Nebraska National Forest

United States & Department of Agriculture Samuel R. McKelvie

Forest Service National Forest

Bessey Ranger District

Travel Analysis Report

2008

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Process ...... 2 Products...... 2 This Report...... 2 Step 1 – Setting up the Analysis ...... 3 Geographic Scale – Objective of the Analysis ...... 3 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 3 Information Needs and Analysis Plan...... 4 Step 2 – Describing the Situation...... 5 Step 3 – Identifying Issues ...... 7 Step 4 – Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks ...... 11 Resource Impacts ...... 13 Human Use...... 14 Economics ...... 14 Step 5 – Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities ...... 16 Describing Opportunities ...... 16 Setting Priorities...... 20 Step 6 – Reporting ...... 21 System Roads: Impacts, Access Need and Use and Costs...... 21 Supporting Information ...... 21 Unauthorized Roads ...... 22 Questions of Jurisdiction and Access ...... 22 Data Inconsistencies...... 22 References ...... 24

APPENDICES Appendix A – Travel Analysis Summary Appendix B – Resource Comments Appendix C – Travel Analysis Road Rating Graphs

i

INTRODUCTION

Background

In August 1999, the Washington Office of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service published Miscellaneous Report FS-643 titled Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA 1999). The objective of roads analysis is to provide decision makers with critical information to develop road systems that are safe and responsive to public needs and desires, are affordable and efficiently managed, and have minimal negative ecological effects. In January 2001, the Forest Service published the Transportation Final Rule and Administrative Policy authorizing units to use, as appropriate, the road analysis procedure embodied in FS-643 to assist land managers making major road management decisions. In July 2003, the Rocky Mountain Region 2 published the R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643. This supplement supports Appendix 1 of Misc. Report FS-643 to be used in conjunction with that document. The R2 supplement is intended to provide guidance concerning the appropriate scale for addressing each question and the analysis needed.

Roads Analysis for the Nebraska National Forest is being completed in two phases. The first phase was completed in 2003 when a Forest-wide Roads Analysis was completed to assessed National Forest System Roads maintained for passenger car use (USDA, 2003). The second phase is this current analysis of the remaining National Forest System Roads and may include selected unauthorized routes.

The Roads Analysis documented in this report is undertaken to support the Travel Management planning effort. It is the intent of roads analysis to provide critical information to develop a road system that is safe and responsive to public needs and desires, is affordable and efficiently managed, has minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and is in balance with available funding for needed management actions. Some of the routes analyzed in this phase could be designated as trails.

The Nebraska National Forest is currently developing a Travel Management Plan to implement the revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 2002) and the National Travel Management Rule (USDA, 2005). The Travel Management Plan will restrict motorized use to roads, trails, and areas designated open for motorized use, a “closed unless designated open” policy. This is a change from current management which has allowed motorized use except where specifically prohibited, an “open unless designated closed” policy.

Public participation was first solicited for the Travel Management Plan with the scoping letter and Travel Management Proposed Action (USDA, 2007) mailed in December of 2007. Five Open Houses were held to provide additional forums for information exchange, public interaction, and comments. The open houses were held in several locations to provide the public access to a meeting for each Ranger District. In response to issues identified from public comments, alternative(s) to the proposed action are now being developed. Alternative(s) to the Proposed Action may propose designation of additional existing roads for motorized use. These additional roads are not managed as a part of the current System; most or all were user created; they fall within the “undetermined” group in our INFRA database; and they meet the definition of “unauthorized” as provided in the National Travel Management Rule (USDA, 2005). Roads analysis of these additional roads may be attached to this Roads Analysis as determined by the District Ranger. 1

A product of Travel Management Planning will be a Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the public. The MVUM will identify roads, trails, and areas open to motorized use. Class of vehicle will be designated on the map, including distinction between roads open to Highway Legal Vehicles (HLV) Only and trails open to all motor vehicles (Highway Legal AND non-Highway Legal Vehicles). Note that the State of South Dakota licenses Off-Highway Vehicles/All Terrain Vehicles (OHV/ATV) for operation on public roads by licensed drivers 16 years and older. When licensed (both vehicles and operator), such vehicles would be Highway Legal Vehicles and would be allowable on all roads designated open to Highway Legal Vehicles only.

Process

Roads analysis is the six-step iterative process described in the Road Analysis Handbook (USDA, 1999). Additional guidance is provided in a supplement by the Rocky Mountain Region (USDA, 2004). As an analysis matures previous steps may be revisited, even revised, to reflect broader understanding of an issue or analysis need. The amount of time and effort spent on each step differs by project because of specific situations and available information. The process provides a set of possible issues and analysis questions for which answers can inform choices about road system management. Decision makers and analysts determine the relevance of key questions. They also provide for public participation in the process of Travel Management Planning.

Although the process followed in this analysis is Roads Analysis as described above, for consistency with the National Travel Management Rule (USDA, 2005) this report is entitled Travel Analysis to reflect potential inclusion of trails and areas as well as roads.

Products

The product of the analysis is a report for decision makers and the public that documents the information and analysis used to identify opportunities and set priorities for National Forest Travel Management. Tables and graphs are included in the report to display analyses and facilitate comparison of roads.

This Report

This report, the Bessey Ranger District Travel Analysis, documents the roads analysis process used for Bessey Ranger District Travel Management effort.

2

Step 1 – Setting up the Analysis

Geographic Scale – Objective of the Analysis

This analysis is limited to roads under Forest Service jurisdiction within the lands administered by the Bessey Ranger District. Lands administered are located in two distinct areas: the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest in north central Nebraska, and the Bessey unit of the Nebraska National Forest in central Nebraska. Both are in Nebraska’s 12 million acre sandhills region, the largest grass-stabilized dune region in the Western Hemisphere. The Samuel R McKelvie National Forest encompasses about 115,115 acres. The Bessey unit of the Nebraska National Forest encompasses about 90,405 acres. National Forest lands are consolidated in both areas. Adjacent State lands are limited to the Merritt Reservoir and Anderson Bridge State Wildlife Management Areas, south and north of McKelvie, respectively. Also three small parcels (80 acres and less) of Bureau of Land Management lands (federal lands) can be found to the east of McKelvie. (USDA, 2001 and 2003)

The primary objective of this analysis is to help inform travel management planning and an eventual decision for the Bessey Ranger District component of the anticipated Nebraska NF Travel Management EIS by compiling the following information:

Include only roads under Forest Service jurisdiction Include all roads currently managed as part of the System Include additional “undetermined” and “private” roads identified by District Ranger Identify and work toward resolving questions of jurisdiction Identify and work toward resolving data inconsistencies Assess potential resource impacts Assess access need and use Assess costs of maintenance and resource protection

Interdisciplinary Team Members

The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) members and their resource areas:

Patti Barney District Ranger Dan Frodsham Recreation Tedd Teahon Fire Kevin Heikkila Lands Lisa Heiser Recreation Kim Earney Engineering Randy Gage Engineering Leslie Burkhart Engineering

Also Michael Croxen, who was not able to attend the meeting. He prepared road information representing Range, Lands, Fire, and Fuels, for review in his absence during the Interdisciplinary meeting, and was available for clarification following the meeting.

3

Information Needs and Analysis Plan

Current road management information will come from the INFRA database. This data will be correlated with the GIS maps and database to provide a geo-spatial context for discussion and assessment.

Current resource information will come from the ID Team Members. This includes resource expertise in range, wildlife, fire and engineering. Specific information gaps will be recorded on the assessment sheets identifying staff expertise desired for potential follow-up, e.g. answers to rights-of-way status or heritage resource questions.

The ID Team, including the District Ranger, reviews the questions from the Roads Analysis Handbook (USDA, 1999, 2004) and adapts those which address area issues for potential resource impacts, desired human uses, and costs.

The ID Team, including the District Ranger, assesses each system road or road segment, describes the impacts, and rate on a relative 1 to 10 scale for potential adverse impact on ecosystem function; aquatic, riparian zone, and water quality; wildlife; and cultural and heritage resource values. The ID Team assesses each system road or road segment, describes the access needed or desired for recreational or administrative use, and rates on a 1 to 10 relative scale for human access needs; suitability for mixed use or as OHV-trail-only is considered and showing with a “Y” for yes or an “N” for no. The ID Team assesses each system road or road segment, describes its costs, and rates on a 1 to 10 scale by economic costs and benefits.

Recommendation(s) for the management of the road and/or road segments will be determined by a matrix which considers resource impacts against human access need on a low-medium-high ranking. The management activities listed for the respective matrix cell help define the parameters of management options for each road segment analyzed.

This initial iteration will include all National Forest System Roads (NFSR) (see Appendix D – INFRA System Roads). This initial iteration will also analyze an additional sixteen existing roads not classified NFSR. Because of demonstrated use and/or need the following non-NFSR roads were rated and included in the calculation of mean and median values. • 201_10.4L, loop tie to Dismal Trail, may have alternate loop • 201_10.6L, ties to Dismal Trail and Windmill #149 • 201_10.6L NOHVA, continues east past windmill #149 • 203_0.4L, ties to 4wd trail at windmill #31 • 203_0.4L, user created power-line trail • 203_5.4R, Camp 5 North • 214_1.8R, Road to windmill #72 • 214_7.6R, possible fire break • 264_0.4L, Cedars Campground, additional camping sites • 275, Johnson, accesses private residence, ball field at 4-H Camp; desired for public canoe launch • 277-A,-B,-C, loops in Whitetail Camp Ground • 277-D, tie to road 214 • 607, provides access to private lands, the Powderhorn Ranch Subsequent iterations of this analysis (if any) may include additional roads not on the System (non-NFSR roads), but under Forest Service jurisdiction, that appear to serve access needs as identified by the ID Team from the public comments.

4

Step 2 – Describing the Situation

The Bessey Ranger District encompasses a total of about 205,520 acres in two distinct management areas within the Nebraska’s sandhill region, the largest grass stabilized dune region in the Western Hemisphere. The Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest is located in north central Nebraska, 115,115 acres; the Bessey unit of the Nebraska National Forest is found in central Nebraska, 90,405 acres. Both are administered from the district office located near Halsey, Nebraska. The Forest-wide Roads Analysis (USDA, 2003) provides the following geographic information.

The climate is semi-arid Continental, most of the precipitation arrives from the Gulf of Mexico during spring and summer; temperatures average 60’s to mid-70’s during the summer and around 32 degrees during the winter, extremes range from over 100 to less than 0 degrees Fahrenheit; spring blizzards are common and the wind tends to blow often. Topography is characterized by large vegetated sand masses created by blowing sand as recently as 1500 years ago. The rivers and streams have few tributaries, seldom flood, and flow at a nearly constant rate. Below the sandhills lies the High Plains Aquifer with a saturated thickness of 500 feet. Dominant vegetation consists of planted forests and sandhills plant communities, including bunchgrass, sand muhly, and blowout. Blowout penstemon, a state federally listed endangered plant species, is found here.

The Bessey Unit of the Nebraska National Forest: Dune types include crescentic-ridge and linear. Elevation ranges from 2,225 to 2,700 feet above sea level. Two rivers roughly bound the area: the Middle Loup River to the north, and the Dismal River to the south. In addition to the sandhills plant communities, hand-planted plantation stands of jack pine, Austrian pine, Scotch pine, Ponderosa pine, and Eastern Red Cedar are found, and a limited floodplain prairie and hardwood forest community. Primary access is from State Highway 2 to the north. State Road 86B facilitates accesses to the Bessey Recreation Complex (including swimming pool and Hardwood, Cedar, and River Loop Campgrounds), the Charles E. Bessey Nursery, and the District Office, en route to Scott Lookout. Primary Forest roads are Circle (203), Natick (212), and Gaston (259) which enters National Forest at the far northwest. The Bessey Unit of the Nebraska National Forest is located within Thomas and Blaine Counties, Nebraska.

Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest: In addition to the dune types found on the Bessey Unit, crescentic- ridge and linear, McKelvie also has the moderate-relief sand sheet and the wide-spaced crescentic. Two rivers roughly bound the area, the Niobrara to the north and the Snake to the east and south, with its Merritt Reservoir and numerous recreation facilities on State lands roughly bounding the south east corner. In addition to the sandhills plant communities, there are 2,200 acres of hand-planted ponderosa pine stands. Primary access is State Highway 16F which runs north-south, bisecting the western half of the Forest, and Forest Highway 5 which runs east-southeast to connect State Highway 16F with State Highway 97 at Merritt Dam. The Samuel R. McKelvie national Forest is entirely within Cherry County, Nebraska.

Both area were established as Forest Reserves in 1902, so are primarily Reserved Public Domain lands. There are some parcels with acquired status. Unlike much of the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, road jurisdiction is essentially clear. See detailed discussion in Appendix E – Road Jurisdiction.

The District follows national trends with increasing numbers of people enjoying National Forest System lands with motor vehicles as an integral part of their recreational experience, many coming from the urban centers of Omaha and Lincoln. Off road travel by 4-wheel-drive or other high-clearance vehicles is

5

facilitated by the open rolling terrain. Increasing numbers of people coupled with advances in the power, range, and capabilities of their vehicles increases the magnitude and intensity of potential resource effects, user conflicts, and maintenance costs (USDA, 2005). Public response to the concurrent Travel Management planning effort has run the gamut for wanting no roads to ever-road and everywhere. The proposed action does not reduce system road miles, but substantially reduces potential motorized travel because it restricts use of non-system roads and cross country travel (USDA, 2007).

