how to file commentsa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2015-07-08 · 1 how to...

1

HOW TO FILE COMMENTS

This project will be subject to an administrative review process in accordance with direction contained in Section 428 of the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. The Department of Agriculture’s final rule for the establishment of a pre-decisional administrative review process (36 CFR 218) was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (Volume 78, No. 59, pp.18481 to 18504); these regulations are effective immediately (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-27/pdf/2013-06857.pdf). The final rule replaces the appeal process (36 CFR 215) with a pre-decisional administrative review process (also referred to as the objection process) for those project decisions made for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.

The objection process already exists for projects planned under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). The final rule expands the agency’s authority to use a pre-decisional objection process for non-HFRA projects, while continuing to be consistent with the notice and comment provisions of the Appeal Reform Act (Public law 102-381).

Comment Process Only individuals or entities who submit timely and specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. Opportunity for public comment on an EA includes during scoping or any other instance where the responsible official seeks written comments (36 CFR 218.5). Specific written comments are defined by 36 CFR 218.2. This section says “Written comments are those submitted to the responsible official or designee during a designated opportunity for public participation (36 CFR 218.5(a)) provided for a proposed project. Written comments can include submission of transcriptions or other notes for oral statements or presentation. For the purposes of this rule, specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed actions, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.”

Comments on this EA will be accepted for 30 days beginning on the first day after the date of publication of the legal notice in the paper of record (Michigan’s Ironwood Daily Globe). If the comment period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, comments will be accepted until the end of the next Federal working day.

Filing a comment (see 36 CFR 218.25)

It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure that their commentsare received in a timely manner. Written comments must be postmarked by the PostalService, emailed, faxed, or otherwise submitted (for example, express delivery service)by 11:59 p.m. in the time zone of the receiving office on the 30th calendar day followingpublication of the legal notice (36 CFR 215.25 (4)(i)).

Hand-delivered comments must be time and date imprinted at the correct responsibleofficial’s office by the close of business on the 30th calendar day following publication of

2

the legal notice for proposed projects or activities to be analyzed and documented in an EA (36 CFR 215.25 (4)(ii)).

For emailed comments, the sender should normally receive an automated electronicacknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does notreceive an automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the comments, it is the sender’sresponsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means (36 CFR 215.25 (4)(iii)).

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Ottawa National Forest Supervisor’s Office

E6248 US Highway 2 Ironwood, MI 49938 (906) 932-1300 (906) 932-0122 FAX (906) 932-0301 TTY

Caring for the Land and Serving People

Comment Form

Ottawa National Forest

Northern Land & Sales Land Exchange Project

NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

EMAIL ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________________

I have the following comments about the project’s proposal:

Please Return to: USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Attn: Forest Supervisor, E6248 US Highway 2, Ironwood, MI 49938 (or fold, seal, and add a stamp to the back of this sheet. It is pre-addressed).

____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________

USDA Forest Service Supervisor’s Office Attn: Forest Supervisor E6248 US Highway 2 Ironwood, MI 49938

place stamphere

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Northern Land and Sales

Land Exchange Project Environmental Assessment

Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest, Houghton and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan

February 2015

For More Information Contact:

Michelle Holland, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Phone: 906.358.4021 Fax: 906.358.4000

Deciding Official: Linda L. Jackson, Forest Supervisor

Ottawa National Forest E6248 US Highway 2 East Ironwood, Michigan 49938

Phone: 906.932.1330 Fax: 906.932.0122

*Photo on front cover: View of the Ontonagon River from the non-Federal parcel proposed for acquisition in land exchange. Photo taken by Michelle Holland, Realty Specialist, Ottawa National Forest. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or activities.) If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD). If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office. To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call Toll free, (866) 632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice users). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

1

Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 3 Need for Proposal ............................................................................................................... 3 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...................................................................... 4

Tribal Governments ........................................................................................................ 4 Public Comment Review Process ................................................................................... 4

Proposed Action and Alternatives ....................................................................................... 5 No Action – Alternative 1 ............................................................................................... 6 Proposed Action – Alternative 2 ..................................................................................... 6 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................................................ 8 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 8

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives ....................................................................... 10 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 11

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 12 Botany ........................................................................................................................... 12

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 13 Non-Native Invasive Species ........................................................................................ 15

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 15 Soil and Water ............................................................................................................... 18

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 19 Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................................................................... 20

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 21 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 23 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 23

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 24 Finding of No Significant Impact ..................................................................................... 25

Context .......................................................................................................................... 25 Intensity......................................................................................................................... 25 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 30

References ......................................................................................................................... 31

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses ........................................................................ 5 Table 2. Comparison of Outcomes and Direct and Indirect Effects ................................... 8 Definitions of the terms used in this document as well as a list of acronyms are located in the glossary section of the Ottawa National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), which is available upon request. This documentation is also located at the following website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/projects (see the Northern Land & Sales Land Exchange Project link within the “Under Analysis” section).


