April 2007
 |
Draft Environmental Assessment
Off-Highway
Access Project
For Information Contact:
218-335-8616
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/chippewa/projects/
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
Table of Contents
Off-road (ORV) and Off-highway (OHV) Vehicles
Proposed Action by Road Maintenance Level
Possible Forest Plan Amendment
Current Multi-Governmental ORV Planning Team
General Public Involvement on ORV Planning to Date
Public Involvement Opportunities for Tribal and Low Income Populations
Issues Considered but Not Used to Develop Site-Specific Alternatives
Possible Forest Plan Amendment
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Alternative 3 by Road Maintenance Level
Alternative 4 by Road Maintenance Level
Mitigation Specific to the Project and Common to All Alternatives
Summary Comparison of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives by Issue
Summary Comparison of Cumulative Effects
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Road Closures
Connected Actions by Surrounding Landowners
Chippewa Forest Motorized Trail Designation
Background
The Chief of the Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation, especially the undesirable impacts from unmanaged off-road vehicle (ORV) use, as one of the key threats facing National Forests and Grasslands today. Concerns include the amount of unplanned roads and trails, erosion, lack of quality ORV riding opportunities, water degradation, and habitat destruction from ORV activity. To address this issue, the Chief chartered two national teams in January 2004 to develop policy and tools for use at the field level.
The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004–2008 also identifies managing motorized recreation as one of the primary outdoor recreation opportunity goals: “…it is critical that we improve management of off-highway vehicles access and use on National Forest (NF) System lands to preserve high quality experiences for all recreational users.”
On
In 2002 the Minnesota Legislature passed a law requiring the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner to appoint a Motorized Trail Task Force to review and make recommendations to the 2003 Legislature addressing eight topics relating to OHV trails on
Additionally, the National Association of Counties passed a resolution in July 2003 regarding OHV management on public lands. They proposed that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management expedite the development of new travel policies and plans, as well as interim site specific plans, in conjunction with local government and community-based partnerships that require OHVs to stay on designated roads, trails, or in limited off-road areas. Their resolution stated in part: “The range and ability of OHV to access remote public lands have placed demands on local search and rescue teams, helped to spread noxious and invasive weeds, have resulted in conflicts with other recreation users, ranchers, hunters, wildlife, and have caused environmental damage.” To date, Beltrami,
Off-road (ORV) and Off-highway (OHV) Vehicles
Off-road vehicle (ORV) and off-highway vehicle (OHV) are interchangeable phrases for any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain; except that such term excludes (A) any registered motorboat; (B) any fire, military, emergency or law enforcement vehicle when used for emergency purposes, and any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense purposes; and (C) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the respective agency head under a permit, lease, or contract (EO 11644, Sec. 2). The terms off-highway (OHV) and off-road (ORV) are nearly synonymous; however, ORV implies use only off of roads and OHV does not.
A wheelchair is defined as, “a device designed solely for use by a mobility impaired person that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area” (
ORV System Trails
Trails are outside the scope of this analysis; however, the CNF operates and maintains a designated ORV trail on the
Cross-County Travel
Both the 1986 and 2004 Chippewa National Forest Plans prohibit ORV use off system roads and trails, which is defined as cross-country travel. While the 2005 Travel Management Rule requires all forests in the Nation to designate roads, trails, and areas open for ORV use, the Regional Forester for the Eastern Region, though the Record of Decision for FEIS, decided that only roads and trails could be designated open for ORV use on the CNF. Exemptions are not allowed for hunting or trapping. As identified in the purpose and need for the Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel Access Project only Forest Service System roads will be considered at this time for being designated as open to ORV use.
All current direction and authority for vehicle use off roads on NF System lands are tiered from Executive Order (EO) 11644 (1972) and modified by EO 11989 (1977). The Travel Management Rule includes 36 CFR 212, 251, 261, and 295.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of this project is to identify the roads for OHV use on the CNF in concert with the goals and objectives outlined in the July 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (also referred to as the Forest Plan). The project would also comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule requiring a designated route system for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and if appropriate, by time of year.
Management actions are needed to move the existing condition towards the goals (Forest Plan, pages 2-4), objectives (Forest Plan O-ORV-1, page 2-42), and desired conditions (Forest Plan, D-ORV-1, page 2-42) for OHV use on designated roads in the CNF and to meet the requirements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule.
However, the over 250 percent increase in ORV registrations in the State of
Please see the following links for additional information from the State of
Designation of legal motorized routes on the CNF is also needed to protect natural resources under increasing recreation pressure from motorized vehicle use. ORV riding can affect soil and water resources in a number of ways. On the routes themselves, compaction, rutting, and erosion of soils can result in increased runoff and deposition of eroded material into lakes, streams, or wetlands. Excess runoff and sediment can impact water quality, channel stability, aquatic habitat, and wetland vegetative conditions. Compaction and rutting on routes in wetlands can disrupt wetland hydrology and thereby impact wetland vegetation and habitat (USDA Forest Service 2004b; MN DNR 2002).
