

Alternative

348 366 367

295

348

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles

Figure 28. Miles of motorized routes in burned habitat by 

alternative 

Burrowing Owl 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of these 

owls, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Due to the strong association of nesting burrowing owls with prairie dog towns, management 

actions and direction affecting black-tailed prairie dogs are likely to affect the suitability of 

burrowing owl habitat on the Forest. This alternative proposes no new routes. Existing routes 

would continue to provide access to and through prairie dog towns. This alternative would 

202 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

continue to allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel on prairie dog towns, which could 

lead to additional user-created routes in prairie dog towns. Any additional user-created routes 

may lead to a reduction in habitat for burrowing owls. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are expected to be 

similar to those shown for grassland habitat under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. See also, the prairie dog discussion. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of these owls, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. No new routes are proposed near currently 

known burrowing owl nests consistent with Forest Plan Standard 3204. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are expected to be 

similar to those shown for grassland habitat under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. See also, the prairie dog discussion. 

All alternatives contribute to conservation of burrowing owl habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. None of the alternatives propose new 

routes near nest locations, consistent with Standard 3204. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individuals may be 

affected by vehicle collisions and disturbance. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined 

this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, 

guidelines or objectives that provide for prairie dog and burrowing owl habitat. 

Ferruginous Hawk 

Alternative A 

Ferruginous hawks are not known to nest on the Forest; therefore, motorized recreation activities 

are unlikely to directly affect this species in all alternatives. Generally, ferruginous hawks may 

be affected by habitat loss due to conversion of grassland to agriculture and the availability of 

prey populations, including prairie dogs. Impacts to potential habitat are expected to be reflected 

in the impacts to grassland and prairie dog towns. For a discussion of general effects to 

grassland habitat, see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. A discussion of 

effects on prairie dogs is presented later in this section. Activities in these areas are unlikely to 

affect ferruginous hawks due to their low occurrence on the Forest. This alternative is unlikely 

to affect adjacent prairies outside the Forest boundary. 

203 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Effects are expected to be similar to Alternative A. Impacts to potential habitat are expected to 

be reflected in the impacts to grassland and prairie dog towns. For a discussion of general 

effects to grassland habitat, see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. A 

discussion of effects on prairie dogs is presented later in this section. Activities in these areas are 

unlikely to affect ferruginous hawks due to their low occurrence on the Forest. This alternative 

is unlikely to affect adjacent prairies outside the Forest boundary. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of ferruginous hawk potential habitat (Forest 

Plan Objective 221). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of 

potential habitat by closing areas to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. Alternative D 

would conserve potential habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with routes 

and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives would have no impact. Ferruginous hawks have not been documented on the 

Forest, but might occur here during migration. Potential habitat is naturally limited in the Black 

Hills, but would continue to exist at current levels. Reducing cross-country travel in grasslands 

and prairie dog towns is not expected to improve habitat enough to affect ferruginous hawk 

populations. 

Flammulated Owl 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of these 

owls, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

This alternative would continue current snag management. Some snags could be illegally cut for 

firewood. The amount of area open to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in this 

alternative could lead to additional user-created routes, which could lead to a higher potential for 

illegal snag cutting. If illegal snag cutting increases, potential habitat would decrease. 

The effects of disturbance are expected to be minimal due to the owl’s limited occurrence on the 

Forest. Effects of motorized routes, cross-country travel, game retrieval, and dispersed camping 

on potential habitat (spruce, ponderosa pine and snags) are discussed under General Effects to 

Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of these owls, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

Impacts to snag habitat is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. None of the 

alternatives would authorize the cutting or removing of snags. The action alternatives may have 

204 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

less potential for illegal snag removal than Alternative A because they have less area open to 

motorized cross-country travel. 

The effects of disturbance are expected to be minimal for all action alternatives due to the owl’s 

limited occurrence on the Forest. Effects of motorized routes, cross-country travel, game 

retrieval, and dispersed camping on potential habitat (spruce, ponderosa pine and snags) are 

discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of potential flammulated owl habitat (Forest 

Plan Objective 221). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of 

potential habitat by closing areas to unrestricted cross-country travel. Alternative D would 

conserve potential habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and 

cross-country travel. 

The effects described could occur under all action alternatives. However, there would likely be 

little impact on the number, reproduction, or survival of flammulated owls. This is because a 

large amount of currently unoccupied but suitable habitat would still be available for owl 

colonization. Furthermore, the low reproductive output of flammulated owls would necessitate 

many years of breeding before the habitat became fully occupied. Therefore, no alternative 

would likely stifle the establishment of a flammulated owl population in the Black Hills. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The flammulated owl 

occurs in the Black Hills region at the eastern end of its breeding distribution, and few 

occurrences of this species have been documented on the Forest. At present, there is no 

information suggesting that flammulated owls are established or breeding in the area. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

flammulated owl habitat. Due to the low occurrence of this species on the Forest in relation to 

the amount of potentially suitable habitat, no alternative is likely to affect the colonization by or 

establishment of flammulated owls on the Forest. 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

As with many wildlife species, grasshopper sparrows may be affected by roads through direct 

mortality, habitat alteration, and disturbance. Motorized use can also increase the risk of 

invasive plants that can indirectly affect habitat. 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible. Due to the maneuverability of this species, collisions 

are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide 

populations. 

This alternative would not construct any new routes. Alternative A allows unrestricted motorized 

cross-country travel on much of the grassland habitat, which could lead to additional usercreated routes in the future. User-created routes could reduce habitat availability and affect the 

Forest’s ability to conserve habitat (Forest Plan Objectives 221, 238) in the future. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects to grasshopper sparrows are expected to 

205 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

be similar to those shown for grassland habitat under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

Grasshopper sparrow population would be expected to remain stable on the Forest under this 

alternative. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. 

Effects on habitat condition and trend are expected to be minimal. Grassland habitat is 

distributed as patches at low abundance, and there are gaps where grassland habitat is absent or 

only present in low abundance, especially in the northern and central Black Hills. However, 

grassland habitat in the southern Black Hills would typically be large enough and close enough 

to permit dispersal and interaction among subpopulations. These conditions would continue to 

exist for all action alternatives. Grasshopper sparrow habitat is likely to remain stable or increase 

in the future for all action alternatives. If standards and guidelines are followed, existing 

grasslands would likely be adequately conserved until grassland restoration objectives are 

achieved. 

Since little change is expected in the amount of habitat, future distribution would likely be 

similar to current conditions, with expansion around existing grasslands. Distribution of 

grasshopper sparrows would likely follow the same pattern as habitat described above. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects to grasshopper sparrows are expected to 

be similar to those shown for grassland habitat under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation and maintenance of grasshopper sparrow 

habitat (Forest Plan Objectives 221, 238). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the 

conservation of habitat by closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve 

habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Forestwide population trends are expected to remain stable under all action alternatives. The 

action alternatives have the greatest potential for population increases, but populations could be 

limited by other factors such as climate or predation. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

grasshopper sparrow habitat. Under all alternatives, there would be adequate habitat for 

maintaining populations of grasshopper sparrows. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Some individuals may be 

206 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

affected under all alternatives through direct mortality or disturbance. However, all alternatives 

may maintain or improve habitat by maintaining or reducing areas open to cross-country travel. 

These measures may benefit individual grasshopper sparrows. The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not 

change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for grasshopper sparrow 

habitat. Regional downward trends may persist due to continued grassland habitat loss and 

degradation off the Forest. 

Lewis's Woodpecker 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible. Due to the maneuverability of this species, collisions 

are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide 

populations. 

Structural stage 4A and 5 most closely resemble the preferred nesting, foraging, and roosting 

habitat for the Lewis’s woodpecker. Structural stage 4A contains mature stands with less than 40 

percent canopy cover. Structural stage 5 stands were subjectively determined to contain latesuccessional characteristics and could have any amount of canopy cover. Therefore, some but 

not all acres in structural stage 5 could provide suitable habitat for the Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Continued motorized cross-country travel could lead to more user-created routes on the Forest, 

but these routes would likely effect ground vegetation and have little effect on forest overstory. 

These routes could lead to more potential illegal snag removal, which would reduce habitat for 

Lewis’s woodpeckers. This alternative is expected to conserve Lewis’s woodpecker habitat, but 

to a lesser degree than the action alternatives. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Burned areas and ponderosa pine structural 

stages 4A and 5 offer the best habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers. Alternative A would continue to 

allow motorized cross-country travel in much of this habitat. Disturbance would continue to 

occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts would 

continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes are expected 

to continue to be created and would 

impact Lewis’ woodpeckers. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Ponderosa Pine 

Structural Stages 4A and 5 by Alternative

975 1,020

1,110

821

975

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

miles

Figure 29. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine 

structural stages 4A and 5 by alternative 

Motorized use of roads and trails 

can also disturb wildlife. 

Alternative A would continue to 

allow motorized travel on 348 

miles of routes in burned habitat 

and 975 miles of routes in pine 

Structural Stages 4C and 5. 

Motorized activity on these routes 

could disturb Lewis’s woodpeckers 

nesting near the routes. 

Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives

Direct mortality from collisions is 

expected to be minimal in all action 

207 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

alternatives. Due to the maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If 

collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

Snags are a very important component of Lewis’s woodpecker habitat. Impacts to snag habitat is 

expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. None of the action alternatives would 

authorize the cutting or removing of snags. The reduction in motorized cross-country travel 

would likely reduce the potential for illegal removal of snags. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Burned areas (see Figure 28) and ponderosa pine 

structural stages 4A and 5 offer the best habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers. None of the action 

alternative would allow motorized cross-country travel. This is expected to have a positive 

effect on Lewis’ woodpeckers by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in primary habitat, followed by Alternatives B, E, and D, respectively. Still, the action 

alternatives are expected to have a net positive effect on Lewis’ woodpeckers due to the amount 

of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. Effects of motorized game retrieval and 

dispersed camping are expected to be similar to those shown under General Effects to Wildlife 

and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of woodpecker habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

221). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing 

areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the 

least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Some individuals may be impacted through 

collisions or disturbance from vehicles. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, 

guidelines, or objectives that provide for woodpecker habitat. All alternatives would provide 

habitat in mature, open-canopied condition. 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Alternative A would continue to allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in grassland 

and shrubland habitat. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized crosscountry travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation 

use levels increase. User-created routes are expected to continue and would impact Lewis’ 

woodpeckers and their habitat. Effects are expected to be similar to those shown for shrubland 

208 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

and grassland habitats under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. Effects of 

motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are also expected to be similar to those shown 

in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects are expected to be similar to those shown 

for shrubland and grassland habitats under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are also expected to be similar to 

those shown in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of shrike habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. All alternatives may affect individuals through 

vehicle collisions or disturbance. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species 

is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, 

or objectives that provide for shrike habitat. All alternatives would maintain or improve grass 

and shrub communities, which would generally be beneficial to shrikes. 

Long Billed Curlew 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Alternative A would continue to allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in grassland 

habitat. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is 

allowed. Disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels 

increase. User-created routes are expected to continue and would impact long-billed curlews and 

their habitat. Effects are expected to be similar to those shown for grassland habitats under 

General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

209 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects are expected to be similar to those shown 

for grassland habitat under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of curlew habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Individuals may be affected by vehicle collisions 

or disturbance in all alternatives. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, 

or objectives that provide for curlew habitat. Alternative A would maintain grassland habitat and 

the other alternatives may improve grassland habitat by closing cross-country travel. Therefore, 

curlews are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Mountain Plover 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

None of the alternatives is expected to impact mountain plovers because none has been recorded 

on the Forest. Impacts to potential habitat are expected to be reflected in the impacts to 

grassland and prairie dog towns. For a discussion of effects to grassland habitat, see General 

Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. Effects on prairie dogs are discussed later in this 

document. Activities in these areas are unlikely to affect mountain plovers due to their lack of 

occurrence on the Forest. The project is unlikely to affect adjacent prairies outside the Forest 

boundary. 

All alternatives contribute to conservation of potential plover habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

221). Alternative A would maintain current conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would 

contribute more to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to unrestricted cross-country 

travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat 

with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives would have no impact. There is very little suitable mountain plover habitat on or 

near the Forest, and mountain plovers have not been documented in the vicinity. Although 

grassland habitats in general would be maintained across the Forest, the proportion of grasslands 

that provide suitable plover habitat (e.g., short, disturbed grasslands) would remain essentially 

unchanged for all alternatives. 

210 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Northern Goshawk 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

Effects on habitat condition and trend are expected to be minimal and consistent with Standard 

3108. Alternative A proposes no new roads so there would be no new disturbances near 

goshawk nests (Standard 3111). Alternative A would continue to allow unrestricted motorized 

cross-country travel on much of the Forest, which would continue current disturbance near 

goshawk nests. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Goshawks forage in most habitat types on the 

Forest on a variety of prey. Disturbance to foraging goshawks are expected to be similar to those 

shown for general habitat effects under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Moderately dense mature forest habitat (structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5) constitutes the best 

nesting habitat. Disturbance can be expected to continue to occur in areas where motorized 

cross-country travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts are expected to continue to accrue as 

motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes are expected to continue to be 

created and would impact goshawks. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative A would continue to 

allow motorized use on 930 miles of routes in nesting habitat (structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5). 

Effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are also expected to be similar to 

those discussed in the general wildlife section (General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components). 

Alternative A would continue to conserve goshawk habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221) but may 

be more challenging than the action alternatives if additional user-created routes are created in 

areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal and consistent with Standard 3108. Impacts to snag habitat is expected 

to be minimal and consistent with the Forest Plan for all action alternatives. None of the action 

alternatives would authorize the cutting or removing of snags. 

All action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan goshawk standards. No trees are proposed 

for removal in goshawk habitat so all action alternatives are consistent with Standard 3108. 

Alternative E proposes no new roads so there would be no new disturbances near goshawk nests 

(Standard 3111). In Alternatives B, C, and D, newly designated routes within 0.5 mile of active 

211 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

goshawk nests are minimized 

and/or would be closed 

seasonally from April 1 through 

August 15 to minimize 

disturbances at nests (Standard 

3111). 

The effects of disturbance is 

estimated by using the miles of 

routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to crosscountry travel. Goshawks forage 

in most habitat types on the 

Forest on a variety of prey. 

Disturbance to foraging 

goshawks are expected to be 

similar to those shown for general habitat effects under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

Miles of routes in Ponderosa Pine Structural 

Stage 4B, 4C and 5 by Alternative

930

1097 1150

813

930

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

miles

Figure 30. Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine 

structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 by alternative 

Moderately dense mature forest habitat (structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5) constitutes the best 

nesting habitat. None of the action alternative would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This is expected to have a positive effect on goshawks by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in nesting habitat, followed by Alternatives B, E, and D, respectively. Still, the action 

alternatives are expected to have a net positive effect on goshawks due to the amount of habitat 

closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to those 

discussed in the general wildlife section (General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components). 

All action alternatives would contribute to conservation of goshawk habitat (Forest Plan 

Objective 221). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by 

closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it 

has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individuals would be 

affected under all alternatives as discussed above. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of 

the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for goshawk habitat. Individual goshawks 

may be disturbed by motor vehicles but not to the level of affecting populations. 

Northern Harrier 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

None of the alternatives is expected to impact harriers due to their limited occurrence on the 

Forest. Impacts to potential habitat are expected to be reflected in the impacts to grassland and 

shrublands. For a discussion of general effects to grassland and shrubland habitat, see General 

Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. Activities in these areas are unlikely to affect 

212 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

harriers due to their low occurrence on the Forest. The project is unlikely to affect adjacent 

prairies outside the Forest boundary. 

All alternatives contribute to conservation of potential harrier habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

221). Alternative A would maintain current conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would 

contribute more to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to cross-country travel. 

Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with 

routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives would have no impact. No actions would be taken under any alternative that 

would appreciably affect the survival or reproduction of the northern harrier. To date, northern 

harriers have never been known to breed or winter on the Forest. Sufficient quality and quantity 

of habitat would be available for migrating or transient harriers under all alternatives. 

Peregrine Falcon 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The peregrine falcon does not currently breed in the Black Hills and is considered uncommon 

even during migration. Because of this, all alternatives would have no effects. Potential nest 

sites would be difficult to access with motorized vehicles due to the stability and inaccessibility 

of rock cliffs. Potential foraging habitat could be disturbed by motorized travel, but considering 

the current preponderance of unutilized habitat, it is unlikely such activities would affect future 

use by peregrines. In summary, none of the alternatives would affect foraging habitat to the 

extent that it would affect suitability to peregrines. 

All alternatives contribute to conservation of potential peregrine habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

221). Alternative A would maintain current conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would 

contribute more to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to cross-country travel. 

Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with 

routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives would have no impact. Peregrine falcons currently do not occur in the Black 

Hills, and few breeding birds were historically supported here. Nesting habitat is very limited 

but stable. Designated routes would not affect the amount of nesting habitat. Foraging habitat is 

widely available and does not appear to be the limiting factor. 

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 

Alternative A 

Very little low-elevation riparian woodlands occur on the Forest; therefore, most motorized use 

would have little or no effect on the yellow-billed cuckoo. However, activities within or near 

low-elevation riparian areas could have effects. 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

If new user-created routs are created in riparian areas open to motorized cross-country travel, 

habitat could be adversely affected. Alternative A would continue to conserve riparian habitat 

213 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

(Forest Plan Objective 221) but may be more challenging than the action alternatives if 

additional user-created routes are created in riparian areas open to motorized cross-country 

travel. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects on yellow-billed cuckoos would be 

similar to effects on riparian habitat. For disturbance effects in riparian habitat, see the general 

discussion of riparian habitat in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects on yellow-billed cuckoos would be 

similar to effects on riparian habitat. For disturbance effects in riparian habitat, see the general 

discussion of riparian habitat in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of cuckoo habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. A small amount of low-elevation riparian areas 

occurs on the Forest and could provide habitat for yellow-billed cuckoos. All alternatives 

provide measures to conserve or enhance riparian areas; however, Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

generally reduce cross-country travel that could benefit the cuckoo. Alternative D would likely 

be more beneficial than the other alternatives due to the smallest motorized system and reduced 

cross-country travel. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to 

persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or 

objectives that provide for cuckoo habitat. 

American Marten 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible. Most collisions are likely to occur on paved 

highways and on existing gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. There has been at least 

one report of a marten killed along a primitive road on the Forest. If collisions do occur, they are 

not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. No new construction is planned as part 

of this alternative. Effects on downed woody material are expected to be minimal. This 

alternative does not authorize the removal of downed logs. 

214 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Disturbance in spruce habitat is expected to be 

similar to effects shown for spruce habitat in the general effects section (see General Effects to 

Wildlife and Habitat Components). 

Fecske et al. (2003) identified high value marten habitat in the Black Hills. Alternative A would 

continue to allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel in much of the high value marten 

habitat. Disturbance can be expected to continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country 

travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts are expected to continue to accrue as motorized 

recreation use levels increase. User-created routes are expected to continue to be created and 

would impact marten. 

Alternative A would continue to allow motorized travel on 386 miles of routes in high value 

marten habitat. Some disturbance to marten would likely occur from these routes. Effects of 

motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to forestwide effects 

shown in the general discussion in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Alternative A would continue to contribute to the conservation of marten habitat (Forest Plan 

Objective 221), it could be more challenging if motorized cross-country travel leads to more 

user-created routes in marten habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible in all action alternatives. Most collisions are likely to 

occur on paved highways and on existing gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. 

Collisions on new routes are expected to be minimal because most are trails with slower traffic. 

There has been at least one report of a marten killed along a primitive road on the Forest. If 

collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. Effects on downed woody material are expected to be minimal. None of 

the action alternatives authorizes 

the removal of downed logs. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in High Value Marten 

Habitat by Alternative

386 404 399

334

386

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

miles

Figure 31. Miles of motorized routes in high-value marten 

habitat by alternative 

The effects of disturbance is 

estimated by using the miles of 

routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to crosscountry travel. Disturbance in 

spruce habitat is expected to be 

similar to effects shown for 

spruce habitat in the general 

effects section (see General 

Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components). 

None of the action alternative 

would allow unrestricted 

motorized cross-country travel. 

This is expected to have a 

215 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

positive effect on marten by reducing disturbance impacts. Alternative B has the most motorized 

routes in high value marten habitat, followed by Alternatives C, E, and D, respectively. Still, the 

action alternatives are expected to have a net positive effect on marten due to the amount of 

habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

forestwide effects shown in the general discussion in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

Roads can cause habitat fragmentation for species that tend to use the interior parts of forest 

patches. More roads tend to reduce the patch size and increase the ratio of edge-to interior area. 

This reduces the amount of habitat available to species that prefer these interior forest 

conditions, such as marten (Reed et al. 1996). Forest Plan Standard 3215 directs us to maintain 

canopy closure in marten connectivity corridors to reduce fragmentation effects. All action 

alternatives are consistent with Standard 3215. There are no new routes proposed in Alternative 

E. Newly designated routes in Alternatives B, C, and D are primitive roads or trails that already 

exist on the ground. Designation of these routes would not reduce the canopy cover in the area. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of marten habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals but would not cause a trend to federal listing 

or a loss of species viability range wide. Direct mortality of individuals has occurred from 

vehicle collisions, and would likely occur in the future. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of 

the standards, guidelines or objectives that provide for marten habitat. Alternatives B, C, D, and 

E may reduce impacts to marten by reducing areas open to cross-country travel. 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions could occur in this alternative. Alternative A does not propose 

any new routes in prairie dog towns. Effects from collisions in this alternative are expected to be 

similar to existing conditions. Alternative A would continue to allow unrestricted motorized 

cross-country travel on most prairie dog towns. Motorized cross-country travel could lead to 

additional mortality. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Prairie dog towns are normally sparse 

in vegetation. Existing motorized game retrieval would continue in Alternative A. This is likely 

a minor effect since the occurrence of game retrieval on the 386 acres of prairie dog towns is 

likely low. Dispersed camping in prairie dog towns is expected to have a minor effect because 

the limited number prairie dog towns combined with their remoteness and sparse conditions do 

not normally promote frequent camping use. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions could occur in all action alternatives. Alternatives D and E do 

not propose any new routes in prairie dog towns. Effects from collisions in these alternatives are 

216 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

expected to be similar to existing conditions. Alternative B and C would add about 300 yards of 

user-created route in one prairie dog town. This is not likely to result in a substantial increase in 

road-related mortality. Collisions are not expected to limit prairie dog populations in all action 

alternatives. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would close areas to motorized cross-country travel, 

resulting in a decrease in potential vehicle-caused mortality. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. The 300 yards of new route designated 

in prairie dog towns in Alternative B and C already exist on the ground and would not result in 

new construction related habitat loss. Effects on habitat condition and trend are expected to be 

minimal. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. Effects from disturbance are expected to be 

similar to those discussed for direct mortality above. 

Existing motorized game retrieval would continue in Alternative B and C. This is likely a minor 

effect since the occurrence of game retrieval on the 386 acres of prairie dog towns is likely low. 

Dispersed camping in prairie dog towns is expected to have a minor effect in all action 

alternatives. The limited number prairie dog towns combined with their remoteness and sparse 

conditions do not normally promote frequent camping use. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of prairie dog habitat (Forest Plan Objective 

221). Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to contribute to the conservation of habitat by 

closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternatives D and E are expected to conserve habitat the 

most because they have the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. None of 

the action alternatives is expected to reduce the population below the (Forest Plan Objective 237) 

of 200 to 300 acres of prairie dog towns. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individuals could be 

affected by roads in prairie dog towns. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, 

guidelines, or objectives that provide for prairie dog habitat. 

Fringed Myotis 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species and their hours of activity (nighttime), collisions are possible, but 

unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. No new routes are proposed with this 

alternative. New user-created routes could be created in areas where motorized cross-country 

travel is allowed and this could have a small negative effect on habitat. 

The riparian ecosystem provides important foraging areas for this bat. For effects on riparian 

habitat, see the general riparian discussion in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

217 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The effects of disturbance in all alternatives are related to the ease of access provided to caves 

and mines used as roosts and hibernacula. Disturbance is expected to be similar to effects shown 

for wildlife in general discussed in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Alternatives with the most area open to cross-country travel (Alternative A) would have the most 

potential for disturbance. 

The cave ecosystem in general would be managed according to Objectives 109, 110, 112, and 

113, and Standard 1401, as well as the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. Ground 

disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave openings (Standard 1401). 

Standard 3102 provides direction to protect caves and their microclimate when designing 

management activities where caves are important bat nursery or hibernacula sites. 

Standard 3207 provides direction to avoid vegetative changes within 500 feet of caves and mines 

that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula. Vegetative changes are expected to be minimal. No 

new construction is planned as part of this alternative. This alternative is consistent with 

Standard 3207. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species and their hours of activity (nighttime), collisions are possible, but 

unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. Impacts to snag habitat is expected to be minimal for all action 

alternatives. None of the action alternatives would authorize the cutting or removing of snags. 

The effects of disturbance in all action alternatives are related to the ease of access provided to 

caves and mines used as roosts and hibernacula. Disturbance is expected to be similar to effects 

shown for wildlife in general discussed in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Alternatives with the most area open to cross-country travel would have the most potential for 

disturbance. Alternative D is expected to have the least disturbance. 

For all action alternatives, the cave ecosystem in general would be managed according to 

Objectives 109, 110, 112, and 113, and Standard 1401, as well as the Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988. Ground disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave 

openings for all action alternatives (Standard 1401). Standard 3102 provides direction to protect 

caves and their microclimate when designing management activities where caves are important 

bat nursery or hibernacula sites. 

Standard 3207 provides direction to avoid vegetative changes within 500 feet of caves and mines 

that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula. Vegetative changes are expected to be minimal for all 

alternatives. Little new construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated 

routes are less than 50 inches in width and currently exist on the ground. All action alternatives 

are consistent with Standard 3207. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of bat habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

218 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individuals may be 

struck or disturbed by vehicles, though the potential is low. The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not 

change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for bat habitat. Fringed bats 

are likely to persist on the Forest because caves and mines would be managed to avoid 

disturbance and maintain conditions and riparian areas would be maintained or enhanced in all 

alternatives. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible. Most collisions are likely to occur on paved 

highways and on existing gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. Collisions of new routes 

are expected to be minimal because most are trails with slower traffic. If new user-created routes 

are established in bighorn sheep use areas, it could impact vegetation and sheep habitat. 

The effects of disturbance are estimated by using the miles of routes in bighorn sheep use areas 

and the acreage of use areas open to cross-country travel. Alternative A would continue to allow 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel on 337 miles of routes in bighorn sheep use areas. 

Disturbance would be expected to continue occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel 

is allowed. Disturbance impacts would be expected to continue to accrue as motorized 

recreation use levels increase. User created routes would be expected to continue to be created 

and would impact bighorn sheep. 

Effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to those 

shown for wildlife in general in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is possible in all action alternatives. Most collisions are likely to 

occur on paved highways and on existing gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. 

Collisions of new routes are expected to be minimal because most are trails with slower traffic. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is 

expected to be minimal. Little 

new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly 

designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been 

formally designated. Effects on 

habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

Miles of Motorized Routes within Bighorn Sheep 

Use Areas by Alternative

337

374

465

272

337

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

miles

Figure 32. Miles of motorized routes within bighorn sheep 

use areas by alternative 

The effects of disturbance are 

estimated by using the miles of 

routes in bighorn sheep use areas 

and the acreage of use areas open 

to cross-country travel. None of 

219 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

the action alternative would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This is expected 

to have a positive effect on bighorn sheep by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative C has the most motorized 

routes in bighorn sheep use areas, followed by Alternatives B, E, and D, respectively. Still, the 

action alternatives are expected to have a net positive effect on bighorn sheep due to the amount 

of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to those 

shown for wildlife in general in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of sheep habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. Under all alternatives, there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining bighorn sheep populations. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Individual sheep could be affected through 

vehicle collisions or disturbance. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species 

is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines 

or objectives that provide for bighorn sheep habitat. 

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species and their hours of activity (nighttime), collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions 

do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. No new routes are proposed with this 

alternative. New user-created routes could be created in areas where unrestricted motorized 

cross-country travel is allowed and this could have a small negative effect on habitat. 

The riparian ecosystem provides important foraging areas for Townsend’s big-eared bat. For 

effects on riparian habitat, see the general riparian discussion in General Effects to Wildlife and 

Habitat Components. 

The effects of disturbance in all alternatives are related to the ease of access provided to caves 

and mines used as roosts and hibernacula. Disturbance is expected to be similar to effects shown 

for wildlife in general discussed in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Alternatives with the most area open to cross-country travel (Alternative A) would have the most 

potential for disturbance. 

The cave ecosystem in general would be managed according to Objectives 109, 110, 112, and 

113, and Standard 1401, as well as the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. Ground 

disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave openings (Standard 1401). 

Standard 3102 provides direction to protect caves and their microclimate when designing 

management activities where caves are important bat nursery or hibernacula sites. 

220 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Standard 3207 provides direction to avoid vegetative changes within 500 feet of caves and mines 

that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula. Vegetative changes are expected to be minimal. No 

new construction is planned as part of this alternative. This alternative is consistent with 

Standard 3207. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species and their hours of activity (nighttime), collisions are possible, but 

unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal. Little new construction is planned as 

part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or less in width that existed 

previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat condition and trend are 

expected to be minimal. 

The riparian ecosystem provides important foraging areas for Townsend’s big-eared bat. For 

effects on riparian habitat, see the general riparian discussion in General Effects to Wildlife and 

Habitat Components. 

The effects of disturbance in all action alternatives are related to the ease of access provided to 

caves and mines used as roosts and hibernacula. Disturbance is expected to be similar to effects 

shown for wildlife in general in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

Alternatives with the most area open to cross-country travel (Alternative A) would have the most 

potential for disturbance. Alternative D is expected to have the least disturbance. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

those shown for general wildlife habitat in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

For all action alternatives, the cave ecosystem in general would be managed according to 

Objectives 109, 110, 112, and 113, and Standard 1401, as well as the Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988. Ground disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave 

openings for all action alternatives (Standard 1401). Standard 3102 provide guidance to protect 

caves and their microclimate when designing management activities where caves are important 

bat nursery or hibernacula sites. 

Standard 3207 provide direction concerning avoiding vegetative changes within 500 feet of 

caves and mines that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula. Vegetative changes are expected to 

be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new construction is planned as part of this project. 

Most newly designated routes are less than 50 inches in width and currently exist on the ground. 

All action alternatives are consistent with Standard 3207. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of bat habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least 

amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

Determination and Rationale 

All alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are neither likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Individual bats could be 

affected by disturbance in all alternatives, though the potential is low. The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not 

221 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for bat habitat. Townsend’s 

big-eared bats are likely to persist on the Forest because caves and mines would be managed to 

avoid disturbance and maintain conditions and riparian areas would be maintained or enhanced 

in all alternatives. 

Species of Local Concern 

Effects to most species of local concern are similar to effects shown in General Effects to 

Wildlife and Habitat Components discussed earlier in this document. Table 36 shows where 

effects to that species are discussed. 

All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines pertaining to species of 

local concern. All alternatives contribute to the maintenance or improvement of habitat for 

species of local concern (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

American Dipper 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

The Forestwide Travel Analysis Report (September 2007) identified relative risk to dippers for 

routes across the Forest. The routes identified with a high relative risk for dippers are used to 

evaluate effects. 

Alternative A (existing condition) included some roads with a relative high risk for dippers. 

These roads would continue to be used and would continue to present a risk to dipper nesting 

and foraging. Alternative A also allows unrestricted cross-country travel on much of the Forest. 

Cross-country travel would allow continued access on many user-created routes near dipper 

streams, potentially providing additional impacts. The area open to motorized game retrieval 

and motorized dispersed camping would be the highest in Alternative A. These types of uses 

would affect dipper streams if they result in crossing streams to access game or campsites. 

Game retrieval would not affect nesting dippers because it occurs outside the nesting season, but 

could affect winter feeding activities. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they 

are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal for all action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The Forestwide Travel Analysis Report (September 2007) identified relative risk to dippers for 

routes across the Forest. The routes identified with a high relative risk for dippers are used to 

evaluate effects. 

222 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 36. Black Hills species of local concern and disposition of effects analysis 

Species Disposition 

American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) Evaluated below. 

Black-and-White Warbler (Mniotilta varia) Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, and Hardwood Habitat. 

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, and Ponderosa Pine Habitat.. 

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Riparian Habitat, Ponderosa Pine Habitat, 

and Hardwood Habitat. 

Northern Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius

acadicus) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Ponderosa Pine Habitat and Snag Habitat. 

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Ponderosa Pine Habitat, and Snag Habitat. 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Spruce Habitat and Ponderosa Pine 

Habitat. 

Bats (Myotis evotis, Myotis volans, Myotis 

septentrionalis, Myotis ciliolabrum) Evaluated below. 

Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius 

campestris) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Riparian Habitat. 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) Evaluated below. 

Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Ponderosa Pine Habitat, Snag Habitat and 

Spruce Habitat. 

Butterflies 

Atlantis Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapa); Tawny Crescent (Phycoides 

batesii) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Riparian Habitat, Hardwood Habitat and 

Grassland Habitat. 

Snails (Vertigo arthuri, Catinella gelida, 

Vertigo paradoxa, Discus shimekii) 

Effects reflected in General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components, Spruce Habitat, Ponderosa Pine Habitat, 

Hardwood Habitat, Riparian Habitat and Shrubland 

Habitat. 

Implementation of standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and State BMPs 

mitigate these impacts at the project level. These features mitigate impacts to nesting sites, 

foraging habitat and winter habitat by conserving soil, aquatic and riparian systems. The WCP 

Handbook contains proven watershed conservation practices to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian 

systems. They are incorporated verbatim into the Forest Plan as standards. The State BMPs carry 

the same weight as guidelines. Proper implementation of the WCP Handbook practices meets or 

exceeds State BMPs. 

All alternatives contribute to conservation of dipper habitat (Forest plan Objective 221). 

Alternative A would maintain conditions similar to current conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, and 

E would contribute more to the conservation of habitat by closing areas to cross-country travel. 

Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it has the least amount of habitat with 

routes and cross-country travel. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

The action alternatives would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that 

provide for dipper habitat. This species is likely to persist under all alternatives because aquatic 

habitat conditions are maintained or enhanced through specific MA protection in Spearfish 

223 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Canyon and the implementation of standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, 

and State BMPs. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would drop one route and add a couple of other routes (near Boulder Creek, Bear 

Butte Creek) with a relative high risk for dippers. More routes would be added than dropped, 

which could provide more impacts than Alternative A. Motorized game retrieval (elk) and 

dispersed camping would be allowed along some roads near dipper streams. Users would not be 

allowed to cross the nearby stream to access game or campsites, which would avoid impacts. 

Alternative B closes the Forest to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel, which would be a 

benefit to most dipper streams. Most user-created routes near dipper streams would no longer be 

used. Alternative B would have positive net effect on Dippers. 

Alternative C 

Effects of Alternative C would be the same as Alternative B, since the same routes with relative 

high dipper risk would be added and dropped, and unrestricted motorized cross-country travel 

would not be allowed. Motorized game retrieval is allowed in some areas of the Forest for deer 

and elk. Users would not be allowed to cross the nearby stream to access game or campsites, 

which would avoid impacts. Dispersed camping would be allowed along some routes near 

dipper streams. This could affect dippers if users cross dipper streams to access campsites. Still, 

the net effect of Alternative C would be positive due to the closure of most of the Forest to 

motorized cross-country travel. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would have the least impact to dippers because it closes the most roads with a 

relative high dipper risk, does not add new routes with a relative high dipper risk, does not allow 

motorized game retrieval or dispersed camping off established routes, and closes the Forest to 

motorized cross-country travel. Some existing routes with a relative high dipper risk would 

remain open, so there would still be some level of effects. The net effect would be a positive one 

due to the closure of motorized cross-country travel, game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E would keep the existing road system similar to Alternative A, but would close the 

Forest to motorized cross-country travel and would not allow motorized game retrieval or 

dispersed camping off established routes. There would still be some effects from existing roads, 

but the net effect would be positive due to the reduction in motorized cross-country travel, game 

retrieval and dispersed camping. 

Bats 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. Due to the maneuverability of this 

species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. Also, bats are mostly active at night when 

motorized traffic is minimal. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide 

populations. 

All of the bats that are species of local concern use caves as part of their habitat requirement. 

The cave ecosystem in general would be managed according to Objectives 109, 110, 112, and 

113, and Standard 1401, as well as the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. Ground 

224 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave openings for all alternatives 

(Standard 1401). Standard 3102 provide guidance to protect caves and their microclimate when 

designing management activities where caves are important bat nursery or hibernacula sites. 

Standard 3207 provide direction to avoid vegetative changes within 500 feet of caves and mines 

that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula. Vegetative changes are expected to be minimal for 

this alternative. No new routes are proposed in this alternative. This alternative is consistent 

with Standard 3207. 

The Forest ecosystem is also important for bats, particularly the occurrence of snags. Effects on 

snags are expected to be minimal (see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Snag 

Habitat). 

The riparian ecosystem provides important foraging and watering areas for bats. For a discussion 

of effects on riparian habitat, see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Riparian 

Habitat. Bats often forage in meadows and grassland areas. For a discussion of effects to 

grass/meadow habitat, see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Grassland 

Habitat. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. The effects of 

disturbance are related to the ease of access provided to caves and mines used as roosts and 

hibernacula. Disturbance is expected to be similar to effects shown for wildlife in general. 

Alternatives with the most area open to cross-country travel and the most motorized routes 

(Alternative A) would have the most potential for disturbance. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Due to the 

maneuverability of this species, collisions are possible, but unlikely. Also, bats are mostly active 

at night when motorized traffic is minimal. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect 

Forestwide populations. 

All of the bats that are species of local concern use caves as part of their habitat requirement. 

For all action alternatives, the cave ecosystem in general would be managed according to 

Objectives 109, 110, 112, and 113, and Standard 1401, as well as the Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988. Ground disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave 

openings for all action alternatives (Standard 1401). Standard 3102 provide guidance to protect 

caves and their microclimate when designing management activities where caves are important 

bat nursery or hibernacula sites. 

Standard 3207 provide direction to avoid vegetative changes within 500 feet of caves and mines 

that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula. Vegetative changes are expected to be minimal for all 

action alternatives. Little new construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly 

designated routes are less than 50 inches in width and currently exist on the ground. All action 

alternatives are consistent with Standard 3207. 

The Forest ecosystem is also important for bats, particularly the occurrence of snags. Effects on 

snags are expected to be minimal for all action alternatives (see General Effects to Wildlife and 

Habitat Components, Snag Habitat). 

225 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The riparian ecosystem provides important foraging and watering areas for bats. For a discussion 

of effects on riparian habitat, see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Riparian 

Habitat. Bats often forage in meadows and grassland areas. For a discussion of effects to 

grass/meadow habitat, see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Grassland 

Habitat. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be similar to 

those discussed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components. 

The effects of disturbance in all action alternatives are related to the ease of access provided to 

caves and mines used as roosts and hibernacula. Disturbance is expected to be similar to effects 

shown for wildlife in general. Alternatives with the most area open to cross-country travel and 

the most motorized routes would have the most potential for disturbance. None of the action 

alternatives would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. Alternative D is expected 

to have the least potential for disturbance. 

All action alternatives contribute to conservation of bat habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would contribute a net benefit to the conservation of habitat by 

closing areas to cross-country travel. Alternative D would conserve habitat the most because it 

has the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined these species are likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

these species’ habitat. These species are likely to persist on the Forest because all alternatives 

provide for roosting sites; the amount and availability of foraging areas is maintained; and 

potential cave hibernacula sites are protected. 

Mountain Goat 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal. The core habitat areas are within 

Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve where motorized travel is not allowed. 

Goats that wander outside these areas could be hit by vehicles. If collisions do occur, they are 

not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in 

mountain goat habitat. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to motorized cross-country travel. Alternative A would continue to allow 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel mountain goat use areas. Disturbance would continue 

occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is allowed. Disturbance impacts would 

continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User created routes would 

continue to be created and would impact mountain goats. Motorized use of roads and trails can 

also disturb wildlife. Alternative A has the most motorized routes in mountain goat use areas (51 

miles). 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to be minimal. 