The INFRA database as saved in “user_view_Feb06_08.xls,” (project file), see also Appendix D INFRA National Forest System Roads (NFSR), identifies 186.35 miles of the inventoried roads under Forest Service jurisdiction as managed and maintained as National Forest System Roads (NFSR). Of these system roads, 10.75 are managed for user comfort in passenger cars (maintenance level 4)’ 48.96 miles are managed for passenger cars (maintenance level 3); and 126.54 miles are managed for use by high clearance vehicles (maintenance level 2). The maintenance level 2 roads may be maintained only rarely, or when a specific problem has been identified. Non-system roads currently provide users over twice as many road miles. As provided by the spreadsheet “user_view_Feb06_08.xls,” (project file), another 416.81 mi9les of existing roads under Forest Service jurisdiction have been attributed as “undetermined.” Many of these undetermined (aka non-system or non-NFSR) roads may be indistinguishable on the ground from the system roads (NFSR) in maintenance levels 1 or 2. These roads were probably user created and are not currently managed as a part of the system. They are being considered in the development of alternatives to the proposed action in the Travel Management planning effort.

Bessey Unit Current closures include 1) an annual closure to public use of motorized vehicles within the area bounded by the Circle (203) and Natick (212) roads between September 1 and November 30 to allow for a walk-in hunting experience, the roads themselves remain open to use’ and the exclusion of Off Highway Vehicles (or All Terrain Vehicles) from a 200 acre area surrounding the Scott Fire Lookout Tower and from the following roads: Circle (203), Natick (212), Gaston (259), Whitetail (277), and State Highway Spur 86B. (USDA, 2001)

The Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest currently has no closures.

6

Step 3 – Identifying Issues

The ID Team, including the District Ranger, reviewed the questions from the Roads Analysis Handbook (USDA, 1999) as supplemented by the R2 Roads Analysis Supplement (USDA, 2004) for applicability to the project. In order to focus the analysis on issues relevant to the District, only applicable key questions were adopted for consideration in the assessment of each road. Table 1 displays the questions considered in responding to the respective issues for the assessment.

Table 1 - Issues and Key Questions

Issue: Ecosystem Function Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF) EF-2A. To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? EF-2B. What are the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area? EF-3. To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and parasites? (Timber) EF-4. How does the road system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area? (Fire, minor) EF-5. What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads? (Time of year) Issue: Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ) AQ-1. How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area? AQ-2. How and where does the road system generate surface erosion? NOTE: McKelvie, Dismal River Play Area AQ-3. How and where does the road system affect mass wasting? NOTE: hill climb AQ-4. How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality? AQ-5. How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de- icing salts, or herbicides, to enter surface waters? (minor) NOTE: Dismal River Play Area (DRPA) AQ-6A. How and where is the road system “hydrologically connected” to the stream system? AQ-6B. How do the connections affect water quality and quantity (such as the delivery of sediments and chemicals, thermal increases, and elevated peak flows?) AQ-7A. What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? Recreation (swimmers, canoes); Ogallala Aquifer AQ-7B. What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? AQ-7C. How are they affected or put at risk by road-derived pollutants? AQ-8. How and where does the road system affect wetlands? limited AQ-9. How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment? Not much flow; DRPA AQ-10A. How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms? AQ-10B. What aquatic species are affected and to what extent? Dace, minnows, turtles, frogs AQ-11. How does the road system affect shading, litter-fall, and riparian plant communities? Lord Lakes AQ-12. How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at- risk species? “hummer” groups and blowout penstemon AQ-13. How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non-native aquatic species? (minor) very little water AQ-14. To what extent does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity, or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of interest? Little area on Steer Ck

7

Issue: Wildlife Terrestrial Wildlife (TW) TW-1. What are the effects of the road system on terrestrial species habitat? Deer, turkey, grouse, prairie chicken, quail, elk, antelope, (?) burrowing owl TW-2. How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect habitat? TW-3A. How does the road system affect legal and illegal human activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? TW-3B. What are the effects on wildlife species? TW-4. How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area? Prairie dog towns, burrowing owls, blue heron nesting on 203 West, Signal Hill

Issue: Cultural and Heritage Resources Cultural/ Heritage and Paleo Resources – Resource Impacts What are the effects on cultural sites of existing roads, trails, and areas? (for new system roads, trails, and areas, cultural surveys will be done.) Homestead, artifacts, a trail, camp 5 CCC’s, paleo @ Dismal Cultural and Heritage (CH) (W.O. revisions) CH-1. How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites and the values people hold for these sites? Dismal River CH-2. How does the road system and road management affect American Indian Treaty rights? CCC Camp 1, old wagon trail

Issue: Economics Economics (EC) (W.O. revisions) EC-1A. What are the monetary costs associated with the current road system? EC-1. How do these costs compare to the budgets for management and maintenance of the road system? Especially low budgets? EC-2 (revised). What are the indirect economic contributions of roads including market and non-market costs and benefits associated with road system design, management and operations? (i.e. broad benefits and costs, generally non-monetary; supplements information in other questions) 4-H Camp/ Recreationists gas, groceries; access to Merritt Reservoir EC-3 (revised). What are the direct economic impacts of the current road system and its management upon communities around the forest?+

Issue: Human Uses HUMAN USES/ COMMODITY PRODUCTION Timber Management (TM) TM-1. How does road spacing and location affect logging system feasibility? TM-2. How does the road system affect managing the suitable timber base and other lands? (including transport of materials to mills or markets) TM-3. How does the road system affect access to timber stands needing silvicultural treatment? Pore- commercial thin; chip potential Range Management (RM) RM-1. How does the road system affect access to range allotments? Water Production (WP) WP-1. How does the road system affect access to, and constructing, maintaining, monitoring, and operating, of diversions, impoundments, and distribution canals, or pipes? Lord Lake Dam, Pond, Gaston Bridge WP-2. How does road development and use affect water quality in municipal watersheds? Combine with AQ-7. maybe: Merritt Reservoir; Aimsworth irrigation Special Forest Products (SP) SP-1. How does the road system affect access for collecting special forest products? Mushrooms, firewood, non-commercial greens gathering, seed collection, blowout penstemon Special Use Permits (SU)

8

SU-1. How does the road system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communication sites, utility corridors, and so on)? Range permittees; 4-H; utilities; recreation events; university monitoring site; air quality site General Public Transportation (GT) GT-1. How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities? Gaston GT-3. How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction? (RS-2477, cost share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA easements, DOT easements)? FH5; 86B GT-4. How does the road system address the safety of road users? Administrative Use (AU) AU-1. How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring? Seed collection, penstemon AU-2. How does the road system affect investigative or enforcement activities? Party time Protection (PT) PT-1. How does the road system affect fuels management? PT-2. How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires? PT-3. How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety? PT-4. How does the road system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting n reduced visibility and human concerns? RECREATION Unroaded/ Non-motorized Recreation (UR) UR-1. Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities? Is there a need for more non-motorized trails or “quiet” areas? If so, what types (foot, horse, bike, accessible, ski)? Seasonal closure, Scott Tower, Blue Bird UR-2. Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities? UR-3. What are they adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads, on the quantity, quality, and type of unroaded recreation opportunities? UR-4. Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads? UR-5. What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available? Road & Motorized Trail-Related Recreation (RR) RR-1. Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded recreation opportunities? Given that cross-country motorized travel will generally be prohibited, is there a need for more motorized trail vehicle/ OHV use? If so, what types? RR-2. Is developing new roads into roaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? RR-3. What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by construction, using and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities. RR-4. Who participates in roaded recreation in the areas affected by road construction, changes in road maintenance, or road decommissioning. RR-5. What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feeling, and are alternative opportunities and locations available?

9

Passive-Use Value (PV) -- Replaced/ Combined with SI per W.O. Social Values (SI) (W.O. revisions) SI-1A. Who are the direct users of the road system and of the surrounding areas? (such as hunters, fishers, ice fishers, birdwatchers, ranchers.) SI-1B. What activities are they directly participating in? SI-1C. Where are these activities taking place? SI-2A. Why do people value their specific access to national forest and grasslands -- what opportunities does access provide? SI-3. What are the broader social and economic benefits and costs of the current forest road system and its management? SI-4. How does the road system and road management contribute to or affect people’s sense of place? SI-5 What are the current conflicts between users, uses, and values (if any) associated with the road system and road management? SI-5A. Are these conflicts likely to change in the future with changes in local population, community growth, recreational use, resource developments? Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR) (W.O. revisions) CR-1. Is the road system used or valued differently by minority, low-income, or disabled populations than by the general population? CR-1A. Would potential changes to the road system or its management have disproportionate negative impacts on minority, low-income, or disabled populations?

The current INFRA and GIS databases and knowledge of the Interdisciplinary team will be used to assess the relative status of each road for each issue.

10

Step 4 – Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks

Each road or road segment is assessed by the interdisciplinary team, including the District Ranger. This assessment focuses on each issue and the respective key questions (Step 3). Problems and risks are primarily assessed under the four potential resource impact issues: Ecosystem Function; Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality; Wildlife; and Cultural and Heritage Resources including paleontological resources. The benefits of the roads system are primarily found under the issue Human Use which describes access needs for resource management and permittee and recreational use. Importance fro recreation use is considered independently for vehicles greater than and less than 50 inches in width on the McKelvie Roads. Potential for mixed use (highway legal vehicles and non-highway legal vehicles on the same road) and motorized trails is also considered under Human Use using a yes “Y” or a no “N” rating. The Economics issue assesses cost of maintenance as well as trying to provide prospective of cost in the context of weighing the benefits, problems, and risks. Each road or road segment is assigned a relative rating from 1 to 10 for each issue by the interdisciplinary team. Comments regarding the relevant details are also recorded on the assessment sheet. The INFRA data is coupled with the hardcopy maps of current management, proposed management (Proposed Project, USDA, 2007),and the subject road projected from the forest corporate GIS layer to facilitate identification and resolution of any data inconsistencies and to provide a spatial context for the assessment, during the interdisciplinary meeting. The ratings are displayed in Appendix A – Ratings Summary, and included with Management Options derived from the Rating Matrix (Step 5) in Appendix A – Travel Analysis Ratings/ Summary. The ratings are displayed in graphic form in Appendix C- Graphs. Comments recorded for each issue can be found in Appendix B – Travel Analysis Comments.

Table 4.1 McKelvie Ratings Summary

Impacts Use Econ

Paleo

Segment RoadName Segment Length (miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ mean Highest impact Recreation<50” Recreation>50” Admin Mixeduse Ohvtrail EconomicCosts Benefits FS FS Rd# ml 601 Gunnery Range 4.35 2 7 9 3 5 6.0 3 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 602 Steer Creek Valley 21.23 2 7 2 3 5 4.3 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 603 North Boundary 16.72 2 7 2 4 2 3.8 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 604 NW Boundary 13.20 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 605 Steer Creek West 5.17 2 7 2 4 5 4.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 606 Steer Creek CG 0.40 4 7 9 9 9 8.5 7 10 1 8 N N 3 9 608 Admin Site 0.25 4 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 1 1 8 N N 3 10 609 Canoe Launch 0.10 3 7 8 9 8 8.0 7 1 1 1 N N 7 9 621 Valley 6.50 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 10 2 8 Y N 8 9 626 Cormorant 4.66 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 2 8 Y N 5 9 Undetermined Road and County/Private Road SH16F_1.6R 0.15 2 7 9 7 9 8.0 7 1 1 10 N N 7 5 607 Powderhorn Ranch 0.20 3 7 8 9 9 8.3 7 1 1 10 N N 5 8

11

Table 4.2 Bessey Unit Ratings Summary

Impacts Use Econ

Road

(miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo mean highestimpact Recreation Admin mixeduse ohvtrail EconomicCost Benefits no. Road Name Segment Length ml 201-1 Three Camps East 7.72 2 7 9 9 7 8.0 7 6 10 Y N 5 9 201-2 Three Camps West 3.66 2 7 8 9 9 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 5 9 202 Pine Strip 0.25 2 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 5 10 N N 9 9 202 Pine Strip 3.10 2 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 1 10 N N 9 9 203 Circle 30.40 3 6 9 7 5 6.8 5 8 10 N N 5 9 208 Hardwoods CG 0.19 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 7 10 Y N 5 9 211 Camp 2 4.36 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 Y Y 9 9 212N North Natick 8.00 4 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N N 1 9 212S South Natick 7.49 3 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N N 4 9 214 County Line 13.81 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 N Y 5 7 223 Scenic 1.00 4 6 9 7 8 7.5 6 7 10 Y N 5 9 223 Scenic 1.95 2 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 7 9 Y N 7 9 228 Figard 6.20 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 9 Y N 5 9 231_1 Camp Five 1.01 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 8 10 Y N 8 9 231_2 Camp Five 0.37 2 7 9 9 8 8.5 7 10 2 N Y 9 9 258 Campbell 0.77 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 7 7 Y N 9 9 259 Gaston 8.14 3 7 7 9 8 7.8 7 10 10 N N 3 9 263 Double S 5.23 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 7 9 Y N 9 9 265 Bessey Rec Loop 0.51 4 9 9 9 5 8.0 5 10 10 Y N 5 9 266 Dwelling 0.18 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 1 10 N N 5 9 267 Firehouse 0.36 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 1 10 N N 5 9 271 Cedars CG 0.60 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 10 10 Y N 5 9 273 Facility Service 1.10 3 9 9 9 5 8.0 5 1 10 N N 7 9 273-A Dwelling RD 0.10 3 9 9 9 9 9.0 9 1 10 N N 7 9 276 Ayers 1.80 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 277 Whitetail 3.52 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 8 10 Y N 5 8 280 4H Camp 0.27 4 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 5 10 288 Dump 0.61 3 6 9 9 8 8.0 6 1 10 N N 8 9 289 West Shop 0.17 3 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 5 10 N N 8 9 290 West Nursery Beds 0.54 2 9 9 9 5 8.0 5 5 10 N N 8 10 291 GLA 0.32 3 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 8 9 292 Fish Pond 0.04 3 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 10 10 N N 8 9 Undetermined Roads 201_10.4L 0.20 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 3 Y N 5 5 201_10.6L 0.30 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 9 9

201_10.6L NOHVA 0.27 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 1 N Y 9 9 203_0.4L 0.15 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 8 9 203_0.4L 0.15 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y Y 8 9 203_5.4R Camp Five North 0.90 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 8 9 214_1.8R 0.30 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 Y N 8 9 214_7.6R 0.40 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N Y 8 9 264_0.4L 0.20 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 6 9

12

275 Johnson 0.50 3 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N N 6 9 277-A Whitetail A 0.10 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 7 9 277-B Whitetail B 0.10 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 7 9 277-C Whitetail C 0.10 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 7 9 277-D Whitetail D 0.60 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 5 5

Resource Impacts

The resource impact issues: Ecosystem Function; Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality; Wildlife; and Cultural and Heritage Resources are rated on a relative 1 to 10 scale for potential adverse impact. A “1” reflects the potentially most severe impact; a “10” reflects no impact. The average of all four resource impact issues were used to place the road into a High, Medium, or Low Risk group. The risk group is then used in the Travel Analysis Rating Matrix (see Step 5) to define the parameters of management for each road. Averages greater than 7.5 are considered Low Risk; averages between 7.5 and 3.5 are considered Medium Risk; and averages less than or equal to 3.5 are considered High Risk.