ORV riding also affects wildlife, fish, and rare plant resources. Motorized vehicle traffic can cause a visual or audible disturbance to some species of wildlife. If this occurs during a critical breeding time, it may cause nest or territory abandonment and lead to decreased fecundity rates. Increased densities of packed snow trails can reduce the competitive advantage of species like the
Proposed Action
The CNF proposes to designate those roads and trails on NF lands that are to remain open to OHV use. The proposed action (Alternative 2) presents an interdisciplinary, public involvement-based, OHV travel management solution for the CNF. The proposed action includes roads that were analyzed against a series of resource data layers within a geographic information system. These roads were discussed with other land management agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Beltrami, Cass, and
Type of Vehicle Restrictions
Roads that travel through some soil types on the CNF will be closed to motorized vehicles over 1,000 pounds as a mitigation measure to protect natural resources and the road infrastructure. Due to the spatial nature of route designations, the number and mileage of roads closed to vehicles weighing more than 1,000 pounds varies between 0 to 24 miles in the alternatives.
Season of Use Restrictions
There are no specific season of use restrictions proposed other than those already in practice on the CNF to protect natural resources (such as bald eagle nest sites) and facility investments (such as road closures during spring break-up periods).
Proposed Action by Road Maintenance Level
Alternative Map. A map of the proposed action can be viewed or printed at the following link: 611-2 Alternative 2 Map
The intended level of maintenance for a road is termed the Objective Maintenance Level (OML). OMLs are divided into five levels of maintenance intensity. OML 1 is the lowest level of maintenance and is closed to public use; OML 5 is the highest level of maintenance. Complete definitions of OML levels can be found 620-2 OML definitions. The miles of roads proposed to be open for ORV travel by OML are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Proposed action summary of miles of roads proposed open to ORVs
| OML Roads | Miles of Roads Proposed Open to ORVs |
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 1,168 |
| 3 | 83 |
| 4 | 133 |
| 5 | 0 |
| Total | 1,384 |
Possible Forest Plan Amendment
In addition to the proposed route system, the Forest Supervisor may also consider a non-significant amendment to the
G-RMV-1: ORV use is prohibited on OML 3, 4, and 5 roads, except where they have been designated as open for ORV use through site-specific analysis.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/chippewa/projects/forest_plan/index.php
Decision Framework
The decision to be made is whether or not to change the
Over-snow vehicles are exempt from the designation of roads, trails, and areas for public motor vehicle use and are therefore not addressed in this project (see 36 CFR Part 212 Sec. 51 (a)(3)).
Public Involvement
Current Multi-Governmental ORV Planning Team
A multi-governmental ORV Planning Process Team meets regularly in northern
General Public Involvement on ORV Planning to Date
The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in
The initial proposal for designating roads open to ORV use was discussed with the public; personnel from other Federal, state, and county agencies; and local and Tribal governments during five workshops held in communities across the Forest area in January 2006. The workshops included use of an interactive computer program of
Three public meetings were held to discuss the proposed action in October 2006 in several communities within the CNF; over 200 people attended those meetings. The initial scoping letter was sent to over 400 people on the
Public Involvement Opportunities for Tribal and Low Income Populations
In additional to general public outreach, personal contacts have been made with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and Local Indian Councils (LICs). For each of the 16 LICs,
For additional information, please see the following link: 621-2 Issues and Alternatives
Issues
An issue is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with a proposed action based on some anticipated effect. Forest Service personnel receive public comments and categorize them into significant or non-significant issues. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”
Significant issues are those with a clear direct, or indirect causal relationship from implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues are identified as those (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.
A complete description of the significant issue statements may be found at the following link: 621-2 Issues and Alternatives
Significant Issues
The Forest Service identified seven significant issues from public scoping:
Issue 1: Provide more connections for loop and longer day recreation experiences
Indicator: Miles providing loops and connecting routes
Issue 2: Provide increased access during hunting season
Indicator: Additional access provided during hunting season
Issue 3: Provide increased access for recreation experiences
Indicator: Miles open to ORV use
Issue 4: Protection of natural resources and non-motorized recreation experiences
Indicator: Miles open to ORV use in lynx analysis units
Issue 5: Dead-end routes may encourage illegal use
Indicators: Number of dead end routes and miles open in riparian management zones (RMZ)
Issue 6: The lack of annual operations and maintenance funding for roads
Indicators: Projected road maintenance costs for OML 3, 4, and 5 roads (those subject to National Highway Traffic Safety Act standards) and projected road maintenance costs for OML 2 roads
Issue 7: Environmental Justice and access to traditional hunting and gathering areas
Indicator: Miles open to ORV use within traditional Tribal hunting and gathering areas
Issues Considered but Not Used to Develop Site-Specific Alternatives
Issue: Impacts of consolidating use on a smaller system
Issue: Keep specific roads open
Issue: Estimated annual law enforcement costs
Alternatives
For a more comprehensive description of the issues and alternatives, please see the following linked document: 621-2 Issues and Alternatives
Possible Forest Plan Amendment
The Forest Supervisor may also consider a non-significant amendment to the
G-RMV-1: ORV use is prohibited on OML 3, 4, and 5 roads, except where they have been designated as open for ORV use through site-specific analysis.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/chippewa/projects/forest_plan/index.php
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Alternative Map. A map of the no-action alternative can be viewed or printed at the following link 610-2 Alternative 1 Map
36 CFR Part 212 Sec. 50(b) authorizes the responsible official to incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding travel management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use. These previous designations and prohibitions are the existing baseline condition and can be designated without a new decision if no changes are proposed.
