George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail Feasibility Study BLACK HILLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

Home , Bear Butte, Black Elk Wilderness, Charmaine White Face, Outline of South Dakota

Final Report September 2012 George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail Study and Environmental Review Project Team Prepared For :  South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks

In cooperation with:  US Forest Service

 Mount Rushmore National Memorial Society

 National Park Service

 And a special thank you to everyone who attended the open houses, one on one meetings and shared your vision for this trail.

Prepared by:

With:  Matrix Consulting Group, Inc.  Dakota Research, Inc., Consulting Arche- ologist 2009 © Wyss Associates, Inc.  Birgil Kills Straight, Cultural Consultant  Marmot’s Edge Conservation, Consulting Wildlife Biologist

Published by Wyss Associates, Inc., Rapid City, South Dakota

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy- ing, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher and The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks.

Limit of Liability / Disclaimer of Warranty: While the author has used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this report and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of site specific applicability of the enclosed trail segments or routings. The advice and strategies contained here- in may be subject to modification based upon further study, the revelation of new information relating to the project and reinterpretations of existing knowledge of the study area. The author shall not be liable for any damages resulting from or associated with following phases of this project, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

This report is also available in electronic format from the author.

For more information on Wyss Associates, Inc. and our services, please contact us at (605) 348-2268.

Wyss Associates, Inc. 728 Sixth Street Rapid City, SD 57701 605.348.2268 Phone 605.348.6506 Fax www.wyssassociates.com [email protected]

Printed at our office in the United States of America. September 21, 2012

Doug Hofer South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Director of Parks 523 East Capitol Pierre, SD 57501

Mr. Hofer,

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you, the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, and your cooperating agencies: The National Park Service, US Forest Service, and the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Society on the trail feasibility study. The following pages represent the final version of this report and our suggestions for several routes we feel should be further investigated as to their appropri- ateness for a new trail similar in nature to the George S. Mickelson Trail. Appendix I includes public comments recently submitted.

It has been our pleasure to work on this potential trail and we hope than the sponsor group finds that it is worth pursuing further study. This trail could be an incredible regional amenity for South Dakota and would traverse an incredible landscape known worldwide for its beauty and sublime presence.

This document includes updated information pertaining to non-motorized trail considerations between the Mickel- son Trail near Hill City and Mt. Rushmore National Memorial. This current volume includes a recommended route for the trail.

Feel free to contact us at any time to discuss aspects of this report, the routes described within or issues related to this potential connector trail.

Respectfully,

Patrick Wyss, CEO Mark Jobman, ASLA Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects Senior Landscape Architect

5 Table of Contents

Executive Summary Page 8

Introduction Page 12

Site Evaluations Page 32

Nodes, Segments / and Anchors Page 62

Hiking, Biking Trail Alternatives Page 160

Route Recommendations Page 174

Next Steps Page 184

Bibliography Page 190

Appendixes A - Agency Interviews B - Stakeholder Feedback C - Open House D - Workshop I E - Workshop II F - Media Clipping G - Maps by Others H - Segment Narratives Concerning Archaeological Resources

I - Submitted Public Comment October 31, 2009 through December 9, 2009

6 7 Executive Summary

1994 © Bill Groethe Mount Rushmore, looking west 9 Executive Summary

This study examines the feasibility of providing a route connecting Mount Rushmore National Memorial to the George S. Mickelson Trail. This route would connect one of the most treasured units of our National Park Service to the trail through the in- credibly scenic and remarkable Northern slopes of the Black Hills central core. Sever- al alternate routes would be feasible, each with its own special opportunities and concerns.

Any potential trail route in this area is affected by topography, land ownership, cultural resources, historic resources, ecology and other factors. Private property must be respected and the best use of public lands must be weighed. The opportunities and challenges of management concerns present a task of identifying balancing issues. A route both acceptable to the driving ideology behind the management documents governing the area and educational and enjoyable to the potential user is desired.

The proposed routes include lands managed by the National Park Service, the SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks, US Forest Service, and private property limited to owners who would so desire such a trail. Management areas in the area include US Forest Service land (including Black Elk Wilderness and the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve), National Park land, BN lands transferred to the Department of Game Fish and Parks (currently the Mickelson Trail), Department of Transportation land, SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks land and limited private property.

Mission for the trail as agreed to by the cooperating agencies: To enhance the Black Hills trail network by providing and encouraging recreational opportunities for non motorized users by safely connecting the Mickelson Trail to Mount Rushmore.

Multiple meetings and public input opportunities helped identify the key opportunities, issues and challenges that this trail will face throughout its planning.

Five routes connecting Mount Rushmore National Memorial and the Mickelson Trail (a trailhead in Hill City, South Dakota is used as a common starting point) are identified in this report as feasible connections: 1. North/South of Norbeck Route: This 19 mile route minimizes the trail footprint within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve by following the Battle Creek Valley as much as possible and then diving South into Palmer Gulch. 2. Rabbit Gulch Route: This 17 mile route takes advantage of existing roads through the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve to create a route that has some of the long valley views and rugged upper country terrain. 3. Peter Norbeck Route: This 13 mile route is aligned to take advantage of as much of the original Mount Rushmore Road as possible. 4. North of Norbeck Route: This 14 mile route minimizes the trail footprint within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve by following the Battle Creek Valley as much as possible and enters Hill City along Highway 16. 5. Highway 244 Route: This 12 mile route follows Highway 244 from Rushmore to the Mickelson using the Highway Right of Way. 6. No New Route: Existing roads are used by bicyclists and existing trails provide good access to much of the study area already. The next step is for the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks to decide, with the support of the cooperating agencies, if this is a project for the Agency to pursue as the lead sponsor. If so, Department of Game, Fish and Parks could make an application for a Special Use Permit or Access Easement to construct a trail in the Black Hills National Forest, which may require The Forest Service to prepare a Environmental Impact Statement before a permit or easement could be granted. 10 Route Consideration

The recommended route, as illustrated on the accompanying drawing, is provided as a starting point to the final selection process. The following describes the recommended non-motorized route, going from west to east:

The trail starts at Node C, the USFS helipad. A public parking area would be developed as well as a bridge across the creek. The first segment includes a series of switchbacks and then meanders cross-contour to Node H, a back country intersection west of the western Highway 244 entrance trail to the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

The trail then follows the Peter Norbeck Route Segment (Orange III) to the western side of Summit Peak. The recommended route follows the north side of summit Peak, although the south side is also a consideration, over to Node O, north of the KOA Campground.

From there the route follows the vicinity of the Rabbit Gulch Route Segment (Red II) over to Node Q, where Battle Creek crosses into the Norbeck WildlifePreserve.

From here the trail takes the lowest impact route through the Peter Norbeck Preserve over to the Big Pine Trailhead, Node S, which is recommended to be relocated in the same vicinity, but to the south side of Highway 244. The specific new location of Big Pine has yet to be determined. At Big Pine the non-motorized trail route includes certain user restrictions.

Horse and foot traffic would have the option of taking the trail from Big Pine through the Black Elk Wilderness primarily on existing trails (improved) to the Mt Rushmore boundary and continue on the Blackberry Trail to Node Z, the Mount Rushmore Trailhead. Bicycles are not allowed in the Black Elk Wilderness.

Bike and foot traffic would have the option of following the Peter Norbeck Route (Orange III) from Big Pine over to the Wrinkled Rock Trailhead, Node X. From Wrinkled Rock the trail follows close to Highway 244 (Red II, Orange III, and others) and includes some elevated boardwalks. The vehicular traffic volume and elevated trail boardwalks along this segment are the reason horse traffic is recommended to pass through the Black Elk Wilderness, as previously discussed. Tis segment also concludes at Node Z, the Mount Rushmore Trailhead.

11 Introduction

2009 © Google2009 ©

Mickelson Trail into Hill City 13 Introduction

You're not supposed to drive here at 60 miles an hour. To do the scenery half justice, people should drive 20 or under; to do it full justice, they should get out and walk." ~ Peter Norbeck

Nineteen years after the first segment of the George S. Mickelson Trail was dedicated the trail has matured into one of the preeminent destination trails in the country, known nationally as an innovative example of thinking big and bold in trail planning. The trail’s 109 miles allows the visitor to experience a historic railroad route, the scenic beauty of the natural setting and many of the cities and landmarks along the back- bone of the Black Hills. Not every landmark or destination is on the route. The natural evolution of a trail of this nature to strengthen its user base and expand its reach results in multiple additional connections being implemented and planned from end to end.

The George S. Mickelson Trail is known nationally for its incredible scenic value traversing the full length of the Black Hills from Edgemont to Deadwood, through ghost towns and isolated back country. It is very accessible, both in its connections to attractive destinations and communities in the hills and its character as a gentle railroad grade. It has an wonderfully broad appeal to families, those with disabilities, the young and old and other special user groups. It’s experience is also enriched by the educational opportunities inherent in its route and exposed by its interpretive program.

The views of Harney Peak, Elk Horn Mountain, the knobby Black Elk Wilderness Area, the long open valleys along Battle Creek, and numerous sublime rock outcrops, valleys and ridges are constantly hidden and revealed from within in the study area. This is the heart of the sacred Paha Sapa, traditionally recognized as a great spiritual center. It is also hon- ored by the special administrative designations in this area, setting

2008 © H.2008 Fridell © aside this land for the benefit of wildlife and future generations. It is a truly wonderful portion of the Black Hills National Forest. Study Area Photo: Mickelson Trail Any potential trail route in this area is affected by topography and land ownership. Private property must be respected and the best use of public lands must be weighed. The opportunities and challenges of management concerns present a task of identifying balancing issues. A route both acceptable to the driving ideology behind the management documents gov-

14 erning the area and educational and enjoyable to the potential user is desired. Overall this study identifies both several potential routes that could connect the dots, and presents a roadmap to determine how to thread the needle – how to make this The proposed routes include lands managed by the National Park Service, the South trail in a way that addresses the concerns that have been identified. This study pro- Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, US Forest Service, South Dakota De- vides the sponsor agencies with necessary information to decide whether to take the partment of Transportation, Hill City, Keystone City, and private property limited to next step in a process that could result in a world class destination trail. owners who would so desire such a trail. US Forest Service management areas in the area include the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, Resource Production Emphasis Forest, limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis forest, The Black Elk Wilderness, Upper Pine Creek Research Natural Area, National Park Land, BNF railroad easement (currently the Mickelson Trail), Department of Transportation Land, SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks land, and limited private property. (See Site Evaluation Map ―Management Areas‖ page

15 Mickelson Trail entering Hill City from the North Initiation of the Feasibility Study:

This study is an initial investigation into whether there exists a feasible route that would connect Mount Rushmore National Memorial to the George S. Mickelson Trail. Several years of informal discussions between interested parties exploring this idea led to the release of an Request for Proposals released February 1, 2008 for a third party Prime Consultant to provide a Feasibility Study and Environmental Analy- sis. Firms were interviewed and a Prime Consultant was selected in May, 2008.

In the fall of 2008 the cooperating agencies met with the Prime Consultant and began to work cooperatively on this project feasibility study for a connector trail from Mount Rushmore National Memorial lands to the Mickelson Trail located primarily on the Black Hills National Forest. All parties have expressed a mutual interest in providing non-motorized recreation opportunities within the Black Hills National Forest trails system yet are dedicated to pursuing this study with due diligence and a strong respect for the other agencies involved.

South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks is operating as this projects sponsor with their partners at the Mount Rushmore Historical Society. US Forest Service and National Park Service are acting as cooperating agencies providing information and guidance regarding a proposal that would affect the Memorial or National Forest. All agencies are referred to as ―Cooperating Agencies‖ in this report.

Work by the Prime Contractor began on the Feasibility Study in October of 2008.

Process: Listening and Looking

The beginning phase of this feasibility study resulted in obtaining information that help define what the desired character of the proposed trail should be. This series of interviews with the cooperating agencies crafted a vision and mission for the trail providing a deeper framework for understanding what the purpose of the trail should

be. A clear purpose makes trail planning effective. It provided a set of evaluation criteria that can be used to check whether the planning is pointed in the right direction and whether the route is fulfilling the need.

Definitions for vision, mission and shared values were provided as follows:

Vision: Defines what this trail wants to be in the future. It reflects the optimistic view of the trail's future.

Mission (Purpose Statement): Defines what we are doing now, describing why this project exists. 2008 © 2008 Associates,Wyss © Inc. Photo: Presentation Slide—Primary Opportunity Values: Beliefs that are shared among the stakeholders. Values drive the approach and priorities.

A starting point for each of these was provided, but together the agencies developed the following clear statements for the trail.

16 world, they likely will not respect or understand it as adults. With little respect for or Vision for the trail: to create a destination experience within a world class network limited personal experience with the outdoors the following generations will have of trails that encourages generations of users to experience the great natural and cul- little reason to protect and care for it. This lack of experience is called nature- tural features of the Black Hills. deficient disorder and the way to counteract it is to provide everyday opportunities for children and adults to experience the joy and wonder of being outdoors. Mission for the trail: To enhance the Black Hills trail network by providing and encouraging recreational opportunities for non-motorized users by safely connecting This trail, because of its unique relationship to Mount Rushmore poses a potentially the Mickelson Trail to Mount Rushmore. enticing lure to those that may not otherwise find need to venture into the woods. By providing this opportunity we will help foster a new generation of environmental Shared Values: stewards who will care for the woods, animals and birds of the Black Hills. 1. To provide a quality trail experience. 2. To include each of the Mickelson User Groups in this trail’s These themes resonate because of their rich and varied interpretive potentials in this program (hikers, bicyclists and horseback riders). area of the Black Hills where geologic features stand with cultural icons and historic efforts match botanical wonders. To provide interpretive and educational elements that enrich 3. the experience of traversing the trail using history of all cul- tures and eras, geography, biology, botany, geology, culture and more! Public Meetings & Public Comment 4. To respect the ground the trail traverses by providing a sus- Central to the development of this feasibility report were an ongoing series of meet- tainable route alignment and trail design. ings with members of the public who expressed interest this trail. Multiple meetings 5. To make a route appropriately accessible. with stakeholders, an open house, an open phone line and an open door policy al- 6. To provide a quality route that gets off the highway and lowed people to express their thoughts and opinions about the trail. These discus- shares the wonderful beauty of the central hills with the visi- sions further honed the program and scope of the project and greatly increased our tor. understanding of what the public thinks about a trail in this area and our general 7. Interagency cooperation! knowledge of the study area.

The cooperating agencies indicated that this trail is intended to build on both the suc- Public participation is incredi- cess of the Mickelson Trail as a regional destination trail experience and the interna- bly important to the process of tional fame of Mount Rushmore National Memorial. That this trail should be a third developing a trail proposal to and equal leg, a destination experience of its own right, was made absolutely clear. the sponsor agencies. It allows the many interacting agencies’ The primary need is for a trail that will draw visitors and users by its own being, and actions to be transparent, be be a signal feature of the Black Hills recreational landscape. If the trail appears to be clear about who is responsible less than that, then the desire to build it is lessened. for what actions and who will facilitate the eventual applica- There were two equal themes that underlined the cooperating agency discussions: that ton of the proposal. of respect for the natural environment and that of drawing people into extended outdoor experiences. Photo: Presentation Slide—Visitor Statistics Good trail planning requires an active role from the population The first theme impressed a strong desire to build a sustainable trail, meaning they and needs participation from members of the community. There are exiting opportu- would like to see a trail that is built using the most appropriate construction tech- nities to learn from the public and exchange ideas regarding what would make a bet- niques and is aligned along a path of least or appropriately mitigated impact. As Aldo ter trail route. Public participation in trail planning allows the issues of concern to Leopold wrote, ―We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. come forward early in the process and help frame the study and planning that ensues. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.‖ Each cooperating agency expressed their feeling of commitment to Participation transforms the planning process, energizing it, and creates a permanent each of the types of land ownership and management in the area and recognized the connection between the people interested , the state, federal and local agencies, and limiting nature of some of those types. the planners. The joint venture permits more reasoned decisions (being these the product of a higher consensus), enables a better understanding of the problems that The second theme emerged as a concern that the next generation of environmental preoccupy a society, and allows the many parties to work cooperatively towards pos- stewards is learning about the natural world in a virtual one. There is no comparison, sible solutions. and both children and adults need ―wild‖ experiences to teach and remind us why it is important to preserve and protect the natural world. Two significant groups were identified and contacted after our initial agency meet-

ings: A disappointing downward trend in youth participation in outdoor recreation in favor of organized activities and technological interests is a common thread in outdoor edu-  Primary Stakeholders: Critical individuals that represent key regional or cation currently. If children do not have opportunities to experience the natural local groups that would be directly interested in this project 17  Important Stakeholders: Other groups that should have preliminary input  Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce (CVB) into this project Businesses: These lists were developed by reviewing concurrent study’s public comment lists,  Presidential Parking cooperating agency discussion and other suggestions. Representatives were contacted via phone, post card and email. Some of these groups had more than one chance  KOA Mt Rushmore to comment directly to us during the initial process.  Acme Bicycles  Rushmore Mountain Sports Primary Stakeholders that have provided input into this study are:  Two Wheeler Dealer  Hill City  The Runner's Shop  Keystone  Cabella’s & Scheels  Governor’s Recreation Trail Commission  Black Hills Central Reservations  Game Fish and Parks  Rabbit Bicycles and Repair Commission  Mickelson Trail Adventures  Black Hills National  Frontier Bike Rentals Forest Advisory Board  Golden Circle Tours  Black Hills Audubon  Black Hills Central Railroad (commonly the 1880 train) Society  Pennington County Associations: (Planning & Zoning)  South Dakota Humanities Council  Defenders of the Black  GFP Foundation Hills Photo: Agency Workshop  South Dakota Department  Biodiversity Conserva- of Tourism tion Alliance  Black Hills, Badlands &  Norbeck Society Lakes Association  Sierra Club  Prairie Hills Audubon So-  South Dakota Department of Transportation ciety Of South Dakota Inc  First Nations Heritage Important Stakeholders that were invited to participate and provide input into this  General Public study are:

Please refer to the Appendixes

for the full list of attendees at Congressional Staffers: the various meetings, mailing  Senator Tim Johnson lists, and comments received.  Senator John Thune Photo: Public Workshop  Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin The schedule for meetings related to this study has been as follows: Cities: 1. Initial Agency Meeting: October 10, 2008  Hill City  Custer 2. Primary Stakeholder Meetings: October 15, 2008 – February 9, 2009  Keystone 3. Open House: October 22, 2008  City/County Groups: 4. Agency Workshop & Tour: December 1, 2008  Keystone Fire Department and Ambulance 5. Public Workshop I (Preliminary Routes): December 10, 2008  Pennington County Search and Rescue 6. Public Meeting I (Trail Routes): January 20, 2009  Custer County Search and Rescue 7. Public Meeting II (Trail Routes): May xx, 2009  Hill City Chamber of Commerce  Custer Chamber of Commerce

18 To discuss the various aspects of the potential trail with the Primary Stakeholders and Important Stakeholders a series of questions were developed through discussions with BLACK ELK: the Cooperating Agencies:  Respect for Place & Purpose  No Compelling Reason to take us into the Wilderness Boundary. These were framed as ―Critical Questions for Stakeholders‖: 1. Our challenge is to connect Mt. Rushmore to the Mickelson Trail - what do NORBECK WILDLIFE PRESERVE: you see as the main benefits of doing this?  Trail requires leaving Mount Rushmore through the Norbeck 2. What do you see as the main challenges?  Standards & Guidelines Regulate how the trail can happen therein 3. Are you aware of any critical landscape features that might impact the rout-  Lay gently on the land ing of this trail?  If Norbeck is set aside for Wildlife and Birds, how is this trail go- 4. What specific issues /challenges or opportunities would you like to see ad- ing to help them? dressed by our preliminary routing study? 5. Others Comments?  Could decommissioned roads be used as credit?

In general, the response to the trail was overwhelmingly positive. People in the area GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: are excited to have an addition to the Mickelson Trail, and most favor a ―Family‖  Archeology style trail, available to multiple user types. Some concerns regarding funding, securi-  Biologist and Botanist ty at Mount Rushmore, grazing allotments in the National Forest and whether the trail  Sensitive Areas will affect specific property owners were received as well. Environmental groups  Forest Resources expressed concern for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Black Elk Wilderness as  Minimize overall impact to forest well as specific animal or plant species known to be in the area.  Minimize impact to forest management

Agency Workshop PRIVATE:  As potential routes become clear, landowners will become more and A site tour and agency meeting identified many of the potential issues. This working more meeting resulted in several conclusions: involved The story of this trail is in many ways the stories of several different management entities. The study area contains many different areas, all with different Field Visits goals and objectives

The .Prime Contractor Keeping many potential routes open will be important as there is a signifi- began Field Visits in Oc- cant chance that any one segment may not work for practical reasons (cliffs) to un-

tober 2008 and has con- known (Focus Species habitat) and other yet to be determined issues. tinued exploring the study

area continuously The following strategies and concerns from each of the agencies were expressed: throughout the project.

Because this study has GF&P: been accomplished over  Minimize impact to existing land uses. the winter months most of  Explore the area for a quality trail. the photography con- H.2008 Fridell © Photo: Mile Post on the Mickelson Trail.  What are the operational aspects of the trail? tained in the report reflects the  Focus Species concern. period of study. Throughout the process, over 20 separate field visits were made to explore, document and better understand the site. The location of each segment iden- NPS: tified in this report was visited. The site visits gave a ―feet on the ground― under-  Trail Hub standing of the issues and complexities of the study area and how difficult individual  Sensitive Areas: segments of the trail may be to construct. Lafferty – Archeology Starling Basin – Biologist and Botanist The study has also benefitted from numerous conversations with stakeholders who Lafferty – Back of House have pointed out particular areas of concern and opportunities within the area. The  Security Concerns - Closed Areas level of understanding of the landscape would not be the same without the hours and  SDDOT/ Crossing DOT/ Over-Under Highway 244 interest put in by local people and their groups.