On the Bessey Unit, there were no roads in the high impact group. Of the 171 road segments analyzed, 45 or 26% ranked in the low impact group. Risk ranking values ranged from 8.0 to 8.5 in the low impact group. The remaining 126 road segments ranked in the medium impact group with all of them ranking in the upper half of the range, meaning impacts were less. Risk ranking values ranged from 6.0 to 7.5 in the medium impact group.

On the McKelvie Unit, there were no roads in the high impact group. Of the 101 road segments analyzed, 4 or 4% ranked in the low impact group. Risk ranking values ranged from 7.8 to 8.8 in the low impact group. The remaining road segments ranked in the medium impact group with 4 ranking in the lower half of the range and 122 ranking in the upper half of the range. Risk ranking values ranged from 6.8 to 7.5 in the medium impact group.

The most severe individual resource ratings found in this analysis, were found on McKelvie roads. The following roads all had at least one “2” rating. The relatively severe “2” ratings were based on the following conditions:  Road 602, Steer Creek Valley: sediment is entering creek from approaches, soft road surface on south side;  Road 603,North Boundary: a large portion of the road is in proximity to cultural sites, sediment is entering creek from approaches, soft road surface on hill;  Road 604, NW Boundary: proximity to possible cultural site;  Road 605, 605.1, 605.3, Steer Creek West: sediment is entering creek from approaches: and  Road 621. segments .1 to .7, unnamed: sediment entering Merritt Reservoir, impacts wildlife habitat.

Three other McKelvie roads in the Medium Risk group had minimal potential for adverse aquatic effects, but a combination of weed potential, wildlife effect(s), and/ or proximity to cultural/ historical sites resulting in average impact ratings of 7.3 or less:  Road 601, Gunnery Range: weed potential and has grouse and prairie chickens, elk (and a seasonal closure);  Road 608, Admin Site: accesses historical Buildings; and  Road 621_1 to_4, Valley: weed potential and wildlife values.

13

Three Bessey Unit roads in the Medium Risk group had common potential resource impacts: all were in proximity to at least one cultural site (“5” ratings for the Cultural/ Paleo Resource) and had potential for weeds (“6” or “7” ratings for Ecosystem Function). These roads were: Road 203, Circle; Road 212N, North Natick; and Road 275, Johnson.

Human Use

The issue Human Uses attempts to identify the relative importance of each road for human activities. Human Use is segregated in Administrative Use (Admin) and Recreational Use. Admin includes resource management and administration by District personnel and permittees. District personnel use administrative access for range, Special Uses, timber, wildlife, cultural and paleontological resources, fuels, fire suppression, and law enforcement activities. Permittees use administrative access for range allotments, water, and minerals. Recreation Use includes public use of roads for the full range of recreational activities including hunting (big game, birds, prairie dogs), fishing, bird-watching, horseback riding, rock hounding, ATV use; and general community and prive land access. Recreation use is further subdivide in the McKelvie analysis into two categories: 1) vehicles less than 50 inches (Recreation<50”), and 2) vehicles great than 50 inches (Recreation>50”). Suitability of subject roads for mixed use (highway legal Vehicles and Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) mixed together on the same alignment) and suitability as a motorized trail (OHV Trail) is also assessed on a concept level.

The ID Team assesses each road, describes the access needed, and rates on a 1 to 10 relative scale for both Recreation (or Recreation<50” and >50”) and Admin. A “1” reflects no need, a “10” reflects highly needed. For Bessey the average ratings were 5.9 and 8.2, with median values of 6 and 8 for Recreation and Admin, respectively. For McKelvie the average ratings were 2.4, 7.8, and 8.7, with median values of 2, 8, and 8 respectively for Recreation<50”, Recreation>50”, and Admin.

The highest need Human Use rating was used to place the road into a High, Medium, or Low Benefit/ Need group. The Benefit/ Need group is then used in the Travel Analysis Rating Matrix (see step 5) to define the parameters of management for each road. Ratings less than 3.5 were considered Low Benefit/ Need; less than 7.5 were considered Medium Benefit/ Need; and great than 7.5 were considered High Benefit/ Need. All roads assessed had a high value for either Recreation or Admin or both. No roads from either area fell into the Low Benefit/ Need Group.

Assessment of roads for potential mixed use (highway legal vehicles and non-highway legal vehicles) and motorized trails was initiated. On the Bessey Unit 22 roads were identified as suitable candidates for mixed use. Two of the roads identified suitable candidates for mixed use were also identified as suitable candidates for motorized trails: Roads 211 (Camp 2), and Road 203_0.4L. Three additional roads were identified suitable candidates for motorized trails: 231_2 (Camp 5), 201_10.6NOHVA, and 214_7.6R; totaling five roads suitable candidates for motorized trails on the Bessey Unit. On the McKelvie, seven roads were identified as suitable candidates for mixed use; none were identified as suitable candidates for motorized trails. Discussion of Road 214, County Line, was tabled.

Economics

The issue Economics attempts to assess relative direct cost and the relative value or benefit. For the most part, only roads maintained for passenger cars (maintenance level 3) receive regular maintenance

14

during the year. Most of the roads maintained for high clearance vehicles (maintenance level 2) received no maintenance, obviously road with no routine maintenance had no cost and were considered cost effective. Higher use in the future may result in the need for maintenance of these roads to protect resource values. This will change the economic analysis.

The ID Team assesses each road, describes associated direct costs, maintenance needs and potential future needs. Each road is rated on a 1 to 10 relative scale for Economic Cost, the direct costs associated with the road. A “1” reflects high cost; a “10” reflects no cost. Each road is also rated on a 1 to 10 relative scale for Economic Benefit. A “1” reflects the least effective cost benefit ratio; a “10” reflects highly cost effective.

The ratings for Economic Costs reflected moderate overall costs with high cost effectiveness. For the Bessey Unit the cost rating averages 7.0 with a median of 9; and the benefit (cost effectiveness) was high, with the rating averaging 8.1, and a median of 9. For McKelvie the cost rating averages 6.6 with a median of 6, reflecting relative high costs for McKelvie, but still within the moderate range; and the benefit (cost effectiveness) ratings averaging 6.0 with a median of 6. Neither the Economic Costs nor the Economic Benefit ratings are used in the Travel Analysis Rating Matrix. The comparison of Economic Costs and Economic Benefit rating between roads and with the other issues for an individual road is facilitated by the graphs in Appendix C – Graphs.

All roads appear to strike a good balance between cost and cost effectiveness. Road 212N, North Natick, the double lane asphalt road which accesses the 4-H Camp, Natick Campgroup, and the 4 Corners area, stands out at the costliest road with a “1” rating, but cost effectiveness remains high with a “9” rating. This remains true; the highest cost roads remain in the high range for cost effectiveness. Three roads are of special concern for cost effectiveness. Two are “undetermined” roads: 201_10.4L which is embedded, suffers blow-outs and there is an alternate route; and 277D, which connects Whitetail campground into Road 214 and has a steep hill climb which needs repair; the third road is Road 214, County Line. Road 214 has a double alignment and braiding for much of its length due to blow-outs, is embedded in spots, and needs maintenance to provide for 4-wheel drive traffic. Only Road 201_10.4L falls into the low range for cost effectiveness (Benefits).

15

Step 5 – Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities

This analysis does not provide a single recommendation for each road. Rather, it provides the framework and parameters of reasonable management actions to be considered in developing alternative implementable Travel Management Plans for a decision. The management actions identified are based on the resource impact and human use ratings. The eventual setting of priorities for implementation is facilitated by providing a summary of the analysis in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet can be sorted and/ or filtered such that the relative ratings become relative ranking by desired criteria assessed by the key questions.

Describing Opportunities

The Rating Matrix provides guidance for a range of viable management activities depending on a road’s potential Impact and its benefit or need as assessed in the road analysis process using the average Resource Impact Rating and the Human Need rating, respectively. As shown in Table 5.1 - Rating Matrix, management activities are Decommission for Low, Medium, or High Impact with Low or Medium Benefits/ Need; Retain for Low impact and Low, Medium, or High Benefits/ Need; Retain with very minor mitigations/ management change for roads with Medium Impacts and Low Benefits/ Need, Retain with minor mitigations/ management change for roads with Medium Impacts and Medium or High Benefits/ Need, Retain with major management change for roads with High Impacts, and Retain with major mitigation for roads with High Impacts and Medium or High Benefits/ Need.

Table 5.1 – Rating Matrix

Impacts1 Low Medium High (8-9-10) (4-5-6-7) (0-1-2-3) (1) Could get rid of but (2) Decommission or (3) Decommission or not hurting much if retain with very minor retain with major Low kept. mitigation; management changes. (0-1-2-3) management changes. D, R D, RM/M1 D, RC3 (6) Decommission or (4) Probably retain but (5) Retain with minor Retain with major could decommission. mitigation or Benefits/ Medium mitigation (relocation, management changes, Need2 (4-5-6-7) reconstruction), or or decommission. management changes. D, R D, RM/M2 D, RM3, RC3 (9) Retain with major (7) Retain. (8) Retain with minor mitigation (such as High mitigation or relocation, reconstruction) (8-9-10) management change. or management changes. R RM/M2 RM3, RC3 1From average resource impacts rating, the “break-off” values used for the average ratings were 3.5 and 7.5. 2From human use rating, the “break-off” values used for the average ratings were 3.5 and 7.5. 3Activity Code Acronyms: D – Decommission RM3 – Retain with major mitigation R – Retain RC3 – Retain with major management change RM/M1 – Retain with very minor mitigation/management RM/M2 – Retain with minor mitigation/management change change

16

The rationale for assigning the management activity (opportunities) identified for each cell in Table 5.1- Rating Matrix are explained below:

(1) The low cost/ low need “quandary” situation. No harm to retain; no harm to decommission.

(2) If retained, some mitigation may be necessary; however, since need is low, mitigation may not be cost-effective; therefore, decommissioning will probably be common. Management changes could be used to mitigate and therefore retain.

(3) The “no-brainer” argument for decommissioning; although no-cost or low- cost major management changes might be used to retain.

(4) Retain and maintain, but not cost-effective to do major reconstruction.

(5) Could retain and maintain but will usually need some generally minor mitigation. Mitigation includes possible management changes. Mitigation needs may not be cost-effective, leading to decommissioning.

(6) Necessary mitigation will generally not be cost-effective, leading to decommissioning. Management changes, however, could allow retention.

(7) The “no-brainer” argument for retention. The full range of maintenance and reconstruction activities can be used. Mitigation needs are none or minor. Management changes not justified by resource issues.

(8) Retain; full range of maintenance and reconstruction activities can be used. Mitigation needs are generally minor. Mitigation includes possible management changes.

(9) Retain; full range of maintenance and reconstruction activities can be used. Mitigation is necessary and could include relocation, reconstruction, and management changes.