For the CNF Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel Access Project, the baseline condition for route designation is the current designations and prohibitions for public motor vehicle use on CNF roads as outlined in the goals (Forest Plan, pages 2–4), objectives (Forest Plan O-ORV-1, page 2–42), and desired conditions (Forest Plan, D-ORV-1, page 2–42) of the 2004 Chippewa Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
A substantial review of all FS roads was completed during the initial interagency ORV route designation process. All roads were discussed concerning possible jurisdiction errors. Each OML 2 road was also reviewed for past decisions, locations to sensitive areas, and appropriateness of adding ORV use. Many attributes in the corporate database were updated during the review process, and some were made after a field review to determine specific inconsistencies. Updates to road maintenance level designations in the database were made to more accurately reflect on-the-ground conditions and were administrative only. No maintenance activity or physical on-the-ground change occurred to make the corrections accurate. The database corrections were substantial enough to change to overall statistics of the road system, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. FS system road updates based on inventory corrections
| OML | Miles of FS System Roads | |||||
| Closed | Open | Total | ||||
| Initial Inventory | No Action Inventory | Initial Inventory | No Action Inventory | Initial Inventory | No Action Inventory | |
| 1 | 59 | 382 | 258 | 0 | 317 | 382 |
| 2 | 387 | 147 | 1,285 | 1,530 | 1,672 | 1,676 |
| 3 | 0 | 183 | 263 | 0 | 263 | 183 |
| 4 | 0 | 252 | 263 | 0 | 263 | 252 |
| 5 | 0 | 34 | 34 | 0 | 34 | 34 |
| Total | 446 | 998 | 2,103 | 1,530 | 2,549 | 2,527 |
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
See previous description under Proposed Action section.
Alternative 3
Alternative Map. A map of Alternative 3 can be viewed or printed at the following link: 612-2 Alternative 3 Map
Alternative 3 considers an alternative way to meet the purpose and need of the project through emphasizing resource protection, the ability to experience solitude, and environmental protection values in designating roads open to ORV use on the CNF. This alternative provides access on OML 3, 4, and 5 roads with the intent of restricting ORV access to protect resources along lower-standard OML 2 roads. Buffers around non-motorized trails are considered in Alternative 3 and around semi-primitive non-motorized areas. This alternative also includes a reduced number of dead-end routes.
Type of Vehicle Restrictions
Roads that travel through some soil types on the CNF will be closed to motorized vehicles over 1,000 pounds as a mitigation measure to protect natural resources and the road infrastructure. Due to the spatial nature of route designations, the number and mileage of roads closed to vehicles weighing more than 1,000 pounds varies between 0 and 24 miles in the alternatives.
Season of Use Restrictions
There are no specific season of use restrictions proposed other than those already in practice on the CNF to protect natural resources (such as bald eagle nest sites) and facility investments (such as road closures during spring break-up periods).
[F1]
Alternative 3 by Road Maintenance Level
Table 3. Alternative 3 summary of miles of roads proposed open to ORVs
| OML Roads | Miles of Roads Proposed Open to ORVs |
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 705 |
| 3 | 76 |
| 4 | 99 |
| 5 | 0 |
| Total | 880 |
Alternative 4
Alternative Map. A map of Alternative 4 can be viewed or printed at the following link: 613-2 Alternative 4 Map
Values expressed by the public for increased loops, connections between roads open to ORV use, and longer day riding opportunities are considered as alternative ways to meet the purpose and need of the project in Alternative 4. Forest areas around Remer and Big Fork, and connections between communities, are considered for increased open road access to address the belief that these riding opportunities provide an economic benefit to local communities. To provide loops and connections, many OML 3 and 4 roads are included in this alternative.
Increased access during hunting season is addressed in this alternative through designating additional roads open to ORV use seasonally (mid-September to December 31) specifically for hunter access on the CNF. This timeframe was selected because it includes the majority of hunting seasons within the State.
The Environmental Justice analysis of potential impacts to Tribal and low income populations is explored in this alternative through providing roads to areas identified as important to traditional hunting and gathering practices. Please note that the routes included in this alternative are open to everyone.
Type of Vehicle Restrictions
[F2]Roads that travel through some soil types on the CNF will be closed to motorized vehicles over 1,000 pounds as a mitigation measure to protect natural resources and the road infrastructure. Due to the spatial nature of route designations, the number and mileage of roads closed to vehicles weighing more than 1,000 pounds varies between 0 and 24 miles in the alternatives.
Season of Use Restrictions
Increased access during hunting season is addressed in this alternative through opening additional roads from September 15 through December 31 each year. The restrictions already in practice on the CNF to protect natural resources (such as bald eagle nest sites) and facility investments (such as road closures during spring break-up periods) would still occur.