2

Introduction The Ottawa National Forest is proposing a land exchange with Norman Pestka, of Northern Land & Sales. The exchange would include approximately 51.07 acres of Federal land, including the site of the Ontonagon County garage north of Bergland and land adjacent to the Duncan Township cemetery, for approximately 48.70 acres of non-Federal land located along the Ontonagon River near Rockland, MI. This proposal is modified from the June 2014 scoping, which proposed 81.07 acres of Federal land for the same 48.70 acres of non-Federal lands. The USDA’s Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the proposed land exchange between the proponent, Norman Pestka of Northern Land & Sales, and the Forest Service, may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The information presented in this EA is based on the best available information. All locations, acreages and other figures are approximated. Calculations used for this analysis are based on skilled interpretations of aerial photos and maps; data evaluation; application of professional judgment from personal observations with similar projects; and information acquired from review of relevant, scientific literature. To facilitate environmental analysis of this project, the Responsible Official instructed the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team to develop a framework for their analysis. This analysis framework establishes analysis assumptions and defines the depth and detail of analysis necessary to aid the Responsible Official in making findings as presented in the Finding of No Significant Impact. The ID Team developed the analysis framework based on comments received in scoping, their professional knowledge of expected outcomes and effects, and other legal requirements. This document is available on the Ottawa’s website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/projects, or is available upon request.

Project Location The parcels proposed for exchange are located on the Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, in Houghton and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan (see Maps in Appendix A).

Federal Lands: Parcel 1 – T49N, R42W, Section 33, NWNW, Ontonagon County, MI (50 acres), approximately 3/4 of a mile north of Bergland, MI; Parcel 2 – T47N, R37W, a portion of land in Section 2, SESE, Houghton County, MI (1.07 acres), approximately 1/2 mile north of Kenton, MI; and


3

Non-Federal Land: Parcel 3 – T50N, R39W, Section 20, a portion of SWNE, Ontonagon County, MI (48.70 acres), approximately 1½ miles southwest of Rockland, MI.

Affected Environment Federal Parcel 1 is a 50-acre parcel near Bergland, MI, that is bordered by private lands on the north and south sides, with National Forest System lands on the east. The west side of the parcel is bounded by State Highway M-64, with National Forest land also located on the west side of M-64. This parcel contains an Ontonagon County Road Commission garage and associated structures, which have been under a special use permit since 1987. It also contains a pipeline right-of-way on the eastern side of the parcel, and other utility improvements such as electric, telephone and fiber optic lines, which run along the M-64 road right-of-way, and also serve the county garage facilities. Parcel 1 is located in Management Area (MA) 6.2 which emphasizes a semi-primitive motorized recreational environment, and maintains a high amount of the northern hardwood forest type, with some aspen emphasized in portions of the area. The parcel itself is located along a developed area of M-64, with structures and homes to the north and south. About two-thirds of the parcel is upland, with areas of wetlands throughout. Federal Parcel 2 is a 1.07 acre tract adjacent to the west side of the Duncan Township cemetery, near Kenton, Michigan. It is located in MA 1.1a which emphasizes early-successional community types within a roaded natural, motorized recreation environment. The property is mostly level terrain, with mature timber. Parcel 3, the non-Federal parcel, is 48.70 acres, located on the main branch of the Ontonagon River southwest of Rockland, MI, and is completely surrounded by National Forest land. The Ontonagon River forms the north and northeastern boundaries of the parcel, and Victoria Dam Road cuts through the northwestern corner of the property. The surrounding federal lands are located within MA 1.1a. The topography within the parcel is gently sloping to the river, and consists mainly of northern hardwoods. As a vacant, forested tract of land, it has not been recently logged, and would be considered mainly a recreational property. There is a one-acre tract within Parcel 3 that would be excluded from the exchange, as it is owned by a third party.

