United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Rocky

Mountain

Region

740 Simms Street

Golden, CO 80401

Voice: 303-275-5350

TDD: 303-275-5367

It’s Cool to Be Safe Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570-1 Date: May 14, 2010

Brian Brademeyer

Executive Director

Friends of the Norbeck

P.O. Box 2003

Rapid City, SD 57709

Dear Mr. Brademeyer:

On May 1, 2010, the Forest Service received your appeal of Forest Supervisor Craig Bobzien’s

decision to implement the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. Your appeal

was filed on behalf of Friends of the Norbeck, Native Ecosystems Council, Black Hills Group-

Sierra Club, Prairie Hills Audubon Society, Eve Koevenig, Christine Redden, Nancy Nilding and

Sam Clauson. Your appeal was timely and is being processed under the provisions of 36 CFR

215. Your appeal has been assigned control number 10-02-00-0021.

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.16(a)(7), your appeal is dismissed without review because Forest

Supervisor Bobzien withdrew the decision you appealed and reissued a new decision on May 7,

2010. Forest Supervisor Bobzien’s new decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part

215. Written appeals must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the

legal notice of the May 7, 2010 decision in the Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, South Dakota.

Paper appeals must be submitted to:

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region

Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer

740 Simms St.

Golden, Colorado 80401

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the office address above between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Electronic appeals must be

submitted to the following email address: appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us.

In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed.

Electronic appeals must be submitted and readable in Microsoft Word, Rich Text or PDF format.

When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should normally receive an automated

electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. If the appellant does not receive an

automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the appellant’s responsibility to

ensure timely receipt by other means (36 CFR 215.15(c)(3)).

Brian Brademeyer Page 2

This determination does not constitute a formal appeal disposition pursuant to 36 CFR 215.18(c).

If you have any questions, please contact Ken Tu at 303-275-5156.

Sincerely,

/s/ Antoine L. Dixon

ANTOINE L. DIXON

Deputy Regional Forester,

Resources

cc: Craig Bobzien

Edward Fischer

Before the Regional Forester of Region 2 Of the Forest Service

United States Department of Agriculture Appeal of the Record of Decision And Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Travel Management Plan Of the Black Hills National Forest Appellants:

Friends of the Norbeck, PO Box 2003, Rapid City, SD 57709 Brian Brademeyer, Executive Director, Phone: 605-574-4152

Native Ecosystems Council Black Hills Group—Sierra Club Prairie Hills Audubon Society Brian Brademeyer Eve Koevenig Christine Redden Nancy Hilding Sam N. Clauson

Appeal No.________________________________________________

Notice of Appeal On March 22, 2010, Black Hills Forest Supervisor Craig Bobzien signed a Record of Decision Notice (ROD) approving implementation of Alternative B, as Modified, of the Travel Management Plan on the Black Hills National Forest. The project is further described as Alternative B of the Travel Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), with modifications described in the ROD. In particular, the designated motorized routes shown on Map 1 of the ROD indicate one of the modifications is the inclusion of a complex of ORV trails between Hill City and Palmer Gulch taken from Alternative C. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215 and 5 USC 555(b), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above captioned groups and individuals listed as “Appellants” hereby appeal to the Regional Forester of Region 2 of the United States Forest Service for relief from Supervisor Bobzien’s decision to authorize modified Alternative B as the Black Hills Travel Management Plan.

2

Relief Requested Due to violations of the Norbeck Organic Act (NOA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Appellants request that the ORV trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch, added as a component from Alternative C included as a modification to Alternative B, highlighted on the excerpt of Map 1 of the ROD shown below, be removed from the Final motorized vehicle system of the Black Hills Travel Management Plan.

Signed this 1st day of May, 2010.

___________________________________ Brian Brademeyer on behalf of Appellants

3

Statement of Reasons Individual appellants and members of appellants groups have provided numerous comments on the proposed Travel Management Plan, in public forums, roundtables, and other elements of the public participation process for this project. We have expressed our opposition to the ORV-emphasis of Alternative C, in general, and to the prospect of user-created ORV trails, in particular. The latter constitutes an irresponsible abdication of public land planning and management oversight on the Black Hills National Forest. Moreover, one particular ORV trail complex added to Alternative B in the Record of Decision, the motorized trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch highlighted in the Map shown under the Requested Relief above, also violates the Norbeck Organic Act (NOA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as explained below. A. The ORV Trail Complex Between Hill City and Palmer Gulch Violates the Norbeck

Organic Act (NOA) Mandate to “Protect from Trespass” the Public Lands of the Norbeck Preserve and the Game Animals and Birds Thereon.

