Black Hills National Forest Seeks Comments on Forest Plan Revision Draft Assessments

Weasel

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
712
Messages
2,931
Loc
Black Hills, SoDak
The forest service is seeking comments on their forest plan revisions that are to be determined in upcoming months.


The general outline of the revision process is located here:

Forest Plans (FP) set the overall management direction and guidance at a forest-wide scale. These plans guide the direction of specific projects or activities on the ground. Forest Plans need to be updated periodically due to changed conditions on the land and this is done through a process called Forest Plan Revision.

The Black Hills National Forest is beginning the process of revising its current Plan which was first released in 1983, revised in 1997 and amended in 2006. The revised FP will provide guidance for the implementation of management activities across the 1.2 million-acre Black Hills National Forest for the next 15 years.

The Forest Plan Revision process is guided by the 2012 Planning Rule which serves as an opportunity to look at what is working and what may not be working using best available scientific information and meaningful public involvement.

Rapid Stakeholder Assessment

In preparation for forest plan revision, Black Hills National Forest (BKNF) conducted a rapid stakeholder assessment in the fall of 2020 to understand stakeholder preferences and perspectives regarding key issues, desired outreach methods and venues, and past experiences working with the Forest in the forest plan revision process. The primary objectives were to gain the public’s perspective on past planning revision efforts and opinions about updating older assessment material, discuss priority issues and public values pertaining to the Black Hills National Forest, and garner suggestions to guide the upcoming planning processes in terms of outreach and public meetings.
 
The Assessment plan is located here and contains all of the pre planning documents to date:


The Black Hills National Forest has initiated the Land Management Plan revision process, pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and as directed by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The first phase of revision involves the drafting of several resource assessments. The assessment phase of forest planning calls for a rapid evaluation of existing information about relevant ecological, economic, and social conditions, trends, and sustainability. Analyzing this information will provide insight into the relationship between the current land management plan and the context of the broader landscape. These assessments represent several different resource areas, and will lay the ground work and transition information and knowledge into plan development (phase 2) and then the monitoring (phase 3) of the process.

The Draft Assessments include: (click the link above)

And the recreational section is listed here:

It is also attached to this post.
 

Attachments

I would like to work on a letter from the Black Hills 4 Wheelers on comments per this proposal.

There are a few items that I think should be addressed.
 
The following response was sent by Ty Brown - President of the Black Hills Jeeps

On June 17th an E-mail went out regarding the Black Hills National Forest "Forest Plan Revision Draft Assessments''. While attending the Off Road Riders Volunteer Appreciation meeting, we had the opportunity to ask Bradley Block, the Recreation Program Manager about the current comments that they are seeking. It seems as though this might be the opportunity to voice a plan or formal request on increasing the amount of "Extreme Difficulty" and "Trails Open To All". After reading through the "Recreation Settings, Opportunities, and Scenic Character" this would be the category in which we can voice our request within the public comment period (August 1st). Bradley had made it clear that if enough comments, voicing the same goal were to be gathered they would have to look into the request. While the Forest Service has not continued the Black Hills Recreation Coalition, I still believe this is an ideal opportunity to work together. I typed a rough draft. I then realized that within this rough draft, it mainly calls for the addition of "Trails Open To All", and "Extreme Difficulty" routes. To keep up with demand and use including the 62"+ user group. I am reaching out to get feedback from all the Organizations that this would affect, to hear thoughts, and comments. If, as a community, we get the word out, have club members doing the same. We may have the chance to increase the 25 miles of "Extreme Difficulty", or "Trails Open To All".

Updating the group. I haven't heard much back. Attached is the letter that I have typed up to try and include both OHVs and 4WDs request for more trails. The concept is based off the refusal to increase the 62" or less trails. Meaning the large group of 62"+ users are forced to share trails and rock crawling routes that were not designed for this application. Therefore justifying the expansion of the "trails open to all" and the "extreme difficulty" routes.
Several groups have signed on this.

Draft Letter is attached

The changing of road designations was brought up at a OHV question and answer meeting with the FS. They mentioned that this method would be the fastest way, and most efficient to establish more trails open to all. Once that designation is made, it would allow the route to increase in difficulty without forest service intervention. We included this wording to have a "blanket". With the short time frame, we figured this would be a solid way to get our foot in the door. At the end of the day, this is their comments portion of the Recreation revision, we are just trying to get this request recognized within the revision.
 

Attachments

I don't really agree with the reasoning in the proposed letter. Having more "roads" switched to "trails open to all" doesn't add extra rock crawling trails. Rated 6 or up.

  • I think we need to comment on getting back the "Rock Crawler" designation and our routes marked as such. That will help to highlight the limited number and length of trails we have.
  • Understanding from the FS that our route do not need any funding, upkeep, or maintenance. That is fully supported by the local clubs and end users. This means all of our permit fees go directly to supporting other user groups.
  • Clear process and plan from the FS to establish new Rock Crawling trails. I think the labeling will help as they could fall under the categorical exclusion for the NEPA process.
  • Clarity on how they determines that OHV usage is only 11.5% of the overall usage in the Black Hills.

Anything else?
 
It's important to also include connector routes on the FS. This includes rock crawler routes. Some trails are not possible, but there are a few.
 
true You mean like the trail along Captain should have the old connector route restored so the other vehicles can drive down and loop out another way without turning around, illegal route or trying the trail?
 
I don't really agree with the reasoning in the proposed letter. Having more "roads" switched to "trails open to all" doesn't add extra rock crawling trails. Rated 6 or up.

  • I think we need to comment on getting back the "Rock Crawler" designation and our routes marked as such. That will help to highlight the limited number and length of trails we have.
  • Understanding from the FS that our route do not need any funding, upkeep, or maintenance. That is fully supported by the local clubs and end users. This means all of our permit fees go directly to supporting other user groups.
  • Clear process and plan from the FS to establish new Rock Crawling trails. I think the labeling will help as they could fall under the categorical exclusion for the NEPA process.
  • Clarity on how they determines that OHV usage is only 11.5% of the overall usage in the Black Hills.

Anything else?
true You mean like the trail along Captain should have the old connector route restored so the other vehicles can drive down and loop out another way without turning around, illegal route or trying the trail?
Yes, I believe Polo Peak is a in and out. How about Surprise? Any possibility there?
 
Well like on Polo Peak I think we should drop those are Rock Trail and leave them open to all. They are not substantial enough to be differentiated as a "rock trail".
 
Top Back Refresh