Need for Proposal The Ottawa National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/forestplan) includes direction in the form of forest-wide goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, as well as management area-specific standards and guidelines. Together, all of these elements outline the desired conditions for the entirety of the Ottawa’s landscape. The analysis that was performed in the Forest Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Statement included the expectation that the desired conditions would not be achieved immediately. Instead, the Forest Plan’s desired conditions are used as the foundation for how management strives towards achieving, or maintaining, the desired conditions through site-specific projects (Forest Plan, p. 1-10).


4

The Ottawa is continually working toward more efficient and effective land management. The purpose and need of this proposal is to implement the direction contained in the Forest Plan, which gives priority to land adjustments where one or more of the following is achieved (Forest Plan p. 2-36). The need for this project is to:

reduce administrative costs; enhance land management efficiencies; protect fish and wetland values associated with a major river corridor; provide suitable land to local communities for public purposes; and provide added public recreation opportunities.

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation A scoping letter explaining the purpose and need for action, as well as the location and description of the Proposed Action, was sent to more than 94 parties in June 2014. This included those interested parties on the Ottawa mailing list, landowners within ¼ mile of any of the 3 parcels proposed for exchange, as well as relevant local government agencies and local townships. It was also announced through the Ottawa’s Schedule of Proposed Actions1 (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/).

Tribal Governments The Forest Service shares in the United States’ legal responsibility and treaty obligations to work with federally-recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect the Tribe’s ceded territory rights on lands administered by the Forest Service. The scoping documentation was sent to several Tribes, including local representatives of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Additionally, Ottawa staff met with representatives of these Tribal governments to discuss this project in January 2014 and August 2014 (see project file).

Public Comment Review Process Seven interested parties and one group sent comment letters in response to the June 2014 scoping letter. Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1503.4), all comments were evaluated by the ID Team and Responsible Official. We received comments that both supported and opposed the Proposed Action. Each comment was reviewed to ensure that concerns raised were within the scope of the proposal and relevant to the decision being made. Comments were then reviewed to determine if an alternative to the Proposed Action was necessary and/or if the project proposal (i.e. cause) would produce an undesirable result (i.e. effect) that could not be addressed through protection measures afforded by law, regulation, policy, Forest Plan direction or proposed design criteria.

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


5

These cause-effect relationships are called issues. As outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 12.4, issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the purpose and need for the proposal while reducing adverse effects. The Responsible Official determined that the concerns raised in comments can be resolved through modification of the Proposed Action. Several comments were received expressing concerns about the potential value difference between the Federal and non-Federal parcels and protection of wetland values on Federal Parcel 1. As a result, the Responsible Official conferred with the proponent, which resulted in a modification of the Proposed Action. The proponent was in favor of reconfiguring Federal Parcel 1 to lessen the likelihood of a value difference outside of the 25% difference allowed, and to exclude several acres of wetland from the proposed exchange. A deed covenant would be necessary on 12.30 acres to protect retained wetlands as directed in Forest Service Handbook 5409.13 section 33.43c. Based on the comments received, and the modification of the Proposed Action, the Responsible Official has determined that there are no issues with the Proposed Action. Other concerns have been identified, but they can be addressed through implementation of Forest Plan direction or a clarification of the project’s intent (see project file, Comment Matrix).

Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives were considered through a detailed analysis. A summary of the expected outcomes from implementation is included in the description of the alternatives. These expected outcomes show how the current project area conditions would be changed in response to project implementation, and also demonstrates the extent to which each alternative would meet the purpose and need of the proposal.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses

Alternative Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3

No Action

Remains in federal ownership. This parcel could be subject to previously authorized actions for timber harvest under the Ridge Project (approx. 30 acres). The special use permit for the County garage would continue.

Remains in federal ownership. No activity is currently planned by the Ottawa.

Remains in private ownership. It is assumed the current recreational use with occasional timber harvest would continue.


6

Alternative Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3

Proposed Action

Exchanged to proponent who would harvest timber and/or sell land as recreational properties on 44 acres. Six acres would be deeded to the Ontonagon County Road Commission.

Exchanged to proponent who would deed this parcel (1.07 acres) to Duncan Township for future expansion of the existing cemetery.

