Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Ottawa National Forest Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan MAY 2017

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

For More Information Contact: Susanne Adams, District Ranger/Team Leader 1209 Rockland Road, Ontonagon, Michigan 49953 Phone: 906-884-2085 x14 Email: [email protected]

Marlanea French-Pombier, Forest Planner Phone: 906-932-1330, x303 Email: [email protected]

This Environmental Assessment and associated documents are also located at the following website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects (see the Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project link within the “Under Analysis” section).

*Photo credit (front cover): Photo taken by Ian Shackleford, Botanist, Ottawa National Forest. The picture was taken on Forest Road 4500, Watersmeet Ranger District, which is currently open to highway vehicles, and is proposed to be open to all motorized vehicles.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. i

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Contents Contents ...... ii Introduction ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background Information ...... 2 Forest Plan Revision ...... 3 Implementing the Revised Forest Plan Direction via the MVUM ...... 3 Changing Opportunities for Public OHV Access ...... 4 Current Designated Motorized Access ...... 5 Project Development ...... 6 Proposed Project Location ...... 6 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ...... 7 Government, Agencies and Persons Contacted ...... 9 Tribal Consultation ...... 9 Public Involvement ...... 9 Public Comment Review Process ...... 10 Iterative Process ...... 10 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 11 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 11 Alternative 2 - Modified Proposed Action ...... 11 Elements of the Modified Proposed Action ...... 12 Implementation ...... 13 Design Criteria ...... 14 Adaptive Management ...... 17 Monitoring ...... 18 Outcomes of the Alternatives ...... 18 Existing Condition - Recreation ...... 19 Existing Condition - Transportation...... 21 How the Proposal Meets the Purpose and Need ...... 22 Alternative 1...... 22 Outcomes of Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 22

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Recreation ...... 22 Transportation ...... 23 Alternative 2...... 23 Outcomes of Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 24 Recreation ...... 24 Transportation ...... 29 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 30 August 2016 Scoping Proposal ...... 30 More Designated Access than Offered in Scoping ...... 31 Less Designated Access than Offered in Scoping ...... 31 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 32 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives ...... 33 Aquatics/Fisheries ...... 34 Summary...... 34 Affected Environment ...... 34 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 35 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 36 Cultural Resources ...... 39 Summary...... 39 Affected Environment ...... 39 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 40 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 40 Sound Analysis...... 41 Summary...... 41 Background Information ...... 42 Affected Environment ...... 43 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 44 Alternative 2 ...... 45 Non-native Invasive and Rare Plants ...... 48 Summary...... 48 Affected Environment ...... 48 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 49 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 50 Soils...... 51 Summary...... 51 Affected Environment ...... 51 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 52 iii

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 53 Terrestrial Wildlife Species ...... 55 Summary...... 55 Introduction ...... 55 Affected Environment ...... 56 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 57 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 58 Visual Resources ...... 59 Summary...... 59 Background...... 59 Affected Environment ...... 60 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 61 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 61 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 63 Summary...... 63 Background...... 63 Affected Environment ...... 64 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 64 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ...... 65 Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 68 Context ...... 68 Intensity...... 68 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ...... 72 Conclusions ...... 75 Literature Cited ...... 75 Contributors, Agencies and Others Contacted ...... 78 Appendix 1. Type of access change by road number...... 1 Appendix 2. Response to Scoping Comments ...... 1 Appendix 3 - Maps...... 25

List of Tables

Table 1. Existing Miles of Designated Public Access on the MVUM ...... 5 Table 2. Comparison of the No Action and Modified Proposed Action Alternatives ...... 13 Table 3. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) ...... 24 Table 4. Proposed Recreational Access Available to OHVs, by Ranger District ...... 26 iv

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Table 5. Proposed Access Included in the Scoping Proposal ...... 30 Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 ...... 32 Table 7. Michigan State Noise Emission Standards ...... 42 Table 8. Noise Level of Common Sounds ...... 43 Table 9. Mileage of roads proposed for Reconstruction in the Partial Retention and Retention VQO...... 62 Table 10. Comparison of Alternatives of the Number of Stream Crossings within WSR River Corridors with Erosion and Sedimentation Risk ...... 65 Table 11. Alternatives Comparison of the Number of Wetland Crossings within WSR Corridors with Erosion and Sedimentation Risk ...... 66 Table 12. Alternative Comparison of the Miles of Wetland Crossings within WSR Corridors with Erosion and Sedimentation Risk...... 66 Table 13. Commenter Identification ...... 1 Table 14. Comment Categories ...... 3 Table 15. Comparison of Modified Proposed Action and August 2016 Scoping Proposal ...... 15

List of Figures

Figure 1. Road Proposed Open to All Motorized Vehicles ...... 7 Figure 2. Road Proposed to be Closed to All Motorized Access ...... 8 Figure 3. Percentage of roads by ROS Classification within the Project Area ...... 20 Figure 4. Examples of Road Conditions Analyzed ...... 21 Figure 5. Forest Road 3473-B ...... 28 Figure 6. Comparison of the Number, Type of Access and Risk of Existing Erosion and Sedimentation on Analyzed Roads with a Stream Crossing...... 37 Figure 7. Comparison of the Number, Type of Access and Risk of Existing Erosion and Sedimentation on Analyzed Roads with a Wetland Crossing...... 38 Figure 8. Comparison of the Number, Type of Access and Risk of Existing Erosion and Sedimentation on Analyzed Roads that are within Wetlands...... 38 Figure 9. Aerial imagery showing OHV use on several paths within the road right-of-way...... 53 Figure 10. Percentage of roads proposed by VQO Classification ...... 61

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Introduction The USDA Forest Service is proposing to make designation changes to motorized access on a portion of roads within the Ottawa National Forest (the Ottawa). These changes are proposed to modify the Ottawa’s motorized access system to be responsive to the public’s request for access, as well as provide a system that is safe and more effectively managed. This project is called the Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project. The Responsible Official for this project is Linda L. Jackson, Ottawa Forest Supervisor. The Ottawa has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether designation of motorized access, and the connected road system management actions, may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Project Spotlight from the By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy Ottawa Forest Supervisor and direction to comply with the National Our current access system Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 2005 USDA provides over 2,700 miles of road Travel Management Rule, the Ottawa’s 2006 Land that is used by the public for a and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and variety of needs. I’m leading this other relevant laws, regulations and policies. project in an effort to improve how our existing access system is used. The information presented in this EA is based on the best available information. All road locations and Throughout the Ottawa, we manage roads that are open for mileages are approximate and may vary during cars and trucks as well as off- project implementation due to site-specific highway vehicles. Some roads conditions and application of design criteria. lead to local communities and the Calculations used for this analysis are based on many recreational destinations that skilled interpretations of aerial photos and maps; the Ottawa offers. Other roads provide access into the Forest for data evaluation; application of professional judgment fishing, hunting and hiking from personal observations and information acquired opportunities, to name a few. from review of relevant, scientific literature. Our staff recommended several This project is specific to public access only. The changes to improve access, while proposals in this document would not affect protecting resources. Together administrative access necessary for agency with consideration of public input, operations, such as fire suppression and harvest I believe the proposal outlined in operations. this document would benefit Forest users seeking a variety of Document Structure access opportunities. Thank you for sharing your The document is organized into six parts (reference thoughts on this project, the table of contents for more information): Linda L. Jackson

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

 Purpose and Need for the Proposal: This section includes information on the history related to the project proposal and the purpose and need for the project. This section also details how the Forest informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.  Alternatives analyzed in Detail: The EA includes a detailed description of the No Action and Modified Proposed Action alternatives. This section provides a summary of the outcomes of implementing these alternatives as well as a table of the activities associated with each alternative.  Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the Modified Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.  Literature Cited: This section contains citations of the best available science used by the Interdisciplinary Team to develop this document.  Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of agencies, preparers and staff consulted during the development of this EA.  Appendices: The appendices include a list of roads in the proposal (Appendix 1), response to scoping comments (Appendix 2) and maps (Appendix 3) to depict the proposed changes and support the analyses presented in the EA. A reduction of paper as specified by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500.4 has been an important consideration in the preparation of this EA. A compilation of documents prepared for this project is located in a project file, which can be reviewed upon request. This document, as well as the scoping letter and other information, are also available on the Internet at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects. Definitions of the terms used in this document, as well as a list of acronyms used, are located in the glossary section of the Forest Plan, which is available upon request or on the Ottawa website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ottawa/landmanagement/planning. This document makes reference to several citations that further support the analysis, including the Forest Plan documents and citations referenced. To obtain access to the cited documents, or for more information, please contact the Team Leader.

Background Information In 2004, the Chief of the Forest Service identified nationwide guidance for all National Forests, called the 4 Threats, which included addressing unmanaged recreation on federal land. The following is an excerpt of the Chief’s 4 Threats key message, which laid the foundation for the Forest Service’s 2005 Travel Management Rule: “The phenomenal increase in the use of the national forests for all recreational activities raises the need to manage most forms of recreation, including the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs). Responsible motorized travel is an appropriate way to sightsee, access hunting and fishing opportunities, and otherwise enjoy recreation experiences on NFS lands. However, there has been a dramatic increase in OHV use coupled with impressive advances in motor vehicle technology over the last 30 years. This growth is prompting the Forest Service to take a closer look at its management of this use so that the agency can continue to provide opportunities desired by the public, while sustaining NFS lands and resources.” 2

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Prior to Forest Plan revision in 2006, the Ottawa’s motorized policy was “open, unless posted closed”. Higher standard roads were only available for highway legal vehicles. All lower standard roads were open to motorized traffic. This included allowing OHVs to leave roads and travel cross-country as well. The majority of areas posted closed to motorized use were the Ottawa’s three wilderness areas. Additional opportunities for OHV use were available on roads managed under other agency jurisdiction (within the Ottawa’s boundary) via the State of Michigan’s two multiple-use trails. These trails bisect the Ottawa, allowing OHVs to travel from east to west, near US Highways 2 and M-28. No county roads were open to OHV use at this time. Forest Plan Revision The 2005 Travel Management Rule was an important factor during the Forest Plan revision process in 2006. This Rule requires the Forest Service to designate a system of roads and trails for motorized access. Several factors must be taken into consideration to “…sustain NFS lands and resources” as cited in the Chief’s quote in the previous section, including (36 CFR 212(b)): “(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; (4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors. As a result of public comments received during the Forest Plan revision process, management of OHVs was identified as a principle issue during the revision of the Ottawa’s Forest Plan. As a result of the analysis, the 2006 Decision for the Ottawa’s Forest Plan (effective in June 2006) included direction that specified motorized recreational access to be formally identified through designation of system roads. This Decision excluded cross-country travel, which is defined as any vehicle use off of a designated road – either across the forest floor or on an unclassified route. An unclassified route is a feature that is typically created as part of timber harvest operations prior to the implementation of the Travel Management Rule, but can also be user-created routes. The Decision to designate a public access system and remove cross-country travel made the Forest Plan consistent with the Rule’s requirements for motorized access on system roads only and measures to ensure resource protection. Implementing the Revised Forest Plan Direction via the MVUM After Forest Plan Revision, the implementation of an access system that is consistent with the Travel Management Rule began in 2007 through publication of the Ottawa’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The MVUM displays the designated motorized access system on the Forest in accordance with national template requirements. To develop the first version of the MVUM, the Ottawa held public open houses in December 2006 to request the public’s assistance in further

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

identifying roads to be considered. In recognition of the change in the policy from an “open, unless posted closed” to a “closed, unless posted open” recreational environment, the Ottawa designated as many miles of lower standard roads as possible (e.g., higher clearance roads, rough, not as well maintained) on the first version of the MVUM as a result of public input. The 2007 MVUM offered a similar environment for Forest visitors that was available prior to Forest Plan revision. Specifically, that the lower standard roads were designated to provide access within the Forest for hunting, game retrieval and other recreation opportunities. For some recreational OHV riders, this strategy has not been as beneficial because it requires trailering of OHVs on higher standard roads (e.g., typically a gravel road, suitable for low clearance vehicles) between points of access where road spurs lead into the Forest. These concerns have been taken into consideration during the development of this project. Changing Opportunities for Public OHV Access Beginning in 2008, the majority of counties within the proclamation boundary of the Ottawa passed ordinances to open county roads to OHVs due to increased public demand. A few exceptions include the South Boundary Road that borders the Porcupine Mountains State Wilderness Area and Forest Highway 16 within Houghton County. As part of the 2006 Forest Plan revision, the Ottawa planned for two primary connector routes, which would allow OHV travel on Forest Service roads. These connector routes would be located primarily on existing roads that lead from north to south across the Ottawa in order to connect recreationists from the Ottawa’s roads to the two State multiple-use trails mentioned previously. A decision to implement the Ottawa Connector Route Project was made in December 2012, which included adding 41 miles of OHV access on a series of higher level roads on the eastern side of the Forest. These roads provided a connection between the State multi-use trails and made crucial connections with open county roads. The second primary connector route has not been identified to date. Since 2007, the MVUM has also been updated to reflect changes to designated access. These changes include, but are not limited to:  Access changes authorized through site-specific decisions, such as in vegetation management projects.  Removal of roads from the 2012 MVUM where roads were found to be naturally grown- in with trees. This process continues today.  In 2014, the vehicle size class for OHVs was re-defined from 55” to 65” in width, on the Ottawa, to accommodate travel of utilitarian vehicles (UTVs, or side-by-sides) on the designated access system.  Other efforts to enhance signing on the ground and labeling roads on the MVUM have occurred to assist Forest users in navigating the designated access system and locate riding opportunities.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

In September 2014, the Ottawa held three open houses to gather input for the Travel Analysis Process. This was a required process, per the 2005 Travel Management Rule, to identify the minimum road system for safe and efficient travel. This process was not geared towards including changes to designated motorized access, however, many comments received encouraged opening more existing roads to motor vehicles. Some of the comments requested specific roads be opened to OHVs and/or highway vehicles. This new Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project incorporates several of the comments received in 2014, as well as specific roads requested for a designation change as part of the scoping process. With rapid progression in the development of various types of OHVs and UTVs available to recreationists, combined with the opportunities for OHV travel, the interest in additional OHV recreational riding opportunities has markedly increased on the Ottawa since Forest Plan revision. The public’s desire to access more of the Ottawa’s roads continually grows. This is especially true on Forest Service higher level roads, which provide access that is similar to County roads (that is, longer roads with improved surface). These higher standard roads are the Ottawa’s primary access system; all lower standard roads spur off these roads. The foundation for the public’s desire for access on higher standard roads is two-fold; it would decrease the need to trailer OHVs to access lower standard roads, and it would provide more of a long-distance, recreational riding opportunity. These requests have been evaluated during the analysis for this project. Although the current MVUM does offer several miles of designated access, it is not responsive to concerns raised in the past pertaining to OHV use on higher standard roads to reduce the need to trailer OHVs to reach designated roads. Improving motorized access is responsive to concerns that have been raised, while also providing benefits of an enhanced access system that is safe and more effectively managed. Current Designated Motorized Access The current MVUM was released in Spring 2016. The MVUM contains five maps, which are free to the public and available at any Ranger District office as well as on the Ottawa’s website. These maps outline where off-highway vehicles (OHV) and highway legal vehicles (cars/trucks) can travel legally on roads under Federal jurisdiction. Table 1. Existing Miles of Designated Public Access on the MVUM Type of Access (Forestwide) Miles Designated roads open to highway vehicles only 448 Designated roads open to OHV only 1,744 Designated roads open to all vehicles (mixed use of highway legal 531 vehicles and OHVs)

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

The 2016 MVUM offers several miles of access to the public as outlined in Table 1. However, there are changes that can be made on some roads to ensure that the motorized use allowed on the MVUM matches the type of access that road conditions and resources can support.

Project Development This proposal is based on the access system outlined on the current version of the MVUM, which was released in April 2016. The original intent of developing this project was based on Ottawa employee requests for a change to motorized access designations. Employee changes were based on field observations of roads where the designation did not match the conditions on the ground. These inconsistencies included roads in good condition that were closed, and open roads where a resource concern was identified. These observations are the foundation for this project’s purpose and need for action. To facilitate the analysis of this project, the Responsible Official instructed the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team to develop a framework for their analysis. This Analysis Framework establishes analysis assumptions and defines the depth and detail of analysis necessary to aid the Responsible Official in making required findings and to determine the significance of the effects. The ID Team developed the analysis framework based on comments received in scoping, their professional knowledge of expected outcomes and effects, and legal requirements. The Analysis Framework is incorporated by reference into this project’s analysis. This document contains important information about the foundation of the EA’s analysis. The Analysis Framework is available on the Ottawa’s website: (http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects) and by request. Proposed Project Location Changes to designated motorized access are proposed on portions of all Ranger Districts of the Ottawa within Baraga, Iron, Gogebic, Houghton and Ontonagon Counties of Michigan. The appendices of this document provide additional information, including a list of proposed roads and corresponding maps (Appendices 1 and 3, respectively). The project area is defined as the individual roads (managed under federal jurisdiction), which are proposed for a change in designated access, and their rights-of-way. The width of rights-of-ways vary, from about 10 feet on each side of the roads’ centerline for lower standard roads and 33 feet on each side of the roads’ centerline for higher standard roads. The Ottawa is divided into Management Areas (MAs); each has established direction for managing the landscape’s resources, including the transportation system and recreation opportunities. The project area encompasses portions of the majority of MAs on the Forest. It excludes wilderness areas (MAs 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3); the perimeter area of the Sylvania Wilderness and entrance for McCormick Wilderness (MA 8.2); and MA 9.3, an area managed for isolated parcels of federal land.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Purpose and Need for the Proposal The purpose and need for this proposal is to improve designated motorized access on the Ottawa to provide diverse and quality Forest access experiences (Forest Plan Goal 9, p. 2-4). Making these changes would progress the existing motorized access system towards the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, which include: clearly identifying recreation use for our public; designating recreational opportunities through connections to other existing recreation trail systems; and designating roads for OHVs on Forest roads (Forest Plan, Goal 9, Objectives b, c and d, respectively). There is also need to provide access opportunities for river-related recreation experiences to be consistent with Forest Plan direction (p. 3-74). As stated in the Project Development section, employees’ request for change is the foundation of this project. Recommendations for change were based on providing for diverse and quality Forest access experiences that are safe and an access system that is designed to be more effectively managed for recreational access, while minimizing resource impacts. For example, Figure 1 depicts an unclassified route that is currently closed to all vehicles, but has been determined suitable for access to all motorized vehicles (see Appendix 1, unclassified route NEW-029). Another example is Forest Road 4500 (see front cover). This road is currently open to all highway legal vehicles only and is proposed to be open to all motorized access.

Figure 1. Road Proposed Open to All Motorized Vehicles This project was also developed to address roads where current recreational access is causing resource damage or where the ID Team’s evaluation of access has shown that continued access poses a heightened risk, causing concern for resource protection. Figure 2 (see page 8) displays

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

the current conditions of a road spur leading off from Forest Road 1224, which has been recommended for closure to exclude motorized use from traveling on sensitive soils. Improving motorized access would provide a system that is safe and more effectively managed. There is a need to proactively designate and clearly identify the roads that can sustain motorized traffic. This would assist to keep motorized use on roads allowed for such use, which ultimately can protect resources in those areas where no access is allowed. Due to the current conditions of some road segments, there is a need to repair these segments to achieve appropriate road standards.

Figure 2. Road Proposed to be Closed to All Motorized Access The project area was primarily designed to exclude areas that restrict motorized use, specifically those management areas (MAs) emphasizing a non-motorized recreational experience. However, there are site-specific areas where needs for motorized access within non-motorized areas have been identified on a limited basis. A need has been identified to improve access for Forest visitors to reach existing parking areas for non-motorized recreational activities, such as fishing, hunting and hiking. This identified need would require the Responsible Official to weigh the benefits of providing access within the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized area against the Forest Plan’s Guidelines for restricting motorized use within Management Areas 6.1, 8.1 and 8.3 (pp. 3-58, 3-81.4 and 3-89). There is also a need to ensure that this project would not change the open road density within the Remote Habitat Area above the Forest Plan’s desired condition (Forest Plan, p. 2-9). Open road density is defined as the average mileage of roads, open to highway legal vehicles, per square mile of land. 8

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Government, Agencies and Persons Contacted Tribal Consultation The Forest Service shares in the United States’ legal responsibility and treaty obligations to work with federally-recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect the Tribes’ ceded territory rights on lands administered by the Forest Service. The scoping documentation was sent to several Tribes, including local representatives of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Additionally, Ottawa staff met with representatives of these Tribal governments to discuss this project in January and May, 2016 as well as March 2017. No concerns were expressed at these meetings, and no comments were received as part of the scoping process. Public Involvement In August 2016, a scoping letter explaining the purpose and need for action, as well as the location and description of the Proposed Action, was sent to more than 160 potentially interested parties. A 30-day scoping comment period was held for the Proposed Action. The Ottawa consulted with many potentially interested and affected parties during the scoping comment period, including Tribes; State of Michigan; local government agencies for Baraga, Iron, Gogebic, Houghton and Ontonagon Counties; local township offices; and those parties who subscribe to the Ottawa’s mailing list. This project was announced through the Ottawa’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)1 and via an Ottawa press release (SOPA and News Events). District Rangers attended several township board meetings to help inform local communities and answer questions about this project (see Project File). During the scoping comment period, the Responsible Official held five open houses across the Forest between August 16 and August 25, 2016. Invitations were sent to interested parties on the Ottawa’s mailing list via the Scoping Letter and a press release. These open houses were held in the communities of Baraga, Iron River, Ewen, Ironwood and Watersmeet, Michigan. These events provided opportunities for the Responsible Official, District Rangers, ID Team and other staff to meet with interested parties to provide information, answer questions and gather comments. Copies of the scoping letter were made available at the five open house events. For the first time, the Ottawa also used the Collaborative Mapping Tool during the Scoping comment period. This tool provides a way for interested parties to submit comments using an internet-based application. The benefits of this tool allowed commenters to view the scoping maps at different scales with alternate backgrounds, such as topographical features. The application allowed electronic comments to be submitted on proposed roads. In addition, it also provided an option for viewers to ‘draw in’ roads onto electronic maps for consideration.

1 The Schedule of Proposed Actions is a report that contains a list of proposed actions that will begin or are currently undergoing environmental analysis and documentation. 9

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Public Comment Review Process In response to the August 2016 scoping comment period, comment letters from 96 interested parties were received. Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1503.4), all comments were evaluated by the Responsible Official and ID Team (see Project File, Comment Matrix). Comments received both supported and opposed the Proposed Action. Each comment was reviewed to determine if concerns raised were within the scope of the proposal and relevant to the decision being made. Comments were then reviewed to determine if an alternative to the Proposed Action was necessary and/or if the project proposal (e.g., cause) would produce an undesirable result (e.g., effect) that could not be addressed through protection measures afforded by law, regulation, policy, Forest Plan direction or proposed design criteria. These cause-effect relationships are called issues (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 12.4). Issues highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the purpose and need for the proposal while reducing adverse effects. Concerns have been identified. The Responsible Official has determined that these concerns do not present an issue requiring development of additional alternatives. See the following section as well as the Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis section for more information.

Iterative Process Iterative is defined as the ability for the Responsible Official to modify a Proposed Action in response to public comments and concerns. In 2008, the NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220 were revised to incorporate Forest Service Handbook direction. This change provided flexibility for incorporating an iterative NEPA process as outlined in 36 CFR 220.7(b)(i) and (iii). This process allows more transparency during collaboration with interested stakeholders and builds trust with interested parties as their recommendations are included in the proposal. This process also allows us to focus on a set of reasonable alternatives, which have been collaboratively designed with public input.

The ID Team used the iterative process in two ways. First, the ID Team modified the Proposed Action to reflect field review results where five miles of additional road closure were recommended. Secondly, the ID Team reviewed scoping comments received, and recommended changes to the Proposed Action for the Responsible Official’s consideration. The site conditions for each road requested for change by a commenter was vetted by the ID Team through review of existing database information and/or in-the-field verification by specialists. The majority of comments received requested that the Responsible Official consider OHV use on existing roads that were not previously included in the scoping proposal. Some comments requested that roads be removed from the Proposed Action as outlined in Appendix 2.

The majority of comments received requesting access changes have been incorporated into the proposal, resulting in a Modified Proposed Action (see Tables 2 and 3). Therefore, the

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Responsible Official has determined that no unresolved conflicts exist from commenters that would necessitate the development or analysis of an additional action alternative. The original Proposed Action from the 2016 scoping comment period will not be carried forward for analysis (see the Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis section). Other concerns expressed through the scoping process include the following topics; each topic is followed by references for how this EA addresses these concerns.

 Clarifications for improvements to map products, specific to adding town names and showing changes by the proposed designation (see Appendix 3).  Clarifications regarding how this proposal affects administrative access (see Introduction)  Request for less motorized access (see the Outcomes section for Recreation [North Country Trail]; Outcomes section for Transportation [Remote Habitat Area Road Density]; Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis; Effects Analysis for the No Action Alternative; and Appendix 2, Response to Scoping Comments).  Effects of sound from project implementation (see the Sound Analysis). The Responsible Official determined that sound concerns should be analyzed as part of the Modified Proposed Action to inform her of any potential, unforeseen effects.

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Section 102(e) of NEPA states that; “all Federal agencies are required to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to any proposal, which involves unresolved conflicts”. As stated in the previous section, the Responsible Official has determined that there are no unresolved conflicts. Therefore, no additional action alternatives have been developed. Two alternatives have been developed and analyzed in detail; the No Action alternative and a Modified Proposed Action alternative. Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative serves as a baseline for alternative comparison and documents the existing condition. Analysis of a No Action alternative is required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d). All proposed roads would maintain their current designation as outlined on the 2016 version of the MVUM. No changes to motor vehicle use would occur. Road maintenance would continue to occur to maintain road conditions. The purpose and need would not be met if Alternative 1 was implemented. Additional information for this alternative is disclosed in the Outcomes of the Alternatives and Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives sections. Alternative 2 - Modified Proposed Action The Modified Proposed Action is comprised of five parts: (1) the foundation of the proposal scoped in August 2016; (2) changes to the miles of designated access based on needs identified by the ID Team; (3) changes to the miles of designated access based on requests submitted via

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest scoping comments through the iterative process; (4) project design criteria; and (5) monitoring. Additional information for the elements are located on pages 12-18. Additional field review by specialists was conducted after the scoping period, which assisted to design the Modified Proposed Action. This additional reconnaissance effort was two-fold. It provided an opportunity for specialists to complete a review of roads where soil and/or water resource concerns were identified, as well as gather baseline information for new roads suggested by the public through the scoping comment period. The Modified Proposed Action is summarized in Table 3. A list with information for each road is located in Appendix 1 and the corresponding maps are displayed in Appendix 3. Alternative 2 focuses on changing the type of access allowed on a given road. In summary, the Modified Proposed Action includes a change in the type of motorized access available on 568 miles of road.