Alternative 4 by Road Maintenance Level
Table 4. Alternative 4 summary of miles of roads proposed open to ORVs
| OML Roads | Miles of Roads Proposed Open to ORVs |
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 1,493 |
| 3 | 113 |
| 4 | 158 |
| 5 | 13 |
| | |
| Total | 1,777 |
Mitigation Specific to the Project and Common to All Alternatives
1) Roads that travel through some soil types on the CNF will be closed to motorized vehicles over 1,000 pounds to protect natural resources and the road infrastructure. Due to the spatial nature of route designations, the number and mileage of roads closed to vehicles weighing more than 1,000 pounds varies between 0 and 24 miles in the alternatives.
2) Annually update the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) incorporating information from the public and changes in resource conditions.
3) Following the publishing of the MVUM, law enforcement will increase public awareness of ORV designations though field contacts with users, and if necessary, issuing citations.
4) CNF staff will promote public education of the MVUM through issuing news releases, updating the
5) 
6) 
7) These road identification signs will correlate with identification numbers on the MVUM map. Installation of all new road identification signs is scheduled for completion by the end of 2007. Replacement costs for signs stolen, and/or damaged will continue to be an annual expense, at about $30 per sign (including sign, post, and installation).
Comparison of Alternatives
This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Table 5 compares alternatives by issue; Table 6 compares alternatives by recreation resource indicator.
Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by issue
| | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | ||
| Issue I: | 58 | 244 | 179 | 279 |
| Issue 2: | Current resource & facility protection closures | Current resource & facility protection closures | Current resource & facility protection closures | Additional roads open from |
| Issue 3: | 1,530 | 1,384 | 880 | 1,777 |
| Issue 4: Open Miles in LAU | 1,065 | 978 | 627 | 1,249 1 |
| Issue 5: Open Miles in RMZ | 507 | 288 | 2 | 482 |
| 17.7 | 15 | 4.5 | 21.8 | |
| Issue 6:
| $0 | $12,960– | $11,160–$22,320 | $17,700–$35,400 |
| $379,371 | $332,724 | $225,202 | $282,562 | |
| Issue 7: | 632 | 549 | 382 | 446 |
| Law Enforcement Costs | $73,648 | $102,598 | $144,753 | $113,137 |
| | | | | |
| OML 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OML 2 | 1,530 | 1,168 | 713 | 1,501 |
| OML 3 | 0 | 83 | 81 | 119 |
| OML 4 | 0 | 133 | 105 | 163 |
| OML 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| 1 This figure assumes a worse-case scenario of snow compaction during hunting season (additional roads open from 9/15–12/15). In addition, many of the OML 3, 4, and 5 roads included in this alternative to provide connectors and loop experiences to ORV riders are currently plowed during the winter. Increased motorized use on higher standard, consistently plowed roads is not considered as having the same impact to lynx habitat as increasing use and compacting snow on the interior Forest OML 2 roads that are traditionally not plowed. 2 The amount of ORV use will vary and change under new route designations, and therefore so will the type and amount of road repairs change. The figures listed are only estimates provided for comparative planning purposes. OML 2 roads currently do not receive road maintenance. | ||||
Table 6. Comparison of alternatives for the recreation resource indicators
| Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 | |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open to ORV use, connected to each other and greater than 5.0 miles in length | 58 | 244 | 179 | 279 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open seasonally (mid-September to December 31) for hunter access to ORV | 0 | 0 | 0 | 645 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open to ORVs on the CNF | 1,530 | 1,270 | 847 | 1,042 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads closed to ORVs on the CNF year-round | 998 | 1,143 | 1,629 | 732 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open seasonally (TES, road bed, resource condition, other) on the CNF | 0 | 114 | 51 | 108 |
| Road densities within ROS classification | | | | |
| Semi-primitive Non-Motorized | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.41 | 0.55 |
| Semi-primitive Motorized | 0.60 | 0.48 | 0.15 | 0.56 |
| Roaded Natural (miles per square mile) | 1.89 | 1.78 | 1.35 | 2.12 |
| Rural (miles per square mile) | 2.34 | 2.02 | 1.59 | 2.52 |
| Road densities within 0.5 mile of Semi-primitive Non-motorized areas (miles per square mile) | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 2.1 |
| Road densities within 1.0 mile of Semi-primitive Non-motorized areas (miles per square mile) | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 2.1 |
| Road densities within 0.5 mile of the North Country National Scenic Trail | 1.9 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.5 |
| Road densities within 1.0 mile of the North Country National Scenic Trail | 1.8 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Number of Forest Service System roads that are 0.25 mile or less and that do not connect to other system road open for ORV use | 507 | 271 | 2 | 45 |
Environmental Consequences
For more detailed information regarding the environmental consequences of a particular resource, please see the following links:
Compliance Summary
The environmental consequences to all of the alternatives for the CNF Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel Access Project meet the requirements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (including 36 CFR 212, 251, 261, and 295); the Chippewa Forest Plan standards and guidelines; the intent of Executive Orders 11644 and 12898; and other laws, regulations and other requirements to which the Forest subscribes related to the project.
All alternatives comply with the Forest Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines relative to threatened and endangered species (TES), Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS), management indicator species (MIS), management indicator habitats (MIH), non-native invasive species (NNIS), other species of interest, and aquatic communities on National Forest land. Much of this report was derived from the biological assessment of threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and the biological evaluation of RFSS. Both of these detailed source documents are available to the public and can be found in the project record.