Most of the goat’s main range is in areas where motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping 

would not be allowed (Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve). Outside these 

226 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

areas, most game retrieval activities would occur during the big game season when goats are 

already being disturbed by deer and elk hunters on foot or on open routes. 

Impacts to mountain goats are expected to be minimal for all alternatives due to their limited 

distribution and preference for high elevation rocky habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. The core 

habitat areas are within Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve where motorized 

travel is not allowed. Goats that wander outside these areas could be hit by vehicles. If collisions 

do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in the action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. None of the action alternative would allow 

unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. This would have a positive effect on mountain goats 

by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Motorized use of roads and trails can also disturb wildlife. Alternative E has the most motorized 

routes in mountain goat use areas, followed by Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively. The 

action alternatives would have a net positive effect on mountain goats due to the amount of 

habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping are expected to me minimal for 

all action alternatives. Most of the goat’s main range is in areas where motorized game retrieval 

and dispersed camping would not be allowed in any alternative (Black Elk Wilderness and 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve). Outside these areas, most game retrieval activities would occur 

during the big game season when goats are already being disturbed by deer and elk hunters on 

foot or on open routes. 

Impacts to mountain goats are 

expected to be minimal for all 

action alternatives due to their 

limited distribution and 

preference for high elevation 

rocky habitat. 

Miles of Motorized Routes in Mountain Goat 

Use Areas by Alternative

51

43 42

30

51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

miles

Figure 33. Miles of motorized routes in mountain goat use areas 

by alternative 

All action alternatives 

contribute to conservation of 

goat habitat (Forest plan 

Objective 221). Alternatives 

B, C, D, and E would 

contribute to the conservation 

of habitat by closing areas to 

cross-country travel. 

Alternative D would conserve 

habitat the most because it has 

227 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

the least amount of habitat with routes and cross-country travel. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines, or objectives that provide for 

mountain goat habitat. All action alternatives continue the current management of the Black Elk 

Wilderness and the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 

Demand Species 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected. Collisions are most likely to occur along existing 

highways and gravel roads that allow higher vehicle speeds. Collisions are less likely to occur 

on slower speed roads designated. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect vegetation in elk, 

mule deer, and turkey habitat. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. These species are found in most habitat types on 

the Forest. The effects of disturbance from routes, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those displayed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

Motorized game retrieval can affect the State game agencies’ ability to manage elk and deer 

herds. It can influence how hunters disperse across the hunting units and affect the game 

agency’s ability to meet herd objectives. Alternative A would have the most acreage open to 

motorized game retrieval which would offer the States the most flexibility in meeting herd 

objectives. 

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation) directs the 

Department of Agriculture “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities 

and the management of game species and their habitat.” Alternative A would result in little 

change to hunter access. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct mortality from collisions is expected to be minimal in all action alternatives. Collisions 

are most likely to occur along existing highways and gravel roads that allow higher vehicle 

speeds. Collisions are less likely to occur on slower speed roads designated as part of this 

project. If collisions do occur, they are not likely to affect Forestwide populations. 

Loss of habitat to road surface is expected to be minimal in the action alternatives. Little new 

construction is planned as part of this project. Most newly designated routes are 50 inches or 

less in width that existed previously but hadn’t been formally designated. Effects on habitat 

condition and trend are expected to be minimal. 

The effects of disturbance is estimated by using the miles of routes in suitable habitat and the 

acreage of habitat open to cross-country travel. These species are found in most habitat types on 

the Forest. The effects of disturbance from routes, game retrieval, and dispersed camping are 

expected to be similar to those displayed under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. 

228 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Motorized game retrieval can affect the State game agencies’ ability to manage elk and deer 

herds. It can influence how hunters disperse across the hunting units and affect the game 

agency’s ability to meet herd objectives. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C would have the 

most acreage open to motorized game retrieval, followed by Alternative B. Alternatives B and C 

may reduce the States’ ability to manage elk and deer herds. Alternative C may concentrate 

hunting in those small portions of hunting units open to motorized game retrieval and reduce 

harvest in areas outside retrieval areas. Alternative B could lead to a focus on “road hunting” in 

order to get an elk near a road. Alternatives D and E could limit State’s ability to manage herds 

the most since motorized retrieval of elk and deer would not be allowed off designated routes. 

Motorized game retrieval may also affect hunter experience. Many hunters depend on their 

ATVs to retrieve harvested elk and deer. Hunters that depend on motorized game retrieval would 

experience a reduced opportunity to do so under Alternatives B and C, and a greater reduction in 

opportunity in Alternatives D and E. Alternatives D and E would provide more opportunities for 

hunters who desire a more primitive type of game retrieval (horse or foot). 

None of the action alternatives would violate Executive Order 13443 and limit access to hunting 

areas due to the abundance of existing roads on the Forest that would remain open. The action 

alternatives would shift off-road hunting opportunities from motorized to nonmotorized by 

closing areas open to cross-country travel. Alternative D would shift elk and deer hunting 

opportunities the most from motorized hunting opportunities to more traditional nonmotorized 

hunting opportunities. 

Migratory Birds 

Golden eagles can occur throughout the Forest. Miles of motorized routes on the Forest and 

acres open to cross-country travel are used to estimate effects. Direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects are expected to be similar to those shown under General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat 

Components. Swainson’s Hawks, prairie falcons, upland sandpipers, and dickcissels typically 

occur in open grass dominated landscapes. Effects are expected to be similar to those displayed 

for grassland habitat (see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Grassland 

Habitat). Black-billed cuckoos typically found in hardwoods at lower elevations. Effects are 

expected to be similar to those displayed for hardwood habitat (see General Effects to Wildlife 

and Habitat Components, Hardwood Habitat). Red-naped sapsuckers are generally associated 

with aspen stands. Effects are expected to be similar to those for aspen and hardwood habitat 

(see General Effects to Wildlife and Habitat Components, Hardwood Habitat). 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management livestock grazing, recreational 

activities and other management activities have and would continue on the Forest. These 

activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The following specific types of activities 

are relevant to this analysis: 

 Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue on the Forest in the 

foreseeable future, consistent with Forest plan direction. Firewood cutting likely occurs and 

would likely continue on private lands in the Black Hills. 

 Private landowners may treat forests for lumber or to reduce fire hazards, which could alter 

wildlife habitat. 

229 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 It is expected that urban development would continue on private lands. 

 Management of national and state parks adjacent to the Forest would continue. These 

activities could impact habitat components. 

 Prairie dog control efforts on private lands have occurred and can be expected to continue. 

 Within the Forest area, a sizeable portion of the riparian habitat is under private ownership. 

Urban development is expected to continue on private lands. 

 Road construction and maintenance and right-of-way brushing can be expected to continue 

on non-National Forest System land. 

 Non-native predatory fish have been identified as a risk factor to leopard frog persistence. 

 Road construction, reconstruction and decommissioning are expected to continue to move 

towards Forest Plan Objective 309. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A could have some incremental impacts to habitat quantity and quality because it 

would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel on much of the Forest. Motorized crosscountry travel could lead to more user-created routes as the popularity of off-road vehicles 

increases. More user-created routes could further affect vegetation in addition to those activities 

mentioned above, which would effect wildlife and wildlife habitat inn general. 

There could be some incremental impacts to all the activities mentioned above from disturbance. 

In Alternative A, incremental disturbance impacts would continue to accrue as motorized 

recreation use levels increase. User created routes would continue to be created and would 

incrementally disturb wildlife. This would apply to all habitats discussed above under direct and 

indirect effects. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue on the Forest in the 

foreseeable future, consistent with Forest plan direction. Firewood cutting likely occurs and 

would likely continue on private lands in the Black Hills. Since none of the action alternatives in 

this project authorize cutting of snags, no incremental impact on snags is expected from the 

action alternatives. 

Privately owned forestlands within the Forest boundary also provide wildlife habitat. Resource 

management by companies and private citizens depends on a number of factors (e.g., desired 

goals, market prices, development potential) making it difficult to predict future trends. 

Landowners may treat forests for lumber or to reduce fire hazards, which could alter wildlife 

habitat. Urban development is expected to continue on private lands, which could lead to more 

roads and additional disturbance to wildlife. These activities may reduce suitable habitat wildlife, 

which could lead to some reduction in wildlife numbers in the Black Hills. This would likely 

increase the importance of habitat located on National Forest System land. The action 

alternatives are expected to offset some of the disturbance to wildlife from these activities on 

private lands by reducing motorized cross-country travel. The effect would be a net cumulative 

benefit from all action alternatives. 

Management of national and state parks adjacent to the Forest would have an unknown effect on 

wildlife. National parks and monuments tend to manage for natural conditions, using fire and 

other processes, which would likely provide conditions under which hardwoods and other 

habitats evolved. Management in national and state parks would likely contribute to the 

230 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

conservation of wildlife species. The incremental effects of the action alternatives would be 

additional benefits to wildlife and their habitat resulting from closing areas to motorized crosscountry travel. 

Prairie dog control efforts on private lands may negatively impact associated species. None of 

the action alternatives proposes new prairie dog control techniques. None of the action 

alternatives would increase recreational shooting of prairie dogs because all prairie dog towns 

are currently accessible by existing roads. The new route in Alternatives B and C would not 

increase the available areas for recreational shooting. Suitable habitats for prairie dogs and 

associated species would likely persist on the Forest; however, their occurrence would continue 

to be limited in distribution and abundance. There would be no incremental effects to prairie dog 

control. 

Within the Forest area, a sizeable portion of the riparian habitat is under private ownership. 

Urban development is expected to continue on private lands. Thus, while the Forest would take 

actions under all action alternatives that would generally benefit species that use riparian habitat 

in the Black Hills (close areas to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel, close roads), 

actions by others may have an offsetting effect. 

Road construction, maintenance and right-of-way brushing can be expected to continue on other 

ownership lands. Road maintenance may increase in Alternative B and C because route mileage 

would increase. Alternatives B and C could incremental adverse impacts on undiscovered snail 

colonies from route maintenance. Alternatives C and D maintain or reduce route mileage, which 

would have a net incremental benefit to undiscovered snail colonies from route maintenance. 

Non-native predatory fish have been identified as a risk factor to leopard frog persistence. 

Increased access could lead to an increase in unauthorized fish stocking. The action alternatives 

would have a net positive incremental impact because reducing the area open to motorized crosscountry travel would reduce the opportunity for unauthorized fish stocking. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would reduce the amount of area open to cross-country travel, 

thereby reducing some of the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities on 

National Forest System lands and offsetting some impacts from other ownership lands. 

Incremental impacts from these alternatives are expected to be positive. Alternative D would 

reduce impacts the most by having the least amount of area open to cross-country travel and the 

least miles of motorized routes. This would be the case for all habitats discussed under direct 

and indirect effects. 

Plants and Botanical Resources 

Introduction 

The Black Hills is recognized as a unique ecoregion among 64 terrestrial ecoregions in the 

continental United States (Hall et al. 2002), encompassing an area of 5,121 square miles (roughly 

3 million acres). The varied topography, geology, and climate result in a corresponding variety in 

plant communities, which included diverse elements such as western ponderosa pine forests, 

grasslands of the Great Plains, and northern white spruce forests. 

The Black Hills are also characterized by Midwest hardwood types, which are well represented 

by stands dominated by oak, ash, and elm. The Black Hills Community Inventory was the first 

systematic classification to describe the vegetation of the Black Hills by tiering to the 

231 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

standardized National Vegetation Classification (Marriott et al. 1999, Marriott and FaberLangendoen 2000). Although further refinement of the Black Hills Community Inventory is 

needed, approximately 70 native plant communities have been described in the Black Hills 

ecoregion. 

The native plant communities of the Black Hills ecoregion are composed of a great diversity of 

plant species. The Black Hills has floristic influences from four of the North American biomes: 

Cordilleran Forest, Grassland, Eastern Deciduous Forest, and Northern Coniferous Forest. While 

approximately 30 percent of the plant taxa in the Black Hills have their main ranges to the west; 

midwestern, eastern, and northern taxa are also significantly represented in the Black Hills flora 

(McIntosh 1931). The Forest designated eight Management Area 3.1 Botanical Areas in 1997 to 

help guide forest management in conserving areas of high botanical diversity, primarily at the 

plant community level. 

The majority of the plant species of concern (including R2 sensitive species and plant species of 

local concern) in the Black Hills are best described as boreal disjuncts (species that were isolated 

in the cooler, moister forests and riparian areas of the Black Hills as glaciers retreated and the 

Great Plains environment became established). The closest populations of these species to 

occurrences in the Black Hills are generally found in Canada and the northeastern United States. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. The following Forest Plan objectives, 

standards, and guidelines provide direction for management of botanical resources, plant species 

and their habitat on the Black Hills National Forest. Due to the extensive number of objectives, 

standards and guidelines that are applicable to management of botanical resources, the details of 

each are not provided here. Please refer to the Wildlife specialist report or the Forest Plan for 

more information. 

Objectives: 105, 204, 221, 213, and 216 

Standards: 1301, 3106 (a-d), 3115, 3.1-2502, 3.1-2101, 3.1-9102, and 3.1-9104 

Guidelines: 4102a and 9108 

The Forest Plan tiers to the FS Handbook 2509.25 - Watershed Conservation Practices 

Handbook. The following Management Measures are applicable to this analysis: 

 Management Measure (3) 

 Management Measure (6) 

 Management Measure (9) 

 Management Measure (10) 

 Management Measure (11) 

Methodology 

The analysis of the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on plant species of concern 

(this includes threatened and endangered species, Region 2 sensitive species, and Black Hills 

National Forest plant species of local concern), special emphasis areas including M.A. 3.1 

Botanical Areas, and wetland/fen areas was based on the best available science and data. 

Sources of information include attributes contained in GIS concerning relationships between 

232 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

roads and areas of concern (i.e., known plant occurrences, MA 3.1 Botanical Areas and known 

wetland/fen locations); botanical survey data collected over the years; and personal knowledge 

by resource specialists. 

Indicators 

Based on the issues identified in Chapter 1, the following indicators were used to measure the 

difference between the alternatives: 

 Miles of routes through suitable plant habitat types 

 Miles of motorized routes 

 Acres open to motorized cross-country travel 

 Routes that intersect known occurrences of R2 sensitive plant species, Black Hills 

National Forest plant species of local concern, Management Area 3.1 Botanical Areas, 

and/or wetland/fen areas 

 Miles of new proposed roads and trails 

 Acres of proposed trailheads 

Assumptions 

The effects analysis was based on the following assumptions. Under any of the action 

alternatives: 

 The public would observe and comply with the proposed transportation system. 

Specifically, motorized users would use only motorized routes designated and would 

refrain from using routes not designated. 

 Motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping activities do not enter into or cross 

perennial streams/wetlands. 

 More areas open for motorized game retrieval would generally be expected to generate 

more use of these areas. 

 Administrative access is allowed for official Forest business including contractors and 

permit holders. 

 Concentrating vehicle use to reduce effects on routes and areas not designated will 

increase use and possibly effects on routes and areas that are designated. 

 There is a possibility that unknown plant occurrences may occur in unsurveyed areas, 

routes in these areas will be designed to avoid impacts to any discovered occurrences. 

 Monitoring of plant occurrences will occur and any discovered impacts will be 

mitigated. 

Design Criteria 

As indicated in the table below, thirteen proposed routes intersect known occurrences of R2 

sensitive plant species, plant species of local concern, M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas, and/or fen 

areas. These routes must be designed or rerouted to avoid impacting the resource. 

233 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Table 37. Routes requiring design criteria, removal or rerouting to avoid impacts to special status 

plant species or areas 

Species Occurrence 

Route 

Number 

Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Routes to be designed, removed, or rerouted to avoid impacts to R2 sensitive species 

Bearlodge RD

Botrychium campestre BOCA5-8 872.3 X 

Botrychium lineare BOLI7-1 864.1 (outside Dugout 

Gulch Botanical Area) X X 

Carex alopecoidea CAAL8-12 U71002 X 

CAAL8-31 841.1L X X 

Cypripedium parviflorum CYPA19-10 863.2C X X 

Viburnum opulus var. 

americanum 

VIOPA2-2, 

VIOPA2-16 

864.1 

(in Dugout Gulch 

Botanical Area) 

X X 

03DUG3A, 

94S460B U650017 X X 

Northern Hills RD

Carex alopecoidea CAAL8-22 U710024 X 

Cypripedium parviflorum 950070B U080045 X X X 

Platanthera orbiculata 01G040 CZ0418 U010076 X X 

PLOR4-18 U010071 X X 

Sanguinaria canadensis SACA13-2 567.1F X X X 

SACA13-2 172.1A X X X 

Viburnum opulus var. 

americanum VIOPA2-4 U080156 X X 

980010 CZ4846 X X 

Mystic RD

Cypripedium parviflorum CYPA19-2 CZ1790 X X X 

Routes requiring design criteria to avoid impacts to Black Hills NF plant SOLC 

Mystic RD 

Gentiana affinis 07M008A CZ4927 X 

Hell Canyon RD 

Gentiana affinis GEAF-4 HC9 X X 

07B040A CZ3526 X X 

07B042 HC1 X X 

Routes requiring design criteria to avoid impacts to M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas 

Bearlodge RD 

Dugout Gulch Botanical 

Area 864.1C X X 

864.1 X X 

864.1A X 

Routes requiring design criteria to avoid impacts to fens 

Mystic RD 

South Fork Castle Creek 

fen 385.1A X X X 

Newton Fork fen 304.1L X X X 

234 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

235 

Field Surveys 

All botanical survey data on Forest were considered for this project. Forestwide survey 

specifically for R2 sensitive species has occurred since 2001, although the list of R2 sensitive 

species was revised in 2003, 2005, and 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2007c). The information 

gathered from these surveys provided information on distribution and habitat associations for 

species. A great deal of effort has also been put into botanical survey since 2000 to support 

design of management activities and projects that are protective of plant species of concern 

(including R2 sensitive plant species and Forest plant species of local concern). 

The focus of these surveys was on identifying and mapping community types and determining 

the probability of an area to support target plant species in addition to locating and recording 

individual target plant species. These surveys required that 100 percent of highly probably plant 

habitat be surveyed along with at least 10 percent of the areas considered to be of lower probable 

habitat using varying degrees of survey intensities. Areas to survey were stratified using a 

combination of the Hillshade5

 model, aerial photographs, topographic maps, local knowledge, 

and professional judgment during field reconnaissance. All botanical survey data is stored in the 

Forest Database and GIS (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Affected Environment 

Not all new proposed roads and trails (including new routes, opening closed roads and proposed 

trailheads) have been completely surveyed at this time. Per Forest Service Manual direction 

(USDA Forest Service 2007c), presence of species of concern is assumed in areas where 

inventory methods are not feasible (due to time and seasonal constraints in this case) and the 

expected effects analyzed is based on that assumption. The evaluation of effects presented is 

based on survey of 79 to 83 percent of the proposed routes and 57 to 63 percent of the proposed 

trailheads.

Riparian, Wetland, and Fen Habitat 

All wetlands (including riparian areas, wet meadows, fens, lakes, seeps, springs, etc.) are 

important to vegetation and other natural resources. 

Riparian habitat is defined as being located along the edges of streams. It is the transition zone 

between aquatic habitat and upland terrestrial habitat. There are about 76,900 acres of riparian 

habitat on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Riparian areas include meadows, although 

not all riparian areas are classified as meadows. Much of the riparian habitat on the Forest is 

open to cross-country travel and approximately 2,050 miles of motorized routes are within 400 

feet of riparian areas. 

Wetlands (including riparian areas, fens, seeps, and springs) are habitat for many plant species of 

concern in the Black Hills (including R2 sensitive plant species and Forest plant SOLC). In the 

arid western U.S., wetland areas make up a small proportion of the landscape but are critical to 

maintaining ecosystems on a large scale. An accurate estimate of location, quantity, and quality 

of wetlands at the Forest level is not currently available. 

 

5

 Over the past several years, the Hillshade model has been field verified and has proven to be very helpful 

in predicting high probability target plant habitat in some parts of the Black Hills. Hillshade uses the 

length of time and intensity of the sun in relation to topography to predict shade and therefore moisture 

content across the landscape. It has been observed in some parts of the Black Hills that moisture is one 

factor driving the presence of high probability target plant habitat for many target plant species. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Fens are a rare kind of wetland that is dependent on an unfailing groundwater supply. The 

organic layer (peat) takes thousands of years to form and is considered an irreplaceable resource 

because the formation process is so slow. The Forest is currently inventorying fen resources in 

collaboration with experts from Colorado State University. 

White Spruce Habitat 

The Black Hills has one of the southern-most populations of white spruce (Picea glauca) in the 

United States. White spruce is the most shade-tolerant of the Black Hills tree species, enabling 

regeneration and growth under closed canopy conditions. The cool, moist environments of white 

spruce stands provide habitat diversity in a ponderosa pine-dominated landscape. Several R2 

sensitive and Forest plant species of local concern are found in spruce communities. Spruce 

habitat currently occupies about 26,500 acres on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Much of the spruce habitat is currently open to cross-country travel and approximately 100 miles 

of motorized routes are in spruce habitat. 

Hardwood Habitat 

Paper birch/hazel forest (Betula papyrifera/Corylus cornuta forest) occurs in drainage bottoms 

with and without streams and on northerly slopes. In the northern Black Hills where precipitation 

is higher and temperatures are cooler, paper birch/hazel forest extends to lower elevations. 

Stands are found in mesic (moist) habitat such as shaded, narrow gulches and north-facing 

slopes. Paper birch/hazel forest often transitions into bur oak/ironwood forest in Black Hills 

drainages at lower elevations. A number of boreal disjunct plant species, including some R2 

sensitive and Forest plant species of local concern occur in stands of cool, moist paper birch/ 

hazel forest and bur oak/ironwood forest. The current condition for hardwoods and associated 

motorized recreation is shown in the table below. 

Table 38. Current conditions for hardwoods and associated motorized recreation 

Hardwood Cover-type Current Acres on the Forest* Miles of Currently Open 

Motorized Routes within Habitat 

Aspen 45,560 150 

Bur Oak 12,879 22 

Paper Birch 3,212 6 

Other Hardwoods 970 1 

Total 62,621 179 

*(USDA Forest Service 2007b) 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No federally endangered, threatened, proposed or candidate species plant species are known to 

occur on the Forest (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2007a & USDA Forest Service 2007b) 

Region 2 Sensitive Species 

Region 2 sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester 

for which population viability is currently of concern, as evidenced by significant current or 

predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or by significant current or 

predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution 

(USDA Forest Service 2007c). The following is a list of plant species designated as sensitive 

species in Region 2 of the United States Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2007c) that are 

known or likely to occur on the Black Hills National Forest. 

236 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Prairie Moonwort (Botrychium campestre) - Botrychium campestre ranges from the Great 

Lakes, across Iowa and Nebraska to eastern Colorado and northward to Alberta and 

Saskatchewan. Seven occurrences have been confirmed on Forest. Additional sites exist on 

private land and at Wind Cave National Park. Rangewide, Botrychium campestre occurs 

primarily on well-drained soils in non-forested habitats, occasionally under shrubs in or at the 

margins of these habitats. It is considered a grassland species associated with sandy grassland 

habitats in prairies, dunes, railroad sidings, and fields over limestone. Botrychium campestre is 

extremely inconspicuous and is visible, at most, a few weeks during the year. Black Hills sites 

occur on substrates with at least some component of limestone and are primarily in open 

grassland habitats, usually with high forb diversity and sometimes with a high percentage of bare 

and rocky soils. Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and western snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) occur at the majority of sites. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from 3,870 to 5,640 ft. 

Slender Moonwort (Botrychium lineare) - Botrychium lineare is historically known from 

California and Utah and currently from Colorado northward to Washington, Montana, Alaska 

and the Yukon Territory. Five occurrences have been confirmed on Forest. Western populations 

of Botrychium lineare occur primarily on limestone substrates in a variety of habitats including 

heavily forested sites and grassy meadows, fen-like seeps and gravelly roadsides. All sites occur 

in open conditions on limestone substrate. Two sites are located on old (estimated 15 to 25 years) 

native surface roadbeds. A third site is located adjacent to a gravel roadbed in open grassland. 

The fourth site, located on a large, open, north-facing, little bluestem dominated hillside, is not 

associated with any road development. The fifth site, also not associated with any road 

development, is located in an open, forb-dominated area on the bank of a small perennial stream. 

Elsewhere in its range, this species has often been documented in areas of road disturbances and 

other human and natural disturbances. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 4,200 

feet (in Wind Cave National Park) to 6,160 feet. 

Foxtail Sedge (Carex alopecoidea) - Carex alopecoidea is widely distributed from eastern to 

central Canada, the northeastern United States, the Great Lakes region south to Tennessee, and 

west to North Dakota and the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Rangewide, habitat 

includes seasonally saturated meadows and openings in alluvial woods and stream banks, usually 

over calcareous substrates. In the Black Hills, Carex alopecoidea is currently known from two 

general areas: The Cement Ridge area along the South Dakota–Wyoming border, and in the 

Bear Lodge Mountains in Wyoming. There are approximately 30 occurrences on Forest. Carex 

alopecoidea is primarily found along open, perennial streams, often with old beaver dams or 

ponds. Occurrences have also been found in spruce-dominated riparian areas and in drainages 

with dense shrub cover. Plants are primarily documented in the transitional areas between 

saturated soils and the more mesic upland areas. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 

3,840 to 5,900 feet. 

Lesser Yellow Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) is primarily circumboreal in 

distribution and rangewide is generally found in shady deciduous and mixed woodlands near 

streams, shrublands, swamps, bogs, and wet forests. There are approximately 50 occurrences on 

Forest. Habitat in the Black Hills includes streambanks under both spruce and deciduous 

overstories, moist cliffs (usually north facing), and moist areas/seeps under white spruce or 

mixed conifer forest. Occasionally, Cypripedium parviflorum is found on upper mesic forest 

slopes. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,500 to 6,500 feet. 

237 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Stream Orchid (Epipactis gigantean) occurs in western North America from British Colombia 

south to California, and east to Texas. In the colder northern portions of its range, E. gigantea

may be confined to warm springs habitats (Hornbeck et al. 2003). In South Dakota, it is only 

known from one occurrence on private and Forest land along Cascade Creek in Fall River 

County, South Dakota. Rangewide, Epipactis gigantea is known from wet meadows, seepage 

slopes, and the base of cliffs along streams and rivers. In South Dakota and in the Black Hills, it 

is known only along Cascade Creek at 3,400 ft. It is likely dependent upon the constant moisture 

and warmth provided by the springs. No other warm springs are known on Forest. 

Trailing Clubmoss (Lycopodium complanatum) is circumboreal and common across northern 

latitudes but disjunct or sparse at the southern limits of the species’ distribution, such as in the 

Black Hills. Rangewide, L. complanatum is restricted to moist (not saturated) microhabitats 

within boreal plant communities in ravines, steep drainages, and on moist streamside benches. 

These occurrences are located in the northern Black Hills on shaded, north-facing, White spruce 

dominated slopes often with paper birch or quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Black Hills 

occurrences range in elevation from 4,960 to 6,340 feet. 

Lesser Roundleaved Orchid (Platanthera orbiculata) is endemic to the boreal regions of 

northern North America, with a more southern distribution in the eastern United States. There are 

approximately 30 occurrences known in the Forest. Black Hills occurrences are found primarily 

on shady, north-facing slopes in paper birch/hazel or white spruce forests on moist, rich, humus 

soil. Occurrences in the Black Hills range in elevation from 4,350 to 6,150 feet. 

Sage Willow (Salix candida) occurs from eastern Canada to Alaska and across the northern 

United States. There is one known occurrence in the Black Hills in McIntosh Fen Botanical 

Area. There is also a historical collection for the general area “from Loring Siding to 

Minnekahta” (unknown if the historical collection is from private or FS land). Rangewide, S. 

candida is an obligate wetland species. The one verified extant occurrence on the Black Hills is 

at 6,000 feet. Habitat includes cold seep or spring-fed saturated substrates produced by unusual 

hydrologic conditions where sedimentary layers of the Limestone Plateau intersect impermeable 

schist or shale of the crystalline Central Core. The plant community type associated with the 

occurrence is wet meadow and fen. 

Autumn Willow (Salix serissima) occurs primarily in northern boreal bogs and fens throughout 

its range and is a disjunct relic in the Black Hills. There are four known occurrences on Forest. 

Rangewide, S. serissima occurs in fens and wet meadows often dominated by Carex species and 

other Salix species. In the Black Hills, S. serissima occurs in the same unique hydrologic 

conditions as Salix candida: wet meadows and fens on cold seep or spring-fed saturated 

substrates produced by unusual hydrologic conditions where sedimentary layers of the 

Limestone Plateau intersect impermeable schist or shale of the crystalline Central Core. Black 

Hills occurrences range in elevation from 5,620 to 6,000 feet. 

Bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) occurs in moist forests from Nova Scotia south to Florida 

and west to Manitoba and Kansas. The currently known range in the Black Hills is limited to the 

northeast portion of the Black Hills, from the east side of Spearfish Canyon to west of Tilford. 

There are approximately 20 occurrences in the Black Hills. Rangewide, S. canadensis occurs in 

moist forests. In the Black Hills, it occupies floodplains, forested terraces, drainage bottoms, and 

north-facing footslopes in open, rich hardwood areas usually comprised of paper birch/hazel 

forest or bur oak/ironwood forest (Quercus macrocarpa/Ostrya virginiana forest). Black Hills 

occurrences range in elevation from 3,940 to 5,000 feet. 

238 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Highbush Cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) is widely distributed across north 

central North America. There are approximately 30 occurrences in the Black Hills. V. opulus var. 

americanum occurs in the Black Hills at mid-elevations in wet, shaded habitats along streams, 

springs and canyon bottoms. Most of the documented occurrences are in drainage bottoms or 

low slopes with moist soil conditions with partial shading. Currently known sites are primarily 

associated with paper birch and ironwood communities, with or without white spruce or quaking 

aspen. A few sites are found in ponderosa pine/bur oak Forest (Pinus ponderosa/Quercus

macrocarpa Forest). Paper birch is present at almost all currently known sites. Black Hills 

occurrences range in elevation from 3,800 to 5,700 feet. 

Selkirk’s Violet (Viola selkirkii) is a circumboreal herbaceous species and rangewide it is 

locally abundant in specialized microsites in coniferous and deciduous forests. There are 

thirteen known occurrences on Forest with additional occurrences documented from Custer State 

Park and Mt. Rushmore National Monument. All currently known occurrences on FS lands are 

located within the Black Elk Wilderness and/or the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Black Hills 

occurrences are restricted to a concentrated area (ca. 36 square miles) of the central core on 

igneous or metamorphic bedrock. Microhabitats are often moist, cold air drainages, in shaded to 

open areas, and often in the vicinity of granitic rock outcrops. White spruce is usually the 

dominant overstory with a variable understory. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 

5,240 to 7,000 feet. 

Plant Species of Local Concern 

Species of local concern are plant, fish, and wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) 

that do not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with declining 

trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of diversity in a 

local area. The local area is defined as NFS lands within the Forest. (FSM 2620.5 Black Hills 

Supplement 2600-2005-1). All Forest plant species of local concern were considered in this 

analysis. The following is a list of plant species of local concern on the Black Hills National 

Forest. 

Southern Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum capillus-veneris) occurs primarily in tropical and warm 

temperate regions of the world. In North America, it is mainly distributed across the southern 

third of the U.S. with disjunct northern occurrences (such as the Black Hills) restricted to moist, 

calcareous substrates closely associated with warm or hot springs. The single documented Black 

Hills occurrence is associated with warm springs at Cascade Creek (elevation 3,150-3,450 ft.) in 

the southwestern Black Hills (Fall River County, South Dakota). Plants at Cascade Creek are 

found in moist to saturated areas on the streambank and in depressions and old channels on the 

adjacent floodplain. No other warm springs are known on FS administered land in the Black 

Hills. 

Leathery Grapefern (Botrychium multifidum) is found across Canada and along the coast of 

Alaska, and in Greenland, Europe, and northwest Asia. It is found across the northern tier of 

states in the U.S.; south to California, Nevada, and Utah in the west; and south to Virginia in the 

east. Rangewide, B. multifidum grows in moist, open or shaded areas, including old pastures, 

meadows, woodland margins, riverbanks and bottom lands. Eight known occurrences on Forest 

lands. Most of the know locations are in mossy, mesic sites dominated by white spruce or 

mixed spruce-pine along small, perennial streams. Plants occur in open to shady areas, often in 

or near old stream channels where water is no longer flowing on a permanent basis. Seven of the 

eight occurrences are located in a concentrated area (ca. 16 square miles) of the central core on 

igneous or metamorphic bedrock, within the Black Elk Wilderness and/or Norbeck Wildlife 

239 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Preserve. One exception is a single site in the Bear Lodge Mountains (WY) in a steep narrow 

drainage with paper birch/hazelnut community on sandstone. Plants at the Bear Lodge site are 

found on moss-covered sandstone boulders and streambank berms near occasional pools of 

water. Plants have also been found in duff under spruce, in grassy margins along streams, on 

sand/gravel bars along streams, and in mesic soils near hiking trails. Black Hills occurrences 

range in elevation from 4,620 to 6,450 feet. 

Southwestern Showy Sedge (Carex bella) has its primary range in the southwest U.S. and 

Mexico. Rangewide this species typically inhabits streambanks, meadows and moist woods or 

open slopes, frequently above timberline. Black Hills occurrences (8 reported; 3 on Forest lands 

and 5 in Custer State Park) are known from high elevations of the central granitic core in cool, 

moist, shaded white spruce forests often with paper birch and usually associated with large 

granite rock outcrops. The three occurrences on Forest are in a one square mile area within the 

Black Elk Wilderness. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 6,600 to 7,100 feet. 

Beaked Spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) occurs in coastal salt marshes and in inland saline, 

alkaline, or strongly calcareous wetland habitats (e.g., around hot springs). The single 

documented Black Hills occurrence is on calcareous substrates in the year-round flows of warm 

spring water of Cascade Creek in the southwestern Black Hills, at an elevation of 3,150 to 3,450 

feet. 

Pleated Gentian (Gentiana affinis) is known from western North America, primarily in moist 

meadows in mountainous or hilly areas. Approximately 30 occurrences are known on Forest, 

primarily from botanical surveys in 2006 and 2007. Forest occurrences are reported primarily 

from the central to western Black Hills in a wide range of habitats. Black Hills occurrences have 

been documented in moist areas near stream margins, springs and fens, montane grasslands, 

vegetated drainages with cobbles and conifer dominated slopes. Elevation of occurrences range 

from 4,960 to 6,620 feet. Occurrences are known in McIntosh Fen and Black Fox Botanical 

Areas. 

Broadlipped Twayblade (Listera convallarioides) occurs on rich humus in open woods and 

boggy meadows and prefers cool soil. It is considered a facultative wetland species in South 

Dakota and eastern Wyoming and has a high tolerance for anaerobic conditions. There is four 

known occurrences on Forest lands, all of which are restricted to a 20 square mile area in the 

northern Black Hills. Elevations range from 5,120 to 6,080 feet. Individuals are growing in 

saturated soil conditions adjacent to creeks and springs, in white spruce dominated forests. One 

occurrence is in Englewood Springs Botanical Area. 

Stiff Clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum) is widely distributed in boreal habitats of North 

America. Elsewhere in its range, it occurs in swampy or moist coniferous forests, mountain 

forests, and exposed grassy or rocky sites. There are 10 known occurrences on Forest. Sites 

occur primarily in the northern Black Hills and are associated with moist microhabitats within 

remnant boreal white spruce and paper birch/hazelnut communities. Three occurrences are colocated with Lycopodium complanatum (R2 sensitive species) and two are in the Upper Sand 

Creek Botanical Area. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 5,100 to 6,300 feet. 

Alpine Mountainsorrel (Oxyria digyna) is widely distributed in arctic and alpine regions of 

North America and across the western U.S. Associated habitats include rocky areas in 

mountains, especially near streams, and moist ground in alpine or subalpine areas. The three 

known occurrences on Forest lands are restricted to the central granitic core of the Black Hills, in 

a concise area (ca. two square miles) within the Black Elk Wilderness. One additional occurrence 

240 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

is reported from Custer State Park. Plants occur on coarse-textured soils near steep, granite rock 

outcrops often in rocky gullies. Plants co-occur with Carex bella (species of local concern) 

and/or Viola selkirkii (R2 sensitive species) at some sites. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from 6,000 to 7,240 feet. 

Arrowleaf Sweet Coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus) is known from Labrador to Alaska, south to 

Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota (Black Hills), Colorado, Idaho, and Washington. There are 

15 fairly recent reports (1999-2007) of occurrences on Forest. Rangewide, P. sagittatus is 

associated with cold, wet, marshy conditions and is a facultative wetland species. Black Hills 

occurrences are reported from moist to saturated wetland areas along drainages and seeps in 

conditions ranging from full sun to deep shade under spruce (often with birch or aspen). One 

occurrence is in Black Fox Botanical Area. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 

5,120 to 6,600 feet. 

Northern Hollyfern (Polystichum lonchitis) is a circumboreal, subalpine forest fern that occurs 

in rock crevices and at the base of boulders, mostly in boreal and subalpine coniferous forests or 

alpine regions. Twenty known occurrences are reported from Forest lands in the northern Black 

Hills and Bear Lodge Mountain. P. lonchitis is disjunct in the Black Hills from western 

Wyoming. Black Hills occurrences are associated with moist, often mossy, shaded to partially 

shaded, northerly-facing slopes, ravines and gulches on primarily limestone substrates. 

Dominant overstory is birch/hazelnut, sometimes with spruce, ironwood or aspen and often with 

diverse shrub and forb components. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 4,280 to 

6,040 feet. 

Shining Willow (Salix lucida ssp. caudate) is widely distributed in the western and northern 

U.S. and Canada. It is at the eastern limit of its range in South Dakota. Rangewide, S. lucida ssp. 

caudata is commonly associated with streambanks, shores, wet meadows, and seeps. The taxon 

is considered a facultative wetland plant in South Dakota and eastern Wyoming. Two Forest 

occurrences were confirmed in 2006—one along a small creek in the Bear Lodge Mountains at 

4,800 feet (1 original plant and 5 planted from cuttings), and the other is in the northern Black 

Hills at 5,000 feet (2 plants). A third location documented by confirmed voucher, has not yet 

been relocated, and a fourth location was planted from cuttings in 2007 (19 plants). 

Management Area 3.1 Botanical Areas 

The Forest designated eight areas as Management Area 3.1 Botanical Areas in the 1997 Forest 

Plan: Black Fox, Bear/Beaver Gulches, Dugout Gulch, Englewood Springs, Higgins Gulch, 

McIntosh Fen, North Fork Castle Creek, and Upper Sand Creek. These areas are comprised of 

plant communities, associations, and individual plant species of particular quality and interest. 

M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas comprise about 1 percent of the Forest and the focus of management is 

to maintain their botanical features and support public use for educational purposes. M.A. 3.1 

Botanical Areas provide habitat for R2 sensitive species, Forest plant SOLC, and other elements 

of biological diversity. They also provide scenic and other public property values. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All R2 Sensitive and Forest Plant Species 

of Local Concern 

Impacts and risks to species on the Forest were estimated based on the best available science and 

data. Species persistence for R2 sensitive plant species and Forest plant species of local concern 

was evaluated in the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment. Each alternative in this project was 

241 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

evaluated as to whether it is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines applicable to 

each species. 

The construction and use of roads and trails generally have a negative effect on plant 

communities, including R2 sensitive species and Forest plant species of local concern. The direct 

impacts of roads and trails (which for this analysis include trailheads) are possible loss of plant 

individuals, plant occurrences, and plant communities. Plants are not able to move to avoid 

construction or use of a road or trail. 