Elements of the Modified Proposed Action 1. The majority of the Modified Proposed Action is focused on changing the type of motorized vehicle use that a road can receive. Several miles of public access that were introduced during the scoping comment period remain a part of the Modified Proposed Action. Appendix 1 identifies these roads. See Table 3 for specific mileages. a. Out of the 568 miles of road proposed for changes to motorized vehicle use, 54 miles are proposed to be closed to all vehicles. This results in 490 miles of road proposed for a change to some type of motorized access; either OHVs only, highway legal vehicles only, or a mixed use of both OHVs and highway legal vehicles. b. Included in the 490 miles, is approximately 78 miles of road that are currently closed that would be open to motorized access. c. To provide for safe travel and resource protection, this project includes 37 miles of road reconstruction to support designated recreational access. Road reconstruction includes, but is not limited to: road realignment, road widening, and improving drainage through culvert repair or replacement. The amount of road reconstruction would be based upon site-specific conditions and resource surveys at the time of implementation. These roads would not be available on the MVUM until after the reconstruction is completed. 2. The following changes are based on new ID Team recommendations. a. Five miles of additional road closure. Additional field review by the ID Team found that some roads warrant closure to minimize effects of motorized access on soil and water resources. b. Minor typographical errors listed in the scoping letter have been corrected (see Project File). 3. Scoping comments requested additional changes to the proposal. As a result, the Modified Proposed Action includes an overall increase in OHV access.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

a. About 78 miles of OHV access are proposed on roads that are currently closed to all motorized use. b. Approximately 315 miles of OHV access have been proposed on roads already open to highway legal vehicles. This would not change the availability for highway vehicles to access these roads. c. About 54 miles of road are proposed to be closed to all motorized use. Some comments requested that roads currently closed to the public, remain closed due to concerns that roads cannot support traffic. Therefore, these roads have been removed from this project (e.g., closed roads that are remaining closed, see Project File). 4. Design Criteria have been developed by the ID Team to minimize or eliminate any potential effects to natural and cultural resources in the project area that have been identified by the ID Team and the public (see the Implementation section). These criteria ensure that the project is implemented in a manner that is consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. These include measures to eliminate or reduce potential effects to resources in the areas of the proposed designated access. 5. To further complement this project, the Ottawa would continue the commitment to monitor access off of proposed roads to improve the management of public motor vehicles on the Forest (see the Implementation section). Table 2. Comparison of the No Action and Modified Proposed Action Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Modified Proposed Action Designated Access on the Ottawa’s MVUM Retain Access on (Forestwide Scale)* 2016 MVUM Changed Access for future MVUM

Total Miles Total Miles Total Miles Open to OHV Only 1,744 miles 1,773 miles

Total Miles Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only 448 miles 134 miles Total Miles of Road Open to All Motorized Access (OHVs and Highway Legal Vehicles) 531 miles 947 miles *Roads Identified on the Maps (see Appendix 3) would be incorporated into the next version of the MVUM; scheduled to be revised in 2018. Implementation As stated, the availability of some designated access roads would not occur immediately. Some roads may require reconstruction prior to opening for public use to ensure safe travel conditions and resource protection.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Roads that do not require corrective measures, through reconstruction or necessary measures identified through the mixed use analysis, would be available upon publication of the updated MVUM, which is currently scheduled to be published in the Spring of 2018. If a change to motorized use outlined in this document is not included on the 2018 MVUM, then access is not allowed. The MVUM is the tool for implementing access decisions. As stated, a mixed use analysis for each higher standard road must be completed prior to its designation on the MVUM. Due to the amount of higher standard road proposed, the analysis for all roads will not be completed prior to a decision on this project. Adding OHVs to the roads currently open to highway legal vehicles requires a mixed use analysis. If a decision is made to implement this project, it is likely that the mixed use analysis may find some roads unsuitable for mixed use. If this occurs, the roads would be excluded from implementation and no access would be designated on the MVUM. In addition to the publication of changes on the Spring 2018 MVUM, roads that have been designated for motorized access would be signed on the ground to clearly identify allowable access. Carsonite rails with affixed signage would be removed from those roads that are currently open, but closed through this project. Design Criteria Recreation 1. Roads that intersect the North Country Trail (NCT) will be posted with signs showing its designation as a non-motorized trail. Standard Trail signs include “Hiking Trail Only” and “Non-Motorized Trail- Foot Traffic Welcome”. 2. Off-highway vehicle use in campgrounds: a. Any OHV use in campgrounds would be restricted to entering and leaving the campground; and driving in areas allowed by highway vehicles (open roads, boat landings and hardened campsite driveways). Travel and parking would not be allowed on grass. b. Off-highway vehicles would not be allowed to be ridden around the campground, including travel to the bathrooms, water spigots, trash receptacle or any other camping-related activity. c. New signs would be established at campground information kiosks and bulletin boards to ensure that OHV travel is restricted during posted, campground quiet hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Transportation 1. Prior to designating access for mixed vehicle use (highway legal vehicles and OHVs) on all higher standard roads, federal highway laws require a mixed use analysis. The following design criteria would be performed as prescribed by the project Engineer’s analysis to provide safe road conditions, where necessary. Implementation of actions may be contingent upon available funding. 14

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

a. Rehabilitation of roadside ditches. b. Road resurfacing, including spot surfacing and paving approaches of road-stream crossings where culverts are established or replaced. c. Road widening and/or realignment for site distance, which may require tree removal. d. Placement of “Share the Road” signs on any proposed road allowing mixed use travel. e. Placement of “Narrow Road” signs on roads with narrow clearing limits. f. When higher standard roads are being used for commercial log hauling, or other resource management projects involving heavy equipment use, provide signage or restrict the use of OHVs as needed to ensure a safe, mixed use environment. 2. For closed roads: When practical, a closure device should be placed at the entrance of a network of roads rather than closing each individual segment. Where appropriate, place road closures in a manner that accommodates parking/use of area for dispersed camping opportunities. Aquatics 1. When permanent road crossing structures are proposed for installation (new or replacement) on the proposed roads where they cross fish bearing streams, the structures shall be designed for aquatic organism passage. This would occur where reconstruction is identified. Consult with the project Fisheries Biologist if needed to determine if streams are fish bearing. Cultural Resources 1. Protection of archaeological resources will occur through site avoidance. a. Archaeological sites on or in close proximity to proposed road would be marked for avoidance prior to road reconstruction. Reconstruction activities must avoid disturbing cultural resources. b. Archaeological sites on or in close proximity to location where earthen berm would be established would be marked for avoidance prior to berm creation. Installation of closure devices other than earthen berms may be necessary. c. Gates would be installed in a manner to restrict OHV use to the roadway where cultural resource sites occur adjacent to roadways to provide additional protection. 2. Measures would be designed to mitigate the effects before the project can be implemented (site evaluation, data recovery and other measures as necessary). These measures would be submitted to the Michigan State Historical Preservation Office as required by law for their review. a. If these resources cannot be avoided (such as through road designation modifications), adverse effects would be addressed through determination of 15

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

eligibility under the National Register of Historic Places Listing (with State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO] concurrence). Botany 1. Avoid introducing Non-Native Invasive Plant (NNIP) seeds during road reconstruction. Prior to moving equipment onto an activity area, scrape or brush soil and debris from exterior surfaces, to the extent practical, to minimize the risk of transporting propagules (USDA Forest Service 2012). 2. Database review or survey the following eleven roads for rare and invasive plants: 1383, 1468, 2130-W, 2167-A, 2167-C, 2167-E, 3473-M, 9310, NEW-009, NEW-011, NEW- 026. If any rare or invasive plant populations are found, take measures to avoid impacts from road reconstruction and/or changes in vehicle use. 3. To protect known populations of rare plants, install rocks or posts at specified locations (consultation with the project Botanist) along the following three roads: 112-A, 8121, and 9322. The intent to keep vehicles from parking or driving off the road on rare plants. Soil Resources 1. Design criteria include “Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land” issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDNR, MDEQ, 2009), which would be applied to all road reconstruction work. 2. Design criteria include “National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide” (USDA Forest Service, 2012). Specifically, best management practices for Recreation Management Activities and Road Management Activities would be applied. Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) 1. If TES, RFSS or state-listed plants or animals are located during survey, or newly discovered during project implementation, Biology and Botany staff would recommend buffer zones, timing restrictions or other mitigations as needed to protect the populations. Populations and protection measures would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate action. Guidelines in approved recovery plans, existing conservation approaches, or other scientific literature, the 2006 Forest Plan and professional judgement would be followed to protect these populations. The Responsible Official would make a final decision on protection measures. 2. Project would not remove trees greater than 3” dbh within ¼ mile of known northern long-eared bat hibernacula; result in destruction of known maternal roosting structures (i.e. roost trees used by female bats with young); or removal of trees within 150' of maternal roosts during the pup season (June 1-July 31); per the Final 4(d) Rule for northern long-eared bat. 16

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

3. If any active wolf den or rendezvous sites are found in road reconstruction areas, work would immediately cease and Biology staff would be contacted to confirm and work with the Responsible Official to determine the appropriate action. 4. For protection of red-shouldered hawk nests during road reconstruction: a. No tree removal within a 300’ radius around active red-shouldered hawk nests. Timing is year-round. Active is defined as a red-shouldered hawk pair presence in current year or immediately previous year. b. Approximately a 30-acre nest protection area would be established where no disturbance-causing activities would be allowed between March 16 and September 1. Nests would be verified by Biology staff. If a known nesting area has been inactive for two years, or more, prior to project implementation, then Biology staff and Responsible Official may remove or modify some or all of the buffers. Modifications or additional protection measures would be made on a case-by-case basis. Visuals 1. The appropriate level of Shared the Road signage would be established to retain Forest experiences. 2. For tree removal identified on roads receiving reconstruction within a Visual Quality Objective of Retention or Partial Retention, transition the edges of the forest between openings by shaping and feathering vegetation in a gradual manner, unless trees pose a safety risk. The intent is to reduce the perception of a drastic change in vegetation coverage.

Adaptive Management In response to additional needs for safety and/or resource protection, this project would allow implementation of road reconstruction where deemed necessary to support designated recreational access. There are a minimum of 37 miles of reconstruction identified in this proposal. However, there may be additional reconstruction needs identified during implementation that were unforeseen in the planning process. Road reconstruction includes, but is not limited to: road realignment, road widening, and improving drainage through culvert repair or replacement. The amount of road reconstruction would be based upon site-specific conditions and resource surveys at the time of implementation. There also may be additional road reconstruction needs identified based on the project Engineer’s mixed-use analysis and other needs identified during project implementation. This analysis will be completed for some, but not all, higher standard roads identified prior to a decision. Implementation of this project would not occur on a given road prior to completion of this mixed use analysis process. There may be some roads that the mixed-use analysis determines conditions to be unsuitable for travel by both OHV and highway vehicles. If this occurs, the proposed change in designated use would not be implemented.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Implementation of these actions would enhance the roads’ standards in a manner consistent with the Forest Plan’s direction to “maintain a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system that supports administrative uses of National Forest System lands” while minimizing resource impacts. All activities would take place on existing roads and associated right-of-ways. The amount of road reconstruction would be based upon site-specific conditions and resource surveys at the time of implementation.

Monitoring In 2012, a Forestwide strategy for monitoring the impacts of public motor vehicle use was initiated. This effort was focused on evaluating roads off of the Ottawa Connector Route (OCR), both prior to and after its designation for OHV use. This monitoring effort has helped us to determine if allowing use on the OCR results in improper motorized use of closed roads adjacent to the OCR. The outcome of this monitoring provided data that assisted us in focusing our efforts on signing and identification of areas requiring the placement of barriers, or installing more effective barriers (see Project File). These measures provide the Ottawa tools to more effectively enforce motor vehicle regulations when unauthorized use does occur. For the Designated Motorized Use Project, this monitoring strategy would continue. Closed road spurs that lead off of the proposed roads would be added for monitoring using established protocols (see Project File). Monitoring efforts can identify cases of unauthorized access on these closed road spurs due to ineffective barriers and/or lack of signing that need to be addressed.

To address concerns raised internally and through scoping comments, the following project- specific monitoring needs have also been identified:

1. North Country Trail: Monitor roads that intersect the NCT on an annual basis to determine if establishment of closure devices, signing or other public education efforts or increased law enforcement patrols are necessary. (Forest Roads 733, 1500, 2200, 2240, 2270 and 051366-A as well as roads within the parking area at Black River Harbor Recreation Area [Forest Roads 118 and 119-A]). 2. OHV Use in Campgrounds: During regularly-occurring recreation staff site visits and/or concessionaire contacts, monitor use of OHVs in campgrounds to ensure that posted rules are being followed. 3. Cultural Resources: In identified areas where sites are adjacent to access roads, monitor cultural resource sites to ensure that OHV travel is not damaging cultural resource sites.

Outcomes of the Alternatives The following discussions are specific to only those resources that have proposed activities: Recreation and Transportation. Each section includes a summary of the existing conditions, followed by the anticipated outcomes for implementation of the alternatives analyzed in detail. 18

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

The outcomes are disclosed using measurement indicators, which help quantify how existing conditions would change through project implementation. Outcomes are defined as the expected results of project implementation. The Forest Plan includes direction in the form of forest-wide goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, as well as management area-specific standards and guidelines. Together, all of these elements outline the desired conditions for the entirety of the Ottawa’s landscape. The analysis that was performed in the Forest Plan’s FEIS included the expectation that the desired conditions would not be achieved immediately. Instead, the Forest Plan’s desired conditions are used as the foundation for how management strives towards achieving, or maintaining, the desired conditions through site-specific projects (Forest Plan, p. 1-10). This section discloses how the alternatives meet the purpose and need based on the proposal. For Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, outcomes are provided to disclose how following a course of taking no action would change the current resource conditions. In terms of Alternative 2, the Modified Proposed Action, this site-specific project planning effort took into consideration the existing conditions of the roads displayed on the maps (see Appendix 3) and desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. The outcomes show how the existing conditions would be changed through implementation of the proposed activities, to be consistent with the purpose and need. More information is located in the Analysis Framework (see Project File). The remainder of resources are discussed in the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives section. Existing Condition - Recreation Over the past several years, there has been an increase in motorized recreational opportunities in the western Upper Peninsula. Most counties now allow OHVs to ride on county roads and many townships allow their use as well. Results from the 2012 National Visitor Use Monitoring (USDA 2012) show the most frequently reported primary activities of visitors to the Ottawa include snowmobiling (21%), viewing natural features/scenery (21%), hunting (13%), and hiking/walking (12%). In terms of road use, primary activities were reported as follows: driving for pleasure (2.7%), OHV use (3.6%), and motorized trail activity (1.2%). The Ottawa’s existing public access system currently supports numerous miles of designated access (see Tables 1 and 2). The current designated access system is displayed on the maps in Appendix 3. Existing MVUM designations is displayed in the background of the proposed roads (e.g., highlighted green, pink and yellow lines). As described previously, the Ottawa’s MVUM displays which roads are open to motorized use, and the type of vehicles allowed, such as OHVs, highway legal vehicles only, or both. Forest visitors use the designated access system for a wide variety of reasons. Dispersed recreational activities include driving highway legal vehicles and OHVs to access communities and/or parts of the Forest for fishing and hunting opportunities, as well as a variety of activities for recreational enjoyment. Opportunities include camping, hiking, water-related activities (e.g., canoeing, kayaking and boating), picnicking, recreational OHV riding, and gathering of firewood

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest and berries. Others rely on designated Forest roads to access their private property. Currently, there are no campgrounds open to OHV access. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a nationally-recognized classification system for identifying, describing, planning, and managing a range of recreation settings, opportunities, and experiences. The Forest Service uses ROS classifications as a way to define coarse “zoning” areas where actions and uses are managed over time to achieve desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. The ROS classifications range from primitive (where there is little evidence of other people, more difficult access) to more developed areas. Figure 3. Percentage of roads by ROS Classification within the Project Area

3% 1% roaded natural

semi primitive motorized

semi primitive non motorized

96%

A ROS classification of “Roaded Natural” means there is moderate evidence and interaction with other users, including sights and sounds. The classification also provides for motorized use. It is the most developed setting managed for on the Ottawa and the majority of the project area is managed for a Roaded Natural setting. The ROS classifications of Semi-primitive Motorized and Semi-primitive Non-motorized” also exist in the project area. Figure 3 shows the percentage of roads in the project area and where they reside on the Ottawa in terms of the ROS. The majority (96%) of roads are located within the Roaded Natural ROS and available for motorized access. Access within Semi-primitive Motorized areas are managed for more limited motorized uses, and typically, Semi-primitive Non-Motorized areas do not provide motorized recreation experiences. Proposed access roads cross 13 segments of the Wild and Scenic River corridors, including the corridor for the Sturgeon River (designated wild); the corridors of the Black, Presque Isle West Branch Presque Isle, Cisco Branch Ontonagon and Middle Branch Ontonagon Rivers (all designated scenic); and the corridors for the Presque Isle, Cisco Branch Ontonagon, Middle

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Branch Ontonagon, East Branch Ontonagon, Paint, North Branch Paint and South Branch Paint Rivers Figure 4. Examples of Road (all designated recreational). Conditions Analyzed The North Country National Scenic Trail (NCT) is a national trail system that spans seven states from New York to North Dakota. A segment of this A single lane, lower standard road with native surface that could hiking trail overlaps with the Ottawa, including support OHV only access or all roads included in the project area. There are 28 motorized vehicles. existing OHV roads that intersect the NCT and are not included in this project. Most segments of the NCT are already posted with a brown carsonite rail, with stickers affixed that display the NCT symbol and the allowable uses. Existing Condition - Transportation There are three types of roads within the project area, local, collector and arterial roads. Local roads

are lower standard roads that provide a connection A single lane, higher standard road between activities (such as timber harvesting, with gravel surface that could hunting, fishing and firewood cutting) and collector provide access for all motorized roads. Collector roads are typically higher standard vehicles. roads that “collect” traffic from local roads and ultimately connect to arterial roads. Arterial roads are typically paved roads that connect to State and county highways. For this project, the paved roads are specific to campground entrances and loops within some campground areas. The 568 miles of road included in the project area are comprised of 318 miles of higher standard roads and about 231 miles of lower standard roads. The Campground access on a higher remainder of the project area’s miles are the 19 standard road that could be open to miles of unclassified route that are not managed as all motorized vehicles. part of the Forest’s transportation system (see page 3). The project area encompasses several management areas (MAs). Each MA is assigned a road density objective, which is measured at the landscape level, per Forest Plan direction. All system roads are calculated as part of the road density. At this time, all road densities are below or within desired

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

percentages. Some project area roads are located within the Remote Habitat Area (RHA), which has an open road density of one mile or less, per square mile of land (<1.0 mi/mi2). Only roads open to highway legal vehicles are counted in the RHA density, which is currently within the desired range, at 0.57 mi/mi2. How the Proposal Meets the Purpose and Need Measurement Indicators are used to help quantify how existing conditions would change through project implementation. The following indicators will be used for the Recreation and Transportation Outcomes discussions. Recreation Measurement Indicators  Miles of road designated for a change in current access, by vehicle type, which includes: o Newly designated roads resulting in an increase in access (roads not on the 2016 MVUM). o A change in the type of travel allowed on the existing roads of the 2016 MVUM.  Consistency with the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Wild and Scenic River corridors.  Consistency with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Transportation Measurement Indicators  Miles of road reconstructed to improve road conditions.  Number of miles requiring a mixed use analysis.  Change in the project area’s road density.

Alternative 1 This alternative was developed as required in 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and serves as the baseline for evaluating the Modified Proposed Action. In summary, no motorized designation changes or road reconstruction would be implemented. All proposed motorized access roads would maintain their current designation as outlined on the 2016 version of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Routine road maintenance would continue to occur as appropriate to maintain road standards. Outcomes of Alternative 1 – No Action

Recreation This alternative would perpetuate the existing condition for recreational access as no changes would be made through project implementation. The existing MVUM does include the Ottawa Connector Route and several access opportunities. However, Alternative 1 represents a lost

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

opportunity to provide additional access requested by commenters and road changes identified by employees. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not allow for the correction of the MVUM. On some roads, the designation does not reflect on-the-ground conditions, and therefore corrections changes would not improve inconsistencies. No new designated roads would be added and the type of use for each road in the project area would be retained as displayed on the 2016 MVUM. For areas where resource damage is occurring, or has the potential to occur, roads would not be closed under this alternative. However, roads can be closed until a time when conditions can be addressed by District Rangers. Other areas that provide opportunities for more access, or that can support different types for motor vehicle use, such as access to water-related activities, would not be available to the public. Implementing the No Action alternative would also be a lost opportunity to designate local OHV connectors for enhanced recreation riding on higher standard roads, which would not resolve public concerns raised about the need for reduced OHV trailering between OHV access points. Public concerns gathered through the project’s open houses, scoping comments and public open houses associated with the Travel Analysis Process would not be addressed. The roads in the project area would remain consistent with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. There would be no access to recreational activities for OHV users identified by this project (hiking, hunting, other communities, etc.) via the parking areas and roads within the Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized Areas.

Transportation The existing transportation system would remain unchanged. The road system would continue to undergo routine maintenance on collector system roads and basic custodial care on the local system roads. No road reconstruction would be conducted. Therefore, the existing condition of some lower standard roads that do not provide adequate surface conditions to support use, including a lack of road-stream crossing structures and ditching, would not be addressed. The 19 miles of unclassified road would not be added to the system. Therefore, the total road densities at the MA scale would not increase (see Project File). In addition, no highway legal access would be opened within the RHA, and therefore the average, open road density would not change. It would remain at 0.57 mi/mi2.

Alternative 2 This alternative was developed using public scoping input, as disclosed in the Iterative Process section. The Modified Proposed Action includes a slight increase in the number of miles of designated public access, but for the most part, it primarily changes the type of vehicles allowed on each identified road. This alternative also includes road closures to minimize or eliminate impacts on resources, as well as accommodate needs identified through specialist review and concerns raised by the public.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Outcomes of Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Recreation Summary: Alternative 2 would result in providing a change to the type of access on approximately 568 miles of road in areas spanning each Ranger District of the Ottawa (see Table 3). The Responsible Official modified the proposal to incorporate the majority of public comments received (see Appendices 1 and 2). As a result, this proposal includes more access for OHVs. However, this project continues to support highway legal vehicle access as well. The majority of the roads proposed to be open to OHVs are already open to highway legal vehicles. This project assumes that there would be an increase of traffic frequency on these connecting roads in terms of OHV use. Recreationists that enjoy non-motorized activities may be impacted at an individual level due to their personal preference and views, but the overall impact to non-motorized recreation on the Forest is mitigated through design criteria. How the Proposal Meets the Purpose and Need The purpose and need for recreation management is based on the need to improve designated motorized access on the Ottawa as outlined in the Forest Plan (Goal 9, p. 2-4) as follows: “Promote diverse and quality experiences within the capability of sustainable ecosystems, and consistent with the niche of the Ottawa, while minimizing impacts to natural resources.” The ID Team reviewed the current designations of the roads displayed on the maps and proposed changes to address site-specific conditions for each road segment (see Appendix 1). The ID Team identified opportunities to improve the access system that would result in a more efficient and enforceable system within the project area. Table 3. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Miles of Change Miles Designated roads open to highway vehicles only <1 Designated roads open to OHV only 86 Designated roads open to all vehicles (mixed use of highway legal 428 vehicles and OHVs) Currently closed roads opened for designated access 78 Roads closed to all access 54 Road reconstruction (minimum) 37

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Given the known - and potential future for - budget and staffing level constraints, combined with increasing recreational demands, it is important to retain a public access system that the Forest can efficiently manage. In some instances, corrective measures can be applied to address resource damage concerns as outlined in the purpose and need, to continue providing public access opportunities. This project provides the Ottawa the means to correct the MVUM in areas where more access, or access via a different type of motorized vehicle use, is an option due to acceptable ground conditions. Of the 568 miles of road in the project, 514 miles would become available for access by OHVs (see Table 3; e.g., roads open to OHV only in addition to roads open to all). This would add to the existing OHV access opportunities on the 2016 MVUM (1,744 miles open to OHV Only and 531 miles open to all vehicles). Of the 514 miles, a high proportion of this access (318 miles) is on higher standard roads. This would result in reducing the need to trailer OHVs between OHV access points on higher standard roads. It would also increase the opportunity to connect OHV riders to county roads and communities beyond. If the mixed use analysis process does not support all of the proposed changes on higher standard roads, some of these miles would remain closed to OHV access on the future MVUM. Additional OHV Access Due to the high popularity of OHVs on the Forest, several campgrounds and recreation areas are being considered for OHV access. This would allow visitors the ability to use roads within and connected to campgrounds and to access some of the Ottawa’s recreation areas from the other travel roads. For example, OHVs can travel County Road 513 along the Black River National Scenic Byway, but they are not currently authorized to park in the Ottawa’s waterfall parking lots or the Black River Harbor Recreation area. In order to legally ride their OHVs and experience these recreation sites, they must park on the side of the County Road, which is a safety concern and can cause resource damage. Alternative 2 would provide safe and legal access to parking areas for OHV riders to access several of the Ottawa’s recreation destinations (see Table 4). Alternative 2 provides additional OHV roads that connect communities, loop riding opportunities, and new opportunities for OHV users to camp in developed campgrounds on the Forest and access recreation sites (see Table 4 and photo of Paint River Forks Campground in Figure 4). The outcomes of the proposal would be an increased opportunity for destination riding, such as camping or viewing waterfalls. Providing access to these sites would meet the purpose and need of this project by providing more opportunity to access diverse and quality sites for recreational sites. This opportunity is also expected to increase visitation to sites, resulting in financial support to maintain these sites. Off-highway vehicle access within the campgrounds displayed in Table 4 would be restricted to travel within areas allowed for motorized use, such as roads and parking areas. No areas on the Watersmeet or Ontonagon Ranger Districts are proposed. Design criteria have been developed to restrict OHVs from riding within the campground for other purposes than outlined (see the Implementation section). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has opened Lake Gogebic State Park to OHVs and has several others in the western Upper Peninsula that are 25

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest currently proposed to open to OHVs. Therefore, Alternative 2 would provide a similar experience for Forest users as those recreationists who use State campgrounds. Eight campgrounds located across the Ottawa would continue to be closed to OHV access, to offer Forest visitors a variety of camping experiences. Table 4. Proposed Recreational Access Available to OHVs, by Ranger District Site Access Points

Bessemer Ranger District

Black River Harbor Campground and Day Use Area Forest Roads 117, 119 and 119-A

Conglomerate Falls Parking Area Forest Road 108

Henry Lake Campground and Boat Landing Forest Roads 8141 and 8141-A

Langford Lake Campground Forest Road 6757-A

Pomeroy Lake Campground Forest Roads 6828 and 6828-A

Potawatomi and Gorge Falls Parking Area Forest Roads 112 and 112-A

Rainbow Falls Parking Area Forest Road 118

Sandstone Falls Parking Area Forest Road 114

Iron River Ranger District

Paint River Forks Campground Forest Road 3468

Lake Ottawa Recreation Area (Campground, Boat Landing and Forest Road 3118 Day Use Area)

Kenton Ranger District

Forest Roads 2127-A, 2127-A Lake Ste. Kathryn Campground and 2127-A2

Norway Lake Campground Forest Roads 2482 and 2480

Perch Lake Campground and Boat Landing Forest Roads 2142 and 2142-A

Sparrow Rapids Campground Forest Road 1109

Sturgeon River Campground Forest Road 2230

Alternative 2 would add OHV access to existing roads that intersect with the North Country Trail (NCT). Concerns were expressed that OHV access should not be allowed in areas where roads intersect the NCT or are within the vicinity of the trail as it may encourage unauthorized use of

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

motorized access on the non-motorized NCT. Design criteria have been developed by the ID Team to address these concerns, which includes signing at intersections and monitoring. If unauthorized uses are found to be occurring on the NCT, barriers can be placed on a case-by case basis. Proposed roads that intersect the NCT where adding OHV access is proposed include: Forest Roads 733, 1500, 2200, 2240, 2270 and 051366-A as well as roads within the parking area at Black River Harbor Recreation Area (Forest Roads 118 and 119-A). See the maps in Appendix 3 for a display of these areas (Maps 1, 2, 9, 15 and 37). Wild and Scenic Rivers As outlined in the Purpose and Need, providing river-related recreation opportunities in the Ottawa’s Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridors is consistent with the Forest Plan (p. 3-74). The Forest Plan (page 3-74) states that WSR corridors provide “outstanding opportunities for visitor education about cultural and historic resources, geology, hydrologic conditions, wildlife, fish, ecological resources and natural processes that attract visitors from outside this geographic region.” Approximately 33 miles of river-related access would undergo a change to provide additional opportunities for a variety of recreationists. About 27 of the 33 miles are roads that would be open to all motorized access under Alternative 2. An example is shown in Figure 5; this road is currently open to OHVs and would be open to all motorized vehicles if this project is implemented. Included in the 33 miles of access change, is approximately 3.5 miles of closed road that would be open for motorized vehicles. This access is comprised of 16 roads that reside within the following WSR corridors:  Recreational Rivers – North, South and Main Stem of the Paint River; East Branch and Main Stem of the East Branch Presque Isle River; and the Cisco and Middle Branches of the Ontonagon River  Scenic Rivers – West Branch Presque Isle River; and the Cisco and Middle Branches of the Ontonagon River Recreation is an Outstandingly Remarkable Value2 for the following WSR corridors: Black; Middle Branch Ontonagon; Paint Main Stem as well as North and South Branches Paint; West Branch Presque and Sturgeon Rivers. The majority of the Outstandingly Remarkable Value for Recreation in these areas is related to providing access within river corridors for fishing, canoeing/kayaking and camping. The Ottawa’s Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) specifically addresses providing access to the following campgrounds (see Table 4) as a means to meeting the Outstandingly Remarkable Value: Black River, Sturgeon River and Paint

2 In the Wild and Scenic Rivers, river values that are identified as Outstandingly Remarkable include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. Agency resource professionals develop and interpret criteria in evaluating river values (unique, rare, or exemplary) based on professional judgment on a regional, physiographic, or geographic comparative basis. 27

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

River Forks. Additionally, providing access to the Day Use Area at Black River Harbor, and the waterfalls associated with the Black River (e.g., Conglomerate, Gorge, Potawatomi, Rainbow and Sandstone) is also included in the CRMP. This project is anticipated to protect and enhance the Recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value for these WSR corridors.