For heritage resources, there is not an undertaking with this project because no new trails or roads will be built. Therefore, a Section 106 is not required.
Due to the large number of mixed-use road designations in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the
G-RMV-1: ORV use is prohibited on OML 3, 4, and 5 roads, except where they have been designated as open for ORV use through site-specific analysis.
Although the expected environmental consequences of each alternative meets regulatory requirements, the diverse values and issues expressed by the public present a wide range of opportunities for meeting the purpose and need of the project. Many opposable consequences, outcomes, and trade-offs appear possible with the choices presented by the alternatives. The following paragraphs discuss the significant issues and associated environmental and social consequences.
Summary Comparison of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives by Issue
Issue 1: Provide more connections and loops for longer day recreation experiences
Affected Environment. In the State of
Environmental Consequences. Alternative 1 (no action) represents the least amount of loop/connector routes available for longer riding experiences. Alternative 4, which represents the highest multiple opportunities for ORV users, would provide 279 miles of loops and connectors over 5 miles in length, with many located near the communities of Big Fork, Remer, and Lake Winnibigoshish. Through the mixed use analysis, 294 miles of OML 3, 4, and 5 roads would be designated open. ORV riders would also continue to have access to the
Issue 2: Provide increased access during hunting season
Affected Environment. The majority of ORV use in
Environmental Consequences. Alterative 4 is the only alternative that responds to the request for increased hunter access in the fall with an additional 645 miles of system roads open to ORV use (mid-September to December 31). Implementing this alternative may feel more limiting or restrictive to ORV users throughout the spring and summer months than the existing condition; however, there would be an overall increase in fall ORV access on system roads. Alternative 3 provides the least amount of hunter access to the general
Issue 3: Provide increased access for recreation experiences
Affected Environment. There are 2,528 miles of NF System roads on the CNF. Each system road is to be maintained to a level commensurate with the planned function and use of the road (see Table 7). The intended level of maintenance for a road is termed the Objective Maintenance Level (OML). OMLs are divided into five levels of maintenance intensity. OML 1 is the lowest level of maintenance and is closed to public use. OML 5 is the highest level of maintenance. Complete definitions of OML levels can be found 620-2 OML definitions
Table 7.
| Objective Maintenance Level | Miles of | ||
| Open | Closed | Total | |
| OML 1 | 0 | 383 | 383 |
| OML 2 | 1,530 | 147 | 1,677 |
| OML 3 | 0 | 183 | 183 |
| OML 4 | 0 | 251 | 251 |
| OML 5 | 0 | 34 | 34 |
| | | | |
| Total | 1,530 | 998 | 2,528 |
Mixed Use. NF System roads are designed primarily for use by highway-legal vehicles such as a passenger car or log truck. Some NF System roads also provide recreational access to non-highway legal ORVs. Motorized mixed-use is defined as designation of a NF System road for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles. OML 3, 4 and 5 roads are higher standard roads and subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Act and more strict standards for public safety. To allow [F3]ORV use on an OML 3, 4, or 5 roads, a mixed-use determination needs to be completed. Items under consideration for this analysis include driving conditions, operator characteristics, road design and condition, and safety.
Environmental Consequences. OML 2 roads provide access into the “interior” of the general Forest area, such as hunters would like; while OML 3 and higher roads tend to be point-to-point connectors and thoroughfares requested by day-trip recreational ORV riders. Therefore, while Alternative 1 (no action) has the highest total number of roads and access across the general Forest area, (and addresses this issue for more motorized access) it provides the least amount of inter-Forest connectivity by prohibiting use on OML 3, 4, and 5 roads. Alternative 3 provides the least amount of general
Table 8. Roads proposed open to ORV use by alternative and OML
| OML | Total Miles | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 |
| 1 | 382 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 1,676 | 1,530 | 1,168 | 705 | 1,493 |
| 3 | 183 | 0 | 83 | 76 | 113 |
| 4 | 252 | 0 | 133 | 99 | 158 |
| 5 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| | | | | | |
| Total Miles Open | 1,530 | 1,384 | 880 | 1,777 | |
| Total Mixed Use Open | 0 | 216 | 175 | 284 | |
Issue 4: Protection of natural resources and non-motorized recreation experiences
Affected Environment Natural Resources (Wildlife – See issue 5 for hydrology and soils): There are a total of 51 TES, RFSS, MIS on the CNF. Each of the 21 lynx analysis units on the
There have been four probable lynx sightings on the CNF. District personnel have surveyed for
The average open road density on all ownerships across all lynx analysis units on the
The
MIS and habitats on the
There are 14 non-native invasive species on the
Affected Environment Non-Motorized Recreation Experiences: In 1982 the Forest Service produced the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Handbook as the basic framework for planning and managing the recreation resource. The FEIS used the ROS Handbook, Eastern Region Lakes States Supplement, to adapt to local conditions experienced throughout northern
Comments received during the public scoping expressed concern that roads designated as open to ORVs adjacent to semi-primitive non-motorized areas and the North Country National Scenic Trail would encourage incursions into these non-motorized areas. These individuals proposed the establishment of a buffer zone to protect the integrity of the non-motorized recreation experience. Two different buffers were used to reflect the different themes carried forward in Alternative 3 (1.0 mile) and Alternative 4 (0.5 mile). A second indicator for the amount of ORV access is road densities within 0.5 mile and 1.0 mile of semi-primitive non-motorized areas and the North Country National Scenic Trail.