USFS:

19 Public Workshop merous points in-between.  The trail system has a clear identity with a definitive name that attracts Project background and preliminary routes were presented and discussed at a public people and defines the trail’s focus. meeting in Keystone. Key comments and questions were:  The trail system is well signed, often with a special identity signage pro-  How do you keep people on the trail? gram.  Try to modify already disturbed trails.  A well designed and attractive map is readily available at numerous locations. Maps should include parking and facility information Elevation pro-  How is the project being funded? files and concise ride descriptions are also helpful, as are estimates of ride  Many areas have erosion and poor drainage. difficulty, descriptions of ride features, and weather and safety considera-  This is difficult terrain because of the rock outcrops and topography. tions. Use map revenues to improve trails and mitigate tourism impacts.  What percent of the Mickelson Trail follows roads?  Interpretation is provided (e.g., ranges from simple explanation on maps  What interpretive ideas are there? or at trailheads to more formal wayside exhibits or even visitor centers)  Are the mountain goats behind Rushmore a concern?  Support service systems are available. This can range from highly sophis-  Is private property impacted by this trail along Old Hill City Road? ticated to primitive (e.g., trailheads, restrooms, campgrounds, lodging, res- taurants, supply shops). Many of the most successful link to towns where diverse services are provided. Public Meeting I  Unique support systems are often provided (e.g., special related events, bus service to special trail areas, food service at the lodge, baggage transport Project background and Routes were presented and discussed at a public meeting in service, lodging reservation services, special interpretive programs, tour Rapid City Key comments and questions were: Will I ride this trail on my bike or  Promote trails for all ability levels. For walkers, runners and other pedes- in my wheelchair? When will it be completed? When will we see more detail of the trians, develop a trail network with a wide variety of skill levels. For begin- segments? ner riders, promote lightly traveled paved roads, dirt roads and wide dirt paths. For intermediate and advanced riders, highlight twisting forest paths, Public Meeting II challenging singletrack and downhill routes. Providing all of these experiences, in abun- A final public presentation of the trail routes is planned for May xx, 2009. dance, will help establish this area Guide Posts as a first-rate va- cationing, hiking and mountain As a result of reviewing historical and technical documents key factors useful to biking destina- gauge the feasibility and potential success of any trail system have become evident. tion. Advertise a

whole system of General elements include: trails, not just one  A support effort with enthusiastic people and agencies operating at both the or that route will grassroots level and within their various organizations. be over-used and  A clear plan of action that illustrates what the individual/group would like to the system will be do and how they intend to achieve their desired goals. underused.  Existing Partnerships with each partner having a defined role and a spirit of  Get the commu- cooperation in the manner in which they carry out their role nity involved.  Access to funding and some knowledge of how long term maintenance and Build community Photo: Hikers in the Black Hills management will occur. support for trail tourism by emphasizing the economic benefits. Cyclists, hikers and horse- Beyond these factors there are also Major Criteria For a Quality Project back riders spend money on gas, food, lodging, souvenirs, etc. and stores  The trail system is sensitive to both natural and cultural resources. that are friendly to them foster this environment.  The trail system is economically feasible.  Showcase the land's natural beauty. Design and recommend rides that  The trail system is a reflection of social responsibility and enhances the com- visit sites with historical interest and beautiful views. munity, region, state, and country.  Package deals. Develop package offers that appeal to mountain bikers, hikers and horseback riders by combining lodging, meals and service support. Photo: US Forest Services Map http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/maps/trails.shtml Specific criteria for trail system development include both general and specific items Reach out to businesses within the community that relate to the trail and necessary for successful implementation. They go well beyond the creation of the develop co-sponsored opportunities for the visitor. trail system and pull resources from every aspect of the communities and region.  Quantify success. To help ensure continued community buy-in and invest-  The system must be well planned, including phasing, long term mainte- ment in infrastructure improvements, it is essential to quantify your success. nance, and funding. It will take several years of promoting and tracking to get an accurate read-  The system clearly connects Point A to Point B and usually connects nu- ing of how the community has been impacted, but these records are essential 20 for local support. Start by examining sales tax, lodging and traffic counts. Mount Rushmore Spur of the Mickelson Trail Who is the user? What are their requirements? These are the guideposts to be used while following the path this trail takes to a successful implementation. The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks defines the Mickelson Trail on their website as A path where bicyclists, hikers and horseback riders can explore Black Hills Trail Network spruce and ponderosa pine forests. And, a path accessible to the very young, the very old and people of all abilities. The Black Hills are (*http://www.sdgfp.info/parks/regions/northernhills/mickelsontrail/index.htm) known internationally as an attractive destination The Shared Values expressed by the cooperating agencies in our meetings require experience for trail users accommodation for each of these user groups to define this trail’s character as well. of all types. Several trails That defines three major user groups: Pedestrian, Bicyclist, and Horseback Rider. are quite well known Each of these groups has particular, and different minimum trail standards. from the family friendly George S. Mickelson Hikers: Trail to the multidimen- sional Centennial Trail,

 Trail Width: 24-48‖ one way, 48-72‖ two way from the Wilderness experience taking you to  Horizontal Clearance: 48‖ – 72‖ Harney Peak to the Rapid  Vertical Clearance: 8’ City Greenway, from the  Speed: 1-3 miles per hour (runners may travel at 5-15 miles per hour) Black Hills National For-  Turning Radius: Not critical, maintenance concerns to limit short cuts coin- est ORV trail network to cide with aesthetic concerns for natural shape and harmony, straight sections winter snowmobiling. H.2008 Fridell © no longer than 100 feet There are multiple op- Photo: Bicyclists on the Mickelson Trail are preferred. portunities for both mo-  Percent Grade: 0-5% torized and non-motorized trail enthusiasts. preferred, 5-8.3% for 200 feet maximum, 8.3-10% The move is on to make a serious effort to link the existing network in a way that for 30 feet maximum, 10- provides access for many types of users, clarifies the user system and enhances the 12% for 10 feet maxi- trail as a regional amenity. mum  Sight Distance: Only Some of the concurrent activities related to this trail include: critical at crossings and  Mount Rushmore National Memorial is looking to add approximately six intersections of uses miles of backcountry trail with the Mount Rushmore National Memorial  Trailhead accommo-

back-country trail system. dations: Restrooms, Park-  The Black Hills is being considered for designation as a ―Ride Center‖ by ing, Orientation, Picnic the International Mountain Bicycling Association. Area, Resting Areas,

 The US Forest Service is preparing a motorized use plan for the Black Hills 2008 © Overlooks, Campsites, Water, Information National Forest. Photo: Horseback Riders in the Black Hills  The US Forest Service is considering alternatives for improvement of wild- Board, Signs life and bird habitat thru vegetation treatments in the Norbeck Wildlife Pre-  Optimum excursion length (half day use): ¼ to 5 miles serve via the Nortbeck Wildlife Project.  Optimum excursion length (full day use): 5 to 15 miles  Rapid City, Spearfish and Hot Springs are all pursuing connections to the  Parking Requirements: 1 per 4 users (estimated) Mickelson Trail.  Trail Surface: Natural, Paved, Boardwalk, Aggregate  Custer has completed a 3.2 mile connector to Stockade Lake in conjunction  Compatible Uses: Snowshoeing, ski touring, snowmobiling, horse- with multiple agencies within South Dakota. back riding, accessible trails, bicycling (some may require modified  This list is incomplete and does not attempt to list every active trail related design standards) project in the region. Bicyclists: Photo: Examples of signs that could be used to designate trails that fully comply with  Trail Width: 24-48‖ one way, 48-72‖ two way (touring bicycles require the accessibility guidelines. Source: National Center on Accessibility http:// more) www.ncaonline.org

21  Horizontal Clearance: 6-8’ (touring bicycles require more) (downhill and funding from, or operate under a permit from, Federal agencies. curves require additional clearance)  The USDA implementation guideline for Section 504 is 7 CFR 15 and  Vertical Clearance: 8-10’ (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/7cfr15e_03.html) applies to  Speed: 5-15 miles per hour programs conducted by the Forest Service. Parts (http://  Turning Radius: 48‖ minimum, 8’ or more preferred www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/7cfr15b_03.html) applies to pro-  Percent Grade: 0-3% preferred, 5-10% for sustained pulls, 15% for 150 feet grams operating with Federal agency funding, under special use permits, or maximum under other agreements with the agency. If a building or structure must be  Sight Distance: 50’ minimum, 100’ preferred. entered for someone to participate in the activity at the site, the building  Trailhead accommodations: Restrooms, Parking, Orientation, Picnic Area, must be accessible. Resting Areas, Overlooks, Water, Information Boards, Signs  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (http://www.access-board.gov/  Optimum excursion length (half day use): 5-10 miles about/laws/ADA.htm) became law in 1990 and generally doesn't apply to Federal agencies' facilities and programs. However, it does reaffirm Wilder-  Optimum excursion length (full day use): 10-45 miles Table 1. Trail Grade descriptions. ness Act and clarifies that agencies aren't required to change the character of  Parking Requirements: 1 per 2 users (estimated) wilderness areas to provide accessibility. Outdoor trail facilities should be Percent Grade Description  Trail Surface: Natural, Paved, Aggregate accessible to the full range of potential users to ensure that people with disa- 0 to 2 Nearly level  Compatible Uses: Snowshoeing, ski touring, horseback riding, accessible bilities will have access to the same recreational experiences available to 3 to 6 Gently sloping trails, bicycling (some may require modified design standards) those without disabilities. 7 to 12 Moderately sloping 13 to 18 Moderately steep Horseback Riders: The Shared Values expressed by the cooperating agencies regarding this trail con- 19 to 25 Steep firms their dedication to investigating an ―appropriately accessible‖ trail. 26 and greater Very steep  Trail Width: 24-48‖ one way, 60-72‖ two way  Horizontal Clearance: 8-12’ typical What does this mean for this trail? Several things, namely: Source: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/natural resources/DD6371.html  Vertical Clearance: 10-12’ 1. A person whose disability requires use of a wheelchair or assistive de-  Speed: 1-3 miles per hour vice shall be able to utilize this trail. (Wheel chairs are NOT motor ve- hicles!)  Turning Radius: Not critical, maintenance concerns to limit short cuts 2. Since this trail travels primarily coincide with aesthetic concerns for natural shape and harmony, straight within National Forest System bounda- sections no longer than 100 feet are preferred. ries the Forest Service Trail Accessibil-  Percent Grade: 0-10% preferred, 10% sustained, 20% for 150 feet maxi- ity Guidelines (FSTAG) will apply to mum this trail. This document’s guidelines  Sight Distance: 50’ minimum, 100’ preferred. Warn riders 100-200 feet are summarized here: prior to motorized crossings a. Trail Grade. No more than 30% of the total trail length may exceed a trail  Trailhead accommodations: Restrooms, Orientation, Parking area with grade of 1:12 (8.33%). space for trailers, hitching post or tether line, campsite with corral, water b. Trail grade of up to 1:20 (5%) is  Optimum excursion length (half day use): ¼ to 5 miles permitted for any distance.  Optimum excursion length (full day use): 5 to 15 miles c. Trail grade of up to 1:12 (8.33%) is  Parking Requirements: 1 per 2-3 users (estimated), trailer parking permitted for up to 200 feet (61 m).  Trail Surface: Natural, Paved, Boardwalk, Aggregate Resting intervals shall be provided at  Compatible Uses: Snowshoeing, ski touring, snowmobiling, accessible distances no greater than 200 feet (61 m) trails, bicycling (all are limited if heavily used by horses)(some may re- apart. quire modified design standards) d. Trail grade of up to 1:10 (10%) is permitted for up to 30 feet(9150 mm). Other Users Resting intervals shall be provided at  Birders, Skiers, Wildlife enthusiasts, Photographers, etc. distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm) apart. Accessibility Photo: Bicycle event on Highway 244 e. Trail grade of up to 1:8 (12.5%) is permitted for up to 10 feet(3050 mm). Outdoor recreation trails generally fall under one of several accessibility guidelines: Resting intervals complying with section  The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) (http://www.access-board.gov/about/ 7.3.2 shall be provided at distances no greater than 10 feet laws/ABA.htm) mandates that all facilities built, purchased, rented, altered, (3050 mm) apart. or leased by, for, or on behalf of a Federal agency must be accessible. f. At drain dips, a trail grade of 1:7 (14%) is permitted for up to 5  The Rehabilitation Act became law, Section 504 (http://www.access- feet(1525 mm) where the cross slope does not exceed 1:20 board.gov/enforcement/Rehab-Act-text/title5.htm) applies to programs and (5%). activities that are conducted by Federal agencies and by entities that receive g. Cross Slope. The cross slope shall not exceed 1:20 (5%).

22 h. At drain dips, a cross slope of up to 1:10 (10%) is permitted at Local managers have the discretion to decide whether to post the bottom of the dip where the clear tread width is at least 42 signs on newly constructed or altered trails that fall into Trail inches (1065 mm). Class 1, 2, or 3. i. Resting Intervals. Where the trail grade exceeds 5%, resting *Exemptions within the FSTAG are not noted here. intervals hall be provided. Resting intervals shall be at least 60 3. Because of the rugged nature of the central Black Hills the accessibility inches (1525 mm) long, shall be at least as wide as the widest requirements may drive up the trail length, and therefore the overall portion of the trail segment leading to the resting intervals, and impact. shall have a slope not exceeding 1:20 (5%) in any direction. 4. The proposed trail has often been compared to the Mickelson Trail in j. Surface. The trail tread surface shall be both firm and stable. terms of accessibility. It is useful to know that where the Mickelson k. Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of the trail shall be at Trail follows the original Burlington route it does not exceed 4%. Some least36 inches (915 mm). of the connectors, with consideration for their particular planning con- l. Passing Spaces. Where the clear tread width of the trail is less straints, may exceed 10% or more for limited sections. than 60inches (1525 mm), passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of no more than m. 1000 feet (300 m). Passing spaces shall be at least 60 by 60 User Groups inches (1525 mm), or an intersection of two walking surfaces that provide a T-shaped space This trail is being conceived as a destination experience that invites families, special n. complying with 304.3.2 of the Architectural Barriers Act Ac- user groups and the individual to come enjoy the trail. Many groups that participated cessibility Standards (ABAAS), provided that the arms and in the stakeholder meetings, public meetings and separate conversations indicated that stem of the T-shaped space extend at least they would be interested in using this trail for events. Some of the potential events o. 48 inches (1220 mm) beyond the intersection. The cross slope include: of passing spaces shall not exceed 5% in any direction.  Family Events: 2-12 users could travel on foot or bicycle, mixed groups. p. Tread Obstacles. Where tread obstacles exist, they shall not exceed a height of 2 inches (50 mm). q. Protruding Objects. Protruding objects on trails shall comply  with 307 of the ABAAS and shall have at least 80 inches (2030  Horseback Events: 2-30 users, single file. mm) of headroom. s. Openings. Openings in trail tread surfaces shall be small  enough to prevent passage of a 1/2-inch (13 mm)-diameter  Tours sphere. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direc-  Individual visits (partial and full day rides) tion of travel.  Horse Camping t. Edge Protection. Where edge protection is provided along a  Volksmarcher Events: Groups of up to 200-300 people can attend fully ca- trail, the edge protection shall have a height of at least 3 inches tered and organized events or smaller local events. (75 mm). u. Signs. If materials need to be obtained from or manipulated on  a sign or kiosk, the sign or kiosk shall be designed to meet the  The American Volkssport Association rates trails so their members reach ranges in 308 of the understand the difficulty of the trek they are considering: http:// v. ABAAS. www.ava.org/What%20We%20Are%20About/vmfaq.htm w. Signs shall be posted at the trailhead of new or altered trails and trail segments that fall into Trail Class 4 or 5, as well as at  An easy walk on pavement or well-maintained trail with the trailhead of trails that have been evaluated for accessibility. no significant hills. Probably suitable for wheelchairs and At a minimum, in addition to the standard information includ- strollers. ing the name and length of the trail, these signs shall include  A moderately easy walk, may be on pavement or on trails. the typical and maximum trail grade, typical and maximum No significant difficulty with hills. May not be suitable for cross slope, typical and minimum tread width, surface type and wheelchairs and strollers. firmness, and obstacles. These signs also should state that the  A moderate walk in any setting with some difficult terrain, posted information reflects the condition of the trail when it one or two substantial hills and/or steps. Strollers and was constructed or assessed and should include the date of the wheelchairs questionable. construction or assessment A more difficult walk. Most likely in a natural setting with x. Where more extensive trail information is provided (e.g., an  aerial map of the trail and related facilities), the location of poorly maintained paths and steeper or hilly inclines. Not specific trail features and obstacles that do likely to be wheelchair or stroller accessible. Participants with certain health problems should take caution. y. not comply with the FSTAG’s technical provisions should be identified and a profile of the trail grade should be included.  A very difficult walk. All in rough fields or woods. Many steep hills or high altitude trails, or very rough uneven 23 terrain, steep or unstable inclines. Not suitable for any After Tunkasila, Grandfather, the First Grandfather, the Creator made the world, he person who is not in good health made the animals. In order to purify, or make sacred the hills, they had a race around  Pedestrian Events: 1-100+ the Black Hills and with their blood sanctified it. The Race Track is the geographical area around the hills that today geologist used the term to identify the immediate area circling the hills.   Organized nature walks In one of the Lakota creation stories, the Race actually took place when in the Third  Sierra Club, Norbeck Society, Audubon Society and others World the world was still in the process of creation. The First World was the Spirit all organize day walks for their members World and this was before the time the world was not created. After the universe and  Running races the world were created, the spirits came to this world which is the Second World. It is  Hunting access to the Black Hills National Forest the world the Lakota referred to as Wahuteken Oyate live: Root Nation People.  Bicycle Events: Groups from 2-250, mixed groups In the Wahu Topa oyate (Four Legged people), all the legged nation lived. Today it is referred to as Wahu Nupa oyate (Two Legged Nations) world.   Races  Bike Tour Levels - all inclusive luxury tours to self guided tours.  Easy - specifically designed for entry level and very re- laxed riding to allow the user to gain experience and confidence for on-road touring. Requires a minimum baseline of fitness, exercising once a week prior to the tour with preferably one 20 mile trip under the belt.  Moderate - expectation that of prior touring experience in moderately hilly terrain of gradual inclines of less than 5%. Avoidance of long steep inclines are easily done by riding in the van. Requires an average level of fitness, exercising two-three times a week prior to the tour and a half dozen 25-35 mile rides, preferably hilly terrain, prior to the tour.  Challenging - designed for the more experienced rider who wishes a good workout including sustained inclines of over 5% grade. Requires a good level of fitness exercising three-five times per week prior to the tour and comfortable with 40 - 60 mile days in hilly terrain.  Extreme - For those who like steep terrain and long distances over 60 miles a day. Requires a very high level of fitness.  http://dakotabiketours.com/ Lakota Cultural Considerations Photo: The Black Hills Racetrack by Birgil Kills Straight The Race not only helped made the Black Hills sacred it also determines, by cove- It is difficult to write on just one area of the Black Hills such as the trail and the im- nant, who will have the superior knowledge of the world and living things who are all mediate area. I will write from the perspective of a Lakota (Commonly known as the the Tukasila’s creation. At a time and place chosen, all the creatures of the world Sioux) since this is the only source of information that I am familiar with. gathered and the one who wins the race will, of course, have the other creatures do his/her bidding. The race began and the four legged nations were leading and the two Black Hills: Paha Sapa, He Sapa, or Cante Wamakognakaare the three names that the legged people were left in the dust so a bird, a crow to be exact, was not satisfied, he Lakota use when speaking of the Black Hills. Many stories are told about the Black jumped and flew a distance and got on the back of the buffalo where he stayed until Hills especially when it is referred to as the sanctuary and how sacred it is to all in- the buffalo was ready to cross the finish line he jumped off the buffalo’s back and digenous nations who live near the place. Stories of the Lakota creation were told in flew a short distance to the finish line. He landed and walked over the finish line first, different ways. This is the place of the giant people and animals who live there or the two legged won! near the area. Little people have their stories too.

24 The story of evolution of man began when the Black Hills were created. Inside the change and the next 1 000 years only mountains will remain. Perhaps we will see the Black Hills, the story is that pte, Tatanka, lived there. At some point in time, the Ta- pulse of Cante Wamakognake as our ancestors had seen and we can learn our history tanka (bison, buffalo) left their dwelling in the cave and came to the surface of the as it continues to unfold. world. They were little buffalo at the time but they grew, over time, to where they are now and became known as Monarch of the Plains. Wildlife and Plant Information, Characteristics, and

Why the Black Hills are sacred to the Lakota is because of the above stories. Every Concerns cubic inch within the race track is sacred. The Black Hills provide important habitats for a variety of wildlife exemplifying an Hinhan Kaga, owl makes, peak is considered as the center of the universe. Today, it is assemblage composed of species presently thought of as Rocky Mountain while also known as Harney Peak. There was a great flood and the Lakota and brothers, the ani- joined by species of the Great Plains and more easterly locales. With even the pres- mals, South refuge on Hinhan Kaga. It is known as the Center of the Universe be- ence of boreal plant species such as white spruce, the diversity of plants and animals cause of the longest day of the year (June 21), it is said that is sits right in the middle in the area is high and provides a fantastic opportunity for public education. of the known universe. For this reason, prayers are usually said on top of the Peak on that date. Vision Quests were held on Hinhan Kaga on that date because this is when In reviewing each segment of the proposed trail, wildlife and sensitive plant concerns the First Grandfather, the Creator, is easier to reach. have been enumerated, options for wildlife and plant interpretation, as well as habitat- based perspectives for each (see segment evaluation forms). Trail segments travel If is possible, we should consider using/visiting a cave along the route of the trail to through mature ponderosa pine stands that are in various states of management. depict that we came from under the surface of the earth. If we could use a bridge Some stands show a movement toward high stand density and closed canopy whereas symbolizing the path one takes from this Earth into the Spirit World (or heaven). A others remain (or have been opened through management) in more historically repre- tunnel would be good as well. If we could devote a place along the route to tell the sentative open stands. Moreover, a distinct deciduous component is often present along the trail segments, composed of quaking aspen and/or paper birch. Many of the copses of aspens are suffering from conifer encroachment and/or are approaching senescence, thereby providing excellent ecological education opportunities on the importance of fire to their persistence, coupled with descriptions of their ecological values to mammals, birds, and even mollusks.

Opportunities for interpretation along various segments of the trail are great ranging from the interpretation of Osprey nesting behavior and this species’ from very low numbers, to the interpretation of the role of fire in maintaining diverse forest stands and in the retention of quaking aspen copses. Moreover, due to historical wildlife and plant surveys in the area, we have the opportunities for adjusting segment choice to least impact extant sensitive wildlife (i.e., actively breeding Northern Goshawks) while simultaneously taking the opportunities for very valuable educational interpretation of these same features.

Hence, as opportunities for environmental education are great, so too are some of the concerns specifically related to wildlife. It is generally agreed upon that the wildlife most sensitive to human disturbance, and therefore, potentially the construction and use of the trail, are Northern Goshawks and Mountain Goats. Northern Goshawks are often quite sensitive to disturbance near (within 800 m) their nests during the breed-

2008 © M. 2008Fridell © ing season (approximately, 1 March-31 July), hence, up to date surveys and analyses M. 2008Fridell © for this species would be required during a NEPA process. Mountain Goats, especial- Photo: Norbeck Wildlife Preserve contains many opportunities for interpretation Photo: Highway 244 in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve ly in kidding areas, are also sensitive to the presence and approach of humans, and history of the first people who were here before the onslaught from the east, the Euro undoubtedly analyses of the impact of the trail segments need be done in consultation Americans. with SDGFP personnel.

I believe if we take time to research and study history of other indigenous nations as More obscure opportunities for education also exist. For instance, rare mollusks in- well as history of Europe and the origin stories, we may find similarities amongst all habit the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and adjacent areas and, together with rare and people and race. The people in the Black Hills may tell us more stories of the area the unique plants such as Pale Coral-root and Northern Comfrey, provide good interpre- proposed route would take. I am referring to the people who once lived here and tation opportunities. those who currently do in a spiritual way. It is important to note that the vast majority, if not all, of the ecological educational If we could study the cosmos, the stars and other celestial beings, we can tell a great opportunities that may be provided along trail segments cannot be delivered well to story to the public. 2012 will mark a time in history when our life ways will begin to the vehicle-bound public. Only through walking, bicycling, or horseback riding through the extensive stands of ponderosa pines, over small streams, and skirting as- 25 pen copses can the importance and true value of the Central Black Hills be communi-  Lay Gently on the land: Take advantage of natural and existing features to cated. find our alignments.  Photo Moments: Find stunning viewpoints and take advantage of them as Trail Character interim destination anchors.  Think Big and Bold. The Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway is a fine line drawn through the study area, winding through ―some of the most scenic country in America, characterized by massive granite outcroppings, rough terrain, vegetative variety, and visual diversity. The Needles Trail Feasibility Highway consists of 14 miles of hairpin curves and narrow tunnels, where granite spires and pinnacles of greatly varying shapes and sizes can be seen. The Iron Moun- Based upon the information from all the public, cooperating agencies and the sources tain Road, 17 miles, features the nationally famous "Pigtail" bridges and equally fa- listed above in this section, the following criteria for determining feasibility is noted: mous narrow tunnels that were made to frame Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Physical Characteristics relate to the soil and slope of the trail. From the Norbeck Memorial Overlook, there are spectacular views of the Black Elk 1. Overall profile slope Wilderness, Grizzly Creek drainage of Norbeck, and Harney Peak.‖ 2. Overall aspect http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_national_forest/sd/drv_bla2.htm 3. Sustainable soil substrate 4. Prevailing cross slope The Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway provides a context and precedent for this trail in its meandering character. It seems to say that we should not drive a straight line through this beautiful scenery; we should slow down and look. This provides a pattern lan- Administrative Characteristics tell us the who of the trail guage for the proposed trail that can be summarized through some of the following 1. Proposed trail flexibility character traits: 2. Proposed major user groups 3. Proposed trail management entity 4. Regulatory agency 5. Recreation accessibility potential 6. Management area designation

Sustainable Management criteria indicate whether the trail is conforming to the desired 1. Meets trail’s established purpose? ? 2. Originates at appropriate location? 3. Destination at appropriate location? 4. Allows appropriate uses? 5. Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? 6. Appropriate corridor control points? 7. Interpretive opportunities? 8. Natural resources? 9. Cultural resources?

© Sustainable Design criteria tell us how the land will bear the new trail Photo: Pigtail Highway 1. Human perception: natural shape 2. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors  Meandering alignment: The trail should follow the contour of the land, ris- 3. Human perception: destination anchors ing and falling steadily toward deliberate vantage points where the scenery 4. Human feeling: safety can be enjoyed at the end of a climb, or the end of a long run. 5. Human feeling: efficiency  ―Pigtail‖ Bridges: Climb a steep gradient on a circular route. 6. Human feeling: playfulness  Tunnels: Cut through obstacles with a dramatic feature sensitively placed to 7. Human feeling: harmony take advantage of distant views. 8. Physical forces: previously impacted site 9. Physical forces: known sensitivity  Hug the Rocks: Allow the trail to get up close to some of the impressive 10. Physical forces: constructability features of the area. 11. Trail obstacles: water crossings  Follow the Valley: Slowly descend with a creek. 12. Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs

A ―no‖ answer to whether any portion of the trail is feasible is not provided given that all these answers lie on a spectrum of easy to more difficult. Some portions of the proposed routes will be less feasible because of the many issues facing their alignment, but still feasible given the proper care and attention to the details and mitigating factors that will make them ―more‖ feasible.