Figure 5. Forest Road 3473-B Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need through providing access to sites, while others provide access within corridors for river-related recreation (see the WSR section for more information). Recreation Opportunity Spectrum As shown in Figure 3, the majority of the project area is within areas that allow for motorized access designations (e.g., Roaded Natural and Semi-Primitive Motorized). Alternative 2 would designate motorized access on seven roads in the semi-primitive non-motorized area (see the Analysis Framework for more information). This includes opening unclassified route 03013133 to highway legal vehicles only (see Map 11), and adding OHV access to the following roads, which are currently open to highway legal vehicles: Forest Roads 627, 841, 2200, 2230, 2270, and 2274 (see Maps 1, 2, 16 and 22). Of these roads, the following Forest Roads lead to parking areas for recreational opportunities: unclassified route 03013133 (fishing access), 627 (Norwich Bluff interpretive trail and cemetery), 841 (Blue Road hunter walk-in trail area) and 2274 (Silver Mountain recreational trail and vista). Allowing OHV access on Forest Roads 2200 and 2270 would provide a primary connection to the community of Baraga, Michigan. Forest Road 2230 is the access road to the Sturgeon River campground.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Designation of these roads would not be consistent with Forest Plan Guidelines that are specific to managing for Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas in MAs 6.1, 8.1 and 8.3. However, no site-specific Forest Plan amendment is required for actions that are inconsistent with Forest Plan Guidelines.

Transportation The purpose and need for this proposal is to improve designated motorized access to provide a safe, efficient and effective road system (Forest Plan Goal 41, p. 2-12). There is also a need to perform a mixed use analysis3 when OHV designated access is proposed on higher standard roads to ensure safety when highway vehicles and OHVs share access. Adding OHVs to these roads would occur only if supported by the mixed-use analysis. There is a possibility that the mixed-use analysis provides information that leads to no change in access designation. The majority of the roads in the project area are currently managed as part of the Ottawa’s transportation system. To be defined as part of the system, a road has to be managed to the standard for vehicle use. Approximately 19 miles of unclassified road would be added to the system for access by all motorized vehicles (see definition on page 3). The road system would continue to undergo routine maintenance and basic custodial care on the local system roads. However, road maintenance is not included under Alternative 2; it is an activity that can be accomplished without an environmental analysis of this scope. The existing condition of some roads cannot currently support motorized use. It is estimated that a minimum of 37 miles of road would require reconstruction. This can include activities that increase an existing road’s traffic service level; expand its capacity or change its original design function; realign a portion(s) of a road in a new location; and/or increase the size of culverts replaced. Road reconstruction is not a means to resolve all road conditions. For example, it would not be effective for the 54 miles of road proposed for closure to provide for resource protection.

All 318 miles of higher standard roads, require a mixed use analysis prior to designating roads open to both highway legal vehicles and OHVs. This analysis must be conducted by a qualified engineer according to Forest Service direction. The results of the mixed use analysis can identify measures that are warranted to ensure safe travel during mixed vehicle use, such as road alignment or widening to increase visibility and sight distance. This proposal also includes flexibility to accommodate other road reconstruction needs when deemed necessary based on existing conditions (see Implementation section). Additional field review by specialists would be required in areas of road reconstruction not included in the estimated 37 miles identified (see maps for roads labelled “after repair”). By completing a mixed use analysis and implementing

3 Mixed use analysis is an engineering analysis that includes a technical evaluation of road conditions and traffic and an analysis of potential mitigation measures regarding motorized mixed use according to the direction in Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, chapter 30. 29

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

design criteria, Alternative 2 would ensure public health and safety is protected, and reduce the safety concerns on roads where mixed uses would occur.

As stated, about 19 miles of unclassified route would be added to the system. Therefore, the total road densities at the Management Area (MA) scale would increase. However, as the average road density is calculated at the Forestwide, MA landscape scale, the 19 miles is minor in scope and therefore, a road density that is consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions would be maintained. Alternative 2 would include adding highway legal vehicle access on roads within the RHA, thereby increasing the road density from 0.57 to 0.65 mi/mi2. This change is consistent with Forest Plan direction as the resulting density would remain below the threshold of 1 mi/mi2. Approximately 78 miles of closed road that are managed as part of the transportation system would be open for motorized access where conditions have been determined to be able to support this use. Conversely, 54 miles of road are proposed for closure. The net difference in roads available for access under Alternative 2 is approximately 24 miles of road, when considering the difference between the number of proposed open and closed roads. Implementation of these actions would enhance the roads’ standards in a manner consistent with the Forest Plan’s direction to “maintain a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system that supports administrative uses of National Forest System lands” while minimizing resource impacts. All activities would take place on existing roads and associated right-of-ways. The amount of road reconstruction would be based upon site-specific conditions and resource surveys at the time of implementation.

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Concerns brought forward during the scoping period resulted in the identification of three, additional alternatives by the Responsible Official. These alternatives and the rationale for eliminating them from detailed analysis are outlined as follows. Additional information is outlined in the ID Team’s response to scoping comments received (see Appendix 2) and the Iterative Process outlined on page 10). August 2016 Scoping Proposal As outlined in the Iterative Process section, the original proposal that was sent to interested and affected parties for comment, has been modified to incorporate public comment (see Table 5). Therefore, as allowed by this process, the original proposal has been superseded. The scoping proposal was specifically modified to incorporate additional motorized access, especially on higher standard roads. However, some roads were removed from the proposal to accommodate additional field review observations where indicated resource conditions require road closures, as well as exclusion of roads to address concerns raised by special use permittees. Table 5. Proposed Access Included in the Scoping Proposal

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Proposed Access August 2016 Scoping Proposal

Roads Open to OHV only 110

Additional Roads Open to All motorized Access 263 (OHVs and Highway Legal Vehicles)

Roads Closed to All Motorized Access 49

Total Miles of Proposed Access Change 422

More Designated Access than Offered in Scoping Some commenters requested additional designated motorized access, above that offered in Alternative 2. These comments included: (1) opening all roads (under federal jurisdiction) to all motorized vehicles; (2) opening all higher standard roads to all motorized access; (3) opening all lower standard roads to OHV access; (4) allowing cross-country travel for game retrieval; and (5) incorporation of all or portions of specific roads identified in comment letters.

Alternative 2 includes additional designated access roads based on Scoping comments received. However, there are several reasons why some access requested is not being evaluated as part of this proposal, such as resource concerns, regulations pursuant to the Travel Management Rule and applicable Forest Plan direction (see Appendix 2 for details). Implementation of project- specific actions, over time, are intended to move towards an environment that provides Forest Plan desired conditions. These conditions are not intended to be met fully with every project decision.

Less Designated Access than Offered in Scoping Comments were received that requested less designated motorized access. These comments included the following concerns: (1) interaction with non-motorized recreation associated with the North Country National Scenic Trail; (2) the roads’ effects to adjacent aquatic features; (3) the roads’ effects to the resources; (4) the Ottawa’s existing condition provides enough or too much designated access; (5) the effects of designations adjacent to wilderness, non-motorized areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Special Interest Areas; (6) lack of monitoring leading to unauthorized access; (7) cost of conversion of roads for additional access, including signs and maintenance; (8) increased road density in the Remote Habitat Area; and (9) concerns raised by special use permittees where road condition standards have been maintained via permits.

A portion of the roads proposed in Scoping have been removed from Alternative 2 based on comments received. In other instances, a decrease in designated access would not meet the purpose and need for this project (see Appendix 2).

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Comparison of Alternatives The resource summaries in the following table are based on the outcomes and effects estimated by the ID Team of implementation of the proposed alternatives as outlined in the Outcomes of the Alternatives, and the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives sections. Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2

No change to current road Several changes would be authorized designations. Corrections to MVUM for the next version of the MVUM, would not be authorized. There including more access for OHVs. Recreation would be less access for OHVs Changes to the MVUM would correct including travel on higher standard areas where current access does not roads, and no access within match on-the ground conditions. campgrounds and recreation areas. Road reconstruction would address No transportation refinements would conditions on a minimum of 37 miles be made. The average, open road of road to improve access. About 19 Transportation density within the Remote Habitat miles of unclassified route would be Area (RHA) is consistent with Forest added to the transportation system. Plan direction. The RHA road density would remain consistent with Forest Plan direction. On-going erosion and sedimentation Reduced erosion and sedimentation Aquatics risks to streams and wetlands (where would occur at road and stream direct crossings occur with streams crossings. An increase would occur and wetlands) would continue. at wetland and road crossings. Cultural No change to cultural resource sites No change to cultural resource sites Resources would occur because no changes in would occur when design criteria are access would occur. applied. Changes to the frequency of sound No change to existing sound would are anticipated to occur within 0.5 Sound occur because no change to access miles of proposed roads. Sound designations would occur. effects are anticipated to be within State and Federal noise regulations. New infestations may be introduced Plants (Non- Common non-native invasives would and/or spread through a change in native and continue to spread via wind, wildlife, access. The greatest risk is Rare) natural growth and through existing associated with high priority NNIPs, motorized access designations. however the Invasive Plant Control Project would address these areas. No changes to existing traffic would Reduction of overall soil impacts due occur. Effects from access is Soils to less OHV only travel, road closure expected to continue on a negative and reconstruction activities. trend. 32

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Minor impacts to wildlife and Terrestrial Ongoing risks to wildlife would not associated habitat. There is a Wildlife change from those effects from the potential for increased hunting, Species current system. No species viability trapping harvest and vehicle would be compromised. collisions. No species viability would be compromised. Visuals would change due to road Impact to the overall visuals would Visual reconstruction, but the effects are occur due to natural ecological Resources anticipated to be minor due to the changes over time. implementation of design criteria. Erosion and sedimentation risk is On-going erosion and sedimentation expected to slightly increase for wild Wild and risks to streams and wetlands (where segments. The most increased risk Scenic Rivers direct crossings occur with streams would occur in recreational segments and wetlands) would continue. that would have more OHV access designated.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the alternatives for each impacted resource. This chapter describes the unintended environmental consequences (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 12.4) - also referred to as effects or impacts - on the resources within the project area. The resources discussed in this section are those for which effects are known to occur due to the types of activities proposed, and for those where public comment indicated a concern. Additional effects are discussed in the Finding of No Significant Impact section as related to specific, legal requirements. The anticipated effects are based on professional judgment, best available science, and knowledge about the extent and duration of effects based on past experience in the planning and implementation of similar types of activities and design criteria. The conclusions have been based on the Forest Plan direction and project-specific assumptions identified in the Analysis Framework (project file document). The bounds of analysis that define the location and timeframe considered for estimating the outcomes and effects are also disclosed in the Analysis Framework document, which is available on the Ottawa’s website, or upon request. This information is incorporated by reference, and will not be repeated in this EA. To understand the contribution of past actions, some resources used the existing conditions as a representation of the impacts of the past (as allowed by the 2005 CEQ Memo). Unless otherwise stated, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects are limited to the project area; that is the proposed designated road locations and their associated right-of-ways.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Aquatics/Fisheries

Summary Implementation of best management practices and project design criteria serve to minimize the risk to water quality in areas where roads cross streams and wetlands. Overall, project implementation would result in a reduction of both erosion and sedimentation risks that can impact water quality at road-stream crossings. There would be a slight increase in both erosion and sedimentation where roads intersect wetlands; and subsequent effects on sensitive aquatic animal species. This is due to a shift in the number of roads open to OHV only at road/stream or road/wetland crossings, which pose the most risk of erosion, sedimentation and subsequent effects on aquatic animal habitat. In addition, replacing non-functioning culverts through road reconstruction would result in a positive impact.

Affected Environment The State of Michigan regulations require OHVs to cross streams and wetlands only where culverts, bridges or similar structures exist (Michigan Compiled Law 324.81133(1)(n)). Roads designated on the MVUM are consistent with these regulations. This analysis is focused on areas where roads cross streams and wetlands. In general, the type of road surface material on roads designated for motorized access effects how much sediment is developed as a result of use. Paved roads generate the least sediment, aggregate-base gravel roads generate more, and unimproved roads generate the greatest amount of sediment (Clinton and Vose 2003). However, grass surfaced roads produce half the erosion as the un-graveled road surface receiving similar traffic (Grace and Clinton 2007). In the project area, the paved roads that are currently open to highway vehicles are the roads that serve as campground access roads. The remainder of roads that are open to highway vehicles, which are more heavily used, are the higher standard roads that are generally surfaced with more gravel material, which reduces sedimentation. These roads are mostly maintained on a regular basis to assure water is routed properly, and therefore tend to have a moderate to low risk of erosion and sedimentation. A portion of the roads that are suited for high-clearance vehicles are open to all vehicles; these roads receive the most motorized use in the project area. These roads receive less maintenance, which can lead to an increased risk of sedimentation due to use, and therefore the risk for erosion and sedimentation is moderate. Roads within the project area that are currently open to OHVs only tend to have a mix of some vegetative cover in the ditches, sides and center of roads and exposed soil in the vehicle tracks. These roads do not receive regular maintenance. They are more likely to produce sediment due to use and exposed soils, and are at a greater risk of major erosion and sedimentation due to a lack of maintenance on road segments that receive use. This risk can vary based on site-specific conditions and extent of OHV use. The roads that are currently closed to all motorized access that have a grass surface may have less sediment movement. There is also a portion of roads that need reconstruction because they 34

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

have not been maintained in the recent past. However, other roads are in good condition; lending to the rationale for proposing access under this alternative. Road Stream Crossings There are several road-stream crossings in the project area (see Project File). Road-stream crossings, which includes the road surface, ditches and banks, are sources of stream sediment that can alter channel characteristics and affect the biological community (Furniss et al 1991). In general, any activity that disturbs the vegetation and soil of a watershed can increase sediment yield (Yoho 1980). The more traffic that occurs on a road, the more surface material can be broken down leading to material being displaced (such as in road rutting) and ultimately routed to streams. Vehicles traveling on dry, unpaved roads generate large quantities of dust that contributes to soil erosion (Padgett et al. 2007), which can settle directly within streams or can be easily routed to streams along the road surface or ditches. However, increased vegetative cover on soil disturbance associated with roads, such as ditches, banks, and road surfaces, reduces sediment production (Clinton and Vose 2003). Excess sediment reduces water quality and damages aquatic communities and habitat by covering fish spawning gravels; filling in pools; making streams wider, shallower, and warmer; decreasing overall habitat complexity; and reducing fish egg and freshwater mussel survival (Waters 1995). Grace and Clinton (2007) describe that in general, there is a direct link between traffic level and maintenance intensity. Increased erosion losses can require increased maintenance to maintain drainage patterns and prevent (or minimize) the impact of downslope resources. Road Wetland Crossings The same erosional processes occur in the wetland areas as described in the previous section. Wetlands are often linked with streams as many streams originate from them or are bordered by them. Water quality within wetlands is protected, similarly to streams, and sediment input is a concern. Excessive sediment can fill in and damage wetlands. Wetlands affected by sedimentation can lose their open water areas and become choked with aquatic vegetation, an altered state that has less biological diversity which is less valuable to wildlife. Furthermore, an increased accumulation of sediments can potentially upset the balance of wetland water chemistry and the biogeochemical cycling of materials in wetland ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 2015). Alternative 1 – No Action Indirect and Direct Effects Road-Stream Crossings Alternative 1 would perpetuate the existing condition. Therefore, on-going erosion and sedimentation risks to streams, at stream crossings, would continue, with varying potential for risk based on the type of current use and type of road, such as a lower standard road (see Figures 6, 7 and 8).

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

The number of roads posing the least amount of risk (open to highway vehicles only) would not change. The number of roads open to all vehicles would remain low, so their use would remain low, reducing sedimentation risk. The number of roads open to OHV only, which present the highest risk, would not change, and therefore the risk would remain high. Some roads would not undergo reconstruction under the No Action alternative, and therefore, road crossing structures that may need replacement would not be replaced. Stream crossings that may be impediments to fish and other aquatic organism passage and/or contributing to erosion and sedimentation to streams would not be reconstructed and these conditions would not be improved. Road Wetland Crossings The No Action Alternative would have no direct effects to wetlands, because no actions would take place. Currently closed roads crossing wetlands would remain closed, keeping erosion and sedimentation risk to wetlands low (Figure 7). The number and miles of roads open to OHVs only, which pose the most risk, would not change at wetland crossings under this alternative. Aquatic Animals Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species were evaluated in the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation and a May Impact Individuals determination was made for the RFSS fish, mollusks and aquatic insects under the No Action Alternative due to effects of on-going erosion and sedimentation on their habitat. However, this alternative is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for any of these species. Cumulative Effects In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no effects to streams and wetlands under the No Action alternative because no actions would take place. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Road-Stream Crossings Alternative 2 would generally reduce erosion and sedimentation risks to streams, at stream crossings. This would occur through reducing the number of roads with stream crossings that are open to OHV only access, increasing the number of roads that are closed to all vehicles (Figure 6), and replacing old culverts with ones that allow for aquatic organism passage. Proposed roads with stream crossings that are open to highway vehicles only would be designated as open to all vehicles. Use on these roads would likely increase due to mixed use, which would increase the sedimentation risk, which, in turn, would continue to negatively impact sensitive aquatic animals due to effects to their habitat from erosion and sedimentation.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Road Wetland Crossings Alternative 2 would increase the number and miles of open roads crossing wetlands, thereby increasing erosion and sedimentation risk to wetlands (Figures 7 and 8). There would be an increase in moderate risk as motorized use shifts from open to highway legal vehicle access to roads that are designated as open to all vehicles. Access on these roads would negatively impact sensitive aquatic animals due to effects to their habitat from erosion and sedimentation. However, the number and miles of roads open to OHVs only, which pose the most risk, would be reduced.

Number or Stream Crossings Alternatives Comparison

281 281

199 167

26 34 0 15 73 48

ROUTES CLOSED TO ALL ROUTES OPEN TO ROUTES OPEN TO ALL ROUTES OPEN TO OHV TOTAL VEHICLES HIGHWAY LEGAL ONLY VEHICLES ONLY

No Action Modified Proposed Action

Lowest Risk Highest Risk Figure 6. Comparison of the Number, Type of Access and Risk of Existing Erosion and Sedimentation on Analyzed Roads with a Stream Crossing. Road Reconstruction Where reconstruction is identified, structures that accommodate aquatic organism passage would be established at those road-stream crossings for fish-bearing streams. Reconstruction actions would be implemented using design criteria that ensures best management practices for soil and water quality. Once vegetation becomes re-established after crossing reconstruction, there tends to be an overall reduction in sedimentation routed to aquatic habitats. This would lead to positive effects in on these roads. Aquatic Animals Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species were evaluated in the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation and a No Impact determination was made for lake sturgeon. Due to the effects of on- going erosion and sedimentation on their habitat, a May Impact Individuals determination was made for redside dace (fish); creek heelsplitter (mollusk); rapids clubtail, pygmy snaketail and forcipate emerald (dragonflies). However, Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for these species (see Project File).

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Number of Wetland Crossings Alternatives Comparison

428 428 345 274 57 43 0 18 79 40

ROUTES CLOSED TO ALL ROUTES OPEN TO ROUTES OPEN TO ALL ROUTES OPEN TO OHV TOTAL VEHICLES HIGHWAY LEGAL ONLY VEHICLES ONLY

No Action Modified Proposed Action

Lowest Risk Highest Risk Figure 7. Comparison of the Number, Type of Access and Risk of Existing Erosion and Sedimentation on Analyzed Roads with a Wetland Crossing.

Miles of Roads Within Wetlands Alternatives Comparison

25.3 25.3 21 16.8 2.7 2.5 0 0.9 4.9 1.8

ROUTES CLOSED TO ALL ROUTES OPEN TO ROUTES OPEN TO ALL ROUTES OPEN TO OHV TOTAL VEHICLES HIGHWAY LEGAL ONLY VEHICLES ONLY

No Action Modified Proposed Action

Lowest Risk Highest Risk Figure 8. Comparison of the Number, Type of Access and Risk of Existing Erosion and Sedimentation on Analyzed Roads that are within Wetlands. Fish is an Outstandingly Remarkable Value for the following WSR corridors: Black River; North and South Branches of the Paint River; Cisco, East and Middle Branches of the Ontonagon River and Sturgeon River. As outlined in this section, erosion and sedimentation resulting from implementation of Alternative 2 is anticipated to be slight. As outlined in the Aquatics section, the BA/BE analysis resulted in a determination of MII for aquatic species. With implementation of design criteria that addresses aquatic organism passage and best management practices during reconstruction, this project would protect and enhance the Fish Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Cumulative Effects Past and present actions to the roads comprising the project area include road maintenance. As discussed in the Affected Environment section, higher standard roads are mostly maintained on a regular basis to assure water is routed properly. There is a direct link between traffic level and maintenance intensity (Grace and Clinton, 2007). Maintenance of a well-constructed road consists of keeping drainage structures functional and keeping the road surface reasonably free of ruts, curbs, rills, and debris. Regular maintenance is required to keep roads in good condition and to identify and correct problems promptly (Furniss et al., 1991). For this project area, the higher standard roads proposed as open to all motorized vehicles (318 miles) currently receive maintenance and would continue to be maintained in the future, resulting in a moderate to low risk of erosion and sedimentation. In addition to the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2, there would be a slight, cumulative effect of decreasing erosion and sedimentation due to the implementation of other project decisions involving the proposed roads. This includes the May 2016 decision for the Road and Stream Crossing Project (see Project File). This project’s decision allows replacement of up to 60 road-stream crossing structures to accommodate aquatic organism passage (AOP). Nine of these crossings are located on project area roads. When these crossing structures are replaced, water routing along the roadway and ditches at the crossing approaches would be improved with the intent of reducing sedimentation. These structures would be replaced as funding allows. State of Michigan permits would be obtained directing adherence to water quality best management practices. In addition, some project area roads are also used to facilitate timber harvest through other projects. These roads have been included for maintenance or reconstruction through authorized vegetation management projects (see Project File). On-going, and future, road maintenance and reconstruction performed through these vegetation management projects would improve road conditions. The combination of effects from this proposal, along with road maintenance and reconstruction through other projects, Alternative 2 would generally reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation to streams and wetlands. This in turn would reduce the risk to sensitive aquatic animals. Cultural Resources Summary Implementation of project design criteria would avoid cultural resource sites, and therefore project implementation would result in no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. Affected Environment Like many roads on the Ottawa, some of the project area roads were initially developed to facilitate timber harvesting, some of which were created several decades ago. Other roads were built by Civilian Conservation Corps crews to allow access to forested areas for firefighting and other uses. Over time, use of these roads have changed to serve other purposes, including

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

recreational access. The historic value of the majority of roads in the project area have not been evaluated. Database records and field review were used to determine the existing condition for cultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed roads. As a result of this review, 180 historic or archaeological sites were found to be present. However, an additional 19 roads within the project area need to be surveyed prior to implementation. Of the 180 sites, five sites have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and 10 sites have been determined to be ineligible. Until a time when evaluation can be completed for the remaining sites, they would be managed in the same manner as that afforded to an eligible site to ensure site protection. Thirteen roads in the project area are either partially, or entirely, located in the Lac Vieux Desert to L’Anse Historic Trail Corridor and must be managed according to the terms of the June 2016 Lac Vieux Desert - L’Anse Historic Trail Corridor Plan Memorandum of Understanding (see Project File). For roads, trails and utility corridors that facilitate access to public and private lands, the MOU includes, but is not limited to management that:  Minimizes soil disturbance;  Locates new road, trail and utility corridors, road construction or reconstruction outside of the trail corridor; and  Recognizes pre-existing rights and Ottawa National Forest responsibility to provide reasonable access. Due to the potential risk to cultural resources, there is a need to improve safeguards for protecting sites from disturbances associated with designated motorized access and road reconstruction. Alternative 1 – No Action In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the designated access system, and therefore no effects to cultural resources would occur under the No Action alternative. As there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct Effects Even though an existing road is currently being used by one type of motorized vehicle, changing that use can result in damage to cultural resources. One example of effects from OHV access is as follows: “…deflation of the cultural deposits within the trail treads, degradation of cultural deposits (midden), vehicle scars resulting from off-trail riding, loss of soils and vegetation, gullying, displacement of artifacts, damage to artifacts and cultural features, road damage requiring extensive and potentially costly restoration efforts, alteration of natural hydrologic patterns, trash left on-site, and unauthorized artifact collection.” (Sampson, 2009). 40

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

There is a potential for adverse effects to 24 cultural resource sites that are located within the project area. To ensure that access on these roads does not allow motorized vehicles to travel across sites, one or more of the following measures would be implemented for identified sites:  Designation of only a portion of the roads.  Installation of barriers to keep motorized access off of site locations.  Monitoring to ensure that the barriers placed are effective (e.g., not being breached). There is additional risk in closing roads by using an earthen berm in areas of cultural resource sites as equipment can inadvertently damage or destroy a site if it is located in the area where material is taken for berm creation. As such, consultation with the Forest Archaeologist must occur where sites are at risk due to road closure activities to ensure sites are avoided (see Design Criteria). Installation of closure devices other than earthen berms may be necessary. With implementation of design criteria, these effects would be mitigated. Direct effects to cultural resource sites can occur during road reconstruction. There is a minimum of 37 miles of road reconstruction proposed in the project area. No road reconstruction would occur in the Historic Trail Corridor. Consultation with the Forest Archaeologist must occur on these roads to ensure that road widening or realignment activities avoid cultural resource sites (see Design Criteria). With implementation of design criteria, these effects would be mitigated. This project complies with the agreement in the Lac Vieux Desert - L’Anse Historic Trail Corridor Plan MOU and impacts to cultural resource sites can be avoided, therefore, there will be no effect to cultural resources in this area. As outlined in the Implementation section, measures would be required to mitigate effects and consultation with the Michigan State Historical Preservation Office would be required if cultural resource sites are adversely effected through project implementation. Heritage is an Outstandingly Remarkable Value for the Black WSR. The proposal to allow OHVs to travel on existing roads, and in parking areas, is not anticipated to negatively affect this river value. The Outstandingly Remarkable Value is not associated with these access routes; rather it is due to historic remains of buildings, as well as buildings that remain on the site today. With implementation of design criteria, and consultation with Forest Archaeologist where identified, there would be no direct or indirect effects from implementation of this project. Cumulative Effects As there are no direct or indirect effects from project implementation when design criteria are applied, there are no cumulative effects. Sound Analysis

Summary Recreationists that enjoy non-motorized activities may be impacted at an individual level due to their personal preference and views. The overall impact of this project would be a slight increase 41

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

in sound frequency due to the assumption that increased access by OHVs would occur as a result of implementing Alternative 2. This increase would remain within sound emission standards set at the State and Federal levels.