The Forest Service has been flouting the specific wildlife mandate of the 1920 NOA for 90 years now. The 1997 Revised Black Hills Forest Plan fails to even reference the NOA as one of the laws governing their forest management actions. This disregard for the NOA is continued in the Record of Decision for the BHNF Travel Management Plan. The NOA is a simple and straightforward law, whose meaning is clear and unambiguous on its face. After declaring that the Preserve “be set aside for the protection of game animals and birds and be recognized as a breeding place therefore,” the NOA goes on to elaborate precisely what is meant by “protection:”

That it is the purpose of this Act to protect from trespass the public lands of the United States and the game animals and birds which may be thereon, and not to interfere with the operation of the local game laws as affecting private or State lands. [NOA Sec. 3, emphasis added]

Thus, the meaning of “protection” is clearly meant as “protection from humans”, since game animals and birds are by definition not capable of “trespass.” This is made more than clear in that the above language protects both the “public lands … and the game animals and birds which may be thereon” from this human trespass. And equally clearly, the protection applies to wildlife which currently “may be thereon,” i.e., current individuals, not to habitat or future populations. That the Congress is serious about protecting the Preserve from trespass is further made evident by declaring that the “hunting, trapping, killing, or capturing of game animals and birds” in the Preserve “shall be unlawful”, with a misdemeanor fine not to exceed $1000.00 [NOA Sec. 2]. In 1920, this amount would be between the cost of an automobile and a house, so it was certainly not a minor fine. Congress further indicated its intention that the Preserve be protected from trespass by authorizing the State of South Dakota to erect and maintain “a good substantial fence” [NOA Sec. 4]. This was clearly not intended to fence the game animals and birds inside the Preserve, but rather to limit access to the Preserve from those who might trespass in violation of the Act.

4

Together, the fines, fence, and elaboration of “protection” as “protection from trespass” clearly indicate that the primary Congressional objective for the Preserve was control of human activities, in the service of wildlife sanctuary and breeding place concerns.   Rather than “protection from trespass,” the ORV trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch instead actually promotes trespass into the Norbeck Preserve by motorized vehicle riders, in violation of the NOA.  The user‐created loop around Summit Peak (U250163, MY KOA 357, and U250107) is shown on Map 1 of the ROD as following the northern boundary of the Norbeck Preserve for about ½ mile in Section 5.    This would require the ORV users to stay halfway up the steep, rocky side‐slope (50% and greater) of Summit Peak, at least 100’ above the bottom of Rabbit Gulch.  Without the “good substantial fence” authorized by Congress in 1920 to protect the Norbeck Preserve from trespass, which has never been constructed, such ORV users are unlikely to follow such a difficult alignment. Rather, they will drop down into the bottom of Rabbit Gulch, penetrating at least 500’ inside the Norbeck Preserve, and disturbing ½ mile of the climax riparian area of Rabbit Gulch that currently is heavily used by game animals and birds as a breeding place.  In addition, the user‐created trail on forest road 357.1H also penetrates the extreme northwest corner of the Norbeck Preserve, in violation of the NOA mandate and current Forest Plan travel restriction guidelines for the Norbeck [BHNF Forest Plan at III‐103].  Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has ruled that the entire Norbeck Preserve is subject to the wildlife mandate of the NOA [Tenth Circuit ruling of August 8, 2001 in the Sierra Club et al v. Forest Service “Needles/Grizzly” litigation], which requires restrictions on actions that can harass, disturb or displace game animals and birds from their breeding places. Motorized vehicle use is widely recognized as having such displacement effects for big game animals, and these effects can persist for up to ½ mile.   For all of the above reasons, the entire ORV complex added to the Modified Alternative B between Hill City and Palmer Gulch is likely to create conflicts with the breeding place needs of game animals and birds within the Rabbit Gulch area of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. As the Tenth Circuit has made clear, such conflicts must be resolved in favor of wildlife.  The simplest way to achieve this is to remove the ORV trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch from the Final motorized vehicle system of the Black Hills Travel Management Plan. 