Environmental Consequences Natural Resources (Wildlife – See issue 5 for hydrology and soils): The designation and use of routes considered in this project may affect wildlife, fish, and rare plant resources in a number of ways. Motorized vehicle traffic can cause a visual or audible disturbance to some species of wildlife. If this occurs during a critical breeding time, it may cause nest or territory abandonment and lead to decreased fecundity rates. Increased densities of packed snow trails can reduce the competitive advantage of species like the
TES Wildlife Species: There are three TES wildlife species on the
For
The biological assessment has determined that all alternatives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle, gray wolf, and
Regional Forester Sensitive Species: all action alternatives would reduce human disturbance to nesting northern goshawk and red-shouldered hawks in all analysis areas, with Alternative 3 being the most desirable.
Please refer to the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report for a discussion of how all action alternatives would reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation within the riparian management zone, or 200 feet of lakes and streams, that provide habitat for the aquatic species guild. Alternative 3 would have the least effect on sensitive aquatic species. 520-1 Hydrology & Soils
OHVs that explore dead-nd roads eventually extend the road further into the
The biological evaluation has determined that all action alternatives may impact 28 (out of 47; or 60 percent) of the RFSS on the CNF, with Alternative 3 being the most desirable. There would be no impact to the remaining 19 species. This determination is based upon the National Forest Management Act requirement for maintaining viable populations of all native species in habitats that are well-distributed within the CNF planning area.
Management Indicator Species: Please see previous information for gray wolf, bald eagle, and northern goshawk. White pine planting as a component of within-stand diversity has been extremely limited due to browsing by white-tailed deer. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have little effect on white pine. However, Alternative 4 would increase seasonal hunting access by OHVs on 645 miles across the CNF. Increased hunting pressure in the fall would help to reduce the deer herd over the winter, when white pine seedlings are most vulnerable to browsing.
Non-native Invasive Species: Non-native invasive plants near infested trails or utility corridors are most likely to spread into the
Environmental Consequences Non-Motorized Recreation Experiences: In all of the alternatives, cross-country travel would continue to be prohibited. Under the no-action alternative and proposed action, ROS classifications and experiences would be maintained at current levels and no buffer zones would occur around the semi-primitive non-motorized areas or the North Country National Scenic Trail. Conversely, individuals that desire a non-motorized recreation experience would benefit by implementing Alternative 3. This alternative would provide an increase in opportunities to escape the sight and sounds associated with motorized use. For example, within 0.5 miles and 1.0 miles from semi-primitive non-motorized areas, road densities would drop 0.4 and 0.5 miles, respectively, from the existing condition to conditions under Alternative 3. Similarly, within 0.5 miles and 1.0 miles from the North Country Scenic Trail, road densities would drop 1.2 and 1 mile per square mile, respectively.
In Alternative 4, road densities in ROS classifications would increase in all ROS classifications, except semi-primitive motorized which would decrease (0.04 miles per square mile). A 0.5-mile buffer would be established around the semi-primitive non-motorized areas and the North Country National Scenic Trail.
Issue 5: Dead end routes may encourage illegal use
Affected Environment. Riparian areas (lakes, streams, and wetlands) cover approximately 49 percent of the land within the CNF proclamation boundaries; roads cross streams, on average, once for every 1.3 miles of stream on the
Individuals use dead-end spurs primarily for hunting and general
Environmental Consequences. The direct effects of OHV routes on water resources include input of eroded sediment into water bodies and changes to surface and subsurface water flow patterns. Indirect effects include changes to stream channel morphology, impacts to aquatic habitat, and impacts to wetland hydrology and vegetation due to excess sediment or runoff. The potential for these effects can be assessed by looking at the mileage of routes in the 100-foot-wide riparian management zone (RMZ), the miles of routes in wetlands, the number of stream crossings, and the mile of routes in the low motorized use capability (MUC) class (see Table 9).
Direct effects on soils include erosion, compaction, and rutting due to traffic on steep slopes or compactable soils. These can be assessed by calculating the miles of routes on steep slopes or in the low MUC class. Indirect effects involve erosion, compaction, and rutting due to off-route traffic. This is assessed by tabulating the number of dead-end routes open for use.
All alternatives comply with Forest Plan and regulatory direction. However, Alternative 3 most closely meets the direction by limiting the routes in areas sensitive to soil and water resources. It also contains the lowest number of stream crossings of all alternatives. Alternative 2 also makes better progress toward Forest Plan goals relative to Alternative 1 and 4, but contains significantly more routes in sensitive areas and over twice the number of stream crossings. Alternatives 1 and 4 contain similar amounts of routes in sensitive areas. Although Alternatives 1 and 4 comply with applicable direction, they do little to improve existing conditions. Alternative 1 does not respond to soil and water concerns such as riparian zones and wetlands. Alternative 4 actually contains more routes in sensitive areas and more crossings than Alternative 1 (no action) leading to the conclusion that Alternative 4 is least likely to help improve water and soil conditions.