Background Information Regulations Sound is regulated by the State of Michigan via Michigan Vehicle Code 257.707c, which is compliant with the federal noise standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Forest roads are considered public under this law, and therefore are covered by this requirement. For example, all OHVs must have, in good working condition and in constant use, a muffler that will meet or exceed all sound emission standards set by state law. In order to be compliant with EPA and State law, exhaust noise must not exceed 99 decibels (dB), or 94 dB on vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1986 in accordance with State of Michigan testing protocols (MDNR, 2012). Table 7. Michigan State Noise Emission Standards Gross Vehicle Wt. Speed (mph) Decibel Level (dB)

> 8,500 < 35 86

Motorcycle < 35 82

All other vehicles < 35 67

Although there is no Forest Plan direction associated with activities that produce sound. The Forest Service also has the authority to enforce sound standards set by other federal agencies (typically EPA) and by the State under 36 CFR 261.15(d). The fine for a violation is $100. Table 7 identifies Michigan State noise emission standards for various vehicles driven on highways or streets at speeds of 35 mph or less (Michigan Vehicle Code). Literature Review There is limited documented information on the specific effects of OHV sound impacts to Forest visitors in relation to OHV detectable distance. One study found that under normal forest conditions, no more than 5 percent of the vehicles on an off-road vehicle track would be detected at distances equal to or greater than 0.5 miles from the track (USDA Forest Service, 1975). Although motorcycles are not classified as an OHV in this analysis, comparison noise studies for smaller motorized vehicles is available for reference. For example, one study found that high performance motorcycle noise (101 dB) is not detectable beyond 1,900 feet (< 0.5 mi.) in forest conditions (USDA Forest Service, 1993). Although in some cases motorcycles were audible at the measured locations (that is, sound could be detected as being present by carefully listening, 42

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest observers who knew what they were listening for), no measureable sound increase occurred (USDA Forest Service, 1993). Based on this literature review, it can be expected that Forest visitors not participating in motorized access within the project area, such as hikers and other non-motorized recreationists, may encounter noise within 0.5 miles of motorized roads, depending on the variables at the time that a motorized vehicle travels by a visitor’s location. Table 8. Noise Level of Common Sounds

Sound Decibels Jackhammer 130 Chain Saw, Thunder 120 Leaf Blower 110 Snowmobile 100 Lawnmower 95

Alarm Clock 80 Normal Conversation 60 Rainfall 50 Quite Residential Area 40 Whisper 30

There are several variables that can influence sound levels at a distance. These include wind speed and direction, temperature, vegetation, snowpack, topography, and humidity. Detecting sound at a distance also depends upon the background or surrounding sound level at the location of the listener. Forest visitors should expect to hear traffic sound along the open roads. As sound travels from a road that is open to motorized use, sound emissions diminish.

Affected Environment Social Values The Ottawa’s niche is described as offering a multitude and variety of motorized and non- motorized recreational opportunities (Forest Plan, p. 1-5). Many people enjoy recreating on public land to escape the sound of modern civilization. Forest visitors choose recreational activities to meet their expectations. Expectations are a function of people’s values; they can influence what people define as acceptable or unacceptable. Thus, a person’s expectations are used to judge the importance of an event or feeling and assist one to assign values, such as the

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

importance of solitude or privacy. For some, the natural soundscape and tranquility is a condition that they seek as part of their recreational experience. The project area is affected by sound in some way, whether it is ambient sound from wind in the trees, water flowing over rocks, or human-created sound from airplane flights, logging and construction equipment, motorized vehicles and mechanized equipment. Although the project area is defined as the proposed motorized roads and their rights-of-way (see page 6), this effects analysis assumes that recreationists may encounter about 5% sound at 0.5 miles of motorized roads, and therefore the affected environment includes a 0.5 mile area on either side of each road proposed as open to motorized use. As displayed on the maps in Appendix 3, there are several roads currently designated for motorized use within 0.5 mile of each proposed road. It is assumed that current motorized traffic meets State of Michigan and EPA noise emission standards. As outlined in the Recreation Outcomes section, 99% of the project area is within an area that is either classified as Roaded Natural or Semi-Primitive Motorized according to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). These classifications permit motorized use, and therefore sound from motorized use is expected. Approximately 1% of the project area is within a Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized ROS, where Forest Plan Guidelines restrict motorized access (Management Areas 6.1, 8.1 and 8.3, pages 3-57, 3-58, 3-89, 3-81.4 and 3-81.6). Speed limits are restricted within the project area to 35 miles per hour for all motorized traffic. Therefore, the decibel level allowed via State regulations for highway vehicles is 86 dB for and 67 dB for OHVs. Therefore, any given motorized vehicle using a project area road is anticipated to result in a sound emission less than that of a lawnmower (see Table 8). Some proposed roads intersect with roads managed under county jurisdiction, where the speed limit is 25 mph for OHVs and 55 mph for highway vehicles (unless posted otherwise). In these areas, sound impacts may increase due to country rules for speed limits. Concerns were raised during the scoping period regarding the effects to Forest users on the North Country Trail from direct crossings of proposed roads across the North Country Trail. There are currently 28 areas where roads designated for motorized use cross this trail; an activity that is provided for through the trail plan (USDI Park Service, 1982).

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct/Indirect Effects No additional miles for motorized use would be added to the MVUM. There are 490 miles of project area roads that are currently open to motorized access, with the largest proportion of miles associated with open to highway vehicle only designations. The current motorized vehicle traffic would be audible along the existing Forest and county roads. Current sound levels are within the State of Michigan and Environmental Protection Agency noise emissions standards. As the level of motorized use is not expected to change under this alternative, these standards would continue to be met. There would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1 because no activities would be implemented. 44

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Cumulative Effects In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the designated access system and there no changes in the effects of sound emissions would occur under the No Action alternative. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 Direct/Indirect Effects As this alternative’s actions focus mostly on changing the designated motorized access system to allow OHVs on roads not currently available for this type of use, this analysis primarily addresses the sound impacts of OHVs. It is assumed that OHVs would meet State of Michigan and EPA noise emission standards. The sound effects from OHV use, in addition to the existing highway legal vehicle traffic, are not expected to exceed these standards. This analysis assumes that the frequency of sound emissions, and not the level of sound, would increase under Alternative 2. For example, opening a road to OHV use may result in more traffic throughout the day, but each OHV vehicle’s sound emission would be expected to be within State of Michigan standards. As outlined on page 12, Alternative 2 includes a total of 568 miles of changed motorized access. As disclosed in Alternative 1, about 490 of these roads are currently open for motorized use. In terms of sound emissions, there would be a slight increase in sound frequency from roads designated for motorized use as well as a change in the location of vehicle sound. This determination is based on the following: (1) Of the 490 miles of road currently open to motorized use, 436 miles would be retained as open, but the vehicle type allowed on these roads would change; (2) vehicle sound would be added to 78 miles of road that is currently closed; and (3) vehicle sound would be removed from 54 miles of road that is currently open for motorized access. As stated, the Forest Plan permits motorized access within 99% of the project area, and therefore, sound is anticipated to be a normal part of the recreational setting, including those proposed roads that are currently closed to motorized access. The direct effects of Alternative 2 would be a slight increase in the frequency of sound emissions on proposed roads due to OHV access added to roads currently closed and OHV access added to roads that would be retained as open to highway legal vehicles. Effects would also occur within 0.5 miles of each side of the proposed roads due to the increase in sound frequency and adding motorized access on roads that are not currently receiving use. About 5% of the OHV traffic volume is anticipated to be detected at the 0.5 mile point from a motorized road. Therefore, the sound level of OHVs would be expected slightly higher than the surrounding Forest at this distance, but less than 10 dB, which is less than that of a whisper (see Table 8). There are 78 miles of road being added for access under this alternative. As all of these roads stem from roads that are currently open for access, or off of roads proposed for access, it is

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

anticipated that the frequency of sound emissions would slightly increase on these roads, but not to an unacceptable level. There would be an effect of additional sound emissions during road reconstruction activities on the 37 miles of road identified, as well as other reconstruction needs as warranted. Although the time required for reconstruction would be dependent upon site-specific conditions, the effects of sound from this activity is anticipated to be temporary. There would be an indirect effect of an increase in the frequency of sound emissions of OHV access traveling between proposed roads and county roads in those areas where federal and county road connections are made through this project. In addition, several of the proposed roads provide Forest visitors access to both motorized and non-motorized recreational activities, such as campground use; parking areas for boat launches, hiking trails and hunter walk-in trails (such as the Blue Road complex on the Kenton Ranger District); and general opportunities for fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting and other recreational pursuits. Sound from motorized access is not anticipated to reduce on the 54 miles of closed road as all roads lead off of roads that are currently open, or are proposed to be open, to motorized access within the 0.5 mile effects area of each road. However, closure of these roads meets other needs as outlined in the purpose and need. Effects to Non-Motorized Recreationists The indirect effects of Alternative 2 would also be impacts of slightly increased sound frequency to recreationists within the 0.5 mile analysis area of roads added for motorized access (see Project File). People that seek solitude in a forested setting or engage in non-motorized activities can be affected by the use of OHVs. One effect could be the displacement of some users seeking solitude, such as hikers, mountain bikers, backpackers, primitive campers, bird watchers, and some hunters. This anticipated displacement is generally attributed to sound that can be generated from OHVs, as it can be disturbing for recreationists engaging in non-motorized activity, particularly in isolated or secluded areas (2006 Forest Plan FEIS, Volume 1, p. 3-202). In close proximity to some of the proposed roads are hiking opportunities on the North Country Trail. Forest users of these areas may be impacted by a slight increase in sound frequency, especially at direct crossings where proposed roads intersect the trail in eight locations. As outlined in the Affected Environment, crossings such as these are not uncommon. Effects to recreationists would be temporary as vehicles approached, intersected, and continued past the North Country Trail. When design criteria are applied, there would not be an increase in sound frequency within campgrounds proposed for OHV use (see Table 4). The use of OHVs in campgrounds is anticipated to be the same as highway legal vehicles, including abiding by quiet time hours (see Implementation section, Design Criteria 2a through 2c).

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Areas In terms of proposed roads in the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) area, the entirety of five of the seven roads proposed are open to highway legal vehicles now, and this alternative

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

would designate these roads as open to all vehicles. These roads lead to gravel parking areas for the Norwich Bluff interpretive trail; Silver Mountain recreational trail and vista; the Sturgeon River campground; and Forest Roads 2200 and 2270, which lead to the community of Baraga, Michigan. Although these roads are in the SPNM area, sound from highway legal traffic on the roads, and within the 0.5 miles from these roads, is a common occurrence in the recreational setting and has been for several years. Therefore, the effects of sound are expected to be same as what currently exists, although the frequency of sound is expected to slightly increase due to authorizing OHV use, which would likely result in increased OHV traffic. The remaining two roads, of the seven roads proposed within the SPNM area, are Forest Road 841 and unclassified route 03013133. Currently, the majority of Forest Road 841 is open to all vehicles and travels through the SPNM area (see Map 16). The terminal end of this road (about 0.17 miles) is closed to all vehicles. To allow motorized access to the trailhead for the Blue Road hunter walk-in trail, the closed portion would be open to all motorized vehicles. No change to the existing sound effects within the 0.5 miles would occur because as stated, the majority of the road is already receiving motorized use and the new road segment is less than one-quarter mile. It can be inferred that the sound and sound frequency would overlap with the area affected by the portion of the road that is currently open to all motorized vehicles. Unclassified route 03013133 leads to a parking area adjacent to a spring, which is a popular, local fishing area. Vehicles are currently parking on the side of Forest Road 3346; a road open to highway legal vehicles. Opening this road to highway vehicles would improve Forest visitor safety. Within the 0.5 mile effects area, sound is currently occurring due to highway legal vehicle traffic on Forest Road 3346. Given that Unclassified route 03013133 is 0.2 miles in length, it can be inferred that sound and sound frequency would overlap with the area affected by Forest Road 3346, and therefore allowing highway vehicle access here would not introduce vehicle sound; although the frequency of sound may slightly increase once this road is reconstructed, and open for highway legal vehicles. There are roads proposed on the boundaries of SPNM areas, such as 2200 and 6320 that border wilderness areas, and 3340 and 3612 that border Management Area 6.1. These examples, and other roads with similar circumstances, are currently open to highway vehicles. Therefore, effects of sound within each 0.5 mile analysis area is currently occurring. As stated, the frequency of sound may slightly increase due to increased motorized use due to OHV access added. There is no direction that states actions cannot occur adjacent to these boundaries. Cumulative Effects Past and present effects of sound in the project area includes the current motorized access on 490 miles of road, as well as other ambient and human-caused sounds stated the affected environment. As displayed in Appendix 3, there are several roads that are currently open to motorized access (either OHVs, highway legal vehicles, or both) within the 0.5 mile buffer established for each road in this analysis. It is assumed that current access meets sound emission standards.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Reasonably foreseeable future effects associated with sound-producing activities would be the reconstruction measures associated with replacing culverts for aquatic organism passage on nine roads within the project area. As outlined in the effects of Alternative 2, road reconstruction measures are anticipated to be temporary in nature. This would be true for some project area roads that have been identified to be used to facilitate timber harvest through vegetation management projects and culverts replaced for aquatic organism passage (see Analysis Framework). These roads have been included for maintenance or reconstruction to improve road conditions. When combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the sound frequency of motorized vehicles under Alternative 2 is anticipated to slightly increase from the existing condition. This is primarily due to OHV access added to roads where highway legal vehicles already travel, where OHV travel is expected to increase. When adding the sound associated with current open to motorized access in the 0.5 mile buffer analysis area for proposed roads (that would not change under Alternative 2), along with the proposed access designations, there would be slight cumulative effects of increased sound frequency. However, these effects are not anticipated to be significant because of State of Michigan and Environmental Protection Agency sound emissions standards. Non-native Invasive and Rare Plants

Summary Project implementation would result in an increased risk of Non-native Invasive Plant (NNIP) introduction and spread due to increased OHV designation on existing and proposed roads, where travel on road shoulders can lead to pick up and dispersal NNIP seeds. Implementation of the Ottawa’s NNIP Control Project would be used to address high priority infestations as needed. Implementation of project design criteria would assure a No Impact determination for the six Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species in the project area.

Affected Environment Ecologically, roads in the project area are narrow upland openings within usually forested plant communities. Many native and non-native plants are well-adapted to roadside habitats. These plants tend to favor sunny conditions and be somewhat tolerant of disturbance. Some plants that favor disturbed soil, like knapweed, are more often found along roads open to motorized traffic. Therefore, opening or closing a road could affect what plants grow there. However, roadside vegetation in the project area is very similar regardless of whether the road is open or closed. In general, the majority of project area roads are eventually used by vehicles, which keeps the roads on the landscape and prevents natural succession from restoring native plant communities. Non-native Invasive Plants There are 172 low priority NNIP sites that have been mapped within about 66 feet of a project road, including burdock, knapweed, thistles, crown vetch, hawkweeds, and tansy (see Project File). Infestations of high priority, invasive plants like garlic mustard, purple loosestrife, and 48

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Japanese barberry are treated by the Ottawa through the 2005 NNIP Control Project decision, which authorizes treatment of NNIPs on an annual basis (USDA Forest Service 2005). Vehicle use can contribute to the spread of exotic plants by spreading seeds from infestations already occurring along the roads, and by bringing in new seeds (Rooney 2005). Motor vehicles can pick up and spread NNIPs with small seeds that can be trapped in the dirt carried by tire treads or vehicle undercarriages (Von der Lippe, Moritz, and Kowarik 2007). In addition to the typical roadside weeds, vehicles could introduce invasive plants, such as garlic mustard, wild chervil, garden valerian, and purple loosestrife. Off-highway vehicles are considered a particular risk for spreading exotic plants because they are more likely to travel on road shoulders or other vegetated areas, where they are more likely to pick up seeds. Rare Plants Road edges can also provide suitable habitat for rare plants that prefer open habitats or forest edges. Ten rare native plant sites have been mapped within about 66 feet of a project road. Species include northern water-starwort, large toothwort, western blue virgins bower, butternut, ginseng, pinedrops, beard lichen, and dwarf bilberry. Six of those species are listed as Regional Forester Sensitive Species (large toothwort, butternut, ginseng, pinedrops, beard lichen, and dwarf bilberry). Alternative 1 – No Action Direct/Indirect Effects No additional miles for motorized use would be added to the MVUM. Exotic plants would continue to be spread by vehicles, especially those driving on road shoulders where seeds are picked up. Exotic plants would also be spread by wind, wildlife, and natural growth. Existing infestations would continue to spread. High-priority infestations, such as garlic mustard, purple loosestrife, and Japanese barberry would be treated via the 2005 NNIP Control Project decision. There would likely be some new introductions of exotic plants from ongoing vehicle use along the roads, but the species, location, and/or degree of introduction cannot be predicted. No effects to existing NNIP or rare plant populations along the project roads would be expected as there is no change to existing motorized use. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) were evaluated in the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation and a No Impact determination was made for all RFSS plant species. Therefore, the No Action alternative is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for these species. Cumulative Effects In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the designated access system, and therefore no effects to current populations of invasive or rare plants would occur under the No Action alternative. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1. 49

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects Non-native Invasive Plants Alternative 2 would result in a potential increase in motorized traffic on 514 miles of project area roads and their road shoulders. The majority of these roads are already open to highway legal vehicle use, and Alternative 2 would add OHVs to these roads. A direct effect of the Alternative 2 would be a potential increase in OHVs moving exotic plant seeds, both spreading existing infestations and bringing in new seeds from other areas. The species, location and degree of spread cannot be predicted. New infestations brought in by an increase in vehicle use may trigger new infestations, and if left untreated, may grow larger and possibly spread to the adjacent plant communities. Therefore, spread of NNIPs to adjacent natural areas is an indirect effect of Alternative 2. Some plants, like spotted knapweed, crown vetch, and wild chervil, require disturbance and abundant sunlight so would not be expected to spread into the adjacent forest. The greatest risk would come from NNIPs, such as garlic mustard, which could be brought onto the roads with the additional vehicle traffic, deposited as a seed along the road edge, and then spread into the adjacent forest. Existing sites of garlic mustard on the Ottawa appear to have arrived that way. Wetland NNIPs, such as purple loosestrife and garden valerian, could also be brought in by vehicles and spread in the roadside ditches. Highly invasive plants like garlic mustard could replace native vegetation in the adjacent habitats. Ongoing public education, including work with OHV user groups, could help these sites be detected early and controlled. In addition, the NNIP Control Project decision would be used to address problem areas. The roads proposed for reconstruction could contribute to the introduction and spread of exotic plants. The repair may include a risk of spread by equipment used, in fill material, or by disturbing the seed bank in the soil. Implementation of design criteria would reduce effects of introduction and spread of exotic plants. Closing 54 miles of road could favor some plants over others. Weedy plants that favor disturbed soils might decline when motorized traffic ends. However, as discussed under Affected Environment, open and closed forest roads tend to have similar vegetation. Rare Plants Alternative 2 concerns only existing roads, which are generally un-vegetated. Changing the type of motor vehicle use on a road would have little or no effect on rare plants that occur there. The proposed changes in motorized use, given the specified design criteria, are unlikely to affect rare plants (see Project File). The proposed road reconstruction could affect rare plants, should any occur. A design criterion recommends eleven specific roads for a plant survey. These tend to be roads that need repair or appear to currently receive little motorized use. Should any rare plants be found along the roads, measures would be taken to protect the populations. Given site specific design criteria, all of the

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

known ten sites of rare plants near the project roads would not be affected by additional or fewer motor vehicles. A No Impact determination was made for all plant Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species under Alternative 2. Therefore, this alternative is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for these species. Cumulative Effects Past actions (such as prior introduction and spread of exotic plants) were considered as part of the Affected Environment. Likewise, current and ongoing actions (such as the movement of exotic plants by wind, wildlife, and vehicles) were also considered. There are scheduled timber harvests near the roads in the coming years, but the associated vehicle traffic along the roads would pose no greater or lesser risk of spreading exotic plants than the use that these roads typically receive every year. This is due to implementation of typical design criteria associated with these projects. In addition, design criteria associated with the Road and Stream Crossing Project decision would also be applied to address needs for NNIP and Rare Plants as needed for the culvert replacement identified on the nine roads in the project area (USDA Forest Service, 2015 and 2016). No other reasonably foreseeable future actions are known that would affect the spread of exotic plants or impact rare plant species, within the project area and adjacent habitats. When combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects to NNIP introduction and/or spread is anticipated to slightly increase from the existing condition. Pages 3-86 to 3-97 of the FEIS discuss the impacts of NNIPs on the Ottawa and acknowledges that allowing more OHV access will contribute to the spread of NNIPs to areas not already infested. However, the NNIP Control Project decision can be implemented as necessary to reduce impacts. No other additional impacts, not already disclosed by the FEIS, are expected from the proposed changes to motor vehicle use. Due to implementation of design criteria for this project as well as reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area, no effects to rare plants would occur. Soils

Summary The designated motorized access changes included in Alternative 2 would provide a remedy for some of the impacts occurring on some roads currently unsuited for use, while providing for legal and sustainable public access on the roads that can support it. This alternative would result in both negative and positive impacts on soils. Negative effects are expected to be minor in scope due to the application of Best Management Practices, on-going road maintenance on higher standard roads, and road reconstruction.

Affected Environment The Ecological Classification System for the Ottawa is a nested, hierarchical mapping system that can be utilized in many levels of planning. Within this hierarchy, Ecological Land Type Phases (ELTPs) are site specific units which are applicable for analysis at the project level

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

(Cleland, et al., 1997). The ELTPs have three integrated components: landform, soils, and vegetation. They can be used to provide site capability information, and were used as a basis for understanding the ecological characteristics of the roads included in this project. The ELTPs have been correlated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map units, which are assigned risk ratings for various interpretations. These risk ratings were used for this analysis to determine the slight, moderate, or severe potential for impacts to the soil from the proposal (see Project File). Design criteria and State of Michigan Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated to minimize or eliminate effects to the soil resource. Forest roads were historically constructed for forest management activities, which implies that generally, these lower standard roads were not intended to serve the purposes that they have evolved to serve, such as increased recreational use (Grace and Clinton, 2007). Some historic roads may not have been built to current construction standards or with BMP recommendations in mind. Roads in poorly suited locations receiving little to no maintenance and continued motorized use deteriorate over time, potentially resulting in increased erosion as well as areas of increased compaction and rutting. Roads continue to produce sediment whether traveled or not, which can result in accelerated soil erosion losses leading to sediment introduction into waterways. It is important to note that the Forest Service Manual regarding Soil Management (USDA Forest Service 2010) provides guidance for both soil quality standards and for monitoring soil disturbance. Per that direction, roads are defined as a “dedicated use” and therefore the roadbed is not subject to this direction and not included in this analysis. However, these standards and guidelines may apply to the area adjacent to roads. The project area is defined as the proposed roads and their rights-of-way, and therefore this analysis discloses effects to the soil resource in the rights-of-way, which varies between 10 and 33 feet on either side of proposed roads. Graveled road surfaces with vegetated side-slopes are more stable than grass-surfaced roads, which are more stable than un-graveled road surfaces receiving similar traffic (Grace and Clinton, 2007). This analysis assumes that roads receiving less regular maintenance (e.g., lower standard roads with un-graveled or grass surface) are more prone to impacts from erosion and subsequent road-widening behavior by users (see Figure 9), which results in rutting and compaction, especially in areas currently unsuited to motorized use due to location. Higher standard roads typically receive regular maintenance and generally offer a more stable riding surface (such as gravel). Thus, they would be less prone to erosion and travel in the road right-of-way. Alternative 1 – No Action Direct/Indirect Effects There would be no change to the existing condition of the designated motorized use system in the project area. Soil resource effects would be expected to continue on a negative trend. Roads designated for motorized use in poorly suited locations would continue to deteriorate over time. This has the potential to result in travel in the roads’ right of way, resulting in increased erosion, 52

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest compaction and rutting. At the same time, roads that would be able to support additional motorized use without increased soil impacts would remain unavailable to users. If there were to be no changes made to the current motorized use designation, existing traffic on minimum standard roads would continue. Such roads lack the maintenance needed to prevent negative soil resource impacts. Roads that are known to be contributing to factors of erosion, compaction and rutting would not be addressed through this project. On-going road maintenance on higher standard reduces impacts to the soil resource. In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the current designated access system under the No Action alternative because no actions would take place. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects Motorized use designations on roads can negatively impact the soil resource, particularly due to the loss of the soil through erosion. The effects of erosion can be irreversible, without costly management actions, and can affect other natural systems, such as aquatic resources impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation (Olive and Marion, 2009).

