United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Ottawa National Forest Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan MAY 2017 Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest For More Information Contact: Susanne Adams, District Ranger/Team Leader 1209 Rockland Road, Ontonagon, Michigan 49953 Phone: 906-884-2085 x14 Email: [email protected] Marlanea French-Pombier, Forest Planner Phone: 906-932-1330, x303 Email: [email protected] This Environmental Assessment and associated documents are also located at the following website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects (see the Forestwide Designated Motorized Use Project link within the “Under Analysis” section). *Photo credit (front cover): Photo taken by Ian Shackleford, Botanist, Ottawa National Forest. The picture was taken on Forest Road 4500, Watersmeet Ranger District, which is currently open to highway vehicles, and is proposed to be open to all motorized vehicles. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. i Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Document Structure ........................................................................................................................ 1 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 2 Forest Plan Revision ................................................................................................................... 3 Implementing the Revised Forest Plan Direction via the MVUM ............................................. 3 Changing Opportunities for Public OHV Access ....................................................................... 4 Current Designated Motorized Access ........................................................................................ 5 Project Development ....................................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 6 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ................................................................................................. 7 Government, Agencies and Persons Contacted .............................................................................. 9 Tribal Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 9 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 9 Public Comment Review Process ............................................................................................. 10 Iterative Process ......................................................................................................... 10 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail .................................................................................................... 11 Alternative 1 – No Action ......................................................................................................... 11 Alternative 2 - Modified Proposed Action ................................................................................ 11 Elements of the Modified Proposed Action ............................................................... 12 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 13 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 14 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................... 17 Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 18 Outcomes of the Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 18 Existing Condition - Recreation ................................................................................................ 19 Existing Condition - Transportation.......................................................................................... 21 How the Proposal Meets the Purpose and Need ....................................................................... 22 Alternative 1.................................................................................................................................. 22 Outcomes of Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................... 22 ii Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest Recreation .................................................................................................................. 22 Transportation ............................................................................................................ 23 Alternative 2.................................................................................................................................. 23 Outcomes of Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action .......................................................... 24 Recreation .................................................................................................................. 24 Transportation ............................................................................................................ 29 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .......................................................................... 30 August 2016 Scoping Proposal ................................................................................................. 30 More Designated Access than Offered in Scoping ................................................................... 31 Less Designated Access than Offered in Scoping ..................................................................... 31 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 32 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives ................................................................................... 33 Aquatics/Fisheries ..................................................................................................................... 34 Summary.................................................................................................................... 34 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 34 Alternative 1 – No Action.......................................................................................... 35 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action ................................................................ 36 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 39 Summary...................................................................................................................