27 Trail Types

The following ―Typical Trail Sections‖ have been prepared to provide the reader with a sense of what the trail may look like and what the potential trail construction methods may be. These are preliminary examples of standard construction types and are not meant to represent the full range of necessary trail types.

The existing Mickelson Trail contains nearly the full range of the types. However, the proposed trail is a significantly different type of construction. There is both existing road beds and existing trails to expand to this use, but there is not a level grade prepared similar to the railroad bed the Mickelson follows.

I. Typical Bridge Cross Section

Description: This section represents the trail crossing

Photo: Mickelson Trail Trestle. 28 II. Elevated Boardwalk at Steep Cross Slope III. Typical Trail at Gentle Cross Slope IV. Typical Trail at Steep Cross Slope

Description: This section represents the trail adjacent to a roadway where the grade Description: This section represents the trail traversing a gentle cross slope such as Description: This section represents the trail traversing a steep cross slope such as drops away from the road rapidly such as near the profile view at Mount Rush- Segment 24 does when it crosses the open grasslands North of Highway 244 Segment 4 does as it climbs the western slope above the USFS helipad more V. Typical Trail along Existing Roadway VI. Typical Trail along Existing Roadway VII. Elevated Boardwalk at Wet Habitat with 8’ Buffer

Description: This section represents the trail following a highway with a minimum Description: This section represents the trail immediately adjacent to a highway with Description: This section represents the trail crossing sensitive botanic or biological separation to increase the feeling of safety. bike lane markings or textural separation. areas of low wet meadows.

30 VIII. Typical Trail with Retaining Structures IX. Typical Trail on Existing Grade X. Typical Trail with Equestrian Trail

Description: This section represents the trail following a road with an outside wall Description: This section represents the trail built directly on existing grade with Description: This section represents the trail in any circumstance that necessitates built to stabilize the trail as the grade drops away. drainage flowing away in both directions. horse traffic follow an adjacent path, separated by several feet of distance or elevation to minimize conflicts between user types. Site Evaluation

2009 © Google2009 ©

Long Valley Views to Central Core 33 Site Evaluation

The following maps have been developed to assist in analyzing the study area. They are based in a large part on GIS data provided by the US Forest Service and data provided by the cooperating agencies. Maps 1. Regional Map a. This image provides an overall sense of the region. 2. Land Ownership a. This map describes ownership and the management authority in the area. There are several owners and land management agencies: i. Numerous private land owners are in the area. Landowners who may have significant impact on this trail are the Black Hills Central Railroad (1880 Train) and the Mount Rushmore KOA. All other landowners are expected to have concern about this study, but not have their property directly affected.

3. Road Map a. This map provides an overview of both the significant roads in the study area and the various other roads, tracks, and trails both in use or decommissioned. b. The Peter Norbeck National Scenic Byway is a 70 mile loop circumnavigating the central core of the black hills. Comprised of U.S. Highway 16A, and State Highways 87, 89 and 244 this loop was partially laid out or selected by Peter Norbeck himself. Some of the original alignments coincide with some of proposed alignments of this study. Portions of the Byway have steep grades, sharp curves, tunnels and bridges and are an inspiration for the character of this trail.

4. Topography a. This is a contour map of the area based on 40’ contours.

5. Watersheds, Surface drainage hydrology, Bodies of water a. This map indicates the overland watersheds for the study area. Arrows indicate the downhill flow of the sub watersheds.

6. Soils a. This map is a overview of the various soil types in the study area. The area contains both rock outcrops and various loam soils.

7. Trail Map a. This map provides an overview of the existing trail network in the area.

Most trails take advantage of the more remote Norbeck Wildlife Preserve South of Highway 244 and the back country of the Black Elk Wilderness. Significant existing trails are: i. Centennial Trail #89: A 111 mile trail crossing the hills from Wind Cave National Park to Bear Butte State Park. Typically easy to moderate hiking this trail allows mountain bikes (not in the 2008 © M. 2008Fridell © Black Elk Wilderness) and Horses. Battle Creek Valley from above Elkhorn Spring ii. Lost Cabin #2: Connecting the Willow Creek Horse Camp to Harney Peak this route provides a rugged Western climb up to Harney Peak.

34 iii. Harney Peak #9: This climb takes you from Sylvan Lake in vi. State of South Dakota Department of Transportation is the Custer State Park over Harney Peak to connect with the Willow management authority for highway right of ways in the study Creek Rushmore #5 route in Norbeck Wildlife Preserve area. iv. Horsethief Lake #14: This back country route connects Camp Remington to Horsethief Lake through the most remote 14. Recreation Opportunities portions of the Black Elk Wilderness. a. This map locates existing recreation sites, rock climbing areas, v. Blackberry Trail: Connects Phlaum Flats at Mount Rushmore campgrounds and trailheads.

down the slope to the Centennial Trail #89. This trail is severely degraded. Other Review Soil Texture Identification vi. KOA horseback loop: This is a small loop that runs from underneath highway 244 (where it connects to the Willow Creek 1. Biological Review  Sand: Loose and gritty. Will not form a ball. Horse Camp and the Lost Cabin Trail) and around a recently a. This chart identifies biological considerations as follows: constructed loop in the Black Hills National Forest to the East of i. SD Sensitive Animal Species (SDNHP) Trail location occurs the campground. within Element Occurrence precision  Loam: Smooth (flour-like), but slightly gritty. Forms b. Items to note are: ii. Rare Plants (SDNHP) Trail location occurs within Element a ball, but ribbon usually breaks easily. i. There are no trail connections to the George S. Mickelson Trail in Occurrence precision this area. iii. USFS Sensitive Animals w/in 800 m  Silt: Smooth like flour, no grittiness. Forms ribbon ii.There is no horseback connection to the Mickelson Trail from iv. USFS Sensitive Plants w/in 100m Federally Threatened, that breaks under its own weight. Willow Creek Horse Camp. Endangered, and Candidate Species w/in 800 m v. SD Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species w/in 800 8. Primary Viewsheds m  Clay: Smooth and sticky when wet. Forms ribbon that a. This map identifies significant features and views in the area. vi. Ecological Interpretive Opportunities Natural Resource is long and pliable. Concerns 9. Vegetation vii. Physical Forces: known sensitivity a. This map identifies areas of significant opportunity and concern for the viii. Predominant Vegetation Type w/in 400 m (USFS)  Organic: (peat, muck) High amount of decomposed trail including vegetative cover, microclimates, riparian areas, ix. Secondary Vegetation Type w/in 400 m (USFS) material and water. Black to brown color. Wetlands, Wetlands, Wildlife habitats x. Wetlands (NWI): n, area (acres), types low areas. b. Sensitive species, invasive species, and more.

10. Wildlife and Plant Species of Concern a. This map indicates general locations of wildlife and plant species of concern.

11. Cultural Significance a. This map identifies areas of particular interest for cultural reasons.

13. Management Areas a. This map describes ownership and the management authority in the area. There are several owners: i. US Forest Service is the management authority for the Black Hills National Forest, the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and The Black Elk Wilderness. ii. National Park Service is the Management authority for the Mount Rushmore National Memorial iii. State of South Dakota through the Department of Game, Fish and Parks is the management authority for Custer State Park, the George S. Mickelson Trail and some smaller parcels in the study area. BN owns the railroad easement now used for the Mickelson Trail. iv. City of Keystone is the management authority for the city of Keystone. v. City of Hill City is the management authority for the City of Hill City

35 Regional Map BEU£ ~EWELL •FOURCH E

.:111T£WOOO @ _.<;TURGIS EI\DWOOI.l'"'

OORCROFT

14 BOX ElDER'--....- . - \lJ- ~ -NEW PID CllY UNDERWOOD 14

Area NEWCASTI.E ' '""'·c':'£study • I •KEYSTONE

~AIRBURN •

0 , ...., 12 ... 1 - '\uFFALO GAP

~OTSPRINGS '()Rl11

~DGEMONT L------~------...!__ ___..!!.______i ______....._ _ ___J " " 'tloloti>ll l-'f ~ Wyss ~ Associales, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail l oit'lll\( oljJit Ar< hih..: IWl' (~nl f ( uur~o~• A tthilt:.1 1U«' • P.ub & f«U~:',flf(>n Dt.·~l!-111 "' 1«111 Slt.W. !toll'- Ch 14 s.o..... C BLACK H IL LS. SOUT I~ DAKOTA -.;.! lnto4w",.M.. OC IOtH, _ 37 Land Ownership Black Elk Wilderness IJSFS

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve t:":'"""'-J L'SFS Custer State Park L ---:1 SDCf«P Mount Rushmore National Memorial L_ ~.... Private Land ~;, ~$ Black Hills National ------Forest Service ------1 L'SI'S

BLACK [LIG WILOlRNESS :/'-

BlACK aK WIU)ioRI\'f.GS .J NORBECK W1WUFE pR£S[RVF PoWo a..AA

C\JS1'I!R STAT!; I'ARK

~ Wyss ~ Assoc i ates, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail l ,\llll)l(',lflit A«'htttflue t". G()!( 0)111St' At< hilt:e'lure • P.llkS & Rec1e:.lil)n l>esign 7?1 W.ll• $1••_, ~"IIIII CIIJto Saoull> fl1li

-----l'ctCf Nocbbcock Sccnk O)~'ilY

------CFP Roads and Trails (Obtained from cartogr

Rt)Ut ("$ ( .. l nv~· or will be ~om.m itlt~itmed)

Syst~m Roads (RoutK linked to FotestServke Database)

------Other ln.fr.t!ltrueture Road!! (May or may f'IQt 00 driv.1bk}

Creeks and ScrW~ms

Watnbody l:xi:sti:rlsTninTratb

--1 • - .....

IINOitn•

{ l'!f1),l~by: ,...,.,_,.., :!Ill!! Wyss .V. Associates, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt."' Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail lii!UI ~OJpe AKhltOCI\1((1 • Coli Course A~ehi1ectore • Parks & ReCNation Design 118 S•'" li!r- IIIII> "

I. IA BLACK ELK IVILDERN£56 • 2.2 UPPER I'INECREEK RESEARCH NATURAL AREA 3.7 LATESUCCES610!\IALFOREST!AI\'DSCAPES

4.1 UMITI'D MOTORIZED USE A.l\;'0 FORJ:Sl' PRQ{){;CTS

4.28 PE'TER :-

5.4 BIG GAME WINTER RA.'>GE BIPHASJS • 8.2 DEVEI.OI'EO RECREA1101\' C0MPI£XES = KEYSTONE -= IIlLI. CITY - GAM£. PISII & PARKS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

/ ' 40' Interval Contouts

Watetbody ----· E.xi:sting: Train Tracks -- 0 - ':'"* .....

I M>O!IH I ) (

\ " Wyss Associates, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I •'"

45 Trail Map • ~ ~ \

- - ··-··-··-·· --·-· -

• • I I ~ 1..... /} ~ 'l£\ ~ ~l~~····- ...""! --, .A. Qunpgrl'lund : !. )f '\H ll NT KLtl OK. • • NAI Oi'.:·\l ~ fJ i r:.ilhead .. •••:RlAI r-j r ..., Sys1em Roads .·· ... ' ., l . I ,t (Rout~-. linked to ~oO~t $c!rvioe Oatab.l~~e) .:;-- .·;i ~:i:l i'.~;!.• '"~ l ' s • .. ,_. ~ ·· ' .:: \,_OSl ~b•• SpU • .,·i: 0'1!\'l.. • .. - ...... J;!") ~l .. •• • ...... , • • •• :: :.~ • tit.,....- •••• --=~· - . CQt( Cour,;c> Arc·hi:tt,c'lure . Patk~ & R«• ~t i()n IN.!>iSn ''' ,.,,. , .,• ., ""'"" cu,. South n..~o ~n01 •3610 &05.~ r .... 606.3

Spring Creek Watershed

Spring Creek

Palterson Creek -

Palmer Creek -

B.~llle Creek Watershed

lronCreek -

French Creek Watershed

Watmhed

Sub Watershed

Direction of Row

,.. Waterbody --....___ Exi>

Wyss Assoc iates, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail t.l•'ldic:ll(IC M hlteclure • Cof( Coune Atchltecture ·Parks & Recrea1ion Design 'f~D Sll\111 SlfMt lfopliJ en,. $0.111• OO\Oto :-??01-.)6:10 ~)..Jt«-22G6 FoJo: GGlU41:1.G:K>G B L ACK H I L LS. SOUTH DA KOTA ...... I!!IOh)"W'IIIliOCil>llt.OOtl'l 49 Soils Unit Name Bilmum·WI.netO con!~)~ u 0 to a. slopes llrl!l flullfl~ sllt loam, l to8slopes lh& lu!III.M.<4roleston sflt loatm... 2 to 9% stop~ lit[ IU\b Moclnon't~~k outtrpH ¥ Otmar-Gtumrit·SikbpoUcomplh.OtoG~ GtO (iNmlnit lad c.~taap c:ompfew.. 6 to 1511'. Wpd Glf Gtumrit locto.;~taapCCIItf'lllle._litotiC&slopes GrtO ~- ~ -.Rocto.ncropo:;lf'llllln, 6toi.Wstopu G,O ~-~~,crop~~9to~ tttE Htf'ly d'l~ ktaofl\ 'to xa slopes HfC Hftiy.C«dtstOM COI'fll)lt.x,. 6l0 ~ Sf«(ls RfE Rekop-GvPnevee-Roci:outc:ropcomplex,.JSto ~ stoPG1 RaG Ao(f(Oiltc:rop·Buoskacomplex,. •tOto SO"Kslope-s RhO RoctOuti Likota complex, 3 to ll'*slopes Rtf R~·LilkOii·Roci:outcropcomplex.,lOto 40M. slope-s Rs:f Rod:~·Rockoutet09 complex, 2Sto 611.!6 sf opes RtO Ro6.orSKan.tacoml)lex, 6to lOX. Slopes Sfl 5atanta IOatn., 1 10 6" Sl~es Vd Va~r-Ci tadd oomplex, 10 to «1% slopes VU: Yanocker-lakcN;a~mplell:., 10 to 40% slopel Vlt( Y•l't0dctr·fi_.,$01UI'Jf'IC ~··· 2to $ dopn YoG Y.wxtr•r·~St ·Aocii

------&:iltlng Tni.nTradti 0 -

~ Wyss ~ Assoc i ates, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail 1,\ll!l)l(',lflit AfC'httoc tmco • (;()!( 0)111St' At< hilt:e'IUII! • P.llkS & Recil~f il)n l>e~ign n 1 W.lh $1••_, lt<~plll CIIJto Saoull> fl1llc(u S770l•l61C &OS.l'-8..2268 f<>~< 60S.l48.fl!i06 BLACK H I L LS, SOU TH DAKOTA _., !r~lll.,..l"tMMotlot•-.c:o"' 51 Primary Viewsheds

From Old Hill City Road

2 From Hay Draw

3 From Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 4 From Highway 244

5 From Black Elk Wilderness

E) To Mount Rushmore from Highway 244

iJ From Mount Rushmore National Memorial

8 To Mount Rushmore from from Highway 244 9 To Mount Rushmore Profile from H ighway 244 ] Q From Highway 244

Jlll From Highway 244 ll2 From Old Hill City Road 13 From Highway 244 ,.-.. , . . ' F.xistingT"*il ---- ...... ~

Existing Train Tracb n..r;-i 1 U I 4.0l0•

n"""'IH

f clltu.vy, 2009 ~ Wyss .ar. Associates, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail 1o.n

PlANTS

'---.4' \\llDLII'E

rlJl_j o 2.ooo• 4,00011

nNORn-t

f'lq).Pit:'ti ~': ~ Wyss .W. Associates, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Trail Lltndseape Aochitt<:lu1e l a1\IJ Pllll'lning 728 SO!Ih S~ RapkiCI.)(. SOI#IO.,\:otol 51'70t..J7GO ~ Fax 6115.348.Mm B L ACK HI LLS. SOU TH DAKOTA cm~t ~~~wU«t;:rnu.oom

~larmc:J(5 fd!lc Cor«ro.•t'fl:ion, Con$111tr.g V~lc:!if¢ 8iolo!;i5t, 55 Cultural Significance

"The Black Hills are sacred to the Lakota people. Both the sacred pipe and the Black Hills go hand and hand in our religion. The Black Hills is our church, the place where we worship. The Black Hills is our burial grounds. The Bones of our grandfathers lie buried in those hills."

Joint statement of Chief Frank Fools Crow and Frank Kills Enemy on behalf of the Tra ditional Lakota Treaty Council before Hon orable Lloyd Meads Sub-Committee on In terior and Insular Affairs. (September 10, 1976)

' The entire Black Hills are sacred, not just one place, one burial site, one prayer site. There is a secred energy field around the Black Hills. How far does It extend? One elder said that it continues about SO miles around the Black Hills. How can people who believe that only man-made designa tions, such as a church or a cemetery are called sacred, understand a sacred space and landscape that extend for hundreds of miles? That is why De fenders of the Black Hills have as our motto: ' Re member, the Black Hills are sacred.' We ask only that respect be given for another peoples' under standing of spirituality. Maybe that respect will begin to generate more concrete actions that will contribute to the restoration of these sacred grounds.'

http://Www.sacred4ites.orgl prelefVItlon/endangered_bladc_hills.hlml Charmaine White Face -- 0 - .....

·~l!)o: ~ Wyss ~ Associates, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail Lnnd..,N pe A• chll ffi <~ re • C(Ji l Ox~ Archite<:lute • P:vl:s & RecreeliO•' Oesign 711 I *•"' $1•••1 ll~d Clly. So.J!h O~olo S??Ot•l610 60:-..l.ama f"ox 61Y.;.l&ll.li~06 BLACK H I LLS. SOUTH DAKOTA e111011 tl ....~ll1-if1ft.OGO'<'I 57 ,. . .~~ ...... , ... -- ~ ~ Recreation

•~··· .. ~ Rt'('fc-i'tionSitt-s •••••• • \ f5J Rock Oimbing Atea

Cn!eks and Screams

... Waterbody --.....__. Exls""S Tn"'Tr.ds -- ••• 0 - 'tm.At .... .__,...

••• \ :··~ ,-.. :- ... • ... ''•"!)ot~t•r I ~ Wyss ~ Assoc i ates, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail l..:tnd~'.lf:l6 Arctult'ltl Oar. Sou~to Ookoolo &1701 •311{1 &05.lo&8.2M r- ~3411.6~ BLACK HILLS, SO UTH 0 1\ KOT/\ -011 .,,..,,.._ockltM.com NO,.,_tn U oCP$fd f.fog, SmcOCTIGrfen~l:$, 8\lek HI-Rt<.IOOU)' Sn$.e. Hur1ht:ff'l Gushll... t. Goide•, Eat.J~. lonQ-IIIiled \'/elll$el, NOellteu Bllt,Ameriello ..,... Wlle~ion uf lh15 ~ci=s: Fr~I\W:flt!r emeJiOnl, l . $.1:!, PEMC: NONEIer\otlirc:n am!lell , NONE KNOWN I(lma INkhilt}l\al,l$(f( of fire n Potrtle!C!:ll Pk'le :~t~tnd!s. NOVN """'KNO

59 NO«E NJONE v~. Eoo0cwo! $ITI3't lllrctt 2 $mnoch Gnu:n S"NI:O, Bl.1ck H I" Rf!!lllCUf $N'tO. Pygmy NUitlllld\ Nnrltu;wn Flf.t'lg $qultt~l $"''011M $ei1QO, V/oolru5J'I <..., KNC;Y.'IJN KN(VA'N 5taoc1$ a lmc:Cti>~IU to lli'lls \'lr:IIAnc1s W'III!IIIIIIS Ft05hw;Mr ftmlllgtllll 1 0211, PEI.IS NcltthGm~khaunas, L.xk or life n PoMe•ose Pine thl•lll$. SCCY, NOfiE ..ONE Ou11kJI9 A~en Life.cyele and Nonllem GO$.I!IIY>« Ncilil.ng GtQen &'Ia~. .,.... KI Stu!U., 911ck H.l" Rf!dbclly SN\o, 'I OWI'I!;41fl!fs Blg.ca•ecl Blll SwoiiM Slw!90 KNOWN KNO'NN •ilh dllllltse wftllilc 111iW!ml!lall~ PFO """' ..,... t«lNE Sll'll:)()l.hGteen&'la!ot. 6** H llll Rtdbell)'~ S..'OII911 5edl)e Rtd-tl9j>e0' ~ """ KNOWN K"""'" Ovek"h;IA6pen EeofoOy PFQ PO,.. NO«E ..aNE Be;:a~ cotouy, Vhile Spruce- NotthQm Comlr~, M\'lll(hiWlo'N$$1 A~ B$11Y$1 COioo"!y KNC)'>'VN KN()IA~ III$.'01Y, IICOI(I9y, ;~nd~iWIC;.9 SN--.r~ I'IPO PIQI., P()TR ..oNE t«lNE NOt'!llllm OOtoflli>W; ~f.ltlg II.Nd\ll!i$~ NOrlhl!!'n Go!i'l8',.,k CAJN KNOWN KNO'A~ Nocll'*n Goe~k TtmliOfY NO!'II~III GU'llhl!v.fi.N!!Sif'O Tl!ffil«y PFO NO«E NONE Votf!e~610fy. ~ NONE tGit(~e. f>';'9'TrfNt~lh$W\ TQ¥o~'$131g.,.IOCI ..oNE ..oNE"""""" 0111. N0rttl@•n fi);,,IJ~fre1 s.....otl!!'n Sed~. Weclru~ .,.... KNOWN K~A'.\1 Po•~osa Pioe eeol09'f PFO ..oNE ..oNE NONE KNOV.N Wool"llllh KNOWN Kt«))NN P~C$11 Pine ecology PF<> • IAuGl., SCCY, PAAA. CA.lE. CA1.E NO«E ..aNE NONE KNOVoN U'Hdo-s-...., ~totlh'l$(1 H;r.'lk, Am$~nMOI~ CVVlO KNOWN KI«)WN IAOIII111h Got~l ~•ovi\Yin GOOII MO\IIl(OUI· Go.! NOfiE NONE """' Ft$$1\w01!$1$1'1'1$f901ll, 1 o .;H, PEMOI>; 33 NONE KNOV.N NOortroem comrfey KNOWN K"""'" IAOUtlllli'l Golll. 'A'e11¥1c:JS ..lou.va-nGoa~ t.IOUIUI~ Goal, \'/e!JII* Ft~Mhwaler 901'1<1. 1. 0 .25. PABGb ..oNE ..oNE """' FfMI\WalereMefQefll, 1.0.15. PEMCI>. )4 NONE KNOV\N l=l!chatdliOn's Scoljt, ShortiV.WI Aiow,~rar.s KNOWN KN()I\'N IAOU'llakl Goal, Wella~lll t.loontMn Go.wt ~lou.unGNI, Vle!l.:ll'ld5 Fre~~rponll, 2, 0 .29, PA9Gb NO«E ..oNE """' ~erd&Qn'$~$. Shotl.

RlellP'n l:cOiogy PFQ POTR SCCY, NOfiE ..aNE NOtlll$m l.liOI)OIIO frog S19$Cing Sll$, 'h'OCJY11$1l, ,Ait4o.'tlllb" S~HI'IwO!l No!Ntr'l l eOI)Qfd F£00 ,...,. KI«>NN K'-'0'<\" A~bi

60 61 Nodes, Segments, and Anchors

2009 © Google2009 ©

KOA 63 Potential Trail Routings

The area between our two destinations is a complex geography, with granite outcrops and low valleys. Highway 244 is a mid elevation route to Mount Rush- more, transversing the more rugged Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

This report uses some simple terminology to build a network of potential trail alignments that can be evaluated equally:  Anchor: An Ultimate or Major Trail Destination  Node: A minor destination, trailhead, intersection or feature along the trail route  Segment: A section of trail connecting two nodes, or a node and an anchor with definable characteristics used to analyze its eligibility and ap- propriateness for our uses  Route: Segments Connecting our Two Main Anchors – The George S. Mickelson Trail to Mount Rushmore National Memorial

Various routes have been identified, and each is subject to a further dissection based on the intended user, management concerns and a host of other variables. One issue is how we manage the route to minimize potential conflicts between its users: horseback riders, bicyclists & hikers. Do these groups share the same trail or do we plan our project to simply expand the existing network to allow each user group a connection between our anchors?