Figure 9. Aerial imagery showing OHV use on several paths within the road right-of-way In general, soils along higher standard roads that would receive an increase in use may be negatively impacted due to an increase in dust and tire traffic. However, on-going road maintenance ensures that impacts to the soil resource would be minimized. This alternative

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

increases the miles of road open to all motorized use on higher standard roads. Therefore the overall effects would be expected to be minor on these roads. Cumulative Effects Road reconstruction has the potential to improve soil and water conditions over the longer term through the replacement of drainage and water control structures. This activity would improve upon the current condition of the road system, and when the appropriate mitigations and BMPs are properly applied, soil impacts due to erosion would be temporary in nature and would be minimized over the long term. Positive impacts to the soil resource would occur on those roads that have been identified as having some sections that are poorly suited to support motorized use through reconstruction. Soil resource impacts along the roads included in this alternative are expected to be greater on the lower standard roads. This alternative would decrease the miles of lower standard road open to OHV in areas not suited for travel. Subsequently, Alternative 2 would reduce overall soil impacts in these areas since there would be fewer opportunities for riding within the roads’ right- of-ways. Negative soil resource impacts would also be reduced due to 54 miles of road closure on roads determined to be unsuitable for motorized access. Without motorized use, the soil resource would be allowed to recover via natural freeze-thaw cycles and regrowth of vegetation. Approximately 78 miles of closed road would be open to motorized use, these roads have been identified as being able to support motorized use through field review of conditions. Alternative Comparison Based on Road Erosion Hazard The NRCS risk ratings for Road Erosion Hazard have been incorporated into this analysis to better understand the effects of Alternative 2. These ratings indicate the hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads based on soil erosion, slope, and content of rock fragments. The ratings noted are based on the most limiting condition of the soil, and do not factor in the requirements and guidelines put in place to protect the soil resource (e.g., design criteria, BMPs) during use, maintenance and reconstruction of the roads. A rating of well suited (slight risk) indicates that little or no erosion is likely. A rating of moderately suited (moderate risk) indicates that some erosion is likely, that the roads may require occasional maintenance and that simple erosion control measures are needed. A rating of poorly suited (severe risk) indicates that significant erosion is expected, and that the roads require frequent maintenance and that costly erosion control measures are needed (Soil Survey Staff). The majority of the proposal includes designated access of roads open to all motorized vehicles. About 70% of these higher standard roads are located on soils with a slight or moderate risk of erosion (see Project File). The remaining 30% are found on soils having a severe risk of erosion, implicating a need for frequent maintenance and more expensive erosion control measures in order to remain sustainable roads. However, in most cases, these features are already in place and the roads do receive regular maintenance. Therefore, substantial increased soil resource impacts would not be expected.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

In the case of lower standard roads proposed as open to all vehicles, about 72% are in the slight or moderate risk categories, while the remaining 28% are in the severe risk group (see Project File). Although these roads were field verified and determined to be able to support motorized use without resource impacts, these roads may need increased monitoring, improved erosion control measures and increased maintenance to be able to support the increased motorized use in a sustainable way. Under Alternative 2, the roads designated for OHV use only would decrease for all risk categories. About 68% of these roads are located with areas with a slight or moderate risk, and the remaining 32% fall into the severe risk group (see Project File). Soil resource impacts may be higher along these roads, therefore they would need to be monitored to ensure that they are not contributing to resource degradation in the future. Cumulative Effects Additional past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects include on-going road maintenance, as well as future road maintenance and reconstruction (see Project File). Some project area roads have been identified to be used to facilitate timber harvest through vegetation management projects (see Project File). Road maintenance and reconstruction performed through these projects would improve road conditions. These actions, along with the future reconstruction of nine project area roads authorized under the Road and Stream Crossing Project decision, may temporarily increase soil erosion, while bare soils are exposed. However, when combined with the road reconstruction and motorized travel included in this alternative, the effects would be limited in duration, minor in extent and would reduce soil resource impacts from those sites over the long term. Provided that BMPs and design criteria are in place, as these projects all build upon each other, expected cumulative effects to the soil resource would have a positive trend. Terrestrial Wildlife Species Summary There would be limited changes to wildlife and associated habitat from allowing OHV access on higher standard roads. The Remote Habitat Area would remain within the desired road density. Designation of OHVs on higher standard roads may result in some additional vehicle-wildlife collisions. Indirect wildlife effects include potential for increased hunting and trapping harvest due to access on currently closed roads. With implementation of design criteria, effects to TES would be minimized during road reconstruction. Introduction A Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) was prepared. Relative to species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended the BA must arrive at one of three possible determinations: 1) “no effect” (NE); 2) “not likely to adversely affect” (which includes beneficial effects) (NLAA); or 3) “likely to adversely affect” (LAA). If a “not likely to adversely affect” or “likely to adversely affect” determination is made relative to a listed 55

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

species, consultation must be initiated with US Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of ESA. For Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS), the BE must arrive at a finding of effects on each species’ population viability. The finding must be one of the following four statements: 1) “no impact”, which may include beneficial impacts (NI); 2) “may impact individuals of a species but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” (MII); 3) “high risk of loss of viability in the planning area, but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing” (HRLV); or 4) “likely to result in a loss of viability and a trend toward federal listing” (LRT). Goal 31 of the Forest Plan contains direction for managing the Remote Habitat Area (RHA), an area managed for wildlife species requiring a degree of remoteness from human activity, including gray wolf. In this area, the Forest Plan direction calls for maintaining an average open road density of less than, or equal to, one mile of road per square mile of land for passenger vehicles (p. 2-9). Affected Environment The affected environment for this analysis is the proposed roads and their associated rights-of- way (ROW). It is assumed that physical changes to habitat from implementation of this project, such as removal of trees, shrubs and ground flora, would occur in the roads’ ROW. For the purposes of this analysis, travel of motorized vehicles is also assumed to be confined to the roads’ ROW. Habitat for the following species occur within the project area: Federally-endangered species (gray wolf); Federally-threatened species (northern long-eared bat); and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (bats: little brown myotis and tri-colored bat; birds: red-shouldered hawk, spruce grouse, bald eagle, black-backed woodpecker; four-toed salamander; wood turtle; snails: delicate vertigo and mystery vertigo; northern barrens tiger beetle; and butterflies: chryxus arctic, tawny crescent and West Virginia white). Existing access is displayed in Table 1 and Appendix 3, using the 2016 MVUM designations. The existing RHA road density is 0.57 mi/mi2, which is within the desired range of the Forest Plan. Road maintenance actions would continue to occur to maintain road conditions as necessary. Higher standard roads allow for higher speed travel. Research has shown that vehicles strike can injure/kill wildlife much more readily when vehicle speeds exceed about 35-40 mph (Riley and Sudharsan, 2006). This research pertains to collisions with deer and larger, mobile mammals. Use of OHVs on low-standard roads usually does not produce vehicle-wildlife strikes, simply because OHV travel is slower. As outlined in the Sound analysis, the speed limit for is 35 mph on the proposed roads. However, depending on road conditions, speeds of <10 mph are common for OHVs on low standard roads. Slow moving wildlife, such as turtles, snakes and many invertebrates, are at a higher risk of being injured or killed by highway legal vehicles on higher standard roads. The current designated access system is not compromising the vulnerability of any terrestrial wildlife species in the project area. 56

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct/Indirect Effects Determinations Implementation of the Alternative 1 is anticipated to lead to the following determinations for threatened and endangered species as disclosed in the BA (see Project File): Likely to Adversely Affect (Northern long-eared bat); and Not Likely to Adversely Affect (gray wolf). For Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, the BE determined a May Impact Individuals (MII) determination was made for the little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, four-toed salamander, wood turtle and all three RFSS butterflies: chryxus arctic, tawny crescent and West Virginia white. Alternative 1 is not expected to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for these species. This alternative was deemed to have no effects or no impacts on all other TES wildlife species analyzed. Designated Access Locations Access would remain the same as designated via the 2016 MVUM. No new designated roads would be added and the type of use for each road in the project area would be retained. Therefore, no changes would occur to the existing, open road density within the RHA. The density would remain at 0.57 mi/mi2. Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Risk The wildlife-vehicle collision risk would not change from what exists currently. On-going road maintenance and motorized vehicle travel within the roads’ ROW can lead to increased risk of collision. This includes the butterflies, which may have their larvae destroyed by summer road maintenance activities (mowing ditches, brushing, or grading), or by strikes by vehicles traveling the roadways. Also, wood turtles that may nest at the major stream crossings may be injured or have their nests destroyed by on-going road maintenance activities, particularly spring and summer grading. However, species viability would not be compromised. Other ongoing activities under the No Action alternative, such as recreation activities, would be expected to have minor disturbance-type impacts or no impact on other TES species or habitat. Cumulative Effects In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the current designated access system under the No Action alternative because no actions would take place. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects Determinations Implementation of Alternative 2 is anticipated to lead to the following determinations for threatened and endangered species as disclosed in the BA (see Project File): Not Likely to Adversely Affect (gray wolf); and Likely to Adversely Affect (Northern long-eared bat). For Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, the BE determined a May Impact Individuals determination was made for little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, spruce grouse, wood turtle, four- toed salamander, chryxus arctic, tawny crescent and West Virginia white. Alternative 2 is not expected to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for these species. Designated Access Locations All roads are currently in place; no construction is included under Alternative 2. Therefore, no loss of habitat would occur from designating access. There would be limited changes to wildlife and associated habitat from allowing OHV access on these roads; as these roads are currently open to highway vehicles and are well-traveled. Wildlife is an Outstandingly Remarkable Value for the Black River, South Branch Paint River, Presque Isle Main Stem as well as South and West Branches Presque Isle River; Cisco, East and Middle Branches Ontonagon and Sturgeon River corridors. About 3.5 miles of closed road within the WSR would be open under Alternative 2. However, as stated above, no loss of habitat would occur. Although the BA/BE determinations resulted in a MII for some species associated with habitat in the WSR corridors, it is anticipated that implementation of Alternative 2 would not negatively affect the Wildlife Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Indirect wildlife effects from the proposed changes in motorized access include increased potential for hunting and trapping harvest of game animals and furbearers. Allowing more access into the Forest by designating 78 miles of road that are currently closed may expose individual animals to harvest that might not have been otherwise. However, approximately 54 miles of road closure would occur. This would result in supplementing a portion of habitat unaffected by motorized access; albeit in different locations than the areas comprising the 78 miles of road opened. There would be an additional 33 miles of roads opened to passenger vehicles within the RHA, resulting in an increase in the miles of road open to passenger vehicles to 0.65 mi/mi2, which remains consistent with Forest Plan direction. Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Risk In addition to the existing collision risk outlined in Alternative 1, direct negative effects would be expected from the proposal in the form of collisions with OHVs. This is because the largest change in designated access is adding OHV traffic to higher standard roads that are already open to highway legal vehicles. The speed limit on the proposed roads is 35 mph. Although research outlined in the Affected Environment is specific to highway vehicles and large mammals, it can be inferred that designation of OHVs on higher standard roads may result in a few more vehicle- 58

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

wildlife collisions. This would be expected from OHV travel on road shoulders and ditch edges, where wildlife species forage, such as insects, broods of young birds, rabbits, snakes and nesting turtles. Furthermore, OHV traffic along some road shoulders could result in increased direct effects to some species, such as potential for crushing turtle nests, and destroying ground-nesting birds’ nests (see Project File). Traveling on road shoulders can also generate more dust resulting in sediment delivery to aquatic habitats. Road Reconstruction Reconstruction is proposed on a minimum of 37 miles of road, but additional reconstruction would occur as conditions warrant. During reconstruction, removal of trees, shrubs and ground flora would occur, resulting in a direct loss of habitat. The removal of trees could result in effects to roosting/nesting wildlife species, however with application of design criteria and overall small scope of habitat affected, impacts are anticipated to be negligible. Cumulative Effects Additional past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects include on-going road maintenance, as well as future road maintenance and reconstruction (see Analysis Framework, Project File). Some project area roads have been identified to be used to facilitate timber harvest through vegetation management projects. Road maintenance and reconstruction performed through these projects would improve road conditions. These actions, along with the future reconstruction of nine project area roads authorized under the Road and Stream Crossing Project decision, and effects of Alternative 2, may result in loss of habitat. However, when design criteria are implemented, the effects would be limited in duration. Visual Resources

Summary Effects to visuals are expected to occur where road reconstruction is proposed in the areas managed for Partial Retention and Retention visual quality objectives. These effects are expected to be minor, short-term and in the foreground only due to the nature of activities associated with road reconstruction as well as application of a design criterion intended to minimize effects.

Background Scenery is an important natural resource of the project area. Natural features including vegetation, water, landforms, and geology largely influence the scenery. High quality scenery enhances people’s lives and benefits communities and society (Forest Plan, p. G-1). Sightseeing and driving for pleasure are among the recreational pursuits on the Ottawa, and the demand for these opportunities is expected to continue (USDA 2012). Visual quality objectives (VQOs) provide objectives and measurable standards. They are used to describe the degree of alteration that may occur to the visual resource on lands (Forest Plan, p.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

G-1). Management activities such as road work are required to meet specific standards associated with each VQO as outlined in the Forest Plan direction for each Management Area. There are three distance zones used in the Forest Plan to describe the observer’s view of the landscape; that is, “Foreground” (1/4 to 1/2 mile from an observer), “Middleground” (three to five miles) and “Background” (Middleground +). The project area is defined as the proposed roads and their right-of-ways. As such, this analysis assumes the level of effects to VQOs would remain at the Foreground level (< ½ mile). The five classes of Forest Service Visual Management System VQOs are preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, and maximum modification. Each of the VQOs describes a different degree of acceptable alteration of the undisturbed landscape. Appendix G of the Forest Plan fully describes these VQOs; and Forest Plan Guidelines outline which VQO applies to the distance zones per Management Area. Below is an abbreviated summary of each VQO (the Preservation VQO is not listed because it is not found in the project area):  Retention (R): Management activities that are not visually evident. Activities may only repeat elements frequently found in the characteristic landscape.  Partial Retention (PR): Management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat elements of the characteristic landscape.  Modification (M): Management activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from established visual characteristics within the surrounding area of character type. Additional parts of these activities such as structures, roads, slash, root wads, etc., must remain visually subordinate to the proposed composition.  Maximum Modification (MM): Management activities of vegetative and landform alteration may dominate the characteristic landscape. When viewed as foreground or middle ground, activities may not appear to completely borrow from established visual characteristics.

Affected Environment All roads in the project area currently exist on the ground. There are roads that currently are managed as part of our transportation system and proposed for changes in access. There are also unclassified routes that are currently features that exist on the ground, but they are not managed as part of the transportation system. Conditions on these unclassified routes has been determined suitable for proposed designated access. No roads would be constructed as part of this project. On-going road maintenance is occurring for the project area’s roads, with higher standard roads receiving more regular maintenance activities. As shown in Figure 10, over half of the project area’s roads are within a VQO where activities can be visually dominate on the landscape. For this analysis, effects to visuals are likely to occur where reconstruction activities can be viewed from a travel road in Partial Retention or Retention VQOs, which are the most restrictive as outlined in the Background section.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

10% Modification Maximum Modification 50% 34% Partial Retention Retention 6%

Figure 10. Percentage of roads proposed by VQO Classification

Direct/Indirect Effects The project area’s roads would continue to have routine road maintenance, which includes right of way clearing and sign maintenance. Under this alternative, no access designations would change, and no activities, such as road reconstruction would occur. Therefore, there would be no immediate impact to the overall visual appearance of the project area. However, natural ecological changes in the landscape that occur over time would change the current visual appearance along the right of ways. There would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1 because no activities would be implemented. Alternative 1 – No Action Cumulative Effects In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the current designated access system under the No Action alternative because no actions would take place. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects This project is changing the designated use of existing roads that are already constructed on the landscape. Although 19 miles of unclassified route would be added to the transportation system for designation under this alternative, these road segments already exist on the ground. The majority of roads already have been designated for motorized access, so Alternative 2 would result in a change in use for the type and size of vehicle that would be allowed.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Reconstruction includes tree removal, brushing and ditching on a minimum of 37 miles of road. Trees would be removed for road widening, realignment and/or culvert placement. These activities would occur as displayed on the maps (see Appendix 3) as well as other areas as deemed necessary. Reconstruction is necessary to provide a safe riding environment. The mixed use analysis would also identify where safety signage, such as “Share the Road” signs, are required. Design criteria are used to mitigate the effect of the visual foreground to keep signage to what is minimally required for safety. Overall impacts to the project area’s visual appearance from road reconstruction measures are anticipated to be short term (<5 years) due to vegetation re-growth within the roads’ right-of-ways. As described in the Affected Environment, the Retention VQO is the most restrictive, with management activities not visually evident for the observer; Partial Retention VQO requires management activities to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape, with said activities repeating elements of the landscape. As outlined in Table 9, there are 2.6 miles of proposed reconstruction in the Retention and Partial Retention VQOs, where the foreground vegetation would be temporarily altered. Additionally, road reconstruction could occur within Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridors. Scenery is an Outstandingly Remarkable Value for the Black, Cisco and Middle Branches Ontonagon, Presque Isle Main Stem, and Sturgeon WSR corridors. A proposed design criterion would limit the impact to the visual foreground on these roads, as well as any additional reconstruction identified within the Retention/Partial Retention VQOs during project implementation. Therefore, this project is anticipated to protect and enhance the Scenery Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Table 9. Mileage of roads proposed for Reconstruction in the Partial Retention and Retention VQO

Proposed Road VQO Estimated Miles 1360 .91 1383 .3 3340-H .57 Partial 3475-C5 .22 Retention 3580 .10 Unclassified Route NEW-009 .17 Unclassified Route 03013133 .20

3900-D Retention .12 Total 2.60

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Cumulative Effects Past and on-going road maintenance on project area roads have a minimal, short-term impact in the roads’ right-of-ways due to the nature of this activity (brushing, hazard tree removal, etc.). Reasonably foreseeable future actions of the Road and Stream Crossing Project decision that reconstructs roads to establish culverts that allow aquatic organism passage should also have minor effects to vegetation given that the reconstruction measures are limited to the crossings and paving of road approaches. There is maintenance and reconstruction of other project area roads where roads have been identified for use in vegetation management projects that would affect the foreground of some areas in Partial Retention and Retention VQOs (see Project File). All of these projects have authorized design criteria to minimize impact to visuals. Therefore, when combining the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions with this project, the potential alteration of foreground conditions for project area roads is expected to be minimal. The cumulative effects would be minor over the long-term as there would be regrowth of roadside vegetation within five years or less. Wild and Scenic Rivers

Summary This section focuses on those road segments that cross streams and wetlands within Wild and Scenic River corridors. Due to the shifts in the type of motorized access allowed on project area roads, as well as road closures, there is an overall increase in the risk of erosion and sedimentation from motorized travel at crossings where roads intersect streams and wetlands. This project is consistent with the direction of the Ottawa’s Comprehensive River Management Plan.

Background The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act identifies free-flow, water quality and Outstandingly Remarkable Values as river values that are to be protected and enhanced. Each corridor has been assigned Outstandingly Remarkable Values (Comprehensive River Management Plan, pp. 2-2 and 2-3). This section of the document specifically addresses water quality as WSRs receive special consideration for water quality and roads. No road is anticipated to affect free-flow conditions. For the remaining Outstandingly Remarkable Values of scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife and heritage, the ID Team has evaluated the proposed access roads with consideration of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (see Project File). The proposal is not anticipated to negatively affect these values (see the visuals, recreation, aquatics, wildlife and heritage sections for more information). The Ottawa’s Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) notes one of the underlying principles of the WSR Act is to protect water quality in designated rivers (Forest Service 2007). It also says designated wild river segments are the least accessible with little or no roads present, designated scenic river segments have few access points, and designated recreational river segments have more roads. Given what we know of erosion and sedimentation risks from roads in general and the WSR access direction, wild 63

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

segments should have the least risks of erosion and sedimentation, scenic a little more and recreational the most.

Affected Environment Road-Stream Crossings In the project area, there are two road-stream crossings within designated wild river corridors, and both are currently open to highway legal vehicles only (see Table 10). These crossings are associated with a major travelway (Forest Road 2200) that crosses a WSR at each end of the designated river segment. There are seven crossings within designated scenic river corridors, and they are currently open to highway vehicles only. Three of these roads cross WSR segments, and the remaining cross tributary streams of WSRs. Within the designated recreational river corridors, there are currently ten crossings open to highway legal vehicles only, three of which cross WSR segments and seven of which cross tributary streams of WSRs. There is also one crossing of a tributary stream within a recreational corridor that is currently open to all vehicles. The type of use causing the most risk at stream crossings are roads open to OHVs only, and there are none of these high risk sites within the WSR corridors in the project area. Road-Wetland Crossings In the project area, there are also three locations where roads cross wetlands within designated wild river corridors, and all are currently open to highway legal vehicles only (Table 11). These wetland crossings are also associated with Forest Road 2200. There are five locations where roads cross wetlands within designated scenic river corridors, and they are open to highway vehicles only. There is also one wetland crossing that is open to all vehicles and one that is open to OHVs only. Within the designated recreational river corridors, there are 22 wetland crossings open to highway legal vehicles only. There are also three wetland crossings open to all vehicles and two crossings open to OHVs only. The miles of roads through wetlands within the designated WSR corridors is displayed in Table 12. Alternative 1 – No Action Direct/Indirect Effects The existing condition would not change as the project would not be implemented. The degree of existing access with associated risks outlined in the Affected Environment section is consistent with the WSR-CRMP direction. There is the least access and therefore the least sediment risks in designated wild segments, and the most access and therefore most sediment risks in the designated recreational segments. There are slightly more miles of roads within wetlands in the wild corridor than the scenic; however, the wild corridor is associated with a major travelway that is deeply graveled and maintained often, thereby reducing sediment risks. Cumulative Effects In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. As disclosed, there would be no changes to the current designated access system under the No Action alternative 64

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

because no actions would take place. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects from implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would slightly increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation from road-stream crossings. Use of project area roads is expected to increase in all corridors under this alternative because motorized access designation would be changes from open to highway legal vehicles only to open to all vehicles. However, the effects would be slightly offset by a reduction in risk due to the closure of one road within the recreational river corridor (see Table 10). Table 10. Comparison of Alternatives of the Number of Stream Crossings within WSR River Corridors with Erosion and Sedimentation Risk Roads within the Project Area

Motorized Open to Closed to All Highway Open to Access Open to All Total Vehicles Legal OHVs only Vehicles Only Alternative 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Wild Rivers 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 Scenic Rivers 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 7 Recreational 0 1 10 0 0 10 1 0 11 11 Rivers Lowest Risk Highest Risk

Erosion and sedimentation risk for roads within wetlands is expected to increase slightly for wild corridors, since the road would receive higher use, as well as for some roads in scenic and recreational corridors (Tables 11 and 12). Two roads within scenic corridors are currently open to OHVs only, which is in the highest risk category. Alternative 2 would close these roads, thereby reducing risk to the lowest category for these two crossings. Recreational corridors would have more OHV only access, which increases erosion and sedimentation risk where those roads cross wetlands. In terms of the number of roads through wetlands, the greatest amount is associated with roads open to all vehicles within recreational river corridors (see Table 12). The roads within the different use categories shift between the alternatives within the WSR, resulting in a slight change in risk. However, the risk of erosion and sedimentation remains consistent with the CRMP direction of the least access and therefore least sediment risks in designated wild segments, and the most access and therefore most sediment risks in the designated recreational segments. 65

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Table 11. Alternatives Comparison of the Number of Wetland Crossings within WSR Corridors with Erosion and Sedimentation Risk Roads within the Project Area

Motorized Open to Closed to All Highway Open to Access Open to All Total Vehicles Legal OHVs only Vehicles Only Alternative 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Wild Rivers 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 Scenic Rivers 0 2 5 0 1 5 1 0 7 7 Recreational 2 1 22 0 3 25 2 3 29 29 Rivers Lowest Risk Highest Risk

Table 12. Alternative Comparison of the Miles of Wetland Crossings within WSR Corridors with Erosion and Sedimentation Risk Roads within the Project Area

Motorized Open to Closed to All Highway Open to Access Open to All Total Vehicles Legal OHVs only Vehicles Only Alternative 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Wild Rivers 0 0 0.34 0 0 0.34 0 0 0.34 0.34 Scenic Rivers 0 0.05 0.19 0 0.02 0.19 0.03 0 0.24 0.24 Recreational 0.14 0.03 1.28 0 0.1 1.39 0.04 0.14 1.56 1.56 Rivers Total Miles in WSR 0.14 0.08 1.81 0 0.12 2.45 0.07 0.14 2.14 2.14 Corridors Lowest Risk Highest Risk

Cumulative Effects In addition to the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2, there would be a very slight, cumulative effect of decreasing erosion and sedimentation due to the implementation of past and 66

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

on-going road maintenance; implementation of the Road and Stream Crossing Project decision; and road improvements authorized via vegetation management projects (see Aquatics section). Three project area roads in the WSR were included in this decision to replace aquatic organism structures. When these crossing structures are replaced, water routing along the roadway and ditches at the crossing approaches is improved with the intent to reduce potential sedimentation. State of Michigan permits would be obtained directing adherence to water quality best management practices. For stream and wetland crossings, while there are some shifts in sedimentation risks for direct and indirect effects and there are reductions in sediment at some locations due to the additive AOP projects, in general Alternative 2 reduces the number in the highest risk category and increases the number in the lowest risk category. However, the differences are relatively minor. In consideration of cumulative effects, the risk of erosion and sedimentation within WSR corridors remains consistent with direction for the least access and therefore least sediment risks in designated wild segments, and the most access and therefore most sediment risks in the designated recreational segments.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Finding of No Significant Impact The Forest Supervisor, Linda L. Jackson, is the Responsible Official for this project; her determinations for legal requirements are outlined in following section. As the Responsible Official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project file, and I have determined that Alternative 2 would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above. Context For Alternative 2, the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this EA. In the case of site-specific actions, significance depends on the effects in the project’s locale rather than the world as a whole. Both short and long-term effects are relevant (FSH 1909.15, 65.1, Part 02). This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have international, national, region-wide, or state-wide importance. The outcomes and effects sections reveal that most of the consequences from project implementation and additional environmental effects are confined to the project area. Therefore, it is my determination that the effects of implementing the proposed alternatives would not be significant locally, regionally, or nationally. Discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to Alternative 2, the Modified Proposed Action, and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with the project area. Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project file. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns raised by the public. I have taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant and current scientific information, experience with similar projects, and knowledge of conditions obtained through site-specific field surveys. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b). 1. Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. I considered both the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the alternatives as presented in the EA. Benefits of implementing Alternative 2 would be the improvement of recreation opportunities for Forest visitors, and correction of access designations that do not reflect on-the-ground conditions, while maintaining an access system that is safe and more effectively managed. This is consistent with Forest Plan expectations as outlined in the expected outcomes.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