Indirect impacts to plant species and plant communities include: 

(1) increased introduction of invasive species leading to increased competition for resources 

and increased potential for impact from invasive species control (i.e. spray from 

herbicide application) 

(2) alteration of hydrology patterns and degraded water quality 

(3) alteration of habitat conditions (such as decrease in canopy cover or change in 

successional stage, increased soil compaction, accelerated erosion, altered soil 

microbial/mycorrhizal activity, and nutrient availability) 

(4) increased access for disturbance vectors (including humans and animals) which lead to 

increased disturbances such as trampling, cropping, and collecting 

(5) disruption of pollinators 

(6) increased dust (causes increased sediment, also plugs stomata (gas exchange structures) 

on plant leaves) 

(7) an increase in plant numbers (in some cases) adjacent to roads and trails from a nearby 

occurrence, mainly due to increased water availability from concentrated runoff 

(8) habitat fragmentation for some species from roads, which can fragment habitat into 

smaller patches and increase the ratio of edge to forest interior areas. 

Alternative C would have the most miles of motorized routes that could disturb native plant 

species and plant communities (including R2 sensitive plant species and Forest plant species of 

local concern), followed by Alternatives B, A, E and D, respectively. The increase in routes in 

Alternatives B and C would likely offset some of the benefits of closing areas to motorized 

cross-country travel. Still, the net result is expected to be a benefit due to the amount of area 

closed to cross-country travel. The miles of routes in Alternative E would remain at the existing 

level. 

Management protective of suitable habitat (such as wetlands, paper birch, and spruce 

communities) and natural processes within them is an important part of management protective 

of native plant species and communities. Target plants are not always observed when present, 

and many times may simply not be present due to the seasonality of the surveys. Some reasons 

are that plants may not be in prime growth stage for identification, they may be in dormancy, or 

they may be difficult to see in surrounding vegetation. 

The action alternatives would not allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. These 

alternatives are expected to have a net beneficial effect from closing much of the Forest to 

motorized cross-country travel. Disturbances from cross-country travel are expected to be 

reduced and there would be a beneficial effect in reducing invasive weed spread and disturbancecreated seedbeds. 

242 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

All the action alternatives are expected to have less chance of direct and indirect effects to native 

plant species and communities (including sensitive plants) than Alternative A because they have 

less area open to cross-country travel. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C is expected to 

have the most effects to native plant species and communities (including R2 sensitive plant 

species and Forest plant species of local concern) followed by Alternatives B, E and D, 

respectively, based on the miles of routes open to motorized travel (see Figure 16). 

Motorized game retrieval can affect native plant species and communities through disturbance. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval are expected to be minor. Most motorized game 

retrieval involves big game in the fall, which is outside the majority of plant species’ 

reproductive seasons. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C would allow motorized game 

retrieval on the most acres followed by Alternative B, D, and E respectively (see Figure 17). 

Alternative B would reduce impacts from existing conditions because it only allows game 

retrieval for elk (which has far fewer hunters than would need to retrieve game than for elk and 

deer) and in a reduced area. Alternative C would reduce impacts from existing conditions 

because it has less acreage open to motorized game retrieval, but may have more impacts than 

Alternative B in the retrieval area because it allows retrieval of elk and deer. Alternatives D and 

E are expected to have the least impacts from game retrieval because motorized game retrieval is 

not allowed. 

Motorized dispersed camping can also disturb native plant species and communities. The 

comparative levels of effects of motorized dispersed camping are estimated using the acreage 

open to motorized dispersed camping. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the most 

acreage open to motorized dispersed camping, followed by Alternatives B, D and E (see Figure 

18). 

Overall, the action alternatives are expected to have a net benefit to native plant species and 

communities (including R2 sensitive plant species and Forest plant SOLC) due to the closing of 

areas to motorized cross-country travel. Alternative D is expected to have the most benefit 

because it has the fewest motorized routes and the least area open to motorized cross-country 

travel, followed by Alternatives E, B and C. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to R2 Sensitive and Forest Plant Species of 

Local Concern with a Habitat Preference of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, Fens and 

Seeps 

Plant species in wetlands, riparian areas, and seeps are likely to be impacted by changes in 

hydrology and water quality. Roads and trails in the water influence zone in wetlands can cause 

increased erosion, which can modify streambank geometry and cause an increase in overland 

flow. Increases in overland flow will have the net effect of maximizing runoff and minimizing 

infiltration. While the increased runoff results in overall greater water yield, the storm water is 

delivered relatively quickly through surface processes rather than through sustained subsurface 

flows, which are often critical to wetland hydrology (Moore et al. 2006). 

Changing normal wetland hydrology (e.g., decreasing site moisture in areas) could negatively 

impact plants by reducing water available for necessary biological functions. Degradation of 

water quality in infiltrating surface and groundwater may also affect wetland plant species by 

altering normal available nutrients. There may also be local changes in the natural soil balance 

(chemical make-up, nutrients, microbes, etc.) which can impact plants in the area. Roads and 

trails can lead to soil compaction, especially in areas with moist to saturated soils. Soil 

compaction can negatively impact plant occurrences by changing the regular water infiltration 

243 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

through the soil and decreasing oxygen available to plant roots and other essential soil 

organisms. 

More than half the plant species of concern in the Black Hills (R2 sensitive and Forest plant 

species of local concern) are associated with wetland and riparian areas. Consequently, 

management protective of general riparian and wetland habitat and processes is an important 

component of protection for native plant species and communities (including R2 sensitive plant 

species and Forest plant species of local concern). 

Effects to the riparian habitat and associated species are mitigated through a wide variety of 

standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and state best management practices 

that protect riparian areas. Forestwide standards and guidelines protect riparian areas, water 

influence zones, and wetlands. Standard 3106 states that riparian areas or wetlands where 

populations of R2 sensitive species and plant species of local concern are located are to be 

avoided during ground-disturbing activities. Long-term riparian ecosystem health and ecological 

function are provided for by not allowing actions that would be detrimental to riparianecosystem condition (Standards 1301, 1302). Objective 105 strives to prohibit motorized 

vehicles in wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas. Standard 1113 minimizes sediment 

discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands during road construction and other site disturbances. 

Guideline 9107 prohibits land vehicles from entering perennial steams where resource damage 

would occur. Guideline 9108 restricts vehicle traffic to roads and trails in riparian areas. 

Alternative A is the only alternative that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country 

travel. This could lead to more user-created routes that could further affect riparian vegetation. 

The effects of motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping on riparian habitat are expected 

to be similar to those discussed above for the Forest in general. The effects of disturbance to 

riparian habitat is based on the miles of motorized routes in riparian habitat and the acres of 

riparian habitat open to motorized cross-country travel (see Figure 22). Disturbance impacts are 

expected to continue to accrue as motorized recreation use levels increase. User-created routes 

are expected to continue to be created and impact riparian habitat. 

In Alternatives B, C and D, Route 385.1A is proposed to be changed from a closed road to an 

open road. This route intersects South Fork Castle Creek Fen. If this road is opened as 

proposed, irreversible impacts could occur to the identified fen. This would be in conflict with 

FS Handbook 2509.25, 12.4 Management Measure (6), Design Criteria 1e, which states “Avoid 

any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs. NOTE: These wetlands cannot be replaced 

in-kind”. 

Two segments of Route 304.1L are proposed to be changed from a road to a trail in the Newton 

Fork fen and riparian area. The effects to the fen and riparian area are expected to be similar to 

what is currently occurring on the existing road. There may be an incremental increase in 

impacts if the use increases in the area. 

None of the action alternative would allow motorized cross-country travel, except as noted for 

Alternatives B and C for motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping. This is expected to 

have a positive effect on riparian habitat by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Alternative C has the most motorized routes in riparian habitat, followed by Alternatives B, A, E 

and D, respectively. Still, the action alternatives are expected to have a net positive effect on 

riparian and wetlands habitat due to the amount of habitat closed to motorized cross-country 

travel. 

244 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to R2 Sensitive and Forest Plant Species of 

Local Concern with a Habitat Preference of White Spruce Plant Communities 

Under Alternative A, motorized cross-country travel would be expected to continue in much of 

the spruce habitat. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country 

travel occurs. Disturbance impacts are expected to continue to accrue as motorized recreation 

use levels increase. User-created routes are expected to continue to be created and impact native 

plant species in spruce communities. 

None of the action alternatives would allow motorized cross-country travel except as noted for 

Alternatives B and C for motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping. This is expected to 

have a positive effect on native plant species in white spruce communities by reducing 

disturbance impacts. 

Alternatives A, B, and E have the most motorized routes in spruce habitat, followed by 

Alternatives C and D, respectively. Still, the action alternatives are expected to have a net 

positive effect on native plant species in white spruce communities due to the amount of area 

closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to R2 Sensitive and Forest Plant Species of 

Local Concern with a Habitat Preference of Hardwood Plant Communities 

Alternative A would continue to allow motorized cross-country travel in much of the hardwood 

habitat. Disturbance would continue to occur in areas where motorized cross-country travel is 

allowed. Disturbance impacts are expected to continue to accrue as motorized recreation use 

levels increase. User-created routes are expected to continue to be created and impact native 

plant species in stands of paper birch/hazel forest and bur oak/ironwood forest. None of the 

action alternatives would allow motorized cross-country travel. This is expected to have a 

positive effect on native plant species in stands of paper birch/hazel forest and bur oak/ironwood 

forest by reducing disturbance impacts. 

Alternative C has the most motorized routes in hardwood plant communities, followed by 

Alternatives B, A, E and D, respectively (see Figure 21). Still, the action alternatives would have 

a net positive effect on native plant species in stands of paper birch/hazel forest and bur 

oak/ironwood forest due to the amount of habitat closed to motorized cross-country travel. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Region 2 Sensitive Species 

Effects to Region 2 sensitive plant species are discussed in detail in the accompanying Biological 

Evaluation. The following is a summary of the analysis of effects for each species. 

Epipactis gigantea (stream orchid) will not be included in the effects analysis portion of this 

document because: there are no routes proposed in Forest along Cascade Creek; undiscovered 

occurrences are highly unlikely due to habitat requirement to be located along a stream fed with 

warm spring water; and there will be no effects from motorized routes, motorized cross-country 

travel, motorized game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping on E. gigantea because none 

of these are allowed on Forest lands along Cascade Creek (J.H. Keith Memorial/Cascade Springs 

Picnic Ground, where E. gigantea occurs, and Cascade Falls Picnic Area). A determination of 

“no impact” was made for Epipactis gigantea in the biological evaluation for this project. 

245 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Lycopodium complanatum (trailing clubmoss), Salix candida (sage willow) Salix 

serissima (autumn willow) and Viola selkirkii (Selkirk’s violet) 

All known occurrences of these four R2 sensitive species are avoided by the proposed routes. 

The direct and indirect effects for these four species are discussed here simultaneously. 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for all alternatives because undiscovered occurrences 

could be impacted in all alternatives. The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable 

habitat and the amount of habitat open to cross-country travel is used here to estimate effects to 

undiscovered occurrences. The effects of motorized routes, motorized cross-country travel, 

motorized game retrieval, and motorized dispersed camping on these four species are expected to 

be similar to the general discussions on riparian/wetland, white spruce and paper birch/hazel 

forest above. 

Site-specific Analysis - In areas with botanical survey, there are no proposed routes that intersect 

known occurrences or surveyed suitable habitat for these four species in any alternatives. 

All Alternatives - Botanical surveys are not 100 percent accurate, so it is possible that any 

alternative may impact individuals not observed during survey. However, the number would be 

small and likely to neither result in a loss of viability across the Forest nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing. 

The effects analysis assumes that monitoring of occurrences will occur and that any discovered 

impacts will be mitigated. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined these species are likely to persist on the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). This project will not change any of the standards, guidelines or 

objectives that provide for these four species or the riparian/wetland, white spruce and paper 

birch/hazel forest. Riparian/wetland communities, white spruce communities, and paper 

birch/hazel forest would be maintained in all alternatives. 

These four species, Lycopodium complanatum, Salix candida, Salix serissima and Viola selkirkii, 

have a determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for all alternatives. 

This determination is based on the following assumptions: 

 Known occurrences will not be impacted by this project. 

 There is a possibility that unknown occurrences may occur in unsurveyed areas, routes 

in these areas will be mitigated as occurrences are found to avoid impacts. 

Alternative A would maintain current conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to 

have a net benefit to Lycopodium complanatum, Salix candida, Salix serissima and Viola 

selkirkii by closing areas to cross-country travel. 

Botrychium campestre (prairie moonwort), Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort), 

Carex alopecoidea (foxtail sedge), Cypripedium parviflorum (lesser yellow lady’s 

slipper), Platanthera orbiculata (lesser roundleaved orchid), Sanguinaria canadensis 

(bloodroot), and Viburnum opulus var. americanum (highbush cranberry) 

Known occurrences of these seven R2 sensitive species are intersected by the proposed routes. 

The direct and indirect effects for these seven species, will be discussed here simultaneously. 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for all alternatives because undiscovered occurrences 

could be impacted in all alternatives. The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable 

246 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

habitat and the amount of habitat open to cross-country travel is used here to estimate effects to 

undiscovered occurrences. The effects of motorized routes, motorized cross-country travel, 

motorized game retrieval, and motorized dispersed camping on these seven species are expected 

to be similar to the general discussions on riparian/wetland, white spruce and paper birch/hazel 

forest above. 

Site-specific Analysis: 

Alternative A 

Current use of authorized routes will continue. 

Alternative B 

 Route 841.1L intersects a known occurrence of Carex alopecoidea

 Route 864.1 intersects a known occurrence of Botrychium lineare and 2 known 

occurrences of Viburnum opulus var. americanum 

 Route U71002 intersects a known occurrence of Carex alopecoidea

 Routes 863.2C, U080045, and CZ17901 intersect 3 known occurrences of Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

 Routes U650017, U0801056 and CZ4846 intersect 4 known occurrences of Viburnum 

opulus var. americanum 

 Routes CZ0418, U010076, and U010071 intersect 2 known occurrences of Platanthera 

orbiculata 

 Routes 567.1F and 172.1A intersect a known occurrence of Sanguinaria canadensis

Alternative C 

 Routes 841.1L and U710024 intersect 2 known occurrence of Carex alopecoidea

 Route 872.3 intersects a known occurrence of Botrychium campestre

 Route 864.1 intersects a known occurrence of Botrychium lineare and 2 known 

occurrences of Viburnum opulus var. americanum 

 Routes U650017, U0801056 and CZ4846 intersect 4 known occurrences of Viburnum 

opulus var. americanum 

 Routes 863.2C, U080045, and CZ17901 intersect 3 known occurrences of Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

 Routes CZ0418, U010076, and U010071 intersect 2 known occurrences of Platanthera

orbiculata 

 Routes 567.1F and 172.1A intersect a known occurrence of Sanguinaria canadensis

Alternative D 

 Routes U080045, and CZ17901 intersect 3 known occurrences of Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

 Routes 567.1F and 172.1A intersect a known occurrence of Sanguinaria canadensis

All Alternatives - Botanical surveys are not 100 percent accurate, so any alternative may impact 

individuals not observed during survey. However, the number would be small and likely to 

neither result in a loss of viability across the Forest nor cause a trend toward federal listing if 

known occurrences are not impacted. The effects analysis assumes that monitoring of 

occurrences will occur and that any discovered impacts will be mitigated. 

247 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined these species are likely to persist on the Forest, 

if known occurrences persist (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The prescribed design criteria must 

be applied to the routes identified and the known occurrences avoided for this project to be 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Based on the above analysis (detailed in the accompanying Biological Evaluation) a 

determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” is made for these 

seven species for all alternatives. This determination is based on the following assumptions: 

Table 39. Species potentially impacted and routes that will be designed, rerouted or removed to 

avoid the known occurrences in the identified alternatives 

Species Occurrence Route 

Number Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Botrychium 

campestre BOCA5-8 872.3 X 

Botrychium 

lineare BOLI7-1 864.1 X X 

CAAL8-12 U71002 X 

CAAL8-31 841.1L X X Carex 

alopecoidea CAAL8-22 U710024 X 

CYPA19-2 CZ1790 X X X 

CYPA19-10 863.2C X X Cypripedium 

parviflorum 950070B U080045 X X X 

01G040 CZ0418 X X 

01G040 U010076 X X Platanthera 

orbiculata 

PLOR4-18 U010071 X X 

Sanguinaria SACA13-2 567.1F X X X 

canadensis SACA13-2 172.1A X X X 

VIOPA2-4 U080156 X X 

980010 CZ4846 X X 

VIOPA2-2 864.1 X X 

VIOPA2-16 864.1 X X 

03DUG3A U650017 X X 

Viburnum 

opulus var. 

americanum 

94S460B U650017 X X 

There is a possibility that unknown occurrences may occur in unsurveyed areas, routes in these 

areas will be mitigated as occurrences are found to avoid impacts. The effects analysis assumes 

that monitoring of occurrences will occur and that any discovered impacts will be mitigated. 

Alternative A would maintain current conditions. Alternatives B, C, D and E are expected to 

have a net benefit to Botrychium campestre, Botrychium lineare, Carex alopecoidea 

Cypripedium parviflorum, Platanthera orbiculata, Sanguinaria canadensis, Viburnum opulus 

var. americanum, by closing areas to cross-country travel, if, as stated above, the routes are 

designed to avoid impacts to known occurrences. 

248 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Black Hills Plant Species of Local Concern 

Effects to Forest plant species of local concern are discussed in detail in the Botanical Resources 

Report. The following is a summary of the analysis of effects for each species. 

Adiantum capillus-veneris (southern maidenhair fern) and Eleocharis rostellata (beaked 

spikerush) will not be included in the effects analysis portion of this document because: there 

are no routes proposed along Cascade Creek; undiscovered occurrences are highly unlikely due 

to habitat requirement to be located along a stream fed with warm spring water; and there will be 

no effects from motorized routes, motorized cross-country travel, motorized game retrieval and 

motorized dispersed camping on A. capillus-veneris and E. rostellata because none of these are 

allowed on Forest lands along Cascade Creek (where A. capillus-veneris and E. rostellata occur). 

Botrychium multifidum (leathery grapefern), Carex bella (southwestern showy sedge), 

Listera convallarioides (broadlipped twayblade orchid), Lycopodium annotinum (stiff 

clubmoss), Oxyria digyna (alpine mountainsorrel), Petasites sagittatus (arrowleaf sweet 

coltsfoot), Polystichum lonchitis (northern hollyfern), Salix lucida ssp. caudata (shining 

willow)

All known occurrences of these eight Black Hills plant species of local concern are avoided by 

the proposed routes. The direct and indirect effects for these eight species will be discussed here 

simultaneously. 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for all alternatives because undiscovered occurrences 

could be impacted in all alternatives. The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable 

habitat (riparian, white spruce, or paper birch/hazel communities) and the amount of habitat open 

to cross-country travel is used here to estimate effects to undiscovered occurrences. The effects 

of motorized routes, motorized cross-country travel, motorized game retrieval, and motorized 

dispersed camping on these eight species are expected to be similar to the general discussions on 

riparian, white spruce, and paper birch/hazel forest above. 

Site-specific Analysis - In areas with botanical survey, there are no proposed routes that intersect 

known occurrences or surveyed suitable habitat for these eight species in any alternatives. 

All Alternatives - Botanical surveys are not 100 percent accurate, so it is possible that any 

alternative may impact individuals not observed during survey. However, the number would be 

small and not likely to impact persistence on the Forest, if known occurrences on the Forest are 

not impacted. 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined these species are likely to persist on the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan for these species 

and/or their riparian/wetland, white spruce, and paper birch/hazel forest habitat. 

Riparian/wetland areas, white spruce communities, and paper birch/hazel forest would be 

maintained in all alternatives. 

Gentiana affinis (pleated gentian) 

Three proposed routes intersect with three known occurrences of Gentiana affinis in Alternatives 

B and C. 

Direct mortality from vehicles is possible for all alternatives because undiscovered occurrences 

could be impacted in all alternatives. The miles of motorized routes on the Forest and in suitable 

habitat (riparian/wet meadow communities) and the amount of habitat open to cross-country 

249 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

travel is used here to estimate effects to undiscovered occurrences. The effects of motorized 

routes, motorized cross-country travel, motorized game retrieval, and motorized dispersed 

camping on Gentiana affinis are expected to be similar to the general discussion on 

riparian/wetland areas above. 

Site-specific Analysis - In areas with botanical survey, there are 3 proposed routes that intersect 

3 known occurrences of Gentiana affinis in Alternatives B and C, and one additional route that 

intersects a known occurrence of G. affinis in Alternative C. 

Design Criteria - Three proposed routes intersect three known occurrences of Gentiana affinis 

in Alternatives B and C and one additional route intersects a known occurrence in Alternative C. 

In order to be consistent with the Forest Plan and therefore ensure the persistence of this species 

on the Forest, the following must be done in Alternatives B and C: 

 Design route HC9 (new route) to avoid impacts to occurrences GEAF-4 

 Design route CZ3526 (new route) to avoid impacts to occurrence GEAF 07B040A 

 Design route HC1 (new route) to avoid impacts to occurrence GEAF 07B042 

In addition, Alternative C has one additional proposed route that must be designed to avoid 

impacts: 

 Design route CZ4927 (new route) to avoid impacts to GEAF 07M008A and riparian 

impacts 

All Alternatives - Botanical surveys are not 100 percent accurate, so any alternative may impact 

individuals not observed during survey. However, the number would be small and not likely to 

impact persistence of the species on the Forest. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment 

determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a), if known 

occurrences are not impacted. This project will be consistent with Forest Plan standards that 

provide for Gentiana affinis and its habitat if the design criterion described above is applied. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Management Area 3.1 Botanical Areas 

The Forest designated eight areas as Management Area 3.1 Botanical Areas in the 1997 Forest 

Plan. Various disturbances of these areas can cause changes to their environment and damage 

that may take a long time to restore or may never be restored. 

Roads can provide easy access to M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas by OHVs, even through there are 

currently road closures in effect for all M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas. If a road passes through or 

near a botanical area it may contribute to the introduction of invasive species (including noxious 

weeds), alteration of hydrology patterns, alteration of habitat condition (such as decrease in 

canopy cover or change in successional stage), increased access for disturbance vectors 

(including humans and livestock). The introduction of invasive species, alteration of hydrology 

patterns, alteration of habitat condition, and increased access for disturbance vectors may lead to 

increased disturbances. Increased disturbances may include vegetation trampling, cropping, and 

collecting, disruption of pollinators, increased dust, and sedimentation. 

Site-specific Analysis - There are two botanical areas affected by proposed routes in Alternatives 

B and C. Routes 864.1, 864.1A and 864.1C are currently closed routes that are proposed to be 

opened. Forest Plan Guideline 3.1-5103 states the Dugout Gulch Botanical Area has a 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum of Semi-primitive Nonmotorized. Opening this route to 

motorized vehicles would be in conflict with that guideline. 

250 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Route 228.1A is proposed to be changed from a road to a trail in the Englewood Springs 

Botanical Area. The effects to the botanical area are expected to be similar to what is currently 

occurring on the existing road. There may be an incremental increase in impacts if the use 

increases in the area as other areas become closed to ATVs. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis is bounded in time as the next 5 to 15 years. This temporal scale 

is based on: (1) the time over which one can expect to predict reasonably foreseeable actions and 

(2) roughly the time until the next Forest Plan Revision. The spatial scale for cumulative effects 

analysis generally encompasses the area within the Forest boundary. This area was chosen 

because it encompasses ecosystem components and species that occur on the Forest. A larger 

area would include the surrounding plains, which includes a vastly different suite of species and 

ecosystem components. 

Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational 

activities and other management activities have occurred and will continue to occur on the 

Forest. These activities will likely occur on private lands as well. All may affect plant species of 

concern (R2 sensitive plant species and Forest plant species of local concern) and botanical 

resources through direct mortality, habitat alteration, or spread of invasive species. On the 

Forest, these potential effects are lessened or negated for known occurrences by avoiding the 

locations during project design. 

Management of national and state parks adjacent to the Forest would have an unknown effect on 

plant species/communities and other botanical resources. Wind Cave National Park and Jewel 

Cave National Monument likely contain little spruce habitat because they are located in the 

southern Black Hills where spruce is sparse or absent. Spruce occurs in Custer State Park, mostly 

at the north end near recreation sites. These parks emphasize recreational opportunities and will 

likely manage hardwoods as desired species where possible. National parks and monuments tend 

to manage to preserve natural conditions, using fire and other processes, which would likely 

provide conditions under which hardwoods and other habitats evolved. Management in national 

and state parks will likely contribute to the conservation of plant species/communities and 

botanical resources. 

Privately owned lands within the Black Hills Ecoregion may also provide suitable habitat, but 

resource management by companies and private citizens depends on a number of factors (e.g., 

desired goals, market prices, development potential) making it difficult to predict future trends in 

private habitat diversity and quality. Potential habitat for species, communities, and locations 

may occur on private lands across the Black Hills. Continued urban development in the Black 

Hills will likely continue to affect species, communities, and locations, thereby increasing the 

importance of these botanical resources on National Forest System lands. 

There could be some incremental impacts to individual plant species, communities, and botanical 

resources. In Alternative A, incremental impacts would continue to accrue as motorized 

recreation use levels increase. User-created routes are expected to continue to be created and 

could incrementally impact plant species, communities, and botanical resources. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would reduce the amount of area open to cross-country travel, 

thereby reducing some of the effects of past activities and offsetting some impacts from non-FS 

lands. Incremental impacts from these alternatives are expected to be positive. Alternative D 

would reduce impacts the most by having the least amount of area including plant species and 

251 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

communities and botanical resources open to cross-country travel and the least miles of 

motorized routes. 

Scenery 

Introduction 

Scenery is defined as the general appearance of a place and the features of its views or 

landscapes: the arrangement of predominantly natural features of the landscapes we see. The 

adjective “scenic” has to do with natural scenery, which affords beautiful views. 

“Research has shown that high-quality scenery, especially that related to natural-appearing 

forests, enhances people’s lives and benefits society...Research findings support the logic that 

scenic quality and naturalness of the landscape directly enhance human well-being, both 

physically and psychologically, and contribute to other important human benefits. Specifically 

these benefits include people’s improved physiological well being as an important by-product of 

viewing interesting and pleasant natural appearing landscapes with high scenic diversity.” 

(USDA Forest Service 1995, pg. 17) 

In 2003, a National Visitor Use Monitoring project was conducted on the Black Hills National 

Forest. Recreation use on the National Forest for the fiscal year was calculated at 1,252,175 

visits. As part of that project, visitors were interviewed to determine their satisfaction with the 

Forest. They also identified areas they had visited (Table 14) - in order of highest use: (1) picnic 

areas, (2) scenic byways, (3) forest roads, (4) forest trails, and (5) developed campgrounds. The 

top four activities visitors participated in were (Table 13): (1) Viewing Wildlife - 62 % (of 

respondents), (2) Relaxing - 57 %, and (3) Viewing Natural Features - 51 %, Driving for 

Pleasure – 39%. 

With regard to the satisfaction of the visitors experience in Wilderness, Developed Day Use 

Areas, Developed Overnight (Campground) Areas, and General Forest Areas (Tables 11, 17, 18, 

19); the highest importance and satisfaction rating was given for the Scenery and Condition of 

Environment in each category (Kocis 2004, pg. 6, 11, 13, 14, 18-20). 

The natural beauty that makes up the scenery of the Forest is one of the most important elements 

or resources that draws our recreation visitors. Forest management practices directly affect 

people’s perceptions of scenic beauty. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Federal Laws. Federal laws that require all Federal management to consider scenery and 

aesthetic resources in land management planning (relevant to this Planning Area; USDA Forest 

Service 1995, pg. B-1) include: 

 National Trails System Act of 1968 

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

 Environmental Quality Act of 1970 

 Forest & Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

 National Forest Management Act of 1976 

 Public Rangelands Improvements Act of 1978 

252 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Forest Service Manual Direction. On March 10, 1997, the Washington Office of the Forest 

Service provided implementation direction to use the Scenery Management System during forest 

plan revisions and project level planning. In addition, there was a “white paper” attached that 

provided guidance in this implementation. On May 2, 2003, the FS manual direction was 

amended to provide further clarification to utilize the Scenery Management System in forest and 

project planning and implementation, which included the following section: 

2382.4 Applications to Project Management - 8. Determine how scenery management 

techniques and principles can be used to mitigate any land altering activity or introduced 

elements on the land, to achieve and maintain desired scenic integrity objectives and landscape 

character goals. 

Forest Plan Direction. The 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest, 

As Amended by the Phase II Amendment (LRMP) included the Scenery Management System as 

the basis for analyzing the scenic resource (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. II-59 - 61). This 

management plan provides goals, objectives, and guidelines for scenery management as follows: 

Forestwide Goal 4 - Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and 

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

communities. 

The objectives and guidelines are listed below. Details of each objective and guideline are in the 

Scenery specialist report in the project record. 

Objectives: 401, 402, and 420 

Guidelines: 5601, 5602, 5603, 5604, 5608, and 5609 

Methodology 

Scenery is evaluated by an indicator, scenic integrity, which identifies and measures the distinct 

aspects of scenic quality. Scenic integrity measures the amount of natural or socially valued 

appearance in a landscape along with the amount of visual disturbance that contrasts with and 

detracts from that appearance (the valued scenic character) existing at the time of measurement. 

It provides information regarding the presence, intensity and dominance of human-caused visual 

disturbances in the landscape, such as timber harvesting, road construction, mining, utility 

corridors, recreation facilities, ski areas or other special uses. 

Scenic integrity also applies to extreme scenery disturbances caused by natural events whenever 

these events are outside the historic range of variability (HRV) for the landscape. Large-scale or 

high intensity events such as catastrophic wildfires, insect/disease outbreaks, or wind/ice storms 

that exceed the HRV are considered negative visual disturbances to the valued scenic character, 

while those within HRV are considered positive elements. 

Scenic Integrity measures these disturbance effects in degrees of consistency, harmony, 

dominance, and contrast with the valued scenic character being viewed at the time of 

measurement. It indicates the presence and magnitude of visual disturbance (contrast in form, 

line, color, texture, pattern, size or scale) to that valued scenic character. It uses a graduated scale 

of six levels from ‘very high integrity’ to ‘no integrity.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings 

apply to scenery that appears natural and unaltered, with little or no contrast to or disturbance of 

the valued scenery attributes. Scenic Integrity levels define the minimum degree of natural or 

socially valued appearance and disturbance that either exists now (existing scenic integrity), or is 

253 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

a standard or guideline defining minimally acceptable levels (scenic integrity objectives) that 

would be permitted on future management projects. Scenic integrity levels (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, Glossary – p. 61) are defined as: 

 Very High Integrity - the valued scenery “appears natural or unaltered.” Only minute visual 

disturbances to the valued scenery, if any, are present. When used as a standard or guideline, 

this level should be achieved immediately upon project completion. 

 High Integrity - the valued scenery “appears natural or unaltered,” yet visual disturbances 

are present; however, they remain unnoticed because they repeat the form, line, color, texture, 

pattern and scale of the valued scenery. When used as a guideline, this level should be 

achieved as soon after project completion as possible or within 3 years maximum. 

 Moderate Integrity – the valued scenery "appears slightly altered.” Noticeable disturbances 

are minor and visually subordinate to the valued scenery because they repeat its form, line, 

color, texture, pattern and scale. When used as a standard or guideline, this level should be 

achieved as soon after project completion as possible or within 3 years maximum. 

 Low Integrity - the valued scenery "appears moderately altered." Visual disturbances are codominant with the valued scenery, and may create a focal point of moderate contrast. 

Disturbances may reflect, introduce or “borrow” valued scenery attributes from outside the 

landscape being viewed (such as the size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings; 

vegetative type changes or socially valued architectural styles). Scenery attributes borrowed 

from outside the viewed landscape appear compatible with or complimentary to those within. 

When used as a standard or guideline, this level should be achieved as soon after project 

completion as possible or within 3 years maximum. 

 Very Low Integrity - the valued scenery "appears heavily altered." Disturbances dominate 

the valued scenery being viewed; and they may only slightly borrow from, or reflect, valued 

scenery attributes within or beyond the viewed landscape (due to their size, shape, edge effect 

and pattern). However, disturbances must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain 

(primary landforms) so they do not dominate the overall composition when viewed as 

background (beyond 3 to 4 miles). Such disturbances might include unnatural appearing 

openings, roads, landform modifications or structures. If used as a standard or guideline, this 

level applies immediately upon project completion. However, its use as a management 

objective or standard/guideline is strongly discouraged; its primary use should be to inventory 

existing scenic integrity. 

Scenic integrity objectives are given in the Forest Plan for each management area (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, Chapter 2, pp. 59 – 60) 

Figure 34. Landscape distance zones (USDA Forest Service 1995, Chapter 4, p. 5) 

254 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Landscape visibility is the portion of landscapes visible from travelways and use areas and that 

are important to constituents for their scenic quality, aesthetic values, and landscape merits. 

Travelways and use areas are identified and classified during the Forestwide planning process in 

order to determine which observer locations, and their importance, to use in the landscape 

visibility analysis. Sensitivity Level 1 travelways that lead to important scenic features, 

residential areas, resorts, recreation areas, unique natural phenomena, wilderness trailheads, 

national parks, and State and county parks, attract a higher percentage of users having high 

concern for scenic quality, thus increasing the importance of those travelways (USDA Forest 

Service 1995, Chapter 4, p. 7). 

Sensitivity Level 1 travelways that constituents have a high level of concern for scenery around 

the Forest include: WY State Hwy. 24, I-90, Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway ( US Hwy. 14A), 

US Hwy. 85, Mickelson Trail #104, U.S. Hwy. 385, Centennial Trail #89, County Road 234 

(Nemo Road), SD Hwy. 44, County Road 228 (Sheridan Lake Road), Peter Norbeck National 

Scenic Byway (SD State Hwy. 244, US Hwy. 16/385, US Hwy. 16A, SD State Hwy. 87, SD State 

Hwy. 89) US Hwy. 16, US Hwy. 16A, SD State Hwy. 40, SD State Hwy. 87, SD State Hwy. 89, 

Deerfield Trail #40, Deerfield Loop Trail #40L, US Hwy. 18, and other summer and winter 

recreation trails nonmotorized trails. 

Sensitivity Level 2 travelways that constituents have a moderate level of concern for scenery in 

the Forest include county roads and main Forest collector roads, and winter snowmobile trails. 

Travelways with a low level of constituent concern for scenery in the Forest are Forest 

development roads. 

Use areas are spots that receive concentrated public-viewing use. They include national forest 

visitor centers, vista points, trailheads, campgrounds, picnic grounds, swim beaches, marinas, 

resorts, ski areas, and other recreation sites. Use areas also include(s) urban and suburban areas, 

towns and villages, subdivisions, parks and golf courses on private land, or other public lands 

within or adjacent to national forests (USDA Forest Service 1995, Chapter 4, p. 7). Use areas 

with a high level of constituent concern for scenery in and around the Forest include: Deerfield 

Lake Recreation Area, Pactola Lake Recreation Area, Sheridan Lake Recreation Area, area 

communities (Custer, Deadwood, Hill City, Hot Springs, Johnson Siding, Keystone, Lead, Rapid 

City, Rochford, Sundance, Spearfish), Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Jewell Cave 

National Monument, Wind Cave National Park, Custer State Park, lakes, campgrounds, and 

trailheads. 

Portions of landscapes seldom seen from travelways and use areas are also important to 

constituents for their aesthetic and scenic values. They may be of even greater importance as 

special recreation settings and as opportunities for people seeking solitude (USDA Forest Service 

1995, Chapter 4, p. 7). Seldom seen use areas with a very high level of constituent concern for 

scenery in and around the Forest include Management Area 1.1A Black Elk Wilderness. Seldom 

seen use areas with a high level of constituent concern for scenery where ‘users expect to 

experience some isolation from the sights and sounds of people’ in natural appearing landscapes: 

3.1 Botanical Areas, 3.2A Inyan Kara Mountain, 3.31 Backcountry Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis, 3.32 Backcountry Nonmotorized Recreation Emphasis, and 3.7 Late-successional 

Forest Landscapes Norbeck Wildlife Area (USDA Forest Service 2006a, Chapter 3, p. 3). 

Assumptions. 

 Existing roads and trails are most visible in the immediate foreground distance zone when 

viewed from travelways, due to vegetation and terrain. 

255 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 When located on steep slopes at higher elevation, or when the viewer is at a vista (such as 

Harney Peak) looking down on the landscape, roads and trails can be visible in all the 

distance zones. 

 The duration of view, such as a person standing at a vista point, slowly traveling down a path 

(walking or riding), or traveling at high speed in a vehicle, determine how visible objects, 

forms, lines, colors, etc., are in the landscape. 

 Changes in route density may have a negative, or positive, effect on the Foreground and 

Middleground views of U.S., State & County highways. The public may lose, or gain, 

motorized access to points with panoramic vistas, or areas of unique features. 

The analysis of the effects on scenery was based upon: 

 Review literature for new research of effect of roads & trails on scenery. 

 Forest GIS layers for the Scenic Resource and topographic maps. 

 Validation of assumptions and GIS analysis, thru field reviews of existing roads, existing 

citizen trails, and identified locations of new trail construction. 

 Training and experience analyzing the effect of management activities on scenery. 

Indicators. Effects on scenery, specifically changes from the existing condition - by scenic 

integrity objective (SIO) - are the key concerns. 

Indicators: 

 Miles of new trails by SIO. 

 Miles of roads converted to trail by SIO. 

 Miles of open roads closed by SIO. 

 Miles of closed roads open by SIO. 

 Acres open to game retrieval by SIO. 

 Acres open to dispersed camping by SIO. 

Affected Environment 

The Black Hills National Forest provides a strikingly different environment and a cool oasis 

during the summer months, for those living in the surrounding great plains. As a result, the 

Forest is a recreation destination that also provides the backdrop for the surrounding private 

land, and national and state parks. Concern for scenery is high. In the 2004 National Use Visitor 

Monitoring, three of the top five visitor-use activities directly related to scenery (driving for 

pleasure, view natural features, viewing wildlife). With regard to the satisfaction of the visitor’s 

experience when visiting the Forest, the highest importance and satisfaction rating was given for 

the scenery and condition of environment in each category (Kocis 2004, pp. 6, 11, 13, 14, 18-20) 

To verify the existing scenic integrity condition, site visits were made to four areas that are 

representative of existing OHV routes, to compare Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) 

with actual effects from OHV use. Representative sites that were visited included: 

 U.S. Hwy. 14A & Camp 5 (SD): Steep terrain, drainage, trails located in both areas – 

viewed in the immediate foreground perspective of a hiker and foreground and 

middleground from a vehicle. Findings were OHV routes on steep slopes were not 

evident due to a combination of viewer location (approx. 30 to 90 degrees off 

256 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

centerline), vegetation (trees, shrubs & grasses), and narrow width of trail (approx. 60 

inches). The existing scenic integrity in this area was high. 

 Thompson Gulch & FDR 863 & 864 (WY): Steep terrain, drainages, trail located up 

bottom of steep drainage – viewed in the immediate foreground perspective of a hiker. 

OHV trail up drainage has had limited use and is very narrow – it appears no different 

that a game or stock trail. Trails on top of the buttes (near FDR 864) have had more use, 

but are not apparent unless you are within 50 feet due to the relatively flat rocky terrain 

and grass vegetation. The existing scenic integrity in this area was moderate to high. 

 Community of Nemo (Nemo Road) and U.S. Hwy. 385 from Strawberry 

Campground to Sheridan Lake South Entrance (SD): A variety of terrain, 

vegetation, and trails crossings, or paralleling, the highway – viewed in the immediate 

foreground, foreground and middleground from a vehicle. Findings included: trails were 

not evident when viewed in the middleground; trails that crossed the highway in the 

immediate foreground, at a 60- to 90-degree angle to the Highway, and were evident for 

such a short period (when the vehicle was traveling at 45 to 55 mph) that they did not 

readily standout in the landscape. The existing scenic integrity in this area was moderate 

to high. When trails parallel the Hwy. 385 (such as from junction of Nemo Road to 

Custer Peak Quarry), the OHV trail is readily evident – the obvious human-caused wheel 

tracks have eliminated vegetation causing color contrasts and creating lines in the 

landscape where natural features are expected (in the immediate foreground). As the 

trail parallels the highway, the view is not fleeting for a short period, but rather the 

negative visual effects are repeated again and again. The existing scenic integrity in this 

area was low to moderate. 