Becomes National Forest land, and approx. 48.07 acres are incorporated into MA 1.1a. and managed according to Forest Plan direction

No Action – Alternative 1 This alternative was developed as required in 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and serves as the baseline for evaluating the Proposed Action. In summary, the No Action alternative does not propose the land exchange. Under this alternative, the existing conditions within the project area would continue. In Parcel 1, the FS made a determination in the Ridge Vegetation and Road Management Project (VRMP) to harvest timber, which may or may not be implemented. No actions are proposed by the FS on Federal Parcel 2 at this time. It could be expected the non-Federal Parcel 3 would continue to be managed as a recreational property with occasional timber harvesting. The No Action alternative does not contribute toward the purpose and need of the proposal. Therefore, the No Action alternative would have: higher administrative costs due to the boundary line maintenance and special use administration; less opportunity for protecting fish and wetland values along the Ontonagon River; less benefit for community purposes (no cemetery expansion); and less opportunity for increased recreational opportunities. Federal Parcels 1 and 2 would continue to be managed in compliance with Forest Plan objectives.

Proposed Action – Alternative 2 Specifically, the Proposed Action includes authorizing a land exchange between the Forest Service and Norman Pestka (Northern Land and Sales). The proposed land exchange includes exchanging approximately 48.70 acres of land owned by Mr. Pestka, for approximately 51.07 acres of Federal land. The Federal land includes two separate parcels; Parcel 1 is 50 acres and Parcel 2 is 1.07 acres (see Appendix A). It would include a deed covenant2 to protect approximately 12.30 acres of wetland on Parcel 1. In this instance, the deed covenant would restrict any new construction or changing of the natural elements of the identified wetlands in any manner. See Table 1 for information pertaining to proposed land use if the land exchange is authorized.

2 A covenant is typically an agreement or contract to do or refrain from doing something, and if validly reached, is enforceable by a court.


7

The Proposed Action would meet the purpose and need as outlined on page 4. The exchange would protect fish and wetland values associated within a major river corridor. The non-Federal Parcel 3 is located within a Forest Service purchase unit3, specifically established for the purpose of acquiring and protecting lands along the Ontonagon River corridor. Parcel 3 is completely surrounded by National Forest land, and has approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along the Ontonagon River. Acquisition of the property would help to solidify public ownership of river frontage within this corridor, affording the ability to better manage for fish, wetlands, and other river resource values. The Proposed Action would lower resource management costs of Federal Parcel 1. If completed, this exchange would eliminate approximately 1.02 miles of boundary line needing to be maintained by the Forest Service. Boundary line maintenance includes refreshing boundary markers and brushing the line approximately every 10-15 years. Reducing boundary lines with non-federal lands also reduces the potential for trespass and the management issues and costs related to an encroachment. The Proposed Action would also eliminate the need for the special use permit currently issued to the Ontonagon County Road Commission, which authorizes the occupancy of 6 acres of National Forest land, including structures, parking areas, stockpiles, etc. This is a complex special use permit that requires annual inspection of the facilities, and occasionally more frequent oversight, to ensure compliance with the permit, as well as federal law. Eliminating the need for the permit would save these management costs. An expected outcome of the exchange includes providing land that is suited to and needed for community development and other public purposes to local communities. Mr. Pestka proposes to deed the 6 acres of land currently occupied by special use permit to the Ontonagon County Road Commission. He also proposes to deed the 1.07 acres of land adjacent to the cemetery (Parcel 2) to Duncan Township, to allow for future expansion. The Proposed Action would increase and diversify public recreation opportunities. Currently, Federal Parcels 1 and 2 provide limited recreational opportunities, offering only general forest use (berry picking, wildlife viewing, etc.). If acquired, Parcel 3 would provide the public an additional 3,000 feet of river frontage, with easy access to Federal lands along the Ontonagon River for such recreational purposes as canoeing, fishing and swimming, as well as general forest uses. Prior to the conveyance of Federal lands, the proponent would be required to replace the existing special use permits and easement (permits with Ontonagon County Road Commission, Xcel Energy, AT&T, Bresnan Communications Company, Northern Natural Gas, Ontonagon County Telephone Company, and easement with the State of Michigan),

3 Purchase Unit—A unit designated by the Secretary of Agriculture or previously approved by the National Forest Reservation Commission for purposes of Weeks Law acquisition.


8

by issuing appropriate legal instruments to the owners of the improvements for their continued use. The small, private inholding on the non-Federal Parcel 3 has an easement for the existing road, which would continue, and which authorizes maintenance of the road as well as motorized use. Lands conveyed out of federal ownership become subject to the laws, regulations and zoning authorities of state and local governing bodies.