Table 9. Results of analysis calculations from GIS
| Analysis Indicator | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 |
| Miles open in 100’ riparian zone | 17.7 | 15 | 4.5 | 21.8 |
| Miles open in 200’ riparian zone | 53.4 | 48.3 | 17.1 | 65.4 |
| Miles in wetlands | 100.6 | 66.6 | 38.5 | 104.9 |
| Number of stream crossings | 111 | 133 | 66 | 171 |
| Miles in low MUC class | 190.7 | 138.3 | 80.9 | 212.8 |
| Miles on steep (>18%) slopes | 16.3 | 12.9 | 5.8 | 16.2 |
| Number of dead ends | 507 | 288 | 2 | 482 |
Issue 6: The lack of annual operations and maintenance funding for roads
Affected Environment. The CNF currently manages 2,527 miles of roads within the boundaries of the
Roads are also categorized as open or closed. All OML 1 roads are closed to public use. OML 2 roads are primarily open to public motorized use.
Funding available for maintaining CNF roadways has decreased by 65 percent over the last 4 years. Because OML 3, 4, and 5 roads are higher standard roads, they are subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Act; therefore, limited
With an average cost of $330 per mile to complete basic grading, brushing, mowing, and some surface replacement, the
Table 10. Chippewa Forest baseline operation and maintenance costs for OML 3, 4, 5 roads
| OML | Total | Total Miles Maintained | Baseline Annual |
| 1 | 382 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1,676 | 0 | |
| 3 | 183 | 70 | $23,100 |
| 4 | 252 | 252 | $83,160 |
| 5 | 34 | 34 | $11,220 |
| Total | 2,527 | 356 | $117,480 |
In FY06, 380 miles of FS roads received some level of maintenance, including grading, brushing, mowing, or culvert replacements (Forest records – see Transportation Report). The contracted cost to maintain the 380 miles was $125,575, not including contract administrative costs. Other maintenance costs include road signing, resurfacing, and occasional highway striping at the recreation areas.
Environmental Consequences. The designation of ORV use to a roadway may increase maintenance required every year, and therefore maintenance costs. After 1 pass with an ORV, tire tracks are visible; annual vegetation is removed after 10 passes, and berms can form after 100 passes. After 200 passes with an ORV, the center of the trail surface is indented (Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). These changes to the road surface will alter the tracking ability of passenger cars that also use these roads. Road grading to minimize berms that may form in the roadway surface may be required. Brushing and/or mowing are also beneficial to keep brush and vegetation from growing in the roadway that leads to degraded sight distances.
The number of times a road would need to be bladed depends on the amount of ORV and other traffic use it receives. The range in values in the following table represents the difference between blading the roadway once or twice per season, at a cost of $60 per mile per blading. OML 2 cost estimates are based on a projection of $247 per mile; although maintenance is not currently funded for these roads (see Table 11).
Table 11. Projected operation and maintenance costs by alternative
| OML | Total Miles | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 |
| 1 | 382 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 1,676 | 1,530 | 1,168 | 705 | 1,493 |
| 3 | 183 | 0 | 83 | 76 | 113 |
| 4 | 252 | 0 | 133 | 99 | 158 |
| 5 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| | | | | | |
| Total Miles Open | 1,530 | 1,384 | 880 | 1,777 | |
| Projected O&M Cost: OML 2 Roads | $379, 371 | $332,724 | $225,202 | $282,562 | |
| Projected O&M Cost: OML 3, 4, 5 Roads | $0 | $12,960–$25,920 | $11,160–$22,320 | $17,700–$35,400 | |
The alternatives with the highest miles of mixed use designations are also the alternatives expected to include the highest potential operations and maintenance costs. Alternative 1 (no action) presents the lowest potential increase for OML 3, 4, and 5 roads, and yet the highest for OML 2 roads. (Currently, no maintenance occurs on OML 2 roads and all ORV use is designated only on OML 2 roads.) Alternative 4, with 71 percent of all roads designated, would have the highest potential increase to OML 3, 4, and 5 roads. Alternative 3 could lead to the lowest potential operation and maintenance cost increase to all OML level roads.
Issue 7: Environmental Justice and miles designated open in traditional Tribal hunting and gathering areas
Affected Environment. The designation of roads open to ORV use must be in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. The EO calls for consideration of the environmental, health, and economic effects on minority and low-income areas including the consumption patterns for fish and wildlife. In
The Forest Service considers potential impacts to public health from the proposed action to be limited to road safety issues. Therefore, potential impacts to public health and safety will be considered as part of the mixed-use analysis (highway legal vehicles and ORVs traveling along the same roadway).