 Sheridan Lake (SL) Road (SD). A variety of terrain and vegetation, trails take off at 

generally a 90-degree angle from the SL road – viewed in the immediate foreground 

from a vehicle. Due to the slower speed limit (35 to 45 mph), the observer is able to 

view trail locations for a greater duration, so they tend to be more evident – primarily 

due to the soil / vegetation color contrast. The existing scenic integrity in this area was 

moderate to high. 

Generally, existing OHV use is on existing roads that serve other purposes, such as logging, 

recreation, and permitee access. This access is on developed roads that were constructed for full 

size vehicles. Constructed road widths are 12 to 16 feet. These roads can be highly visible in the 

landscape as a ‘line’ that traverses a hillside; in other cases, where there is a large amount of cut 

and fill, there can be a strong color contrast between the exposed soil and the surrounding 

vegetation and can stand out a ‘form’ in the landscape – an example of this can be seen across 

from a Mickelson Trail Trailhead, between Custer and Pringle along U.S. Hwy. 385. As these 

roads are used for multiple purposes, whether by OHVs or highway vehicles, there is little to no 

effect on the existing condition by the current use of OHVs on these routes. 

Where OHV riders are creating their own trails, these routes are not designed with resource 

protection in mind. The width of these routes tends to be that of the vehicle riding on them. 

When these roads are located on steep slopes and go straight up the hill, color contrasts from 

soil, vegetation and vertical lines straight up the slope create negative visual effects from these 

trails. These effects are predominantly evident in the immediate foreground, but can also be 

visible in other distance zones. 

257 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A 

Direct Effects - The existing visual condition with regard to motorized use on existing roads 

would not change and there would be no effect. Cross-country motorized use would continue in 

an unregulated manor. Visual impacts are generally not evident in the foreground, 

middleground, and background distance zones. Negative visual impacts are evident in the form 

of vegetation loss, color contrasts, and unnatural appearing lines in the immediate foreground. 

These impacts are most evident from ‘braided’ (parallel) trails, hill climbs (steep topography), 

and ‘mud bogging’ (rutting moist areas / meadows creating color contrasts) and damaging plant 

communities that are specifically enjoyed for their scenic beauty. The type of visual impacts 

would likely incrementally increase as the amount of motorized use also increases. The existing 

level of scenic integrity would be reduced over time. Over time more effects will be evident in 

the foreground of U.S., State, and County highways, particularly where use is funneled by 

topography vegetation, or surrounding private land. 

Areas being managed for nonmotorized recreation (where people specifically go to view scenery 

on a macro-scale) whether unique vegetation or interesting landforms, will be affected. The 

smaller the nonmotorized use area, the larger the effect of cross-country unregulated motorized 

use will have on it. 

Effects of Game retrieval and dispersed camping on scenery is expect to stay at the same level 

(as an increase in big game hunting tags, which this activity is generally linked to, is not 

expected to increase). 

Indirect Effects – Negative effects on scenery of unregulated cross-country travel may be more 

visible from private land both inside and outside the national forest boundary. Invasive (nonnative) plants could be introduced and spread along new trails and areas that have had limited 

motorized use in the past – thus degrading the natural beauty of an area. The increasing variety, 

quantity, and spread of invasive species are becoming more evident in the forest. Visually they 

often stand out in the immediate foreground due to their size, shape, and color. Many observers 

recognize their impact on the environment and the competition they have with native plants and 

view them as a negative visual (and ecological) element in the landscape. 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

Direct Effects – The elimination of unrestricted motorized cross-country travel should halt 

further visual impacts from this activity. Areas that currently display the effects of this activity 

should become less evident over time. 

Concentrated use areas, 3 to 5 acres in size, would be located in existing rock pits or quarries. 

No additional impacts from this new use should change the existing condition. New trailheads 

would be designed and constructed to meet the assigned SIO as directed in the Forest plan for 

recreation facilities. 

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives B, C, D 

Direct Effects - The route construction process creates a cleared path across the landscape by 

excavating and filling material to create a level running surface vehicles can operate on, known 

as the ‘template’. This surface, devoid of vegetation, generally is quite visible as a ‘line’ across 

258 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

the landscape. The wider the route surface, and the steeper the side slope of the landform it is 

on, the more visible the road is and the less natural appearing. Conversely, the narrower the 

route and the flatter the side slope, the less visible the route will be. However, when an observer 

is above looking down on a route, it can still be highly evident due to the color contrast with the 

surrounding vegetation. 

Trails less than 50 inches in width generally would have less visual impact due to their narrow 

width. However, with the concentration of use o these trails, use will increase, and there would 

likely be no vegetation in the center of the trail that would help the trail blend in. In addition, as 

vehicles meet and pass one another, the vegetation along the sides of the trails would be 

impacted and may result in the trails being more visually evident in the landscape. 

Single-track trails may be the least evident in the landscape; however, they can be highly evident 

and create visual impacts if routes traverse steep slopes or have sharp turns 90 degrees or greater. 

Any trail that is in an open area and has numerous paths side by side (i.e., a ‘braided’ pattern) 

can be highly evident and have a negative visual impact. Negative visual impacts take the form 

of color contrast and vertical (unnatural appearing) lines in the foreground distance zone. 

Designating these ‘special designation’ (rock crawler) trails could increase use and spectators 

resulting in additional visual impacts in the immediate foreground (due to vegetation loss). 

These trails are generally in isolated locations with difficult access. Although in places they are 

on steep terrain, surrounding vegetation generally reduces their visibility in the landscape. 

Roads that are closed to motorized use, are generally not obliterated by eliminating the road 

template and returning the hillside to the natural contours. As a result, roads are generally still 

evident as an unnatural form and line in the landscape. Other routes that are open only for 

administrative use (maintenance level 1) will have approximately five vehicle passes per year; 

the effect of this use should be minimal to not evident at all. When closed roads are open for 

logging activity, any vegetation that has grown up on them will be removed, and these roads will 

be more evident during that period of use. 

Proposed Motorized Routes That Could Have Negative Visual Impacts in Designated 

Nonmotorized Areas (Management Areas 4.1) 

 Route # 875.2A - Opening closed road, HIGH to MODERATE scenic integrity objective 

 Route # 875.2B - Opening closed road, HIGH to MODERATE scenic integrity objective 

 Route # 875.2D - Opening closed road, MODERATE to LOW scenic integrity objective 

 Route # 875.2E - Opening closed road, MODERATE scenic integrity objective 

 Route # 875.2F - Opening closed road, MODERATE scenic integrity objective 

 Route # 875.2G - Opening closed road, MODERATE scenic integrity objective 

Proposed Motorized Routes That Could Have Negative Visual Impacts 

 Route # U260027 – New single-track route that takes off from private land, up a steep slope, 

in the immediate foreground of Sheridan Lake Road, HIGH scenic integrity objective 

Indirect Effects – Any new routes near private land have the potential to be highly visible from 

any given individual parcel of private land. As a result, individual landowners adjacent to 

National Forest lands may be individually adversely impacted. 

259 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Alternative B 

Direct Effects - The quantity of visual impacts from motorized use will be reduced, due to the 

closing of unauthorized routes and the elimination of unrestricted cross-country motorized use; 

however the concentration and increased level of use on these designated routes may result in 

greater visual impacts along them. 

Many hunters retrieve game by using motorized vehicles such as pickup trucks and 4-wheelers. 

This endeavor usually involves traveling slowly to minimize vehicle damage and potential for 

personal injury. A highway vehicle normally makes only one round-trip to retrieve a harvested 

game animal. When vehicle speed is limited to less than 5 miles per hour, visual impacts are 

usually limited to bent grass and crushed decaying small logs and branches. Hunters retrieving 

game with off-highway vehicles (ATV, UTV, etc.) may have to make multiple trips, depending 

on the size of the animal and the ATV manufacturer’s loading recommendations. Due to 

repeated driving over the same ground, the potential for more visual impact in the form of 

displaced soil and covering vegetation is greater than a highway vehicle, but should no longer be 

evident the following year. Visual impacts from game retrieval would be concentrated to the 

areas it is allowed – approximately one-fourth the existing level – assuming the same levels of 

animal hunting tags issued by State fish and game departments in each area. 

Repeated vehicle trips over the same ground to access a dispersed campsite can wear away 

covering vegetation while compacting soil and retard vegetation regrowth. Visual effects from 

dispersed camping are primarily rutted and/or exposed wheel tracks and areas devoid of 

vegetation; both creating color contrast in the immediate foreground that draws the eye. These 

effects may heal in a year; however, repeated use would compact soil, retard revegetation, and 

take more than a year to heal itself. With the ban on open fires outside of developed camping 

areas, dispersed camping use in South Dakota would be expected to increase only modestly. The 

level of visual impacts from dispersed camping should stay the same or increase, due to the 

proximity and concentration of camps next to the roads. 

Trailheads are generally considered a positive cultural element. Although they create an open 

area, they are normally located on relatively flat ground and the surrounding vegetation limits 

their visibility in the landscape. In addition, they provide an access point to the surrounding 

natural landscapes and recreation activities. New trailheads will require careful location and site 

design to limit their visibility and maximize their utility. 

Indirect Effects – No indirect effects were identified. 

Table 40. Indicators for Alternative B 

Scenic Integrity Objective Indicators 

High Moderate Low Very Low 

New Routes (miles) 43 159 190 2 

Roads to Trails (miles) 21 79 105 0 

Open Roads Currently Closed (miles) 0 3 0 0 

Close Roads Currently Open (miles) 20 81 122 0 

Game Retrieval (acres) 

 - Yearlong 21,230 73,595 82,698 1,507 

 - Seasonal 0 0 0 0 

Dispersed Camping (acres) 7,286 25,351 30,307 555 

260 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative C 

Direct Effects - Alternative C would provide the greatest potential for visual impacts from 

motorized use, in all distance zones, and all alternatives, as it has the greatest number of miles of 

authorized motorized routes. 

This alternative should have fewer impacts from game retrieval and dispersed camping than 

Alternative B, as it disperses the use over a wider area. Visual impacts from game retrieval 

would likely be less than half the existing level. With dispersed camping distance from the road 

increased to 300 feet, the overall visual impacts should be less evident than Alternative B, due to 

the greater distance. However, the visual impacts from access and egress to the camps may be 

similar to Alternative B. 

Indirect Effects – No indirect effects were identified. 

Table 41. Indicators for Alternative C 

Scenic Integrity Objective Indicators 

High Moderate Low Very Low 

New Routes (miles) 60 226 240 1 

Roads to Trails (miles) 20 64 119 0 

Open Roads Currently Closed (miles) 0 0 1 0 

Close Roads Currently Open (miles) 23 137 171 0 

Game Retrieval (acres) 

 - Yearlong 28,040 161,489 143,627 3,324 

 - Seasonal 2,220 17,308 16,632 0 

Dispersed Camping (acres) 21,029 76,552 84,756 1,507 

Alternative D 

Direct Effects - Alternative D would provide the greatest overall reduction in miles of open 

routes. This alternative has the greatest potential to reduce the existing visual impacts from 

motorized use in the landscape; however, like Alternatives B, C, and E, this alternative would 

concentrate use, and corresponding impacts, along roads and trails. No motorized game retrieval 

and dispersed camping would occur, so visual impacts should be limited to the immediate 

foreground of roads across the Forest. With the fewest miles of motorized use, this alternative 

has the least potential to create negative visual effects from motorized use across the Forest. 

Indirect Effects – No indirect effects were identified. 

Table 42. Indicators for Alternative D 

Scenic Integrity Objective Indicators 

High Moderate Low Very Low 

New Routes (miles) 13 72 79 1 

Roads to Trails (miles) 12 50 82 0 

Open Roads Currently Closed (miles) 0 0 1 0 

Close Roads Currently Open (miles) 4 35 47 0 

Game Retrieval (acres) 

 - Yearlong closed closed closed closed 

 - Seasonal closed closed closed closed 

Dispersed Camping (acres) closed closed closed closed 

261 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Alternative E 

Direct Effects - Effects on the visual resource would be similar to Alternative A, with the 

exception that no cross-country travel (and the resulting impacts) would occur. 

Indirect Effects – No indirect effects were identified. 

Summary 

Alternative A would continue the current level of impacts, as well as future incremental impacts 

to scenic quality because it would allow the highest level of motorized cross-country travel. 

Unauthorized routes would continue to be created and would incrementally impact scenery in 

general. 

Alternatives B and C would reduce the amount of area open to cross-country travel, and 

Alternatives D and E would eliminate such use. This would reduce some of the effects of past 

activities and offset some impacts from private lands. Incremental impacts, with regard to crosscountry travel, from these alternatives are expected to be positive. 

Alternatives B and C would increase the miles of authorized routes, resulting in a concentration 

of motorized use along them, particularly in areas with a high number of routes. Incremental 

impacts from such use may increase. 

Alternative D would decrease the miles of authorized routes, also resulting in a concentration of 

motorized use along them, particularly in areas with a high number of routes. Incremental 

impacts from such use may decrease. 

Alternative E would maintain the current miles of authorized routes and corresponding level of 

impacts. Use would also be concentrated along these routes, similar to Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Impacts from this use are expected to stay at the same level, or increase incrementally. 

Cumulative Effects 

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis selected is the entire Forest. There are 

some general similarities that are common to the scenery resource on lands administered by 

other agencies including Custer State Park and units of the National Park Service. A temporal 

scale of 10 years is based on (1) the time over which one can expect to predict reasonably 

foreseeable actions, and (2) the time over which one can expect to predict effects of ongoing and 

proposed activities. 

The cumulative effects analysis for the scenery resource generally considers impacts of the 

alternatives when combined with past, present, and foreseeable future actions and events 

including: (1) designated Forest transportation facility maintenance; (2) closure or rehabilitation 

efforts on routes not open for public use or not maintained for administrative use; (3) vegetation 

treatments to meet timber and fuels reduction objectives; (4) urban interface growth and 

increased Forest use; and (5) future road or trail realignment, reconstruction, or 

decommissioning. Management actions can influence or contribute to changes in user 

concentrations, creation of unauthorized routes, maintenance needs and levels, the effectiveness 

of closures, and rehabilitation or some level of recovery of closed routes. Cumulatively, these 

actions can influence overall maintenance of, or return toward, a natural appearing condition. 

The designation of a transportation system does not limit the ability of the Forest to use Closure 

Orders to close an area or trail if unacceptable resource damage is identified. This management 

262 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

tool can limit the duration and extent of undesirable resource impacts that are beginning to occur. 

Effects to the scenery resource, such as loss of vegetation – creating visual lines across the 

landscape, and soil erosion – which create color contrasts that dominate the landscape, may be 

reason to issue closure orders if corrective actions are not successful. 

The urban interface along the northeastern portion of the Forest, from Spearfish to Hill City, is 

one of the rapidly growing areas in the State of South Dakota. The rapid growth has likely 

contributed to the popularity of off-highway vehicles. The demand for motorized recreation will 

likely continue to increase (see Chapter 1). Therefore, it can generally be anticipated that 

demand would continue to concentrate or increase use levels on open routes (see Chapter 1) 

within this general area. With the reduction in miles of routes open to these vehicles, use and 

visual impacts will be concentrated along these routes. However, it is assumed that by reducing 

the number and miles of routes, inspections and maintenance of routes would address identified 

areas of concern in a timely way and impacts to the scenic resources would be kept to a 

minimum. 

Implementing this travel management decision, which could potentially concentrate use, would 

cause a need for ongoing maintenance, and there may be a need for rerouting the location of 

some facilities and/or rehabilitating some routes. Rehabilitation activities, beyond normal 

maintenance, usually require additional environmental analysis (specific to the location), and 

those decisions could result in disturbance activities that may be highly evident (such as 

obliterating a road and returning the landscape to the natural topographic contours). However, 

the long-term effects of rehabilitation actions would generally be expected to reduce impacts to 

scenic resources, and help to reduce evidence of human-built routes across the landscape. 

Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational 

activities, and other management activities have occurred and would continue to occur on the 

Forest. These activities would likely occur on adjacent private lands as well. All may affect 

scenery by changing the natural and human-built environment. Road construction, 

reconstruction, and decommissioning conducted as part of managing the Forest-designated 

transportation system are expected to continue. These activities would generally be expected to 

have various levels of effects to scenery, as has been identified in the Forest Plan EIS (USDA 

Forest Service 1996) and in the Phase II Amendment EIS (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

As indicated in the Direct and Indirect Effects section above, implementation of any of the action 

Alternatives (B, C, D, and E) would be expected to reduce the amount of area open to crosscountry travel as compared to Alternative A. Rehabilitation of existing unauthorized routes or 

other disturbed areas associated with current OHV use is not a part of the proposed action or 

alternatives. Rehabilitation efforts at disturbed locations may occur through the implementation 

of future Forest projects. Over time, various disturbed areas could generally be expected to 

establish some level of vegetation and reduce visible effects and evidence of past OHV use. 

Some locations with no remaining surface soil layers, or which are compacted from vehicle use, 

may no longer be able to readily support vegetation establishment. In addition, the road template 

of constructed routes will continue to be evident, unless obliterated through rehabilitation efforts, 

for decades to come (in some areas the road template has been evident for some 100 years, 

before natural processes can finally act to reclaim it). 

Management of national and state parks adjacent to the Forest (Wind Cave National Park, Jewel 

Cave National Monument, Custer State Park) emphasizes recreational opportunities in scenic 

landscape settings. National parks and monuments tend to be managed to preserve natural 

conditions, using fire and other processes. This would likely provide conditions under which 

263 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

hardwoods and other habitats evolved. Management in national and state parks would likely 

contribute to the conservation of wildlife species. All of this would provide for variety in, and 

enjoyment of, the scenery. 

On lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest, most of the riparian areas (where many of 

the hardwood, aspen, and meadows are most evident) are under private ownership. 

Development is expected to continue on private lands. While the Forest would take actions 

under all alternatives that would generally improve scenery in riparian areas, some actions on 

privately held lands could have an offsetting effect. 

Table 43. Motorized use in total miles by all scenic integrity objectives 

Miles by Alternative 

A B C D E 

 Very High SIO 0 0 0 0 0 

 High SIO 334 377 394 264 334 

 Moderate SIO 1,325 1,487 1,602 1,166 1,325 

 Low SIO 1,919 2,081 2,172 1,600 1,919 

 Very Low SIO 28 29 29 22 28 

 Other Ownership 169 155 155 145 169 

Other Public Roads within NFS 

Lands 820 820 820 820 820 

Unauthorized Routes on NFS Lands 4,375 0 0 0 0 

Total 8,970 4,949 5,172 4,017 4,595 

Cultural Resources 

Introduction 

This section presents the results of cultural resource inventories as part of the Section 106 

process of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Under the guidance provided in Forest 

Service policy for NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor 

Vehicle Use prepared by the Forest Service in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, only certain elements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule are to be considered 

undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties, triggering evaluation under Section 

106 of NHPA, and 36 CFR Part 800. These categories are as follows: 

 The construction of a new road or trail. 

 The authorization of motor vehicle use on a route currently closed to vehicles. 

 The formal recognition of a user-developed (unauthorized) route as a designated route 

open to motor vehicles. 

 Closing a route currently open to motorized use. (For this decision, no proposed road 

closures would be implemented on the ground. Any road proposed for closure would 

not be designated as open to motorized travel on the map. There would be no ground 

disturbance and therefore no potential to affect historic properties. In the future, if 

physical closures (gates, berms, etc.) are proposed the districts would determine how the 

road would be closed and consultation would be handled with a separate 106 report.) 

264 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Existing, formally established system (classified) roads and trails including up to a 300-foot 

game retrieval and dispersed camping corridor, already open to motor vehicle travel, generally 

do not need to be reevaluated for purposes of this rule. Their designation on a motor vehicle use 

map is not generally considered an undertaking for the purposes of NHPA and not subject to 

Section 106 review. Tracts of private property within the analysis area were not inventoried. 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction 

Forest Service Policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect cultural 

resources, including lands that will leave federal agency control through sale or exchange, be 

surveyed for cultural resources in order to comply with 36 CFR 800 –Protection of Historic 

Properties, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. To comply with these laws, identified historic 

properties known to be 50 years or older, will be documented to State Historic Preservation 

Office standards, evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

and assessed for potential adverse effects from the proposed action alternatives. If eligible 

cultural resources cannot be avoided by project activities, adverse effects will be mitigated. 

Affected Environment: 

Prehistoric Context. The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the Northwestern 

Plains (Sundstrom 1989). Human occupation of this area has been divided into six broad 

cultural periods (Frison 1991): 

 Paleo-Indian 11,500 B.P. to 7,000 B.P. 

 Early Archaic 7,000 B.P. to 5,000 B.P. 

 Middle Archaic 5,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P. 

 Late Archaic 3,000 B.P. to 1,500 B.P. 

 Late Prehistoric 1,500 B.P. to 500 B.P. 

The Black Hills National Forest Cultural Resources Overview identifies cultural sites that 

represent all of the above prehistoric phases of occupation in the Black Hills (Rom, et al. 1996). 

Identifiable tribal groups living within the Black Hills area during the Protohistoric period 

include the Kiowa, Crow, Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Sioux. 

Historic Context. Historical chronological stages appropriate for the entire Black Hills are as 

follows: 

 Protohistoric A.D.1600-1851 

 Military Exploration 1851-1874 

 Euro-American Settlement 1874-1920 

 Depression/New Deal 1920-1941 

 World War II 1941-1945 

 Modern 1946 to present 

265 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Sporadic use of the Black Hills by Euro-Americans began in the early 1800s and consisted 

mainly of fur trappers and traders (Sundstrom 1989). The western half of South Dakota, 

including the Black Hills, portions of southern North Dakota, and nearly the entire area of the 

Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana were recognized as unceded Indian Territory by 

the 1868 treaty between the United States and the Sioux and Arapaho. More intense EuroAmerican occupation in the Black Hills began shortly after gold was discovered in the Black 

Hills in 1874. It was this discovery that brought a full-scale influx of Euro-American 

prospectors and miners to the Black Hills. 

In addition to gold, several other minerals began to be extracted from the Black Hills in the late 

19th and early 20th centuries. These minerals were largely contained in the pegmatite dikes 

exposed throughout the Black Hills. These pegmatite dikes typically form resistant ridges and 

were mined from the surface. Typically, the rock was blasted from the pegmatite dikes using 

dynamite placed in either hand or machine drilled holes. The blasted rock was then sorted by 

hand and transferred to other locations for processing. After mining was complete, the extraction 

of rock typically left small open pits or cuts where the pegmatite dikes were once present. 

Historic settlement in the Black Hills by Euro-Americans is generally auxiliary to this history of 

the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800s through the 1920s. 

Industries such as the ranching and logging industry became common in the early 1900s; 

however, much of the land was not patented and remained public land. 

Field Surveys 

Level I inventories (literature search) of previous projects and previously recorded sites within 

the project area were conducted prior to any potential fieldwork. Level I inventories revealed 

there have been 1,674 Level III cultural resource surveys conducted on the Black Hills National 

Forest, covering significant portions of the Travel Management Analysis Project area. Adequate 

Level III surveys are defined as 100 percent survey requiring a visual inspection of the project 

APE (Area of Potential Effect), with pedestrian transects no more than 30 meters (100 feet) apart 

[Guidelines for Cultural Resource Surveys and Survey Reports in South Dakota (For Review and 

Compliance), 2005: 9]. The State of South Dakota guidelines (Ibid 2005:9) also state that the 

survey report must explain survey methodology and rationale for their use to be considered 

adequate. Furthermore, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) “has 

determined that archaeological data, surveys, and reports completed within the last twenty years 

are valid and may not require a new survey” (ibid. 2005: 9). 

Separate Level I and III cultural resource inventories were conducted on each of the four districts 

for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Analysis Project. These inventories were 

conducted in September, October, and November 2008. These surveys are described in detail in 

the Heritage Resources specialist report, found in the project file. Provided that the site-specific 

protection measures are adhered to, these reports satisfy the requirements for consultation under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A 

If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y), 

for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). CEQ guidance 

266 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

clarifies that the no action alternative be based on no change from current management. At this 

time, there are 10,279 miles of existing routes on the Forest. Under this alternative, current 

management plans would continue to guide project area management. Unrestricted off-road 

motorized travel would continue to be allowed on much of the forest, consistent with the current 

Forest Plan. 

Direct Effects - No roads, trails, or areas would be designated open to wheeled motorized 

vehicle travel on lands administered by the Forest; consequently, unrestricted cross-country 

travel and route proliferation would still occur in areas of the Forest. The no action alternative 

would not directly affect cultural resources through any activity proposed for travel management. 

Indirect Effects - An indirect effect could possibly result from the fact that the no action 

alternative would not provide for any mitigation measures for resource protection, or 

stabilization of currently affected sites. Currently, there are 575 cultural resources in the area of 

potential effects for unauthorized, user-created trails. In addition, there are 1,489 sites in the area 

of potential effects for dispersed motorized camping, and 1,892 sites in the area of potential 

effects for motorized game retrieval. As stated above, these sites have had no resource 

protection measures implemented to prevent site damage. The effects of soil compaction, 

rutting, erosion, structural damage, illegal artifact collecting, and vandalism will continue—and 

likely increase—under the current management plan. The no action alternative would result in 

continued degradation of known sites. Loss of site integrity, site artifacts, and site information 

would continue and likely increase as unauthorized motorized recreation use grows on the 

Forest. 

Alternative A would have the most impacts to cultural resources because it is the only alternative 

that would allow unrestricted motorized cross-country travel to occur on cultural resources 

without any form of site protection. This could lead to more user-created routes where the effects 

to cultural resources are not considered. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B attempts to comply with the Travel Management Rule and is based largely on 

input from the National Forest Advisory Board and Travel Subcommittee as well as the citizens, 

who attended the public meetings and workshops. The emphasis of Alternative B is to develop a 

motorized recreational system, while considering natural resource and socioeconomic concerns. 

Alternative B attempts to a lesser degree to maximize the effectiveness of limited resources 

through system design. 

Alternative B has a total of 4,129 miles open to motor vehicle use. Existing system roads make 

up 3,466 of these miles and are not considered undertakings requiring Section 106 review. 

Actions that are considered undertakings subject to Section 106 review total 1,094 miles: 

 Designate an open road as closed on the map 267 miles 

 Reopen a closed Road 224 miles 

 Trail converted from road 207 miles 

 New route from unauthorized route 396 miles 

Direct Effects – There are 203 historic properties in the area of potential effects (APE) under 

Alternative B. Actions proposed under Alternative B that have the potential to adversely impact 

cultural resources include the designation of new routes, reopening previously closed routes, 

designating a 100-foot motorized dispersed camping corridor along certain new and reopened 

267 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

routes, and designating a 300-foot motorized game retrieval corridor along certain new and 

reopened routes. Seventy-three (73) sites lie within the area of potential effects (APE) for new 

and reopened routes. Eighty-four (84) sites are located in the APE for dispersed motorized 

camping along new and reopened routes. One hundred four (104) sites are within the APE for 

motorized game retrieval along new and reopened routes. Mitigation plans have been developed 

for each site. The appropriate State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Governments, and other 

consulting parties must concur on these plans prior to implementation. Site-specific mitigation 

measures are detailed in the Heritage specialist report, located in the project file (see also 

Appendix B). 

Actions proposed under Alternative B that have the potential to benefit cultural resources include 

the closure of existing routes. In addition, the conversion of roads to trails would result in 

decreased impacts to cultural resources. Twenty-seven sites are situated on roads that will be 

converted to trails under Alternative B. Road closures under this alternative would eliminate 

motorized vehicle impacts to 35 sites. Moreover, road closures would remove 45 cultural 

resources from the dispersed motorized camping area of potential effects, and 62 sites from the 

motorized game retrieval APE. Sites that would benefit by road closures and the conversion of 

road to trails as proposed in Alternative B are described in detail in the Heritage specialist report, 

located in the project file. 

Indirect Effects - Closing roads to motorized access may impair American Indian access to 

spiritual and traditional sites and traditional use areas. To date, no tribes have expressed 

concerns regarding motorized access during ongoing consultation. 

Alternative C 

This alternative would allow wheeled motorized travel on 4,353 miles. Of these routes, 3,582 

are existing system roads and are not considered undertakings. Actions that are considered 

undertakings subject to Section 106 review total 1,346 miles: 

 Designate an open road as closed on the map 282 miles 

 Reopen a closed road 331 miles 

 Trail converted from road 205 miles 

 New route from unauthorized route 527 miles 

Direct Effects – There are 269 historic properties that lie in the area of potential effects (APE) 

under Alternative C. Actions proposed under Alternative C that have the potential to adversely 

impact cultural resources include the designation of new routes, reopening previously closed 

routes, designating a 300-foot motorized dispersed camping corridor along certain new and 

reopened routes, and designating motorized game retrieval areas totaling 373,000 acres. Ninetyfive (95) sites are in the area of potential effects for new and reopened routes. One hundred forty 

(140) sites are in the APE for dispersed motorized camping along new and reopened routes. One 

hundred eighty-five (185) sites are in the APE for the motorized game retrieval areas. Mitigation 

plans have been developed for each site. These plans must receive concurrence from the 

appropriate State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Governments, and other consulting parties 

prior to implementation. Site-specific mitigation measures are detailed in the Heritage specialist 

report, located in the project file (see also Appendix B). 

Actions proposed under Alternative C that have the potential to benefit cultural resources include 

the closure of existing routes. In addition, the conversion of roads to trails would result in 

decreased impacts to cultural resources. Some 21 sites are on roads that would be converted to 

268 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

trails under Alternative C. Road closures under this alternative would eliminate motorized 

vehicle impacts to 52 sites. Moreover, road closures would remove 83 cultural resources from 

the dispersed motorized camping area of potential effects. Sites that would benefit from road 

closures and the conversion of road to trails as proposed in Alternative C are described in the 

Heritage specialist report, located in the project file. 

Indirect Effects - Closing roads to motorized access may hamper American Indian access to 

spiritual and traditional sites and traditional use areas. However, no such concerns have been 

raised during consultation with affected tribes. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would provide a smaller motorized transportation system with fewer motorized 

trails. This alternative would reduce the impacts of motorized use to nonmotorized recreationists 

and natural resources. This alternative would offer a designated travel system that would limit 

impacts on wildlife habitats and natural resources. Dispersed motorized camping and motorized 

game retrieval would not be permitted under this alternative. 

This alternative would allow wheeled motorized travel on 3,196 miles. Existing system roads 

make up 2,877 of these miles and are not considered undertakings requiring Section 106 review. 

Actions that are considered undertakings subject to Section 106 review total 1,234 miles: 

 Designate an open road as closed on the map 830 miles 

 Reopen a closed road 90 miles 

 Trail converted from road 146 miles 

 New route from unauthorized route 168 miles 

Direct Effects – There are 167 historic properties that are known to exist within the area of 

potential effects under Alternative D. Actions proposed under Alternative D that have the 

potential to adversely impact cultural resources include the designation of new routes, and 

reopening previously closed routes. Some 34 sites are in the area of potential effects (APE) for 

new and reopened routes. Mitigation plans have been developed for each site and concurred 

upon by applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Governments, and other consulting 

parties. Site-specific mitigation measures are detailed in the Heritage specialist report, located in 

the project file (see also Appendix B). 

Alternative D includes actions that have the potential to benefit cultural resources, such as the 

closure of existing routes. Alternative D road closures would eliminate motorized vehicle 

impacts to 123 sites. The conversion of roads to trails also should result in decreased impacts to 

cultural resources. Ten (10) sites are located along roads that will be converted to trails under 

Alternative D. Sites that would benefit by road closures and the conversion of road to trails as 

proposed in Alternative B are described in the Heritage specialist report, located in the project 

file. Alternative D would reduce impacts the most by having the least amount of area open to 

cross-country travel and the least miles of motorized routes. 

Indirect Effects - Closing roads to motorized access may impair American Indian access to 

spiritual and traditional sites and traditional use areas. However, tribal representatives have 

expressed no concerns over this during consultation. 

269 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Alternative E 

Direct Effects - Alternative E would take the minimum actions required to comply with the 

Travel Management Rule. It eliminates off-road travel in areas where it is currently allowed. 

Under Alternative E, motorized travel would be restricted to designated routes. It adopts the 

current road and trail system as the designated travel system. This alternative would not allow 

motorized dispersed camping or game retrieval. 

Alternative E would allow wheeled motorized travel on the 3,740 miles of existing system roads. 

No cross-country motorized travel would be allowed. Designation of these routes on a map 

would not be considered undertakings requiring Section 106 review. Alternative E would not 

directly affect cultural resources through any activity proposed for Travel Management. 

However, Alternative E would indirectly benefit cultural resources by eliminating the effects of 

motorized dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval that may be currently occurring. 

This indirect effect would remove all sites from the dispersed camping APE, and all sites from 

the motorized game retrieval APE. 

Indirect Effects - Closing roads to motorized access may hamper American Indian access to 

spiritual and traditional sites and traditional use areas. However, no such concerns have been 

raised during consultation with affected tribes. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Alternatives B, C, and D have the potential to negatively affect at-risk historic properties due to 

the presence of eligible and unevaluated sites located along routes. It is likely that a long-term 

result of reducing or eliminating cross-country travel under these alternatives would be an 

increased and more intensive use of the designated system. There is also a concern for cultural 

resource sites not yet discovered due to such factors as dense vegetation and those sites that are 

comprised of buried deposits (such as lithic scatters). However, because Alternatives B, C, and 

D reduce or prohibit unauthorized public wheeled motor vehicle cross-country travel, they 

reduce the potential for adverse effects to cultural resources. Thus, these alternatives should have 

an overall benefit to cultural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would reduce the amount of area open to cross-country travel, 

thereby reducing its ongoing effects and offsetting some impacts from lands of other ownership. 

Incremental impacts to cultural resources from these alternatives are expected to be positive. 

Alternatives B, C, and D, would concentrate motorized travel within restricted road corridors. 

This concentration would make the potential for effects to cultural resources in these areas more 

severe. However, this potential for effects would be managed through site-specific protection 

measures in consultation with affected State Historic Preservations, affected tribes, and the 

Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. 

The proposed Travel Management Plan could have both beneficial and adverse effects on 

American Indian traditional resources. Beneficial effects could include an increase in the feeling 

of solitude and an enhancement of the resource setting for traditional-resource areas. At the same 

time, road closures could limit access to American Indian traditional-resource locations. The 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act reinforces the policy of providing access and use of 

Forest lands to American Indians for traditional rites and ceremonies. The Forest Service would 

continue to consult with American Indian groups to identify and resolve potential access and 

traditional-use issues under all alternatives. 

270 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within analysis area include timber 

harvest, recreation, road construction, range improvement projects, mining activities, and 

associated improvement projects. These activities have occurred in the past, are ongoing, and in 

all likelihood will continue to occur in the foreseeable future. NHPA Section 106 and 36CFR800 

outline methods for protecting cultural resources from impacts caused by the actions listed 

above. These impacts are difficult to quantify, but they can be avoided or minimized through the 

implementation of appropriate site-specific mitigation measures through consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Governments, and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. 

It is recognized that cultural resources may be present in the subsurface with no surface 

manifestation. Therefore, if additional cultural resources are discovered during project activities, 

all operations must cease within a 100-meter radius of the site location and a district archeologist 

notified immediately. Any cultural resources located during project implementation would be 

protected based on the recommendations of the district archeologist and the SHPO. All sites 

would be evaluated under the terms specified in 36 CFR Part 60.4 and 36 CFR Part 800 and 

applicable Forest guidelines (FP Guidelines 4102, 6101, 6106). 

Cumulative Effects 

The effects of timber harvest, recreation, road construction, range improvement projects, mining 

activities, and development have a cumulative impact to cultural resources if they are not 

properly managed. All of these activities may have a cumulative effect on heritage resources in 

the form of soil erosion, soil compaction, soil disturbance, increased visitor use and traffic, and 

vandalism. 

These impacts are not restricted to lands administered by the Black Hills National Forest. They 

occur on private, State, and other federal lands within and adjacent to the Forest, with varying 

degrees of consideration for cultural resources. These impacts are difficult to quantify, but they 

can be avoided or minimized through the implementation of appropriate site-specific mitigation 

measures through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

Cultural resources are known to exist on privately owned inholdings within the Forest boundary. 

However, most cultural resource protection laws apply only to federal undertakings. 

Consequently, resource extraction (e.g., logging and mining), subdivision development, road 

construction, and the outright extraction of cultural resources for personal or commercial gain on 

private lands occurs with little or no regard for cultural resources. It is assumed that urban 

development would continue on private lands, which could lead to more roads and additional 

disturbance to cultural resources. This cumulative effect would likely increase the importance of 

cultural resources located on National forest System land. 

Management of national and state parks such as Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park, 

and Jewel Cave National Monument adjacent to the Forest tends to positively affect cultural 

resources. These parks contain large numbers of cultural resources. Management of cultural 

resources at these parks is governed by the same laws that protect cultural resources on Forest 

lands. Furthermore, these parks emphasize nonmotorized recreational opportunities and would 

likely manage cultural resources for the benefit of the resource, and the edification of the 

271 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

citizenry through site interpretation where appropriate. Management in national and state parks 

would likely contribute to the protection of cultural resources. 

Cumulative effects for heritage resources result from the incremental impact (direct and indirect 

effects) associated with the alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions. It is anticipated that future travel management activities would not affect 

cultural resources to a significant degree as these projects would be subject to NHPA Section 106 

compliance and would include protection measures in their design and implementation. 

Monitoring of site conditions would continue in support of travel management. Mitigation of 

potential effects to heritage resources from continued recreational use of the designated routes 

would be achieved through consultation with the SHPOs and tribes. 

Consultation 

Consultation is currently underway with the South Dakota and Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Offices and the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of the involved 

tribes. SHPO and tribal consultation must be completed prior to implementation of the Travel 

Management Plan. 

Range and Weeds 

Introduction 

This project is Forest wide in scope and affects the range program on all 4 Ranger Districts. The 

Black Hills is a highly productive area from the standpoint of forage resources with an average 

of approximately 466 million pounds of forage produced across the Forest each year. At an 

average proper-use level of 50 percent, up to 233 million pounds of forage is available for 

harvest each year by livestock and wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Applicable Forest Plan Direction 

Several goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, both Forestwide and specific to selected 

management areas for rangelands and range management are in the current forest plan. Though 

they all pertain to our planning effort, we will deal with those that address travel management 

most directly. 

 Forestwide Objective 301 says, “Produce on a sustained basis and make available up to 233 

million pounds of forage for livestock and wildlife use each year (weather permitting). 

a. Livestock use will be up to 127 million pounds of forage per year or approximately 128,000 

AUMs. 

b. Wildlife use will be up to 106 million pounds of forage per year or approximate population 

levels of 70,000 deer and 4,500 elk or other combinations that use the same amount of 

forage.” 

 Forestwide Objective 302 says maintain rangelands in satisfactory range condition. 

Methodology 

In this analysis framework, the focus of the analysis is on the potential effects to livestock 

grazing operations and rangeland resources. Operations on allotments can be affected by travel 

management in a variety of ways including impacts to livestock use, health, and distribution 

272 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

patterns, allotment improvements, and rangeland health. Two indicator measures were developed 

to analyze and compare the degree to which the alternatives may result in effects. These are 

miles of roads and acres with unrestricted access. 