The activity codes assigned to each road are displayed in Table 5.2 – McKelvie Management Options and Table 5.3 – Bessey Unit Management Options

Management changes include such things as seasonal closures or requiring washing of vehicles to control spread of invasives. Management also includes designation for administrative use only or public closures, and/or the designation for mixed use (High Legal Vehicles and non-Highway Legal Vehicles using the same alignment) or as motorized or non-motorized trails. Note: this designation of routes open to the public as either mixed use or motorized trail is a major focus of the Travel Management process. Development of Road Management Objectives (RMOs) will guide maintenance levels, activities, and maintenance frequencies for all routes if retention or addition as National Forest System Roads or Trails is decided. Mixed Use and Trail suitability are displayed in Appendix C – Graphs. Roads identified as likely candidates for administrative use only are listed in Table 5.4 Admin Use Only. This includes consideration as Special Use Permit (SUP) roads. Only two roads are managed with seasonal closures as showing in Table 5.5

17

Table 5.2 McKelvie Management Options Table 5.3 Bessey Unit Management Options

Bessey Unit Nebraska National Forest Mgmt Options/ Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest Activity Codes* Mgmt Options/ INRFA Info From Rating Matrix Activity Codes*

INFRA Info

From Rating Matrix

Road

veimpact veimpact veimpact

length (miles) a low a Medium a high no. Road Name Segment ml

Road 201-1 Three Camps East 7.72 2 D,R

veimpact veimpact veimpact

Length (miles) a low a medium a high No. Road Name Segment ml 201-2 Three Camps West 3.66 2 R 601 Gunnery Range 4.35 2 D,RM/M2 202 Pine Strip .25 2 D,R 602 Steer Creek Valley 21.23 2 D,RM/M2 202 Pine Strip 3.10 2 D,R 603 North Boundary 16.72 2 D,RM/M2 203 Circle 30.40 3 RM/M2 604 NW Boundary 13.20 2 D,RM/M2 208 Hardwoods CG 0.19 4 D, R 605 Steer Creek West 5.17 2 D,RM/M2 211 Camp 2 4.36 2 D,R

606 Steer Creek CG 0.40 4 R 212N North Natick 8.00 4 RM/M2 608 Admin Site 0.25 4 D,RM/M1 212S South Natick 7.49 3 RM/M2 609 Canoe Launch 0.10 3 D,R 214 County Line 13.81 2 D,RM/M2 621 Valley 6.50 2 RM/M2 223 Scenic 1.00 4 D,RM/M2 626 Cormorant 4.66 2 D,R 223 Scenic 1.95 2 D,R

228 Figard 6.20 2 D,RM/M2 Undetermined Roads 231_1 Camp Five 1.01 2 R

SH16F_1.6R SH16F_1.6R 0.15 2 D,R 231_2 Camp Five 0.37 2 D,R 607 Powderhorn Ranch 0.20 3 D,R 258 Campbell 0.77 2 D,R 259 Gaston 8.14 3 R 263 Double S 5.23 2 D,R 265 Bessey Rec Loop 0.51 4 R 266 Dwelling 0.18 4 D,R 267 Firehouse 0.36 4 D,R 271 Cedars CG 0.60 4 R 273 Facility Service 1.10 3 D,R 273-A Dwelling Rd 0.10 3 D,R 276 Ayers 1.80 2 D,R 277 Whitetail 3.52 2 R 280 4H Camp 0.27 4 D,R *Activity Codes 288 Dump 0.61 3 D,R D Decommission 289 West Shop 0.17 3 D,R R Retain 290 West Nursery Beds 0.54 2 D,R RM/M1 Retain with very minor mitigation/ management change 291 GLA 0.32 3 D,R 292 Fish Pond 0.04 3 R RM/M2 Retain with minor mitigation/ management change RC3 Retain with major management change RM3 Retain with major mitigation Undetermined Roads

201_10.4L 0.20 2 D,RM/M2 201_10.6L 0.30 2 R

201_10.6L NOHVA 201_10.6L NOHVA 0.27 2 R 203_0.4L 0.15 2 D,R 203_0.4L 0.15 2 R 203_5.4R Camp Five North 0.90 2 R 214_1.8R 0.30 2 RM/M2 214_7.6R 0.40 2 RM/M2 264_0.4L 0.20 2 R 275 Johnson 0.50 3 RM/M2 277-A Whitetail 0.10 2 R 277-B Whitetail 0.10 2 R 277-C Whitetail 0.10 2 R 277-D Whitetail 0.60 2 D,RM/M1

18

Table 5.4 Admin Use Only Rd no. Road Name Comments Leave north 0.25 mile to parking area for public use; allow walk-in 202 Pine Strip hunting 211 Camp 2 User Groups want for loop trail 266 Dwelling Accesses east dwellings (government housing) Concrete road south of Nurseryman’s home, accesses west 267 Firehouse Dwellings 273 Facility Nursery Service Road 273-A Facility Nursery Service Road, between 266 & 273 276 Ayres Decommission or close to public Accesses 4H Camp, visitors use road to site under Special Use 280 4H Camp Permit 288 Dump Tree Dump off of Scenic Road 289 West Shop Accesses the west shop; public currently sues as a canoe launch 290 West Nursery Beds Accesses the west shop; public currently uses as a canoe launch 291 GLA (God’s Little Acre) Accesses nursery beds 277-D Whitetail Ties to Road 214 steep grade SH16_1.6R Accesses private south of Steer Creek Campground, consider SUP Accesses private, probably other jurisdiction, otherwise consider 607 Powderhorn Ranch SUP

Table 5.5 Seasonal Use Rd no. Road Name Comments 201-2 Three Camps West Closure: Sept – Dec 601 Gunnery Range Closure: March – June

Maintenance needs have been identified for virtually every road managed by the Bessey Ranger District. Much of the maintenance needed would serve to protect the road as a facility and/ or facilitate its use. Common problems are blowouts and embedded roads: • Blowouts, where the loss of a dune’s slope stability results in the dune’s version of a mass failure resulting in non-cohesive sand on the road. Users then pick their own alternate routes. Blowouts may extend 200 feet or longer along a road. Identified on roads 201-1, 277, 201 -10.4L, 203_5.4R, 214_1.8R, 214_7.6R, 601, 621, and 26. • Embedded roads, where the road essentially sinks deeper and deeper into the sand, creating a trough. Vehicles have trouble passing some locations, especially through curves. Identified as constricting fire truck passage on roads 201-1, 201-2, 214, 223, and 228. Additional problems characteristic of roads in the sandhills include soft travel surfaces capable of “trapping” vehicles; sloughing banks; and “whoops” – the roller coaster result of rolling topography that tends to be self maintaining in the non-cohesive sand. The need for brushing, removal of roadside vegetation for site distance and passage was identified for many roads. The need for signing was also widespread.

Other maintenance needs have been identified to mitigate potential adverse resource impacts, notably the aquatic resource. Table 5.6 – Maintenance to Mitigate Potential Aquatic Impacts extracts comments

19

from the February 26-27 meeting which relate directly to maintenance and resource protection needs. Aggregate surfacing is identified for many roads, to harden the surface of native surface roads and to reduce the long-term maintenance costs of roads that are now asphalt, but need work. Table 5.7 – Maintenance – New Aggregate Surfacing lists these roads. Again, the full record of recorded comments can be found in Appendix B – Travel Analysis Comments, see the last column, Econ Costs/ Benefits.

Table 5.6 – Maintenance to Mitigate Potential Aquatic Impacts Rd no. Road Name Maintenance/ Aquatic Impact 259 Gaston Drainage problems 265 Bessey Rec Loop Check near Middle Loop River 277 Whitetail Check Possible Wetland on east end near Dismal River 602 Steer Creek Valley Harden X-ing Steer Creek or place culvert 603 North Boundary Harden X-ing Steer Creek or place culvert 605 Steer Creek West Harden X-ing Steer Creek or place culvert

Table 5.7 – Maintenance – New Aggregate Surfacing Rd no. Road Name Aggregate Surfacing 212N North Natick Existing asphalt surface in poor shape; change to aggregate 265 Bessey Rec loop Existing asphalt, aggregate, concrete; may change to all aggregate 267 Firehouse Existing concrete; may change to aggregate 271 Cedars Campground Existing Asphalt; may change to aggregate 273 Facility Existing Existing Aggregate Surface; need replace 20 tons/ year 280 4H Camp Existing old asphalt surface; may change to aggregate 290 West Nursery beds Existing sand/ aggregate surface; needs aggregate 264_0.4L Cedars Campground Existing narrow poor asphalt; may change to aggregate 277-A Whitetail Campground Existing native surface campground loop; may change to aggregate 277-B Whitetail Campground Existing native surface campground loop; may change to aggregate 277-C Whitetail Campground Existing native surface campground loop; may change to aggregate 606 Steer Creek Campground Existing asphalt; may change to aggregate 608 Admin site Existing asphalt and aggregate; may change to all aggregate

Setting Priorities

Priorities can be set by sorting and filtering the spreadsheet in Appendix A –Travel Analysis Summary by the desired criteria. All the ratings, including average impact and highest impact; and the management options listed by their respective activity codes are displayed on table. Graphs showing rating values for each issue are also provided to facilitate road comparison in Appendix C – Graphs.

20

Step 6 – Reporting

This document, including attached appendices, constitutes reporting for the Bessey Travel Management Travel Analysis. Subsequent iterations of this report, if there are any, need not revise the body of text, but may be attached as additional appendices. It is likely that analyses of the INFRA database “undetermined” roads or other subset of (non-system) existing roads may be desired as the District progresses in its Travel Management Planning. There is no requirement to reiterate the content of this initial analysis. As determined by the Interdisciplinary Team and District Ranger, subsequent questions and rating may focus directly on suitability of grade and alignment for vehicle class; potential for mixed use; resource impacts and the actual costs of mitigation and/or maintenance (as opposed to relative rating); and the recreational value of destination. Subsequent analysis may even summarize single recommendations and rationale for “max” or other “less- than-max” travel management alternatives. It is assumed that for all desired destinations on the District, there is already a road (at least a two-track) accessing it, so it is unlikely that new alignments will be considered expect possibly as realignments to mitigate adverse resource effects or meet other needs.

The objectives of the analysis (Step 1) are met as described below.

System Roads: Impacts, Access Need and Use and Costs

The assessment of impacts, access need and use, and costs for the roads analyzed are displayed as both relative numerical ratings and in comments at several places in this report. The ratings for each road, for each issue, with mean and median values are displayed in Table 41. McKelvie Ratings Summary and Table 4.2 Bessey Unit Ratings Summary. A range of management options is provided in Table 5.2 McKelvie Management options and Table 5.3 Bessey Unit Management Options. Appendix A – Travel Analysis Ratings/ Summary is the basis for the information in tables 4.1, 4.2, 5.2, and 5.3. The summary includes the road number, road name, segment length, maintenance level (ml), all Ratings (includes impacts, needs and use, costs), the average and high Resource Impact Rating, and the range of management actions.

Appendix B – Travel Analysis Comments compiles all comments recorded for each issue group during the analysis on February 26 and 27, 2008. This information is splintered into four tables found in Step 5: Table 5.4 – Admin Use Only, Table 5.5 – Seasonal Use, Table 5.6 – Maintenance to Mitigate Potential Aquatic Impacts, and Table 5.7 – Maintenance – New Aggregate Surfacing; and the three tables found here in Step 6. Each Table extracts relevant comments, providing a succinct summary.

Supporting Information

Appendix A – Travel Analysis Summary. The summary includes the original road identification number, new road identification number, road name, segment length, all Ratings (includes impacts, needs and use, costs), the average and high Resource Impact Rating, and recommended management actions from the Ranking Matrix.

Appendix B – Travel Analysis Resource Comments This table compiles all comments recorded for each issue group during the analysis.

21

Appendix C – Travel Analysis Road Rating Graphs This displays the ratings for ecosystem, aquatic, wildlife, heritage and cultural, economic and human uses in a graphic form.

Unauthorized Roads

Of the 416 miles of “undetermined” roads inventoried in INFRA (“user_view_Feb06_08.xls.xls,” project file), 4.62 miles in fifteen segments were considered in this initial analysis. Some of the rest of these roads are expected to be considered in subsequent analyses for inclusion in the system as the Travel Management alternatives are developed.

NOTE: One other “non-NFSR” road was considered in this analysis. Road 607, Powderhorn Ranch, is attributed in INFRA as 1.2 miles under county jurisdiction (Cherry County) and 5.3 under private jurisdiction. Analysis considered 0.20 mile for authorization to private landholder under a Road Special Use Permit. It appears confirmed that the Forest Service has no jurisdiction on this road. (per. comm. R. Gage May 14, 2008)

Questions of Jurisdiction and Access

Unlike the rest of the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, the Bessey Ranger District has few questions about road jurisdiction. This is probably the result of two factors: 1) reservation from the Public Domain at the turn of the 19th Century and 2) lands are consolidated. See the discussion of Lands Status and Road Jurisdiction in Appendix E. Jurisdiction quests were identified for only two roads. Table 6.1 extracts comments on these roads from Appendix B – Travel Analysis Comments.

Table 6.1 – Questions of Jurisdiction Rd no. Road Name Jurisdiction 604 NW Boundary Check on easement for Mogal Bridge 607 Powderhorn Ranch County and Private – clarification since analysis

Data Inconsistencies

Forest personnel are continuing to work on and correct data and mapping inconsistencies/ errors as they are found. To approach consistency within this analysis, all Interdisciplinary Team work was done by projecting each road to the front of the room. Use of our Geographical Information System (GIS) in this way, for spatial context, provided that every team member was looking at the same alignment of the same road as it was discussed. These roads were attributed from the INFRA database. Segment length and beginning and ending termini were checked for consistency with records. Resolution of the data will be ongoing throughout the Travel Management Planning effort.