No significant adverse resource effects from implementing the project were identified in the EA (see Outcomes of the Modified Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives). Comments were raised during the scoping period about the risk of OHV traffic on the North Country Trail where this project’s proposed roads intersect the Trail. Design criteria have been created to address these concerns (see Implementation section). Other concerns were raised about the impacts of sound. To determine what the effects of sound would be if the proposal was implemented, I instructed the Recreation Specialist to perform an analysis. The sound level is not anticipated to change. However, the sound frequency is likely to increase as a result of increased traffic. Given that the majority of roads are currently open to motorized access, the effects have been determined to be minor. Though limited in scope and intensity, impacts from roadwork are similar to other projects previous to this one and are not unique to this project. Most impacts would be minimized and/or avoided using the design criteria. Previous projects, with similar activities using these or similar design criteria, have been found to be effective in avoiding or minimizing adverse effects. I have given careful consideration to these factors and I have determined that there would be no significant impacts from implementing this project. 2. Consideration of the effects on public health and safety. Alternative 2 would not significantly affect public health and safety. A mixed use analysis will be performed by a certified engineer. This will occur for all higher standard roads that are proposed for allowing travel by OHVs and highway legal vehicles. Recommendations may include a variety of activities to ensure safe, mixed use travel, which could range from hazard tree removal to road widening and other measures addressed via road reconstruction. Designation of roads would not occur prior to completion of this analysis. Many roads throughout the Ottawa (and surrounding areas under various local, state and federal jurisdictions) support mixed OHV/road vehicle use. These roads would be signed with “Share the Road” signage in accordance with this use. Based on past projects of a similar nature, there have been no instances where public safety has been affected. Therefore, I have determined the alternatives would have no effects on public health and safety. 3. Consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area. My decision would not affect any unique areas, historic features, or ecologically critical areas. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, ecologically critical areas or heritage sites within the project area. The proposed roads traverse several Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridors. Analysis shows that the Modified Proposed Action would protect water quality, free flow conditions, and the outstandingly remarkable values for which these rivers were designated as required by the Act and the Forest Service Manual.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 2 would require a deviation from implementing Forest Plan direction pertinent to motorized use within WSR corridors in the project area.  A Forest Plan Standard directs that corridors of wild rivers provide a Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized recreational environment (p. 3-81.4). Forest Road 2200, 2230 and 2270 are located within the Sturgeon River Wild River corridor (see Map 1). These roads have been open to highway legal vehicles for several decades and were in place, and used by highway legal vehicles, at the time of the process to designate the WSR system. Forest Roads 2200 and 2270 are used as a primary travelway to reach Highway M-38 and Forest Road 2230 provides access to the Sturgeon River campground. The 2007 Comprehensive River Management Plan took this existing condition into account. As part of the Recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value for the Wild corridor, the opportunities for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation experiences is enhanced by scenery viewing opportunities available at numerous points along these Forest System roads (Forest Plan, p. 3-81.2). A Forest Plan Guideline specific to designating OHV access in the wild river corridor states that OHVs can be allowed per written authorization. A decision to implement Alternative 2 would provide this authorization.  A Forest Plan Standard directs that corridors of scenic rivers provide a Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized recreational environment if the adjacent land is managed in this manner (p. 3-81.4). Forest Road 627 is north of the river, and therefore adjacent to non-motorized areas of MAs 6.1 and 8.3 (see Map 22). This road and the graveled parking area for the Norwich Bluff interpretive trail and cemetery have been open to highway legal vehicles for several decades and were in place, and used by highway legal vehicles, at the time of the process to designate the WSR system. This current condition was taken into account in the amendment to the Forest Plan specifically to incorporate the 2007 Comprehensive River Management Plan. A Forest Plan Guideline specific to designating OHV access in the scenic river corridor is allowed when necessary to connect established motorized trails outside of the river corridor. A decision to implement Alternative 2 would provide this authorization as this area would connect Forest visitors to the Norwich Road, which is open to all motorized vehicles under county jurisdiction. Based on this information, I conclude that this decision will have no adverse effects on unique resources and no site-specific amendments to the Forest Plan are necessary. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of human environment are likely to be highly controversial. “Human Environment” shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment (FRH 1909.15, 65.1). Based upon previous implementation of similar projects and the results of the EA, the effects of the alternative actions on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. This does not mean that the decision to proceed with the project will be acceptable to all people, as some may find that 70

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

their wants and interests are not served by Alternative 2. I interpret the controversy criteria to be the degree to which there is scientific controversy relative to the results of the effects analysis, not whether one favors or opposes a specific alternative. It is my professional judgment that physical, biological, and social issues have been addressed and the best available science was utilized in the preparation of the effects analysis, therefore the effects of the alternatives are reasonably predictable. 5. Consideration of the degree to which effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Based upon my knowledge and professional experience, I am confident that we understand the effects of the alternatives on the human environment. There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain, or involve unique or unknown risks. Environmental effects described in the EA have been analyzed in detail to determine predictable results. 6. The degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about future considerations. The effects analysis is specific to the project area and there are no precedent-setting actions proposed under Alternative 2. 7. Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulative significant effects. Cumulative effects analysis for the resources within the analysis area have been completed for the EA. These analyses have shown that there are slight cumulative effects of this proposal. However, when considered in conjunction with other past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities, these effects are not expected to be significant. 8. The degree to which the action may affect listed or eligible historic places. This project meets federal, state and local laws for protection of historic places (see Cultural Resources). As described in the EA and in the Project File, all known or newly discovered sites would be protected through application of design criteria. 9. The degree to which the action may affect an endangered species or their habitat. A Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) was completed for this project and is hereby incorporated into this decision document by reference. To ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Forest Service will consult with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting concurrence with the following determinations.  The BA/BE states Alternative 2 would have no effect upon the federally-listed species Canada lynx or Kirtland’s warbler.  The BA/BE has determined that Alternative 2 may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect the gray wolf (see the Terrestrial Wildlife Species section). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan, the Forest Plan’s Programmatic Biological Opinion relative to wolf, and therefore Alternative 2 would qualify for Level 2 consultation under the Forest Plan’s 2006 Programmatic Biological Opinion. 71

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

 Alternative 2 is likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat (see the Terrestrial Wildlife Species section). This project is proposing to open two existing roads to OHV traffic within ¼ mile of known hibernacula; Forest Road 627 is within ¼ mile of the Norwich Bluff hibernacula, and Forest Road 2274 is within ¼ mile of the Silver Mountain hibernaculum. However, we do not expect to remove any trees along these two roads within ¼ mile of these hibernacula. There are no known maternal roost trees located along the roads proposed for reconstruction nor along any of the roads included in the proposed project (USFWS East Lansing Office’s fact sheet [dated July 22, 2016] and website were checked on May 2, 2017). Therefore, we believe this project is eligible for the Streamlined Consultation Process described in the Final 4(d) Rule (50 CFR §17.40(o)). To ensure continued adherence to the Final 4(d) Rule, , I have included a design criterion prohibiting tree removal within 0.25 miles of any known bat hibernacula and 150 feet of any known occupied bat maternal roost trees (see Implementation section). Due to inclusion of this design criterion, I believe there are no effects to northern long-eared bat beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic Biological Opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the Final 4(d) Rule. There is no indication that implementing Alternative 2 would move a proposed species toward federal listing, nor increase the status of any currently-listed threatened or endangered species. If any other Federally proposed or listed animal or plant species are found at a later date, or if any new information relevant to potential effects of the project on these species become available, then the Section 7 consultation process, as per the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would be re-initiated. 10. Whether the proposed action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Alternative 2 does not threaten a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection laws. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations I have determined that my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency policy. The following summarizes findings required by major environmental laws. 1) National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1600 ET SEQ.): The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and accompanying regulations require that several specific findings be documented at the project level. These are as follows: a) Consistency with Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)): Alternative 2 would implement the direction of the Forest Plan for the designation of motorized access. The Forest Plan uses Guidelines to move the Ottawa toward goals in a way that permits operational flexibility. Guidelines are followed in most situations, however, when the Forest Plan was developed it was assumed that guidelines may need to be “modified or not implemented if site-specific conditions warrant a deviation” and thus a Forest Plan 72

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

amendment is not required if there is a need to deviate from a Guideline (Forest Plan, p. 2-2). This project includes deviation from the following Forest Plan Guidelines (see Project File). For the proposed roads in Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas, Alternative 2 would require a deviation from implementing Forest Plan Guidelines pertinent to motorized use within MAs 6.1 and 8.3. The roads within MA 8.1 are discussed under Intensity Factor 3 for Wild and Scenic Rivers. i. Management Area 6.1: As described in the Recreation section, unclassified route 03013133 is located within MA 6.1; it is currently closed to all access (see Map 11). Alternative 2 would open this short, road segment (about 0.20 miles) and associated parking area to highway legal vehicles only. The Forest Plan’s Guideline states that roads are restricted to non-motorized use unless allowed through written authorization. A decision to implement Alternative 2 would provide this authorization. A site-specific deviation from implementing the Forest Plan Guideline would allow anglers to use unclassified route 03013133 to access parking adjacent to the spring. Due to the lack of parking options, users currently park on the shoulder of Forest Road 3346, a higher standard road with highway legal traffic. Implementing this change would improve Forest visitor safety and recreational experience. ii. Management Area 8.3: Forest Road 841 is within the Divide Sand Wetland Special Interest Area. As described in the Recreation section, the majority of Forest Road 841 is open to all vehicles (see Map 16). The terminal end of this road is closed to all vehicles, with about 0.17 miles of this closed portion in MA 8.3. The Forest Plan’s Guideline states that roads are restricted to non-motorized use unless allowed through written authorization. A decision to implement Alternative 2 would provide this authorization. A site-specific deviation from implementing the Forest Plan Guideline would improve Forest visitors’ recreational experience by allowing all motorized vehicles access to the trailhead for the Blue Road hunter walk-in trail complex. iii. Management Area 8.3: Forest Road 2274 is partially within MA 8.3, specifically the Silver Mountain Ancient Volcanic Vent Plug (see scoping map 1). As described in the Recreation section, this road (0.3 miles) is open to highway vehicles and terminates at a parking area for the recreational trail and vista at Silver Mountain. The proposal is to allow OHVs the opportunity to park within the existing parking area at the terminal end of Forest Road 2274 to access recreation opportunities associated with the Silver Mountain recreational trail and vista. As stated above, the Forest Plan Guideline for MA 8.3 restricts road use to non-motorized access only. A site-specific deviation from implementing this Forest Plan Guideline would improve access for Forest visitors using OHVs by allowing access to Silver Mountain.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

A Forest Plan guideline generally prohibits OHV use of some higher standard roads (p. 2- 15). Sharing the road with highway legal vehicles on these roads does pose some safety concerns for OHV users due to the speed of highway legal vehicles. By completing a mixed use analysis and implementing design criteria, public health and safety risks are addressed. These measures reduce the safety concerns of designating higher standard road for a combination of OHV and highway legal vehicle access. A site-specific deviation from implementing this Forest Plan Guideline would improve access for Forest visitors using OHVs on higher standard roads. As required by NFMA, I find Alternative 2 to be primarily consistent with the Forest Plan. b) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species: Federal law and direction applicable to sensitive species include the NFMA and the Forest Service Manual (2670). The Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives section of the EA describes the effects determinations for RFSS, which are described in more detail in the BA/BE (see Project File). Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for these species. 2) Clean Water Act: The integrity of the project area’s water and riparian features would be maintained as a result of the application of general Forest Plan standards and guidelines (pages 2-2 to 2-9), Michigan’s Best Management Practices, as well as site-specific protective design criteria. It is expected that the reconstruction activities associated with Alternative 2 would benefit water quality (through reduced sedimentation from deteriorating roads). Therefore, the Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards would be met. 3) Environmental Justice Act: The Environmental Justice Act of 1994 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. Public involvement occurred for this project, and the results of it did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. I have considered the effects of this project on low-income and minority populations and have concluded that this project is consistent with the intent of this Order (EO 12898).

4) The Travel Management Rule, dated November 9, 2005 (36 CRF Parts 212, 261, and 295) revised regulations regarding travel management on NFS lands to clarify policy related to motor vehicle use. The Rule requires the Forest Service to designate a system of roads and trails open for motorized use and prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system. The regulations require that the designated system be displayed for the public on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (which the Ottawa National Forest first implemented in 2007). These regulations served as primary role in the development of this project. I have determined that implementation of Alternative 2 would comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Conclusions The effects analysis considered both the context and intensity of the action in determining its significance as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27. Based upon the analysis, I have determined that Alternative 2 would not significantly affect the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. My review of the analysis prepared by the ID Team indicates that this project is consistent with Forest Plan management direction, with exception of designating motorized access in Semi- Primitive Motorized Areas. However, as disclosed, this project would deviate from implementing some Forest Plan Guidelines, but the effects are anticipated to be minimal due to existing motorized designations. Alternative 2 is compliant with other applicable laws, regulations and policy; and is responsive to public concerns. The site-specific actions of the Proposed Action, in both the short and long- term, would not be significant.

Literature Cited Center for Hearing and Communication. Accessed March, 2017. http://chchearing.org/noise/common-environmental-noise-levels/ Cleland, D. T., Avers, P. E., McNab, W. H., Jensen, M. E., Bailey, R. G., King, T., et al. (1997). National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. In M. S. Boyce, and A. Haney, Ecosystem Management: Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources (pp. 181-200). New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press. Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface types in the southern Appalachians. Southern J. Applied Forestry 27(2): 100-106. Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, C.S. Yee. 1991. Chapter 8 road construction and maintenance. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323. Grace, J.M. and B.D. Clinton. 2007. Protecting soil and water in forest road management. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 0001-2351. Vol. 50(5): 1579- 1584. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and USDA Forest Service. 2016. Lac Vieux Desert-L’Anse Trail Corridor Plan Memorandum of Understanding. 2nd Edition. p. 12 Meadows, D., Foltz, R., Geehan, N. 2008. Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands. 0823 1811-SDTDC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Technology and Development Program. Michigan, State of. Vehicle Code 257.707c. 1978. Noise Limitations; Prohibitions.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Michigan Compiled Laws 324.81133(1)(n). Natural resources and environmental protection act (excerpt). Act 451 of 1994. Operation of ORV; prohibited acts; crash helmet and protective eyewear required; exception; assumption of risk. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324- 81133. Website visited 2/13/2017. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Michigan Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2009). Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land. Publication Number IC4011. Lansing, MI. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Handbook of Michigan Off-Road Vehicle Laws. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2015. Wetlands. 5th ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. Olive, N.D. and J.L. Marion. 2009. The influence of use-relate, environmental, and managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 1483-1493. Riedel, M.S., L.W. Swift, J.M. Vose, B.D. Clinton. 2007. Forest road erosion research at the Coweeta hydrologic laboratory. In: Furniss, M.J., C.F. Clifton, and K.L. Ronnenberg (eds.). 2007. Advancing the fundamental sciences: proceedings of the forest service national earth sciences conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004. PNW-GTR-689. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Sec 1215- Sec 1222. Riley, S.J. and Sudharsan, K. 2006. Environmental Factors Affecting the Frequency and Rate of Deer-Vehicle Crashes (DVCs) in Southern Michigan. Final Report. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Rooney, Thomas P. 2005. Distribution of ecologically-invasive plants along off-road vehicle trails in the Chequamegon national forest, Wisconsin. The Michigan Botanist 44: pp. 178-182. Sampson, Michael. Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on the Cultural Resources of Red Rock Canyon State Park, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, vol. 21, 2009. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 02/2017. USDA Forest Service. 1975. Impact of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on a National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Sound Levels of Five Motorcycles Travelling Over Forest Trails. Rock Creek ORV Area. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Ottawa National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Project. Signed April 4, 2005, by Forest Supervisor Robert Lueckel. 76

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Ottawa National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement. Eastern Region. pp. 3-86 to 3-97. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pp. 1-5, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 3-57, 3-58, 3-74, 3-81.4, 3-81.6, 3-89, 4-3, and Appendix B. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; Appendix G. Scenery Management. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Non-Native Invasive Species Best Management Practices Guidance for the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region. BMP 5.3, page 27. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2010. FSM 2500 - Watershed and Air Management; Chapter 2550 - Soil Management. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2012a. FS-990a. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume I: National Core BMP Technical Guide. Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Ottawa National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Monitoring Strategy. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Ottawa National Forest Travel Management Strategy and Implementation Process. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Ottawa National Visitor Use Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Ottawa National Forest. Forest Order No. R907-15-07. Off- Highway Vehicles and Over-Snow Vehicles. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Ottawa National Forest. Forest Order No. R907-15-05. National Forest System Roads and Trails. Von der Lippe, Moritz and Ingo Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 21: pp. 986-996. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Yoho, N.S. 1980. Forest management and sediment production in the south – a review. Southern J. Applied Forestry 4(1), 27-35.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Contributors, Agencies and Others Contacted Document Contributors USDA Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest Linda L. Jackson, Forest Supervisor and Responsible Official Susanne M. Adams, Bergland and Ontonagon District Ranger, ID Team Leader Amy Amman, Soil Scientist Mike Bigelow, Forest Engineer Justin Blake, Civil Engineer Brian Bogaczyk, Wildlife Biologist Marlanea French-Pombier, Forest Planner Holly Jennings, Fisheries Biologist Ellen Lesch, Hydrologist Christine Makuck, Environmental Coordinator Ian Shackleford, Botanist Melissa Simpson, Supervisory Natural Resources Specialist Gayle Sironen, GIS Cartographic Technician Cari Ver Planck, Archaeologist Other Forest Service Contributors Jenn Dahlbacka, Bessemer Travel Management Rule Representative and Forestry Technician (Recreation) Mary Brown, Region 9 Landscape Architect Anthony R. Holland, Bessemer and Watersmeet-Iron River District Ranger Josh Lopac, Ontonagon Travel Management Rule Representative and Forestry Technician (Recreation)/Reserve Law Enforcement Officer Tom Roberts, Watersmeet-Iron River Travel Management Rule Representative and Civil Engineering Technician Sara Wall, Kenton Travel Management Rule Representative and Sale Administrator Barbara C. Van Alstine, Kenton District Ranger

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Agencies and Others Contacted Tribal Units of Government Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Bad River Chippewa Tribe, Bay Mills Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Tribe, Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Chippewa Tribe, St. Croix Chippewa Tribe, Red Cliff Chippewa Tribe and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission State Michigan Department of Natural Resources Local Counties Baraga County Commissioners, Gogebic County Commissioners, Gogebic Conservation District, Houghton County Road Commission, Iron County Commissioners, and Ontonagon County Commissioners Local Townships Baraga, Bergland, Bohemia, Carp Lake, Covington, Duncan, Interior, Laird, L’Anse, McMillian, Stannard, Ontonagon and Wakefield. All townships within and surrounding the Ottawa were sent a scoping letter. Local Communities August 2017 Open Houses held in the communities of Baraga, Ewen, Iron River, Ironwood and Watersmeet, Michigan Local Organizations Baraga County Conservation and Visitor’s Bureau, Baraga County Sno Drifters, MI Trale, local chapters of the North Country Trail Association, as well as local lake associations. Interested Parties Several hundred interested and affected parties participated in the public involvement process (see Project File)

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Appendix 1. Type of access change by road number. *Denotes roads identified during the September 2014 Travel Analysis Process Open House and Comments. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

02151153 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 25 Y 02173016 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 35 Y 03013133 Closed (not on map) Open to highway legal vehicles only 11 03039081 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 12 Y 03055019 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 Y 03055029 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 Y 03058001 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 Y 03062064 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 Y 03065007 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 6 Y 03065035 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 6 Y 03075045 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 Y 03084005 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 28 Y 03084006 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 Y 03084007 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 Y 03084009 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 Y 03087014 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 6 Y 0408511 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 3 0408511 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 3 0413132 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 10 Y 0508079 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 8 Y 05088004 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 8,15 26 Y 1

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

051366 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 16 Y 051366A Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 15,16 10, 26, 44 Y 0597470 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 Y 0615602 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13,20 Y 06163004 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 20 71 06163009 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 20 71 Open to Highway 108 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 40 Y Open to Highway 1100 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 9,10 4, 5, 25, 26 Y Open to Highway 1109 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 10 Y Open to Highway 112 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37,40 38 Y Open to Highway 112-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37,40 10, 38 Y Open to Highway 114 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37,40 38 Y Open to Highway 117 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37,40 26, 38 Y Open to Highway 118 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37 10, 38 Y Open to Highway 1180 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 8,15 4, 5, 9, 43 Open to Highway 119 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37 38 Y

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Comment Road was

Road Map Received About Included in Current Modified Proposed Action Number Number This Road Scoping MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Commenter #) (Y=Included)

Open to all motorized 1193-E access Closed to all motorized access 8 1193-E OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 8 Open to Highway 119-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 37 10, 38 Y 122 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 38 Y Open to all motorized 1224 access Open to all motorized access after repair 10 Y Open to all motorized 1224 access Open to OHV's only after repair 10 Y 1224 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 1224-K OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 1224-L OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 1224-M OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 Y 1224-N OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 Y 1224-P OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 Y 1224-R OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10 Y 1235-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3,10 1235-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3,10 1238 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 10 1238-A OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 10 1239 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3,10 Open to Highway 1300 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 3,10 9, 5,25 1323-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 Y 3

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Special Designation 1360* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 1,2 9, 10, 25, 26 Y 1360-I OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 2 Y 1361 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 2 25 1361-B OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 2 1365 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 2 Y 1372 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 2 26 Y 1378 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 2,9 Y 1379 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 2 Y 1383 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 9 Y 1385 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 Y 1398 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 Y 1439-B OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 Y 1439-B OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 9 Y 1460-F OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 Y 1466 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 26, 31 1466 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 9 Y 1468 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 9 Y Open to Highway 1500 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 8,9 9, 25 1501-E5 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 9 Y 155 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 34,39 26 Y 155 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 34,39 26 1640-L OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 8 Y

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

1700-L OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 8 Y 1805 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 8 Y 180-NEW Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 34 36, 38 1823 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 8 26, 45, 46 Y 1841 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 8 26, 31 Y 1841 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 8 Y 1841-B Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 8 Y 2009-D4 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2009-D4A Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2009-D6 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 3 Y 2009-G Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 3 2009-G Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2010 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2011-J Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 3 Y 2020-G OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y Open to Highway 210 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 33 26 Y Open to Highway 2108 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 3 25 Open to Highway 2127-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 Y Open to Highway 2127-A1 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 Y Open to Highway 2127-A2 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 Y 5

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

213 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 33 Y 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, Open to Highway 2130 Open to all motorized access 4,5 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, Y Legal Vehicles Only 22, 24, 25, 32, 33

2130-K OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 15, 16, 24 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 2130-M OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 24, 48 2130-W OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Y 2136 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4,5 15, 16, 23, 24 Y 2138 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 28 Y 2139 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 26, 28 Y Open to Highway 2142 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 24 Y Open to Highway 2142-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 24 Y 2144 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 Y Open to Highway 2149 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4,5 9, 25 2149-E1 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 Y 2151 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 26 Y Open to Highway 2152 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4,5 9, 25 Open to Highway 2152-B Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4,5 9 6

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) 2152-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4,5 28 Y 2152-C1 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4,5 28 Y 2152-C4 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4,5 2155 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Y 2156 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 5 28 Y 2166 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 Y 2166-A Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 Y 2167 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 5 28, 32, 50 Y 2167-A Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 5 Y 2167-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 5 Y 2167-E Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 5 Y Open to Highway 12, 15, 16,17, 21, 2180 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 5 22, 24, 32 2184 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 26, 28 Y 2184-D1 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 5 Y 2185* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 28, 58 Y 2185* OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 5 2188 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 22, 26, 28, 32 Y Open to Highway 2189 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 5 24 2192 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 5 Y 2195 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 2195-F Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 Y

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 2200 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 1, 2,3 3, 6, 9, 10, 25, 92 Y 2204 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2204-G OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2210-N OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 2,3 25, 26 Y 2211 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 2,3 Y 2211-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 2,3 Y 2213-H OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2214 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 3 Y 2214-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2214-E OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 2214-H Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 3 Y 2214-K Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 3 Y Open to Highway 2230 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 2 9 Y 2232 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 2 Y Open to Highway 2240 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 2 3, 6 Open to Highway 2245 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 2 3, 6, 25 Y 2246 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 2 2246-C Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 2 Y 2246-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 2 2254 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 2 10 Y 2254-B OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 2 Y 8

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 2270 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 1,2 3, 6, 9, 10, 25, 92 Y Open to Highway 2274 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 1 Open to Highway 2276 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 1 3, 6, 25 Y 2285 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 2285-K Open to OHV's only Open to all motorized access 1 2285-K5 Open to OHV's only Closed to all motorized access 1 2285-M Open to OHV's only Open to all motorized access 1 2285-N OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 1 Y 2285-P OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 1 Y 2285-X Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 Y 2285-X1 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 1 Y 2293 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 1 Y 2296-B OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 1 26 Y Open to Highway 2400 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 3,4 2460 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 4 Y 2460-K OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 4 Y 2460-L OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 4 Y 2460-M OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 4 Y 2475 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 26 Y Open to Highway 2480 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 Y 9

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 2482 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4 Y 2493-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 1 Y 2500 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 3 Y 3111 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 14 Y 3111-B Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 14 Y 3111-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 14 Y 3113 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 14 Y 3116-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 14 Y 3117-E Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 7,14 26 Y 3117-E3 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 7,14 Y 3117-E3B Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 7 26 Y 3117-E9 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 14 Y 3117-J Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 7 Y Open to Highway 3118 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 7 Open to Highway 3118-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 7 Open to Highway 3118-A2 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 7 Open to Highway 3118-A3 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 7 Open to Highway 3118-B Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 7 3212 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

3213 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 3214 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y Open to Highway 3218 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 14,20,21 3226 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 3242* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 26, 28 Y 3244* OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 13 Y 3244* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 28 Y 3270-G Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 28 Y 3270-N OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 6 Y Open to Highway 3275 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 12,13 9 3292 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3292 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 12 Y Open to Highway 3320 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 12,13 3328 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 12 26 Y Open to Highway 3340 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 12,19 9, 27,28,30 3340-F Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3340-H OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 12 Y 3340-L OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 12 Y 3341 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 12 Y Open to Highway 3350 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 5,12 9 11

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

3351 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3352 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 12 Y 3368 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 338 Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 29 26 Y 3381 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 338-A OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 28,29 Y 338-A1 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-A2 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-A3 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-B OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-E OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-E1 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-G OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-G3 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 26 Y 338-G3A OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 338-G4 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 Y 3407 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3409 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3426-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3426-G Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5 Y 3432 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5,12 Y 3432-B OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 3435 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5,12 Y 3442 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Y 12

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

3456 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Y 3457 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Y 3459 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Y 3459-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 5 Open to Highway 3468 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 6 Y Open to Highway 9, 33,47, 49, 53, 3470* Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 6 62 Y 3471 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 Y 3471 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 6 ` Y 3471-G OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 Y 3473-B* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 28 Y 3473-B1* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 28 Y 3473-G OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 Y 3473-K OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 Y 3473-K3 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 6 3473-L OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 6 3473-M OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 6 Y Open to Highway 3475* Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 13,14 9, 26, 33, 49, 53 Y 3475-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 6 Y 3475-C5 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access after repair 6 3475-D Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 6 Y 3475-I OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 6,13 Y 13

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

3475-I OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6,13 Y 3475-J4 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 3485-J OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 Y 3485-Q Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 5,6 26 Y 3486-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 6 28 Open to Highway 3500 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4,11,12 9, 25, 27, 28 3516 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 11,12 25 Y 3520 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 4,11,12 26, 28, 31 Y 3522 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 11 Y 354 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 28,29 Y 354-A OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 28,29 Y 354-B OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 28,29 Y 354-C OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 28,29 Y 3555 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 Y 3568 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 4 Y 3580 OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 3 96 Open to all motorized 3602 access Open to OHV's only 12 3602-A OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 26, 54 Y 3602-F OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y Open to Highway 3610 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 11 27, 29, 30 3611-A OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 11