Indicators 

 Miles of roads 

o Total miles of road relates to the route density across the Forest and within grazing 

allotments and is an indicator of multiple effects that result from motorized vehicle 

routes. Associated with increased route density there is an increase in public access 

and a corresponding increase in a wide range of associated human activities outside 

developed use areas. Route density increases access to areas for recreation such as 

dispersed camping, picnicking, hunting, OHV riding, and related activities. 

o Increased route density reduces areas for livestock to avoid vehicle and human 

interactions. Vehicle access and associated human uses sometimes leads to effects on 

livestock such as inadvertent spooking and livestock running from perceived danger 

as well as some intentional chasing by motorized vehicle users. These conditions 

sometimes lead to altered grazing use patterns, livestock stress, weight loss and 

related health problems. 

o Dispersed camping and other associated uses such as game retrieval, OHV riding 

and trail heads are sometimes concentrated in watering and high forage locations 

which may lead to changed livestock use patterns and avoidance of some forage 

areas. 

o Routes open for public motor vehicle use reduce forage availability on allotments 

because vegetation is not available on route beds that remain open. Associated uses 

such as dispersed camping off routes and game retrieval may also impact vegetation 

and reduce available forage (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

 Acres accessible 

o Unrestricted access (open cross-country travel) allows access to management gates 

(those not on road and trails) furthering the opportunity for unauthorized livestock 

movement into areas outside the prescribed pastures. The access increases the 

likelihood of gates left open or damaged, allowing livestock to move off the 

allotment or to enter pastures ahead of schedule or return to those already grazed, 

areas too wet for grazing, or road corridors. This can lead to vegetation, soil, or 

water quality concerns and vehicle collisions. 

o Unrestricted access through meadows within grazing allotments can affect the 

amount and condition of forage and livestock use patterns. Forage availability can 

be reduced because vegetation is not available in areas where unrestricted access has 

affected the forage. The impact to grazing is intensified when routes affect 

meadows, which are primary forage areas. Livestock sometimes reduce use in areas 

in response to human presence, which may cause change in utilization of primary 

forage. 

o Unrestricted access through meadows have the potential to affect the ecological 

condition which could result in a loss of productivity of primary forage areas and 

water sources and reductions in forage available for by both livestock and wildlife 

utilization (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

273 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Assumptions 

For this analysis, the following assumptions were applied: 

 Public education and enforcement of regulations will generally limit public travel to 

designated routes. 

 Administrative access is allowed for official Forest Service business including 

contractors and permit holders. 

 The effects analysis assumes that the design criteria will be implemented for the chosen 

alternative. 

No special field surveys were conducted for this specific project. Knowledge of the field 

resources comes from many years in the field implementing and reviewing projects on this 

Forest. A GIS mapping exercise was used to overlay the resource with the alternatives, examine 

the benefits and locate possible conflicts. 

Affected Environment 

Of the 233 million pounds of forage available for harvest on the Black Hills, 127 million pounds 

found in designated allotments is allocated to permitted livestock under Forest Plan direction. 

The remaining 106 million pounds is retained for use by various wildlife species. The nonharvested production (233 million pounds) is for long-term ecosystem health and sustainability, 

visual quality, flash fuel for planned fire use, and so forth (USDA Forest Service 2005a). There 

are approximately 128,000 animal unit months (AUMs) in the designated 135 allotments (USDA 

Forest Service 1996) allocated for livestock under term grazing or other permits. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A 

This alternative would continue the current effects of traffic of all kinds on the Forest to the 

resource. This truly is a no change alternative, except without the overall restriction on travel 

new unauthorized routes and trails would continue to be pioneered. This would mat down and 

take out vegetation and add to the harassment of livestock, neither of which moves us closer to 

the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. This alternative contains the highest concentration of 

roads when unauthorized routes are considered and allows unrestricted access to the highest 

number of acres. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

In the following order, Alternatives C, B, E, and D would result in progressively lower densities 

of motorized routes on National Forest System lands and unrestricted access to fewer acres, with 

C having the most and D the least. Trailheads differ slightly with Alternative C, B, and D in 

decreasing order of the number of trailheads and effect to the resource, and Alternative E having 

the current number of trailheads. All alternatives reduce motorized routes from Alternative A 

when the unintended routes are considered (Table 44). These reductions would have a beneficial 

effect on livestock management, range resources and grazing management in the following 

ways: 

 The potential effects on range management and access to developments were evaluated. 

Guideline 9104 is common to all alternatives and states motorized vehicles may be used on 

274 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

restricted areas and roads to accomplish administrative purposes. Therefore, motorized 

vehicle access to range developments or to administer allotments and manage livestock 

would be the same for the action alternatives (B, C, D, or E) as it is for current management 

(Alternative A). 

 The alternatives that have additional trailheads, new routes or the opening of closed routes 

could affect allotment administration and livestock management in a localized area but is 

unlikely to have long-term negative impacts. 

 The dispersed camping corridor on each side of the road where it exists is considered in this 

analysis in the acres of the unrestricted access and considered in each alternative. 

 Game retrieval in some alternatives and administrative access although allowing off-road 

access would reduce the extent and timing of that access. The extent would be minimal and 

timing much more controlled as compared to the current and expected future unrestricted use. 

 The miles of routes are a direct tie to weed spread thus reducing quality and quantity of 

forage due to the competition between invasives and other vegetation (see the Invasive Plants 

discussion for additional information). 

 Alternative B: In Table 44 the indicators shows that Alternative B has fewer total miles of 

road, trailheads and less acres of unrestricted access than Alternative C, but more of each than 

D or E. This puts B in the middle of the pack being an improvement over Alternative A. 

 Alternative C: As stated, all action alternatives are an improvement over the existing 

situation. Alternative C has the least positive effects as you look at the indicators due to the 

total miles of road, trailheads and the accessible acres through dispersed camping and game 

retrieval (see Table 44). 

 Alternatives D and E: The indicators in Table 44 show that the effects of Alternatives D and 

E would be very similar. Alternative D has the most positive effect with fewer road miles and 

Alternative E is second. Both of these alternatives have less miles of road than the other 

alternatives, but the real benefit is the lack of acres available for unrestricted access as shown 

by the second indicator. There are more trailheads in Alternative D than in E but Alternative 

D would likely still have the most positive effect. 

Table 44. Comparison of indicator measures and alternatives for range 

Indicators A B C D E 

Miles of FS roads 3,775 4,129 4,352 3,197 3,776 

Unauthorized route miles 4,109 0 0 0 0 

Total Miles of Roads 8,151 4,129 4,352 3,197 3,776 

Acres accessible Dispersed 

Camping 864,000 63,000 184,000 0 0 

Acres accessible Game retrieval 864,000 179,000 373,000 0 0 

Trailheads 7 31 34 23 7 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects as discussed here are effects on the resource that result from incremental 

impacts of actions when added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

This includes the Forest and the adjacent lands. Each travel management action alternative 

would result in beneficial effects to varying degrees; however, the nature, extent, duration, and 

intensity of these effects would likely vary across alternatives. Harvest and fuels management 

projects are expected to provide beneficial effects to allotments. In some instances, such as 

275 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

where conifer canopy is opened up or removed entirely, there may be an increase in herbaceous 

vegetative productivity and complexity, thereby benefiting both the plant community and 

potentially providing increased forage productivity for wildlife and livestock. There may also, be 

some short-term adverse effects to livestock management during project implementation such as 

impacts to fencing or gates and changes in livestock distribution patterns. The forage available 

on the Forest has likely increased in the recent years from fires that have affected the Forest 

landbase and the canopy cover that has been reduced by mountain pine beetle. These cumulative 

disturbances could be expected to benefit the amount of forage that is available to livestock use 

on the Forest currently and for several years out. 

Grazing allotment management plans for allotments are proposed to be revised to incorporate 

current standards. These proposed actions are expected to move allotments towards desired 

conditions. Present treatment of noxious weeds is beneficial to rangeland health with a long term 

beneficial effect to forage availability. Foreseeable future recreation projects are expected to 

have minor effects to grazing. Other projects such as meadow restoration are expected to have 

beneficial effects. 

Invasive Species (Noxious Weeds) 

Introduction 

This project is Forestwide in scope and affects the invasives program on all four ranger districts. 

Noxious weeds are typically non-native plants that adversely affect native plant communities by 

aggressively competing for nutrients, water, and sunlight. As a result, sensitive plants, forage 

quantity and quality, and soil stability are negatively impacted. Background information 

regarding the status of noxious weeds on the Forest is presented in the 1996 Final EIS (USDA 

Forest Service 1996) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Invasive species are one of the four threats because of the alarming rates of spread and they are 

adversely affecting people and the ecosystem. In the U.S., there are 2,000 non-native plants, 

about 400 of which are invasives. Invasive plants now cover about 133 million acres in all 

ownerships nationwide and are marching at the rate of about 1.7 million acres per year. About 

3.5 million acres of National Forest System land are infested. They have invaded grasslands, 

which lose their livestock carrying capacity and wildlife habitats are destroyed (USDA Forest 

Service 2004b). 

Applicable Forest Plan Direction 

Several goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, both Forestwide and specific to selected 

management areas for invasives are in the current forest plan. Though they all pertain to our 

planning effort, we will deal with those that address travel management directly. 

 Forestwide Objective 231 is intended to prevent new infestations and reduce established 

noxious-weed infestations. Treat at least 8,000 acres per year during the next 10 years to 

limit noxious weed infestations. 

 Forestwide Standard 4301 requires managers to determine noxious weed introduction or 

spread risk and implement appropriate mitigation measures for all proposed projects or 

activities. 

276 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Methodology 

In this analysis framework, the focus of the analysis is on the potential for invasive weed spread 

and disturbance effects by the different alternatives. Two indicator measures are used to analyze 

and compare the degree to which the alternatives may result in effects. These are miles of roads 

and acres with unrestricted access. 

Indicators 

 Miles of roads 

o Road shoulders are particularly susceptible to weed invasion. Road construction and 

maintenance activities mix soil layers, increasing soil microbial activity. Weeds 

exploit these newly available nutrients efficiently (Best et al. 1980, Belcher and 

Wilson 1989). This may be one reason that the density of weedy plants increases as 

the intensity of soil disturbance increases (Jensen 1995). Parendes and Jones (2000) 

found that the presence of exotic plant species was highly correlated with sunlit soil 

and frequent, severe disturbances, like those resulting from road traffic and road 

maintenance activities such as grading. 

o Road corridors are prolific sources of weed seeds that may be carried to other 

locations (Tyser and Worley 1992) or that may colonize adjacent vulnerable habitats. 

Vehicle undercarriages can trap and transport weed seed (Sheley and Petroff 1999). 

A study in Kakadu National Park in Australia found that weed seed was transported 

into the park on tourist vehicles and was more likely to be transported by fourwheel-drive vehicles that had been driven off-road (Lonsdale and Lane 1994). A 

review of literature shows that native plant cover and species diversity increase with 

distance from routes, while the presence of exotic species declines with increased 

distance from road (Gelbard and Harrison 2003; Tyser & Worley 1992; Frenkell 

1970; Johnson et al. 1975). Thus, plant communities adjacent to more improved 

roads (e.g. paved, gravel) that receive high vehicle traffic might be expected to be 

more invaded than those adjacent to infrequently used primitive roads (e.g., four 

wheel-drive tracks) (Parendes and Jones 2000). 

o A number of mechanisms have been proposed as explanations for these patterns. 

Vehicles and road-fill operations transport exotic plant seeds into un-infested areas, 

and road construction and maintenance operations provide safe sites for seed 

germination and seedling establishment (Schmidt 1989; Lonsdale and Lane 1994; 

Greenberg et al. 1997; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Clearing of vegetation and 

soils during construction, addition of road fill, and grading of native surface roads 

create areas of bare and deeper soil that allow exotic seeds to become established 

(Frenkell 1970; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). 

 Acres Accessible 

o In many respects, the affects of unrestricted access are similar to that of the road 

corridor discussed above. Though you do not have the construction and 

maintenance there is still disturbance. With cross-country travel, there is movement 

of seed similar to that of road corridors. Compaction is still a factor and can affect 

the native, less aggressive, plants. 

o Dispersed camping, game retrieval, and trailheads would allow movement of seed 

similar to that of road corridors. Compaction particularly in the area of trailheads is 

still a factor and can affect the native, less aggressive, plants. 

277 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Assumptions 

For this analysis, the following assumptions were applied: 

 Public education and enforcement of regulations will generally limit public travel to 

designated routes. 

 Administrative access is allowed for official Forest Service business including 

contractors and permit holders. 

No special field surveys were conducted for this specific project. Knowledge of the field 

resources comes from many years in the field implementing and reviewing projects on this 

Forest. A mapping exercise was used to overlay the resource with the alternatives, to locate 

possible conflicts and review the benefits. 

Affected Environment 

The Forest has implemented a Noxious Weed Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003a) 

to increase the scope of noxious-weed management. The weed management plan directs the 

Forest to implement prevention, education, administration, planning, and integrated control in 

the Forest weed management effort. The Noxious Weed Environmental Assessment (USDA 

Forest Service 2003a) was prepared to describe direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

concerning the weed-management plan. This section summarizes information from that 

document. 

Forest personnel have identified approximately 170,000 acres of existing noxious weed 

infestations. Road construction and maintenance activities are expected to increase weed spread 

as can other management practices. Motorized-vehicle use is a vector for spread, as well as 

logging, domestic livestock and wildlife. These factors and others not listed are expected to 

affect approximately 7,700 acres of spread (USDA Forest Service 2003a) all disturbances can 

contribute to weed spread. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A 

This alternative would continue the current effects of traffic of all kinds on the Forest to the 

resource. This is a no change alternative, except without the overall restriction of travel new 

unauthorized routes and trails would continue to be pioneered. This would continue the spread 

of weeds through seed dispersal and the current rate of disturbance and in fact increase it neither 

of which moves us closer to the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. This alternative contains 

the highest concentration of roads and allows unrestricted access to the highest number of acres. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

In the following order, Alternatives C, B, E, and D would result in progressively lower densities 

of motorized routes on National Forest System lands and unrestricted access to fewer acres with 

C having the most and D being the least miles and acres (Table 44, above). All alternatives 

reduce motorized routes from the amount in Alternative A. Trailheads differ slightly with 

Alternative C, B, and D in decreasing order of the number of trailheads and effect to the 

resource, with Alternative E having no change from the current number of trailheads and no 

change from the current effect. These reductions would have a beneficial effect on invasive weed 

spread and disturbance to create seedbeds: 

278 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 The potential effects on weed management and access for treatment were evaluated. 

Guideline 9104 is common to all alternatives and states motorized vehicles may be used 

on restricted areas and roads to accomplish administrative purposes. Therefore, 

motorized vehicle access to treat and monitor noxious weeds will be the same for the 

action alternatives (B, C, D, or E) as it is for current management (Alternative A). 

 The alternatives that have additional trailheads, new routes or the opening of closed 

routes could affect invasive weed spread and disturbance creating seedbeds but as long 

as the design criteria are followed for seeding, the long-term effects should be minimal. 

 The dispersed camping corridor on each side of the road where it exists is considered in 

this analysis in the acres of the unrestricted access and considered in each alternative. 

 Game retrieval in some alternatives and administrative access although allowing 

virtually unrestricted access will reduce the extent and timing of that access. The extent 

will be minimal and timing much more controlled as compared to the current and 

expected future unrestricted use. 

 Alternative B: In Table 44, the indicators shows that Alternative B has less miles of 

road, trailheads and less acres of unrestricted access than Alternative C, but more of each 

than D or E. This puts B in the middle of the pack being an improvement over 

Alternative A. 

 Alternative C: As stated, all action alternatives are an improvement over the existing 

situation. Alternative C has the least positive effects as you look at the indicators, due to 

the miles of road, number of trailheads and the unrestricted acres that are accessible 

through dispersed camping and game retrieval (see Table 44). 

 Alternative D and E: The indicators in Table 44 show that the effects of Alternatives D 

and E would be very similar. Alternative D has the most positive effect with fewer road 

miles and Alternative E is second. Both of these alternatives have less miles of road 

than the other alternatives, but the real benefit is the lack of acres available for 

unrestricted access as shown by the second indicator. There are more trailheads in 

Alternative D than in E but Alternative D would likely still have the most positive effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

The incremental effect of the travel management alternatives when added to the impacts from all 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects comprise cumulative effects. This 

includes the Forest and the adjacent private and public lands. Each travel management action 

alternative would result in beneficial effects to varying degrees; however, the nature, extent, 

duration, and intensity of these effects would likely vary across alternatives. The incremental 

effects of natural disturbances and resource-management practices on private and public lands on 

noxious weeds are also expected to continue. Historic resource management activities have 

influenced the vegetation composition and structure of the Forest and as such are encompassed 

in the existing conditions against which projected changes are measured for each alternative. 

Current public and private noxious weed management programs exist are expected to continue 

and likely increase in the foreseeable future within the cumulative-effects study area for travel 

management. The additional treatment acres from the amended Forest Plan are not anticipated to 

exceed acceptable thresholds to the environment or to result in long-term adverse impacts 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

279 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). Effects 

from implementation of each of the alternatives on specific resources are disclosed elsewhere in 

this chapter. Any of the alternatives would be implemented with design criteria to protect basic 

soil productivity. Decreases in long-term soil productivity from implementation of any of the 

alternatives are not anticipated. 

The Forest Plan provides minimum management requirements for resource protection to ensure 

that long-term productivity is not impaired by short-term uses. Any alternative would be 

implemented consistent with these requirements. Project and Forest Plan monitoring would 

verify that protective measures are being implemented, and would continually gauge their 

effectiveness. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Some adverse effects are unavoidable with the implementation of any action alternative 

described in this analysis. Applying the design criteria described in Appendix B would reduce 

these effects to the extent possible. Effects of the alternatives to individual resources are 

described in detail elsewhere in this chapter. Please refer to each analysis section for details on 

unavoidable adverse effects. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction 

of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. Effects of implementing the alternatives are 

described in detail elsewhere in this chapter, but are summarized here as appropriate. 

There would be no irreversible commitments of resources from implementation of any of the 

alternatives. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources could include the following: 

 Soil productivity and timber productivity would be lost where trail construction would 

occur. 

 Wildlife habitat could be lost or modified for certain species under any of the action 

alternatives. Habitat values would recover in these areas as motorized recreation traffic 

is rerouted for other purposes by other decisions. 

 Noxious weeds and invasive species could become established and persist under the 

action alternatives, if not addressed proactively or treated aggressively. The alternatives 

include design criteria to minimize the introduction of new occurrences of these species. 

 Scenic values would be modified to some degree under each alternative. 

 Recreation experiences would vary under each alternative. Motorized and nonmotorized 

recreationists alike would see changes to their experiences in different parts of the Forest 

in the form of opportunities offered and conflicts with other users. 

280 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

281 

Other Required Disclosures 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs, “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” The alternatives and analysis described herein comply with 

the following laws, regulations, and executive orders, as is disclosed in this document or in 

supporting documentation. 

 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1969 

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

 Clean Air Act of 1970 

 Clean Water Act of 1970 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 

 National Forest Management Act of 1976 

 Executive Order 11593-Property of Historic, Archeological, or Architectural Significance 

 Executive Order 11644-ORV Management 

 Executive Order 11988; 10 CFR 1022-Floodplains 

 Executive Order 11989-ORV Management 

 Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands 

 Executive Order 12898-Environmental Justice 

 Executive Order 12962-Recreational Fisheries 

 Executive Order 13007-Native Americans’ concerns 

This project does not involve impounding or diverting water, or adverse impacts to Federally 

listed threatened or endangered species; therefore, formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is not required. 

No ground-disturbing actions would occur in known eligible historic places. The Forest Service 

has complied with requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decision-making is encompassed in 

the issue of environmental justice. Executive Order 12898 provides that, “each Federal agency 

shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” No 

adverse effects from the proposed action or alternatives have been identified on minority or lowincome populations. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Preparers and Contributors 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: 

Interdisciplinary Team Members 

Alan Anderson - Supervisory Civil Engineer, Supervisor’s Office (SO) 

Amy Ballard - Recreation Forester, Mystic Ranger District (RD) 

Anthony King – Cultural resources specialist, Hell Canyon RD 

Beth Burkhart - Forest Botanist, SO 

Blaine Cook - Forest Silviculturist, SO 

Bob Thompson - District Ranger, Mystic RD 

Bonnie Jones - Recreation Specialist, Northern Hills RD 

Bradley Phillips - Wildlife Biologist, Hell Canyon RD 

Claire Huking – Acting NEPA Specialist, SO 

Craig Beckner – Forest Rangeland Management Specialist, SO 

Cynthia Buckert – Acting Forest Botanist, SO 

Deanna Reyher – Interdisciplinary, Soils Specialist, SO 

Donita Carlson - Cultural Resources Program Manager, SO 

Edward Fischer - Natural Resource Law Specialist, SO 

Frank Carroll – Forest Public Affairs Officer, Planning/Public Affairs Staff Officer, SO 

Jackie Groce - Natural Resource Planner, Northern Hills RD 

Jason Virtue – Fire Planner, SO 

Jeanette Timm – Recreation Forester, Bearlodge RD 

Jeramy Rogers - Forestry Technician, Mystic RD 

Karen Lloyd - Management Assistant, SO 

Kaye Olpin – Interdisciplinary Recreation Forester, Northern Hills RD 

Ken Marchand - GIS Specialist, SO 

Kerry Burns - Forest Biologist, SO 

Leslie Gonyer - Hydrologist, Mystic RD 

Lorrie Martinez - Forest GIS Coordinator, SO 

Mike Beale – Forest Land Surveyor, SO 

Mike Lloyd - District Ranger, Hell Canyon RD 

Patricia Hudson - Interdisciplinary Supervisor, Hell Canyon RD 

Randy Jost - Sales Prep Forester, SO 

Rhonda O’Byrne - District Ranger, Northern Hills RD 

Rusty Wilder - Environmental Engineer, SO 

Sherry Bauer - Geometronics/INFRA Coordinator, SO 

Shirlene Hass - Wildlife Biologist, Mystic RD 

Steve Hirtzel - Fisheries Biologist, SO 

Steve Keegan – Landscape Architect, SO 

Steve Kozel - District Ranger, Bearlodge RD 

Tom Willems - Interdisciplinary Team Leader 

Tyaisha Blount - DEIS Writer/Editor, MVUM Coordinator for Forest Service Southern Region 

William Domagall - Forestry Aid, SO 

William Texel - Lead Forestry Technician, Mystic RD, Forest 

283 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

284 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses 

Association for Mato Paha Preservation 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Black Hills Group - Sierra Club 

Black Hills Mountain Lion Foundation 

Black Hills Powersports 

Black Hills Regional Multiple Use 

Coalition 

Black Hills Sportsman’s Club & South 

Dakota Wildlife Federation 

Blue Ribbon Coalition 

Brady Pluimer Law Firm 

Clayborne, Loos & Strommen Law Offices 

CMR LLC 

Crook County Land Use Planning & Zoning 

Commission 

Custer Conservation District 

Federal Highways Administration 

GT Powersports, Inc. 

High Country Ranch 

Hill City Area Chamber of Commerce 

Inyan Kara Riders 

Lawrence County Recreation 

Mad Mountain Adventures 

Medicine Mountain 

Medicine Mountain Scout Ranch 

Missouri Breaks Audubon 

Mountain Shadows Neighborhood 

Norbeck Society 

Odadota Mountain Ranch 

Off-Road Riders Association 

Palmer Gulch Campground 

Peaceful Pines Residents 

PH Audubon Society 

Prairie Hills Audubon Society 

Recreational Adventures Co. 

Rock Mountain Research Station 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks 

South Dakota Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition 

Silver City Area Forest Users 

Spearfish Canyon Owners Association 

Spearfish Canyon Society 

Sturgis Yamaha 

Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike 

Association 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 8 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Tribes 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 

Three Affiliated Tribes 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Mandan Hidatsa and Arikara Tribes 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Grey Eagle Society 

Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Santee Sioux Nation 

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor for 

Preservation 

Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement 

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to the following individuals who 

specifically requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent (or in some 

cases made electronically available) to Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and 

local governments, and organizations that have requested to be involved in the development of 

this analysis. These entities include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; U.S. Department of the Interior; Federal Highway Administration; Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation; USDA National Agricultural Library; State wildlife and 

fisheries management agencies; County commissions; and local community governments. 

Individuals 

Jean Adams 

Ed Adams 

Rick Ahlers 

Jason Albers 

Jay Almond 

Chester & Barbara Aman 

Juli Ames-Curtis 

Michael Amick 

Doug & Carol Anderson 

Mark Anderson 

Stanley & Dodie Anderson 

Clint & Ann Anderson 

Gary & Elaine Anderson 

Kris Anderson 

Janell Andis 

Dean Antonsen 

Marian Atkins 

Howie Aubertine 

Harry Ayer 

John & Judy Bahneman 

Robin Bailey 

Robert Baird 

Steve Baldwin 

Anna Ball 

Joseph Baron 

Bobbi Jo Bartels 

Ara Baumkratz 

Mike & Laura Beale 

Ronald & Faye Bebo 

Jerry Benson 

David Berggrou 

Keith Bergstrom 

Carol & Keith Berry 

Connie, Jason & Cole 

Bertolotto 

Bruce Bessken 

Bill Bird 

Albert & Jeff Blakeman 

Jerry Bloomer 

Ronald D. Boesch 

Ron Bohl 

Dennis Bohls 

Dan Boone 

Darrell & Jan Borg 

Albert Borry 

Chet & Sharon Borsch 

Paul Bosworth 

Rita Bosworth 

Susan Bosworth 

Natasha Bothun 

Marvin Bouska 

Tyna Bower 

Jerry J Boyer 

Gwen Brandhagen 

Linda & Wilmer Brandt 

Janet Briggs 

Larry & Marilyn Brooks 

Ross & Patty Brown 

Jim Brown 

June Brown 

David Bruch 

Dan Bueler 

Craig & Kathy Buelow 

Lee Buffington 

F.A. Bulawa 

Jon Bunnell 

Tim Burke 

Beth Burkhart 

Robert Burns 

Jim & Carol Burns 

Robert Bush 

Susan Campo 

Ronald & Chris Capps 

Chris Carbone 

Robert Carl 

Jo Caskey 

Leo Cassidy 

Dale Casteel 

Rita & Tally Chapman 

Rich Charest 

Ed & Bernadette Chatfield 

Christensen 

John Clark 

John J. Clausen 

John & Gloria Clauser 

Duane Claypool 

Lucas, Fay & Kevin Clegg 

Chas Clifton 

Garry & Kathy Colasardo 

Cliff & Cheyenne Conry 

Chris Coolidge 

Brent Cox 

Charlotte Cracco 

Russell Crago 

Dean Crisman 

Lyle & Holly Crowser 

James Cummings 

Paul & Travis Dagen 

Jim Dahlberg 

Josh & Jim Daiss 

Marc Daniels 

Steve & Judy Darling 

David & Paula Dasch 

Daniel Dean 

William & Kathleen Deem 

David Deeny 

Loren DeGeest 

Doug DeGrout 

Shelly Deisch 

Buzz Deneui 

Tom Denniston 

285 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Bill Detherage 

Jack Dierks 

Thomas & Gayle Dillin 

Kathy & Clayton Doan 

Jack Donahue 

Paul Douglas 

Jerold & Lisa Douglas 

Patrick Doyle 

Becky & Neal Drury 

Don Dubej 

Howard Easton 

Larry & Elaine Ebbert 

Scott & Alison Eccarius 

Rylan & Brian Eddington 

Patricia Edgecomb 

Scott Edoff 

Don C. Eibert 

Curt Eisenbraun 

Curt Elson 

Waldo Elwonger 

Craig Erickson 

Richard Erickson 

Ted Erlewine 

Marty Errea 

Jerry & Debbie Fall 

David Fenske 

Doug Feterl 

Steve Fiegen 

Bonny Fitch & Gary Boyle 

Joyce & Olie Floyd 

Kevin Forrester 

Richard Foster 

Willis Franz 

Shirly Frederick 

Aaron Fredrickson 

Terry Fuller 

Audrey & Mark Gabel 

Gabe Garcia 

Wayne, Dixie & Ross 

Garman 

Arlow Gehrke 

Charon Geigel 

Larry Gerhardson 

Todd Gikling 

Deb Gikling 

Kirk Gisi 

Nancy Glassgow 

Richard Godfrey 

Mary Goehner 

Tonya & John Gomez 

Tony Goodson 

Larry Goodson 

Andy Goodwin 

Ed & Dee Goss 

MaryAnne Grabow 

Kim Greenlee 

James & Ingrid Grimes 

Shelly & Keith Grimm 

Tim Grosz 

Beverly Groth 

Craig Grunenfecderz 

Gary Gullickson 

Wayne & Bonnie Gutzmer 

Lee Habeck 

Dave & Carla Hague 

Sandra Hahn 

Mike Hale 

Troy Hall 

Carter Hall 

Richard Hankerson 

Gary & Jackie Hansen 

Donald L. Hansen 

Clifford W. Hanson 

Andrew Harris 

Curtis Harris 

Richard & Karen Harvey 

Scott & Dawn Haskell 

Steven Hats 

Jane Hauck 

Jim & Linda Hayward 

Bill Hearne 

Eric Hehner 

Dean Heintz 

Les Heiserman 

James Heisinger 

Mike Heitland 

Richard & Colleen 

Helmstetter 

Bryon Henningsen 

Andrew Hentz 

Joseph Heupel 

Joshua Hicks 

Nancy Hilding 

Geri Hill 

Mike Hill 

Brent & Matt Hill 

Dwayne Hillius 

Billy Hilton 

Jim Hodgson 

Michael Hoeft 

Jerry & Debbie Hogan 

Dean Hohm 

Jeanne & Steve Hoier 

Bill Honerkamp 

John & Marie Honerkamp 

Pete Hopkins 

Martin Houston 

Mark, Taffy, Mathew & 

Austin Howards 

Liz Howell 

Jim & Pam Hughes 

Mark Hughes 

David Hurd 

Evan & Paulette Hutchings 

Tom, Becky & Jacob Huwe 

Scott & Tom Janssen 

Kenneth Jasper 

Duane & Connie Jelkin 

James Jennings 

Lorna Jennings 

Perry Jewett 

Alan Johnson 

John Johnson 

Merrill T. Johnson 

Wayne Johnson 

Lavern Johnson 

Dan Johnson 

Ron & Nellie Johnson 

Katie Johnston 

Robert Joyce 

Nichole Kalamaha 

Larry & Jeanne Kannenberg 

Richard & Elaine Karsky 

Melford & Carol Kauhisch 

Stephen Kauhisch 

Keven Kehrwald 

Ralph Keller 

Don & Kim Kelley 

Jim & Lori Kempton 

Greg Kennedy 

Robert & Lucille Kerner 

Jim & Robin Kienitz 

Dennis & Mike King 

Robert King 

Jack Kinney 

Jason & Cindy Kipp 

John Kirk 

Greg & Jackie Klatte 

Chris Klinger 

Anne Koan 

286 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Douglas Koelfgen 

Lydell Koerner 

Ron Kokesh 

Grace Kostel 

Leslie Koster 

Jeff Kracl 

Norma & Vern Kraemer 

Ted & DeAnn Kryger 

Tom & Michele Kurtenbach 

Larry Kurtz 

Darlene Kutzler 

Erin Lachman 

Mike Laird 

John Langdell 

Ariel & Anita Larson 

Boyd E. Larson 

Rodney Larson 

Paul LeClair 

Bill Lei 

Jon & Candice Leigh 

Jim LeMar 

Kevin Lemcke 

Michael Letcher 

Sherman Lewis 

Debbie Lind 

Joe Logue 

Jerry J Lolley 

Sharon Long 

Steven Lux 

Tim & Dawn Madsen 

Harvey Malon 

Tom Maloney 

Jay Manley 

Jim Margadant 

Dan Marler 

Karl Martin 

Eric Maser 

Maria & Bert Mason 

Mike Mattern 

Rob Mattox 

Jon Mattson 

Jim Maucker 

Jim & Linda McArthur 

Chris McCart 

Larry McCaskell 

Kathy McClellan 

Jim & Cindy McDill 

Mary McDill 

Ryan McFarland 

Randall McGruder 

Thomas & Darlene McKee 

Connie McMacken 

Junior Meiers 

Doug Mekehoff 

Jerry Melick 

Jerry Meyer 

Rod Meyer 

Loren Miles 

Tom Millard 

Dave Miller 

Steven & Cindy Mitchell 

John Mitchell 

Gregory Monday 

Nick Monner 

Glenn Moravek 

Sam L & Karen L Mortimer 

Bob & Mason Mudlin 

Steve Mueller 

Greg Mumm 

Rhonda Mumm 

Jim Munro 

Ann Murano 

Ray & Mary Murray 

Jeri & Bob Mykleby 

Arnold Nagel 

David Nagelhout 

Bonnetta Nedved 

Fred Neff 

Cheryl Nelson 

James & Ruth Nelson 

Delmar Nelson 

Fred & Joy Nelson 

Greg Nepstand & Virginia 

Clark 

Charles & Sallie Nicholas 

Darrell & Joanne Nicholas 

Donavon Nicholas 

William & Carol Nicholas 

Harley Noem 

Ron Norgard 

Jim Noteboom 

Curt & Darlene Nupen 

Marshall & Vernie 

Nussbaum 

Mike O'Brien 

Perry Oien 

Jeff Olson 

Doris Onstad 

Janet Orr 

Brent Ostwald 

David & Connie Padgett 

Dorathea Parks 

Colin Paterson 

Andrew, Tim & Kathleen 

Pavek 

Gerald & Marene Pearson 

Julian Pearson 

Diane & Brian Pedersen 

Anita R. Pense 

Dale & Carolgene Peters 

Ross Petersen 

Gary Petrick 

Trey Pfeifer 

Mike Pierson 

Charles Pike 

Michael Plowman 

Richard A. Pluimer 

Vern Pope 

Mark & Charlene Porter 

Kristen Preston 

Ted Price 

Wayne Prindle 

Douglas Prisbe 

Kevin & Trisha Pudwill 

Craig Pugsley 

Charles M. Pzinski 

Holly & Hugh Quinn 

Kim Raap 

Perry Rahn 

Deanne Reaser 

Ken Reder 

Richard Reif 

Marie Reman 

Kent Renaud 

David Ressler 

Rickie Roberts 

Hiram Rogers 

Robert Roheback 

Lance & Olga Rom 

Marie Roman 

Glenn Rood 

Denver Rost 

Randal Rothlisberger 

Larry & Shirley Rounsevell 

Bob Rowles 

Don & Evelyn Ryther & Elma 

Quaschnick 

Diana Saathoff 

Jeff Saline 

Linda & David Sandvik 

287 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

288 

Walter Saubers 

Roy Savage 

James J Scherrer 

Philip & Vicki Schlief 

Louis & Donna Schmeltzer 

Mike & Pamela Schmid 

Gary Schmidt 

Wolfgang & Kathleen 

Schmidt 

Terry & Colleen Schmitz 

Gary Schneider 

Michael Schortzmann 

Howard Schrier 

Thomas & Loretta Schroeder 

Dean Schueler 

Verlin Schultz 

Barry Schulz 

Dennis Schumacher 

David Schumacher 

Chris Schumacher 

Glen Schut 

John Seaver 

Eric Seljeskog 

Carla Sevbold 

Tim & Peggy Severson 

Stephen Sewell 

Stan Sewell 

Dick & Barbara Shilvock 

Kate & Doug Shreves 

Tim & Jeanne Simon 

Blas Skvicalo 

Richard & Karen Sleep 

Don & Barb Smith 

Nels Smith 

DeanKen & Ronda Snyder 

James Snyder Jr 

Lois Sorensen 

Tom & Marian Spacke 

Leroy Spangler 

Terry & Joyce Speidel 

Ray Spellman 

Don Springhetti 

Garry Squires 

Pete Squyer 

Wade Stebbins 

Gary & Kathy Steele 

Vern Stelter 

Barbara & Dallas Stermon 

Leo Stewart 

Gary Stewart 

Gorden Stiles 

Curt & Tammy Stiles 

Terry Stoakes 

Todd Stock 

Donald Stoner 

Chris Stover 

Ian Strachan 

Roger Straim 

Jill Strain 

Ed & Carol Stritar 

Clair Stymiest 

Todd Suess 

Joyce Sugrue 

Jodi & Jeff Sugrue 

Ed & Deb Suvada 

Larry Svovoda 

John & Brenda Swanson 

Jane Swanson 

Douglas Symunds 

Brent Syster 

Francis Taft 

Bob Tech 

David Templeton 

Don Thein 

Dale Thein 

Chuck Thomas 

Hugh Thompson 

Aaron Thompson 

Jim Thomson 

Heather Thorsgaard 

Thomas Thorson 

Skip Tillisch 

Robert Timm 

Mike Tokarczyk 

James Toth 

Gregg Trask 

David S. Trask 

Bill & Jeannie Triplet 

Joe Tromburg 

Tom Troxel 

Dan Tysdal 

Lauris Tysdal 

Robert Ulmer 

John VanBalen 

Jan Vandarwarka 

Kathy VanKleeck 

Calvin VanOrnam 

Jon & Diane VanPatten 

Rob Varilek 

David Vaughn 

Scott Velgersdyk 

Mike Verchio 

Laverne & Bonnie Vigoren 

Boyd Vincent 

Vern Vollmer 

Mike & Rhonda VonColln 

Doug & Ruth Wahl 

Sandra Walker 

Don Walker 

Ray Walz 

Brynolf Wanhanen 

Wayne & Kathryn Wanhanen 

William Ward 

Ron Waterland 

Ronald & Phyllis Watson 

Donna Watson 

Corey Wattenhorfer 

Kelly Weeks 

Philip Weger 

Ray & Pam Weierke 

Jerry & LaVonne Wendland 

John & Sandy Whalen 

George & Jeanne Whalen 

Harvey J. Wieland 

Ronnie William 

Jerry Wilson 

Tom Winger 

Dennis & Dorothy Winsell 

Calvin Wipf 

Gerald Wittrock 

Deb Wolff 

Joanne & Norman Woods 

Judy & Neal Worden 

Robert & Carol Wuertz 

Judy York 

Andy Young 

Mark & Mary Zimmerman 

Barry Zimney 

Barbara Zwetzig 

Lawrence County 

Commission 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Local, State and Federal Governments 

Stanford Adelstein, District 32 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Robin Bailey, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of Wyoming 

Travis Bies, Chairman, Custer County Commissioners 

Chris Blair, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of South Dakota 

Tom Blair, NFAB Member, 

Sam Brannan, NFAB Member, Pete Lien & Sons 

Thomas Brunner, District 29 Representative, South Dakota House 

Deanna Bruski, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of Wyoming 

Kelsey Campbell, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of Wyoming 

Dan Coolidge, Chairman, WY, Campbell County Commissioners Office 

John Culberson, NFAB Member 

Don DeVries, Mayor, City of Hot Springs, SD 

Al Dial, Mayor, City of Box Elder, SD 

Ross Diercks, District 2 Representative, Wyoming House 

Brian Dreyer, District 32 Representative, South Dakota House 

Carson Engelskirger, NFAB Member, 

Duane Evenson, Mayor, City of Gillette, WY 

Bob Ewing, Chairman, Lawrence County Commissioners 

Dave Freudenthal, Governor, State of Wyoming 

Brian Gosch, District 32 Representative, South Dakota House 

Bob Haiwick, Chamber of Commerce President, City of Whitewood, SD 

Timothy Hallinan, District 32 Representative, Wyoming House 

Alan Hanks, Mayor, City of Rapid City, SD 

Rick Hanson, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of South Dakota 

Kendall Hartman, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of Wyoming 

Mark Haugen, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of South Dakota 

Jeffrey Haverly, District 35 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

James Heinert, NFAB Member, 

John Hines, District 23 Representative, Wyoming Senate 

Douglas Hofer, NFAB Member, Division of Parks and Recreation 

Gordon Howie, District 30 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Everett Hoyt, NFAB Member, 

Daniel Hutt, NFAB Member, Black Hills Electric Co-op 

Phil Jensen, District 33 Representative, South Dakota House 

Nancy Kile, NFAB Member 

Jackie King, Congressional Delegation Staffer, State of Wyoming 

Mark Kirkeby, District 35 Representative, South Dakota House 

Bill Kohlbrand, NFAB Member, WY State Forestry Division 

Don Kopp, District 35 Representative, South Dakota House 

Jerry Krambeck, Mayor, City of Spearfish, SD 

Maury LaRue, Mayor, City of Sturgis, SD 

Gaylord Lenz, President of Chamber, City of Sundance, SD 

Thomas Lubnau, District 31 Representative, Wyoming House 

Suzanne Ludicello-Martley, NFAB Member, 

David Lust, District 34 Representative, South Dakota House 

Ryan Maher, District 28 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Robert Mallow, Chairman, Meade County Commissioners 

Larry A. Mann, NFAB Member 

Terrence Mayes, NFAB Member 

Patrick McElgunn, NFAB Member 

Ed McLaughlin, District 34 Representative, South Dakota House 

289 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Erin Mercer, District 53 Representative, Wyoming House 

John Moline, Chairman, WY, Crook County Commissioners Office 

Tom Nelson, District 31 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Betty Olson, District 28B Representative, South Dakota House 

Michael Ortner, Commissioner, Fall River County Commissioners 

Colin Paterson, NFAB Member 

Bob Paulson, NFAB Member, The Nature Conservancy 

Larry Rhoden, District 29 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Kaysen Richard, Mayor, City of Cheyenne, WY 

Fred Romkema, District 31 Representative, South Dakota House 

Mike Rounds, Governor, State of South Dakota 

Becci Jo Rowe, NFAB Member 

Lance Russell, District 30 Representative, South Dakota House 

Joseph Sandrini, NFAB Member 

James Scherrer, NFAB Member 

Dennis Schmidt, District 33 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Mark Semleck, District 1 Representative, Wyoming House 

Brad Shelly, Mayor, City of Summerset, SD 

Norma Shetton, Executive Director for Chamber, City of New Castle, WY 

Stephen C. Sisk, NFAB Member 

Jacqueline Sly, District 33 Representative, South Dakota House 

Nels J. Smith, NFAB Member 

Donovin A. Sprague, NFAB Member 

Mike Stahl, City Administrator, City of Lead, SD 

Harold Stickney, Mayor, City of Custer, SD 

Hugh C. Thompson, NFAB Member 

Craig Tieszen, District 34 Representative, South Dakota Senate 

Craig J. Tieszen, NFAB Member 

Alan Todd, Commissioner, WY, Weston County Commissioners Office 

Francis Toscana, Mayor, City of Deadwood, SD 

Charles Townsend, District 1 Representative, Wyoming Senate 

Tom Troxel, NFAB Member, BH Forest Resource Assn 

Charles Turbiville, District 31 Representative, South Dakota House 

Mike Verchio, District 30 Representative, South Dakota House 

Michael Von Flatern, District 24 Representative, Wyoming Senate 

Don Voorhees, Mayor, City of Hill City, SD 

Sue Wallis, District 52 Representative, Wyoming House 

Benita White, Mayor, City of New Underwood, SD 

Dean Wink, District 29 Representative, South Dakota House 

Brenda Young, Chairman, Pennington County Commissioners 

Chamber of Commerce, City of Belle Fourche, SD 

Chamber of Commerce, City of Edgemont, SD 

Chamber of Commerce, City of Keystone, SD 

Chamber of Commerce, City of Wall and the Badlands, SD 

City of Hermosa, SD 

City of Hulett, WY 

City of Lusk, WY 

City of Moorcroft, WY 

EIS Review Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Head Acquisitions & Serial Branch, USDA National Agricultural Library 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

290 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

291 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division 

Environmental Protection Agency-National Office, and Region 8 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Federal Aviation Administration-Great Lakes Region, and Northwest Mountain Region 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

293 

Appendices 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A: Travel Management Rule 

PART 212—TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

1. Amend part 212 by revising the part heading to read as set forth above. 

1a. Remove the authority citation for part 212. 