22

Table 6.2 – Data Inconsistencies and Review Ticklers Rd no. Road Name Discrepancy Bessey Unit National Forest System Road (NFSR) 203 Circle Is the road from 4 corners to state spur 86 needed? 214 County Line Table for Now 266 Dwelling Check INFRA, incorrect, last 500ft is aggregate 273 Facility Wrong in GIS 288 Dump Check map for correct length Bessey Unit Undetermined 201_10.6L Ties to Dismal Trail to Windmill Look at road portion again # 149 203_5.4R Camp Five North GIS length is wrong 264_0.4L Cedar Campground “overflow” 277-D Ties 277 (whitetail) to Check INFRA-277-D is not listed INFRA’s “undet”, but 277 is: 214 (County Line) mp3.52 to 3.72 for 0.2 mile, Forest Service Jurisdiction, undet McKelvie National Forest System Road (NFSR) 603 North Boundary Check on Buckhorn Springs to see if a play area is developing 604 NW Boundary Check Alignment in NW Corner of District (Section 4,5,8,9) 621 Valley Road is hard (impossible) to find west of fence at M. Reservoir

Table 6.2 – Data Inconsistencies documents discrepancies noted during the analysis and includes reminders for clarification; Table 6.2a documents the mileage discrepancies found for “undetermined” roads: NOTE: INFRA miles were used in the analysis for all National Forest System Roads (NFSRs). Miles Miles Rd no. Use Analysis/ Report INFRA Bessey Unit 201_10.4L Ties to Dismal Trail; 0.20 0.48 alt trail 0.2 miles south 201_10.6L Dismal trail to Windmill#149 0.30 0.27 201_10.6L Past Windmill #149 0.27 n/a NOHVA 203_0.4L Ties to Windmill #31 0.15 Portion of 0.74 203_0.4L Powerline for Windmill #31 0.15 Portion of 0.74 203_5.4R Camp Five North 0.90 2.23 214_1.8R Tie to Windmill #72 0.30 0.71 214_7.6R Possible Trail; connects 0.40 0.98 213_1.8R back to 214 264_0.4L Cedars Campground, “overflow” 0.20 0.59 Camping sites 275 Johnson 0.50 0.54 277-A Whitetail Campground 0.10 0.13 277-B Whitetail Campground 0.10 0.10 277-C Whitetail Campground 0.10 0.12 277-D Ties to Road 214 (County Line); 0.60 n/a but 277 is 0.20 May be 277 in INFRA McKelvie National Forest SH1 6F_1.6R South of Steer Creek 0.15 0.19 Campground 607 Powderhorn Ranch 0.20 1.21 county; 5.03 private

23

References

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportations System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222p. **Roads Analysis Handbook**

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests Bessey Ranger District Map **District Map**

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Record of Decision Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan, the Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, Oglala, Buffalo Gap, and Fort Pierre National Grasslands. July 31, 2002, Lakewood Colorado. Rocky Mountain Region. AND Land and Resource Management Plan, 2001 Revision, Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units. 2001. Chadron, Nebraska: Nebraska National Forest. 183p + appendices. **Land and Resource Management Plan**

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units Roads Analysis Report. Chadron, Nebraska: Nebraska National Forest. 28p + appendices. **Forest-wide Roads Analysis**

USDA Forest Service. 2004. R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643. Golden, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Region 2. 57p + appendices. **R2 Roads Analysis Supplement**

USDA Forest Service. 2005. 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No.216/ Wednesday November 9, 2005/ Rules and Regulations. 68265-68291. Washington D.C. **National Travel Management Rule**

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Scoping letter, Proposed Action for Travel Management Rule Implementation on the Nebraska National Forest (Bessey and Pine Ridge Ranger Districts, Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest and Oglala National Grassland in Nebraska; the Buffalo Gap National Grassland in South Dakota), and referenced Proposed Action Maps. Dec. 21, 2007. Chadron, Nebraska: Nebraska National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/projects/travel_management/index.shtml **Travel Management Proposed Action**

24

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix A Travel Analysis Summary

Mgmt Options/ Activity Codes*

Impacts Use Econ from Rating Matrix

Road New FS Route Identification Road Name Segment Length (miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo mean highest impact Recreation Admin mixed use ohv trail Economic Costs Benefits ave impact low ave impact medium ave impact high Line Line # ml 1 202 202 Pine Strip 0.25 2 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 5 10 N N 9 9 D,R 1.1 202 202 Pine Strip 3.10 2 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 1 10 N N 9 9 D,R 2 203 203 Circle 30.40 3 6 9 7 5 6.8 5 8 10 N N 5 9 RM/M2 3 208 208 Hardwoods CG 0.19 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 7 10 Y N 5 9 D,R 4 211 211 Camp 2 4.36 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 Y Y 9 9 D,R 5.1 214.1 112 County Line 1.99 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 5.2 214.2 112 County Line 5.35 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 5.3 214.3 112 County Line 1.04 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 5.4 214.4 112 County Line 2.89 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 5.5 214.5 112 County Line 0.40 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 5.6 214.6 112 County Line 0.93 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 5.7 214.7 112 County Line 1.53 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 10 Y N 5 7 D,RM/M2 6 223 223 Scenic 1.00 4 6 9 7 8 7.5 6 7 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M2 6.1 223 223 Scenic 1.95 2 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 7 9 Y N 7 9 D,R 7 228 228 Figard 6.20 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 7 9 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M2 8 258 Campbell 0.77 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 7 7 Y N 9 9 D,R 9 259 259 Gaston 8.14 3 7 7 9 8 7.8 7 10 10 N N 3 9 R 10 263 263 Double S 5.23 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 7 9 Y N 9 9 D,R 11 265 265 Bessey Rec Loop 0.51 4 9 9 9 5 8.0 5 10 10 Y N 5 9 R 12 266 266 Dwelling 0.18 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 1 10 N N 5 9 D,R 13 267 267 Firehouse 0.36 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 1 10 N N 5 9 D,R 14 271 271 Cedars CG 0.60 4 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 10 10 Y N 5 9 R 15 273 273 Facility 1.10 3 9 9 9 5 8.0 5 1 10 N N 7 9 D,R 16.1 276.1 Ayers 0.46 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 16.2 276.2 Ayers 0.23 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 16.3 276.3 Ayers 1.15 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 17.1 277.1 Whitetail 2.96 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 8 10 Y N 5 8 R 17.2 277.2 Whitetail 0.28 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 8 10 Y N 5 8 R 17.3 277.3 Whitetail 0.28 2 7 8 9 8 8.0 7 5 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 18 280 280 4H Camp 0.27 4 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 5 10 D,R 19 288 288 Dump 0.61 3 6 9 9 8 8.0 6 1 10 N N 8 9 D,R 20 289 289 West Shop 0.17 3 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 5 10 N N 8 9 D,R 21 290 290 West Nursery Beds 0.54 2 9 9 9 5 8.0 5 5 10 N N 8 10 D,R 22 291 291 GLA 0.32 3 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 8 9 D,R 23 292 292 Fish Pond 0.04 3 7 9 7 8 7.8 7 10 10 N N 8 9 R 24.1 201-1.1 201 Camp III (east) 1.49 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 6 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M2 24.2 201-1.2 201 Camp III (east) 1.18 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 24.3 201-1.3 201 Camp III (east) 3.16 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 24.4 201-1.4 201 Camp III (east) 0.85 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 24.5 201-1.5 201 Camp III (east) 1.03 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 10 Y N 9 9 D,R 25 201-2 Camp III (west) 3.66 2 7 8 9 8 8.0 7 10 10 Y N 5 9 R 26 212N 212N Natick (north) 8.00 4 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N N 1 9 RM/M2 27 212S 212S Natick (south) 7.49 3 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N N 4 9 RM/M2 28.1 231_1.1 112 Camp V 1.01 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 8 10 Y N 8 9 R 28.2 231_1.2 112 Camp V 0.00 0 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 6 8 Y N 0 0 D,R 29 231_2 112 Camp V 0.37 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 2 N Y 9 9 R 30 273-A 0 0.10 3 9 9 9 8 8.8 8 1 10 N N 7 9 D,R 31 275 275 Johnson 0.50 3 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N N 6 9 RM/M2 33 201_10.4L 0 0.20 2 4 9 9 8 7.5 4 6 3 Y N 3 2 D,RM/M2 34 201_10.6L 0 0.30 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 9 9 R 35 201_10.6L NOHVA 201_10.6L NOHVA 0.27 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 1 N Y 9 9 R 36 203_0.4L 0 0.15 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 1 10 N N 8 9 D,R 36.1 203_0.4L 0 0.15 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y Y 8 9 R 37 203_5.4R Camp Five North 0.90 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 8 9 R 38 214_1.8R 0 0.30 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 Y N 8 9 RM/M2 39 214_7.6R 0 0.40 2 7 9 9 5 7.5 5 10 10 N Y 8 9 RM/M2 40 264_0.4L 0 0.20 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 6 9 R 41 277-A 277-A Whitetail A 0.10 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 7 9 R 42 277-B 277-B Whitetail B 0.10 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 7 9 R 43 277-C 277-C Whitetail C 0.10 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 10 10 Y N 7 9 R 44 277-D Whitetail D 0.60 2 3 5 9 8 6.3 3 1 5 N N 2 5 D,RM/M1

Page 1 of 3

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix A Travel Analysis Summary

Road New FS Route Identification Road Name Segment Length (miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo mean highest impact Recreation Admin mixed use ohv trail Economic Costs Benefits ave impact low ave impact medium ave impact high Line Line # ml 45 12 112 Dismal River Trail 8.48 2 5 9 5 8 6.8 5 1 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 46 12.1 0 0.20 2 5 9 5 8 6.8 5 3 8 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 47 12.10 0 1.94 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 8 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 48 12.11 0 0.62 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 8 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 49 12.12 0 0.48 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 9 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 50 12.13 0 0.77 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 9 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 51 12.14.1 0 0.03 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 9 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 52 12.14.2 0 2.19 2 5 9 5 8 6.8 5 4 9 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 53 12.15.1 0 0.45 2 5 9 5 6 6.3 5 3 6 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 54 12.15.2 0 1.23 2 5 9 5 6 6.3 5 3 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 55 12.16.1 0 0.03 2 5 9 5 6 6.3 5 3 4 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 56 12.16.2 0 1.65 2 5 9 5 8 6.8 5 3 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 57 12.17 0 0.62 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 8 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 58 12.18 120 0 0.82 2 5 9 5 6 6.3 5 3 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 59 12.19 0 0.32 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 60 12.2 113 Power Line 2.25 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 2 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 61 12.20 0 0.07 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 62 12.21 119 0 0.97 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 63 12.22 214 0 0.69 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 8 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 64 12.23 216 0 0.30 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 8 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 65 12.24 0 0.19 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 4 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 66 12.3 114 Poison ivy 2.91 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 6 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 67 12.4 0 0.20 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 4 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 68 12.5 0 0.12 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 4 8 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 69 12.6.1 0 0.65 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 7 9 Y N 2 5 D,RM/M2 70 12.6.2 0 0.71 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 7 9 Y N 2 5 D,RM/M2 71 12.7 0 0.04 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 5 3 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 72 12.8 115 0 0.24 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 5 7 Y Y 2 5 D,RM/M2 73 12.9 115 0 1.28 2 5 9 5 5 6.0 5 3 5 N Y 2 5 D,RM/M1 74 201-1.1 0 0.06 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 7 7 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 75 201-2.1 0 0.71 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 76 202.1 0 0.65 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 77 203.1 0 1.17 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 78 203.10 0 0.20 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 79 203.11 0 0.72 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 80 203.12 0 1.31 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 81 203.12A 0 3.22 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 82 203.13 0 0.20 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 7 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 83 203.14 0 5.43 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 5 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 84 203.14A 0 0.81 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 5 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 85 203.14B 0 0.42 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 5 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 86 203.15 225 0 2.39 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 5 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 87 203.15A 0 0.69 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 5 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 88 203.16 0 1.71 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 89 203.17 0 0.75 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 90 203.18 0 1.80 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 91 203.19 0 1.71 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 92 203.19A 0 0.22 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 93 203.2 0 0.90 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 94 203.20 0 2.50 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 95 203.21 0 1.58 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 96 203.22 0 2.23 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 97 203.3 0 0.87 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 98 203.4 0 2.46 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 N N 9 9 D,RM/M2 99 203.4A 0 0.98 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 N N 9 9 D,RM/M2 100 203.5 0 1.02 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 101 203.5A 0 0.10 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 102 203.6 0 0.97 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 103 203.7 0 0.40 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 104 203.8 0 0.87 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 105 203.9 0 0.42 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 106 211.1 0 1.19 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 107 212N.1 0 0.21 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2

Page 2 of 3

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix A Travel Analysis Summary