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 3612 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 11,12 27, 29, 30 3612-B Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 11 30,54 Y 3612-R OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 57 Y Open to Highway 3614 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 11 30 Open to Highway 3630 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 4,11 9, 25, 27 3645* OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 11 26 3645* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 11 Y 3663-E OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 11 25 3740 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 3756 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 3 3767 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3 Y 3769 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 3,4 Y 3900-B OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 7 Y 3900-D* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 6,7 28 Y 3901-F2 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 7 Y 3903 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 6,7 3909* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 26, 28 Y 3909-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 28 Y 3911 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3911-A Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3920-L OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 3920-S OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 15

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) 3920-T OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 93 Y Open to Highway 3922 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 13 33, 62 Open to Highway 3925 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 13,20 33, 61 Y 3925-E OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 13,20 Y 3926 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 26, 61 Y 3932 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3932-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3932-D Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3933 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 3935 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 13 26 Y 3937 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13,20 26 Y Open to Highway 3940 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 12,13,20 9, 33, 62 3940-05 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 20 26 Y 3940-F2 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3940-I Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13,20 Y 3943 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 13 Y 3945 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 13,20 Y 3949 Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 20 Y 3949-M Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 20 Y 3966 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 19 Y 3997 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 19 3997-B Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 19 Y 16

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

401501 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 2 Y 401515 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 2,9 Y 4020 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12,13 Y 4020-A OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 13 Y 402648 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 2,9 Y 402656 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 9 Y Open to Highway 4100 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 12 62 4100-R OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 4109 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 4111 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 12 Y 4118 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 62 Y 4120 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 62 Y 4121 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 Y 4130 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 4148 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 4148-A Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 12 Y 4149 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 12 Y 4149-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 62 Y 4220 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 26 Y 4250 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 12,19 Y 443 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 29 Y 443 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 29 449 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 29 Y 17

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 4, 7, 8, 25, 26, 27, 4500 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 11,19 29, 31, 91 Y Open to Highway 4500* Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access after repair 11 Open to Highway 4505 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 19 4515 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 19 Y Open to Highway 4580 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 10,11 9 Open to Highway 4700 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18,19 9, 68 4708 Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 19 Y 4708-B Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 19 Y 5010-K OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 20 Y 5010-R OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 20 Y 5013 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 20 Y 5018-A Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 20 26 Y 502 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 29 5043-F OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 20 Y 5059-B Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 27 Y 5085 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 19 Y Open to Highway 5086* Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18,19 66, 67, 91 Y Open to Highway 5086-N Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18,19

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 5156 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 25,26 67 5171 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 25 Y Open to Highway 5230 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18 9, 29, 66, 67, 68 5246 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 18 Y Open to Highway 5250 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18 8, 29, 68, 91 5256-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 18 Y 5256-C1 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 18 Y Open to Highway 5260 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18 9 5306-A Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 18 Y 5320-S* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 17 Y 5329 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 17 74 Open to Highway 7, 8, 9, 25, 27, 30, 5350 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 11,18 68 5350-F Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 18 Y 5387 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 17,18 Y 5493 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 17 Y 5493-A* OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 17 Y 5493-C1 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 17 Y 5493-C1A Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 17 Y 5493-F Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 17 Y 560-N OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 24 Y 19

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 6110 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 19,26 9, 66, 67,68 615-D4 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 23 34 615-D6 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 23 34 6188 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 26 Y 622 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 23 26 Y 624 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 23 Y 627 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 22 Y Open to Highway 6320 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 20,26,27 70 6320-D OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 26 Y Open to Highway 19,20,26, 6324 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 27 70 637 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 22,28 Y 6750-L Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 32 Y Open to Highway 6757-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 32 Y 6766 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 26 26 Y 6773 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 26,32 26 Y 6773-I Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 Y 6773-I5 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 Y 6773-I5C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 Y 6773-I5E Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 Y 6773-I7 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 Y

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 6828 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 32 Y Open to Highway 6828-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 32 26 Y 6845 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 32 Y Open to Highway 6860 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 32,36 38 6864-B Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32,36 Y 6864-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32,36 Y 6864-D Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32,36 Y Open to Highway 690 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 22 9 Y 690-D OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 22 26 Y 6925 Open to all Vehicles Open to OHV's only 25 Y Open to Highway 6930* Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 24,25,30 9 Y 6942 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 25 26 Y 6945 Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 25 Y 6950-M OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 24 Y 6950-M4 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 24 Y 6950-M4A OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 24 Y 6950-M5 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 24 26 Y 6957 Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 24,25 26 Y 6957-A OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 25 Y 6957-D Open to all Vehicles Closed to all motorized access 25 Y 21

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included) Open to Highway 7, 9, 64, 66, 67, 6964 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18,25 68 Open to Highway 6964-Q Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 18,25 6986-A OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 24 Y Open to all motorized 6987 access Open to OHV's only 24 69, 72 705-G Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 16 Y 705-G1 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 16 Y 705-G2 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 16 Y 7134 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 31,32 Y 7150 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 26 Y Open to all motorized 7280 access Closed to all motorized access 31 26 Y 7280 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 31 Y Open to Highway 730 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 16,23 9,25, 26, 39, 40 Y Open to Highway 7300 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 31,32,35 38 730-D OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 16,23 Y 730-J5 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 23 Y 730-J7 OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 22,23 Y 730-J7C OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 22,23 Y 730-S OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 23 Y 7324-I Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 31 26 Y

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

7324-K Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 31 Y Open to Highway 733 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 15,16 9, 10, 26 Y 733-F OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 15 10 Y 733-F OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 15 Y 733-F1D2 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 15,22 Y 733-F5 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 15 Y 733-F6 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 15 10 Y 734-F OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 16,23 ) 736-A OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 22,23 26 Y 736-A2 OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 22,23 Y 750-C Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 15,16 44 Y Open to Highway 8100 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 35,36 38 Open to Highway 8120 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 35,36 38 Open to Highway 8121 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 36 Y Open to Highway 8141 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 35 Open to Highway 8141-A Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 35 815 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17 26 Y 815-D OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17 815-D1 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

815-E OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17 815-E1 OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17 815-F OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17 Y 815-G OHV's 65 or less Closed to all motorized access 10,17 Open to Highway 8220 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 36 38 8221-A Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 35 Y 841 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 16,17 Y 845 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access after repair 16 26 Y Open to Highway 850 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 16 10 Y Open to Highway 8640 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 34,35 38 866 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 15,16 9, 26, 42 Y 867 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 16 Y 8675 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 34 Open to Highway 30,31,34, 8800 Legal Vehicles Only Open to all motorized access 35 38 884 OHV's 65 or less Open to OHV's only after repair 9,16 10, 26 Y 9225 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 35 Y 9310 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 35 26 Y 9322 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 35 9352 OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 34 Y 9352-C OHV's 65 or less Open to all motorized access 34 Y NEW-001 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 26 Y 24

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

NEW-003 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 5 Y NEW-008 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 19 Y NEW-009 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access after repair 31 Y NEW-010 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 Y NEW-011 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 6 Y NEW-013 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 13 Y NEW-014 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 Y NEW-017 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 26 26 Y NEW-018 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 20 Y NEW-021 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 19 Y NEW-023 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 18 Y NEW-026 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only after repair 24 Y NEW-027 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 35 Y NEW-028 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 6 Y NEW-029 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 12 Y NEW-031 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 3 Y NEW-032 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 9 Y NEW-033 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 11 NEW-034 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 32 NEW-036 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 20 73 NEW-037 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 20 73 NEW-038 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 NEW-039 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 NEW-040 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 25

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Road was Comment Road Map Included in Received Number Current Modified Proposed Action Number Scoping (Commenter #) MVUM Status Change to MVUM (Y=Included)

NEW-041 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 NEW-042 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 1 NEW-043 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 1 NEW-044 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 12 NEW-045 Closed (not on map) Open to all motorized access 4 15,16,24 NEW-046 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 11 27,30,54 NEW-047 Closed (not on map) Open to OHV's only 6,7

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Appendix 2. Response to Scoping Comments This document presents the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s response to the scoping comments received for the Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project. It is important to acknowledge that this is not a stand‐alone document. It must be used in concert with the comment letters received and the other documentation outlined in the ID Team’s responses, such as the Analysis Framework; other Project File documentation; and the Ottawa National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2006b; herein referred to as Forest Plan). Original comment letters and other sources of information cited in this document are available upon request. The Analysis Framework is available on the Ottawa’s website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects. The ID Team’s responses have been developed to address those comments that are site‐specific in nature to this project. Each comment topic addressed in this document has been assigned a number for tracking purposes (see Table 1). Each comment letter has been addressed separately; therefore, some commenter names appear more than one time. Comments have been responded to by category as outlined in Table 14. Each category is followed by the commenters’ assigned number to show how the ID Team specifically responded to each comment topic. Table 13. Commenter Identification Assigned Assigned Commenter Commenter Number Number 1 Donald Gollakner 20 Jim Novitski 2 PJ Fish 21 Margo Janiak 3 Baraga County Sno Drifters 22 Steve Riege 4 David Stark 23 Terry Read 5 Marvin Westerdahl 24 David and Nancy Foster 6 Suzanne and Sherman Tangen 25 Duncan Township, Frank Pentti 7 Fred Jousma 26 Frank Jeff Verito 8 Michael Jarvi 27 Bruce De Pree 9 MI-Trale 28 Michael Golas North Country Trail 10 29 Robert Pinar Association 11 Alan and Pat Madsen 30 Wayne Lidster 12 Bonnie J. Swatek 31 MI DNR, Ronald Yesney 13 Bud and Becky Paul 32 Cliff Janiak

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Assigned Assigned Commenter Commenter Number Number Carol Hicks-Brown and Mike 14 33 Donn Atanasoff Brown 15 Cliff and Margo Janiak 34 Richard Krupp 16 Erin Evans 35 Scott Prebs 17 F. Charles Swatek 36 Wakefield Township, John Cox 18 Glenn and Janice Gunnufsen 37 MI DNR, Jefferey Kakuk 19 Helen Crowe 38 WUPTA, Ross Kolesar 39 Al Warren 68 Larry Cervo 40 Calvin Kangas 69 Larry Moore 41 Nancy Warren 70 Mary and Austin Dunbar 42 Kevin Antitila 71 Michael Jarvi 43 Miriam Ricklard 72 Nancy Warren North Country Trail 44 Association, Peter Wolf 73 Yvonne Stone Chapter 45 Ron Scott 74 Don Helsel Baraga County Conservation 46 Ronald and Martha Scott 75 and Visitor’s Bureau, Tracey Barrett 47 Art Flancher 76 Bill Boscamp Christopher and Elizabeth 48 77 Cal Kangas Quinn 49 Guy Thibodeau 78 Dan Laabs 50 John and Susan Carlson 79 Jean Alanen Keith and Carol Erickson, Art 51 80 Jeff Wasson Flancher 52 Kevin Makuck 81 Keith Hawkins 53 Michael and Terri Morgan 82 Larry Mellstrom 54 Mike Gramann 83 Larry Mellstrom

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Assigned Assigned Commenter Commenter Number Number Mike Mullins, Jim Mullins, 55 84 Marion True Steve Cood 56 Paul Wedegartner 85 Orv Langohr 57 Ronald Beauchamp 86 Orv Langohr North Country Trail 58 Terry Tarsi 87 Association, NI-Miikanaake Chapter 59 Bruce Hudson 88 Thomas Hill 60 Chuck Peterson 89 Tom Proulx 61 Deborah Fergus 90 Duncan Township, Frank Pentti 62 Mark Melchiori 91 Steve Drake 63 Al Warren 92 Dick Supina 64 Fred Jousma 93 Richard Erickson Greg Main (Frontier Lakes 65 Jim Haluska 94 Treasurer) 66 Jan and Jane Vander Bloemen 95 Michael Ostrom 67 John Copa 96 Dennis Phillips

Table 14. Comment Categories Comment Commenter Assigned Requests/Concerns Category Number 1. Request for less designated access due to concerns:

(a) Interaction with non-motorized recreation associated 10, 22, 26, 28, 32, 35, Access with the North Country National Scenic Trail. 44, 50, 61, 63, 65, 69, (b) The roads’ effects to adjacent aquatic features. 72, 73, 76, 87 and 96 (c) The roads’ effects to the resources. (d) The Ottawa’s existing condition provides enough/too much designated access.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Comment Commenter Assigned Requests/Concerns Category Number (e) Designations adjacent to wilderness, non-motorized areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and special areas. (f) Lack of monitoring leading to unauthorized access. 10, 22, 26, 28, 32, 35, Access (g) Cost of conversion of roads, including signs and 44, 50, 61, 63, 65, 69, maintenance. 72, 73, 76, 87 and 96 (h) Increased road density in the Remote Habitat Area.

2. Request for more designated access to:

(a) Improve access for off-highway vehicles (OHV) riding. (b) Offer opportunities for motorized loop recreational riding. (c) Provide means for OHV users to utilize more of the Forest for recreational activities, such as berry picking, hunting, fishing and other water-related activities. (d) Allow OHV access in campgrounds. (e) Reduce the need to trailer OHVs. 1, 3-9, 11-34, 36-39, (f) Offer more access including: designating all Forest 43, 47, 48, 49, 52-54, Service roads open; all higher standard roads open; 59, 60, 62, 64, 66-68, all gravel roads open; leave choice of travel up to the 70, 71, 73-75, 77, 78, user; request to mirror county designations; and open 80-83, 85, and 88-95 every road to OHV that is currently designated for highway legal vehicles to reduce confusion. (g) Allow OHVs cross-country travel for game retrieval. (h) Increase amount of public access on roads that are under special use permit. (i) Connect OHV trails with local communities. (j) Increase potential for motorized access through obtaining easements with private landowners. (k) Increase access for an aging population and handicapped individuals. (l) Improved access for tourism/economy. (m) Provide additional OHV access for emergency needs.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Comment Commenter Assigned Requests/Concerns Category Number 3. Need for improved map products.

79, 82 and 83 Mapping (a) Concerns about the Ottawa MVUM (b) Concerns about the Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project Mapping 4. Concern about the effects of sound from project implementation. Specifically,

(a) A request for a reduction of OHV traffic near a residential area. 10, 65, 73 and 87 Sound (b) An increase in OHV traffic equates to an increase in the amount of sound. (c) The effects of sound would specifically affect the recreational experience in the O’ Kun de Kun Trail, Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness and Finger Lakes area. 5. Requests clarification pertaining to the Purpose and Need for Action.

Purpose and (a) The proposal is not clear in terms of whether access 84 and 85 Need designation changes would affect the ability for using the roads for timber hauling operations. (b) Closing small roads off of main roads could be a problem for using these roads in fire suppression efforts. 6. Concern about public access on roads that are not on the 2016 MVUM because they are currently 1, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, managed under a special use permit. Concerns 23, 24, 25, 28, 34, 42, include: 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, Special Uses 55, 56, 57, 58, 61 and (a) Opening roads where a personal investment by 69 permittee has been made via road maintenance. (b) The appearance of permittee’s “exclusive use” of federal roads.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Comment Commenter Assigned Requests/Concerns Category Number (c) Property purchased for the reason that its access road was not open to public. (d) Effects of the proposal on the existing access for permittees. 7. Suggestions were received on how to improve motorized access on the Ottawa including:

(a) Develop Apps by each Federal Forest area showing all highways, roads and trails Open/Closed/Type of Traffic allowed (hiking, Bicycling, Highway Vehicle, Equestrian, OHV, etc.). (b) Install new road and trail markers showing numbers, graphic add-on’s for traffic type with red for closed, Suggestions green for open, etc. to make it easy for the user. for 19, 20, 27, 28, 31, 33, (c) Offer hotline and email for public input with Improved 68, 80, 82, 83 and 92 announcements. Process (d) Consider temporary access roads to roads and trails by the general public by on-permit only. (e) Enforce “Lights on for safety” for ATVs on connector roads and behind gates. (f) Enforce speed limits for OHVs on all roads. (g) Address ongoing assessment of the changes concerning the environment. (h) Request that Forest Service help find funding for road repair on other jurisdictions. 8. Supportive Comments 1, 2, 5, 9, 20, 22, 31, Support The Ottawa is appreciative of supportive comments. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 59, These comments will not be addressed in this 60, 75, 86, 89 and 90 document.

The ID Team has responded to the following comments, by category, as outlined in Table 14. Summary of 1 and 2 Request for less/more designated access Response: The Modified Proposed Action was designed with the following direction from the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan):

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

“Promote diverse and quality recreation experiences within the capability of sustainable ecosystems, and consistent with the niche of the Ottawa, while minimizing impacts to natural resources” (Goal 9, p. 2-4); and “Design and maintain a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system that supports both public and administrative uses of the National Forest System Lands” (Goal 41, p. 2-12). The Ottawa provides a wide range of recreational opportunities within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) including; semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, and roaded natural areas. The majority of the Ottawa is within the roaded natural classification. Many comments received through the scoping period requested an increase in the number of roads designated for motorized use. Comments were also received that requested a change in the type of motorized use on specific roads in terms of highway vehicles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs) or removal of access from the proposal. If a change in the designation of a road was determined to meet the purpose and need of the project, without negatively affecting resources, it was incorporated into the Modified Proposed Action for analysis in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Responses to specific requests for less or more designated access are addressed on pages 6 to 18 of this document. 1. Request for less designated access due to concerns. Commenters expressed concern pertaining to the following topics: (a) Interaction with non-motorized recreation associated with the North Country National Scenic Trail. (b) The roads’ effects to adjacent aquatic features. (c) The roads’ effects to the resources. (d) The Ottawa’s existing condition provides enough/too much designated access. (e) Designations adjacent to wilderness, non-motorized areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Special Interest Areas. (f) Lack of monitoring leading to unauthorized access. (g) Cost of conversion of roads, including signs and maintenance. (h) Increased road density in the Remote Habitat Area. 1(a) Concerns about interaction with non-motorized recreation associated with the North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST). Response: Management of the NCNST on the Ottawa is consistent with the Forest Plan (p. 2- 14) and the NCNST 1982 Comprehensive Plan for Management and Use (National Park Service US Department of the Interior [USDI] September 1982), referred to as the NCNST Plan. As outlined in the NCNST Plan, the National Park Service and all managing authorities, including the Forest Service, must bear in mind that Section 7(a) of the National Trails System Act requires,

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

". . . full consideration shall be given to minimizing the adverse effects upon the adjacent landowner or user and his operation. Development and management of each segment of the National Trails System shall be designed to harmonize with and complement any established multiple use plans for that specific area in order to ensure continued maximum benefits from the land." (16 U.S.C. 1246 (a)) (USDI, 1982, p. 18). The NCNST Plan also states that the use of motorized vehicles on or across the trail by the following parties for the specified purpose shall be permitted, unless specifically prohibited by the managing authority's regulations: “…(e) users of established off-road motorized vehicle trails for the purpose of crossing the NCNST” (USDI 1982, p. 29). The commenters specifically raised concerns about proposed roads that are either in close proximity to, or that cross, the NCNST. The Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines do not restrict or prohibit motorized access in either scenario. In addition, the 1996 NCNST Handbook for Trail Design, Construction and Maintenance states that as the NCNST crosses a variety of recreation settings, it is managed according to its adjacent ROS (USDI, 1996, p. 29). All proposed roads crossing the NCNST are in a roaded natural ROS, with the exception of FR2270 (semi-primitive non-motorized ROS) and roads in the Black River Harbor area (semi-primitive motorized ROS). Motorized access in a semi-primitive motorized ROS is allowed by Forest Plan guideline in WRSs (p. 3-81.6). FR2270 is further discussed in response 1(e). The Modified Proposed Action was designed in a manner that does not restrict other uses, but rather to complement multiple use of the Forest. The following roads directly cross the NCNST, and are proposed for a change in designated access through this project: Forest Roads (FR) 733, 850, 894, 1500, 2200, 2240 and 2270 as well as within the parking area at the Black River Harbor Recreation Area. Commenters raised concerns that OHV use at intersections with the NCNST could encourage unauthorized motorized use of the non-motorized trail system. While there has been documented cases of OHV use on short segments of the NCNST, these incidents are rare. To address these concerns, the ID Team has developed a design criterion to ensure that no motorized access signing is established at these intersections. If unauthorized motorized uses are found to be occurring, barriers could also be placed (Analysis Framework, p. 8). As outlined in the Scoping Letter, there is a need to proactively designate, and clearly identify, the roads and trails that can sustain motorized traffic. This would assist to keep motorized use on roads allowed for such use, which ultimately can protect resources in those areas where no access is allowed (Scoping Letter, p. 2). 1(b) Concerns about roads’ effects to adjacent aquatic features. Response: The ID Team has analyzed each individual road proposed for a change using field reviews, maps, aerial photos, soil data including Ecological Landtype Phase (ELTP), public comments, and other resources to determine the proposed designated access changes included in the Modified Proposed Action. A commenter raised concerns about roads that travel near aquatic features on the Ottawa. The Modified Proposed Action is consistent with the Travel Management Rule of 2005, which states, “ …the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing (1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other 8

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest forest resources“ (36 CFR 212.55(b)(1)) (Analysis Framework, p. 7). Rationale for roads proposed is located in the Project File. About 37 miles of roads proposed have been determined to date to need road reconstruction prior to changing the designated access to further protect other resources. In these cases, measures to protect soil and water resources through road improvements, such as culvert replacement, would be completed. The Analysis Framework states that based on professional experience with past, similar projects, road reconstruction activities generally maintain or slightly improve water quality. In addition, design criteria and best management practices would be employed to reduce sedimentation during road reconstruction activities, thereby protecting streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands (Analysis Framework). If other reconstruction needs are determined necessary to ensure safety and provide resource protection, flexibility for these actions has been included in the Modified Proposed Action as outlined in the EA. 1(c) Concerns about effects to other resources (e.g., rutting, erosion, displacement of wildlife, and effects to wildlife habitat). Response: As outlined in response 1b, there are roads that have an existing condition that do not support the current or proposed status and that are in need of road reconstruction prior to designation. This would address resource concerns related to soil and water resources, such as soil rutting and erosion. The Modified Proposed Action also includes 54 miles of road closure to protect resource conditions. Commenters expressed concerns about wildlife being displaced, and their habitat compromised, due to increased motorized traffic. The impacts to wildlife based on a potential increase in traffic has been analyzed in the Wildlife Resources section of this EA. 1(d) Concerns that the Ottawa already has enough/too much designated access. Response: Some commenters expressed a concern that there is already enough, or too much, designated access. The comments mainly pertain to OHV use on the Ottawa. As stated on page 6 of the Forest Plan (Goal 9) the Ottawa strives to promote diverse and quality recreation experiences. Adding OHV access to some of our current roads conforms to this Goal. Other areas remain excluded from OHV access and can be enjoyed by non-motorized recreationists. Forest visitors seeking a non-motorized experience can find primitive recreation opportunities in the 127,750 acres of non-motorized areas on the Ottawa, including 49,750 acres of designated Wilderness. As outlined in the Scoping Letter, improving motorized access is responsive to concerns raised, while also providing benefits of an enhanced access system that is safe and more effectively managed. Changes proposed are based on comments received during the 2014 Travel Analysis Process (Scoping Letter, p. 2); public comments received during scoping; and from observations by employees regarding use and condition of existing roads and opportunities for improving the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The ID Team also analyzed the effects of a No Action Alternative, which would maintain the current motorized access system designated on the 2016 MVUM. 9

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

1(e) Concerns about designated access adjacent to wilderness, non-motorized areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Special Interest Areas. While management activities adjacent to wilderness are taken into consideration, the 1987 Michigan Wilderness Act addresses protective perimeters or buffer zones in the following direction: “Congress does not intend that designation of wilderness areas in the State of Michigan lead to the creation for protective perimeters or buffer zones around each wilderness area. The fact that non-wilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness.” (PL 100-184, December 1987, Section 7 – No wilderness Activities). There is no Forest Plan direction requiring that designated access be restricted in areas adjacent to wilderness, non-motorized areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Special Interest Areas. As outlined in the Analysis Framework (pp. 4-5), implementation of site-specific actions, over time, are intended to move towards an environment that provides Forest Plan desired conditions. These conditions are not intended to be met fully with every project. The project area was primarily designed to exclude areas that restrict motorized use, specifically those management areas (MAs) emphasizing a non-motorized recreational experience. However, there are a limited set of motorized access roads proposed in these areas. The Forest Plan’s direction is as follows:  MA 6.1, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Area: Guidelines to provide a semi-primitive non-motorized area providing non-motorized use except for administrative use or under written authorization (Forest Plan, page 3-58).  MA 8.1, Wild and Scenic River Corridors (Forest Plan, pp. 3-81.4 and 3-81.6): o Standards state that we provide a semi-primitive non-motorized recreation experience in Wild River segments. Guidelines provide an exception that OHVs can be allowed access for administrative use or under written permission. o Standards state that we provide a semi-primitive non-motorized or semi-primitive motorized recreation experience in Scenic River segments consistent with the MA designation of adjacent land(s). o Standards for Recreational River segments emphasize a roaded natural recreation experience. o Guidelines state that OHVs can be allowed within Scenic and Recreational segments only when necessary to connect to motorized trails outside of the river corridor.

 MA 8.3, Special Interest Areas: Guidelines to restrict motorized use except for administrative use or under written authorization (Forest Plan, page 3-89). Standards are a required course of action; deviations from standards require a Forest Plan amendment. Guidelines are permissions and limitations that should be implemented in most situations, but Guidelines do not have to be implemented if site specific conditions warrant a

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest deviation (Forest Plan p. 2-1 and 2-2). The Decision for this project could serve as the written permission for this access. Access was proposed in the Scoping Letter within non-motorized areas:  On the Iron River Ranger District, unclassified route 03013133 is within MA 6.1 and is currently closed to all access. The proposal is to open to all motorized access after it is reconstructed to prevent resource damage. This spur off of FR 3346 is a parking area adjacent to a spring which is a popular fishing site. This unclassified route is currently open to passenger vehicles. Allowing anglers to park in this area would exclude the need to park on the side of FR 3346, thereby improving safety and enhancing the recreational opportunity at this site.

 On the Kenton Ranger District, FR 841 is within MA 8.3, specifically the Divide Sand Wetland Special Interest Area. A portion of the road is already open to all motorized access. This road has been historically used to access hunting areas.

 On the Kenton Ranger District, FR 2200 crosses a portion of MA 8.1 within the Sturgeon River Wild segment of the WSR corridor and borders MA 5.2 (Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness). This road is currently open to highway legal vehicles only and proposed to be open to all vehicles (see EA maps 1). This is a heavily used road and the public has expressed a strong desire for this road to be open to all vehicles. There are some concerns regarding switchbacks on this road. Switchbacks would be addressed through a mixed use analysis that would be completed prior to a designation change. Off of FR 2200 is FR 2230 that provides access to the Sturgeon River Gorge Campground. It is also in the same MA (8.1) and is proposed to change designation from highway legal vehicles only to open to all motorized access (see EA map 2). This campground is one of a select group of campgrounds that was recommended by the Recreation Specialist on the ID Team to allow OHV access.