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis The original Proposed Action of exchanging 81.07 acres of Federal land for 48.70 acres of non-Federal land has been eliminated from detailed analysis to address concerns raised in scoping. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires that the non-Federal and Federal properties involved in an exchange proposal, if not equal in value, can be made equal by either party by payment of cash not to exceed 25 percent of the Federal value. The original Proposed Action, disclosed in the scoping letter, stated that Federal Parcel 1 consisted of 80 acres. Several concerns were raised pertaining to the potential difference in value between this 80 acres and 48.70 acres of land owned by Mr. Pestka. Concerns were also expressed about the potential effects to wetlands in the eastern half of Federal Parcel 1 if the Proposed Action was selected for implementation. The appraisal has not been completed to date; estimating the exact difference in value between the Federal and non-Federal parcel would be speculative in nature. Therefore, to address commenter concerns, the Responsible Official excluded 40 acres from Federal Parcel 1 (the eastern half), for a total of 40 acres to exchange. It was estimated that this change further reduced the likelihood that the difference between the Federal and non-Federal parcels would exceed the 25% difference allowed. The resource analysis was not completed for this parcel configuration due to preliminary findings that the values of the exchange may not be within the 25% difference in value allowed. The Responsible Official added 10 acres back into Parcel 1, for a total of 50 acres, to provide more balance in values (within the 25%) for the land exchange. The 50 acres were carried forward into detailed analyses as outlined in Section I of this document. Modification of the Proposed Action from 80 acres (as presented in the scoping letter) to 50 acres results in excluding several acres of wetlands on the Federal parcel, and therefore also addresses the concerns raised pertaining to the amount of wetland protection required if the exchange is authorized.

Comparison of Alternatives The following table summarizes the direct and indirect effects estimated for implementation of the proposed alternatives as outlined in the Proposed Action and Alternatives and Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives sections.

Table 2. Comparison of Outcomes and Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Summary of Outcomes

Lands No Action: The Federal parcels would continue to be managed according to Forest Plan direction. Lands would not be provided for local community use.


9

Proposed Action: Reduces administrative costs and provides land to local communities for public purposes.

Resource Summary of Effects

Recreation

No Action: Public recreation opportunities on the Federal parcels would remain as they currently are; open to general forest activities. Proposed Action: Public recreation opportunities would be increased and diversified through additional public access along the Ontonagon River.

Botany

No Action: No Impact to any Regional Forester Sensitive Plant Species (RFSS). Slightly negative impacts to cutleaf toothwort (MIS). Proposed Action: No Impact to any RFSS. Slightly negative impacts to cutleaf toothwort.

Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP)

No Action: Existing NNIPs on Parcel 1 and 3 would be expected to persist and may slowly spread. Following authorized clearcut harvest on Parcel 1, NNIP are most likely to occur in skid trails and roads. Proposed Action: There would be no direct effects on NNIP from the activity of changing ownership. Indirect effects could occur from activities on the parcels after transfer. Overall, Federal Parcels 1 and 2 are likely to have increased NNIP under the Proposed Action, while the non-Federal parcel would remain heavily infested with buckthorn but have little other change in NNIP present.

Soil and Water

No Action: There would be no change to the acres of federally owned wetlands and floodplains, and there would be no expected effects to the soil resource in Federal Parcels 1 and 2. Proposed Action: There would be 12.30 fewer acres of wetland in federal ownership, which would be protected by a deed covenant. There would be an additional 10.80 acres of floodplain under federal ownership. Minor negative impacts to soil and wetland resources within Parcels 1 and 2 could be expected. However, the degree of the impacts would be dependent upon the level of Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation and site development that may occur on each of those parcels. On Parcel 3, minor positive effects to the soil and water resources could be expected.


10

Fisheries and Wildlife

No Action: A “Not Likely to Jeopardize” finding was reached for the northern long-eared bat. A “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” finding was reached for the gray wolf. A “No Effect” finding was made for Canada Lynx (federal threatened) and Kirtland’s warbler (federally endangered). A “May Impact Individuals” determination was reached for two other RFSS bat species and a “No Impact” determination was made for all other aquatic and terrestrial RFSS. Minor habitat changes through natural processes would have positive and negative impacts on a variety of wildlife species. Proposed Action: Same determinations and findings for species as outlined above. Minor habitat changes through timber harvest, land clearing and natural processes would have positive and negative impacts on a variety of wildlife species.