Horseback riders, bicyclists & hikers all have their own existing inroads into this setting and this trail project could be evaluated in several ways: 1. Each To Their Own: This method would leave the trail system intact, recommend improvements to certain segments and leave it to local interest groups to lobby for road route improvements. 2. Simple Connections: This method would connect, in the simplest ways possible, existing trails to the Mickelson Trail. Willow Creek Horsecamp would get a horse/hiker trail to the Mickelson. Bicyclists would get bike lanes through the Norbeck WP and a road crossing at Highway 16 to get them out to the Mickelson. 3. Destination Trail: Create a new trail that explores some of the back country, takes advantage of existing trails, but perhaps follows a highway where conditions warrant it. Allow all users as much as possible on every segment unless otherwise limited. Special Challenges and Opportunities

Several important issues need to be incorporated into this trail. These are encapsulat- ed in the following recommendations and discussions as they relate to management areas:

 All Areas: Simulated Image: Segment 25 looking South to Elkhorn Mountain.  Private property owners have and will continue to express concern for a trail that will introduce a whole new type of user to areas, that while may not be their property, certainly feel remote and private. Adjacent land owners’ concerns should continue to be heard addressed in greater 64 detail as the planning reaches a finer level of detail. ther for this project or concurrent to it.  Adjacent property owners should have similar opportunity to select bar-  Horses are restricted within the memorial. rier or screening fencing where the trail and private property is directly  The Blackberry Trail route currently brings horseback and foot traffic to affected by the viewshed of the other. the memorial is the only allowable route for horses within the memorial  Exotic species are easily introduced during construction of any new other than the highway and it is severely degraded. That trail needs to amenity to semi-pristine areas. Incorporating a long term invasive spe- be redeveloped and realigned on a sustainable route that will carry the cies monitoring program into the programmatic and interpretive pro- necessary traffic to the memorial in the future. gram (and fund raising) of the trail would both help minimize the poten-  The Mount Baldy area is a known Mountain Goat nursery. This trail tial for a problem and falls within the migration route between Mount Baldy and the rocky  Certain areas the trail may negotiate may already have exotic and inva- feeding grounds south of Highway 244. Consideration for the specific sive plant species established. Weed removal and monitoring could be concerns of this species should affect the final route, interpretation and incorporated into the trail mission and interpretation as a method of off- trail design in this area. setting other issues.  In the fall of 2008, the US Forest Service officially clarified that moun-  Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (US Forest Service Management Area 5.4A) tain biking is a non-motorized activity, and has included this description  Originally envisioned in 1905, the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve was des- in the Forest Service Handbook and Manual—a move that could pave ignated in 1920 by the Norbeck Organic Act. It was designated ―for the the way for mountain bikers to gain the same rights to some trails as protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breed- those enjoyed by hikers and equestrians. How this affects Wilderness ing place therefor.” This area is managed by the US Forest Service as Areas and other areas currently off limits to mountain bikers in the part of the Black Hills National Forest, but because of the nature of the Black Hills is not yet clear. This provides a distinction between bicy- wildlife preserve it requires a somewhat unique collaboration between cles and motorized uses, but does not grant complete access to lands the US Forest Service and the Department of Game, Fish and Parks. managed by the Forest Service for non-motorized uses. Those deci- Together they develop various guiding documents for this special area. sions occur at a local level and no changes are known in the study area Several helpful documents provide information about this area. but the Photo: Profile View of Mount Rushmore at this time. ruling document is the ―Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills.  Black Elk Wilderness Area  The management plan calls for this area to be ―managed to provide hab-  Wilderness areas currently prohibit bicycles, making the Black Elk Wil- itat for game animals and birds. Some human activities are allowed, derness inappropriate for the Connector Trail. consistent with wildlife needs. There are opportunities for this trail to  All parties that commented on this project indicated a deep respect for fit in with these overriding management criteria: the place and purpose of the Black Elk as well.  Currently, the US Forest Service is considering alternatives for im-  There is no compelling reason to explore any route within the Black Elk provement of wildlife and bird habitat in the Norbeck Wildlife Pre- Wilderness. serve thru vegetation treatments.  The Black Elk has a group size limitation of 25 heartbeats, including  The goal is to man- animals. age tree stands for wildlife habitat and diversity,  Mount Rushmore National Memorial: as the forest is rather ho-  Mount Rushmore is subject to heightened security during security alerts. mogenous. Constructing The secure area is generally on the North or ―inside‖ side of Highway this trail could coincide 244. This eliminates any back country route from consideration within with management activi- the memorial. ties that helps fulfill the  Lafferty Gulch was originally considered as a potential access to the goals and objectives set memorial, but because of the security concerns and issues with bringing in motion by the manage- a large amount of visitors to what is the ―back of house‖ for facilities ment activities. and function at Rushmore this segment was dropped from consideration.  For example, one  Highway 244 to Keystone is a 10% drop for a little less than two miles. objective is to restore or This makes the possibility of a primary route to Keystone a very low retain acres of deciduous priority. However, Keystone is a destination anchor for trail users. forest. Locating this trail Providing a safe route to Keystone is an important part of creating a along these areas could loop or secondary destination for this trail. Photo: Old Mount Rushmore Road provide a opportunity to  A significant Trailhead is required within the memorial to serve the in- provide careful and se- crease in bicycle visitors to the memorial. Bicycles are not allowed off lective interventions that demonstrate interesting and increasingly road within the park now and must park within the parking structures. important aspects of late succession forest management to the visi- Developing a multi user trailhead within the vicinity of the parking tor while providing the desired restoration. structures or entrance to the visitor center area should be a priority ei-  A theme reinforced by discussions at all levels is that North of

65 Highway 244 and West of the Palmer Gulch Road within the pre- on previously impacted linear features. However, segments occupying serve is seen as more appropriate locations for this trail. Areas decommissioned routes or unrecorded disturbances do not align with the South of Highway 244 is more associated with the Black Elk Wil- Forest Plan and will trigger deeper environmental review, such as an derness perceptually. Highway 244 is the major human impact in Environmental Impact Statement. this area and provides a northern physical and perceptual edge to  Norbeck Wildlife Preserve is managed for certain focus species of game the Wilderness. animals and birds. The Goshawk is a primary example of a creature  The forest management plan has some hurdles for the trail planning with specific management directives. Several known nesting sites are process that need to be addressed in future planning directly: within the project area. They are not noted specifically within the anal-  Standard 5.4A-5103 indicates that the recreational trail system ysis, but are taken into consideration in the evaluations. within the NWP should not be expanded and that trail segments  The current high density forest within the NWP is a product of its man- should be relocated to correct or prevent environmental damage. agement which has had results that directly affect its core purpose. The dense pine forest has seen a decline in unique habitats, decreased herba-  Guideline 5.4A-3205 states that the season of operation within crit- ceous productivity, decreased stream flows, less habitat for species that ical wildlife habitat areas is August through November for work prefer open conditions and a rich understory, an increased risk for large requiring more than two weeks or more than 300 acres. scale disease and insect outbreaks (seen visibly in the cover image) and  Guideline 5.4A-5104 indicates that new recreation facilities and more. improvements are prohibited except for interpretive or directional  Critical Habitat areas exist within the study area. These areas offer the signing and measures to protect public health and safety or wild- trail a directive to go around, a mission to interpret, or the intension to life, soil or water resources. ignore them.  Standard 5.4A-8501 authorizes land occupancies only if they are  Because of the unique opportunity that routes within the Norbeck pre- compatible with wildlife needs. sent, the trail character and design standards could be different once the  These guidelines and standard provide both opportunity and chal- boundary into the preserve is crossed. This could include different trail lenges for the Connector Trail. They certainly indicate that the next widths within the preserve, special features at boundaries, and interpre- step of the process may require a full Environmental Impact State- tive elements that accent the mission of the preserve and reinforce good ment as the trail will almost certainly be seen as conflicting with trail manners to the user. The USFS trail class could change, resulting any one of these. However, these need not necessarily completely in/from different managed uses. negate the possibility of this trail under these rules. Consider the  Opportunity: Creating understanding of when you enter the pre- following: serve by the physical characteristics of the trail.  Certain system roads and trails that are within the NWP could  Challenge: Creating a sense of transition and new awareness. accommodate this trail without necessarily changing the use of that trail, only the amount of use.  Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve) (US  It is a standard that existing trail segments should be relocated Forest Service Management Area 4.2B) to correct and prevent environmental damage.  The portion Photo: The Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway  Some roads (decommissioned or seasonal) within the Norbeck of the Peter were seen firsthand as having severe erosion problems. If Norbeck those routes are chosen, fixing those areas would be part of the Scenic By- trail’s construction program, improving the conditions of the way that is natural resource. located  Recreation measures to protect public health and safety, wild- within the life, soil or water resources are allowed. If this trail was com- Norbeck bined with certain mitigation measures and examined as to the Wildlife overall affect of use patterns within the study area there might Preserve is be great benefit to the overall trail system. North of the high- managed way might move the impact of the current visitors to a less ―to empha- sensitive site. Paying for coincidental or complimentary trail size visual- reclamations in the more sensitive parts of Norbeck could be ly appeal- negotiated into the package as mitigating measures. ing landscape in  The construction period is certainly limited within the preserve roaded Photo: Wildlife in the Study Area. in sensitive areas. That could be accommodated in the con- settings, struction phase for limited areas. Using this trail as an oppor- while meeting overall wildlife objectives for the Norbeck Wildlife Pre- tunity to showcase and educate people about traditional or serve.” The priority for maintaining scenic integrity in this area is very primitive construction methods is another option to consider. high.  Most segments indicated within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are located  Openings will / can be opened in tree stands to open up vistas and pano-

66 ramic views and that evidence of management activity will be less visi- tion as well. This corridor would not be appropriate for travel by heavy ble adjacent to the roads. machinery or by people gaining access to these remote areas.  The management plan recommends that new recreation facilities should  Grazing allotments exist in this area as well. Well designed gates and provide for public health and safety, resource protection and / or inter- cattle guards that self close, are accessible and do not succumb easily to pretation, but that facilities that ―create or encourage additional recrea- vandalism would be required where the boundaries of these allotments tion use of the interior of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve‖ should be dis- cross the trail. couraged.  Many existing roads exist in this part of the forest. The trail routes  Special uses will only be authorized in this area if they are compatible could utilize these where appropriate, repair damaged zones by a modi- with scenic byway management and wildlife needs. fied alignment, and otherwise follow these existing disturbances to minimize new impact on the ground. Some proposed segments would re-  Black Hills National Forest (US Forest Service Management Area 5.1) quire decommissioning these roads.  This area is managed for ―Resource Production Emphasis‖. This  Off road motorized travel is allowed in this area unless otherwise re- means that this area is subject to logging and thinning and those areas stricted. may have their character drastically altered during and after operations in these areas. This is a potential opportunity to interpret these activities  Private Property and educate the public about how a working forest operates in the Black  Several segments routes could be improved through cooperation with Hills. amenable land owners. Partnerships or acquisitions pursued to create  The concern that a resource production emphasis area being used for a acceptable routes may greatly benefit the final trail route. trail setting is not that logging in the area might occur, but that the pres-  No trail segments on private land are considered for this trail unless the ence of a trail could change the public’s perception of logging occurring owner has indicated they would be interested in a partnership with this in that area. These operations have an impact and may appear to be trail. significant to the visitor and cause additional public comment. ~  The trail could also affect operations of a harvesting or thinning opera-

Photo: Grassy Valleys on forest service land.

67 Legend Nodes and Anchors Lodging Drinking Water

Food The chart below lists the Nodes and Anchors used to describe the trail Bicycles/Repairs segments. Camping Restrooms Telephone

Node Anchor/ Number Name Location Latitude Longitude Elevation Owner Nodes Facilities

A Hill City Trailhead Downtown Hill City 43°55'39.50"N 103°34'26.10"W 5000 Hill City A

B Hill City Mickelson North Highway 16, 1880 Train, Old Hill City Road and the Mickelson Intersect 43°56'4.37"N 103°34'20.38"W 4960 SDDOT A C USFS Helipad South of Hill City 43°55'24.91"N 103°34'45.61"W 5040 GFP/USFS/ A D Cripple Creek Private Campground and backcountry entrance 43°54'2.39"N 103°35'28.56"W 5160 GFP N E Mickelson Bridge at Highway 16 Existing Rail Road Bridge- Aerial Trailhead 43°53'41.31"N 103°35'26.82"W 5160 GFP A F Highway 16 Overpass at 244 Mount Rushmore turnoff 43°53'31.15"N 103°35'17.13"W 5200 GFP N G Sunday Gulch SD GFP Game Pond Existing Wildlife Pond and Recreation Site 43°53'20.72"N 103°35'7.59"W 5200 GFP N H Mountain Pass Back Country Intersection north of 244 and South of Bishop Mountain 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W 5250 USFS N I NWP 244 West Highway 244's Western Entrance to NWP 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W 5170 SDDOT N

J NWP Crossing 244 West Over/Under Pass West of Western 244 Entrance to NWP 43°53'32.48"N 103°33'51.21"W 5280 SDDOT N K NWP West Mountain Exit Ridge between 244 and Palmer Gulch Road 43°53'31.27"N 103°33'29.58"W 5360 USFS N L NWP Palmer Gulch South Palmer Gulch Road Enters NWP 43°53'2.15"N 103°33'27.50"W 5240 USFS N M Willow Creek Horse Camp Existing Wilderness Trailhead 43°53'48.66"N 103°32'13.51"W 5000 USFS N N KOA South KOA at Highway 244 43°54'1.47"N 103°32'12.00"W 5000 KOA N All O KOA North KOA at Palmer Gulch Road 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W 4920 SDDOT N All P NWP 5000' East of KOA 43°54'15.64"N 103°31'24.20"W 5015 USFS N Q NWP Battle Creek East of KOA on Battle Creek 43°54'16.26"N 103°30'50.01"W 4960 USFS N R Camp Judson Connection to Use Group 43°54'9.22"N 103°27'55.14"W 4680 USFS N S Big Pine Trailhead Centennial Trail Trailhead 43°53'55.52"N 103°29'8.72"W 5060 USFS N T MRNM / NWP on 244 Jurisdictional Boundary 43°53'11.15"N 103°28'4.51"W 5160 SDDOT N U NWP Pine Creek North of Wrinkled Rock Trailhead 43°53'50.49"N 103°28'25.71"W 4840 USFS N V NWP South Fork Pine Creek Northwest of Wrinkled Rock Trailhead 43°53'54.88"N 103°27'46.16"W 4740 USFS N W Old Hill City Road Drop where 4800' Contour reaches the Old Hill City Road 43°54'17.85"N 103°28'59.98"W 4820 SDDOT N X Wrinkled Rock Trail - West edge of MRNM 43°53'10.90"N 103°28'2.31"W 5240 USFS N Y Profile View Landmark View 43°52'32.68"N 103°27'40.02"W 5080 MRNM N Z Mount Rushmore Trailhead S. 224 across from parking garages 43°52'25.78"N 103°27'15.26"W 5230 MRNM A All AA Keystone West of Town near Park entrance 43°53'15.26"N 103°25'47.15"W 4440 MRNM/Keystone A All BB Blackberry Exit Where Blackberry exits MRNM/ Black Elk Wilderness point of entry 43°52'7.62"N 103°27'38.07"W 4880 MRNM/USFS N CC Breezy Point Overlook and Picnic Area 43°53'13.15"N 103°28'24.13"W 5200 USFS N DD Wrinkled Rock Parking Lot West of MRNM Western Entrance 43°53'13.60"N 103°28'9.71"W 5200 USFS N EE Reno Gulch Trailhead Mickelson Trail at Reno Gulch 43°54'29.39"N 103°35'20.72"W 5090 USFS N 69 Segments

The following Segment Evaluation Forms provide a close look at individual trail segments ranging in length from a quarter mile to nearly 12 miles. The routes have been developed through a reiterative process wherein potential routes have been identified during site visits and through discussions with the cooperating agencies and visiting public and then checked via the site evaluation maps.

The Segment Evaluation Forms are intended to help identify significant issues facing particular segments of the trail and facilitate a finer understanding of the particular areas of the route. They contain the following  Segment Physical Data:  Segment Name: Keys the segment to the maps  Nickname: to provide some sense of the character of the trail  Dominant Trailhead: Typically the Western Trailhead  Lat. / Long & Elevation: Locates the trailhead in space  Secondary trailhead: Typically the Eastern Trailhead  Lat. / Long & Elevation: Locates the trailhead in space  Total elevation gain / loss: Over the Segment length in feet  Overall profile length: Segment length in miles  Overall profile slope: Provides an overall average slope. Slopes over 5% may need some additional length, special structures, or switchbacks in certain areas to reach the optimum slope  Overall aspect: General direction of slope in the area.  Sustainable soil substrate: Yes or No - Based on the soils map  Prevailing cross slope: Slopes over 70% are high, 20-70% medium, 0- 20% are low.

 Map and Profile:  The map shows the trail segment being evaluated in red.  The profile shows the basic section based on the 40’ contours. These are not meant to represent the final trail route profile, but instead provide a simple understanding of where you travel up or down and an esti- mation of the total rise and fall of the segment.

 Images:  Most images are of existing conditions, but some are renderings of the potential trail as it could appear.

 Classification and Management  Proposed trail types: These relate to the Typical Trail Cross Sections  Proposed trail classification (USFS) : The US Forest Service identifies three types of trails: Standard/Terra Trails, Snow Trail, and Water Trails. This trail is presumed to be entirely Standard or Terra Trail. There are also classes identified which are identified here:  Trail Class 1: Minimal/Undeveloped Trail  Trail Class 2: Simple/Minor Development Trail  Trail Class 3: Developed/Improved Trail  Trail Class 4: Highly Developed Trail Map: Study Area with major roads and Anchors highlighted.  Trail Class 5: Fully Developed Trail 70  Proposed Trail Flexibility: This indicates whether the segment dupli- area a particular segment may pass through. This particularily address- cates other segments. High flexibility means multiple other segments es the US Forest Service ―Land and Resource Management Plan‖ Man- connect, Moderate flexibility means one other segment provides the agement Areas. same route, Low flexibility means this is the only connection in this  At a Glance: area. A descriptive narrative characterizing the segment and its route.  Proposed major user groups:  Sustainable Management  Pedestrians The following criteria are based upon tenants of trail design laid out in the National Park Services ―Guide to Sustainable Mountain Trails—Trail As-  Horseback Riders sessment, Planning & Design Sketchbook‖ and are the need to know information of sustainable and enjoyable trail design.  Bicyclists

 Meets trail’s established purpose? To enhance the Black Hills trail net-  Proposed trail management entity: This preliminarily identifies who work by providing and encouraging recreational opportunities for non would be the responsible party for the trail after it is completed. This motorized users by safely connecting the Mickelson Trail to Mount trail will generally either be managed by the Department of Game Fish Rushmore. and Parks or Mount Rushmore National Memorial.  Originates at appropriate location? An appropriate location is any loca-  Regulatory agency: This simply identifies the management agency of tion that connects to another viable segment or destination Anchor. the property the trail crosses:  Destination at appropriate location? An appropriate location is any location that connects to another viable segment or destination Anchor.  South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks  Allows appropriate uses? Will this allow all the intended users to get where they are going?  US Forest Service  Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? If there are significant known conflicts they are noted here.  Mount Rushmore Society  Appropriate corridor control points? Will the area be able to be services by management authority and emergency crews?  National Park Service  Interpretive opportunities? Are there specific features or resources to celebrate along this route?  Private Property  Natural resources? Are there known specific natural resources that we know will require a closer look?  Recreation accessibility potential: The Guide to Sustainable Mountain  Cultural resources? Are there historical or specific known cultural re- Trails provides several tools to rate aspects of trail use that are used in sources along this segment? the feasibility report. One of which is the Recreation Accessibility Po- tential Rating Tool. This tools allows you to give a simple high / medi-  Sustainable Design um / low ranking to The following criteria are based upon tenants of trail design laid out in ―Natural  Recreation Accessibility Potential Rating Tool Surface Trails by Design‖ and formulate the essential traits of comfortable, sus-  High tainable and enjoyable trails.  Three or four season use  0-20% cross slope grades, gentle profile grades Human Perception describes the way we are aware of and how we under-  (< 5% average) stand our place on a trail.  Complementary trailhead facilities  Human perception: natural shape  Medium  Natural shape is the shape of nature, instantly recognizable, yet  Two season use unpredictable in its details. It is not straight, curved or curvi-  0-20% cross slope grades, gentle profile grades linear, yet it contains all these shapes. It exists at all scales and  (< 5% average) responds to the natural world  Complementary trailhead facilities  Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors  Low  Visual anchors are dominant anchors that lock you in place as  Single season use you travel along the trail. For example, the Battle Creek valley  Steeper than 20% cross slope grades bottom, Elkhorn Mountain and Harney Peak are seen from  Moderate profile grades (> 5%) many points along the proposed segments and are dominant  Non-complementary trailhead facilities visual anchors.  Management Area Designation: This identifies any specific manage-  Human perception: destination anchors ment designations that the Regulatory Agency may have regarding the  Destination anchors relate to shorter term goals or destinations

71 along a particular segment. Big Pine Trailhead, the Old Hill trail can overcome or benefit from a proposed feature. Some- City Highway, and the Mickelson Trail are destination anchors times segments pass by or over something cool that is worth noting. Human Feeling describes a set of trail characteristics that are about the expe- ~ riential aspects of the trail. Feelings are not opinions and should augment reason and logic and not be a substitute for finer analysis.  Human feeling: safety  Safety relates to being within your comfort zone, having a stable trail, sufficient clearance, protection from danger, being sure you are on the right trail, minimal user conflicts and limited danger from the trail itself.  Human feeling: efficiency  Efficiency means that the user’s time and energy is not wasted getting from point to point. Seeing your destination and then making a long loop away from it to get there negatively impacts efficiency.  Human feeling: playfulness  Playfulness balances efficiency and safety by creating sus- pense, creating anticipation, or surprise and being tightly integrated with the site. Dramatic spaces and sensations and attention to timing rhythm and flow affect playfulness  Human feeling: harmony  Harmony is all about what we directly experience using the trail. Is the trail appropriate in this location as we travel it? Is the trail part of the site, are the materials from the site, is it located in a place that makes sense to us?