5

B. The Decision to Add the ORV Trail Complex Between Hill City and Palmer Gulch Disregarded Pertinent Agency Comments and Concerns, in Violation of Direction in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Thereby Jeopardizes the Future of the Mickelson Connector Trail Project of SD GF&P. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires substantive responses from public comments that are both relevant and specific. One such comment was provide by the State Game, Fish and Parks (Letter BH326 Comment 10 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary, FEIS at 422):

326/10. Alternative C. User created trail U250067, South of Hill City, could possibly be one of the routes to connect the Mickelson Trail with Mt. Rushmore. Although no decision has been made about where this connector trial will be located, we [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] would recommend no OHV trails overlap with Mt. Rushmore and Mickelson trails. Keeping OHV trails away from the final connector trail at a manageable distance would mitigate conflicts between the user groups.

This comment is completely within the CEQ guidance for commenting agencies established by the NEPA [40 CFR 1503.3(d)]. The Forest Service “response” [FEIS at 422], however, failed to meaningfully address the expressed concern:

Route Specific. U250067 is not included as a motorized route in Alternatives D or E. Given that the ROD did not, in fact, choose to implement a “pure” alternative from the FEIS, but instead added ORV trail complexes from Alternative C to the Modified Alternative B, this response is inadequate to meet the Forest Service’s obligations to respond to substantive comments under NEPA [40 CFR 1503.4(a)]. The concern expressed by Mr. Vonk about implications of the trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch for the feasibility of the Mickelson Connector Trail Project was not addressed by saying that Alternatives D or E did not include this trail complex. Indeed, the Forest Supervisor was probably also unaware of the implications of adding this trail complex into the Modified Alternative B on concerns expressed by the State GF&P. Actually, the concern expressed by Mr. Vonk greatly understates the impacts that this trail complex will have on the Mickelson Connector Trail Project. As shown in Figure 1, which highlights with a red oval the same area between Hill City and Palmer Gulch highlighted in the Map 1 excerpt shown above in the Requested Relief section, all of the feasible routes identified in the Mickelson Connector Feasibility Study by Wyss Consultants are impacted by the ORV trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch. The presence of the ORV trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch might well scuttle the entire Mickelson Connector project. The incompatibility of a world-class non-motorized trail traversing the spectacular natural wonders within Mt. Rushmore Memorial and the Norbeck Preserve, on the east half, would be degraded into traversing mile after mile of ORV sacrifice zone on the west half of the Connector Route. GF&P’s recommendation of “no OHV trails overlap with Mt. Rushmore and Mickelson Trails” cited above would seem to be very well taken. Once again, the simplest way to avoid these “overlap” conflicts would be to remove the ORV trail complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch from the Final motorized vehicle system of the Black Hills Travel Management Plan.

6

Figure 1. Feasible Routes for the Mickelson Connector Trail to Mt. Rushmore impacted by the ORV Trail Complex between Hill City and Palmer Gulch.  

    

* * * * * I submit this appeal on behalf of Friends of the Norbeck, Native Ecosystems Council, Black Hills Group—Sierra Club, and Prairie Hills Audubon Society; for Nancy Hilding and Sam N. Clauson as individuals; and for myself, Eve Koevenig and Christine Redden as landowners within the Norbeck Preserve. ________________________ /s/ Brian Brademeyer Executive Director, Friends of the Norbeck Black Hills Regional Director, Native Ecosystems Council PO Box 2003 Rapid City, SD 57709-2003 (605) 574-4152 brademey@dishmail.net

7

_________________________ /s/ Sam N. Clauson Chair, Black Hills Group—Sierra Club PO Box 1624 Rapid City, SD 57709 _________________________ /s/ Nancy Hilding President, Prairie Hills Audubon Society of Western South Dakota 6300 West Elm St. Black Hawk, SD 57718 _________________________ /s/ Brian Brademeyer PO Box 762 Rapid City, SD 57709-0762 _________________________ /s/ Eve Koevenig PO Box 55 Hill City, SD 57745-0055 _________________________ /s/ Christine Redden PO Box 184 Custer, SD 57730-0184 _________________________ /s/ Nancy Hilding 6300 West Elm St. Black Hawk, SD 57718 _________________________ /s/ Sam N. Clauson 9860 Sheridan Lake Rd. Rapid City, SD 57702