 On the Ontonagon Ranger District, FR 627 is within MA 8.1, specifically, the West Branch Ontonagon River corridor (see EA map 22). This river segment is designated as Scenic and is bounded by MAs 6.1 and 8.3 (Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized) to the north and MA 6.2 (Semi-Primitive Motorized) to the south. This road leads off of the Norwich Road, a county road that allows OHV access. As this road is north of the river, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is semi-primitive non-motorized. The proposal is to allow OHVs traveling on Norwich Road the opportunity to park within an existing parking area for recreation opportunities associated with the Norwich Bluff interpretive trail and cemetery. The Modified Proposed Action would open the parking area to all motorized access.

 On the Ontonagon Ranger District, FR 2270 crosses a portion of the Sturgeon River, designated as a Wild segment of (MA 8.1). The proposal is to change the designation 11

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

from open to highway legal vehicles only to open to all motorized access (see EA map 1). The public has expressed a strong desire to have this road for OHV access. There is some concern regarding switchbacks on this road. Switchbacks would be addressed through a dual use analysis that would be completed prior to a designation change. The following OHV access proposal has been included in the Modified Proposed Action due to new information, but was not included in the Scoping Letter.  On the Ontonagon Ranger District, FR 2274 is partially within MA 8.3, specifically the Silver Mountain Ancient Volcanic Vent Plug (reference EA map 1). This road is open to highway vehicles and terminates at a parking area for the trail and vista at Silver Mountain. Adding OHV use to this road would allow users of FR 2200 (also proposed open to all motorized access) more opportunities for recreation activities. 1(f) Concerns about lack of monitoring leading to unauthorized access. Response: Though it is known that some unauthorized use has occurred on the Ottawa, we do not currently have complete data regarding the amount and location of illegal use that may be occurring off of the proposed roads. Due to variable conditions, there is no method that we could use to accurately predict where and when unauthorized use may occur. Unauthorized uses are not part of the proposal, but rather are private, individual actions outside the control of the Forest Service, and thus are not evaluated for direct and indirect effects of the proposal. Therefore, any assumptions that unauthorized use would occur adjacent to the proposed roads would be speculative and would not be possible or appropriate to analyze (See CFR 1502.22 regarding incomplete or unavailable information). However, measures are being taken as part of this proposal to ensure unauthorized use would be minimized via signage and installation of appropriate closure devices. Monitoring and adaptive management would be used to prevent and resolve any illegal, unauthorized, or cross-country use that occurs after the roads are open. The Forest Service is responsible for monitoring the effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails as required by the 2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR 212.57. One of the components of the Monitoring Matrix (Forest Plan, Table 4-3) is “Percentage of road closure barriers breached leading to unauthorized use.” This is to be measured annually and reported every 2-6 years. Law Enforcement Officers and Forest Protection Officers enforce designated access based on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. To further complement this project, the Ottawa would continue the commitment to improve the management and use of public roads on the Forest. In 2012, a Forestwide strategy for monitoring the impacts of public motor vehicle use was initiated. This effort was focused on evaluating roads off of the Ottawa Connector Road (OCR), both prior to and after its designation for OHV use, to determine if allowing use on the OCR was leading to improper motorized use of closed roads adjacent to the OCR. The outcome of this monitoring provided data that assisted us to focus our efforts on signing and identification of areas requiring the placement of barriers, or

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

more effective barriers. These measures provide the Ottawa tools to more effectively enforce motor vehicle regulations when unauthorized use does occur. The roads currently closed to all motorized access that lead off of the proposed designated roads would be added to an existing database for which roads are identified for monitoring to determine if any unauthorized use is currently occurring. Monitoring efforts can identify cases of unauthorized access due to ineffective barriers and/or lack of signing. If a decision is made to open roads to OHV access as proposed, this monitoring effort would occur prior to and after the roads are open. This would help us to determine if any additional issues are occurring as a result of newly designated OHV access. Since the project’s proposal includes signing, and the design criteria also provides for the installation of closure devices on adjacent roads as needed, any concerns of unauthorized, motorized access off of the proposed roads can be addressed. 1(g) Concern regarding cost of conversion of roads, including signs and maintenance. Response: The proposal includes changes in access on lower standard and higher standard roads roads (see definitions in EA). In terms of available access, a lower standard road, they can be open to OHVs only or all motorized vehicles; higher standard roads can be open to all motorized access. Therefore, the costs associated with the conversion of roads in this project is associated with upgrading currently unclassified roads to the necessary standard as a system road to support motorized traffic; and reconstruction that has been identified on existing system roads. There are approximately 19 miles of unclassified roads that would be converted to system roads. There is an estimated, minimum of 37 miles of road reconstruction needed within the project area. Additional information regarding costs of road reconstruction and sign placement will be disclosed in the EA. Costs for new signs would utilize appropriated funding. Road maintenance is not an action included in this proposal; typical road maintenance activities would occur on system roads without this proposal. However, a dual use analysis will identify where road maintenance is needed. All higher standard roads being considered for OHV use are required to have a mixed use analysis by a certified engineer (Forest Service Manual 7715.77). This is because highway legal vehicles may be traveling at higher speeds on these roads. This analysis will help determine signing needs and the type of activities needed to ensure safe driving conditions on those roads where both OHV and highway vehicle use is proposed. There is cost involved in this process, but that cost is covered by appropriated salaries as it is a typical function of the Forest Engineer. The ID Team has identified a list of roads (318 miles) that require a mixed use analysis to be completed as soon as feasible, pending the availability of funding. 1(h) Concerns within the Remote Habitat Area including unnecessary increase in road densities. Response: Goal 31 of the Forest Plan is to manage the Remote Habitat Area (RHA) to provide habitat for species that require some degree of remoteness from human activity, including gray wolf, American marten, goshawk, red-shouldered hawk and others (p. 2-9). According to 13

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Objective b) of this Goal, the open road density in the RHA is to be maintained at less than, or equal to, 1 mile of road open to passenger vehicles (2- and 4-wheel drive) per square mile of National Forest System land. It is important to note that the Forest Plan direction for the RHA does not include OHV access. The current RHA road density is 0.57 mi/mi2 of roads open to passenger vehicles; the Modified Proposed Action would increase this density to 0.65 mi/mi2, which remains below the threshold identified in the Forest Plan. Detailed analysis for effects to the RHA is included in this EA. 2. Request for more designated access. Commenters expressed concern pertaining to the following topics: (a) Improve access for OHV riding. (b) Offer opportunities for motorized loop recreational riding. (c) Provide means for OHV users to utilize more of the Forest for recreational activities, such as berry picking, hunting, fishing and other water-related activities. (d) Allow OHV access in campgrounds. (e) Reduce the need to trailer OHVs. (f) Offer more access including: designating all Forest Service roads open; all higher standard roads open; all gravel roads open; leave choice of travel up to the user; request to mirror county designations; and open every road to OHV that is currently designated for highway legal vehicles to reduce confusion. (g) Allow OHVs cross-country travel for game retrieval. (h) Increase amount of public access on roads that are under special use permit. (i) Connect OHV trails with local communities. (j) Increase potential for motorized access through obtaining easements with private landowners. (k) Increase access for an aging population and handicapped individuals. (l) Improved access for tourism/economy. (m) Provide additional OHV access for emergency needs. 2(a) Improve access for OHV riding. Response: As outlined in the Scoping Letter and EA, the purpose and need for this proposal is to improve designated motorized access on the Ottawa to provide diverse and quality Forest access experiences. The Modified Proposed Action includes roads that were brought forward from both Forest Service personnel and the public. Public comments received as a result of the scoping proposal have modified the proposal as outlined in Table 15. The Modified Proposed Action now includes 86 miles open to OHVs and 428 miles open to all motorized access. The biggest change as a result of scoping comments was a shift in the miles open to all motorized access (highway legal vehicles and OHVs) and therefore, a decrease in the miles of access opened to OHVs only.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Table 15. Comparison of Modified Proposed Action and August 2016 Scoping Proposal Proposed Access Modified Proposed August 2016 Action Scoping Proposal Total Miles Total Miles Roads Open to OHV Only 86 110 Roads Open to All Motorized Access (OHVs 428 263 and Highway Legal Vehicles) Closed to All Motorized Access 54 49 Total Miles of Proposed Access Changes 568 422

One of the Standards for motorized trails within the Forest Plan is to “Manage OHV and snowmobile use to provide for resource protection, public health and safety, to minimize user conflict, and for motorized recreation and access” (p. 2-14). Each of these aspects were considered when individual roads were discussed to determine whether to add, or not to add, a road to the Modified Proposed Action. The list of roads requested by the public, and ID Team rationale for not incorporating roads into the Modified Proposed Action, are outlined in the Project File. Rationale for not adding requested roads includes needs for resource protection and/or access would not meet the purpose and need for the project. 2(b) Offer opportunities for motorized loop recreational riding. Response: The development of the Modified Proposed Action included adding loop recreational riding opportunities due to scoping comments received. Some roads requested were not added to the Modified Proposed Action for reasons outlined in the Project File. Selection of the roads depends on factors such as suitability of road base for motorized use, rider safety, riparian resource protection needs, locations within semi-primitive non-motorized areas, and other considerations to lessen impacts to other resources, such as wildlife habitat. 2(c) Provide means for OHV users to utilize more of the Forest for recreational activities, such as berry picking, hunting, and fishing and other water-related activities. Response: The National Forest Management Act’s (NFMA) regulations require the Forest Service to provide a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities “to the degree consistent with the needs and demand for all major resources.” Both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are recognized as acceptable and valid uses of National Forests. The Modified Proposed Action provides an additional 86 miles of OHV only access than currently exists and 428 miles of additional roads open to all motorized access for Forest access and other recreational activities. Access to water resources was considered during the development of the Modified Proposed Action as outlined on the EA’s maps.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

2(d) Allow OHV access in campgrounds. Response: Currently, the Ottawa does not allow OHV access in campgrounds. Several comments were received through this project, as well as prior to this project, requesting OHV access in campgrounds. The ID Team’s Recreation Specialist has recommended that the Ottawa provide some campgrounds with OHV access, while some remain closed to OHV use. Specific campgrounds to be open to OHV use as part of the Modified Proposed Action are outlined in Table 4. 2(e) Reduce the need to trailer OHVs. Response: Several comments were received regarding the need to trailer OHVs on higher standard roads to access current designated roads. Commenters cited safety concerns, inconvenience and a reduced recreational experience as a few reasons to open these connecting roads. The Ottawa agrees that some roads would be appropriate to connect or link motorized recreation opportunities. The scoping proposal included 263 miles of road open to all motorized access, which has been increased to 428 miles under the Modified Proposed Action. This increase is in part due to commenters’ requests to provide additional OHV access on higher standard roads to allow connection between roads currently open to motorized access on the MVUM, and reduce the need to trailer OHVs in these areas. 2(f) Offer more access including: designating all Forest Service roads open; all higher standard roads open; all gravel roads open; leave choice of travel up to the user; request to mirror county designations; and open every road to OHV that is currently designated for highway legal vehicles to reduce confusion. Response: In light of multiple use objectives on the Ottawa and the need to implement Forest Plan direction, not all roads can be open to motorized use. Not all roads can support the use of OHVs because of varying soil types, water resources, resource protection needs and safety concerns. “One size fits all” approach is not a valid option on the Ottawa. The Modified Proposed Action must be consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, and therefore, we are unable to open all gravel roads to OHVs, designate OHV access in all areas where highway legal vehicles are allowed, or leave choice of travel to the user. As outlined in responses 2a through 2e, the Modified Proposed Action does include an increase in OHV access on the Ottawa’s higher standard roads. Currently, a minimum of 41 miles have been authorized through previous project decisions for all motorized access, which includes portions of the Ottawa Connector Route on the Iron River and Kenton Ranger Districts, as well as FR 5320 (Interior Vegetation Management Project) on the Watersmeet Ranger District. The Modified Proposed Action would contribute an additional 318 miles of access on higher standard roads.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

2(g) Allow OHVs cross-country travel for game retrieval. Response: The Forest Plan’s Standard for Motorized Trails (p. 2-15), states “Travel of OHVs off designated trails and roads (cross-country) is prohibited except for administrative use or under written authorizations.” Therefore, a request for cross-county travel for game retrieval is outside of the scope of this project. There is a difference in our options for allowing motorized use under written authorizations (see Response 1(e), p. 10). The Record of Decision (p. 11) for the Forest Plan removed the option for OHV cross-country travel to ensure the Forest Plan remained consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, which requires the designation of all roads open to the public on the MVUM. 2(h) Increase amount of public access on roads that are under special use permit. Response: Comments were received that requested public access on roads that are currently under special use permit due to the perception of “exclusive use.” However, each situation is different and requires individual analysis due to the potential of resource damage occurring as a result of increased motorized use. Some permittees requested that their use continue to be under permit, while others requested that their roads be excluded from permit. District Rangers and resource specialists evaluated each individual road under special use permit that is included in the Modified Proposed Action (see Response 6). 2(i) Connect OHV trails with local communities. The purpose and need for this project is to improve designated motorized access for diverse and quality Forest access experiences. Although not specifically stated as a part of the scoping proposal, some roads proposed in scoping do connect county roads, providing more connections for OHVs and local communities. Examples include FRs 730, 2200 4500 and 6930 as outlined in the EA. Several higher standard roads identified through public scoping are now proposed for OHV access and provide additional opportunities to connect existing OHV roads on roads currently under county or federal jurisdiction as outlined on maps. 2(j) Increase potential for motorized access through obtaining easements with private landowners. Response: The Purpose and Need of this project is proposing to make designation changes to some motorized access roads on the Ottawa National Forest. These changes are proposed to modify only the Ottawa’s motorized access system. Obtaining easements with private landowners for additional access is outside the scope of this project. 2(k) Increase access for an aging population and handicapped individuals. Response: Forests are required to address accessibility for public access. Natural resource protection, safety, and reducing motorized/non-motorized conflicts also must be considered in determining accessibility opportunities. The Modified Proposed Action includes numerous roads to provide for additional access to areas currently closed to OHV use.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

The Forest Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Statement also addresses this concern as follows: “The Ottawa understands that mobility is a concern, and that some people with disabilities, some elderly visitors, and others who may have difficulty getting around utilize OHVs for access into the Forest. The Ottawa has worked to provide a range of recreational trail riding and access opportunities for all users. People using OHVs because of mobility reasons have the same access opportunities as all other Ottawa OHV users. These individuals would be allowed to use OHVs on roads and trails designated open to OHV use. Impacts to people with disabilities utilizing OHVs are similar to all other visitors utilizing OHVs in that they would be allowed only on roads and trails designated for OHV use. Where roads and trails are not designated for OHV use, it would be for reasons such as resource protection, potential conflict with non-motorized uses, or safety, and thus closed to all OHV users. Federal laws, regulations, and policies that apply to federal agencies, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, do not require areas restricting or prohibiting OHV use for all people, to make exceptions to such use because a person has a disability. Travel management applies equally to all people and actions proposed do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As stated in the ADA, an exception is the use of a wheelchair that meets the legal definition which may be used wherever foot travel is permitted.” (USDA 2006a, p. 3-203). 2(l) Improved access for tourism/economy. Response: Comments were received regarding OHVs and the impacts that increased access could have on tourism and the local economy. The Ottawa understands the need to improve the local economy. Creating tourism is not part of the focus of this project; however, the Modified Proposed Action does facilitate road connections to improve motorized recreation opportunities on the Ottawa as outlined in Response 2i. Connections between communities could further assist recreationists to visit local areas for purchase of food, gas, supplies or lodging as outlined in the Forest Plan’s FEIS (p. 3-215). 2(m) Provide additional OHV access for emergency needs. Response: The Forest Plan (p. 2-15) states “Travel of OHVs off designated trails and roads (cross-country) is prohibited except for administrative use or under written authorizations.” However, emergency situations would fall under this definition. The Modified Proposed Action would not change the ability to use highway legal vehicles or OHVs to access the Forest as part of administrative use. 3. Need for improved map products. Commenters expressed concern pertaining to the following topics: (a) Concerns about the Ottawa MVUM  Reduce confusion with Ottawa’s Motor Vehicle Use Map by making it more user- friendly.  Trails are overgrown and cannot be used.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

 Roads are shown as open on the map but have a gate at the entrance.  Down trees on roads prevent access to roads that should be open. (b) Concerns about the Designated Motorized Use Project Mapping  The roads shown as “under analysis” on the scoping maps do not show the proposed change in designation and legend is very confusing.  Add town names on the Designated Motorized Use Map for reference.  Remove Silver Mountain from the project; it should not be on the map as a non- motorized area since there are no roads to show. 3(a) Concerns about the Ottawa MVUM Response: All National Forests are mandated to use a national template for the MVUM. We have made strides to improve its features to improve the map’s use, including labeling all roads on the map in conjunction with posting road numbers on the Forest, and clarifying whether or not OHVs are allowed on those roads via signing. In 2012 and 2014, respectively, the Forest Supervisor provided direction to make the following changes to the MVUM:  Remove roads designated as open to motorized access that have been found to be overgrown with vegetation or “naturalized”; and  Change the open to all motorized designation to an open to OHV only designation for those roads with a gate. The Ottawa is aware of some of the situations where there is a discrepancy between the map and the condition on the ground. Although we are still addressing the above situations as found, we have made efforts to clarify the MVUM to match the on-the-ground conditions. Conditions on the ground will continue to change with increased, or lack of, use by the public. The Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project is one step in a continuous process to create a MVUM that is useful and accurate. We understand concerns regarding down trees on roads. Down trees are removed by staff as they are encountered. 3(b) Concerns about the Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project Mapping Response: The Scoping Letter was developed so that the maps depicted the spatial locations of roads under analysis, while Appendix 2 provided a table that documented the proposed changes. Given the concerns raised, the EA’s maps have incorporate a color-coded strategy showing the intended change for each road under analysis. In addition, town names have been added to provide the reader reference points. Silver Mountain is portrayed on Map 1. This feature is shown as part of the non-motorized areas on the Ottawa, which also includes wilderness, Wild River segments of Wild and Scenic River corridors and Special Interest Areas. 4. Concern about the effects of sound from project implementation 19

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Commenters expressed concern pertaining to the following three topics: (a) A Request for a reduction of OHV traffic near a residential area; (b) An increase in OHV traffic equates to an increase in the amount of sound; and (c) The effects of sound would specifically affect the recreational experience in the O’ Kun de Kun Trail, Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness and Finger Lakes areas. Response: Given the concerns raised, the ID Team has conducted a sound analysis as part of this Environmental Assessment (EA). In terms of the specific concerns outlined above, the ID Team designed the proposal to focus on areas without motorized access restrictions as identified in the Forest Plan. In most cases, the Modified Proposed Action includes adding OHV access to roads that already allow highway legal vehicles (e.g. cars and trucks). There is a potential to increase sound levels in these areas because OHVs operate at a different decibel level than passenger vehicles. The majority of the Ottawa is identified as “Roaded Natural” in the Forest Service’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). In the Forest Plan, each Management Area is classified using the ROS. “Roaded Natural” is defined as a recreational experience where there is moderate evidence and interaction with other users, including sights and sounds. The analysis includes expected effects of the Modified Proposed Action on areas with a semi- primitive non-motorized ROS to determine whether effects are consistent with Forest Plan direction. 4(a) A request for a reduction of OHV traffic near a residential area. Response: This specific request included two recommendations: closure of a county road to OHV traffic; and re-directing OHV traffic onto adjacent roads, FR 5010-C and FR 5010-C2 and connect 5010-A to County Road 5001. The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over county roads and therefore, the proposal cannot include closure of a county road. The ID Team reviewed FR 5010 spurs A, C and C-2 and other roads in this area. The Modified Proposed Action includes additional roads to address this concern. 4(b) An increase in OHV traffic equates to an increase in the amount of sound. Response: As stated above, the EA has included analysis of sound impacts expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Modified Proposed Action. This analysis incorporates the existing condition, that is, the current effects of motorized traffic on the landscape. The existing condition includes sound from motorized vehicles already using Forest Service roads. For example, several roads included in the Modified Proposed Action for OHV access are already open to highway legal vehicle access. The sound analysis takes into consideration the potential increase in sound by adding OHV access to these roads. This existing condition has been analyzed as an alternative, which will help address those comments received that support maintaining the current recreational designation system on the Ottawa. Forest visitors seeking a non-motorized experience can find primitive recreation opportunities in the 127,750 acres of non-motorized areas on the Ottawa, including 49,750 acres of designated Wilderness.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

4(c) The effects of sound would specifically affect the recreational experience in the O’ Kun de Kun Trail, Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness and Finger Lakes areas. Response: Chapters of the North Country Trail Association raised concerns regarding direct crossings, and adjacency of proposed access roads to the North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST). This includes the area of the O’ Kun de Kun Trail and Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness. Direct trail crossings are identified on the enclosed maps. To address concerns for direct crossings, the ID Team has included a design criterion to ensure signing as well as effective barriers remain in place, or are established as needed, to bar motorized traffic from traveling on the NCNST (see Design Criteria Appendix). Areas adjacent to the NCNST have been addressed in this EA as part of the sound impact analysis. Comments were also received about sound impacts from the addition of OHV access to FRs 2200 and 2270, which border the wilderness. These higher standard roads are currently open to highway legal vehicles, and impacts associated with the Modified Proposed Action have been included in the sound analysis because of the potential for increase in sound. A concern was raised about sound impacts from the addition of OHV access to a spur of FR 3219, specifically because this road is within the Ottawa’s Remote Habitat Area (RHA). This spur was re-evaluated by the ID Team and was removed from the project to protect the shoreline of Finger Lake (see Project File). 5. Requests clarification pertaining to the Purpose and Need for Action. (a) The proposal is not clear in terms of whether access designation changes would affect the ability for using the roads for timber hauling operations. (b) Closing small roads off of main roads could be a problem for using these roads in fire suppression efforts. 5(a) The proposal is not clear in terms of whether access designation changes would affect the ability for using the roads for timber hauling operations. Response: The purpose and need for this proposal is to improve designated public motorized access on the Ottawa to provide diverse and quality Forest access experiences. Making changes in designated access would be incorporated on the MVUM, a tool that displays public access. Use of the Ottawa’s transportation system for administrative uses, such as motorized use (OHV and highway legal vehicles) during timber sale operations, would not change. This type of use is allowed via a written authorization through the timber sale contract. 5(b) Closing small roads off of main roads could be a problem for using these roads in fire suppression efforts. Response: As outlined above in response 5a, the intent of this project is to modify public access. Although some roads would be closed for resource protection, use of these roads for administrative needs, such as fire suppression, is allowed by the Forest Plan (p. 2-15). The Modified Proposed Action has been clarified in this EA to outline that implementation of this

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest project would not change the ability of the Forest Service, or those under written authorization, to use motorized vehicles on closed roads. See response 2(m). 6. Concern about public access on roads that are not on the 2016 MVUM because they are currently managed under a special use permit. Concerns include: (a) Opening roads where a personal investment by permittee has been made via road maintenance. (b) The appearance of permittee’s “exclusive use” of federal roads. (c) Property purchased for the reason that its access road was not open to public. (d) Effects of the proposal on the existing access for permittees. Response: Special use authorizations are required for the purpose of ingress or egress across National Forest lands that require travel on a National Forest System road not authorized for general public use (36 CFR 251.50(d)(1)). These authorizations document the rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations of the permittee. In some circumstances, private landowners have invested a significant amount of money in a particular road. If a change in the designation opens a road to the public, the landowner may still be required to obtain a permit, if his/her needs exceed the designation or seasonal restrictions of the road or trail. The government has the responsibility to maintain a road with an open designation. For this project, District Rangers and specialists utilized all available information to determine if it is in the best interest of the Government to open or close a road to the public. Each road was analyzed individually, based on road conditions. Input from public comments on these permitted roads was considered. In summary, the Modified Proposed Action takes into account the Responsible Official’s determinations for whether continuation of a permit (and associated private landowner maintenance of a permitted road) is in the best interest of the Government. Some road conditions are not suitable to be open for general public use due to resource concerns. 7. Suggestions were received on how to improve motorized access on the Ottawa including: (a) Develop Apps by each Federal Forest area showing all highways, roads and trails Open/Closed/Type of Traffic allowed (hiking, bicycling, highway vehicle, equestrian, OHV, etc.). (b) Install new road and trail markers showing numbers, graphic add-on’s for traffic type with red for closed, green for open, etc. to make it easy for the user. (c) Offer hotline and email for public input with announcements. (d) Consider temporary access roads to roads and trails by the general public by permit only. (e) Enforce “Lights on” for OHVs on connector roads and behind gates. (f) Enforce speed limits for OHVs on all roads. (g) Address ongoing assessment of the changes concerning the environment. (h) Request that Forest Service help find funding for road repair on other jurisdictions.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Response: The Ottawa appreciates the input from the public on methods for improving motorized access. At this time, the MVUM is the tool that is required for informing the public where motorized access is allowed for OHVs and highway legal vehicles. The MVUM is available for free at any district office and the Ottawa’s Visitor Center. It is also available on the Ottawa’s website. We have made great strides to improve the translation between the map and on-the-ground conditions by posting road numbers and signing whether OHV use is allowed or not (see response 3a). There are no temporary access roads for the general public via a permit process at this time; this type of process would be inconsistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. No cross-country travel for game retrieval is allowed on the Ottawa (see response 2g). The Ottawa does provide information (paper copy and on the internet) about specific trails open to hiking and biking, although there are no restrictions for hiking on the Ottawa. Bicycle use is not allowed within wilderness areas. Equestrian use is restricted in Sylvania Wilderness, on trails designated for hikers only (including the NCNST), and in developed recreation areas. We encourage OHV headlight use to increase visibility, especially in areas where there is dual use of OHVs and highway legal vehicles. The 2016 version of The Handbook! of Michigan Off- Road Vehicle Laws states that OHV riders should “Make sure the lights work properly and are on during operation” (p. 23). National Forest system road speed limits are 35 MPH unless otherwise posted (36 CFR 261.54d). In terms of addressing concerns regarding changes in the environment, the EA will analyze the effects of this proposal on several resources. The Responsible Official will take this information into consideration to make her decision. Assisting other jurisdictions with funding for road repair is outside the scope of this project. However, the Forest Service does play a role in providing annual funding for road repair of county roads through timber-generated receipts to the states. Literature Cited Michigan Department of Natural Resources. (2016). The Handbook! Of Michigan Off-Road Vehicle Laws. p. 23. USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2006 Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Volume I. USDA Forest Service Eastern Region. pp. 3-203, 3-215. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Land and Resource Management Plan (referred to as Forest Plan). USDA Forest Service Eastern Region. pp. 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 3-58, 3-81.4 to 3-81.9, 3-89 and 4-3. USDA Forest Service. 2006. USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Record of Decision for the 2006 Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. p. 11. USDI Park Service. (1982). North Country National Scenic Trail. Comprehensive Plan for Management Use. pp. 18 and 29. 23

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

USDI Park Service. (1996). North Country National Scenic Trail: A Handbook for Trail Design, Construction and Maintenance. p. 29.

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Appendix 3 - Maps

Explanation of Legend Items in Appendix 3 per the 2016 MVUM

Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only: These roads are open only to motor vehicles licensed under State law for general operation on all public roads within the state.

Roads Open to All Vehicles: These roads are open to all motor vehicles, including smaller off-highway vehicles that may not be licensed for highway use (but not to oversize or overweight vehicles under State traffic law).

Trails Open to Vehicles 65 inches or Less in Width: Trails open only to motor vehicles less than 65 inches in width at the widest point and utilizing off-road low pressure tires.