Physical Forces are about the existing characteristics of the site and how we utilize them in the trail.  Physical forces: previously impacted site  Previously impacted areas are existing roadways, existing trails or areas that have been disturbed by other human events during their history.  Physical forces: known sensitivity  If the segment has particular known sensitivities due to wildlife, plant life, adjacent uses or other factors they are noted here. This study does not attempt to identify every issue or concern.  Physical forces: constructability  Constructability refers to issues relating to the construction of the trail. Remote areas with limited access may be difficult to build structures, and extremely complex topography in sensitive sites may limit the ability to construct the trail  Trail obstacles: water crossings  Water crossings are where the trail would cross a stream or other channel. Known wet areas may also be noted here.  Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs  Obstacles that would impede the trail are noted here.  Special features:  Special features relate to both proposed features of the trail and existing natural or human made characteristics. Sometimes the 72 73 Trail Segment Overview Segments: ..~ ..." S> 0 E z , ""tl. ... z c .. c ... ·~ 1: .. ~.. - z0 c "f. E ~~ ~ ·~ ~ _E !l .... z• .. 1 George S. Mickelson Trail Improvements 3.24 B F 2 Old Hill Oty Road Long Route 6.59 A w 3 Old Hill City Road to North KOA 5.48 A 0 4 Eastern Crawl Trail 2.71 c H 5 Cripple Creek Draw Trail 1.57 0 H 6 West Highway Trail 1.90 F I 7 Sptlng Creek Trail 0.44 F G 8 The Aerial Trestle 1.56 E H 9 Sunday Gulch #1 2.94 G K 10 Sunday Gulch #1 2.76 G L 11 Palmer Creek CutoffTrail 1.55 L M 12 Sunday Gulch #2 3.01 G I 13 Willow Creek Trail 2.10 K M 14 West loop Trail Stub 0.76 K I 15 Crossing 244 Trail 2.32 H K 16 West Highway Connector Trail 2.42 H I 17 Norbeck West Highway Connector Trail 2.0S I 0 I 18 South Summit Trail 2.73 H 0 19 Eastward Ho! Ttall #1 0.75 0 p I I 20 Eastward Ho! Trail #2 1.17 0 Q 1.22, 1-N, 2.91, N·S, 21 Hlghway244 1.43 5·T 22 Old Norbeck Trail Mixer 4.47 M+N s ElK 23 Old NorbeQk Trail Route 3.17 p s Nodes: ) .rNl"" 24 Gnarty Country Trail #1 2.92 p s 25 Gnady Country Trail "2 2.87 Q s 26 4800' Trail 2.97 w v 27 Big Pine Connector Trail 0.76 s u 28 camp Judson Conn~to r Trail 0.97 u v 29 Wrinkled Rock Drop 0.29 DO X 30 244 Through NWP Highway Route 5.57 I T 31 Breezy Point 1.90 s T +X 32 South Fork Pine Creek 1.32 v X 33 Highway and Tunnel Trail 0.90 )( y 34 Profile Boardwalk Trail 0.56 y z ' _.,....,...... / Ex.lstins Trail 35 Bl ackbe_~ry_Trail o.ss BB z 36 Reno Gulch Trail 3.2S EE H iJl~ 37 Black Elk Equestrian Sy-Pass Trail 2.44 cc 8B 0 2,()()() ... •i,.OOOil 38 Stdped Bike Lane on eaeh side of Hwy 244 2.22 z AA 39 244 Crossover Trail 3.07 p 5 40 Horse Thief Lake Route 2.33 s X ------.- lh:i$ti ngTuinTr.'lck$ 41 KOA 0.84 N 0 ~Oiti H 42 Storm M ountain 8yway 4.92 A 0

, Wyss ~ Assoc i a tes, Inc. 74 GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail l,.1nrl..r.J.]X' Afl'h iSN ·II,m• • (inlf C ClutW Allilil(•l11)11' • Pouks $.· R(.'t'f<'ilti()n Dl""~i1:n m Sloll'l S:ful Rlll:ill CSty, Sc>.ltll O.l.l.. ! tll69 F~ EO!o.l48,6!Klt> BLAC K HIL L S, SOUTH DA K OTA emo•: l'l l;,e..~co;~~1ol~«~ o;qm SEGMENT NAME: Segment 1 Nickname: George S. Mickelson Trail Improvements Dominant Trailhead: Hill City Mickelson North Lat. / Long: 43°56'4.37"N 103°34'20.38"W Elevation: 4960 Secondary trailhead: Highway 16 Overpass at 244 Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.15"N 103°35'17.13"W Elevation: 5200 Total elevation gain / loss: 240’ Overall profile length: 3.24 Overall profile slope: 1.4% Overall aspect: West Sustainable soil substrate Existing Railroad Bed Prevailing cross slope Very Low

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 1 photo segment 1 photo

SEGMENTSEGMENT PROFILE PROFILE

segment 1 photo

75 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 1

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes  V Originates at appropriate location? Yes Proposed trail flexibility:  L Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Additional Traffic on the trail. Proposed trail management entity:  Appropriate corridor control points? Clear sight lines to highway for most of the trail. Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Limited existing signage.  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H Cultural resources? Railroad bed. Management Area Designation  N/A At a Glance: This is the existing Mickelson Trail segment Sustainable Design Notes running north and south between Hill City, SD and Highway 87. This existing trail is typical of Human perception: natural shape Linear railroad corridor has limited natural shape. the entire length with very gentle grade changes. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Distant landmarks are easily identified in the open valley 8 foot width quad, great scenery, and significant separation from Highway 385. . Human perception: destination anchors Clear end to the trail segment Overall effect lessened by poor connection through Hill City. Human feeling: safety Good until within city

Human feeling: efficiency Very efficient Human feeling: playfulness Human feeling: harmony The old railroad bed does feel like a part of the landscape. Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes. Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability NA Trail obstacles: water crossings Existing Bridges Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs segment 1 photo Special features: Passes through Hill City

76 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 2 Nickname: Old Hill City Road Long Route Dominant Trailhead: Downtown Hill City Lat. / Long: 43°55'39.50"N 103°34'26.10"W Elevation: 5000 Secondary trailhead: Old Hill City Road Drop Lat. / Long: 43°54'17.85"N 103°28'59.98"W Elevation: 4820 Total elevation gain / loss: 960 Overall profile length: 6.59 Overall profile slope: 2.8% Overall aspect: Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Predominantly Low, High near beginning

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 2 photo segment 2 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 2 photo

77 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 2

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? No  I, II, III, IV, V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Hill City  H, M, L Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Hikers & Horseback are limited on this trail.  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Highway limits users.  Appropriate corridor control points? Adjacent to highway entire length. Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Limited  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Very Limited.  H, M, L Cultural resources? Crosses Railroad Grade, adjacent to old railroad stops, historic town sites. Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This route is the existing Old Hill City Road Sustainable Design Notes from Hill City to Keystone. This character of this route would be a mix of designated bike Human perception: natural shape Man made shape, yet conforms well to the land. lanes and separate bike trail. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Often limited, opens up to big valleys Human perception: destination anchors Human feeling: safety Very Low. Tight highway through significant road cuts. Multiple railroad crossings.

Human feeling: efficiency Moderate. Despite following the highway the grades are very steep and limit the efficiency of the journey. Human feeling: playfulness Limited Human feeling: harmony Old Hill City Road Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Adjacency to Highway makes this an easily accessed construction area Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 2 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Road out of Hill City has significant road cuts Special features: Active Railroad crossings, goes near Hill City’s Bike Park. Big valley views of Central Core.

78 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 3 Nickname: Old Hill City Road North to KOA Dominant Trailhead: Downtown Hill City Lat. / Long: 43°55'39.50"N 103°34'26.10"W Elevation: 5000 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 680 Overall profile length in miles: 5.48 Overall profile slope: 2.35% Overall aspect: South and Some North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Predominantly Low, High near beginning

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 3 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

79 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 3

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? No  I, II, III, IV, V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes  H, M, L Destination at appropriate location? KOA access Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Hikers & Horseback are limited on this trail  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Railroad Crossings  Appropriate corridor control points? Adjacent to highway entire length Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? In places  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Great Views to Harney Range  H, M, L Cultural resources? Crosses Railroad Grade, adjacent to old railroad stops, historic town sites Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment includes areas primarily along the Sustainable Design Notes Old Hill City Road, and a small portion pulling into Palmer Gulch. The defining character of Human perception: natural shape Man made shape, yet conforms well to the land this segment is the open panoramic view to Har- Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Harney Peak ney Peak and Elkhorn Peak. Human perception: destination anchors Strong destination anchors Human feeling: safety Some close to roads, others not

Human feeling: efficiency Fairly direct route. Steep climbs limit efficiency Human feeling: playfulness The big views open and close, but the highway siding keeps attention on the ground Human feeling: harmony Physical forces: previously impacted site Road and railroad Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Adjacency to Highway makes this an easily accessed construction area Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 3 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Road out of Hill City has significant road cuts Special features: Active Railroad crossings, goes near Hill City’s Bike Park. Big valley views of Central Core. Direct route to Keystone

80 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 4 Nickname: Eastern Crawl Trail Dominant Trailhead: USFS Helipad Lat. / Long: 43°55'24.91"N 103°34'45.61"W Elevation: 5040 Secondary trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Total elevation gain / loss: 640 Overall profile length in miles: 2.71 Overall profile slope: 4.47% Overall aspect: South and West Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 4 existing segment 4 simulation

segment 4 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

81 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 4

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Hill City and Mount Rushmore  H Destination at appropriate location? Hill City Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Stand alone trail  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Need to confirm property boundaries  Appropriate corridor control points? Yes Regulatory agency: History, Archeology, Mining  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Yes, creek crossing and woodlands  M Cultural resources? Yes, passes a mine pit Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: Leaving the Mickelson Trail at the USFS heli- Sustainable Design Notes pad facility this trail traverses a steeply cross- slope with a boardwalk to connect to back coun- Human perception: natural shape Good try trails. The first half mile will provide open views of the valley as it climbs, and it will help Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Limited mark the ―return of civilization‖ feeling that ar- Human perception: destination anchors Hill City strong western anchor, Good views of road valley's riving at Hill City will bring. There is an opportunity to collaborate with the USFS for a unique Human feeling: safety Good interpretive center at the intersection of the two Human feeling: efficiency Good trails. Human feeling: playfulness Boardwalk Guard Human feeling: harmony Existing roads fit in Physical forces: previously impacted site Parts trail on existing roads Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Good Trail obstacles: water crossings Yes Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Steep cross slopes and long valley segment 4 photo Special features: Boardwalk

82 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 5 Nickname: Cripple Creek Draw Trail Dominant Trailhead: Cripple Creek Lat. / Long: 43°54'2.39"N 103°35'28.56"W Elevation: 5120 Secondary trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Total elevation gain / loss: 664.62 Overall profile length in miles: 1.55 Overall profile slope: 8.02% Overall aspect: South and West, Some Valley Travel. Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 5 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

83 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 5

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Mickelson Trail  H Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Avoid private land  Appropriate corridor control points? Good access to roads Regulatory agency: Riparian forest, water resources  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Heavily wooded  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: The majority of this route falls on existing and Sustainable Design Notes or decommissioned Forest Service Roads. Much of the trail follows crooked creek with dramatic Human perception: natural shape riparian landscape. Ideally the connection to Mickelson Trail could be made with cooperative Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Crooked Creek Draw private landowners instead of across very rug- Human perception: destination anchors Mickelson Trail ged forest service land, as shown on previous page. Human feeling: safety Good Human feeling: efficiency Moderate Human feeling: playfulness Human feeling: harmony Close to forest setting Physical forces: previously impacted site Forest service roads Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Connecting to Mickelson Trail is difficult Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs At Mickelson Trail Special features: Crooked Creek Draw

segment 5 photo 84 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 6 Nickname: West Highway Trail Dominant Trailhead: Highway 16 Overpass at 244 Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.15"N 103°35'17.13"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: NWP 244 West Lat. / Long: 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W Elevation: 5170 Total elevation gain / loss: 400 Overall profile length in miles: 1.90 Overall profile slope: 3.99% Overall aspect: South and West Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 6 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

85 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 6

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, but Forest Service roads needs re-shaping for trail Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, established routes Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 20 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features: Forest interpretive potential

86 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 7 Nickname: Spring Creek Trail Dominant Trailhead: Highway 16 Overpass at 244 Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.15"N 103°35'17.13"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: Sunday Gulch SD GFP Game Pond Lat. / Long: 43°53'20.72"N 103°35'7.59"W Elevation: 5200 Total elevation gain / loss: 121.41 Overall profile length in miles: 0.44 Overall profile slope: 5.23% Overall aspect: South, South West Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low , Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 7 photo segment 7 photo

87 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 7

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Moderate  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes  H Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Requires on grade horseback connection  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Highway  Appropriate corridor control points? Good access on all points Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Yes  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? GFP Wildlife Pond M  Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  N/A At a Glance: This segment turns past the SD GF&P wildlife Sustainable Design Notes pond and bridges Highway 385 to connect to the Mickelson Trail. Human perception: natural shape Low Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Pond and trail are strong anchors Human perception: destination anchors Yes Human feeling: safety Crossing might feel exciting

Human feeling: efficiency Overpass not perceived as efficient Human feeling: playfulness Overpass is fun to ride or walk Human feeling: harmony Fits contour well Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, route exists now Physical forces: known sensitivity No

Physical forces: constructability Yes, must bridge Highway 385 Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 7 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features: Overpass over Highway 16 / on grade horseback crossing

88 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 8 Nickname: The Aerial Trail Dominant Trailhead: Mickelson Bridge at Highway 16 Lat. / Long: 43°53'41.31"N 103°35'26.82"W Elevation: 5160 Secondary trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Total elevation gain / loss: 480 Overall profile length in miles: 1.56 Overall profile slope: 5.83% Overall aspect: South, Minor North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Some High

SEGMENT PLAN segment 8 photo segment 8 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 8 photo

89 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 8

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Partially  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Mickelson Trail  H Destination at appropriate location? KOA Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Partially  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses?  Appropriate corridor control points? Yes Regulatory agency: Natural systems  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Spring Creek Valley, Scenic and low impact  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment follows many established Forest Sustainable Design Notes Service roads and meanders through a mix of conifers and riparian's woodlands. The connec- Human perception: natural shape Follows natural contours tion from the Mickelson Trail would be across Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Dramatic connection to the Mickelson Trail Forest Service lands incorporating an elevated trestle to connect to the existing Highway 385 Human perception: destination anchors Western end is a strong anchor overpass. Human feeling: safety Good

Human feeling: efficiency Good Human feeling: playfulness Very Good Human feeling: harmony Design dependent Physical forces: previously impacted site Existing Roads Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Area over Spring Creek is difficult but manageable Trail obstacles: water crossings Spring Creek Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Slopes Manageable segment 8 photo Special features: Connector Trestle

90 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 9 Nickname: Sunday Gulch #1 Dominant Trailhead: Sunday Gulch SD GFP Game Pond Lat. / Long: 43°53'20.72"N 103°35'7.59"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: NWP West Mountain Exit Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.27"N 103°33'29.58"W Elevation: 5360 Total elevation gain / loss: 800 Overall profile length in miles: 2.94 Overall profile slope: 5.15% Overall aspect: South, Some North. Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 9 photo segment 9 photo

segment 9 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

91 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 9

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Distinctive views, follows roads partway  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? GF&P pond  H Destination at appropriate location? Good anchors Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Convenient for horse riders  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Potentially with land owners  Appropriate corridor control points? Yes Regulatory agency: Natural beauty  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Groves of aspen  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This area runs south joining Highway 87 with Sustainable Design Notes the area below Palmer Creek Horse Camp. The trail follows a mix of existing trails, highway Human perception: natural shape Follows highway but explores interesting Forest Service land right-of-ways and new alignments connecting each. This trail includes panoramic views of the Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Harney Peak Harney Peak range. Human perception: destination anchors Palmer Creek Horse Camp and GFP Wildlife pond a strong anchor Human feeling: safety Moderate along road, otherwise good

Human feeling: efficiency Furthest connection to Hill City Human feeling: playfulness Good Human feeling: harmony Good Physical forces: previously impacted site Existing trails Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Existing road corridors in private land limit trail adaptability Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 9 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features: Harney views from Palmer Gulch side

92 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 10 Nickname: Sunday Gulch #2 Dominant Trailhead: Sunday Gulch SD GFP Game Pond Lat. / Long: 43°53'20.72"N 103°35'7.59"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: NWP Palmer Gulch South Lat. / Long: 43°53'2.15"N 103°33'27.50"W Elevation: 5240 Total elevation gain / loss: 680 Overall profile length in miles: 2.76 Overall profile slope: 4.67% Overall aspect: South Sustainable soil substrate

Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

SEGMENT PROFILE

93 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 10

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Beauty-yes, Next to road-No  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes  M Destination at appropriate location? Palmer Creek Horse Camp Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes, not as ideal for horse route  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Automobiles  Appropriate corridor control points? Highway access Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Harney Range Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment runs the furthest south of all indi- Sustainable Design Notes cated segments. This route stays within the Highway 87 and The Palmer Creek Road the en- Human perception: natural shape Next to attractive road tire length. Slopes of trails could exceed goals if adjacent to roadways entirely. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Harney Peak Human perception: destination anchors NWP and GFP Pond are strong anchors Human feeling: safety Conflict with cars

Human feeling: efficiency Good Human feeling: playfulness Limited Human feeling: harmony Auto traffic Physical forces: previously impacted site Highway and roads Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Slopes, narrow ROW Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Road cuts segment 10 photo Special features: Views to Harney from Palmer Gulch

94 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 11 Nickname: Palmer Creek Cutoff Trail Dominant Trailhead: NWP Palmer Gulch South Lat. / Long: 43°53'2.15"N 103°33'27.50"W Elevation: 5240 Secondary trailhead: Willow Creek Horse Camp Lat. / Long: 43°53'48.66"N 103°32'13.51"W Elevation: 5000 Total elevation gain / loss: 259.57 Overall profile length in miles: 1.55 Overall profile slope: 3.17% Overall aspect: South, South East Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 11 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 11 photo

95 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 11

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, this road would have minimal conflict with trail views  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Jurisdictional Boundary  H Destination at appropriate location? Horse Camp good central hub Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? All users  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Miner conflict with road  Appropriate corridor control points? Good control points Regulatory agency: Palmer Creek, Harney Range, ranches  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Working ranch Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve At a Glance: This segment follows Palmer Gulch until it Sustainable Design Notes drops into Willow Creek Horse Camp. It allows panoramic views of the Westside of the Harney Human perception: natural shape Road has distinctive layout Range and travels down a short valley to the end Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Harney Range views lock you in place of the camp. Human perception: destination anchors Horse Camp Human feeling: safety Moderate along the road

Human feeling: efficiency Direct route Human feeling: playfulness Road Figure 8 accents views of Harney Peak Human feeling: harmony Physical forces: previously impacted site Roading Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Good Trail obstacles: water crossings Limited segment 11 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features: Road would be distinctive features to accent

96 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 12 Nickname: Sunday Gulch #3 Dominant Trailhead: Sunday Gulch SD GFP Game Pond Lat. / Long: 43°53'20.72"N 103°35'7.59"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: NWP 244 West Lat. / Long: 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W Elevation: 5170 Total elevation gain / loss: 800 Overall profile length in miles: 3.01 Overall profile slope: 5.03% Overall aspect: South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 12 photo segment 12 photo

segment 12 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

97 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 12

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, mostly off road  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? GFP Pond good anchor and boundary  M Destination at appropriate location? Highway entrance to NWP Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Horseback limited to highway  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Isolated adjacent landowner  Appropriate corridor control points? Big stretch of back country Regulatory agency: Views of Palmer Gulch  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Sunday Gulch Creek  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This route follows Sunday Gulch up Highway Sustainable Design Notes 87 and crosses National Forest land. A portion is on new trail alignment and a small portion fol- Human perception: natural shape Creek and back country lows existing trails. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Views to central core Human perception: destination anchors Good western anchor Human feeling: safety Highway adjoining

Human feeling: efficiency Limited when dropping down to Hwy. 244 Human feeling: playfulness New construction in Forest Service provides opportunity to meander Human feeling: harmony Physical forces: previously impacted site Roads, some logged back country Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, limited obstacles Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 12 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Node J is in problem area Special features: Bridge or underpass at Hwy. 244

98 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 13 Nickname: Willow Creek Trail Dominant Trailhead: NWP West Mountain Exit Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.27"N 103°33'29.58"W Elevation: 5360 Secondary trailhead: Willow Creek Horse Camp Lat. / Long: 43°53'48.66"N 103°32'13.51"W Elevation: 5000 Total elevation gain / loss: 520 Overall profile length in miles: 2.10 Overall profile slope: 4.69% Overall aspect: South, South West, South East Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 13 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

99 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 13

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Great connector on scenic southern rout  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Boundary  M Destination at appropriate location? Horse Camp Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? All users  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses?  Appropriate corridor control points? Palmer Gulch access Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Views of central core, Palmer Gulch, Road Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve At a Glance: This segment primarily follows existing trails Sustainable Design Notes and connects Sunday Gulch area with Palmer Gulch Horse Camp. Human perception: natural shape Old road beds, crawling up/down slopes Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Views of Harney Peak Human perception: destination anchors Horse Camp Human feeling: safety Good-travel through horse camp

Human feeling: efficiency Is a ―shortcut‖ Human feeling: playfulness Follow valleys Human feeling: harmony Dramatic setting Physical forces: previously impacted site Some road Physical forces: known sensitivity Goshawk Habitat in area

Physical forces: constructability Good access from Palmer Gulch Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 13 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features:

100 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 14 Nickname: West Loop Trail Stub Dominant Trailhead: NWP West Mountain Exit Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.27"N 103°33'29.58"W Elevation: 5360 Secondary trailhead: NWP 244 West Lat. / Long: 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W Elevation: 5170 Total elevation gain / loss: 317.18 Overall profile length in miles: 0.76 Overall profile slope: 7.90% Overall aspect: North / South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 14 photo segment 14 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 14 photo

101 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 14

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Connection  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Boundary  M Destination at appropriate location? Boundary Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Horseback limited by highway  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses?  Appropriate corridor control points? Good views to trail Regulatory agency: Limited  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Goshawk habitat  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment is partially adjacent to Highway Sustainable Design Notes 244 at Palmer Creek Road and partially routed through a mixed stand of Ponderosa Pine and Human perception: natural shape Limited Quaking Aspen. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Road Human perception: destination anchors Limited Human feeling: safety Highway

Human feeling: efficiency Fair Human feeling: playfulness Limited Human feeling: harmony Follows road both ways Physical forces: previously impacted site Physical forces: known sensitivity Adjacent to road

Physical forces: constructability Bridge or Underpass at 244 Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs segment 14 photo Special features:

102 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 15 Nickname: Crossing 244 Trail Dominant Trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Secondary trailhead: NWP West Mountain Exit Lat. / Long: 43°53'31.27"N 103°33'29.58"W Elevation: 5360 Total elevation gain / loss: 453.41 Overall profile length in miles: 2.32 Overall profile slope: 3.69% Overall aspect: North, Minor South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 15 photo segment 15 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 15 photo

103 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 15

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Good connect into NWP  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Good look toward Hill City  M Destination at appropriate location? NWP Boundary Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Good  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Crosses Highway 244  Appropriate corridor control points? Within Forest Regulatory agency: Forest Management  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment generally follows existing and de- Sustainable Design Notes commissioned Forest Service Roads, meandering through coniferous woodlands and sporadic Human perception: natural shape Moderate—Follows old roads aspen stands. This segment crosses Highway 244 to connect with the segments south of High- Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Typical Black Hills setting way 244. Human perception: destination anchors Segment ends at beginning of Good Views Human feeling: safety Highway 244 crossing

Human feeling: efficiency Fairly direct route Human feeling: playfulness Road crossing could be chance for something fun Human feeling: harmony Physical forces: previously impacted site Forest Service roads and trails Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Forest access Trail obstacles: water crossings Highway 244 segment 15 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features: Bridge or underpass at 244

104 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 16 Nickname: West Highway Connector Trail Dominant Trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Secondary trailhead: NWP 244 West Lat. / Long: 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W Elevation: 5170 Total elevation gain / loss: 572.66 Overall profile length in miles: 2.42 Overall profile slope: 4.48% Overall aspect: North, Minor South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 16 photo segment 16 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 16 photo

105 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 16

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, lays gently on the land  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes L  Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Good Variety  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No, but could take motorized to non-motorized use  Appropriate corridor control points? Yes Regulatory agency: Forest products  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment 16 is the same as segment 15 ex- Sustainable Design Notes cept the southern most portion stays north of Highway 244 and follows the right-of-way for a Human perception: natural shape Varying terrain conditions short distance. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Summit Peak

Human perception: destination anchors Human feeling: safety Yes, but east portion in at Highway 244

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes, winding trail Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site In places Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, some existing Forest Service roads Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 16 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features:

106 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 17 Nickname: Norbeck West Highway Connector Trail Dominant Trailhead: NWP 244 West Lat. / Long: 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W Elevation: 5170 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 280 Overall profile length in miles: 2.05 Overall profile slope: 2.59% Overall aspect: South East Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 17 photo segment 17 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 17 photo

107 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 17

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Scenic and level  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes  H Destination at appropriate location? KOA Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Potential nesting sites  Appropriate corridor control points? KOA Regulatory agency: Archeological—homestead  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Nesting site  H Cultural resources? Homestead Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve; Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This segment generally follows an existing For- Sustainable Design Notes est Service trail the entire length over fairly gentle terrain. This connects Highway 244 with the Human perception: natural shape Yes North side of KOA. One area offers unobstruct- ed views to the Harney Peak Range. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Harney Peak Human perception: destination anchors KOA Human feeling: safety Yes, wooded and open meadows

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Variety of landscape conditions Physical forces: previously impacted site Existing trails Physical forces: known sensitivity Nesting sites

Physical forces: constructability Gentle slopes Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 17 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs No Special features: Views and KOA for services

108 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 18 Nickname: South Summit Trail Dominant Trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 411.59 Overall profile length in miles: 2.73 Overall profile slope: 2.86% Overall aspect: South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 18 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 18 photo

109 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 18

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Scenic and level  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location?  H Destination at appropriate location? KOA Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? All  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Potential resting sites  Appropriate corridor control points? KOA Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Archaeological-homestead  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Nesting Sites  H Cultural resources? Homestead Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This is similar to segment 17, except the west Sustainable Design Notes half stays completely north of Highway 244, and would consist of new trail construction. Human perception: natural shape Yes, winding trail Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Harney Peak Human perception: destination anchors KOA Human feeling: safety Yes

Physical forces: constructability Gentle slopes, except west end will take some work segment 18 photo Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Some side slopes at west end of segment Special features: Views and KOA for services