2. Designate §§ 212.1 through 212.21 as subpart A to read as set forth below: 

Subpart A—Administration of the Forest Transportation System 

2a. Add an authority citation for new subpart A to read as set forth below: 

 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 23 U.S.C. 205. 

3. Amend § 212.1 as follows: 

a. In alphabetical order, add the following definitions: administrative unit; area; designated road, trail, or 

area; forest road or trail; forest transportation system; motor vehicle; motor vehicle use map; National 

Forest System road; National Forest System trail; off-highway vehicle; over-snow vehicle; road 

construction or reconstruction; temporary road or trail; trail; travel management atlas; and unauthorized 

road or trail; and 

b. Revise the definitions for forest transportation atlas, forest transportation facility, and road; and 

c. Remove the definitions for classified road, new road construction, road reconstruction, temporary 

road, and unclassified road. 

§ 212.1 Definitions. 

 Administrative unit. A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization 

project, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest 

System. 

 Area. A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, 

than a Ranger District. 

 Designated road, trail, or area. A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or 

an area on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to § 212.51 on a 

motor vehicle use map. 

 Forest road or trail. A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. 

 Forest transportation atlas. A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an 

administrative unit. 

 Forest transportation facility. A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in a forest 

transportation atlas, including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access facilities, safety devices, and 

other improvements appurtenant to the forest transportation system. 

295 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 Forest transportation system. The system of National Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and airfields on National Forest System lands. 

 Motor vehicle. Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: 

 (1) A vehicle operated on rails; and 

 (2) Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery powered, that is designed 

solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area. 

 Motor vehicle use map. A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative 

unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System. 

 National Forest System road. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. 

 National Forest System trail. A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. 

 Off-highway vehicle. Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. 

 Over-snow vehicle. A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or 

tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow. 

 Road. A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail. 

 Road construction or reconstruction. Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of 

all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road. 

 Temporary road or trail. A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas. 

 Trail. A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and 

managed as a trail. 

 Travel management atlas. An atlas that consists of a forest transportation atlas and a motor 

vehicle use map or maps. 

 Unauthorized road or trail. A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or 

trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. 

4. Amend § 212.2 by redesignating paragraphs (b) as (d), revising paragraph (a), and adding new 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 212.2 Forest transportation program. 

 (a) Travel management atlas. For each administrative unit of the National Forest System, the 

responsible official must develop and maintain a travel management atlas, which is to be available to the 

public at the headquarters of that administrative unit. 

296 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 (b) Forest transportation atlas. A forest transportation atlas may be updated to reflect new 

information on the existence and condition of roads, trails, and airfields of the administrative unit. A 

forest transportation atlas does not contain inventories of temporary roads, which are tracked by the 

project or activity authorizing the temporary road. The content and maintenance requirements for a forest 

transportation atlas are identified in the Forest Service directives system. 

 (c) Program of work for the forest transportation system. A program of work for the forest 

transportation system shall be developed each fiscal year in accordance with procedures prescribed by the 

Chief. 

5. Amend § 212.5 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii); 

b. Revise the heading for paragraph (c) introductory text to read as set forth below: 

c. Revise the heading for paragraph (d) introductory text to read as set forth below: 

§ 212.5 Road system management. 

 (a) Traffic rules. 

 (1) General. Traffic on roads is subject to State traffic laws where applicable except when in 

conflict with designations established under subpart B of this part or with the rules at 36 CFR part 261. 

 (2) Specific. 

 (ii) Roads, or segments thereof, may be restricted to use by certain classes of vehicles or types of 

traffic as provided in 36 CFR part 261. Classes of vehicles may include but are not limited to 

distinguishable groupings such as passenger cars, buses, trucks, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, 4- wheel 

drive vehicles, off-highway vehicles, and trailers. Types of traffic may include but are not limited to 

groupings such as commercial hauling, recreation, and administrative. 

 (c) Cost recovery on National Forest System roads. 

 (d) Maintenance and reconstruction of National Forest System roads by users.

6. Amend § 212.7 by revising the paragraph heading and text of paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 212.7 Access procurement by the United States. 

 (a) Existing or proposed forest roads that are or will be part of a transportation system of a State, 

county, or other local public road authority. Forest roads that are or will be part of a transportation system 

of a State, county, or other local public road authority and are on rights-of-way held by a State, county, or 

other local public road authority may be constructed, reconstructed, improved, or maintained by the 

Forest Service when there is an appropriate agreement with the State, county, or other local public road 

authority under 23 U.S.C. 205 and the construction, reconstruction, improvement, or maintenance is 

essential to provide safe and economical access to National Forest System lands. 

7. Amend § 212.10 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 212.10 Maximum economy National Forest System roads. 

297 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 (d) By a combination of these methods, provided that where roads are to be constructed at a 

higher standard than the standard—consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations—that 

is sufficient for harvesting and removal of National Forest timber and other products covered by a 

particular sale, the purchaser of the timber and other products shall not be required to bear the part of the 

cost necessary to meet the higher standard, and the Chief may make such arrangements to achieve this 

end as may be appropriate. 

§ 212.20 [Removed and reserved]

8. Remove and reserve § 212.20. 

9. Add a new subpart B to read as follows: 

Subpart B—Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use 

Sec. 

212.50 Purpose, scope, and definitions. 212.51 Designation of roads, trails, and areas. 

212.52 Public involvement. 

212.53 Coordination with Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal governments. 

212.54 Revision of designations. 

212.55 Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas. 

212.56 Identification of designated roads, trails, and areas. 

212.57 Monitoring of effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails and in designated areas. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f), 16 U.S.C. 551, E.O. 11644, 11989 (42 FR 26959). 

§ 212.50 Purpose, scope, and definitions. 

 (a) Purpose. This subpart provides for a system of National Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands that are designated for motor vehicle use. After 

these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, including the class of vehicle and time of 

year, not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Motor vehicle use off 

designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. 

 (b) Scope. The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding 

travel management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle 

use, in designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National 

Forest System lands for motor vehicle use under this subpart. 

 (c) For definitions of terms used in this subpart, refer to § 212.1 in subpart A of this part. 

§ 212.51 Designation of roads, trails, and areas. 

 (a) General. Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System 

trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if 

appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the 

National Forest System, provided that the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these 

designations: 

 (1) Aircraft; 

 (2) Watercraft; 

298 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 (3) Over-snow vehicles (see § 212.81); 

 (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. 

 (b) Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. In designating routes, the 

responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified 

distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the 

purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally 

taken that animal. 

§ 212.52 Public involvement. 

 (a) General. The public shall be allowed to participate in the designation of National Forest 

System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands and revising those 

designations pursuant to this subpart. Advance notice shall be given to allow for public comment, 

consistent with agency procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act, on proposed 

designations and revisions. Public notice with no further public involvement is sufficient if a National 

Forest or Ranger District has made previous administrative decisions, under other authorities and 

including public involvement, which restrict motor vehicle use over the entire National Forest or Ranger 

District to designated routes and areas, and no change is proposed to these previous decisions and 

designations. 

 (b) Absence of public involvement in temporary, emergency closures. (1) General. Nothing in this 

section shall alter or limit the authority to implement temporary, emergency closures pursuant to 36 CFR 

part 261, subpart B, without advance public notice to provide short-term resource protection or to protect 

public health and safety. 

 (2) Temporary, emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects. If 

the responsible official determines that motor vehicle use on a National Forest System road or National 

Forest System trail or in an area on National Forest System lands is directly causing or will directly cause 

considerable adverse effects on public safety or soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural 

resources associated with that road, trail, or area, the responsible official shall immediately close that 

road, trail, or area to motor vehicle use until the official determines that such adverse effects have been 

mitigated or eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence. The 

responsible official shall provide public notice of the closure pursuant to 36 CFR 261.51, including 

reasons for the closure and the estimated duration of the closure, as soon as practicable following the 

closure. 

§ 212.53 Coordination with Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal 

governments. 

299 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 The responsible official shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, county, and other local 

governmental entities and tribal governments when designating National Forest System roads, National 

Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands pursuant to this subpart. 

§ 212.54 Revision of designations. 

 Designations of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on 

National Forest System lands pursuant to § 212.51 may be revised as needed to meet changing conditions. 

Revisions of designations shall be made in accordance with the requirements for public involvement in § 

212.52, the requirements for coordination with governmental entities in § 212.53, and the criteria in § 

212.55, and shall be reflected on a motor vehicle use map pursuant to § 212.56. 

§ 212.55 Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas. 

 (a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System 

trails, and areas on National Forest System lands. In designating National Forest System roads, National 

Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible 

official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, 

provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System 

lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses 

under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and 

administration. 

 (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) 

of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, 

the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: 

 (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; 

 (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; 

 (3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National 

Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and 

 (4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or 

neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible official shall consider: 

 (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account sound, emissions, and other factors. 

 (c) Specific criteria for designation of roads. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this 

section, in designating National Forest System roads, the responsible official shall consider: 

 (1) Speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads; and 

 (2) Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing. 

 (d) Rights of access. In making designations pursuant to this subpart, the responsible official shall 

recognize: 

 (1) Valid existing rights; and 

300 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 (2) The rights of use of National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails under § 

212.6(b). 

 (e) Wilderness areas and primitive areas. National Forest System roads, National Forest System 

trails, and areas on National Forest System lands in wilderness areas or primitive areas shall not be 

designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to this section, unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor 

vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling legislation for those areas. 

§ 212.56 Identification of designated roads, trails, and areas. 

 Designated roads, trails, and areas shall be identified on a motor vehicle use map. Motor vehicle 

use maps shall be made available to the public at the headquarters of corresponding administrative units 

and Ranger Districts of the National Forest System and, as soon as practicable, on the website of 

corresponding administrative units and Ranger Districts. The motor vehicle use maps shall specify the 

classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is designated. 

§ 212.57 Monitoring of effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails and in designated 

areas. 

 For each administrative unit of the National Forest System, the responsible official shall monitor 

the effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails and in designated areas under the 

jurisdiction of that responsible official, consistent with the applicable land management plan, as 

appropriate and feasible. 

10. Add a new subpart C to read as follows: 

Subpart C—Use by Over-Snow Vehicles 

Sec. 

212.80 Purpose, scope, and definitions. 

212.81 Use by over-snow vehicles. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f), 16 U.S.C. 551, E.O. 11644, 11989 (42 FR 26959). 

§ 212.80 Purpose, scope, and definitions. 

 The purpose of this subpart is to provide for regulation of use by oversnow vehicles on National 

Forest System roads and National Forest System trails and in areas on National Forest System lands. For 

definitions of terms used in this subpart, refer to § 212.1 in subpart A of this part. 

§ 212.81 Use by over-snow vehicles. 

 (a) General. Use by over-snow vehicles on National Forest System roads and National Forest 

System trails and in areas on National Forest System lands may be allowed, restricted, or prohibited. 

 (b) Exemptions from restrictions and prohibitions. The following uses are exempted from 

restrictions and prohibitions on use by over-snow vehicles: 

 (1) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; 

 (2) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; 

 (3) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; 

301 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 (4) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and 

 (5) Use by over-snow vehicles that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued 

under Federal law or regulations. 

 (c) Establishment of restrictions and prohibitions. If the responsible official proposes restrictions 

or prohibitions on use by over-snow vehicles under this subpart, the requirements governing designation 

of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands 

in §§ 212.52, 212.53, 212.54, 212.55, 212.56, and 212.57 shall apply to establishment of those restrictions 

or prohibitions. In establishing restrictions or prohibitions on use by over-snow vehicles, the responsible 

official shall recognize the provisions concerning rights of access in sections 811(b) and 1110(a) of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3121(b) and 3170(a), respectively). 

PART 251—LAND USES 

Subpart B—Special Uses 

11. Revise the authority citation for part 251, subpart B, to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 460l– 6a, 460l–6d, 472, 497b, 497c, 551, 580d, 1134, 3210; 30 

U.S.C. 185; 43 U.S.C. 1740, 1761–1771. 

12. Amend § 251.51 by revising the definitions for ‘‘forest road or trail’’ and ‘‘National Forest System 

road’’ to read as follows: 

§ 251.51 Definitions. 

 Forest road or trail. A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. 

 National Forest System road. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. 

PART 261—PROHIBITIONS 

13. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 460l– 6d, 472, 551, 620(f), 1133(c)–(d)(1), 1246(i). 

14. Amend § 261.2 to revise the definitions for ‘‘motor vehicle,’’ ‘‘forest road or trail,’’ ‘‘National Forest 

System road,’’ and ‘‘National Forest System trail,’’ and add definitions in alphabetical order for 

‘‘administrative unit’’ and ‘‘area,’’ to read as follows: 

Subpart A—General Prohibitions 

§ 261.2 Definitions. 

 Administrative unit. A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization 

project, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest 

System. 

302 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 Area. A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, 

than a Ranger District. 

 Forest road or trail. A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. 

 Motor vehicle means any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: 

 (1) A vehicle operated on rails; and 

 (2) Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed 

solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area. 

 National Forest System road. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. 

 National Forest System trail. A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. 

§§ 261.13 through 261.21 [Redesignated as §§ 261.15 through 261.23] 

15. Redesignate §§ 261.13 through 261.21 as §§ 261.15 through 261.23. 

15a. Add new § 261.13 and § 261.14 to read as follows: 

§ 261.13 Motor vehicle use. 

 After National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest 

System lands have been designated pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 on an administrative unit or a Ranger 

District of the National Forest System, and these designations have been identified on a motor vehicle use 

map, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on National Forest System lands in that 

administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations, provided that the 

following vehicles and uses are exempted from this prohibition: 

 (a) Aircraft; 

 (b) Watercraft; 

 (c) Over-snow vehicles; 

 (d) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; 

 (e) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; 

 (f) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; 

 (g) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; 

 (h) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under 

Federal law or regulations; and 

303 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

304 

 (i) Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, 

county, or other local public road authority. 

§ 261.14 Use by over-snow vehicles. 

 It is prohibited to possess or operate an over-snow vehicle on National Forest System lands in 

violation of a restriction or prohibition established pursuant to 36 CFR part 212, subpart C, provided that 

the following uses are exempted from this section: 

 (a) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; 

 (b) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; 

 (c) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; 

 (d) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; 

 (e) Use by over-snow vehicles that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued 

under Federal law or regulations; and 

 (f) Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, 

county, or other local public road authority. 

16. Amend § 261.55 by revising the introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 261.55 National Forest System trails. 

 When provided by an order issued in accordance with § 261.50 of this subpart, the following are 

prohibited on a National Forest System trail: 

PART 295—USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES OFF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS 

[REMOVED] 

17. Remove the entire part 295. 

[Note: Copied and reformatted from: 68288 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 

9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations] 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

305 

Appendix B: Design Criteria Common to All 

Alternatives 

Resources and their corresponding design criteria are listed below. Effects analysis was conducted 

presuming the implementation of these design criteria. 

Botanical Resources Damage Protection 

Design criteria must be developed for the following routes to avoid damage to R2 sensitive plant species, 

Forest plant species of local concern, M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas, and riparian/wetland/fen areas. 

Table B-1. Routes requiring design criteria 

Species Occurrence Route Number Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Routes to be designed, removed, or rerouted to avoid impacts to R2 sensitive species 

Bearlodge RD 

Botrychium campestre BOCA5-8 872.3 X 

Botrychium lineare BOLI7-1 

864.1 (outside 

Dugout Gulch 

Botanical Area) 

X X 

Carex alopecoidea CAAL8-12 U71002 X 

CAAL8-31 841.1L X X 

Cypripedium parviflorum CYPA19-10 863.2C X X 

Viburnum opulus var. americanum VIOPA2-2, VIOPA2-

16 

864.1 (in Dugout 

Gulch Botanical Area) X X 

03DUG3A, 94S460B U650017 X X 

Northern Hills RD 

Carex alopecoidea CAAL8-22 U710024 X 

Cypripedium parviflorum 950070B U080045 X X X 

Platanthera orbiculata 01G040 CZ0418, U010076 X X 

PLOR4-18 U010071 X X 

Sanguinaria canadensis SACA13-2 567.1F X X X 

SACA13-2 172.1A X X X 

Viburnum opulus var. americanum VIOPA2-4 U080156 X X 

980010 CZ4846 X X 

Mystic RD 

Cypripedium parviflorum CYPA19-2 CZ1790 X X X 

Routes requiring design criteria to avoid impacts to Black Hills NF plant SOLC 

Mystic RD 

Gentiana affinis 07M008A CZ4927 X 

Hell Canyon RD 

Gentiana affinis GEAF-4 HC9 X X 

07B040A CZ3526 X X 

07B042 HC1 X X 

Routes requiring design criteria to avoid impacts to M.A. 3.1 Botanical Areas 

Bearlodge RD 

Dugout Gulch Botanical Area 864.1C X X 

864.1 X X 

864.1A X 

Routes requiring design criteria to avoid impacts to fens 

Mystic RD 

South Fork Castle Creek fen 385.1A X X X 

Newton Fork fen 304.1L X X X 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Cultural Resources 

Design Criteria for Cultural Resources are based on established cultural resource protection protocols, and 

guidance provided in the USDA FS Policy for NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated 

Routes for Motor Vehicle Use prepared by the FS in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. According to this policy, only certain travel management proposals are to be considered as 

undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties. Accordingly, only properties located in the 

area of potential effects for the following types of proposals require design criteria. 

1. The construction of a new road or trail. 

2. The authorization of motor vehicle use on a route currently closed to vehicles. 

3. The formal recognition of a user-developed (unauthorized) route as a designated route open to 

motor vehicles. 

4. Closing a route currently open to motorized use. (For this decision no proposed road closures 

would be implemented on the ground. Any road proposed for closure would not be designated as 

open to motorized travel on the map. There would be no ground disturbance and therefore no 

potential to effect historic properties. If physical closures such as gates or berms are proposed in 

the future, the districts would determine how the road would be closed and consultation would be 

handled with a separate 106 report.) 

5. The area of potential effects not only includes the route corridor itself, but also the area adjacent 

to the route designated for motorized dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval. 

Unless otherwise recommended by cultural resources specialists in consultation with affected State 

Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribes, the following Design Criteria apply to all sites within 

the area of potential effect as defined in items 1-5 above: 

 Geotextile fabric and a layer of crushed rock will be applied to all routes described in items 1-4 

above where there is the potential to disturb cultural properties. 

 All cultural properties located on 10 percent slopes or less within designated dispersed motorized 

camping areas will be monitored annually for a period of 3 years after the decision is 

implemented. 

 All cultural properties located on 30 percent slopes or less within designated motorized game 

retrieval areas will be monitored annually for a period of 3 years after the decision is 

implemented. 

 Sites determined to be threatened or adversely impacted by dispersed motorized camping or 

dispersed motorized game retrieval may require additional site protection measures. These site 

protection measures may include modifying routes to avoid the resources, increasing monitoring 

or law enforcement, area closures, constructing barriers, concealing sites, various forms of 

surface hardening treatments, and interpreting resources. 

Existing, formally established system (classified) roads and trails including up to a 300-foot game 

retrieval and dispersed camping corridor, already open to motor vehicle travel, generally need not be reevaluated for purposes of this rule. Their designation on a MVUM would not generally be considered an 

undertaking for the purposes of NHPA and not subject to Section 106 review. 

If, during the course of any ground disturbance related to this project, any bones, artifacts, foundations, or 

other indications of past human occupation of the area were discovered, work would stop and a Forest or 

District archaeologist would be contacted. The archaeologist would determine if additional consultation 

with the SHPO and applicable Native American Tribes would be required before work continued. 

306 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Hydrology and Fisheries 

Road/Trail Drainage within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) 

 Provide adequate road and trail cross drainage to reduce erosion (Guideline 9202e) by installing 

waterbars/rolling dips within the WIZ using the following as a guide: 

Spacing for Water Bars 

Road or Trail 

Grade (%) 

Spacing Between 

Waterbars (Feet) 

2 250 

5 135 

10 80 

15 60 

20 45 

Source: SD State University et al. (2003) 

 One waterbar/rolling dip should be installed as close to 

the stream crossing as possible (on both sides) to redirect 

concentrated water off the trail and allow for filtration of 

concentrated water before entering the stream to 

disconnect the pollutant sources (sediment). 

 The waterbars/rolling dips just before the stream 

crossing should be hardened with gravel to maintain 

function. 

 If there is no opportunity to drain waterbars/rolling dips, small sediment basins should be used to 

maintain the above water bar/rolling dip spacing. 

Stream Crossings 

 Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of 

flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic 

life (Standard 1203). (No native material crossings, gravel or large gravel rocks should be used 

because these do not protect the stream bottom and banks. They allow sediment to be generated 

during the crossing of each vehicle.) 

o Perennial stream crossings on the following routes should be armored or remediated as 

soon as practicable in this order of priority, if designated on the MVUM. Prioritization is 

based on level of use, degree of impact, and aquatic resource value. 

Route Stream Crossing Alt B Alt C Alt D District 

CZ-4895 Rapid Creek x Mystic 

CZ-3050 South Fork Castle Creek x x x Mystic 

CZ-3462 Heely Creek x x x Mystic 

CZ-3464 Heely Creek x x x Mystic 

CZ-0886 Heely Creek x x Mystic 

MY84 Heely Creek x x x Mystic 

U230014 Tributary – Ditch Creek x x x Mystic 

CZ-4927 Castle Creek x Mystic 

U120146 Gimlet Creek x x Northern Hills 

CZ-4846 Gimlet Creek x x Northern Hills 

MY3 Gimlet Creek x x x Northern Hills 

MY66 Spring Creek x Mystic 

MY50 Horse Creek x Mystic 

 Design options for mitigation. (The goal is to protect the stream bottom and banks to prevent 

sediment from entering the stream or being mobilized when vehicles cross and to prevent widening 

of the stream.) 

307 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

o Bridge 

o Cattle guard (bridge) 

o Arch/half round culvert (width is at least bankfull width) 

o Concrete rails/mats (buried so top of rails/mats is at the stream bed elevation) 

o Culvert (diameter or width is at least bankfull width and buried so stream substrate is in 

the bottom of the culvert) 

o Other material may be used as it becomes available as long as it meets the goal to prevent 

sediment and stream widening 

 Generally, the road/trail grade to the crossing will be less than 5 percent. 

 Minimize fill in floodplains to facilitate crossings to allow flood flows to pass with minimal 

interruption. 

 Perennial stream crossings on the following routes should be monitored annually for the first 3 

years if designated on the MVUM to determine if unacceptable resource damage is occurring to 

streambanks and riparian vegetation. If so, the streambanks should be mitigated at a designated 

crossing location per the options identified above. 

Route Stream Crossing Alt B Alt C Alt D District 

CZ-4829 Elk Creek x x Northern Hills 

CZ-4859 Jim Creek x x Northern Hills 

CZ-4878 Prairie Creek x Mystic 

CZ-4889 Tributary – Spring Crk x Mystic 

CZ-4889 Victoria Creek x x x Mystic 

CZ-4895 Prairie Creek x Mystic 

CZ-4910 Estes Creek x x Northern Hills 

CZ-4927 Slate Creek x Mystic 

CZ-4928 Newton Fork Creek x Mystic 

U270093 Tepee Gulch x x Mystic 

Closing Roads 

 When possible and circumstances permit, road/stream crossings on perennial and intermittent 

streams on closed roads will have the crossing rehabilitated by restoring the natural shape 

(including stream width) to allow natural flows at all stages by pulling culverts and by removing 

any fill placed in the floodplain. 

Fish Spawning Protection 

 The following design criteria should apply for instream construction activities to install, repair or 

remove road/trail crossings on perennial streams to meet the R2 Watershed Conservation Practices 

Management Measure 3; Design Criteria (c) to keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish 

spawning, incubation, and emergence periods. 

o In all South Dakota streams classified as cold water streams, when water flow is present, 

the discharge of dredged or fill material shall not take place between October 15 and 

April 1. 

o In Wyoming, the period and timing of in-water construction should be adjusted as 

necessary to avoid conflicts with brown or brook trout spawning from September 15 

through November 30. 

308 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wet Areas/Wetland Areas 

 Areas not connected to streams that are wet and have riparian/wetland vegetation will be avoided 

and runoff from the roads/trail will not be drained into these areas. 

 Avoid creating elevated road/trails through wetlands which disrupt the flow of water through the 

wetland. 

Trailheads 

 Do not locate or expand trailheads in the WIZ (a minimum 100 feet buffer from waterbodies). 

Game Retrieval and Road Egress 

 Prohibit land vehicles from entering perennial streams where resource damage would occur 

except to cross at specified points (Guideline 9107). 

 Vehicular traffic, except for snowmobiles, will be restricted to roads and trails in riparian areas 

(Guideline 9108). 

 Walk-in fisheries are closed to motorized travel (Guideline 9109). 

Dispersed Camping 

 Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and streams unless 

exceptions are justified by terrain (Guideline 5301). 

Lands 

Prior to implementing any of these alternatives, a study should be conducted to analyze the following 

effects of limiting access to public lands: (1) effects of reduced access to private land (across public land) 

and how this would increase the need for special use permits, (2) effects of reduced access to private land 

and its potential impact on adjoining property values by restricting development and possibly changing 

the use of adjoining private land from recreational to residential, and (3) effects of reduced access on 

small businesses such as campgrounds which rely on motorized access to public land as one of their 

forms of recreation. 

An implementation schedule for any of these alternatives should be established, utilizing a phased-in 

approach. The implementation schedule should be initiated in one or two of the most problematic areas, 

allowing the Forest to assess the impacts to public and private programs and entities that may be affected. 

The assessments could then be utilized to plan further implementation of travel management alternatives. 

Language in the Travel Management Plan should clearly identify the rights of access for all motorized 

activities including administrative use. 

Minerals 

The Travel Management Plan should contain language that clearly states the rights of the public to access 

Forest lands for prospecting and mining. The Travel Management Plan should clearly inform FS decision 

makers that travel management regulations and the MVUM cannot unreasonably restrict the rights of 

prospectors and miners. The following statements must be included in the Travel Management Plan: 

 Prospectors and miners have a statutory right, not mere privilege, under the mining laws to go 

upon and use the open public domain lands of the NFS for the purposes of mineral exploration, 

development and production. Exercise of that right may not be unreasonably restricted (39 Federal 

Register, 31317). 

309 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 The right of reasonable access for purposes of prospecting, locating, and mining is provided by 

statute. Such access must be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the FS. However, the 

rules and regulations may not be applied so as to prevent lawful mineral activities or to cause 

undue hardship on bona fide prospectors and miners (Forest Service Manual 2800, Section 2813.4) 

Range and Weeds 

 Any road closures that install impassable physical barriers, such as large rocks or earthen berms 

that could restrict administrative access, should be done on a site-specific basis with 

interdisciplinary input. 

 Any new road or trail that crosses a fence would have gates or cattle guards installed (consider 

self-closing gates on trails). 

Wildlife 

 The Powerline Trailhead (Alternatives B, C, and D) would be closed seasonally or otherwise 

designed with barricades placed at the proposed trailhead or otherwise designed to continue to limit 

parking to one or two vehicles with trailers, before being added to the MVUM, to be consistent 

with Forest Plan Standard 3111. 

 The following routes or a portion of these routes would be closed seasonally from April 1 to 

August 15 to protect nesting goshawks, for the alternatives indicated. 

Table B-2. Routes closed seasonally (April 1–August 15) to protect nesting goshawks 

Route Number Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Bearlodge RD 

832.1 X 

830.3 X 

830.1B X 

U680017 X 

U680015 X X 

U680078 X 

863.3G X 

U720011 X 

805.3O X 

875.2B X 

875.2A X 

875.2F X 

806.2A X X 

875.1C X X 

875.1A X X 

U710120 X X 

875.2D X 

875.2F X 

806.2E X X 

806.2F X 

806.2B X 

806.2G X 

310 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

311 

Route Number Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Northern Hills RD 

733.3E X X 

733.3D X X 

733.3A X X 

733.3C X X 

CZ-3569 X 

U120121 X X 

U120124 X X 

U120148 X X 

U130161 X X 

Mystic RD 

CZ-4887 X 

159.1B X X X 

159.1C X X X 

CZ-4878 X 

389.1K X X 

423 X X X 

304.1H X X X 

304.1F X X X 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix C: Literature Cited 

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment for the woodpeckers in the Black Hills National Forest 

South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Custer, SD. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/Region2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/woodpeckers.pdf. [July 

13, 2004]. 

Anderson, T. 2004. Field guide to Black Hills land snails. Natural History Inventory Publication Number 

22. University of Colorado Museum, Boulder. 32p. 

Anderson, T. 2005. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): A technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coopersrockymountainsnail.pdf [April 14, 

2008]. 

Anderson, T., R. Guralnick, and K. Weaver. 2006. Endemism and population relationships of the Black 

Hills Oreohelix snails. Final report. February. 

Arcese, P., M.K. Sogge, A,B. Marr, and M.A. Patten. 2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In: The 

Birds of North America, No. 704. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc. 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Bartlett, R.D. and A. Tennant. 2000. Snakes of North America, Western Region. Gulf Publishing, 

Houston, TX. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce. Available: 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2008/pdf/spi0308.pdf 

Beason, J., K. Hutton, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2006. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: 

2005 field season report. Technical Report M-MBBH05-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO. 113p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml. 

Belcher, J.W. and S.D. Wilson. 1989. Leafy spurge and species composition of a mixed-grass prairie. 

Journal of Range Management 42: 172–175. 

Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): A technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf [July 9, 2008]. 

Beidleman, C.A. 2000. Partners in Flight, Land Bird Conservation Plan, Colorado. Version 1.0. Colorado 

Partners in Flight, Estes Park, CO. Available: http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl-co-10.pdf. 

Best, K.F., G.G. Bowes, A.G. Thomas, and M.G. Shaw. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 39. 

Euphorbia esula L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 60: 651–663. 

Benzon, T.A. and R. Halseth. 1999. Reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the Black Hills, 

South Dakota, 1986–1994. Completion Report No. 99-12. South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks. Pierre, SD. July. 

Blair, T. (chairman), [and others]. 2006. Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board travel management 

subcommittee report. Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board. June. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/recreation/travel_management/nfab_tmsc_report_06082006.pdf 

313 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Blakesley, J.A., G. Giroir, and C. White. 2008. Population densities and trend detection of avian species 

on the Black Hills National Forest. Technical Report M-MBBH07-02. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO. 45p. 

Bonnot, T. 2004. Association of black-backed woodpeckers with mountain pine beetle infestation in the 

Black Hills, South Dakota. Interim Progress Report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station and University of Missouri-Columbia. December. 8p. 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In: Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through 

management and research. (R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors.) Island Press, Washington, 

D.C. pp. 109–156. 

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. In: The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores in the western United States. (L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, editors.) 

General Technical Report RM-254, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and 

Experiment Station. 

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Martens, 

sables, and fishers: Biology and Conservation. (S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, 

compilers and editors.) Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. pp. 283–296. 

Buskirk. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Custer, SD. 

Carter, J.M., D.G. Driscoll, J.E. Williamson and V.A. Lindquist. 2002. Atlas of water resources in the 

Black Hills area, South Dakota. USGS. Available: 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/ha/ha747/index.html [July 9, 2008]. 

Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of Natural History, University 

of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 314p. 

Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds. 2005. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf. [April 15, 2008]. 

Cordell, H., C.J. Betz, G. Green, and M. Owens. 2005. (See USDA FS 2005c)

Cordell, H., C. Betz, G. Green, and B. Stephens. 2008. Off-highway vehicle recreation in the United 

States and its Regions and States: A national report from the National Survey on Recreation and 

the Environment (NSRE). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/IrisRec1rpt.pdf 

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3: 43–52. 

DePerno, C.S., J.A. Jenks, S.L. Griffin, L.A. Rice, and K.F. Higgins. 2002. White-tailed deer habitats in 

the central Black Hills. Journal of Range Management 55: 242–252. 

Dinsmore, S.J. 2003. Mountain plover (Charadruis montanus): A technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainplover.pdf. [July 29, 2008]. 

314 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Dixon, R.D., and V.A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). In: The birds of North 

America. (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.) No. 509. The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, PA., and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

English, D.B.K., S.M. Kocis, and D.P. Hales. 2004. Off-highway vehicle use on national forests: Volume 

and characteristics of visitors. Special report to the National Implementation Team. USDA Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 

Fecske, D.M., J.A. Jenks, and V.J. Smith. 2002. Field evaluation of a habitat-relation model for the 

American marten. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 775–782. 

Fecske, D.M., J.A. Jenks, C. Kopplin, and T.L. Serfass. 2003. A landscape analysis for American martens 

(Martes americana) in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Draft publication dated October 10, 2003. 

Federal Register. 2005. 36 CFR Part 212, 251, and 295. Final rule: travel management; designated routes 

and areas for motor vehicle use. National Archives and Records Administration. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf. [July 9, 2008]. \ 

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 2008a. Executive Order 11988: floodplain 

management. FEMA. Available: http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ehplaws/eo11988.shtm. [July 9, 

2008]. 

FEMA. 2008b. Executive Order 11990, protection of wetlands, 1977. FEMA. Available: 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/eo_11990.shtm. [July 9, 2008]. 

Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell, III. 1985. Black footed-ferret habitat: Some 

management and reintroduction considerations. Technical Bulletin No. 2, Wyoming Bureau of 

Land Management, Wildlife. 

Foulke, T., R. Coupal, and D. Taylor. 2002. Economic trends in Wyoming’s travel and tourism sector. B1131. Cooperative Extension Service. University of Wyoming. Available: 

http://ces.uwyo.edu/pubs/B1131.pdf 

Foulke, T., D. Olson, D. Taylor, C. Bastian, and R. Coupal. 2006. A survey and economic assessment of 

off-road vehicle use in Wyoming. Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, 

Division of State Parks and Historic Sites, State Trails Program. Available: 

http://wyotrails.state.wy.us/Research/ORVStudy2006.pdf 

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota 

and Wyoming. Summary report, 1991–2001. Final Report Contract # 43-67TO-8-1085. USDA 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Frenkell, R.E. 1970. Ruderal vegetation along some California roadsides. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. 

Frison, G.C. 1991. Prehistoric hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York. 

Gelbard, J.L., and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: Interaction with 

soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13(2): 404–415. 

Giroir, G., C. White, R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: 2007 field season report. 

Technical Report M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 81p. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml. [July 29, 2008]. 

315 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Graul, W.D. 1975. Breeding biology of the mountain plover. Wilson Bulletin 87: 6–31. 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 2006. Publication on the science of healthy rivers. Available: 

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/ecosystem/waters/pubs.html. [July 9, 2008]. 

Greenberg, C.H., S.H. Crownover, and D.R. Gordon. 1997. Roadside soil: A corridor for invasion of xeric 

scrub by nonindigenous plants. Natural Areas Journal 17: 99–109. 

Griffin, S.L., L.A. Rice, C.S. DePerno, and J.A. Jenks. 1999. Seasonal movements and home ranges of 

white-tailed deer in the central Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming, 1993–1997. Completion 

report no. 99-03. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD. 61p. 

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: A synthesis of scientific 

information. General Technical Report PNWGTR-509, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr509.pdf. [July 

9, 2008]. 

Hall, J., H.J. Marriott, and J.K. Perot. 2002. Ecoregional conservation in the Black Hills. The Nature 

Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science Center, Midwestern Resource Office, Minneapolis, 

MN. 

Hansen, C., J. Millspaugh, and M.A. Rumble. 2008. Factors affecting the probability of detecting ruffed 

grouse in the Black Hills National Forest. Progress Report 1, January 14. 

Hayward, G.D. and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and 

northern Idaho. Condor 91: 476–479. 

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, technical editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the 

United States: A technical conservations assessment. General Technical Report. RM-253, USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Higgins, K.E., E. D. Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D.C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of South Dakota. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre, SD. 

Hornbeck, J.H.; C. H. Sieg; D. Reyher; and D.J. Bacon. 2003. Conservation assessment for the large 

round-leaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata) in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota 

and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. Custer, South Dakota. 

Hutton, K., J. Beason, G. Giroir, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2007. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: 

2006 field season report. Technical Report M-MBBH06-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO. 71p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml. 

[July 29, 2008]. 

Huxoll, C. 2007. 2006 annual report: Big game harvest projections. South Dakota Game Report N0. 

2007-03, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD. 74p. 

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert, C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, mountain sucker 

and finescale dace in the Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_sucker_dace.pdf. [July 9, 

2008]. 

316 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Jensen, P.K. 1995. Effect of light environment during soil disturbance on germination and emergence 

pattern of weeds. Annals of Applied Biology 127: 561–571. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. North American owls, biology and natural history. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. and London. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America: Biology and natural history. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Johnson, A.S. and S.H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the Western burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia hypugaea) in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA 

Forest Service, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/burrowing_owl.pdf . [July 29, 

2008]. 

Johnson, H.B., F.C. Vasek, and T. Yonkers. 1975. Productivity, diversity, and stability relationships in 

Mojave Desert roadside vegetation. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 102(3): 106–115. 