In addition to the outreach with the general public, personal contacts have been made with the LLBO Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and Local Indian Councils (LICs). For each of the 15 LICs,
NF System roads support a range of activities including driving to work, accessing recreation opportunities, and traveling to areas for traditional American Indian practices and uses. On the CNF in general, NF System roads were more important to American Indian survey participants than non-Native Americans (Management and Use of Forest Roads on the
During the spring, access is needed for maple syruping during snow-melt; then for summer fishing and gathering of
Table 12. Summary of environmental justice indicators for the existing condition
| Environment Justice Indictors | No Action |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open for ORV use on the CNF | 1,530 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 632 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads closed to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 447 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open seasonally to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 0 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open seasonally (mid-September to December 31) for hunter access to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 0 |
Environmental Consequences. Table 13 outlines the miles of road open to ORV use within traditional hunting and gathering areas for Tribal members for each alternative.
Table 13. Summary of alternatives for environmental justice indicators
| Environment Justice Indictors | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 632 | 549 | 382 | 446 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads closed to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 447 | 456 | 665 | 288 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open seasonally to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 0 | 74 | 32 | 70 |
| Miles of Forest Service System roads open seasonally (mid-September to December 31) for hunter access to ORV use in identified traditional hunting and gathering areas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 275 |
All of the alternatives would continue to provide adequate access using NF System roads to meet the needs of minority and low income populations in Beltrami, Cass,
Mixed Use. Alternative 1 (no action) prohibits mixed use based on Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and therefore presents the lowest potential risk for highway legal and non-highway legal vehicle traffic accidents. Alternative 4, with 295 miles of proposed mixed use, presents the highest potential traffic safety risk. OML 2 roads designated open for ORV use still allow high-clearance vehicles and logging truck traffic and ORV vehicles to travel the same corridor concurrently. However, a formal analysis is not required for this use to occur.
Summary Comparison of Cumulative Effects
Outlined as follows are three general categories of past, present, potential future, and connected actions that may contribute towards the environmental consequences to the CNF Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel Access Project. For a more detailed discussion of the potential cumulative effects by resource area, please see the individual specialist reports for each resource area.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Road Closures
The CNF Forest Plan made decisions regarding future travel access needs on NF System roads. As stated in O-TS-7, “Unneeded roads will be decommissioned and closed to motorized vehicles. Roads that are not necessary for long-term resource management are considered ‘unneeded.’”(page 2-48) Additionally, O-TS-8 states, “The Forest will decommission approximately 200 miles of road.” (page 2-48). Annually, the
Environmental analyses for several vegetation management projects have identified roads to be decommissioned since the Forest Plan was finalized. The
All alternatives proposed in this project will use existing roads. Therefore, no new acres of upland young and open vegetation conditions are expected to result from this project. This project will not result in cumulative effects relative to the upland young and open forest indicator typically used in cumulative effects analysis of timber management projects.
The quality and standard of roads on the CNF has increased substantially over the past 15 years because of timber harvest and recreational activities, although road density has recently begun to stabilize. Increased road miles and road usage have lowered the amount of remote habitat available to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Increased human access may result in disturbance during the breeding season, illegal shooting and trapping, collisions with vehicles, introduced parasites and diseases, competition with other predators, reduced water quality from erosion and sedimentation, trampling, browsing, snow compaction, soil compaction, invasion of exotic earthworms, and infestation of non-native plants.
Road decommissioning from previous resource management projects is making progress at reducing the road density in each lynx analysis unit; however, total road density remains above the 2 miles per square mile threshold in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy for all lynx analysis units except LAU 14.
The cumulative effects from all action alternatives meet Endangered Species Act requirements for threatened and endangered species, and Forest Plan requirements for RFSS, MIS, and non-native invasive species, with Alternative 3 being the most desirable.
Connected Actions by Surrounding Landowners
The State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is developing plans to classify each of the seven State Forests and scattered State Forest lands within and adjacent to the boundaries of the CNF for ORV use.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ohv/index.html
Table 13. ORV route designations on State lands
| | Proposed Classification |
| Battleground | Closed |
| Bigfork | Managed |
| Blackduck | Managed |
| Bowstring | Limited |
| | Limited |
| Remer | Limited |
| | Closed |
| Scattered State Forest Lands within | Managed |
| Scattered State Forest Lands within Northern | Limited |
| Scattered State Forest Lands within | Managed |
| Source: Proposed Forest Classification and | |
Due to the scope of the Off-Highway Vehicle Road Travel Access Project, as identified in the purpose and need, cumulative effects are limited to total ORV access within the boundary of the CNF. Because of (1) the intermixed land ownership on the
Chippewa Forest
Along with the road decommissioning, the Forest Plan also states that the
Consultation and Coordination
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state, and local agencies, Tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment.
Forest Service ID Team Members
Ann Long-Voelkner: Project Leader; Public Scoping and Comments
Lisa Whitcomb: Project Manager
Mike Martin: Recreation; Social; Economic; Environmental Justice
Luke Rutten: Hydrology; Soils
Stan Kot: Threatened, Endangered, & Sensitive Species; Wildlife
Millie Baird: Transportation
Drew Wilson: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Andrea LaVasseur: Heritage Resources
Frank Polich: Mixed Use Analysis
Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR): DNR Regional commissioners DNR Law Enforcement; other resource personnel
Cass,
Tribes
Leech
A complete description of the workshops and discussions with the 16 Local Indian Councils and other Tribal members can be found in the project record.
Others
Initial scoping letters and information went to over 400 people. The list is available at the Chippewa Forest Supervisor’s Office.
No comments:
Post a Comment