110 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 19 Nickname: Eastward Ho! Trail #1 Dominant Trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Secondary trailhead: NWP 5000’ Lat. / Long: 43°54'15.64"N 103°31'24.20"W Elevation: 5015 Total elevation gain / loss: 255 Overall profile length in miles: 0.75 Overall profile slope: 6.46% Overall aspect: West Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 19 photo segment 19 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

111 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 19

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes, KOA and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve  H Destination at appropriate location? Yes, KOA Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? All  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Yes Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Norbeck Wildlife Preserve  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Norbeck Wildlife Preserve  H Cultural resources? Peter Norbeck History Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This short segment connects the KOA with their Sustainable Design Notes closest boundary of the Norbeck Wildlife Pre- serve. The terrain is somewhat rugged, but ac- Human perception: natural shape Yes, follows natural contours cess through the valley is possible. This area Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors KOA and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve has recently been logged. Human perception: destination anchors KOA and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Logged area Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, gentle slopes Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 19 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features: Forest interpretation

112 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 20 Nickname: Eastward Ho! Trail #2 Dominant Trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Secondary trailhead: NWP Battle Creek Lat. / Long: 43°54'16.26"N 103°30'50.01"W Elevation: 4960 Total elevation gain / loss: 169.76 Overall profile length in miles: 1.17 Overall profile slope: 2.75 Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 20 existing segment 20 simulation

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 20 photo

113 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 20

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? No, road side the entire length  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location?  L Destination at appropriate location? Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Difficult for horses  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Automobile traffic  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: limited  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: This major stretch of Highway 244 offers selec- Sustainable Design Notes tive vistas to the Black Hills and into the Black Elk Wilderness. This segment would parallel Human perception: natural shape No Highway 244 the entire distance, posing terrain Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Summit Peak safety issues. Human perception: destination anchors Human feeling: safety Vehicular traffic concerns

Human feeling: efficiency Human feeling: playfulness No Human feeling: harmony No Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, Highway 244, but very steep side slopes Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 21 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Steep Grades Special features:

114 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 21 Nickname: Highway 244 Dominant Trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Secondary trailhead: MRNM / NWP on 244 Lat. / Long: 43°53'11.15"N 103°28'4.51"W Elevation: 5160 Total elevation gain / loss: 1800 Overall profile length in miles: 5.55 Overall profile slope: 0.06% Overall aspect: Varies Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low—High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 21 existing

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 21 simulation

115 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 21

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? On roadway, No  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Highway 385 and Mickelson Trail  H Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Steep Slopes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Automobile traffic  Appropriate corridor control points? Highway access Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Black Hills natural systems  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (Within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve) At a Glance: This is the West segment of Highway 244 to Sustainable Design Notes Highway 385. This portion of Highway 244 includes some dramatic panoramic views but Human perception: natural shape Yes also has some steep slopes for bicycles. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors In places Human perception: destination anchors KOA Human feeling: safety Low

Human feeling: efficiency High Human feeling: playfulness Low Human feeling: harmony Low Physical forces: previously impacted site Highway Physical forces: known sensitivity Vehicular corridor

Physical forces: constructability High Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 6 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Steep terrain in places Special features:

116 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 22 Nickname: Gnarly Country Trail #1 Dominant Trailhead: NWP 5000’ Lat. / Long: 43°54'15.64"N 103°31'24.20"W Elevation: 5015 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 1080 Overall profile length in miles: 4.47 Overall profile slope: 4.58% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 22 photo segment 22 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 22 photo

117 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 22

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, very scenic and varying landscape  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? KOA  M Destination at appropriate location? Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Hydrology, Cultural, Wildlife, Geology, and Archaeology Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, M, L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

At a Glance: Sustainable Design Notes This segment begins at the boundary of the Nor- beck Wildlife Preserve and meanders along the Human perception: natural shape Yes original alignment of the Mount Rushmore Highway through amazing rock outcroppings, Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes and on old stone walls. Glimpses of Elkhorn Human perception: destination anchors Mountain are filtered through incredible old growth pines and occasional birch / aspen Human feeling: safety Yes groves. For while the views turn down into the Human feeling: efficiency Yes long valleys as the trail parallels the road and then a quarter mile climb brings you up to the Human feeling: playfulness Yes, winding paths and trestles intersection with the Centennial Trail at the Big Human feeling: harmony Yes Pine Trailhead. Physical forces: previously impacted site Old Mount Rushmore Highway road beds in places Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes, one trestle area drainage ravine Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes Special features: Old Mount Rushmore Route segment 22 photo 118 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 23 Nickname: Old Norbeck Trail Route Dominant Trailhead: NWP 5000’ Lat. / Long: 43°54'15.64"N 103°31'24.20"W Elevation: 5015 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 938.07 Overall profile length in miles: 3.17 Overall profile slope: 5.60% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 23 photo segment 23 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 23 photo

119 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 23

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS):  V Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, very scenic and varying landscape Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? KOA  L Destination at appropriate location? Proposed major user groups:  Allows appropriate uses? Yes Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Hydrology, Cultural, Wildlife, Geology, and Archaeology Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Management Area Designation Cultural resources?  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

At a Glance: Sustainable Design Notes This segment lies entirely within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, although north of and rela- Human perception: natural shape Yes tively close to Highway 244. The western most Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes section follows the abandoned beds of the Old Mount Rushmore Highway. An elevated trestle Human perception: destination anchors would connect the western and eastern halves of Human feeling: safety Yes this segment. (see photos on segment 24) Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes, winding paths and trestles Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Old Mount Rushmore Highway road beds in places Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

120 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 24 Nickname: Old Norbeck Trail Mixer Dominant Trailhead: Willow Creek Horse Camp and KOA South Lat. / Long: Elevation: 5000 and 5000 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 600 Overall profile length in miles: 2.92 Overall profile slope: 3.89% Overall aspect: North, Some South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 24 existing segment 24 simulation

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 24 photo

121 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 24

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, very scenic and varying landscape  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? KOA  H Destination at appropriate location? Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Hydrology, Cultural, Wildlife, Geology, and Archaeology Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

At a Glance: This segment lies entirely within the Norbeck Sustainable Design Notes Wildlife Preserve, although north of and rela- tively close to Highway 244. The western most Human perception: natural shape Yes section follows the abandoned beds of the Old Mount Rushmore Highway. An elevated trestle Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes would connect the western and eastern halves of Human perception: destination anchors this segment. Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes, winding paths and trestles Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Old Mount Rushmore Highway road beds in places Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes, one trestle area drainage ravine Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 24 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes Special features: Old Mount Rushmore Route

122 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 25 Nickname: Gnarly Country Trail #2 Dominant Trailhead: NWP Battle Creek Lat. / Long: 43°54'16.26"N 103°30'50.01"W Elevation: 4960 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 760 Overall profile length in miles: 2.87 Overall profile slope: 5.02% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 25 photo segment 25 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 25 photo

123 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 25

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, very scenic and varying landscape  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? KOA  L Destination at appropriate location? Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Hydrology, Cultural, Wildlife, Geology, and Archaeology  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

At a Glance: The eastern half of this segment is the same as Sustainable Design Notes segments 23 and 24. Instead of a trestle, this segment follows existing Forest Service trail Human perception: natural shape Yes road alignments north and south until reaching the boundary at the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes Portions of the segment cross rough terrain and Human perception: destination anchors will require site-specific attention to keep the trail accessible. Human feeling: safety Yes Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes, winding paths and trestles Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Old Mount Rushmore Highway road beds in places Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes, one trestle area drainage ravine Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes

segment 25 photo Special features: Old Mount Rushmore Route

124 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 26 Nickname: 4800’ Trail Dominant Trailhead: Old Hill City Road Drop Lat. / Long: 43°54'17.85"N 103°28'59.98"W Elevation: 4820 Secondary trailhead: NWP South fork of Pine Creek Lat. / Long: 43°53'54.88"N 103°27'46.16"W Elevation: 4740 Total elevation gain / loss: 1262.48 Overall profile length in miles: 2.97 Overall profile slope: 8.05% Overall aspect: North, Minor West, East and South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 26 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 26 photo

125 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 26

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, for scenery, No, for ease of construction  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes L  Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Yes, but steep cross slopes  Allows appropriate uses? Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Some railroad crossings necessary  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Railroad, Hydrology, Mining Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

At a Glance: This is one of the segments that generally re- Sustainable Design Notes quires new trail alignment and construction. This segment falls entirely outside the bounda- Human perception: natural shape Yes, around hillside, up and back valley ries of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The trail (west to east) works its way around one hill, Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes moves up the down one valley, then goes around Human perception: destination anchors one more hill until connecting with the existing Wrinkle Rock Trail area above Camp Judson. Human feeling: safety Yes Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Generally new trail Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Some steep cross contours, difficult construction Trail obstacles: water crossings Yes Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes segment 26 photo Special features: Views

126 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 27 Nickname: Big Pine Connector Trail Dominant Trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Secondary trailhead: NWP Pine Creek Lat. / Long: 43°53'50.49"N 103°28'25.71"W Elevation: 4840 Total elevation gain / loss: 383.42 Overall profile length in miles: 0.76 Overall profile slope: 9.55% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 27 photo segment 27 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

127 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 27

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, but difficult terrain crossing  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes, Big Pine Trailhead M  Destination at appropriate location? Yes, Wrinkled Rock vicinity Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No

 Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: Chief Black Elk and Black Elk Wilderness  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, M, L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

At a Glance: This short segment falls entirely within the Nor- Sustainable Design Notes beck Wildlife Preserve. This trail follows the valley above Camp Judson and crosses fairly Human perception: natural shape Yes, rugged terrain gentle terrain east/west. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Harney Peak

Human perception: destination anchors Yes, Wrinkled Rock Human feeling: safety Yes, but steep slope (especially bicycling down hill)

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site No, generally new trail location Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Some slopes to negotiate, difficult construction Trail obstacles: water crossings No segment 27 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes Special features: Camp Judson/ Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

128 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 28 Nickname: Camp Judson Dominant Trailhead: NWP Pine Creek Lat. / Long: 43°53'50.49"N 103°28'25.71"W Elevation: 4840 Secondary trailhead: NWP South fork of Pine Creek Lat. / Long: 43°53'54.88"N 103°27'46.16"W Elevation: 4740 Total elevation gain / loss: 480 Overall profile length in miles: 0.97 Overall profile slope: 9.37% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 28 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

129 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 28

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, for scenery, No, for ease of construction  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes M  Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes, but steep cross slopes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Some railroad crossings necessary  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Railroad, Hydrology, Mining Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

At a Glance: This segment is the same as the west half seg- Sustainable Design Notes ment 26. This trail from the west moves down the valley above Camp Judson then back up to Human perception: natural shape Yes, around hillside, up and back valley the wrinkled Rock trail vicinity. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes

Human perception: destination anchors

Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Generally new trail Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Some steep cross contours, difficult construction Trail obstacles: water crossings Yes segment 28 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes Special features: Views

130 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 29 Nickname: Wrinkled Rock Drop Dominant Trailhead: Wrinkled Rock Parking Lot Lat. / Long: 43°53'13.60"N 103°28'9.71"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: Wrinkled Rock Lat. / Long: 43°53'10.90"N 103°28'2.31"W Elevation: 5240 Total elevation gain / loss: 160 Overall profile length in miles: 0.29 Overall profile slope: 10.45% Overall aspect: North, Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 29 simulation segment 29 photo

131 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 29

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, follows established route, low impact  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes, Wrinkled Rock trailhead M  Destination at appropriate location? Yes, Mount Rushmore boundary Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Possibly with rock climbers

 Appropriate corridor control points? Yes Regulatory agency: Black Elk Wilderness  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (Within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve) At a Glance: This short segment connects the Wrinkled Rock Sustainable Design Notes trailhead to the Big Pine trailhead. This trail crosses fairly rugged terrain can be accom- Human perception: natural shape Yes, interesting rock formations plished with site sensitive routing and design. Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes

Human perception: destination anchors Wrinkled Rock Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, Old Mount Rushmore Highway Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, very low impact construction segment 29 photo Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs No Special features:

132 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 30 Nickname: 244 through NWP Highway Route Dominant Trailhead: NWP 244 West Lat. / Long: 43°53'45.85"N 103°33'28.43"W Elevation: 5170 Secondary trailhead: MRNM/NWP on 244 Lat. / Long: 43°53'11.15"N 103°28'4.51"W Elevation: 5160 Total elevation gain / loss: 1800 Overall profile length: 5.57 Overall profile slope: 6.12% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium, High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 30 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 30 photo

133 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 30

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? No, road side the entire length  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location?  H Destination at appropriate location? Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Difficult for horses  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Automobile traffic  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Limited Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (Within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve) At a Glance: This major stretch of Highway 244 offers selec- Sustainable Design Notes tive vistas to the Black Hills and into the Black Elk Wilderness. This segment would parallel Human perception: natural shape No Highway 244 the entire distance, posing terrain Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Summit Peak issues and safety. Human perception: destination anchors Human feeling: safety Vehicular traffic concerns

Physical forces: constructability Trail obstacles: water crossings segment 30 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Steep Grades Special features:

134 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 31 Nickname: Breezy Point Dominant Trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Secondary trailhead: MRNM/NWP on 244 and Wrinkled Rock Lat. / Long: 43°53'11.15"N 103°28'4.51"W Elevation: 5160 and 5240 Total elevation gain / loss: 720 Overall profile length in miles: 1.90 Overall profile slope: 7.18% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 31 photo segment 31 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 31 photo

135 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 31

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? No, very steep slopes and west to Highway 244  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes M  Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Road traffic  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation Management Area 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway; Man-  agement Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve At a Glance: Sustainable Design This segment generally follows Highway 244 Notes except for one small portion near Big Pine Trail- head. Human perception: natural shape No Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Horse theif Lake spillway

Human perception: destination anchors Human feeling: safety No

Human feeling: efficiency No Human feeling: playfulness No Human feeling: harmony No Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, in places, generally no Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Difficult construction, steep slopes segment 31 photo Trail obstacles: water crossings Yes Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes Special features:

136 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 32 Nickname: South Fork Pine Creek Dominant Trailhead: NWP East fork of Pine Creek Lat. / Long: 43°53'54.88"N 103°27'46.16"W Elevation: 4720 Secondary trailhead: Wrinkled Rock Lat. / Long: 43°53'10.90"N 103°28'2.31"W Elevation: 5240 Total elevation gain / loss: 560 Overall profile length in miles: 1.32 Overall profile slope: 8.03% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope High to Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 32 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

137 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 32

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, but steeper slope than preferred  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes  M Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No

 Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Rock climbing  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Some exotics in area L  Cultural resources? Management Area Designation Management Area 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway; Man-  agement Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve At a Glance: Sustainable Design Notes This segment follows the general vicinity of the Wrinkled Rock Trail between Camp Judson and the Wrinkled Rock trailhead. Some portions Human perception: natural shape Winding valley / canyon follow the exact route of the existing trail and Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, climbing canyon gives good ―up‖ views some portions will be extended around cross slopes in order to keep the new trail accessible. Human perception: destination anchors This could be a very difficult segment to con- Human feeling: safety Yes and no, steep slopes to negotiate struct. Human feeling: efficiency Stiff climb Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, hiking trail Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, but steep slopes and valley would limit construction Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes Special features:

138 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 33 Nickname: Highway and Tunnel Trail Dominant Trailhead: Wrinkled Rock Lat. / Long: 43°53'10.90"N 103°28'2.31"W Elevation: 5240 Secondary trailhead: Profile View Lat. / Long: 43°52'32.68"N 103°27'40.02"W Elevation: 5080 Total elevation gain / loss: 320 Overall profile length: 0.9 Overall profile slope: 6.73% Overall aspect: North / South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low to High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 33 existing segment 33 simulation

SEGMENT PROFILE

segment 33 photo

139 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 33

 L Destination at appropriate location? Yes, profile view Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes, although horse are routed away from the highway  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Vehicular traffic

 Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Natural and cultural  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  National Park Service

At a Glance: Sustainable Design Notes

This segment is entirely within the boundaries Human perception: natural shape Yes at Mount Rushmore National Memorial. The Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Black Elk Wilderness and Mount Rushmore segment generally follows Highway 244 and stays either within the DOT right-of-way or just Human perception: destination anchors Profile views of Mount Rushmore next to the right-of-way depending on the ter- Human feeling: safety Yes, but highway barriers necessary rain and geologic conditions. One tunnel crossing under Highway 244 will keep the trail sepa- Human feeling: efficiency Yes rate from vehicular traffic. Human feeling: playfulness Yes and No Human feeling: harmony Yes and No Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, Highway 244 Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, but expensive Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes, steep side slopes and rock out croppings segment 33 photo Special features:

140 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 34 Nickname: Profile Boardwalk Trail Dominant Trailhead: Profile View Lat. / Long: 43°52'32.68"N 103°27'40.02"W Elevation: 5080 Secondary trailhead: Mount Rushmore Trailhead Lat. / Long: 43°52'25.78"N 103°27'15.26"W Elevation: 5230 Total elevation gain / loss: 180 Overall profile length: 0.56 Overall profile slope: 6.09% Overall aspect: South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 34 existing segment 34 simulation

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 34 existing segment 34 simulation

141 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 34

 Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: Natural and cultural  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  National Park Service

At a Glance: This segment runs from the Profile View park- Sustainable Design Notes ing area to the proposed trailhead across High- way 244 from the Mount Rushmore parking fa- Human perception: natural shape Yes cility. The trail straddles Highway 244 providing panoramic views to Starling Basin. This Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors First full view of Mount Rushmore segment of the trail would be very accessible to Human perception: destination anchors Profile views of Mount Rushmore a multitude of views. Human feeling: safety Yes, but highway barriers necessary

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes and No Human feeling: harmony Yes and No Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, Highway 244 Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, with boardwalks Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes, steep side slopes and rock out croppings segment 34 photo Special features:

142 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 35 Nickname: Blackberry Trail Dominant Trailhead: Blackberry Exit Lat. / Long: 43°52'7.62"N 103°27'38.07"W Elevation: 4880 Secondary trailhead: Mt. Rushmore Trailhead Lat. / Long: 43°52'25.78"N 103°27'15.26"W Elevation: 5230 Total elevation gain / loss: 360 Overall profile length in miles: 0.55 Overall profile slope: 12.40% Overall aspect: South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium to High

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 35 photo segment 35 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 35 photo segment 35 photo

143 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 35

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, equestrian, hiking, and no bikes  II, Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes  L Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes, equestrian, hiking, and no bikes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No

 Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Black Elk Wilderness Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, M, L Management Area Designation Cultural resources?  National Park Service

At a Glance: This segment is for horseback riders and hikers Sustainable Design Notes (no bikes) and follows the Black Berry Trail which would be significantly improved. Human perception: natural shape Yes Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, views to Mount Rushmore

Human perception: destination anchors Yes Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes, Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, Blackberry Trail Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes Trail obstacles: water crossings No segment 35 photo Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Special features:

144 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 36 Nickname: Reno Gulch Trail Dominant Trailhead: Reno Gulch Trailhead Lat. / Long: 43°54'29.39"N 103°35'20.72"W Elevation: 5090 Secondary trailhead: Mountain Pass Lat. / Long: 43°54'14.37"N 103°34'15.96"W Elevation: 5250 Total elevation gain / loss: 914.7 Overall profile length in miles: 3.25 Overall profile slope: 5.33% Overall aspect: West Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 36 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE

145 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 36

 Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency: Interpretive opportunities? Riparian forest, water resources  Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

At a Glance: The majority of this route falls on existing and Sustainable Design Notes or decommissioned Forest Service Roads. Much of the trail crooked creek with dramatic riparian Human perception: natural shape Yes landscape. Ideally the connection to Mickelson Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Crooked Creek Draw Trail could be made with cooperative private landowners instead at across very rugged forest Human perception: destination anchors Mickelson Trail service land, as shown on previous page. Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Close to forest setting Physical forces: previously impacted site Forest Service Roads Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Connection to Mickelson Trail is difficult Trail obstacles: water crossings Yes Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs At Mickelson Trail segment 36 photo Special features: Crooked Creek Draw

146 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 37 Nickname: Black Elk Equestrian By-pass Trail Dominant Trailhead: Breezy Point Lat. / Long: 43°53'13.15"N 103°28'24.13"W Elevation: 5200 Secondary trailhead: Blackberry Exit Lat. / Long: 43°52'7.62"N 103°27'38.07"W Elevation: 4880 Total elevation gain / loss: 1280 Overall profile length in miles: 2.44 Overall profile slope: 9.94% Overall aspect: South Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Low, Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 37 photo segment 37photo

segment 37 photo SEGMENT PROFILE

147 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 37

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, for equestrian and hikers  III Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes, Breezy Point L  Destination at appropriate location? Yes, Mount Rushmore Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses?  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Mount Rushmore, Black Elk Wilderness, Horsemanship Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Black Elk Wilderness, Starling Basin  M Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 1.1A Black Elk Wilderness

At a Glance: This segment is for horseback riders and hikers Sustainable Design Notes only (no bikes) and primarily offers and equestrian route from Big Pine Trailhead over to the Human perception: natural shape Yes Blackberry Trail. This segment is provided to Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Mount Rushmore and Harney Peak give horseback riders a trail away from highway 244 traffic. Human perception: destination anchors Yes Human feeling: safety Yes

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Yes Physical forces: previously impacted site Existing horse trail, mostly Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes Trail obstacles: water crossings Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes, South of Breezy Point segment 37 photo Special features:

148 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 38 Nickname: Striped Bike Lane Dominant Trailhead: Mount Rushmore Trailhead Lat. / Long: 43°52'25.78"N 103°27'15.26"W Elevation: 5230 Secondary trailhead: Keystone Lat. / Long: 43°53'15.26"N 103°25'47.15"W Elevation: 4440 Total elevation gain / loss: 780 Overall profile length in miles: 2.22 Overall profile slope: 6.65 Overall aspect: East Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 38 photo segment 38 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 38 photo segment 38 photo

149 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 38

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? No, but provides non-motorized connection to Keystone  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes, Mount Rushmore L  Destination at appropriate location? Yes, Keystone Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Yes, automobile

 Appropriate corridor control points? Adjacent to highway Regulatory agency: Great Plains, Mount Rushmore  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, M, L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  National Park Service

At a Glance: This segment includes a striped bike lane on Sustainable Design Notes both sides of Highway 244 between Keystone and Mount Rushmore parking facility. A trail- Human perception: natural shape No, highway is curvier linear shaped head could be established at the intersection of Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Extremely strong views of Mount Rushmore Highway 244 and to serve trail users. Human perception: destination anchors Yes, Two major anchors Human feeling: safety Yes and no, decision dependant

Human feeling: efficiency Yes and no Human feeling: playfulness No Human feeling: harmony Limited Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, Hwy 244 Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Yes, bike lanes Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Steep grades next to highway / some pinch points segment 38 photo Special features: Trailhead at Keystone and Pigtail Highway

150 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 39 Nickname: 244 Crossover Trail Dominant Trailhead: NWP 5000’

Lat. / Long: 43°54'15.64"N 103°31'24.20"W Elevation: 5015 Secondary trailhead: Big Pine Trailhead Lat. / Long: 43°53'55.52"N 103°29'8.72"W Elevation: 5060 Total elevation gain / loss: 480 Overall profile length in miles: 3.07 Overall profile slope: 2.96% Overall aspect: Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 39 photo segment 39 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 39 photo segment 39 photo

151 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 39

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes, very low impact  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes H  Destination at appropriate location? Yes Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? All users  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Old Mount Rushmore Highway and Peter Norbeck Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  H, M, L Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve At a Glance: This segment primarily follows the road bed of Sustainable Design Notes the abandoned Mount Rushmore Highway on both the north and south ends of Highway 244. Human perception: natural shape Yes This segment would be very low impact and Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, trail plays peek-a-boo with Elkhorn Mountain economical construction. Human perception: destination anchors Yes Human feeling: safety Yes, off highway

Human feeling: efficiency Yes Human feeling: playfulness Yes, original Mount Rushmore road has many unique features Human feeling: harmony Yes,. Strong relationship to scenery Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes, primarily on Old Mount Rushmore Highway bed Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes, very easy and affordable construction Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs No, limited at one road cut segment 39 photo Special features: Bridge over 244

152 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 40 Nickname: Horse thief Lake Dominant Trailhead: Big Pine Trailhead Lat. / Long: 43°53'55.52"N 103°29'8.72"W Elevation: 5060 Secondary trailhead: Wrinkled Rock Lat. / Long: 43°53'10.90"N 103°28'2.31"W Elevation: 5240 Total elevation gain / loss: 848 Overall profile length in miles: 2.33 Overall profile slope: 6.89% Overall aspect: Sustainable soil substrate Prevailing cross slope

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 40 photo segment 40 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 40 photo segment 40 photo