Kocis, S.M., B.K. Donald, S.J. English, R.A. Zarnoch, L. Warren, and C. Ruka. (2004) Black Hills 

National Forest. In: National visitor use monitoring results. USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year4/R2_F3_blackhills_final.htm. [May 

2005]. 

Kennedy. P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: www.fs.fed.us/Region 

2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf. [January 2, 2003]. 

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W. H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. 

Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the 

United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTPR6001-2003, Washington, D.C. 

Leonard, D.L. 2001. Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). In: The birds of North America (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors) No. 588. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Lonsdale, W.M. and A.M. Lane. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National Park, 

northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69: 277–283. 

Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L. Van Fleet. 1999. Atlas of birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division, 

Biological Services Section, Lander, WY. November. 

Lui, W.. 2007. 10 year outlook, Wyoming economic and demographic forecast 2007 to 2016. Wyoming 

Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division, WY. Available: 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us 

Marriott, H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. McAdams, D. Stutzman, and B. Burkhart. 1999. The Black Hills 

community inventory – Final report. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science 

Center, Midwestern Resource Office, Minneapolis, MN. 

317 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Marriott, H. and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2000. Black Hills community inventory – Volume 2: Plant 

community descriptions. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science Center and 

Association for Biodiversity Information, Midwestern Resource Office, Minneapolis, MN. 

McIntosh, A.C. 1931. A botanical survey of the Black Hills of South Dakota. Black Hills Engineer 12: 

159–276. 

Merwin, D.S. 2000. Comparing levels and factors of lambing mortality between two herds of Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Masters Thesis, University of 

Washington, Seattle. 125p. 

Mohren, S.R. 2002. Habitat evaluation and density estimates for the black-backed woodpecker (Picoides 

arcticus) and northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) in the Black Hills National 

Forest. Masters Thesis, University of Wyoming. Laramie. 

Moore, L., S. Friedley, and D.L. Hazlett. (2006, July 31). Carex alopecoidea Tuckerman (foxtail sedge): 

A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexalopecoidea.pdf. 

Nicholoff, S.H., (compiler). 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming Partners In 

Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. Available: 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/WY/menu.htm. [July 14, 2004]. 

Olson, D.R. 2006. A graphic summary of South Dakota. Rural Life/Census Data Center. Department of 

Rural Sociology, South Dakota State University, SD. Available: 

http://sdrurallife.sdstate.edu/newcommunity/graphicsummary.pdf 

Olson, R. and W.A. Hubert. 1994. Beaver: Water resources and riparian habitat manager. University of 

Wyoming. Laramie. 

Ortega, Y.K. and D.E. Capen. 2002. Roads as edges: Effects on birds in forested landscapes. Forest 

Science 48(2): 381–390. 

Ouren, D.S., C. Hass, C.P. Melcher, S.C. Stewart, P.D. Ponds, N.R. Sexton, L. Burris, T. Fancher, and 

Z.H. Bowen. 2007. Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land 

Management lands: A literature synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and 

internet resources. Open File Report 2007-1353. U.S. Geological Survey. (Accessed at: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/pub_abstract.asp?PubID=22021) 

Oxley, D.J., M.B. Fenton, and G.R. Carmody. 1973. The effects of roads on populations of small 

mammals. Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. pp 51–58. 

Panjabi, A. 2001. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 1, final report. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Fort Collins, CO. 

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 2, final report. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO. 

Panjabi, A. 2004. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 3, Annual report submitted to the Black Hills 

National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 

318 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 4, Annual Report. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml. [July 29, 2008]. 

Parendes, L.A., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion 

along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 

14(1): 64–75. 

Parrish, J.B., D.J. Herman and D.J. Reyher, and Black Hills National Forest. 1996. A century of change in 

the Black Hills forest and riparian ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Experiment 

Station, South Dakota State University. 

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists' Union, 

Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Available: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/sdatlas/sdatlas.htm (Version 06JUL2000). 

Pierson, E. D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C.E. Harris, B.L. Keller, 

B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K.W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Wilch. 1999. Species 

conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii 

townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Boise. 

Rabe, M., T. Morrell, H. Green, J. Devos Jr., and C. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa-pine snag 

roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2): 

612–621. 

Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W.L. Baker. 1996. Contributions of roads to forest fragmentation in 

the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4) 1098–1106. 

Reynolds R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. 

Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the 

southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217, USDA Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region Forest Service. 

Rom, L., T. Church and M. Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest cultural resources overview. Paper 

on file at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor’s Office. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson. and M.A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on elk: 

Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Transactions of the sixty-ninth North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: Resource stewardship in the 21st century: 

A voyage of rediscovery: March 16–20, 2004, Spokane, WA. Wildlife Management Institute, 

Washington, D.C. pp. 491–508. 

Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) in North 

and South Dakota. A report to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Rumble, M.A. 2002. Evaluation of mountain pine beetle epidemics as habitat for cavity nesting birds. 

Preliminary findings for ISA 203-02-020. Report to the Black Hills National Forest from the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Rapid City, SD. September 23, 2002. 

Rumble, M.A., and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Microhabitats of Merriam’s turkeys in the Black Hills, South 

Dakota. Ecological Applications 6(1) 326–334. 

319 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

SAIC. 2003. Memorandum. A framework for revising deer and elk strategic management direction on the 

Black Hills National Forest. Science Application International Corporation, SAIC project number 

01-0209-04-4456-106. 

Sandrini, J. 2007a. 2006 job completion report, Black Hills white-tailed deer. Casper Region; Herd Unit 

706, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Newcastle. 

Sandrini, J. 2007b. 2006 job completion report, elk. Casper Region, Herd Unit 740, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Newcastle. 

Sandrini, J. 2007c. 2006 job completion report, mule deer. Casper Region, Herd Unit 751, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Newcastle. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American breeding bird survey results and 

analysis: 1966–2000, Version 2001.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 

Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant dispersal by motor cars. Plant Ecology 80: 147–152. 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the fringed bat in the Black Hills National Forest of 

South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/fringed_bat.pdf. 

[July 29, 2008]. 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/big_ear_bat.pdf. [July 29, 2008]. 

SD DENR. 2008. (See South Dakota DENR. 2008) 

Sedgwick, J.A. 2006. Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus): A technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf [June 3, 2008]. 

Sharps, J.C. and D. O’Brien. 1985. Peregrine falcon reintroduction in the Black Hills, South Dakota, 

1977–1980. Game Report, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Wildlife Division, 

Pierre, SD. Completion Report No. 85-10. 

Sheley, R.L., and J.K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis. 

Sibley, D.S. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 

Sieg, C.H., and K.E. Severson. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer: Black Hills and Bear 

Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. General Technical Report RM-GTR-274, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Slater, G.L. 2004. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf. [April 12, 2005]. 

320 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. 2005. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus): A technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf [April 16, 2008]. 

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National 

Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/Region 2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/leopard_frog.pdf. [July 

29, 2008]. 

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf [July 29, 2008]. 

Smith, B.E. and N.T. Stephens. 2003. Conservation assessment for the redbelly snake in the Black Hills 

National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

South Dakota DENR. 2008. The 2008 South Dakota integrated report for surface water quality 

assessment. S.M. Pirner, secretary. Pierre, SD. 

South Dakota Ornithologist’s Union. 1991. The birds of South Dakota, second edition. The South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. Northern State University Press, Aberdeen, SD. 

South Dakota State Historical Society. 2005. Guidelines for cultural resource surveys and survey reports 

in South Dakota (for review and compliance). Papers on file at the Black Hills National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office. 

Spaulding, S. and L. Elwell. 2007. Increase in nuisance blooms and geographic expansion of the 

freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata: Recommendations for response. [Online Serial]. 

Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/didymosphenia/White%20Paper%20Jan%202007.pdf. [July 9, 

2008]. 

Squires, J.R. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern soshawks in Southcentral 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1): 170–177. 

Stewart, R.K. and C.A. Thilenius. 1964. Stream and lake inventory and classification in the Black Hills of 

South Dakota. Dingell-Johnson Project F-1-R-13, Job Numbers 14 and 15, South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. 

Sundstrom, L. 1989. Culture history of the Black Hills with reference to adjacent areas of the northern 

Great Plains. J & L Reprint Company, Lincoln, NE. 

Tallman, D.A., D.L. Swanson, and J.S. Palmer. 2002 Birds of South Dakota. South Dakota Ornithologist’s 

Union, Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen, SD. 

Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Wings Books, New York. 

Thompson, K.A., C.D. Pierskalla, and M.A. Schuett. 2007. Management perceptions of off-highway 

vehicle use on National Forest System lands in Appalachia. Proceedings of the 2007 Northeastern 

Recreation Research Symposium, GTR-NRS-P-23. pp. 300–305. Available: 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-23papers/42thompson-p23.pdf 

321 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In the birds of North America, No. 284 (A. 

Poole and F. Gills, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology 14(1): 18–30. 

Tyser, R.W. and C.A. Worley. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in 

Glacier National Park, Montana, (USA). Conservation Biology 6(2): 253–262. 

Uresk, D.W. and K.E. Severson. 1998. Response of understory species to changes in ponderosa pine 

stocking levels in the Black Hills. Great Basin Naturalist 58 (4): 312–327. 

USDA Forest Service. 1973. Agricultural Handbook 434: National Forest landscape management, volume 

1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Agricultural Handbook 483: National Forest landscape management, volume 

2, Chapter 4, Roads. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Agricultural Handbook 701: Landscape aesthetics; A handbook for scenery 

management, and (2000) landscape aesthetics handbook revision. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.esf.edu/es/via/. [July 29, 2008]. 

USDA Forest Service. 1979a. Environmental analysis report, peregrine falcon reintroduction. Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest, Harney Ranger District. May 31, 1979. 29p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1979b. The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, 

management, and research. General Technical Report PNW-98, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS users guide. Available: 

www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosguide_1982.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Project planning - Chapter 60 of the ROS users guide. Available: 

www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/ros_project_planning_users_guide_1987.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Travel order #11, Forest. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/publications/orders/so011-89.pdf. [July 9, 2008]. 

USDA Forest Service 1991. FSH 2509.18 – Soil management handbook. WO amendment 2509.18 – 91-

1. Effective September 3, 1991. 

USDA Forest Service 1992. Forest Service handbook FSH 2509.18 – Soil management handbook. R2 

supplement no. 2509.18-92-1. Denver, CO. Effective August 15, 1992. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996a. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land and resource 

management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml. [July 29, 2008]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. 1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black Hills 

National Forest, as amended by the phase I amendment. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

May 2001. 

322 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Expert interview summary for the Black Hills National Forest land and 

resource management plan amendment. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forest noxious weed management plan, final report. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml. [July 29, 2008]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Black Hills National Forest 2003 monitoring and evaluation report. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/Region 2/blackhills/projects/planning/2003Monitor/all.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Four threats to the health of the Nation’s forest and grasslands. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/key-messages/invasive-species.shtml. [July 9, 2008]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Final environmental impact statement for the phase II amendment to the 

1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer, SD. Available on-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Record of decision for the phase II amendment to the 1997 revised land and 

resource management plan for the forest. Custer, SD. October 2005. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml. [July 29, 2008]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Off-highway vehicle recreation in the United States, regions and states: A 

national report from the national survey on recreation and the environment (NSRE). Southern 

Research Station. June 2005. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/recreation/Travel%20Management/OHV_final_report.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2005d. Guidelines for engineering analysis of motorized mixed use on National 

Forest System roads. Engineering Staff Publication EM-7700-30, December 2005. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/transp/em770030.htm 

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. 1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black Hills 

National Forest, as amended by the phase II amendment. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

Available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Black Hills National Forest FY2005 monitoring and evaluation report. 

Black Hills National Forest. September 2006. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. FSH 2509.25 – Watershed conservation practices handbook. Rocky 

Mountain Region (R-2), Denver, CO. 58p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Forest-wide travel analysis report. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

September. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Black Hills National Forest FY2006 monitoring and evaluation report. 

Black Hills National Forest. May. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat 

management, Chapter 2670 – Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals, Region 2 

supplement no. 2600-2007-1. Denver, CO. Effective June 8, 2007. 

323 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Final environmental impact statement: Public wheeled motorized travel 

management EIS. Eldorado National Forest. March. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/projects/route/feis/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Off-highway vehicle recreation in the United States and its regions and 

states: A national report from the national survey on recreation and the environment (NSRE). 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/IrisRec1rpt.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. National visitor use monitoring results, national summary report, data 

collected through FY 2007. Last updated 28 October 2008. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/nvum_national_summary_fy2007.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon Rocky Mountain/southwest population 

recovery plan. Denver, CO. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. 12-month finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog 

as threatened. Federal Register 65(24): 5476–5488. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern. Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, VA. Available: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Threatened and endangered species on the Black Hills National 

Forest. Wyoming Field Office, August 8. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Endangered species by county list. Mountain-Prairie Region, 

South Dakota Ecological Service Field Office. Updated December 18, 2007; accessed April 10, 

2008. 

USDI National Park Service. 1994. Report to Congress – Report on effects of aircraft overflights on the 

National Park Service System. (Prepared pursuant to public law 100-91, The National Parks 

Overflight Act of 1987). September 12,1994. Available: 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/npreport/intro.htm#top 

Vierling, K. 2004. Report on woodpecker breeding in the Jasper Fire. Submitted to the U.S. Forest 

Service, February 19, 2004. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City. 11p. 

Weaver, F.W., T. Anderson, and R. Guralnick. 2006. Combining phylogenetic and ecological niche 

modeling approaches to determine distribution and historical biogeography of Black Hills 

mountain snails (Oreohelicidae). Diversity and Distributions 12: 756–766. 

Whitaker, J.O. Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. 

Knopf, Inc., New York. 

Wiggins, D. 2004. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): A technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf [Accessed: 

June 20, 2005]. 

Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Brown creeper (Certhia americana): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf [March 31, 2008] 

324 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

325 

Wiggins, D. 2005a. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): A technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf [Accessed: June 20, 2005]. 

Wiggins, D. 2005b. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): A technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf [April 16, 2008]. 

Wiggins, D.A. 2006. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ruffedgrouse.pdf [April 2, 2008]. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D: Content Analysis for Travel Management 

Planning 

Introduction 

On November 9, 2005, the USDA Forest Service published in the Federal Register, Volume 70, No.216, 

the final rules and regulations for designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use for travel 

management activities (hereafter referred to as Final Rule) on National Forest System lands to become 

effective December 9, 2005. 

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR part 212 governing administration of the forest transportation 

system, and regulations at 36 CFR part 295 governing use of motor vehicles off National Forest System 

(NFS) roads are combined and clarified in this Final Rule as part 212, Travel Management, covering the 

use of motor vehicles o NFS lands. These regulations implement Executive Order (EO) 11644 (February 

8, 1972), “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” as amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977). 

These Executive orders direct Federal agencies to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all 

users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. 

Black Hills Travel Management Planning 

As a result of the publishing of the Final Rule, the Black Hills National Forest initiated the process to plan 

and designate routes, trails, and areas available for motor vehicle use. The Forest published a notice of 

intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in the Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 

175, on September 11, 2007. The NOI initiated the scoping process for the environmental analysis (EA) 

for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan (referred to as Travel Management Plan) by 

identifying the purpose and need and a proposed action for the project. The notice also identified the 

responsible official, public involvement, schedule for public meetings, preliminary issues, and expected 

timeline for the analysis. 

In addition to the Federal Register publication and news releases to local papers, the Black Hills sent to 

individuals, agencies, special interest groups, and other interested parties a letter describing the proposed 

action for designating motor vehicle use on the Black Hills National Forest, including a map of the 

proposal identifying specific routes, trails, and areas available for motor vehicle use. Larger scale maps 

were made available to the public through the District Office and Supervisor’s Office of the Black Hills 

National Forest. Four public meetings were held to discuss the proposal and answer specific questions 

from the public. A comment form developed by the Black Hills National Forest was available to the 

public to encourage participation in the scoping process. 

Summary Comments 

During the scoping period, 738 responses were received from the public. The letters were received in 

three forms: Audubon Society form letter, some with individual comments; individual letters or e-mails; 

and the Black Hills National Forest OHV form, some with individual comments. Of the 738 letters sent; 

60 were the Audubon form, including 14 letters containing no original comments or presented in duplicate 

from the sender; 217 individual letters, including 23 duplicates from sender; and 460 Black Hills OHV 

form, including 7 duplicates. 

After reviewing the 738 letters, some 1,991 specific comments were identified and grouped. The 

comments were defined into 16 categories with sub-categories to improve the analysis of the comments 

327 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

and define clear issue statements. A public concern statement was identified to describe each main 

category. These public concerns were then used to define issue statements. Issues represent conflicts 

posed by the proposed action, and are important because they can serve as the basis for alternatives. 

The comment categories are summarized below, along with the disposition showing how they were 

incorporated into the EIS analysis. 

Category 1: Add Motorized Routes (404 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should add trails, roads, and trailheads to the Travel Management 

Plan as presented by the public for motorized opportunities. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments wanting ATV routes (25): These comments focus on the need to have more trail 

opportunities for less than 50-inch vehicles. Two comments focus on Hell Canyon, including the 

Pleasant Valley area. There are two comments that believe the 50-inch tread width should be 

increase to 54-inch or 60-inch. 

 Comments wanting destinations or ties to communities or businesses (10): These comments 

ask for connections to services such as gas, food, or other places of business. They request that the 

road/trail system be developed to connect communities and provide opportunities for points of 

interest. One commenter requested these communities, business, or points of interest be placed on 

the map. 

 Comments making general statements about wanting more of everything (60): General 

statements include leaving the travel system as it is currently (3), keeping all roads open to 

motorized travel (9), including plans for future expansion (4), ensuring use of user submitted routes 

(2), the proposed plan is way too restrictive (concerned with lost motorized opportunities) from the 

current system (22), the motorized travel system needs to be dispersed throughout and not 

concentrated in any individual area (3), desired for winter time access (1), and encouragement to 

use paved, county, or gravel roads for connectors (4). 

 Comments wanting more loops (46): The desire for these comments is to connect dead-end roads 

with loops (5) or just to create more looping opportunities in general (35), with specific mention of 

Hell Canyon needs for looping trails (2), Lead/Deadwood connectors (3) and utilizing county roads 

for connectors (4). Primary focus was for “trails” and not roads. One comment specifically 

mentioned less than 50-inch loop trails. 

 Comments wanting more single track trails (64): Of these comments, four included increasing 

the single track miles to 300 or 500 or 1000, and nine comments desire single track in specific 

locations, i.e. Hell Canyon, Rochford, Camp 5, Piedmont, Nemo, Victoria Lake, Sugar Shack, 

Spearfish, Custer, and Newcastle. Several comments (10) disappointed in the 79 miles proposed, 

stating that “it would not provide enough enjoyable riding for a weeks stay in the Hills”. 

 Comments requesting specific routes by description or route numbers (122): 

o All District—usually submitted by spreadsheet from user groups (9) 

o BL (18); 1 comment shared with HC 

o NH (38); with 2 comments shared with BL; 5 with MY; 2 with HC 

o MY (39); with 4 comments shared with NH 

o HC (18); with 3 comments shared with MY; 1 with NH 

 Comments requesting trailheads (8): Two general comments about trailhead locations, one to 

place in strategic locations and another to ensure looping opportunities for trails return to a 

328 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

common parking area. Other comments were for specific locations for trailheads; i.e. Peaceful 

Pines, Spearfish, Dumont, Pilot knob, Rochford, junction of Custer Crossing and Minnesota Ridge 

Road, Mad Mountain Adventures and Experimental Forest area. 

 Comments requesting trails for both ATV and motorcycles (48): There were 48 comments 

requesting more trails for a variety of motorized uses, including rock crawlers (5), ATV use (2), 

comments for both motorcycles and ATV (19), and desire for trails in general rather than roads 

(21). Trails in general also include specific locations Hell Canyon (2), Bearlodge (1) and Northern 

Hills (1). 

 Comments wanting consideration for UTV (6): Six comments received to include utility terrain 

vehicles in with all-terrain vehicles for trail designation. There desire is for the less than 50-inch 

designation to increase to either 54-inch or 60-inch. 

 Comments requesting year-round access (16): Sixteen comments were received for year-round 

use of the proposed motorized travel system. Of these, five were specific for winter access; one 

because of a business. 

Disposition: The comments in this category reflect the purpose and need for this project, which calls for 

the development and designation of a motorized travel system. Many comments also request the Forest to 

provide a variety of motorized recreation opportunities. These comments were generally incorporated 

into Issue 2, Effects on Recreation Opportunities. 

Category 2: Remove Motorized Routes (292 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should remove specific motorized trails, roads, and trailheads from 

the Travel Management Plan as presented by the public. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments wanting removal of dead end spurs (22): Comments request elimination, 

obliteration, or decommissioning of dead-end spurs to prevent user-created loops (8). These deadend routes are seen as “go nowhere” and encourage users to “break the rules”. To facilitate 

enforcement, comments recommend removing dead-end spurs from the map unless they lead to a 

destination. 

Disposition: Comments in this category call for the development of a motorized travel system that could 

reasonably be maintained and enforced. These comments were incorporated into Issue 3, Effects on 

Management Capabilities. 

 Comments making general statements about wanting less of everything (98): Comments 

focused on a need to reduce the overall miles available for roads and trails to the motorized 

vehicles. Comments included 54 statements to reduce the road miles; 17 to reduce the trail 

opportunities for ATVs and 4 to reduce motorcycles; and 18 that specifically mention 3,988 miles 

or 4,000 miles is “way too much”. Reasons for the reduction include 10 concerns for 

environmental resources; 6 to management concerns to maintain; and 7 for reduction in road 

density. 

 Comments wanting less loops (4): These comments request not increasing the opportunities for 

loops to prevent abuse of the land and conflicts with the general public. 

 Comments requesting specific routes removed by description or route numbers (158): 

o All District—usually submitted by spreadsheet from user groups (6) 

o BL (8); 3 comments shared with HC 

o NH (76); with 2 comments shared with BL; 2 with MY; 1 with HC 

329 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

o MY (51); with 1 comment shared with NH; 2 with HC 

o HC (13) 

 Comments requesting removal of trailheads (5 specific to Peaceful Pines) (11): These 

comments recommend removing specific proposed trailhead locations. 

Disposition: These comments reflect concerns for effects of motorized travel use on natural resources. 

They were incorporated into Issue 1, Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources. 

Category 3: Off-Road Opportunities (327 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should add motorized off-road opportunities for dispersed camping, 

game retrieval, cross-country travel, teaching beginners to ride and mud bogging to the Travel 

Management Plan. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments wanting areas for off-road use (95): These comments request areas be identified to 

allow off-road opportunities anywhere the rider desires to go. Of the comments; 2 had suggested 

specific areas (Piedmont and Sheridan Lake); 5 recommended a specific size to consider (1 square 

mile [2], 15 square miles [1], and 100 acres [2]); 9 wanted areas for motorcycles with 1 specifically 

requesting small jumps; and 2 requested access to designated system from private property. One 

comment wanted to ensure the Prairie Creek decision was incorporated into the new Plan. Another 

comment suggested areas be set up for winter cross-country opportunities. 

 Comments wanting areas set up to teach beginners (“tot lots”) (12): These comments request 

areas, sometimes refer to as a “play area”, to provide beginners a place to learn to ride and develop 

skills. Two comments recommended gravel pits as a suitable place. 

 Comments specifically supporting dispersed camping (103): 

o 60 comments specifically requesting 300 feet 

o other comments ranged between 150 to 1,000 feet 

o 2 comments for less than 100 feet 

 Comments specific for wanting game retrieval (93): 

o Request for increasing the distance; distances were from 500 feet to unlimited 

 Comments wanting mud-bogging (24): These comments believe that mud bogging areas should 

be identified to reduce enforcement concerns or user-created ones from occurring (3). Two 

comments specifically state that “man-made mud bogs” could be built and one recommended the 

Farmingdale area. 

Disposition: These comments express desires for various forms of motorized recreation. They were 

incorporated into Issue 2, Effects on Recreational Opportunities. 

Category 4: Accessibility (23 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should consider the needs of the elderly and person with disabilities 

while designing a motorized travel management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments specific to disability travel (categorized as recreation oriented) (7): These 

comments focus on the recreational opportunities of motorized travel for persons with disabilities. 

Two comments suggest that the proposed designated motorized system would eliminate a large 

area of the Forest from their access due to inability to hike. 

330 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 Comments related to hunting needs for disability or elderly (16): These comments also include 

increasing the distance for game retrieval (5) and designating deer for retrieval (3). 

Disposition: These comments express concerns for various forms of motorized recreation. They were 

incorporated into Issue 2, Effects on Recreational Opportunities. 

Category 5: Environmental Concerns (93 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should evaluate impacts from motorized opportunities on 

environmental resources such as water, soil, wildlife, plants and other resources on the Black Hills 

National Forest. 

Many of the comments received identified more than one resource area of concern for the proposed action 

for Black Hills motorized travel opportunities. The main resource areas of concern were for soil (7); 

water (21); wildlife and fish (36); plants (8); and archeological resources (5). Additional comments 

mentioned air, global warming, monitoring, mining access, private property, research natural areas, 

wilderness, and sensitive vegetation. 

Disposition: These comments were incorporated into Issue 1, Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources. 

Category 6: Enforcement Concerns (83 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should evaluate the law enforcement personnel available on the 

Black Hills to ensure compliance with the travel management plan. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments concerning enforcement capabilities and wanting stronger enforcement (64): 

General concern statements focus on the enforcement of the proposed designated system. Some 

comments (28) suggest that 4,000 miles of motorized routes will not be enforceable and a strategy 

or enforcement plan (4) should be developed before implementing the new plan. Some comments 

(5) recommend that the enforcement capabilities of the Forest should dictate the designation of the 

motorized system. 

 Comments wanting heavier fines (5): Comments specifically recommend heavier fines to deter 

misuse of the system. 

 Comments wanting signs or gates to improve enforcement (14): Comments recommend signing 

(10) the designated system of routes and trails and gating closure areas (1) to alleviate problems 

with lack of enforcement personnel. 

Disposition: Comments in this category call for the development of a motorized travel system that could 

reasonably be maintained and enforced. These comments were incorporated into Issue 3, Effects on 

Management Capabilities. 

Category 7: No Off-Road Opportunities (111 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Travel Management Plan should limit the motorized opportunities to only trails and 

roads. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments against dispersed camping activities (32): These comments recommend not allowing 

dispersed camping on the Forest anywhere. Of the 25 comments made, 18 recommend that 

camping be allowed only in designated campgrounds and 7 comments specifically identify fires as 

a reason to prevent it. 

331 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Disposition: These comments reflect concerns for effects on natural resources. They were incorporated 

into Issue 1, Effects to Natural and Cultural Resources. 

 Comments against any off-road game retrieval (30): Comments believe hunters should find 

other means of retrieving their downed animal rather than relying on motorized opportunities. 

Suggestions were quartering the animal, using hand carts, sleds, horses, or dragging. One comment 

suggested that hunting should “be an effort”. 

Disposition: These comments were incorporated into Issue 2, Effects to Recreational Opportunities. 

 Comments supporting no mud-bogging activities (22): These comments generally support the 

Plan to not designate any mud-bogging areas on the Forest. 

 Comments generally okay with no off-road opportunities (27): Comments are supportive of not 

providing any off-road opportunities in the travel plan for the Black Hills National Forest. 

Comments support restricting the motorized opportunities to designated routes and trails. 

Disposition: Comments in these two sub-categories reflect concerns about impacts to natural resources. 

They were incorporated into Issue 1, Effects to Natural and Cultural Resources. 

Category 8: Special Permits (39 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Travel Management Plan should designate motorized off-road opportunities for 

Forest Service permitted activities such as grazing and firewood gathering. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments for firewood collection (31): Comments concerned about the new designated 

motorized system would not allow for firewood gathering. Six comments recommend designating 

a distance, 300 feet, for this activity. 

 Comments about grazing activities (7): Comments are concerned that the new designated system 

of motorized travel will affect their ability to administer their grazing permits. One comment was 

concerned about allotment gates being left open on designated motorized system. 

 Comment about special privilege for trapping activities (1): One comment requested special 

consideration for trapping activities. 

Disposition: These comments indicate concerns over possible effects of motorized travel to other Forest 

programs and multiple-uses on the Forest. Firewood gathering on the Forest would be regulated under 

other authorities and would not be subject to this decision. Similarly, access by permittees to administer 

their grazing permits would be governed by the terms of their permit and not this decision. Effects of the 

alternatives on access for other recreational purposes will be disclosed in the EIS. 

Category 9: Big Game Retrieval (39 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should incorporate all big game species, including deer, turkey, 

mountain lion, and mountain goat in the Travel Management Plan for off-road motorized big game 

retrieval opportunities. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments wanting to include game retrieval for all species (16): These comments believe 

game retrieval should be included for all big game species, with 1 comment specifically requesting 

turkey; 2 for mountain lions; and 1 for mountain goats. 

 Comments wanting deer to be included with elk retrieval (20): These comments were specific 

to including deer within the big game retrieval distance. 

332 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 Special Consideration—Game retrieval based on weight (1); game retrieval for all vehicle 

types (2); increasing the distance (7); consideration for elderly (2): One comment suggested 

that big game retrieval should be based on the weight of the animal. Two comments requested 

consideration for all types of vehicles to retrieve big game and not restrict to ATV retrieval. The 

other comments were also included in the above counts because they also identified interested in 

particular species for retrieval. Recommendations for increasing the distance for game retrieval 

ranged from 600 feet to 1,000 feet. 

Disposition: Access for retrieval of downed game was considered, and the Forest Service decided to 

address this issue in various ways in different alternatives. These concerns were incorporated as part of 

Issue 2, Recreational Opportunities. 

Category 10: Roads Versus Trails (29 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Travel Management Plan should consider more motorized trails rather than roads. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments wanting to use existing roads (9): These comments object to the building or 

construction of new trails due to the extensive amounts of roads on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Recommendations are to utilize only existing roads for the travel management plan. 

 Comments wanting more trails rather than “gravel” roads (20): These comments prefer the 

experience of trail riding to road riding. Seven of the comments specifically mention “no gravel 

roads”, while three mention that riding on roads is not much of an experience. One commenter 

specifically requested that the ORV trail system should not include roads passable to automobiles, 

while another recommend consideration of logging roads in the travel management plan. Two 

comments also mentioned the desire for a challenging system and that roads were not capable of 

providing a “challenged ride”. 

Disposition: These comments reflect different preferences for recreational motorized use. They were 

incorporated into Issue 2, Recreational Opportunities. 

Category 11: General Support (23 Comments) 

Public Concern: Some commenters generally supported the Travel Management Plan as proposed. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments generally support various portions of the proposal from working with partnerships, 

“closing unless open” philosophy, or plans for future expansion. Some comments state “OK” or 

“generally support”. 

Disposition: These comments showed support for different aspects of the proposal, but did not identify 

reasons. The Forest Service appreciates the comments. 

Category 12: General Disagreement (19 Comments) 

Public Concern: Commenters prefer not to be restricted to designated routes. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments fully disagree with proposal (3): These comments disagree with all proposed points 

of the proposed travel management plan. 

333 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

 Comments general statements (5): These comments offer general statements such as “losing 

freedom of enjoying the Forest”, “objection to off-road travel is a problem throughout the Hills”, 

and “eliminate all user supplied input from the proposal”. 

 Comments requesting the FS to utilize the “current system” of roads/trails (11): These 

comments specifically request to leave the current management strategy “open unless designated 

closed” for the motorized travel opportunities. 

Disposition: These comments reflect a variety of preferences for recreational motorized use. They were 

incorporated into Issue 2, Recreational Opportunities. 

Category 13: Multi-Use Conflicts (186 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Black Hills National Forest should evaluate conflicts to other users such as noise, 

impacts to nonmotorized activities, ranchers, residential property, etc., when developing the motorized 

travel management plan. 

 These comments response to conflicts with other uses of the Forest such as nonmotorized 

opportunities, solitude, safety, private property, communities, economics, and motorized impacts 

with other motorized users. The majority of these comments focused on noise (82), private 

property concerns (27), and impacts with nonmotorized users (43). 

Disposition: Concerns reflected in these comments were incorporated into Issue 3, which includes user 

safety; and Issue 4, Social and Economic Concerns. 

Category 14: Partnerships/Cooperations (117 Comments) 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should consider all opportunities for funding, including developing a 

user fee system to help support the maintenance of the proposed travel management plan. 

Sub-Categories: 

 Comments not broken out (usually comments against Governor’s Task Force) (28): Comments 

generally support working with local, state, and other government offices to develop a motorized 

travel system. Eleven of the comments object to the formation of the Governor’s Task Force with 

two stating that there was no representative supporting nonmotorized interests. 

 Comments related to funding sources (33): These comments are split between supporting (13) 

various means of providing funding to support the motorized system and disagreeing (14) with any 

outside organization providing funding for a specific interest. Those not supporting a variety of 

funding sources state that external funding sources could influence the management direction and 

achieve objections of outside organizations. Two comments recommend utilizing existing funds to 

provide a balance between all the needs of the Forest. Four comments recommend that users pay 

for the opportunities. 

 Comments requesting no additional fees added for the system (3): These comments believe 

enough taxes are paid for this purpose or not enough of a trail system is offered to make a payment 

viable. 

 Comments supporting user fees (53): These comments support user fees or a sticker system for 

motorized use. Three comments would like to see nonmotorized users with a user fee as well. 

Thirteen comments request the funds to support the motorized trail system. 

Disposition: These comments generally focus on how any motorized travel system might be implemented. 

Questions regarding fees, funding sources, and partnerships are outside the scope of the decision to be 

made on this project, and will be decided after a decision is issued. 

334 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

335 

Category 15: Duplicate Records (51 Comments) 

Disposition: This is a records management concern. Disposition does not relate to the issues. 

Category 16: Forms with No Specific Comments (155 Comments) 

Sub-Categories: 

 Audubon form letter with no additional comments (16) 

 OHV form letter with no additional comments (139) 

Disposition: This is a records management concern. Disposition does not relate to the issues. 

How Public Concern Statements Relate to Issues 

From the comments and concerns summarized above, the Forest Service identified the following key 

issues. 

Issue 1: Effects on natural and cultural resources. 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may have effects on natural and cultural resources. Effects to 

these resources will vary between alternatives and are mostly dependent on the miles of roads and trails 

open to motorized use. Restricting motorized use to a managed system of designated roads and trails, 

identifying specific seasons of use, and identifying authorized types of vehicle use, would improve 

protection for these natural and cultural resources. Effects to natural and cultural resources between 

alternatives are identified in detail in the effects analysis in Chapter 3. 

Issue 2: Effects on recreational opportunities. 

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

opportunities provided on the Forest, including motorized use on roads and trails, mixed motorized use 

roads, dispersed camping, big game retrieval, motorized trailheads, and nonmotorized opportunities. 

Effects to the recreational opportunities by alternative are identified in detail in the effects analysis in 

Chapter 3. 

Issue 3: Effects of transportation system design on management capabilities. 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may have effects on the Forest’s ability to proactively designate 

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

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

concerns (such as law enforcement, user education, signing, and maintenance) while reducing 

management costs and focusing limited resources. Addressing many of the management concerns will be 

dependent on available funding sources, which will most likely be limited. The transportation system 

design can also affect public safety depending on the miles of mixed use roads. Any roads identified for 

mixed use will be reviewed in a mixed use roads analysis that includes mitigation to make reasonable 

accommodations for the public’s safety. 

Issue 4: Social and Economic Concerns. 

The alternatives considered in the DEIS may affect the economic sustainability of local businesses and 

communities. Effects may be related to dust, noise, traffic level, trespass on private property, distance 

from motorized routes to private land, and miles of routes open to motorized use. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

337 

Appendix E: Cumulative Effects 

Following is a partial listing of actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project. 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Referred to in Specialist Reports 

 Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational 

activities, and other management activities have continued and would continue on the Forest. 

These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. 

 Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue in the foreseeable future on the 

Forest and private lands. 

 Private landowners may harvest timber on their lands for lumber or to reduce fire hazards. 

 Urban development and interface growth will continue on private lands. 

 Management of national and state parks adjacent to the Forest would continue. 

 Prairie dog control efforts on private lands have occurred and can be expected to continue. 

 Road construction and maintenance and right-of-way brushing can be expected to continue on nonNational Forest System land. Road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning are 

expected to continue to move towards Forest Plan Objective 309. 

 Future road or trail realignment, reconstruction, or decommissioning. 

 Recreation activities will continue to increase on the Forest. Future recreation projects may be 

developed. 

 Timber harvest and fuels management projects. 

 Grazing allotment management plans are proposed to be revised to incorporate current standards, 

and will be implemented. 

 Treatment to reduce or eliminate noxious weeds. 

 Meadow restoration projects. 

 Historic and ongoing mining activities. 

 Water storage/diversion projects. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F: Proposed Forest Plan Changes for Travel 

Planning Alternatives 

Alternative B Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the 

Following Ways 

Note: Bolded areas within tables denote a change. 

Goal 4, Objective 416: 

Existing Language: Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table: 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (1996) 14 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, or conversion from road to 

motorized trail

15 miles (per decade) 

Total forest trail system 526 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Reconstruction 100 miles (per decade)

Proposed New Language: Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table: 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (2009) 36 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, improvement, or 

conversion from road to motorized trail

627 miles (per decade) 

Total forest trail system 1,124 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Construction/improvement 650 miles (per decade)

Goal 4, Objective 421: 

Existing Language: Provide the following road system [Roads, by the end of the first decade]: 

Suitable for public use 4,700 miles

Passenger car 1,200 miles

High clearance vehicles 3,500 miles

Roads closed to vehicles 500 miles

TOTAL 5,200 miles 

Proposed New Language: Provide the following road system [Roads, by the end of the first decade]: 

Suitable for public use 3,500 miles

Passenger car 639 miles

High clearance vehicles 2,827 miles

Roads closed to vehicles 500 miles

TOTAL 4,000 miles 

339 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Goal 4, Objective 422: 

Existing Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

All motorized travel allowed yearlong 59.1 

Seasonal restrictions apply 22.8

Seasonal restrictions-no off-road 3.2 

Backcountry motorized recreation on designated trails 1.0 

Only OHV travel prohibited 11.4 

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 1.3 

Proposed New Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

Off-road motorized travel allowed yearlong or seasonally 

(motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping) 

14.2 (dispersed camping 

is a subset of total game 

retrieval area) 

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 83 

Forestwide Guideline 5301: 

Existing Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain.” 

Proposed New Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain. Motorized dispersed camping is allowed only as shown 

on the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9101: 

Existing Language: “Designated and newly constructed Forest Development Roads are open all year to 

appropriate motorized vehicle use, unless a documented decision shows one or more of the following: 

.....” 

Proposed New Language: “Any new road will be closed to public use unless a project decision 

specifically designates it as open to public use, and until it is so designated on the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9102: 

Existing Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are designated 

as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road and snow travel. The need for modifying motorized 

travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project planning and will be 

accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in effect as part of the 

Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized off-highway vehicle travel 

opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any modified through project 

decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in a Forest Travel Order. 

Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with the Forest Access 

Management Guide.” 

340 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed New Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are 

designated as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road and snow travel. The need for 

modifying motorized travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project 

planning and will be accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in 

effect as part of the Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized offhighway vehicle travel opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any 

modified through project decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map MVUM or contained in a 

Forest Travel Order. Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with 

the Forest Access Management Guide.” 

Forestwide Guideline 9103: 

Existing Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following table.” 

[See table in Plan, pg. II-77] 

Proposed New Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following 

table. Motorized off-road travel is allowed only for purposes of game retrieval and dispersed camping, as 

shown on the MVUM (except for specific exceptions specified in the Travel Rule).” 

Forestwide Standard 9302: 

Existing Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of new 

Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. Trail use 

opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project decisions 

will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Proposed New Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of 

new Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. 

Trail use opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project 

decisions will be displayed on the MVUM or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Management Area Guidelines: 

3.31-9102 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on trails only.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on designated trails only.” 