Road New FS Route Identification Road Name Segment Length (miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo mean highest impact Recreation Admin mixed use ohv trail Economic Costs Benefits ave impact low ave impact medium ave impact high Line Line # ml 108 212N.2 0 1.99 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 109 212N.2A 0 0.24 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 110 212N.3 0 1.14 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 111 212N.3A 0 0.61 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 112 212N.4 0 2.82 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 113 212N.5 0 1.12 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 114 212N.5A 0 0.53 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 115 212N.6 0 0.45 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 116 212N.7 215 0 0.22 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 117 212N.7A 215 0 0.89 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 118 212N.8 0 2.14 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 119 212S.1 205 0 4.86 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 120 212S.2 206 0 1.14 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 121 212S.3 0 1.19 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 122 214.1 0 1.28 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 123 214.2 0 0.22 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 124 214.3 0 0.95 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 125 214.4 0 1.59 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 126 214.5 0 1.81 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 127 222 0 0.81 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 128 228.1 0 1.15 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 129 228.2 0 1.36 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 130 228.3 0 0.05 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 131 228.4 0 0.12 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 132 228.5 0 0.83 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 133 259.1 0 1.83 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 134 259.10 0 1.30 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 135 259.10A 0 0.61 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 136 259.11 0 0.51 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 137 259.2 0 0.47 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 138 259.2A 0 1.26 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 139 259.3 261 0 3.48 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 140 259.4 0 0.36 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 141 259.5 0 0.25 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 142 259.6 0 0.72 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 143 259.7 0 1.82 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 144 259.8 0 1.02 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 145 259.8A 0 0.65 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 146 259.9 0 1.22 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 147 259.9A 0 0.80 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 148 263.1 0 1.16 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 149 263.2 0 1.37 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 150 274 206 0 4.18 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 151 276.1 0 2.80 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 152 277.1 0 0.88 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 6 8 Y N 9 9 D,RM/M2 153 277.2 0 0.07 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 8 3 Y N 9 9 RM/M2 154 86B.1 0 0.28 2 7 9 5 5 6.5 5 8 5 N N 9 9 RM/M2 total miles/ ave ratings: 246.24 6.7 9 6.4 6.1 5.9 8.1 6.9 8.1 median: 7 9 5 5 5 6 8 9 9 *Activity Codes: D Decommission NOTE: Activity code formula R Retain edited in "hit" column only to RM/M1 Retain with very minor mitigation/ management change show higher of recreation or RM/M2 Retain with minor mitigation/ management change administration human use value. RC3 Retain with major management change RM3 Retain with major mitigation Ratings: Impacts: 10 = no impact; 1 = severe impact Human Use (Admin and Recreation): 10 = highly needed; 1 = not needed Econ Costs: 10 = no cost; 1 = high cost Econ Benefits: 10 = highly cost effective; 1 = least cost effective Mixed Use: Y = Suitable, N = Unsuitable

Page 3 of 3 Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix A Travel Analysis Summary

Mgmt Options/ Activity Codes* Impacts Human Use Econ from Rating Matrix

ml

Line # Line # Rd FS Segment Route FS New Identification Name Road Length Segment (miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Paleo Cultural/ mean impact highest 50" < Recreation 50" > Recreation Admin use mixed trail ohv Costs Economic Benefits impact ave low impact ave medium impact ave high 1 601_1 601 Gunnery Range 3.28 2 7 9 3 5 6.0 3 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 2 601_2 601 Gunnery Range 1.07 2 7 6 3 5 5.3 3 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 3 602_1 602 Steer Creek Valley 7.58 2 7 2 3 5 4.3 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 4 602_2 602 Steer Creek Valley 1.33 2 7 2 3 5 4.3 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 5 602_3 602 Steer Creek Valley 1.64 2 7 2 3 5 4.3 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 6 602_4 602 Steer Creek Valley 2.55 2 7 2 3 5 4.3 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 7 602_5 602 Steer Creek Valley 7.78 2 7 2 3 5 4.3 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 8 603_1 603 North Boundary 10.85 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 9 603_2 603 North Boundary 5.21 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 10 603_3 603 North Boundary 0.70 2 7 2 4 2 3.8 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 11 604_1 604 North West Boundary 3.92 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 12 604_2 604 North West Boundary 5.07 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 13 604_3 604 North West Boundary 0.71 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 14 604_4 604 North West Boundary 1.85 2 7 9 4 2 5.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 15 605 605 Steer Creek West 5.17 2 7 2 4 5 4.5 2 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,RM/M1 16 606 606 Steer Creek CG 0.40 3 7 9 9 9 8.5 7 10 8 10 N N 3 9 R 17 608 608 Admin Site 0.25 3 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 1 8 10 N N 3 10 D,RM/M1 18 609 609 Canoe Launch 0.10 2 7 8 9 8 8.0 7 1 1 10 N N 7 9 D,R 19 621_1 622 Valley 3.71 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 10 8 10 Y N 8 9 RM/M2 20 621_2 622 Valley 0.44 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 10 8 10 Y N 8 9 RM/M2 21 621_3 622 Valley 0.11 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 10 8 10 Y N 8 9 RM/M2 22 621_4 622 Valley 2.25 2 7 9 5 8 7.3 5 10 8 10 Y N 8 9 RM/M2 23 626 626 Cormorant 4.66 2 7 9 9 8 8.3 7 2 8 10 Y N 5 9 D,R 24 16F.1 0 3.60 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 25 16F.1A 0 1.33 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 26 16F.2 0 2.31 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 27 16F.3 0 4.11 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 28 16F.4 0 2.83 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 29 16F.5 0 1.22 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 30 16F.6 0 4.42 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 31 16F.7 0 2.57 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 32 16F.7A 0 0.80 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 10 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 33 16F.8 617 0 0.21 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 34 16F.9 0 0.19 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 1 2 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 35 607 Powderhorn Ranch 0.16 3 7 8 9 9 8.3 7 1 1 10 N N 5 8 D,R 36 607.1 620 0 0.35 2 7 3 5 8 5.8 3 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 37 601.1 0 6.54 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 38 601.2 602 0 2.39 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 39 602.1 0 2.74 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 40 602.2 0 0.39 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 41 602.3 0 2.30 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 42 602.4 0 0.10 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 43 602.6 0 0.22 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 44 602.7 0 3.04 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 45 602.8 614 0 4.71 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 46 602.8A 0 2.48 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 47 603.11 0 4.68 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 48 603.11A 0 0.27 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 49 603.12 0 0.19 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 50 603.13 0 0.07 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 51 603.13A 0 0.05 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 52 603.14 0 5.02 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 53 603.14A 0 4.21 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 54 603.15 0 0.99 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 55 603.16 0 4.81 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 56 603.17 0 4.06 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 57 603.17A 0 2.99 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 58 603.18 612 0 2.05 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 59 603.18A 0 1.51 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 60 603.18B 0 1.09 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 61 603.19 0 0.33 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 62 603.20 0 0.62 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 63 603.3 0 0.71 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 64 603.4 0 0.41 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 65 603.5 0 0.67 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1

Page 1 of 2 Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix A Travel Analysis Summary

ml

Line # Line # Rd FS Segment Route FS New Identification Name Road Length Segment (miles) Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Paleo Cultural/ mean impact highest 50" < Recreation 50" > Recreation Admin use mixed trail ohv Costs Economic Benefits impact ave low impact ave medium impact ave high 66 603.6 0 1.67 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 67 603.7 0 1.83 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 68 603.7A 0 0.94 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 69 603.7B 0 1.31 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 70 603.7C 0 0.12 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 71 603.8 0 0.79 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 72 604.1 0 1.93 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 73 604.2 0 0.49 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 74 604.2 0 0.24 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 75 604.2A 0 2.15 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 76 604.3 0 0.80 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 77 604.4 605 0 3.41 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 78 604.5 616 0 2.38 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 79 605.1 0 2.12 2 7 2 7 5 5.3 2 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 80 605.2 0 1.91 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 81 605.3 0 0.62 2 7 2 7 5 5.3 2 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 82 605.3 0 3.74 2 7 2 7 5 5.3 2 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 83 605.3A 0 1.18 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 84 605.3B 0 3.28 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 85 605.3C 0 1.21 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 86 621.1 623 0 1.46 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 87 621.2 0 0.16 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 88 621.3 0 0.09 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 89 621.4 0 0.28 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 90 621.5 0 0.11 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 91 621.6 0 0.26 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 92 621.7 0 0.20 2 7 2 2 8 4.8 2 1 8 8 N N 7 5 D,RM/M1 93 626.1 0 2.01 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 10 8 8 Y N 7 5 RM/M2 94 626.2 626 0 4.70 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 10 8 8 Y N 7 5 RM/M2 95 FH5.1 621 0 1.66 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 96 FH5.1A 622 0 0.40 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 97 FH5.2 0 2.82 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 98 FH5.3 0 10.94 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 99 FH5.4 618 0 0.19 2 7 9 2 8 6.5 2 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 100 FH5.5 628 0 6.23 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 101 FH5.6 0 3.13 2 7 9 7 5 7.0 5 2 8 8 Y N 7 5 D,RM/M1 total miles/ ave ratings: 221.13 7.0 7.7 6.1 5.3 4.3 2.4 7.8 8.7 6.6 6.0 median: 7 9 7 5 5 2 8 8 7 5 *Activity Codes: D Decommission R Retain RM/M1 Retain with very minor mitigation/ management change RM/M2 Retain with minor mitigation/ management change RC3 Retain with major management change RM3 Retain with major mitigation

Ratings: Impacts: 10 = no impact; 1 = severe impact Human Use: 10 = highly needed; 1 = little to no need Econ Costs: 10 = no cost; 1 = high cost Econ Benefits: 10 = highly cost effective; 1 = least cost effective

Page 2 of 2 Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Impacts Use Econ

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Propose to keep N 1/4 mile Small pond at Grouse and Prairie None known Range, fire protection, 0.5 miles Permittees off So. Natick road to Windmill = overflow Chicken lek's, deer, recreation (grouse maintain gates parking area, leave rest turkeys, antelope blinds), motorized 1 202 (3.10 mi.) for admin. use, vehicles, horse riding,

potential for weeds photography, hunting PineStrip

Propose to keep N 1/4 mile Small pond at Grouse and Prairie None known Admin. Use, range, 2.85 miles No off So. Natick road to Windmill = overflow Chicken lek's, deer, fire protection, walk-in maintenance 1.1 202 parking area, leave rest turkeys, antelope hunting, change ML (3.10 mi.) for admin. use, from 2 to 1. PineStrip potential for weeds Main access around District, Non-issue Porkupines, deer, 2 sites in Camp 1 = Range, fire protection, High maintenance - 4 aggregate road, couple of turkey, elk, grouse possible CCC camp hunting, special blading s/yr, road small areas of Canada lek's, antelope, in South Pasture, products, sight seeing, shoulder mowing Thistle, St. Johns Wort, and coyotes, raptors, bird other possible sites access to most of the twice/yr, road has had Crown Vetch, aggregate watching, bobcats District, QUESTION: aggregate surfacing road is the road needed placed twice in 30 yrs, 2 203 from 4 corners to State 30+ cmp;s, 4

Circle spur 86b needed???, cattleguards, brushing, 2 general forest use gates, blowouts > 200', main western access, drainage problems, signage

Asphalt road, no known Non-issue - is water Deer, turkeys, bird None known Developed recreation Asphalt paved road in weeds from natural spring or watching, bunnies, site with toilet, paved Hardwoods CG, narrow, man-made that floods squirrels road, water, camping fair shape, no shoulders, 3 208

site spurs 1 cmp, 2 gates HardwoodsCG Proposed for admin use Non-issue Deer, antelope, None known Proposed for No maintenance only, now open to public, porcupine, turkey Admin.use only, potential for weeds hunting, bird watching, 4 211 sight seeing, fire,

range, user groups Camp2 want for loop trail

Potential for weeds, access Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, Twin roads for most of to hill climb possible elk, grouse fire hunting length due to soft sand (blowouts), may use 1 for road and 1 for trail, runs to/past hill climb, narrow 5.1 214.1 sand road embedded in places, maintenance

CountyLine needed to allow for 4wd traffic (fire trucks), set up for loop trail?

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, narrow sand road possible elk, grouse fire hunting imbedded in places 5.2 214.2 blowouts, maintenance needed for fire truck

CountyLine access Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, narrow sand road possible elk, grouse fire hunting imbedded in places 5.3 214.3 blowouts, maintenance needed for fire truck

CountyLine access Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, narrow sand road possible elk, grouse fire hunting imbedded in places 5.4 214.4 blowouts, maintenance needed for fire truck

CountyLine access Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, narrow sand road possible elk, grouse fire hunting imbedded in places 5.5 214.5 blowouts, maintenance needed for fire truck

CountyLine access Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, narrow sand road possible elk, grouse fire hunting imbedded in places 5.6 214.6 blowouts, maintenance needed for fire truck

CountyLine access

Page 1 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Admin. use, range, narrow sand road possible elk, grouse fire hunting imbedded in places 5.7 214.7 blowouts, maintenance needed for fire truck

CountyLine access Change to ML 3, aggregate Non-issue unless Deer, turkey, squirrel, None known To be kept open for Reconstructed in 2008 road, some leafy spurge water from above is grouse, bobcat over 50" vehicles = to from asphalt road to 6 223 near rec. area, potential for natural spring or man- tree dump and aggregate surfaced, 6+

Scenic weeds made trailhead, hunting, cmps, 1 cattleguard, range, fire brushing Potential for weeds, from Non-issue unless Deer, turkey, squirrel, None known Range, fire (fire trucks Native surfaced road, CG to State spur 86b water from above is grouse, bobcat are not able to drive at narrow, tough for fire natural spring or man- this time), hunters trucks to drive along, ML 6.1 223 made camp, hunting, fuels 2, 1 cattleguard Scenic treatment

Potential for weeds - Infra Non-issue Rattlesnake, prairie Possible sites = Range, fire, hunting, Native surfaced, 3 large shows E-W road, visitors dogs, burrowing owls, arrowheads found may be used a s a blowouts to drive around, map shows road turning deer, antelope loop with #261 (OHV), bog area @ Windmill north from Windmill #99, E-W road only (N-S #99, difficult for fire may be jeep 4wd trail road shown on visitors trucks to drive along 7 228 map is incorrect), very