153 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 40

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Yes  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? Yes, Big Pine Trailhead M  Destination at appropriate location? Yes, Wrinkled Rock Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes, all users  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? No  Appropriate corridor control points? Regulatory agency:  Interpretive opportunities? Wildlife, geology, trail connection innovation Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources? Geology and wildlife  H Cultural resources? Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve At a Glance: This segment runs north and south of Highway Sustainable Design Notes 244 on new trail alignment. Some areas of rugged terrain will require innovative construction. Human perception: natural shape Yes, very rugged This segment also brings the trail around Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors Yes, Mount Rushmore and Harney Peak Horsetheif Lake, a very scenic stopping point. Human perception: destination anchors Yes, Big Pine Trailhead Human feeling: safety Yes, road crossings

Human feeling: efficiency Yes, connects to major recreational destination at Horse Thief Lake Human feeling: playfulness Yes, near water Human feeling: harmony Yes, over limited by passage through camp ground Physical forces: previously impacted site Yes and No Physical forces: known sensitivity Wildlife

Physical forces: constructability Yes, but some difficult slopes Trail obstacles: water crossings No Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Yes segment 40 photo Special features:

154 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 41 Nickname: KOA Dominant Trailhead: KOA South Lat. / Long: 43°54'1.47"N 103°32'12.00"W Elevation: 5000 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 84.1 Overall profile length: 0.84 Overall profile slope: 1.90% Overall aspect: North Sustainable soil substrate Existing Trails, Roads and Asphalt Prevailing cross slope Moderate

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 41 photo segment 41 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 41 photo segment 41 photo

155 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 41

Human feeling: efficiency Complimentary route provides quick, routes Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Good views to Harney Peak Physical forces: previously impacted site Campground Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Modify existing construction Trail obstacles: water crossings KOA Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Limited segment 41 photo Special features:

156 SEGMENT NAME: Segment 42 Nickname: Storm Mountain Byway Dominant Trailhead: Downtown Hill City Lat. / Long: 43°55'39.50"N 103°34'26.10"W Elevation: 5000 Secondary trailhead: KOA North Lat. / Long: 43°54'32.99"N 103°31'58.03"W Elevation: 4920 Total elevation gain / loss: 1160 Overall profile length: 4.92 Overall profile slope: 1.47% Overall aspect: South / North Sustainable soil substrate Existing Roads, previously impacted trails Prevailing cross slope Low / Medium

SEGMENT PLAN

segment 42 photo segment 42 photo

SEGMENT PROFILE segment 42 photo segment 42 photo

157 Classification and Management SEGMENT NAME: Segment 42

Proposed trail type: Sustainable Management Notes  I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII ,VIII, IX, X Proposed trail classification (USFS): Meets trail’s established purpose? Connects to a major local recreational area  V Proposed trail flexibility: Originates at appropriate location? KOA  M Destination at appropriate location? KOA Proposed major user groups: Allows appropriate uses? Yes, all  Proposed trail management entity: Proposed use conflicts with existing uses? Campground traffic  Appropriate corridor control points? Good access to active areas Regulatory agency: Outdoor recreation  Interpretive opportunities? Recreation accessibility potential: Natural resources?  M Cultural resources? KOA Management Area Designation  Management Area 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis At a Glance: Sustainable Design Notes This segment leaves Hill City by following Highway 16 past the new Visitors Information Center and down the old Highway 16 route ad- Human perception: natural shape Side slopes jacent to the highway. Before Mitchell Lake it Human perception: visual (scenic) anchors KOA turns South onto Forest Service property rising along a valley bottom to explore some back Human perception: destination anchors KOA country North of the Old Hill City Road This Human feeling: safety Moderate section requires a bridge across Spring Creek, and trail riders would be riding/walking in front Human feeling: efficiency Complimentary route provides quick, routes of privates home along Highway 385/16. Human feeling: playfulness Yes Human feeling: harmony Good views to Harney Peak Physical forces: previously impacted site Campground Physical forces: known sensitivity

Physical forces: constructability Modify existing construction Trail obstacles: water crossings KOA Trail obstacles: major slopes or cliffs Limited Special features: segment 42 photo

158 159 Hiking / Biking Trail Route Considerations

South Palmer Gulch 161 Hiking / Biking Trail Route Considerations

Six routes are proposed for further consideration. These routes organize the segments identified into distinctly different trail experiences. They are organized generally North to South, with another for simply following the road. Each route is generally considered feasible, depending upon the level and intensity of mitigating measures to overcome the unique challenges and obstacles encountered.

The benefit of the segment analysis is that while these routes follow certain segments, the final route need not be limited to the routes identified here. If a segment or series of segments represents an insurmountable set of obstacles, there is another segment provided, another option to route the final preferred alternative on. Finding a contin- uous route from West to East that is the best combination of desirable segments is the ultimate goal. The final route that will be identified by further study could include a combination of all of the routes shown here.

Some general considerations are worth noting:  One way to Rushmore: Because of concerns mentioned above there is essential- ly one way into Mount Rushmore National Memorial for this trail – following the South Side of Highway 244. This route both connects the pedestrian to the famed ―Profile‖ view of Washington and creates an opportunity to view the central core of the Black Hills from a progressive vantage point.

 The original ―Mount Rushmore Road‖ or ―Old Norbeck Route‖ meanders beside the present day Scenic Byway on Highway 244. These routes crisscross the highway, but could allow opportunities to take advantage of existing well constructed trail beds. Peter Norbeck famously had a hand in laying these roads out to take advantage of the best views and most interesting features of the area.

 All Routes are shown connecting not just to the Mickelson trail, but to Hill City. This is a deliberate effort to help envision the route as a typical user may experi- Conceptual Routes: ence it. It is not necessary to rebuild the Mickelson Trail to accommodate this 4. North of Norbeck route new trail’s impact. a. Description: This 14.3 mile route is aligned to maximize the trail locations outside of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.  Numerous segments on each route follow the alignment of decommissioned 1. North / South of Norbeck Route b. Features: Trail located on numerous stretches of decommissioned USFS roads. Specific locations for these portions of the alternative routes would a. Description: This 18.8 mile route minimizes the trail footprint within Forest Service Roads. be identified in more detailed mapping separate from this report. the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve by following the Battle Creek Valley as c. Iconic Image: Panoramic views to Harney Peak and Elkhorn from much as possible. numerous locations. b. Features: Boardwalk to Profile view, Tunnel beneath 244, decent to Old Hill City Road, Valley trail adjacent to road, back country to 5. Highway 244 Route Mickelson, Trailhead at the US Forest Service helipad a. Description: This 11.7 mile route follows Highway 244 from Rush- c. Iconic image: Long views up to Elkhorn Mountain and Harney Peak. more to the Mickelson using the Highway Right of Way. b. Features: Steep climbs, bike lanes, grade crossing at Highway 16. 2. Rabbit Gulch Route c. Iconic image: Bike Lanes on the Scenic Byway. a. Description: This 16.9 mile route takes advantage of existing roads through the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve to where moderate impacts in 6. No New Route the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. a. Description: Existing roads are used by bicyclists and existing trails b. Features: Long deciduous valleys, trestle connection to railroad bridge provide good access to much of the study area already. at Highway 16. b. Features: Nothing new. c. Iconic image: Long valley view up to Elkhorn Mountain. c. Iconic image: Bikers waiting for traffic.

3. Peter Norbeck Route a. Description: This 13.3 mile route is aligned to take advantage of the original Mount Rushmore Road and Palmer Gulch b. Features: Palmer Gulch Road, Old road bed construction, trestles. c. Iconic image: Palmer Gulch Views of Harney Peak, Partial views of 162 Elkhorn through forest. " Plan and Profile ,, I North I South of Norbeck Route

,, ...... ' - . , Existing Trail ----- ~~ .. -"' C~ks and S!reams

\\'a~J~}' ---.._____ Exlsling Tr.ljnTr-acks

c: 0 i\M...... J i 2 0 X m!1c I fl'olle -5 Prm11cV..rlk .t1 Sa.lc--1: :'> N()tHl'l ~D 3 . "'' 7

" j '"' •

~ " J "' F G K M N X y z 5280 - ' 0 A. - I 'V ' a ' __, v !0 ,...... ~ -- ti ' - ~ .... c "'c u0 c 0 "' ~ ~

4 s b 1p 11 1~ 13 15 1~ 17 18 rr iles ---- I ~r * ~ Wyss 163 ~ Assoc i a tes, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail L;,mcbt'~l>l: Arc.:h il('(ll/14.: • GoH OM~ An:f 'lil<.:ttvu: . P<'lk~ & Rc..'t'f<.',..ion Ot"~i:gn 128 Si•tll St•.. t .Rc\>hl ~y. S....tll Od.o!q !17101 - J6711 £&.;,348.2*8 ro;c ~W.65Cl6 B LACK H ILLS. SOUTH DAKOT A -<1R,., ,o.,.,.,o,_b1,-.oom Alternative Route I lb

I NORTH / SOlTfH ofKORBECK ROUTE

IM 16 0 7 0 9 0 13 0 afallonc122 0 41 0 ofallond3 0 a fb1lon d2 D 0 26 0 :l2 E IM 033 0 31

16 c====:J Pri\'llle Land OwnmJtip 16 .,- .... . , Q~ .--- •, ... "' E.'lstlng Trail

Waterbody ---...__ F..u'ilingTralnTrad.:s

~ Wyss ~ Associales. Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail l ... nri\C •'IK• N< hh1•C!uro· (.;()1( (0111'!><: At<:hitc.·ctllrl'. P,lfk.~ ~ Rl.'(.IC:;.t~l iQn Ot~i;!:n nt 111•111 llv••• ltopOt cu,. ""'"' DlicolO 57ni•-J670 6al5.3<1e,,25fl r ... 60!..~6SC6 B L ACK H I L LS, SOU T ~I DAKOTA f"'OII I'I~"MMOCIOit• e- " Plan and Profile " ,, II Rabbit Gulch Route

1)11

~ Wyss 165 ~ Assoc i a t es, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I ''"(1'>1• f~~" Alfh •!r'( I Ui t' • (;nH n,_~ An;flil<.'ftll14: • P<'lk.; & Rc_'('r<,>;Jotit)n ()colign 1JIIIo\lo ~····· 'IQolOOI Olly. !lautn ilol

II RABBIT GULCH ROUTE

0 5 0 16 0 17 0 00 0 25 0 27 0 28 032 0 33 0 3<1

I ~~~ )L 1\ I RUSH:-. ORL 16 N \TIOI';Af, ~ll\101· f\L 16 ..... -... (J6A) ..,., ' , E-Xisting T '<'il .-- ...... -'

Watetbody

Exi:s~ Train Tracks. }'il

n.ru0 t..0» I 4J)lO.

nMl!

~ Wyss ~ A ssoc i ales, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I o.nct.. r oll'tt' Alfh iiC~Itnc • (;nH C~t' Arrflil('ctlll4: • P<'fk$ & R('('r<:;a.tj(m Dl"'~i:gn 111 jlo\11 Sl•o•l "w'

,, ...... ' - . , Existing Trail ----- ~~ .. -"' "' C~ks and S!reams U>;' \\'a~J~}' ·:::.~~ ---.._____ Exlsling Tr.ljnTr-acks !C '"' f.!: ( 2 " c: 4 0 .21 i\M...... J 0 Xm!1c I fl'olle ~ \_ 3 •s Prm11cV..rlk.t1Sa.lc--1: :'> N()tHl'l ~ ~,f I 1011 .;-. ' "''

{Ju };..,I ,._~·, - 67 " j '"' • l !Sl p (8j' .. "'

H i y z 5280(., ,. Iii y_ .._..... jjiiit ,. ·~ I ~ - ~ .9u "'~ ~ 8 ~ 0 "' ~u 2 ~ 1 1 0 ~ ~ ) ) ~ J 0 11 2 13 jlil es

~ Wyss 167 ~ Assoc i a tes, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail L;,mcbt'~l>l: Arc.:h il('(ll/14.: • GoH OM~ An:f'lil<.:ttvu: . P<'lk~ & Rc..'t'f<.',..ion Ot"~i:gn 128 Si•tll St• ..t .Rc\>hl ~y. S....tll Od.o!q !17101-J6711 £&.;,348.2*8 ro;c ~W.65Cl6 B LACK H ILL S, SOUT H DAKOT A -<1R ,.,,o.,.,.,o,_b1,-.oom Alternative Route III

"'--~ III PETER NORBECK ROUT£

0 4 0 18 0 19 039 0 40 Ll 33 0 311 I 16

16 ..... -... (J6A) ..,., ' , E-Xisting T '<'il .-- ...... -'

Watetbody

Exi:s~ Train Tracks. }'il

ruu0 l.O)O • 4.,0.)0 II

nMli

~ Wyss ~A ssoc i a t es, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I o.nct.. r oll'tt' Alfh iiC~I tnc • (;nH C~t' Arrflil('ctlll4: • P<'fk$ & R('('r<:;a.tj(m Dl"'~i:gn 111 jlo\ 11 Sl•o• l "w'

.. ,,-...... ,' F.xbtins Trail , ---~ .... ,

\\f.a....n.ody 5 ..... ----- fdstingTr-ainTr-«:tt ~-~ 11 ,f!CIIfie'Vertiaol5aleoo1:S ~......

,.. , ,.. ~ ., ,, j '" ; "' •• ,.. X y z I

0 ~ ._. A B ~ ~ w - - - ... -we '- ' v_r - .,...

8 c: 0 o;"' -"'u ~

.: ') u 10 12 13 14 r liles~ - - ~1 Wyss 169 Associales, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail Ulnd'-fi.lllC.' M hilt."C:I\Ift! • Golf (ourS(' Nchil'-.'<.1Vtt' • 1\ u l\s & R«:l4:-dl110n O l"SJ!:O 111 11,..,. Stt••• ..,.~ cu,, s.."'" ll11tot.o ~nOl-.!670 60$.~8.,':69 r.,. 60!..!.4&6SC\6 BLACK H I I, L S. SOUT H DA KO TA ~(111 ~.,..fi-IO(f(lt"Com ~ lb Alternative Route IV B ~ A ~ ,. ' J, .....

~ IV NORTil OF NORBECK ROUTE

0 42 0 a!blb,d3 U a R>llond2 0 26 032 0 33 0 311

16 ' 81)

Existing Trail

Walftbady Ulstift8 Traul T tacls J5l

ruu0 'l/:XJ/J • i.o(IOO • II '••OIUti

, Wyss ~ Associa1es, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I "''" ' ~ olf)(! A« hit•'f l llfC' • (;nl( ( nurM• Au h il(.1 1 u~· • Ponk" & ft('f:t<',lti()n l)t:~ign ?71 li\ol" IV••• Rajlll Cllr, S.:..t.a Oo~11 .S1101 •l6?0 6tY...l~.22'6a reo. 61Y.o. J<~8.6506 B LA CK HILLS, SOU TI-1 DAKOTA -fill 0\_...,.._"(00\" f

A _,..-..... ,' " ,--- .... , f.xbting Tra:tl

\¥.alefbody

----- f\:~ngfn~inlr-«kt

!1J~. . n~TH PIOI'iieVIt!1ir..IIScalea1;:S

,.. , ,. ~ ., "' j z '" • ) "' •• " '"' EF J I N DO X y z ""

1 11 es

Wyss 171 Associales, Inc. George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail Ulnd'-fi,IC)(' M hllt,"(IUI(.! • Golf (;nur~ M:hitt'<.1Uf(' • 1\ u l\s & R«;;l4.'dl110n 0~--s.gn Jlt llo\1'0 St••" !WpW cu,, ~"'" lh•loW ~710l-J670 60$.J..t8.,6(1 r.,. 605..!.48.8SCl6 BLACK HII, LS, SOUTH DAKOTA ~(lit lo!~fi-I(ICfO\H (- Alternative Route V

- v HJGH\VAY 244 ROUTE f1an \M!!IIo E"ai lhis Ra.ieoomodsS....JIO lis

I) () 0 2lo 0 21b 0 2Jc II 30 0 l') 0 3<1 t "\. "" 16 ' I I ; \_f- 81) I _J Existing Trail

Walftbady Ulstift8 Traul T tacls

0ruu 1#» • 4_,(100 •

n""'()(t1tt

, Wyss ~ Associa1es, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I "''" ' ~ olf)(! A« hit•'f l llfC' • (;nl( ( nurM• Au hil(.1 1 u~· • Ponk" & ft('f:t<',lti()n l)t:~ign ?71 li\ol" IV••• Rajlll Cllr, S.:..t.a Oo~11 .S1101•l6?0 6tY...l~.22'6a reo. 61Y.o.J<~8.6506 B LA C K HILLS, SOU TI-1 DAKOTA -fill 0\_...,.._"(00\" f

.______,I VI NO NEW ROUTE I 16 nn.

_, ..... -... .. , E-Xisting T 10\il .-- ...... ~

W.t~tetbod)'

E\:is~ Train Tracb JSl

~ Wyss 173 ~ Assoc i a t es, Inc. GeorgeS. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail I o.ncl"f .IIIII' Art h•IC~Iurt•. (.;r.H C~t' Arrilil('rhnc • P<'rko: & R('t'r<:;a.tj(m Ol."'~n 111 Slo\11 ~1•~•• 'IQIII<~ elly. !lcoutll Ddool• !11101· l6?C f()!t.:!.,II.2U!I r- 6(16..).\(1,6506 BLACK H ILLS. SOUTH DAKOTA """''' ..,,O..,J'"Ot-ltll•• OCIM Route Recommendations

174

South Palmer Gulch 175 sioned for the level of public input that was solicited. Once the overall feasibility of the project as a single-tread, non-motorized trail was confirmed, the stakeholders agreed to proceed with additional public input from equestrian users to identify pref- erences and opinions on a trail concept that might include separate trail routes or considerations for equestrian use consistent with appropriate design standards for a heavily used non-motorized trail within the special restrictions on non-motorized use for this area of the Black Hills. These findings were to be published as an addendum to the feasibility study. This addendum addresses these additional findings and determi- nations to provide non-motorized route alternatives patterned after the non-motorized user now provided for on the George S. Mickelson Trail.

This report summarized the findings from meetings with the partnering agencies, one public meeting, trail user task force, and a variety of field trips. Just as in the original report, this document does not project specific levels of use on this proposed trail.

Sustainable Trails

The George S. Mickelson Trail to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Connector Trail must be a trail that is sustainable, maintenance friendly, safe for all non-motorized users, and sustainable to the long term usage of the trail system. The purpose of a sustainable trail is to provide users a way to access natural areas on a defined path that is resistant to erosion and causes minimal damage to the environment. Water is the primary cause of erosion on trails. The proposed connector trail is anticipated to have heavy usage throughout the year by many different user types. Strong consideration for how the trail must be constructed and used must be taken into consideration within the study of the trail and user groups. Establishment of trail maintenance agreements with user groups and stakeholders will be pursued to ensure the long term viability of the trail.

Shared Pathway on Malibu State Park, in California.

Introduction:

During a combined meeting of the partnering agencies in January 2011, it was concluded that an evaluation of non-motorized route alternatives accommodating all non- motorized users connecting the Mickelson to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial was necessary to evaluate the trails feasibility.

This addendum’s purpose is to amend the Feasibility Study Report to address the non-motorized route alternative so that all users provided for on the existing Mickelson Trail are also provided for when considering the feasibility of a connector trial. As part of the investigation study the consultant worked with the US Forest Service, the Na- tional Park Service, SD Department of Game Fish and Parks, the Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Society and interested stakeholders to assess the existing equestrian use of the trail network within the study area and desired improvements to the network that could be incorporated into this work. This included agency specific meetings and one workshop with the trail partners to identify needs and desires regarding all non-motorized users. The final feasibility study submitted on December 28, 2009 did not include Equestrian usage on the trail alternatives outlined in the final report. This section is aimed at cor- recting this presumption so that the proposed connector trail’s feasibility would be considered with the non-motorized use that takes place in the existing Mickelson Trail (foot, bike and horse). Such factors include the study area’s proximity to the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, Black Elk Wilderness, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Each proposed route considered in this study has a distinct trail experience. During the final phases of the feasibility study, there was a concern that attempting to include equestrian use on the same tread of any of the trail route alternatives could affect the overall feasibility of the project or require special considerations beyond what was envi-

176

History of Equestrian Use in the Hills and Growing a. Close Willow Creek Horse Campground Future of Equestrian Usage i. Redesign the camp as an equestrian trailhead. 1. Design would address modern ADA standards. This study is not intended to quantify trail usage or capacities. Comments made dur- ii. Displaced campers could be accommodated by private facilities in the ing the study preparation suggest increasing non-motorized use in the Black Hills as area. follows: b. Reconstruction of Oreville Campground as a horse campground, with connect- Trail users can travel into the Black Hills backcountry on more than 600 plus miles of or trails. trails, including the 111-mile Centennial Trail running the length of the Hills between i. Oreville used to be a high-use facility until highway reconstruction Bear Butte and Wind Cave and the 109-mile George S. Mickelson Trail from Lead moved road noise and view closer to campground. to Edgemont. Distances between trailheads average six miles. Trails are open to hik- ii. Consider redesigning the campground for specialty use by horseback ers, mountain bikers, horses and cross-country skiing. Other trails include the historic riders, campers and bicyclists. Flume Trail, the Deerfield Trail and several shorter trails near Spearfish and Spearfish iii. Convenient access to Mickelson Trail for equestrian and bicycle users. Canyon. More than 50 miles of the trail system can be found in the Norbeck Wildlife iv. Scenic Byway could be part of this consideration. Preserve, which includes the Black Elk Wilderness. Mountain bikes and mechanized v. Oreville is on national forest land designated limited motorized use and equipment are prohibited in the Black Elk Wilderness where only foot and horse trav- forest products and would allow for this type of alternative use el is allowed. c. National forest lands north of the Palmer Gulch KOA and east of Summit South Dakota and the Black Hills have a wonderful variety of beautiful trails open to Peak. non-motorized uses. Whether you want to ride or walk for a day or a week, there is a i. Design and build a new equestrian campground. place that fits everyone's level of expertise and ability. There are trails that are easy ii. Design to address ADA standards and user expectations. enough to build the confidence of a young user and there are trails that will test one’s iii. Could be managed by a concessionaire similar to some national forest sense of adventure and the fitness level of any user. Trail riders, like most trail users, campgrounds and marinas. Group of riders on the trail in the Black Hills. are tourists who want to enjoy not only the beauty of the trail on the landscape, but to iv. A new road district in this vicinity and upgraded road conditions are explore the surrounding area and other recreational opportunities as well. Trail riders being considered for access to the KOA. in South Dakota and the Black Hills are fortunate to be able to select from trails in national parks, national forests, state parks, state forests, wildlife management areas, d. National forest lands in T.1 S., R. 5 E., Section 6, near the western terminus of and local parks. Throughout the Black Hills a variety of Horse Camps have been the proposed Mickelson Trail Connector. established to enhance the horseback riding value to the Black Hills. i. Design and build a new equestrian campground. ii. Design to address ADA standards and user expectations. iii. Could be managed by a concessionaire similar to some national for- Stakeholder Meeting: est marinas. iv. Access and utilities would need to be evaluated.