5.1-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.1A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

341 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

5.1A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.3A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.3A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.4-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is prohibited from December 15 through 

May 15.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision, but is prohibited from December 15 through May 15.” 

5.4-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel may be restricted.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated.” 

5.6-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.6-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

Alternative C Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the 

Following Ways 

Goal 4, Objective 416: 

Existing Language: Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table: 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (1996) 14 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, or conversion from road to 

motorized trail

15 miles (per decade) 

Total forest trail system 526 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Reconstruction 100 miles (per decade)

342 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed New Language: Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table: 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (2009) 36 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, improvement, or 

conversion from road to motorized trail

735 miles (per decade) 

Total forest trail system 1,232 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Construction/improvement 750 miles (per decade)

Goal 4, Objective 421: 

Existing Language: Provide the following road system [Roads, by the end of the first decade]: 

Suitable for public use 4,700 miles

Passenger car 1,200 miles

High clearance vehicles 3,500 miles

Roads closed to vehicles 500 miles

TOTAL 5,200 miles 

Proposed New Language: Provide the following road system [Roads, by the end of the first decade]: 

Suitable for public use 3,600 miles

Passenger car 643 miles

High clearance vehicles 2939 miles

Roads closed to vehicles 1,300 miles

TOTAL 4,900 miles 

Goal 4, Objective 422: 

Existing Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

All motorized travel allowed yearlong 59.1 

Seasonal restrictions apply 22.8

Seasonal restrictions-no off-road 3.2 

Backcountry motorized recreation on designated trails 1.0 

Only OHV travel prohibited 11.4 

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 1.3 

Proposed New Language: 

Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

Off-road motorized travel allowed yearlong or seasonally 

(motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping) 

38 

(dispersed camping overlaps but 

is not a subset of game retrieval 

area)

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 60 

343 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Forestwide Guideline 5301: 

Existing Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain.” 

Proposed New Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain. Motorized dispersed camping is allowed only as shown 

on the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9101: 

Existing Language: “Designated and newly constructed Forest Development Roads are open all year to 

appropriate motorized vehicle use, unless a documented decision shows one or more of the following: 

.....” 

Proposed New Language: “Any new road will be closed to public use unless the project decision 

approving its construction specifically designates it as open to public use, and until it is so designated on 

the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9102: 

Existing Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are designated 

as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road and snow travel. The need for modifying motorized 

travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project planning and will be 

accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in effect as part of the 

Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized off-highway vehicle travel 

opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any modified through project 

decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in a Forest Travel Order. 

Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with the Forest Access 

Management Guide.” 

Proposed New Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are 

designated as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road, and snow travel. The need for 

modifying motorized travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project 

planning and will be accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in 

effect as part of the Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized offhighway vehicle travel opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any 

modified through project decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map MVUM or contained in a 

Forest Travel Order. Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with 

the Forest Access Management Guide.” 

Forestwide Guideline 9103: 

Existing Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following table.” 

[See table in Plan, pg. II-77] 

Proposed New Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following 

table. Motorized off-road travel is allowed only for purposes of game retrieval and dispersed camping, as 

shown on the MVUM (except for specific exceptions specified in the Travel Rule).” 

344 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Forestwide Standard 9302: 

Existing Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of new 

Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. Trail use 

opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project decisions 

will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Proposed New Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of 

new Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. 

Trail use opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project 

decisions will be displayed on the MVUM or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Management Area Guidelines: 

3.31-9102 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on trails only.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on designated trails only.” 

3.7-9103 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is prohibited.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed only where designated.” 

5.1-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.1A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.3A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.3A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.4-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is prohibited from December 15 through 

May 15.” 

345 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision, but is prohibited from December 15 through May 15.” 

5.4-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel may be restricted.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated.” 

5.6-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.6-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

Alternative D Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the 

Following Ways 

Goal 4, Objective 416: 

Existing Language: 

Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table: 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (1996) 14 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, or conversion from road to 

motorized trail

15 miles (per decade) 

Total forest trail system 526 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Reconstruction 100 miles (per decade)

Proposed New Language: Maintain and construct trails as displayed in the following table: 

Nonmotorized trails (1996) 293 miles 

Motorized trails (2009) 36 miles 

Nonmotorized trail construction 204 miles 

Motorized trail construction, improvement, or 

conversion from road to motorized trail

284 miles (per decade) 

Total forest trail system 781 miles (total miles at end of decade)

Construction/improvement 320 miles (per decade)

Goal 4, Objective 421: 

Existing Language: Provide the following road system [Roads, by the end of the first decade]: 

Suitable for public use 4,700 miles

Passenger car 1,200 miles

High clearance vehicles 3,500 miles

Roads closed to vehicles 500 miles

TOTAL 5,200 miles 

346 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed New Language: Provide the following road system [Roads, by the end of the first decade]: 

Suitable for public use 2,900 miles

Passenger car 636 miles

High clearance vehicles 2,241 miles

Roads closed to vehicles 2,100 miles

TOTAL 5,000 miles 

Goal 4, Objective 422: 

Existing Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

All motorized travel allowed yearlong 59.1 

Seasonal restrictions apply 22.8

Seasonal restrictions-no off-road 3.2 

Backcountry motorized recreation on designated trails 1.0 

Only OHV travel prohibited 11.4 

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 1.3 

Proposed New Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

Off-road motorized travel allowed yearlong or seasonally 

(motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping) 

0.0 

(no motorized dispersed 

camping or game retrieval 

allowed)

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 98 

Forestwide Guideline 5301: 

Existing Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain.” 

Proposed New Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain. Motorized dispersed camping is allowed only as shown 

on the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9101: 

Existing Language: “Designated and newly constructed Forest Development Roads are open all year to 

appropriate motorized vehicle use, unless a documented decision shows one or more of the following: 

.....” 

Proposed New Language: “Any new road will be closed to public use unless the project decision 

approving its construction specifically designates it as open to public use, and until it is so designated on 

the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9102: 

Existing Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are designated 

as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road and snow travel. The need for modifying motorized 

travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project planning and will be 

accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in effect as part of the 

347 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized off-highway vehicle travel 

opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any modified through project 

decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in a Forest Travel Order. 

Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with the Forest Access 

Management Guide.” 

Proposed New Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are 

designated as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road and snow travel. The need for 

modifying motorized travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project 

planning and will be accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in 

effect as part of the Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized offhighway vehicle travel opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any 

modified through project decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map MVUM or contained in a 

Forest Travel Order. Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with 

the Forest Access Management Guide.” 

Forestwide Guideline 9103: 

Existing Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following table.” 

[See table in Plan, pg. II-77] 

Proposed New Language: : “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following 

table. No motorized off-road game retrieval or dispersed camping is allowed.” 

Forestwide Standard 9302: 

Existing Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of new 

Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. Trail use 

opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project decisions 

will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Proposed New Language “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of 

new Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. 

Trail use opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project 

decisions will be displayed on the MVUM or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Management Area Guidelines: 

3.31-9102 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on trails only.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on designated trails only.” 

5.1-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.1A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

348 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.3A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.3A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.4-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is prohibited from December 15 through 

May 15.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision, but is prohibited from December 15 through May 15.” 

5.4-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel may be restricted.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated.” 

5.6-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.6-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

Alternative E Would Change the Existing Forest Plan Direction in the 

Following Ways 

Goal 4, Objective 422: 

Existing Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

All motorized travel allowed yearlong 59.1 

Seasonal restrictions apply 22.8

Seasonal restrictions-no off-road 3.2 

Backcountry motorized recreation on designated trails 1.0 

Only OHV travel prohibited 11.4 

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 1.3 

349 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Proposed New Language: Provide the following off-road travel opportunities: 

Category % of Forest

Off-road motorized travel allowed yearlong or seasonally 

(motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping) 

0.0 

(no motorized dispersed 

camping or game retrieval 

allowed)

Motorized travel prohibited except snowmobiles 1.2 

All motorized travel prohibited 98 

Forestwide Guideline 5301: 

Existing Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain.” 

Proposed New Language: “Discourage dispersed camping within a minimum of 100 feet from lakes and 

streams unless exceptions are justified by terrain. Motorized dispersed camping is allowed only as shown 

on the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9101: 

Existing Language: “Designated and newly constructed Forest Development Roads are open all year to 

appropriate motorized vehicle use, unless a documented decision shows one or more of the following: 

.....” 

Proposed New Language: “Any new road will be closed to public use unless the project decision 

approving its construction specifically designates it as open to public use, and until it is so designated on 

the MVUM.” 

Forestwide Standard 9102: 

Existing Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are designated 

as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road and snow travel. The need for modifying motorized 

travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project planning and will be 

accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in effect as part of the 

Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized off-highway vehicle travel 

opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any modified through project 

decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in a Forest Travel Order. 

Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with the Forest Access 

Management Guide.” 

Proposed New Language: “With regard to management of motorized travel, management areas are 

designated as allowed, restricted, or prohibited for road, off-road, and snow travel. The need for 

modifying motorized travel opportunities within management areas may be identified during project 

planning and will be accomplished through project decisions. Existing travel orders will continue in 

effect as part of the Revised Forest Plan unless changed by management area direction. Motorized offhighway vehicle travel opportunities and restrictions, both those listed in the table below and any 

modified through project decisions, will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map MVUM or contained in a 

Forest Travel Order. Implementation of Forest Travel Orders on the ground shall be in compliance with 

the Forest Access Management Guide.” 

Forestwide Guideline 9103: 

Existing Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following table.” 

[See table in Plan, pg. II-77] 

350 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed New Language: “Management of motorized vehicle travel is summarized in the following 

table. No motorized off-road dispersed camping or game retrieval is permitted.” 

Forestwide Standard 9302: 

Existing Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of new 

Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. Trail use 

opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project decisions 

will be displayed on the Forest Visitor Map or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Proposed New Language: “The need to modify existing allowable trail uses or to identify use types of 

new Forest Development Trails will be accomplished through project planning and project decisions. 

Trail use opportunities, both those listed in the table below, and any added or modified through project 

decisions will be displayed on the MVUM or contained in the Forest Travel Orders.” 

Management Area Guidelines: 

3.31-9102 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on trails only.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed on designated trails only.” 

5.1-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.1A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.1A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.3A-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.3A-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 

5.4-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is prohibited from December 15 through 

May 15.” 

351 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

352 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision, but is prohibited from December 15 through May 15.” 

5.4-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel may be restricted.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated.” 

5.6-9101 – Existing Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Off-road motorized travel is allowed where designated by a 

project decision.” 

5.6-9102 – Existing Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed unless restricted by a project 

decision.” 

Proposed New Language: “Motorized road travel is allowed where designated by a project 

decision.” 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix G: Glossary 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) ~ A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or more low-pressure 

tires; has handle-bar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat designed to be 

straddled by the operator (FSM 7700). 

Area ~ A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a 

ranger district (36 CFR 212.1). 

Arterial road ~ An NFS road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other 

arterial roads or public highways. 

Background ~ The distant part of a landscape. The landscape area located from 4 miles to infinity from 

the viewer. 

Big game ~ Large wild animals that are hunted for sport and food. This hunting is controlled by state 

wildlife agencies. Big game animals found on this Forest include deer and elk. 

Collector road ~ An NFS road that services smaller areas than an arterial road and that usually connects 

arterial roads to local roads or terminal facilities. 

Corridor (landscape) ~ Landscape element that connect similar patches of habitat through an area with 

different characteristics. For example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and 

hardwoods between meadows or through a conifer forest. 

Cumulative effects ~ Impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

Designated road, route, trail, or area ~ An NFS road, NFS trail, or an area on NFS lands that is 

designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 on a motor vehicle use map (36 CFR 212.1). 

Distance zones ~ Landscape areas denoted by specific distances from the observer. Used as a frame of 

reference in which to discuss landscape attributes or the scenic effect of human activities in a landscape. 

Foreground ~ Detailed landscape generally found from the observer to 0.5-mile away. See also 

“Immediate foreground.” 

Forest road or trail ~ A road or trail wholly or partially within or adjacent to and serving the NFS that 

the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the NFS 

and the use and development of its resources (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest transportation atlas ~ A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an administrative 

unit (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest transportation facility ~ A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in a forest 

transportation atlas, including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access facilities, safety devices, and 

other improvements appurtenant to the forest transportation system (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest transportation system ~ The system of NFS roads, trails, and airfields on NFS lands (36 CFR 

212.1). 

353 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Highway-legal vehicle ~ Any motor vehicle that is licensed or certified under State law for general 

operation on all public roads within the State. Operators of highway-legal vehicles are subject to state 

traffic law, including requirements for operator licensing (FSM 7700). 

Immediate foreground ~ The detailed feature landscape found within the first few hundred feet of the 

observer, generally, from the observer to 300-feet away. 

Indicator ~ In effects analysis, a device for measuring effects from management alternatives on a 

particular resource or issue. 

Local road ~ A NFS road that connects a terminal facility with collector roads, arterial roads, or public 

highways and that usually serves a single purpose involving intermittent use. 

Maintenance level (ML) ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12. 3 as the level of service provided by, and 

maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management 

objectives, and maintenance criteria. Roads may be maintained at one level and planned to be maintained 

at a different level at some future date. The operational maintenance level is the maintenance level 

currently assigned to a road considering today’s needs, road condition, budget constraints, and 

environmental concerns; in other words, it defines the standard to which the road is currently being 

maintained. The objective maintenance level is the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date 

considering future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental 

concerns. 

Maintenance level 1 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12. 3 as intermittent service roads during the 

time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial 

maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate 

the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage 

facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of 

any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the 

time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular 

traffic, but may be open and suitable for nonmotorized uses. These roads have the following attributes: 

(1) vehicular traffic is eliminated, including administrative traffic; (2) physically blocked or entrance is 

disguised; (3) not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act; (4) maintenance is done only to 

minimize resource impacts; and (5) no maintenance other than a condition survey may be required so as 

long as no potential exists for resource damage. 

Maintenance level 2 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads open for use by high-clearance 

vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one 

or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul 

may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either (1) discourage or prohibit 

passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles. These roads have the following 

attributes: (1) low traffic volume and low speed; (2) typically local roads; (3) typically connect collectors 

and other local roads; (4) dips are the preferred drainage treatment; (5) not subject to the requirements of 

the Highway Safety Act; (6) surface smoothness is not a consideration; and (7) not suitable for passenger 

cars. 

Maintenance level 3 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads open and maintained for travel 

by prudent drivers in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in 

this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. Some roads 

may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies 

354 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

are either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain 

classes of vehicles or users. These roads have the following attributes: (1) subject to the requirements of 

the Highway Safety Act and Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (2) roads have low 

to moderate traffic volume; (3) typically connect arterial and collector roads; (4) a combination of dips 

and culverts provide drainage; (5) may include some dispersed recreation roads; and (6) potholing or 

washboarding may occur. 

Maintenance level 4 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads that provide a moderate degree 

of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate 

surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The 

most appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply 

to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. These roads have the following attributes: (1) 

subject to requirements of the Highway Safety Act and MUTCD; (2) roads have moderate traffic volume 

and speeds; (3) may connect to county roads; (4) culverts provide drainage; (5) usually a collector; and 

(6) may include some developed recreation roads. 

Maintenance level 5 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads that provide a high degree of user 

comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate 

surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” These roads have 

the following attributes: (1) subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and MUTCD; (2) 

highest traffic volume and speeds; (3) typically connect State and county roads; (4) culverts provide 

drainage; (5) usually arterial and collector; (6) may include some developed recreation roads; and (7) 

usually paved or chip-sealed. 

Middleground ~ The zone between the foreground and the background in a landscape. The area located 

from 0.5 to 4 miles from the observer. 

Mixed-use road ~ Segments of NFS roads that are identified and signed as open to state licensed and 

unlicensed vehicles; generally more than 50 inches in width and usually, but not always, low maintenance 

roads with no high-speed traffic. 

Motor vehicle ~ Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (a) a vehicle operated on rails; and (b) 

any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use 

by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area (36 

CFR 212.1). 

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM) ~ A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District of the NFS (36 CFR 212.1). 

Motorcycle ~ A two-wheeled motor vehicle on which the two wheels are not side-by-side but in line 

(FSM 7700). 

Motorized mixed use ~ Designation of an NFS road for use by both highway-legal and non-highway 

legal motor vehicles (FSM 7700). 

Motorized trail ~ A travelway usually, but not always, less than 50 inches in width usually, but not 

always, available for use by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and/or motorcycles. These travelways may also be 

made available to high-clearance four-wheel drive vehicles, and may also be used by bicycles, horses, and 

hikers. 

MVUM ~ See “Motor vehicle use map.” 

355 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Natural scenery ~ The landforms including rock outcrops, vegetation, and animals that are naturally 

found in this ecosystem. 

National Forest System road ~ A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally 

documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1). 

National Forest System trail ~ A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally 

documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1). 

No Action (Alternative) ~ The most likely condition expected to exist if current management practices 

continue unchanged. The analysis of this alternative is required for Federal actions under NEPA. 

Non-highway-legal vehicle ~ Any motor vehicle that is not licensed or certified under state law for 

general operation on all public roads within the state. Operators of non-highway-legal vehicles are 

subject to state requirements, if any, for licensing and operation of the vehicle in question (FSM 7700). 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) ~ Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain (36 CFR 

212.1). 

Off-road vehicle (ORV) ~ See “Off-highway vehicle.” 

Over-snow vehicle (OSV) ~ A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track 

or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow (36 CFR 212.1). 

Private road ~ A road under private ownership authorized by an easement granted to a private party or a 

road that provides access pursuant to a reserved or outstanding right. 

Public road ~ The road under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public road authority and open to 

public travel (23 U.S.C. 101 (a)). 

Primitive ~ A Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification for areas characterized by an essentially 

unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of 

other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced 

restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted. 

Proposed Action ~ A proposal made by the FS or other Federal agency to authorize, recommend, or 

implement an action to meet a specific purpose and need. 

Qualified engineer ~ An engineer who by experience, certification, education, or license is technically 

trained and experienced to perform the engineering tasks specified and is designated by the Director of 

Engineering, Regional Office. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) ~ A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor 

recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and 

opportunities for obtaining experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into seven 

classes—primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded 

natural nonmotorized, rural, and urban. These are defined in this Glossary under their individual entries. 

Road ~ A motor vehicle route over 50-inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 

212.1). 

356 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Road construction or reconstruction ~ Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all 

costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212.1). 

Road decommissioning ~ Activities that result in restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state 

(FSM 7734). 

Road maintenance ~ Ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to maintain or restore the road in accordance 

with its road management objectives (FSM 7714). 

Road Subject to the Highway Safety Act ~ An NFS road that is open to public use in a standard 

passenger car, including a road with access restricted on a seasonal basis and a road closed during 

extreme weather conditions or for emergencies, but which is otherwise open to public travel. 

Roaded Natural ~ ROS classification for areas characterized by predominantly natural-appearing 

environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidence usually 

harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with 

evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but 

harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into 

construction standards and design of facilities. 

Roaded Natural Nonmotorized ~ ROS classification for areas characterized as closed to motorized use 

yet which have been heavily modified or are not large enough to be set aside as semi-primitive 

nonmotorized. 

ROS ~ See “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.” 

Route ~ A road or trail. 

Rural ~ ROS classification for areas characterized by a natural environment that has been substantially 

modified by development of structures, vegetative manipulation, or pastoral agricultural development. 

Resource modification and utilization practices may be used to enhance specific recreation activities and 

to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the 

interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for 

use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate user 

densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are 

available. 

Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) ~ Management objectives that were adopted from the scenic class 

values. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be 

“complete”. The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that have little or no 

deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. 

Very high ~ A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological change only. 

High ~ A scenic integrity level meaning human activities are not visually evident. In high scenic 

integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color and texture found in the 

existing landscape character. 

Moderate ~ A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character 

“appears slightly altered”. Noticeable deviations must remain visual subordinate to the landscape 

character being viewed. 

357 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Low ~ A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character 

“appears moderately altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being 

viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, effect, and pattern of natural opening, 

vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. They 

should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed, but compatible or 

complimentary to the character within. 

Very low ~ A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character 

“appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They 

may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural 

openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being 

viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that elements 

such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition. 

Unacceptably low ~ A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape 

character being viewed appears extremely altered. Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow 

little if any line, form, color, texture, pattern or scale from the landscape character. Landscapes at this 

level of integrity need rehabilitation. This level should only be used to inventory existing integrity. It 

must not be used as a management objective. 

Scoping ~ The process the Forest Service uses to determine, through public involvement, the range of 

issues that the planning process should address. 

Semi-primitive motorized ~ ROS classification for areas characterized by predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often 

evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions 

may be present, but would be subtle. Motorized use of primitive roads with predominantly natural 

surfaces and trails suitable for motorcycles is permitted. 

Semi-primitive nonmotorized ~ ROS classification for areas characterized by predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is 

often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and 

restricts may be present, but would be subtle. Motorized recreation us is not permitted, but local roads 

used for other resource management activities may be present on a limited bases. Use of such roads is 

restricted to minimize impacts on recreational experience opportunities. 

Temporary road or trail ~ A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or a forest trail and that is not included 

in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). 

Terminal facility ~ A transfer point between the forest transportation system and forest resources served 

by the system or between different transportation modes, including parking areas, boat ramps and docks, 

trailheads, marine access facilities, airfields, and heliports (FSM 7705). 

Trail ~ A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as 

a trail (36 CFR 212.1). 

Travel management atlas ~ An atlas that consists of a forest transportation atlas and a motor vehicle use 

map or maps (36 CFR 212.1). 

Unauthorized road or trail ~ A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail 

and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). 

358 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

359 

Unauthorized route ~ Could refer to either an unauthorized road or unauthorized trail, or (plural) both. 

Urban ~ ROS classification for areas characterized by a substantially urbanized environment although the 

background may have natural-appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization 

practices are often used to enhance specific recreational activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and 

manicured. Sights and sounds of humans are predominant on the site. Large numbers of users can be 

expected both on the site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are 

available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site. 

Wheelchair or mobility device ~ A device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely 

for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian 

area. A person whose disability requires use of a wheelchair or mobility device may use a wheelchair or 

mobility device that meets this definition anywhere foot travel is permitted (Title V, sec. 507c, of the 

ADA). 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Appendix H: U.S. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Specifrom the Black Hills with Rationale for Further Analysis 

Scientific Name/ Common Name/ Plant Code 

Global rank; SD State rank; WY State rank Black Hills Distribution and Habitat 

Known to Occur in Project Area 

Suitable Habitat iProject A

Botrychium campestre/ prairie moonwort, Iowa moonwort/ BOCA5 

G3/G4; SD-S1; WY-S1 

Botrychium campestre ranges from the Great Lakes, across Iowa and Nebraska to eastern Colorado and northward to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Rangewide the species occurs primarily on well-drained soils in non-forested habitats, occasionally under shrubs in or at the margins of these habitats. Seven occurrences have been confirmed on BKF lands. Additional sites exist on private land and at Wind Cave National Park. Botrychium campestre is extremely inconspicuous. Rangewide, it is considered a grassland species associated with sandy grassland habitats in prairies, dunes, railroad sidings, and fields over limestone. Black Hills sites occur on substrates with at least some component of limestone and are primarily in open grassland habitats usually with high forb diversity and sometimes with a high percentage of bare and rocky soils. Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) occur at the majority of sites. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,870 to 5,640 feet. 

Yes Unknown 

because suitable habitat is yet defineanalyzed effects analysis 

360 
Draft Environm

Botrychium lineare/ narrowleaf grapefern, slender moonwort/ BOLI7 

G2?; SD-S1; WY-S1 

Botrychium lineare is historically known from California and Utah and currently from Colorado northward to Washington and Montana and Alaska and the Yukon Territory. Western populations of the species occur primarily on limestone substrates in a variety of habitats including heavily forested sites and grassy meadows, fen-like seeps and gravelly roadsides. Five occurrences have been confirmed on BKF lands. All sites occur in open conditions on limestone substrate. Two sites are located on old (estimated 15-25 years) native surface roadbeds. A third site is located adjacent to a gravel roadbed in open grassland. A fourth site, located on a large, open, north-facing, little bluestem dominated hillside, is not associated with any road development. A fifth site, also not associated with any road development, is located in an open forb dominated area on the bank of a small perennial stream. Elsewhere in its range, this species has often been documented in areas of road disturbances and other human and natural disturbances. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 4,200 (in Wind Cave National Park) to 6,160 feet. 

Yes Unknown 

because suitable habitat is yet defineanalyzed effects analysis 

Carex alopecoidea/ foxtail sedge/ CAAL8 

G5; SD-S2; WY-S2 

Carex alopecoidea is widely distributed from eastern to central Canada, the northeastern United States, the Great Lakes 

region south to Tennessee, and west to North Dakota and the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Rangewide, habitat includes seasonally saturated meadows and openings in alluvial woods and stream banks, usually over calcareous substrates. In the Black Hills, Carex alopecoidea is currently 

known from two general areas: The Cement Ridge area along the South Dakota-Wyoming border, and in the Bear Lodge Mountains in Wyoming. Carex alopecoidea is primarily found 

along open, perennial streams, often with old beaver dams or ponds. Occurrences have also been found in spruce dominated riparian areas and in drainages with dense shrub cover. Plants are primarily documented in the transitional areas between saturated soils and the more mesic upland areas. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,840 to 5,900 feet. 

Yes Yes 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Cypripedium parviflorum/ lesser yellow lady’s slipper/ CYPA19 

G5; SD-S3; WY-S2 

Cypripedium parviflorum is primarily circumboreal in distribution and rangewide is generally found in shady deciduous and mixed woodlands near streams, shrublands, swamps, bogs, and wet forests. Habitat in the Black Hills includes stream banks under both spruce and deciduous overstories, moist cliffs (usually north-facing), and moist areas/seeps under white spruce (Picea glauca) or mixed conifer forest. Occasionally, found on upper mesic forest slopes. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,500 to 6,500 feet. 

Yes Yes 

Epipactis gigantea/ giant helleborine/ EPGI 

G4; SD-S1; WY-S1 

Epipactis gigantea occurs in western North America from British Colombia south to California, and east to Texas. Rangewide, Epipactis gigantea is known from wet meadows, 

seepage slopes, and the base of cliffs along streams and rivers. In the colder northern portions of its range, the species may be confined to warm springs habitats. In the Black Hills it is known only from Cascade Springs in Fall River County, South Dakota, at 3,400 feet. It is likely dependent upon the constant moisture and warmth provided by the springs. No other warm springs are known on Forest Service-administered land in the Black Hills. 

Yes No 

Lycopodium complanatum/ trailing clubmoss/ LYCO3 

G5; SD-S1; WY-S1 

Lycopodium complanatum is circumboreal and common across northern latitudes, but disjunct or sparse at the southern limits of the species’ distribution, such as in the Black Hills. Rangewide, it is restricted to moist (not saturated) 

microhabitats within boreal plant communities in ravines, steep drainages, and on moist streamside benches. Nine known occurrences on BKF lands. These occurrences are located in the northern Black Hills on shaded, north-facing, white spruce dominated slopes often with paper birch (Betula papyrifera) or quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Black Hills occurrences 

range in elevation from 4,960 to 6,340 feet. 

Yes Yes 

Platanthera orbiculata/ lesser roundleaved orchid/ PLOR4 

G5; SD-S2; WY-S1 

Platanthera orbiculata is endemic to the boreal regions of 

northern North America, with a more southern distribution in the eastern United States. Black Hills occurrences are found primarily on shady, north-facing slopes in paper birch/hardwood or white spruce forests on moist, rich, humus soil. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 4,350 to 6,150 feet. 

Yes Yes 

362 
Draft Environm

Salix candida/ sage willow/ SACA4 

G5; SD-S1; WY-S2 

Salix candida is an obligate wetland species known to occur from eastern Canada to Alaska and across the northern United States. In the Black Hills it is limited to one verified extant occurrence west of Deerfield (McIntosh Fen, 6,000 feet). There is also a historical collection for the general area “from Loring Siding to Minnekahta” (unknown if the historical collection is from private or Forest Service land). Habitat includes cold seep or spring-fed saturated substrates produced by unusual hydrologic conditions where sedimentary layers of the Limestone Plateau intersect impermeable schist or shale of the crystalline Central Core. Community type associated with the occurrence is wet meadow/fen. 

Yes Yes 

Salix serissima/ autumn willow/ SASE2 

G4; SD-S1; WY-S1 

Salix serissima occurs primarily in northern boreal bogs throughout its range and is a disjunct relic in the Black Hills. Four known occurrences on BKF lands in fens and wet meadows often dominated by Carex spp. and other Salix spp. 

Known from McIntosh Fen, Middle Fork of Boxelder Creek, Nahant and Silver Creek. Appears to occur in the same unique hydrologic conditions as Salix candida. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 5,620 to 6,000 feet. 

Yes Yes 

Sanguinaria canadensis/ bloodroot/ SACA13 

G5; SD-S4; WY-N/A 

Sanguinaria canadensis occurs in moist forests from Nova 

Scotia south to Florida and west to Manitoba and Kansas. In the Black Hills it occupies floodplains, forested terraces, drainage bottoms, and north-facing footslopes in open, rich hardwood plant communities. The currently known range in the Black Hills is limited to the northeast portion of the Black Hills, from the east side of Spearfish Canyon to west of Tilford. 

Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,940 to 5,000 feet. 

Yes Yes 

Viburnum opulus var. americanum/ highbush cranberry/ VIOPA2 

G5T5; SD-SNR/SU; WY-S2 

Viburnum opulus var. americanum is widely distributed across 

north central North America. In the Black Hills it occurs at midelevations in wet, shaded habitats along streams, springs and canyon bottoms. The large majority of documented Black Hills occurrences are in drainage bottoms or low slopes with moist soil conditions with partial shading. Currently known sites are primarily associated with paper birch/ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) and paper birch/hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) 

communities, with or without white spruce or quaking aspen. A few sites are in ponderosa pine/oak (Pinus ponderosa/Quercus macrocarpa). Paper birch is present at almost all currently known sites. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,800 to 5,700 feet. 

Yes Yes 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

364 

Viola selkirkii/ great-spurred violet/ VISE2 

G5?; SD-S1; WY-N/A 

Viola selkirkii is a circumboreal herbaceous species, and rangewide it is locally abundant in specialized microsites in coniferous and deciduous forests. Thirteen known occurrences on BKF lands with additional occurrences documented from Custer State Park and Mt. Rushmore National Monument. Black Hills occurrences are restricted to a concentrated area (about 36 square miles) of the central core on igneous or metamorphic bedrock. Microhabitats are often moist, cold air drainages, in shaded to open areas, and often in the vicinity of granitic rock outcrops. White spruce is usually the dominant overstory with a variable understory. All currently known occurrences on Forest Service lands are located within the Black Elk Wilderness and/or the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 5,240 to 7,000 feet. 

Yes Yes 

Note:Codes are from the PLANTS Database at http://plants.usda.gov/ Rank is from Natureserve at http://www.natureserve.org Distribution and Habitat is from the following sources: 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Black Hills National Forest Plant Database. Unpublished Database. Updated April 2008. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Phase II Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Land and Resource Man

Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix I: Map Packet 

-- Please see separate packet of maps of DEIS Alternatives A through E -- 

365 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

367 

Index 

Administrative Access..............................19 

Alternatives 

comparison of ...........................35, 38, 98 

description ............................................19 

details....................................................20 

development..........................................17 

eliminated from detailed study .............33 

features shared ......................................18 

game retrieval and dispersed camping..23 

Big game.. 14, 17, 21, 54, 55, 58, 60, 61, 66, 

94, 108, 110, 111, 124, 125, 127, 137, 

139, 140, 176, 187, 188, 189, 227, 243, 

258, 299, 332, 333, 335 

deer ....iv, 25, 27, 48, 54, 58, 60, 63, 108, 

110, 140, 147, 148, 149, 154, 160, 171, 

173, 176, 190, 191, 192, 199, 224, 227, 

228, 229, 243, 272, 314, 316, 320, 331, 

332, 353 

elk .iv, 25, 27, 48, 54, 55, 58, 60, 63, 108, 

110, 139, 140, 147, 148, 171, 176, 190, 

224, 227, 228, 229, 243, 272, 319, 320, 

332, 353 

BMPs (best management practices).72, 115, 

129, 130, 132, 181, 196, 197, 223, 224 

Closure 

emergency.............................................19 

orders ....................75, 104, 105, 112, 263 

Concentrated Motorized Use Area (CMUA)

.................... 24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 61, 62, 98 

Costs ...................................................78, 84 

economic feasibility..............................78 

maintenance..........................................81 

Cultural Resources.......14, 36, 39, 264, 265, 

283, 306, 315, 330, 331, 332 

Cumulative Effects 

activities contributing to .......................45 

Decision 

decision framework ................................8 

Design Criteria.......102, 103, 107, 116, 133, 

134, 145, 233, 244, 250, 305, 306, 309 

Disabled Access 

Wheelchair..................296, 303, 355, 359 

Enforcement ...................22, 42, 75, 77, 331 

Engineering and Transportation .........66, 98 

Executive Order. 5, 19, 48, 91, 94, 115, 132, 

137, 138, 191, 192, 228, 229, 281, 315, 

327 

Federal Highways Administration 6, 70, 284 

Fisheries..............14, 36, 132, 281, 283, 307 

Floodplains112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122, 123, 

124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 238, 281, 

308, 363 

Forest Plan 

amendment....................18, 25, 27, 29, 31 

goals and objectives..............................18 

land and resource management plan6, 45, 92, 

100, 132, 253, 364 

relationship of alternatives to................17 

Funding 

appropriation.........................................79 

funding sources 10, 15, 72, 76, 79, 334, 335 

Hydrology14, 36, 114, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 

307 

Interdisciplinary (ID) Team................ii, 283 

Invasive Species .....................................276 

Issues 

indicator measures ....................13, 74, 88 

Issue 1 v, 13, 39, 102, 134, 330, 331, 332, 

335 

Issue 2v, 14, 40, 49, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 

334, 335 

Issue 3 v, 15, 40, 49, 71, 329, 331, 334, 335 

Issue 4 .......v, 16, 41, 50, 72, 92, 334, 335 

significant issues...................................13 

Laws, Federal 

Endangered Species Act 143, 154, 173, 281 

National Forest Management Act ii, 5, 91, 

100, 143, 252, 281 

National Highway Safety Act...........6, 70 

Laws, State 

licensing................................................70 

South Dakota iv, 7, 20, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 

73 

Wyoming iv, 7, 20, 25, 27, 28, 30, 47, 74 

Maintenance Levels15, 37, 38, 53, 63, 66, 68, 

69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81, 82, 112, 145, 259, 354 

Management Area..145, 191, 192, 232, 233, 

241, 250, 255, 259, 341, 345, 348, 351 

Mitigation .......116, 267, 268, 269, 271, 276 

Monitoring ii, 42, 50, 89, 94, 96, 98, 131, 133, 

161, 167, 233, 252, 256, 272, 298, 301, 313, 

315, 316, 318, 319 

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM)41, 296, 301, 

355 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

Motorized Mixed Use ....6, 7, 12, 15, 23, 24, 

26, 28, 30, 38, 41, 54, 55, 57, 61, 64, 65, 

70, 73, 74, 98, 323 

National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) i, 

ii, iii, 9, 23, 90, 97, 267, 313 

Noxious weeds........................................278 

Plants..39, 48, 105, 121, 162, 232, 233, 234, 

235, 236, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 

249, 251, 277, 305 

botanical resources .....36, 132, 135, 231, 

249, 305 

Proposed Action .... i, iv, 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 

17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45, 

51, 55, 60, 71, 90, 143, 232, 263, 265, 

276, 281, 327, 328, 331, 356 

Public Involvement ...................................12 

Purpose and Need ...................................1, 7 

Range and Weeds............................272, 310 

Recreation . ii, 37, 40, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 

56, 57, 59, 63, 93, 96, 129, 130, 131, 250, 

252, 255, 280, 283, 284, 289, 314, 321, 

329, 337, 356, 357 

developed ..............................................48 

dispersed .......................48, 169, 354, 355 

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) ii, 

37, 40, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 

63, 64, 322, 356, 357, 358, 359 

Riparian...................148, 151, 170, 195, 235 

habitat..................148, 180, 223, 225, 226 

Roadless Areas..................40, 53, 57, 59, 63 

Roads 

public roads ...iv, 6, 7, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 

30, 32, 37, 47, 56, 59, 62, 67, 70, 73, 

296, 297, 302, 303, 304, 354, 356 

reconstruction ...9, 45, 79, 80, 81, 83, 89, 

112, 113, 230, 262, 263, 295, 296, 297, 

337, 357 

temporary ......................................69, 297 

Routes 

designated ..3, 41, 55, 58, 60, 63, 66, 74, 

77, 103, 106, 107, 109, 112, 113, 114, 

175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 

185, 187, 188, 191, 192, 195, 198, 199, 

201, 203, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 

214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225, 

227, 228, 229, 260, 264, 270, 272, 274, 

278, 299, 306, 315, 332, 333 

unauthorized ...3, 4, 8, 20, 21, 22, 33, 39, 

69, 82, 83, 85, 104, 112, 113, 260, 262, 

263, 264, 267, 268, 269, 274, 278 

Safety ..............55, 70, 73, 74, 354, 355, 357 

Scenery....................................252, 253, 254 

scenic integrity objectives (SIO)ii, 256, 258, 

264, 357 

sensitivity level .................................. 255 

Signs......................................................... 76 

Socio-Economic Concerns................. 89, 95 

Soils.............................14, 36, 100, 107, 283 

erosion.........105, 112, 113, 114, 263, 271 

Sound Levels................................ 76, 86, 94 

Species 

management indicatorii, 135, 143, 147, 149, 

150, 151, 152, 154, 171, 173, 183 

sensitive species .149, 151, 155, 171, 173, 

174, 193, 236, 245 

species of local concern ii, 133, 143, 171, 

173, 222, 234, 235, 239, 241, 243, 245, 

249, 305 

threatened and endangered......... 143, 232 

Stream Crossings15, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 72, 

84, 85, 87, 88, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 

125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 

135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 189, 

307, 308, 309 

Trails21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 37, 47, 48, 62, 69, 70, 

75, 76, 80, 83, 84, 88, 89, 141, 252, 257, 

259, 260, 261, 298, 315, 329, 333, 341, 345, 

348, 351 

Centennial Trail...........40, 80, 83, 84, 255 

Travel Management Rule i, iii, iv, v, 3, 4, 5, 8, 

11, 12, 21, 22, 30, 35, 41, 42, 65, 67, 69, 70, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 90, 95, 264, 267, 270, 295 

Tribes ......................................284, 306, 307 

Vehicles 

ATVii, 22, 61, 81, 82, 83, 84, 260, 328, 329, 

333, 353 

highway-legaliv, v, 3, 6, 7, 12, 19, 20, 21, 

24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 41, 47, 51, 52, 55, 

56, 59, 62, 70, 72, 73, 74, 81, 85, 89, 95, 

98, 99, 354, 355, 356 

multipurpose..................................... 7, 74 

non-highway-legal12, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 

32, 41, 52, 55, 56, 59, 62, 70, 73, 74, 85, 

86, 98, 99, 356 

off-highway (OHV) 3, 9, 45, 47, 60, 70, 76, 

94, 95, 137, 158, 260, 263, 295, 297, 318, 

321, 340, 341, 344, 348, 350, 353 

off-road recreational (ORRV)........ 74, 86 

operators........................21, 25, 27, 29, 30 

snowmobilesiii, 48, 309, 340, 343, 347, 349, 

350 

utility terrain vehicle .............. ii, 260, 329 

368 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

369 

Water Quality 

bed and bank stability 118, 120, 123, 124, 

126, 128, 129, 130 

sediment ... 114, 117, 120, 123, 124, 126, 

127, 128, 129 

temperature ......118, 121, 123, 125, 126, 

128, 129, 130 

Wetlands ....ii, 115, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 

127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 235, 243, 281 

Wilderness ... 18, 40, 53, 57, 59, 63, 69, 172, 

226, 227, 228, 239, 240, 252, 255, 301, 

364 

Wildlife 

demand species...........................171, 228 

management.... .........................5, 27, 143 

migratory birds ...........................173, 229