Figard sandy (unstable), burrowing owls, prairie dogs

Only access into Campbell Non-issue Deer, antelope None known Range, fire, hunting, No maintenance, only allotment, potential for mixed use to pasture access into area 8 258

weeds Campbell Main western access to Crosses Middle Loup Deer, antelope, None known Main access, range, Aggregate surfaced road District, aggregate road, River at Gaston coyotes, raptors, bird fire, hunting, sight with >2 miles of old potential for weeds (some Bridge, some runoff watching, grouse seeing, general forest asphalt as surface, has Crown Vetch) into river use been resurfaced with 9 259 aggregate, 15+ cmps, 1

cattleguard, Gaston Gaston Bridge, drainage problems, signage

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Access to windmills, No maintenance range, fire, hunting, valley road, scenic 10 263 drive but very soft,

DoubleS burrowing owls, prairie dogs Asphalt road looping around Possible issue on Deer, turkeys, bird Revetment along Recreation Loop CG, Old asphalt pavement day use area, no known portion of loop near watching, squirrels Middle Loup River on clean up road at new and aggregate and weeds Middle Loop River north side of road, office concrete surfacing, Rec 11 265 other possible CCC Master Plan = repave, sites in area but may go to aggregate,

signage BesseyRec Loop asphalt paved road to east Non-issue Deer, turkeys, mice, Some of the existing Admin. use road to Repaved with asphalt all dwellings (last 500' is dogs, cats, homes/garages are east dwellings, ATV except final 500' in 2005, aggregate), no known domesticated geese, CCC era home, but use from homes needs shoulder work, 12 266 weeds guineas, squirrels are currently being last 500' is aggregate

used/live in Dwelling

Concrete road south of Non-issue Deer, turkeys, dogs, Same as line #12 Admin. use road to Old concrete surface, Nurseryman's home west of squirrels west dwellings narrow, may change to 13 267 old office, asphalt paved at aggregate, signage,

old office, no known weeds brushing Firehouse

Asphalt paved loop road Non-issue Deer, turkeys Same as line #12 Cedars CG, camping, Existing asphalt surface around Cedars CG, no bird watching, in Cedars CG - narrow known weeds picnicing without shoulders, may 14 271 change to aggregate, signage, brushing,

CedarsCG signage

Page 2 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits no known weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, Portions of road are Nursery service road, Aggregate surface, squirrels within the Bessey Admin. use only Nursery service road, Historical Site, near place min. 20 tons/yr 15 273 CCC era buildings = aggregate, signage, 1

Facility all being currently gate used

Proposed to decommission, Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known ,fire No maintenance,

16.1 276.1 potential for weeds benefits range Ayers Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known ,fire No maintenance,

16.2 276.2 benefits range Ayers Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known ,fire No maintenance,

16.3 276.3 benefits range Ayers Potential for weeds, access Possible wetland Deer, turkeys, None known Road to Whitetail CG, 2-2track native surfaced to Whitetail CG, 2 side-by- issue, near Dismal antelope, grouse, bird hunting, range, sight roads accessing whitetail side 2 tracks, embedded River on east end, play watching, raptors seeing, fire CG, blowouts, throughout, trailers get stuck area embedded in several 17.1 277.1 places, signage, 3

Whitetail cattleguards, bad location

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Recreation Play area trail antelope, grouse, bird 17.2 277.2

watching, raptors Whitetail Potential for weeds #REF! Deer, turkeys, None known range,hunting,fire No maintenance, antelope, grouse, bird benefits range 17.3 277.3

watching, raptors Whitetail Asphalt paved to camp, Non-issue Deer, turkeys, eagle fly-Maybe some of the Road to 4H camp, Old asphalt surface potential for weeds bys 4H camp building are visitors use road to accessing 4H camp, fair 18 280 old enough (Lodge = site under SUP shape, signage, may 1963) change to aggregate 4HCamp surface Aggregate road to tree dump Non-issue Deer, turkeys, doves None known Dump road, Admin. Some aggregate off Scenic road, LOTS of use only, CHECK MAP surfacing, sandy bog at 19 288 hemp FOR CORRECT east end, benefits FS

Dump LENGTH operations to tree dump, signage Aggregate road looping Non-issue Quail, turkeys, None known, maybe West Shop access Some aggregate around west shop, no known pheasents, deer the west road, proposed to be surfacing, benefits FS weeds shop/outbuildings Admin. use only, operations to West Shop, 20 289 are old enough public now uses it to needs aggregate, 1 gate,

access canoe launch signage West Shop

No known weeds Non-issue Quail, pheasents, Site # 25TM26 near Same as line #20 Road to west Nursery turkeys, deer canoe launch area, beds, mix of TM00-086 sand/aggregate surface, 21 290 needs aggregate, 1 gate, signage if left open to

public West NurseryBeds Aggregate road on south Non-issue Deer, turkey None known Nursery bed access, Access road on south end of GLA beds, potential Admin use only side of GLA, needed for 22 291 for weeds on river side FS operations, GLA aggregate surfacing, 2 gates Aggregate surfaced pond Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Fishing pond parking, Fishing pond parking, parking, potential for weeds waterfowl, fishing, bird watching, fishing, aggregate surface, turtles, frogs, gulls, SST, accessible signage 23 292 beavers, swans boardwalk and fishing

pier, camping FishPond

Page 3 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, Possible site near Road is currently Native surfacing, badgers, possible windmill mixed use, proposed blowouts, 4 cattleguards, mountain lions, skunks only 1.25 mile for roadbed is embedded in mixed use, E-W places = fire trucks have portion on south end is a hard time driving thru, currently open to banks are sloughing in, 24.1 201-1.1 highway legal vehicles, lots of "whoops", needs fire (difficult to access single use because of road CampIII (east) condition due to ATV traffic), range, hunting

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known range,fire,hunting No maintenance, badgers, possible benefits range

24.2 201-1.2 mountain lions, skunks CampIII (east) Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known range,fire,hunting No maintenance, badgers, possible benefits range

24.3 201-1.3 mountain lions, skunks CampIII (east) Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known range,fire,hunting No maintenance, badgers, possible benefits range

24.4 201-1.4 mountain lions, skunks CampIII (east) Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known range,fire,hunting No maintenance, badgers, possible benefits range

24.5 201-1.5 mountain lions, skunks CampIII (east) Potential for weeds Non-issue, some Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known Seasonally closed Same as line #24.1 potential badgers, skunks (Sept - Dec), mixed use runs up/back on same route (with 25 201-2 several loops spurring off to sides), fire,

CampIII (west) range, hunting

Double lane asphalt road Non-issue Deer, turkeys, doves, 2 sites - #25TM19 Main access to Natick Asphalt surface is in poor that access 4H Camp, raptors, grouse and 25TM18 - south CG and 4H camp, fire, shape, poor drainage, Natick CG, and 4 Corners of road range, hunting, bird 25+ cmps, 1 cattleguard, area, potential for weeds watching, sight seeing, signage, reconstruct and (Crown Vetch) potential to create surface with aggregate, 26 212N OHV trail adjacent to blowouts on road road or make road one- shoulders (min 4)

Natick(north) way in the future.

Aggregate surfaced road, Non-issue Deer, turkeys, doves, Possible CCC camps Range, fire, hunting, Aggregate surface with potential for weeds grouse, raptors, in Camp 3 sight seeing, bird sections of old asphalt coyotes, rattlesnakes, watching surfacing, 15+ cmps, 27 212S badgers poor drainage, signage, several blowouts up to

250' long Natick(south)

West of Whitetail, proposed Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None Known Range, fire, hunting, No maintenance except mixed use, part of Dismal antelope, coyotes fuels, portions are wood chips in wet spots, Trail, potential for weeds proposed for trail embedded in places, designation - if so, will "whoops" 28.1 231_1.1 have hard time getting

CampV to Patrick allotment when road deteriorates

West of Whitetail, proposed Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None Known range,fire,hunting No maintenance except mixed use, part of Dismal antelope, coyotes wood chips in wet spots, 28.2 231_1.2

Trail, potential for weeds embedded CampV

Page 4 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits West of Whitetail, proposed Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Portion of Dismal Trail, No maintenance, change mixed use, part of Dismal antelope, coyotes presently mixed use, to trail 29 231_2 Trail, potential for weeds CHANGE TO TRAIL

ONLY CampV

Sand trail between 266 and Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Possible access to Nursery service road,

30 273-A 0 273 north of Tim's house, no antelope, coyotes prairie dog town native surface known weeds Aggregate road running Non-issue Deer, turkeys, Site #25TM16 near Access to pvt. Aggregate surfacing, along south side of West squirrels beginning of road residence and 4H brushing, to pvt. Beds from State spur 86b to camp ballfield, residence and lower 4H 31 275 pvt lands, potential for proposed to be used camp, MAY become weeds for public access to main public access to Johnson canoe launch canoe launch, signage

User created motorized use Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known May not need for loop User created trail, trail, ties to Dismal Trail, badgers as there is another embedded road bed,

33 201_10.4L 0 potential for weeds road within 0.2 mile to sand blowouts south, range, fire, hunting Road thru trees to Dismal Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known Road to Windmill Benefits permittees and Trail and ties to Windmill badgers #149, rest is user hunters, native surfaced #149, rest past windmill is created trail to Dismal

201_10.6L 0 34 user created trail, potential River trail, LOOK AT for weeds ROAD PORTION AGAIN, User created trail east of Non-issue Deer, turkeys, grouse, None known User created trail west User created trail, not to

201_10.6L NOHVA 35 0 Windmill #149, potential for badgers of windmill #149 standard weeds Road to 2 windmills, ties to Non-Issue Deer, turkeys, None known Road to windmills, , Native surfaced, 4wd trail at Windmill #31, porcupines hunting, range, fire blowouts, no

36 203_0.4L 0 potential for weeds maintenance, brushing

Road to 2 windmills, ties to Non-Issue Deer, turkeys, None known User created Native surfaced, 4wd trail at Windmill #31, porcupines Powerline trail, blowouts, no

36.1 203_0.4L 0 potential for weeds proposed to become maintenance, brushing system trail, fire, hunting potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Range, fire, hunting, Native surfaced, no porcupines proposed to become maintenance, brushing, system trail blowouts

37 203_5.4R CampFive North Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known, Road to Windmill #72, Native surfaced, no porcupines possible site is fire range, fire, hunting, maintenance, blowouts break used for loop trail (hill

38 214_1.8R 0 road unusable for vehicles due to erosion issues)

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known, Proposed for trail only Native surfaced, no

39 214_7.6R 0 porcupines possible site is fire maintenance, brushing, break blowouts Road off Cedars CG road, Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Additional camping Asphalt paved road in RENAME 265-A, potential porcupines, bird sites in Cedar CG CG, narrow, poor

40 264_0.4L 0 for weeds, asphalt paved watching, squirrerls condition, MAY change to aggregate Loop in Whitetail CG, Non-issue, close to Deer, turkeys, bird None known Camping loop in Native surfaced loop in potential for weeds Dismal River watching, waterfowl Whitetail CG, fire Whitetail CG, may want 41 277-A to place aggregate, no

maintenance WhitetailA Loop in Whitetail CG, Non-issue, close to Deer, turkeys, bird None known Camping loop in Native surfaced loop in potential for weeds Dismal River watching, waterfowl Whitetail CG, fire Whitetail CG, may want 42 277-B to place aggregate, no

maintenance WhitetailB Loop in Whitetail CG, Non-issue, close to Deer, turkeys, bird None known Camping loop in Native surfaced loop in potential for weeds Dismal River watching, waterfowl Whitetail CG, fire Whitetail CG, may want 43 277-C to place aggregate, no

maintenance WhitetailC

Page 5 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits continue road to tie into Erosion, close to Deer, turkeys, bird None known Admin. use only, steep Native surfacing, steep Road 214, potential for Dismal River watching, waterfowl grade, fire, range uphill needs repair, 44 277-D weeds, steep hill climb, benefits range/fire only,

braided needs maintenance WhitetailD Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail Trail with little blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenance and not up 45 12

excessively wide for <50 to trail standards. Dismal

River Trail inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known to windmill User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

46 12.1 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known to windmill User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

47 12.10 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known to windmill User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

48 12.11 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known Firebreak,range,fire User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

49 12.12 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

50 12.13 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

51 12.14.1 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

52 12.14.2 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

53 12.15.1 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

54 12.15.2 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known Gate from 203,ATV User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants trail maintenace

55 12.16.1 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

56 12.16.2 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

57 12.17 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

58 12.18 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

59 12.19 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace 60 12.2 excessively wide for <50

inches PowerLine Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

61 12.20 0 excessively wide for <50 inches

Page 6 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

62 12.21 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

63 12.22 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

64 12.23 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known Trail to play area User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

65 12.24 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known Poison Ivy Trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace 66 12.3 excessively wide for <50

Poisonivy inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known ATV trail User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

67 12.4 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

68 12.5 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

69 12.6.1 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

70 12.6.2 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known Bad location erosion User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

71 12.7 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants eation maintenace

72 12.8 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds, areas of Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known Fenceline trail ATV User created trail no blowing sand, trail raptors, migrants maintenace

73 12.9 0 excessively wide for <50 inches Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

74 201-1.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

75 201-2.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

76 202.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys,bobcats, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

77 203.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

78 203.10 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known signal hill Two track to windmills