To help better understand the user groups for the proposed connector trail a meeting 2. How would you route all three types of non-motorized users (hike, bike, horse) took place with the partner agencies and the public. This meeting gauged the im- from the Mickelson trail to Mount Rushmore, either co-located or on separate portance of a multi-use trail open to all non-motorized access very similar to the facilities? In the amendment, an alternative or analysis should be considered that George S. Mickelson Trail. provides for all three uses co-located initially on the same facility. Then, as the three types of uses increase, and as additional funding may become available, the A review meeting was held with the Black Hills National Forest and the prime con- state can consider providing separate facilities. sultant on June 27, 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to review national forest questions pertaining to equestrian use on the proposed connector trail. Prior to the a. Consider the use of existing trails first, with all three uses co-located, and then meeting six questions where submitted for consideration: consider new routes. i. Current limitations include no bicycles within Black Elk Wilderness and 1. What are some possible alternate locations, either on private or public lands, to no horses (other than one designated access trail and horse comfort sta- relocate the Willow Creek Horse Campground from its current location to a location) or bicycles within Mt. Rushmore. tion outside of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and/or near the western terminus ii. Hikers are allowed on designated trails only within Mt. Rushmore. of the proposed Mickelson Trail Connector? iii. ―Existing trails‖ refers to existing national forest designated system trails. Options suggested by the Forest Service include the following: Discussion re- iv. Big Pine would be a consideration to separate equestrian use away from volved around two concepts for the Willow Creek Horse Campground: 1. Clos- the highway and along existing trails over to the Blackberry trail. Willow Creek Campground and Trailhead sign. Potential horse camp improvement. ing it and providing no new public service and allowing private enterprise to fill v. National forest staff instructed consultant that an equestrian connec- the user services void created by that closure. 2. Closing it and relocating the tion to the Blackberry Trail through the Black Elk Wilderness from services to another public location that would be operated by the national forest. Wrinkled Rock, as illustrated in the original report, is not to be considered. 177 study to be treated equally with bicycle and hiker use? The equestrian community seems to agree that horseback trails do not require as re- strictive design parameters as biking trails, and thus trails specifically for horseback a. The purpose of this amendment is to replace page 176 and include updat- riders are much more flexible to design and build. The equestrian trails do not need to ed information currently under consideration. This could include a delinea- be as wide, although it was pointed out that two approaching pack horses need a lot of tion of alternative equestrian routes within the study area. room to pass safely. Also, their maximum allowable grades are much higher than biking and hiking trails. 10-30% grades do not seem to be a 6. What other equestrian riding and non-motorized opportunities can be developed in concern. other areas of the Black Hills National Forest that are outside of the Black Elk Wilderness and the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve? The equestrian community did express concerns over safety regarding shared use of a single trail. They felt that common a. This could include a consideration of a complete relocation of equestrian sense and education play a large role. They recommend sim- use in this somewhat congested area to a more remote back-country area of ple installation of signage along the trail route would inform the southern Black Hills. users of the right-of-way requirements. Signs similar to this Typical trail yield example have been used on other trails in the Black Hills sign. and could easily be implemented on to this trail for education of the multi-user groups. Public Meeting: Many felt as though the horseback riders were ―thrown out‖ of the process or considered secondary when we proceeded with the feasibility A public meeting was held on August 16, 2011 to discuss the alternative of non- study. The Feasibility Study Team explained that it was the concept of including all motorized, and specifically equestrian, use on the proposed trail alternatives outlined non-motorized uses on a single trail within an area of unconventional administrative in the December 28, 2009 report. An Open House format meeting was held at the limitations that was making the determination of feasibility very difficult. The Feasi- Dahl Fine Arts Center in Rapid City to discuss equestrian use on a potential non- bility Study Team needed to see if a single biking/hiking trail was feasible before it motorized trail connecting the George S. Mickelson Trail (GSMT) to Mount Rush- could commit towards the time and expense of addressing the equestrian issues. If a more National Memorial (MRNM). Over 40 public attendees participated in the open Mt. Rushmore National Memorial Yellow Wolf Trail and other Memorial trails. single hiking/biking trail was not feasible, the project would likely have been dis- house discussion. (Sign-in sheet attached). The following paragraphs are summaries missed or the objective drastically reconsidered. Once a single hiking/biking route of various discussions and comments taken during the Open House. appeared feasible, an amendment to the study that identified short and long term needs and desires to address equestrian use in the trail area was initiated. Many attendees felt that the meeting was about determining if horseback riding was b. Minimize new construction in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. going to be allowed on ―the‖ proposed trail. The Feasibility Study Team explained Discussions with the national forest staff will be explored for opportunities for relo- that the purpose of the proposed amendment to the Feasibility Study was to consider c. Where proposed trails cross existing roads, are summer road traffic counts cating or enhancing existing horse camping facilities. The equestrian users were inter- alternatives in part, or in whole to allow equestrian use that would have the same op- ested in some details about possible trailheads and parking facilities that can accom- available? portunity to connect from the GSMT to MRNM. Many of the issues that were identi- i. Traffic counts could possibly be obtained from SDDOT. modate their rigs. The design factors behind the site design of the multi-user trailhead fied in the Feasibility Study suggested that a single, shared use path may not be the are much more in-depth and require strong coordination and site selection. Design most logical solution. Other trail alternatives might allow horseback riders to accom- d. What is the current and projected use of the Wrinkled Rock climbing area? requirements for a multi-user trailhead must include turning radius for large truck and plish the objective of connecting the Mickelson Trail with Mount Rushmore without trail rigs, tie up areas, feeding shelters, and waste disposal facilities, amongst other i. This could possibly be addressed by NPS. a single, shared use corridor. user specific requirements.

3. What is the current and projected use of all three types of trail use of the Mickel- After many of the participants The public participants noted that horseback riders are growing in number and need son trail and this connector? heard that there was only one a. Trail Usage: more places to ride. The Black Hills is becoming a destination for horseback riding way for horses to enter and this recreational use is an economic presence. Organized groups supporting i. Projected trail usage is intended to be calculated during an EIS pro- MRNM, (Blackberry Trail), cess, if the trail consideration proceeds to that level. equestrian use are also growing and playing large roles in the development and con- they seemed to understand the struction of horse trails through volunteer and cooperative efforts. There are very need for alternate routes for 4. What is the current and projected equestrian use of the Forest Service trails on little ―corridor― trails available to horseback riding in the Black Hills. It was dis- horseback riders. They were cussed several times throughout the meeting that a trail connection from Willow the north side of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve? not interested in having hors- a. Commercial use (Outfitter and Guide) Creek Horse camp into Hill City would be a heavily used equestrian trail. Discussions es right next to the highway, and design coordination must be made with the George S. Mickelson Trail to tie up b. Public use plus the NPS currently i. Projected trail usage is intended to be calculated during an EIS pro- horses in Hills City or at a nearby Trailhead. doesn’t allow it. NPS has a cess, if the trail consideration proceeds to that level. current EA that states horse- Some expressed that the national forest should be more of a supporter of the project back riding within MRNM is than a facilitator. only allowed on the Blackber-

ry Trail. Any other alternative The primary point directed at the feasibility study team was that the equestrian com- 5. How will the Equestrian and Non-Motorized Trail Route Considerations on Page trails will require a new EA 176 of the Feasibility Study be modified, eliminated or incorporated into the Open house held August 16, 2011 munity should be given the opportunity to link into the Mickelson Trail, but it was process by the NPS. not essential that it be accomplished through a single, shared-use trail. For the east

178 end of the trail, they could use existing trails in the Black Elk wilderness to get to MRNM. Equestrian users could utilize trails west of Big Pine if needed. Some of these trails might need some minor improvements. The Black Berry trail within MRNM is currently in disrepair and needs a lot of work to safely allow additional traffic.

It was also discussed that horseback riding is an efficient and effective way to allow for a trail to be accessible by all people. Horseback riding allows individuals who cannot walk or ride a bike access to this trail system.

Many attendees requested that the consultant put the Final ―Draft‖ Feasibility study document back on the website for their review. Others requested that the consultant provide some of the equestrian groups with maps of the route alternatives. Many equestrian users offered to ride the trails and proposed routes to help identify what routes would be best for equestrian usage.

User Task Force

On May 22, 2012 a user task force was created to look at all trail alternatives routes and discuss each routing option and how it can be enhanced for each user group. Two members of each user groups were invited to sit on the task force; Bikers, Hikers, and Equestrian Users. Careful consideration was taken with each member to sit on the user task force. The consultant team verified the members of the task force and their Group of riders on the trail, in the Black Hills of South Dakota representation within their specific user group. Members were selected based on their involvement with their specific activity. A field day for the user task force was organized to properly up-date the user task force members with the trail routing alternatives, the vicinity of the land, and some of the waypoints along the trail. Prior to the user task force field day each member was provided with a packet of information to help them better understand the trail and the history of the trail planning process. This Members of the User Task Force package included the front end of the original trail feasibility report, maps, an agenda for the field day, user task force goals, and a Q&A sheet. Name Organization Representation

Doug Bechen Backcountry Horsemen of America – Equestrian Representative Task Force Goals: President

 Define the acceptability of an all-inclusive non-motorized trail. Will it work to Dr. Keith Johnson Backcountry Horsemen of America Equestrian Representative include all uses?  Define the Preferred 3 routes to be recommended during the EIS Process. Ralph Kopp Norbeck Society, VP Hiking Representative  Review critical access points and uses for each user group. Wonda Moranti Black Hills Volksport Association Hiking Representative

User Task Force Field Day Summary: Jerry Cole Black Hills Mountain Bike Association Biking Representative

On May 22, 2012 the user task force conducted a field day. The Purpose of the field Tim Rangitsch Black Hills Mountain Biking Association Biking Representative day was to travel within the general vicinity of several of the alternative routes and discuss routing and access options. The Task force met in Hill City’s Tracy Park Trailhead. From Hill City the trail user task force and stake holders traveled toward Mt. Rushmore National Memorial stopping at critical points to review the trail routing alternatives.

A stop was made at the USFS Heli-Port located outside of Hill City. A trail access point was discussed and reviewed. This access point would require a minimum of 16 switchbacks up a hill to meet the 5% slope requirement.

179 A stop was made along 385 to look at a potential access point from the Mickelson Trail. This access point falls on sliver of ground ―witch’s lane‖ that would allow the trail to mostly access the Mickelson on public land with some minor private easement discussions. This location would also require significant earth work.

A third stop was made in a residential neighborhood off of Dead Broke Road. This access point would require significant coordination and discussions with private land owners. However the access point that we would gain would be the easiest access point to meet minimal grade requirements. The forth access point to the Mickelson Trail would connect near the 385/244 intersection. This access point would require boardwalks and bridges to work with some of the land.

The task force traveled the trail up to the KOA private property locations where there were discussions made of providing additional trailheads for the hiking community between Hill City and KOA. Also it was discussed that access should be provided from the KOA to the Willow Creek Horse Camp. There is an additional trail from the 244 undercrosss to the Horse Camp however a connection would need to take place from the overgrown areas of the old trail to the underpass. From the KOA the task force traveled to the Norbeck Highway. Later at Big Pine Trail Head that a relocation of Big Pine Trail Head to the South Side of the road would better serve all users. The USFS stated that relocation does make sense and should be investigated during the User Task Force reviewing trail conditions in Mount Rushmore National Mon- User Task Force reviewing trail routing options during a round table discussion planning stages of the trail construction. Additional stops were made at Horsethief Lake, Roadside at Mount Rushmore National Memorial and that the end of the pro- ument NPS Boundaries along HWY 244 held at Mount Rushmore National Memorial posed trail at the Black Berry Trail head.

User Task Force Specific Items:

The result of the user task force field day was several key points that each user group suggested that we review and incorporate into the report and into the initial design of the trail.

 Review all trail head locations and suggest providing additional trail heads between Hill City and the KOA.

 Further investigate Mickelson Trail access along a section line south of Hill City.

 It is suggested the Tracy Park Trail Head be included in the trail improvement package to include parking and turn-around locations for horse trailers.

 The Big Pine Trail Head would be a safer location if it were relocated to the south side of 244.

 In locations outside of Mount Rushmore National Memorial where board walks are suggested being used, the equestrian community will consider using if the boardwalks held gravel and were similar to the bridge crossing that we see along the Mickelson Trail.

User Task Force reviewing trail access near Hill City

180 Recommendations and Conclusions

Yes, it is feasible and there are opportunities for non-motorized routes to connect the Mickelson Trail to the Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

Trail Considerations

One:

Combined Equestrian, Bike and Hike Trail from the Mickelson up to a connection to the Blackberry Trail from the Big Pine vicinity. Equestrian/hikers connects over to the Blackberry from Big Pine. No Equestrian on the connector trail from Big Pine to Mt. Rushmore. Should any alternatives pro- pose an equestrian route within the boundary of MRNM other than the currently approved Blackberry Trail the NPS would be required to conduct an environmental assessment.

Two: Completely separate Equestrian/Hike Trail from the new connector trail: · Alternate 2a: Start and finish at the Willow Creek Horse Camp or the Palmer Creek Trailhead (no change alternative for equestrian) and Mt. Rushmore.

Route Consideration One includes a shared trail for all users on each route considered above, as well as each segment in the original document, except that equestrian users would be routed from the Big pine Trailhead over to a portion of the Centennial Trail (S-BB) Black Elk Wilderness that connects to the Blackberry Trail, thus connecting to Mt. Rushmore.

Bikers and riders share the same path system at Malibu State Park, California.

181 Route Consideration Two Route includes a shared trail for all users on each route considered above, as well as each segment in the original document. This alternative expands the opportunities of the equestrian/ hiker user to connect to the new trail route from established connecting trails leading to nearby trailheads, and horse camps. Alternative 2a could begin at Willow Creek Horse Camp or Palmer Creek Trailhead and travel into the newly established trail system. The trail would be a shared use trail until the northwestern entry to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial. From here, the equestrian/hiker (hikers Optional) user would use established trail through the Black Elk Wilderness to connect to the Black Berry Trail , thus connecting to Mt. Rushmore.

182 Route Recommendation

From there the route follows the vicinity of the Rabbit Gulch Route Segment (Red II) over to Node Q, where Battle Creek crosses into the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

183 Next Steps

Horse Thief Lake 185 NEXT STEPS

The South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks (GFP) will review the feasibility of possible connector routes between the Mickelson Trail and Mt. Rushmore, as presented in this study, and make a determination on proceeding with a proposed trail. The determination will be based upon an acceptable level of feasibility for implementing the entire project within a reasonable timeframe and funding strategy that is agreeable to all cooperating agencies. If GFP decides to go forward with a trail, a formal submittal would be made to the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine parameters for a Special Use Permit or other application

The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) exercises management authority for the BHNF, including the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Black Elk Wilderness. In addition to the BHNF, the proposed routes include lands owned and managed by several other entities:  National Park Service (NPS) – management authority for the Mount Rush- more National Memorial

 South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks (GFP) – management authority for the George S. Mickelson Trail and smaller parcels located within the study area

 South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT) – management authority for highway rights-of-way in the study area

 Private land owners – numerous private lands areas are identified in the study area

The USFS would likely be the lead agency in the preparation of the EIS, and would probably invite other governmental entities, including NPS, GFP, DOT, tribes and others to join the process as cooperating agencies. Private land owners would have the opportunity to provide input into the process through various public involvement activities used throughout the EIS process.

This chapter outlines important information governing the next steps for a proposed connector trail, including:  Regulatory Framework – key laws and regulations pertaining to management of the BHNF and the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

 Application Process – outline of the USFS permitting process

 Lead and Cooperating Agencies – description of the role of the BHNF as a lead agency and other cooperating agencies if environmental analyses were undertaken

 NEPA Process – the steps that would be involved in the preparation of the EIS subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

186 Regulatory Framework elements, disturbance processes, social elements, administrative management and transportation and travel for the Preserve. There are several legislative and planning documents that provide direction for the management of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Some of the key documents include: Public Law 107-206, Section 706 This section of a larger 2002 appropriations bill clarified Congressional intent for the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires the USFS to develop, periodically revise and amend all forest and grassland plans. The 2008 regulation implementing the NFMA gives detailed direction on revising and amending Forest Plans. (36 CFR 219).

All USFS lands are managed under the NFMA; however, the NFMA may be supplemental or subordinate to the specific mandate of certain more specific acts, such as the Norbeck Organic Act. The Tenth Circuit Court has ruled that the Forest Service may not apply the NFMA to diminish (through balancing) the more specific mandate of the Norbeck Organic Act. (Sierra Club v. USFS (10th Cir. 2001)).

The Norbeck Organic Act (P.L. 66-258)

The Norbeck Organic Act of 1920 authorized the establishment of the Custer State Park Game Sanctuary ―for the protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefor‖. The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve was established by presidential proclamation on October 9, 1920. Some human activities are allowed, but these activities must be consistent with wildlife needs. The BHNF through the Norbeck Organic Act, and other related legislation is responsible for managing that portion of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve lying on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve is home to a variety of wildlife, including elk, deer, mountain goats, small mammals and birds. It contains rugged granite formations and management of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. This legislation states that the Forest small streams. The predominant vegetation is ponderosa pine, but there are also Service may use a broad spectrum of management tools to benefit game animal and stands of spruce and hardwoods, and small open meadows. The Preserve covers bird habitat to achieve the aims of the Norbeck Organic Act. Further, Congress di- about 35,000 acres. Approximately 28,000 acres are within the BHNF. The remaining rected that the Forest Service enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) land is privately owned or under the jurisdiction of Custer State Park. The Black Elk with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, to consult on habitat Wilderness lies within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and is administered by the management and concur on program areas of responsibility within the Preserve. Black Hills National Forest. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, 2004) Black Hills National Forest, 1997 Revised Forest Plan as amended by the Phase II Amendment (2005) The MOU between the GFP and the USFS/ BHNF was entered into in accord with the terms of P.L. 107-206, Sec. 706. It establishes procedures and responsibilities The Forest Plan provides programmatic management direction for the BHNF. It does regarding management and monitoring of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. not include site-specific ground disturbing decisions, which are authorized under separate NEPA analyses. It provides overall systematic guidance and establishes man- National Park Service Management Policies (2006) agement direction to govern future actions. This direction will stay in effect until the Plan is amended or revised according to applicable NFMA regulations. The Plan The NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006) is the basic Service-wide policy docu- is flexible and adaptable to changing conditions, and may be amended if circumstanc- ment of the NPS and is the highest of three levels of guidance documents in the NPS es warrant. Directives System. The NPS is committed to providing appropriate, high quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the parks, and will maintain within the parks an at- The BHNF is responsible for the establishment, development and maintenance of mosphere that is open, inviting, and accessible to every segment of society. proper habitat conditions for game animals and birds within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. This area is delineated as Management Area 5.4A in the Forest Plan. Direc- National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 tion for MA5.4A establishes management goals and objectives, and sets limits on activities in the form of standards and guidelines for physical elements, biological Established the National Park Service (NPS) and its mission ―to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the

187 enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unim- A Potential EIS Process paired for the enjoyment of future generations." NEPA Process

• Trail Feasibility Determination Application Process According to USFS NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220 (July 24, 2008), the NEPA 0 process for an EIS would include scoping, commencing with a Notice of Intent, and All non-Forest Service uses of NFS lands, with some exceptions, are considered preparation of a Draft EIS, Final EIS and Record of Decision. Several opportunities • Apply for Trail Permit with USFS 1 ―special uses.‖ Trail construction, and operation and maintenance of a fee-based trail for public involvement are provided. facility by a non-Forest Service (external) entity such as the State of South Dakota’s Mickelson Trail Authority, fall into the special uses category. Before use of NFS Scoping and Notice of Intent • Publish Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS 2 lands by an external entity may be authorized, that proponent must submit a proposal to the Forest Service authorized officer. The proposal would then be screened against Scoping includes refining the proposed action, determining the responsible official • Scoping evaluation criteria as required by regulation at 36 CFR 251.54. Once a proposal pass- and lead and cooperating agencies, identifying preliminary issues, and identifying 3 es these prescreening criteria, it would be accepted as a formal application, and envi- interested and affected persons. Part of the scoping process requires publishing a • Prepare Draft EIS—Purpose & Need, Alternatives, Affected Environment and ronmental analysis would be conducted. External entities must obtain a special use notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after 4 Environmental Consequences authorization from the authorized officer unless the requirement is waived as de- deciding that an EIS will be prepared. This would be the first opportunity for broad- scribed in the regulation, 36 CFR 251.50, Special Uses Requiring an Authorization scale public involvement in any NEPA process for this proposal. • Notice of Availability of Draft EIS (effective August 12, 2004). This final rule clarifies requirements regarding the issu- 5 ance of special use authorizations for activities involving forest system roads and Environmental Analysis trails. • Public Hearing and Comment Period NEPA requires all agencies to use an interdiscliplinary approach to analysis to ensure 6 A special-use authorization is a legal document such as a permit, term permit, lease, the integrated use of the natural, social science and environmental design arts in plan- or easement, which allows occupancy, use, or privileges of NFS land. The authoriza- ning and decision making which may have an impact on the human environment. • Prepare Final EIS 7 tion is granted for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time. The request Any environmental analysis for a proposal for this project would require that an inter- must be consistent with laws, regulations, orders, policies of NFS lands, other federal disclipinary team be formed and a framework for the analysis developed to determine • Notice of Availability of Final EIS, Record of Decision laws, and applicable State and local health and sanitation laws. It must be consistent the method and scope of analysis, and that data sources for collection and interpreta- 8 or made consistent with the standards and guidelines in the applicable Forest Plan. tion of data be identified. Issues would be identified to help set the scope for the ac- Agency policy at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, Special Uses Handbook, tions, alternatives and effects to be considered in the EIS document. • Begin Detailed Trail Planning Chapter 10, provides detailed direction for the special uses proposal, application, and Then authorization process for occupancy and use of NFS lands. The policy states that Preparation of the Draft EIS within 60 days of receipt of a proposal to use NFS lands, proponents must be notified of the suitability of the proposal and whether the agency will give further considera- The recommended format for an EIS includes: tion of the project. They also must provide information and advice to proponents in  Cover Sheet preparing their applications to focus the range of alternatives during the environmen- Summary tal analysis process.   Table of Contents Lead and Cooperating Agencies  Purpose and Need for Action  Alternatives including proposed action The GFP recognizes the BHNF as the agency responsible for the final decision and determination of occupancy, use and management of the land, water and habitat with-  Affected Environment in that portion of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve on NFS lands, provided nothing in  Environmental Consequences this agreement modifies or changes existing state and federal laws. According to  List of Preparers Forest Service NEPA policy at FSH 1909.15, when a proposed action will occur on  List of Agencies, Tribes, Organizations and persons to whom cop National Forest System Lands, the USFS is usually the lead agency. . For the pro- ies of EIS are sent. posed Mickelson Trail connector, the BHNF would likely be the lead agency for the environmental analysis under NEPA.  Index  Appendices The lead agency has the responsibility to solicit cooperation from other Federal, Trib- al, State and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise on environ- Once prepared, the Draft EIS would be circulated to agencies and the public for a 45- mental issues. day comment period. A legal notice announcing the comment period would be published in the newspaper of record. Cooperating agencies may include the NPS and the Mount Rushmore National Me- morial (MRNM), State DOT, GFP and other local governmental agencies. Should Final EIS these agencies or any other potential cooperating agencies elect not to become a cooperating agency, they would still be invited to participate in the NEPA process and would be included on distribution lists for review and comment on NEPA documents.

188 Comments would be reviewed, analyzed, and addressed in the final EIS. The final EIS would be distributed to other agencies and the public and to ―any person, organization, or agency which submitted substantive comment on the draft EIS.‖

Record of Decision

The BHNF responsible official would coordinate and integrate NEPA review and relevant environmental documents into the Agency’s decision document. The Record of Decision (ROD) would reflect the analysis documented in the EIS and describe the decisions being made, including permits, licenses, grants, or authorizations needed to implement the decision. Specific locations of the alternative selected, and any mitigation or monitoring program related to the decision would be identified. The BHNF responsible official would notify interested or affected parties of the availability of the ROD as soon as practicable after signing. Any Forest Service NEPA decision related to this project would be subject to appeal, or administrative review at the next- higher agency level.

189 Bibliography

Toward Camp Judson from Highway 244 191

Bibliography U., and Federal Administration. Wetland Trail Design And Construc- tion. University Press of the Pacific, 2007. 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act For Further Recovery from and Response to terrorist Attacks on the United States. Public Law, 2002. U.S.. Trails for all Americans : the report of the National Trails Agenda Project (SuDoc I 29.2:T 68/4). The Service, 1990. A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA. 2007. USDA Forest Service. Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trail- Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management:. Custer: heads, and Campgrounds. Missoula: December 2007. USDA, 2006. USDA. Forest Service for Accessibility Guidelines. 2006. Griebal, Randall, Kerry Burns, and Shelly Deisch. Focus Species - Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Black Hills National Forest, May 2007. USDA Forest Service. Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trail- heads, and Campgrounds. Missoula: December 2007. Guide to Sustainable Mountain Trails. Denver: National Park Service, Revised 2007

Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and Trails. Missoula: USDA Forest Service, 2006.

Harris, Charles W, and Nicholas Dines. Time Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture. McGraw Hill, 1988.

Hopper, Leonard. Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2007.

Innovative Non-Motorized Trail Projects and Ideas. CO: Sharpins As- sociates, 2000

"Management Area 5.4 A". Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Land and Re- source Management Plan: Phase II Management.

"Memorandum of Understanding between SD Game Fish and Parks and Forest Service Black Hills National Forest". 9/07/2004: 1-5

"Memorandum of Understanding 2006". National Park Service. 12/4/2008 .

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Landscape Assessment: Black Hills Nation- al Forest. City of Education in Ecosystem Management Group Module XII, 2006.

Open Space/ Trail Classification System: 2008,

Parker, Tony S. Natural Surface Trail by Design. Colorado: Nature- shape, 2004.

192 193