79 203.11 0 raptors, migrants

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

80 203.12 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

81 203.12A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

82 203.13 0 raptors, migrants eation

Page 7 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

83 203.14 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

84 203.14A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

85 203.14B 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

86 203.15 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

87 203.15A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

88 203.16 0 raptors, migrants eation,VFD access

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

89 203.17 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

90 203.18 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

91 203.19 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

92 203.19A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

93 203.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

94 203.20 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

95 203.21 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

96 203.22 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

97 203.3 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

98 203.4 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

99 203.4A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

100 203.5 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

101 203.5A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

102 203.6 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

103 203.7 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

104 203.8 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

105 203.9 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

106 211.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

107 212N.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Page 8 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

108 212N.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

109 212N.2A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

110 212N.3 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

111 212N.3A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

112 212N.4 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

113 212N.5 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

114 212N.5A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

115 212N.6 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

116 212N.7 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

117 212N.7A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

118 212N.8 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

119 212S.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

120 212S.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

121 212S.3 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

122 214.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

123 214.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

124 214.3 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

125 214.4 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

126 214.5 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

127 222 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

128 228.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

129 228.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

130 228.3 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

131 228.4 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

132 228.5 0 raptors, migrants eation

Page 9 of 10

Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Road

Name

FS Rd # Segment Line Line # Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

133 259.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

134 259.10 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

135 259.10A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

136 259.11 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

137 259.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

138 259.2A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

139 259.3 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

140 259.4 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

141 259.5 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

142 259.6 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

143 259.7 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

144 259.8 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

145 259.8A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

146 259.9 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

147 259.9A 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

148 263.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

149 263.2 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

150 274 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

151 276.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known windmill,range,fire,recr Two track to windmills

152 277.1 0 raptors, migrants eation

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known goes to private Two track to windmills

153 277.2 0 raptors, migrants

Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer,antelope, grouse, None known admin use Two track to windmills

154 86B.1 0 raptors, migrants

0 No Road Name Available

Page 10 of 10 Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Impacts Use Econ

Line Line # FS Rd # Segment Name Road Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits 1 601_1 Sand road to Steer Creek Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse Site #25CE5, pvt. Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, no RNA, potential for weeds and prairie chicken Inholding sight seeing, POOR maintenance, soft sand, lek's, elk road blowouts, easy to get

Range stuck, 1 cattleguard, Gunnery signage 2 601_2 Sand road to Steer Creek Steer Creek RNA Deer, antelope, grouse Site #25CE5, pvt. Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, no RNA, potential for weeds and prairie chicken Inholding sight seeing, POOR maintenance, soft sand,

lek's, elk road blowouts, easy to get Range

Gunnery stuck, signage 3 602_1 Potential for weeds, has Crosses Steer Creek Deer, antelope, grouse 2 sites - #25CE144 Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, needs blowout penstemon present @ 90 degrees, need and prairie chicken and 25CE141, may POOR road Steer Creek crossing cmp/hardening, some lek's, follows Steer not have much hardened or cmp, sediment into creek Creek, elk impact signage, 1 cattleguard, from approaches - no maintenance

south side is really soft Steer CreekValley

4 602_2 Potential for weeds Runs parallel to Steer Deer, antelope, grouse 3 sites - #25CE144 Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, needs Creek and prairie chicken and 25CE141, may POOR road Steer Creek crossing lek's, follows Steer not have much hardened or cmp,

Valley Creek, elk impact signage, no maintenance Steer Creek 5 602_3 Potential for weeds Runs parallel to Steer Deer, antelope, grouse 4 sites - #25CE144 Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, needs Creek and prairie chicken and 25CE141, may POOR road Steer Creek crossing lek's, follows Steer not have much hardened or cmp,

Valley Creek, elk impact signage, no maintenance Steer Creek 6 602_4 Potential for weeds Runs parallel to Steer Deer, antelope, grouse 5 sites - #25CE144 Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, needs Creek and prairie chicken and 25CE141, may POOR road Steer Creek crossing lek's, follows Steer not have much hardened or cmp,

Valley Creek, elk impact signage, no maintenance Steer Creek 7 602_5 Potential for weeds Runs parallel to Steer Deer, antelope, grouse 6 sites - #25CE144 Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, needs Creek and prairie chicken and 25CE141, may POOR road Steer Creek crossing lek's, follows Steer not have much hardened or cmp,

Valley Creek, elk impact signage, no maintenance Steer Creek 8 603_1 Potential for weeds Same as 602_1, line Deer, antelope, grouse 1 site - #25CE143 - Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, no 3, plus road goes up and prairie chicken right beside road - POOR road maintenance, soft sand, soft hill, then down to lek's, elk OLD WAGON TRAIL blowouts, easy to get

North Steer Creek crossing stuck, signage Boundary

9 603_2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse 2 site - #25CE143 - Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, no and prairie chicken right beside road - POOR road maintenance, soft sand, lek's, elk OLD WAGON TRAIL blowouts, easy to get

North stuck, 1 cattleguard, Boundary signage 10 603_3 Potential for weeds Same as 602_1, line Deer, antelope, grouse 3 site - #25CE143 - Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing, no 3, plus road goes up and prairie chicken right beside road - POOR road maintenance, soft sand, soft hill, then down to lek's, elk OLD WAGON TRAIL blowouts, easy to get

North Steer Creek crossing stuck, 1 cattleguard, Boundary signage 11 604_1 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse Possible the E-W Hunting, range, fire, Native surfacing, no and prairie chicken section of road was Check Mogal Bridge maintenance, signage

lek's, elk the old wagon trail Easement

Boundary NorthWest 12 604_2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse Possible the E-W Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing, no and prairie chicken section of road was maintenance, 1

lek's, elk the old wagon trail cattleguard, signage

Boundary NorthWest 13 604_3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse Possible the E-W Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing, no and prairie chicken section of road was maintenance, signage

lek's, elk the old wagon trail

Boundary NorthWest 14 604_4 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse Possible the E-W Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing, no and prairie chicken section of road was maintenance, 1

lek's, elk the old wagon trail cattleguard, signage

Boundary NorthWest 15 605 Potential for weeds Crosses Steer Creek, Deer, antelope, grouse 1 site - #25CE33 Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing, needs needs hardening, and prairie chicken Steer Creek crossing some sediment into lek's, elk hardened or cmp,

creek from signage, 1 cattleguard, West

approaches no maintenance Steer Creek

Page 1 of 5

Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Line Line # FS Rd # Segment Name Road Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits 16 606 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, elk None known Camping loop in Steer Asphalt surfacing in CG, Creek CG, <50" for MAY change to campers/trailering aggregate, signage, 1 SST, water, Trailhead, decommission well, MAY

CLOSE Steer CreekCG 17 608 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, bull Part of historical site - Admin. Site Asphalt and aggregate snakes, elk, mice all buildings are surfacing to/in Admin. currently being used site, change to aggregate surface,

AdminSite signage 18 609 Potential for weeds Existing ditch into Deer, turkeys, fishing None known Canoe launch site Existing

Niobrara River, asphalt/aggregate Canoe

Launch minimal impact surfacing, signage 19 621_1 Potential for weeds Non-issue, road near Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Range, fire, hunting, Native surfacing (road Merritt Resevoir, but grouse, fishing, sight fishing, NEED disappears), brushing, hard to find road seeing, bird watching ACCESS across state rough, gate, may be land on east end flooded when Merritt Valley Resevoir rises, blowouts

20 621_2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing (road grouse, fishing, sight disappears), brushing, seeing, bird watching rough, gate, may be flooded when Merritt Valley Resevoir rises, blowouts

21 621_3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing (road grouse, fishing, sight disappears), brushing, seeing, bird watching rough, gate, may be flooded when Merritt Valley Resevoir rises, blowouts

22 621_4 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkey, antelope, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing (road grouse, fishing, sight disappears), brushing, seeing, bird watching rough, gate, may be flooded when Merritt Valley Resevoir rises, blowouts

23 626 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing, 1

0 antelope, sight seeing cattleguard, blowouts

24 16F.1 South of Steer Creek CG, Non-issue Deer, turkeys, elk None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing, 1

0 potential for weeds cattleguard, MAKE ROAD A SUP

25 16F.1A 0 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, elk None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing 26 16F.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 27 16F.3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's

28 16F.4 0 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys, elk None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing 29 16F.5 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 30 16F.6 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 31 16F.7 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing,

0 and prairie chicken cattleguard lek's 32 16F.7A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's

33 16F.8 0 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys None known horse camp Native surfacing 34 16F.9 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, turkeys None known road to private Native 0 surfacing,cattleguard 35 607 Single lane asphalt paved Non-issue, near to Deer, turkeys, grouse None known county road, access to Asphalt surfacing,county road going to Powderhorn Lord Lakes area private land may need road, access to Lord 0 Ranch, potential for weeds SUP Lakes

36 607.1 Potential for weeds Runs parallel to Deer, None known fishing access Native surfacing stream between upper turkeys,ducks,geese,fi 0 and lower Lord Lake shing

Page 2 of 5

Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Line Line # FS Rd # Segment Name Road Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits 37 601.1 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 38 601.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 39 602.1 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 40 602.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 41 602.3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 42 602.4 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 43 602.6 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 44 602.7 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 45 602.8 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 46 602.8A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 47 603.11 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 48 603.11A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 49 603.12 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 50 603.13 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 51 603.13A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 52 603.14 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 53 603.14A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 54 603.15 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 55 603.16 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 56 603.17 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 57 603.17A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 58 603.18 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 59 603.18A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 60 603.18B Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 61 603.19 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's

Page 3 of 5

Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Line Line # FS Rd # Segment Name Road Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits 62 603.20 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 63 603.3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 64 603.4 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 65 603.5 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 66 603.6 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 67 603.7 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 68 603.7A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 69 603.7B Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 70 603.7C Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 71 603.8 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 72 604.1 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 73 604.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 74 604.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 75 604.2A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 76 604.3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 77 604.4 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 78 604.5 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 79 605.1 Potential for weeds Crosses Steer Creek Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 80 605.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 81 605.3 Potential for weeds Crosses Steer Creek Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 82 605.3 Potential for weeds Crosses Steer Creek Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 83 605.3A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 84 605.3B Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 85 605.3C Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 86 621.1 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing

Page 4 of 5

Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest - Appendix B Travel Analysis Resource Comments

Line Line # FS Rd # Segment Name Road Ecosystem Aquatic Wildlife Cultural/ Paleo Human Use Costs/ Benefits 87 621.2 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 88 621.3 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 89 621.4 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 90 621.5 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 91 621.6 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 92 621.7 Potential for weeds Close to and going to Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 Merritt Reservoir turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 93 626.1 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 94 626.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 95 FH5.1 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 96 FH5.1A Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 97 FH5.2 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 98 FH5.3 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 99 FH5.4 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 turkeys,ducks,geese,fi shing 100 FH5.5 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's 101 FH5.6 Potential for weeds Non-issue Deer, antelope, grouse None known Hunting, range, fire Native surfacing

0 and prairie chicken lek's

0 No Road Name Available

Page 5 of 5 Bessey Ranger District - Bessey Unit Appendix C Travel Analysis Graphs

Ecosystem Impacts Aquatic Impacts

180 250

160

140 200 120 150 100 80

100 Miles, RoadCount Miles,

60 RoadCount Miles,

40 50 20 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Miles 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 30.5 32.0 179.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 Miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.1 3.9 233.6 0.0 Roads 0 0 1 1 29 3 128 0 9 0 Roads 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 167 0

Wildlife Impacts Cultural/Paleo Analysis

140 180

160

120 140 100 120 80 100 80 60

60

Miles, RoadCount Miles, Miles, RoadCount Miles, 40 40 20 20 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 127.8 0.0 36.7 0.0 81.7 0.0 Miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 163.0 0.0 0.0 80.7 0.0 0.0 Roads 0 0 0 0 110 0 6 0 55 0 Roads 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 63 0 0

Economics Human Uses

200 120 180 100 160 140 80

120

100 60 Miles 80 Miles 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 8 10 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cost 8.0 31.1 8.3 7.5 62.2 0.7 3.5 4.6 120.4 0.0 Admin 0.3 0.4 0.3 16.2 2.2 3.4 1.1 101.5 18.2 102.8 Benefit 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 14.1 3.2 196.8 0.8 Recreation 19.6 2.2 11.7 6.4 11.3 88.8 39.1 35.0 0.0 32.1

Page 1 of 1 Bessey Ranger District - McKelvie National Forest Appendix C Travel Analysis Graphs

Ecosystem Impacts Aquatic Impacts 250 200

180

200 160 140 150 120 100

100 80 Miles, RoadCount Miles, Miles, RoadCount Miles, 60 50 40 20 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 8 10 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 221.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miles 0.0 35.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3 183.7 0.0 Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 Roads 0 17 1 0 0 1 0 2 80 0

Wildlife Impacts Cultural/Paleo Analysis 160 180

140 160

120 140

100 120 100 80 80

60 Miles, RoadCount Miles,

Miles, RoadCount Miles, 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Miles 0.0 2.7 25.2 33.5 6.9 0.0 147.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 Miles 0.0 28.3 0.0 0.0 177.9 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.6 0.0 Roads 0 8 7 8 5 0 69 0 4 0 Roads 0 7 0 0 77 0 0 15 2 0

Economics Human Uses 160 250 140

120 200

100

150

80

Miles 100 60 Miles

40 50 20 0 0 1 2 1 3 4 2 3 5 6 4 5 7 8 6 9 10 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Admin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 127.1 0.0 83.1 Cost 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 63.5 0.0 150.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 >50 Inches 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 220.7 0.0 0.0 Benefit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 70.4 0.3 <50 Inches 3.8 203.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6

Page 1 of 1