Cultural Resources No Action: There would be no effect to cultural resources.

Proposed Action: There would be no effect to cultural resources.

Vegetation No Action: There would be no effect to the timber resource.

Proposed Action: Gain of 47.634 acres in MA 1.1a, and 50 acres less in MA 6.2.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the alternatives for each impacted resource. This chapter describes the unintended environmental consequences (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 section 12.4) - also referred to as effects or impacts - on the resources within the project area. The resources discussed in this section are those for which effects are known to occur due to the types of activities proposed, and for those where public comment indicated a concern. Additional effects are discussed in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) section as related to specific legal requirements. The anticipated effects are based on professional judgment and knowledge about the extent and duration of effects based on our past experience in the planning and implementation of similar types of activities and establishment of deed covenants. We can further narrow down the range of expected effects based upon activities in the past, present and future that have similar characteristics. To understand the contribution of past actions, some resources used the existing conditions as a representation for the impacts of the past (as allowed by the 2005 CEQ Memo, see project file). These conclusions are based on the selected bounds of analysis per resource area, as identified in the Analysis Framework. The bounds of analysis that define the location 4 This number arrived at by gaining 48.70 acres in Parcel 3, and subtracting 1.07 acres in Parcel 2, both of which are in MA1.1a.


11

(extent) and timeframe (duration) considered for estimating the outcomes and effect are disclosed in the Analysis Framework document, which is available on the Ottawa’s website, or upon request.

Recreation This analysis is based on the concept of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The ROS is a framework for understanding the relationships and interactions between recreation settings and benefits. The key to providing recreational benefits is the setting and how it is managed. “Setting indicators” such as access, remoteness, naturalness, facilities, social encounters, visitor impacts, and the visitors themselves influence the benefits people gain from recreation. The ROS objectives are identified in Appendix B of the Forest Plan for each management area (B-1 through B-5). Recreation on National Forests is more than people camping, viewing scenery, hiking, biking, or riding horses. Research shows people choose a specific setting for each of these activities to gain certain benefits or satisfaction (Jubenville, 1993). For example, hiking in a large undeveloped setting with difficult access and few facilities may offer a sense of solitude, challenge, and self-reliance. In contrast, hiking in a setting with easy access and highly developed facilities may offer more comfort, security, and social opportunities.

Affected Environment The parcels proposed for exchange have a somewhat limited variety of recreation opportunities. On the Federal parcels, the area is considered general forest area, consisting of a variety of unmanaged recreational opportunities, such as wildlife viewing, berry picking, etc. Presently there are no developed recreation facilities or designated motorized access on Parcels 1 and 2. Federal Parcel 1 is located directly adjacent to a State Highway, and has approximately 6 acres occupied by County Road Commission improvements. It is located in MA 6.2, which emphasizes a ROS class of semi-primitive motorized recreational environment that is characterized by a predominately natural-appearing environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users (Forest Plan, p. B-1). Motorized use may be permitted in this MA; however, there is unauthorized Off-Highway-Vehicle (OHV) use occurring on adjacent National Forest land and onto the parcel. Federal Parcel 2 is adjacent to the Duncan Township cemetery, and is located in MA 1.1a, which emphasizes a ROS class of roaded natural (RN) motorized recreation environment. The RN area is characterized by a predominately natural appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Interaction between users may be low to moderate but with evidence of other users prevalent (Forest Plan, p. B-1). Because this is a small parcel directly adjacent to a cemetery, there is not much opportunity for recreational use.


12

Non-Federal Parcel 3 is also located in MA 1.1a with a ROS class of roaded natural, as previously described for Federal Parcel 2. In general, recreational use of the parcel is dispersed. There is an existing two-track road within the parcel which serves the 1-acre inholding and which is used by full-sized vehicles and OHVs. There are other low level roads within the parcel that receive occasional use by vehicles and OHVs. Some off-road use by OHVs was noted, with a trail going down onto the sandbars in the river.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No Action Under the No Action alternative, recreation use would generally be expected to continue as it currently exists. The Federal parcels would continue to offer easily accessible general forest recreation opportunities to the public. It would be expected that private recreational use would continue on non-Federal Parcel 3.

Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, the potential, future conversion of forest types to aspen on Parcel 1 through the Ridge RVMP would provide a slight increase in hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. No cumulative effects are expected for Parcels 2 and 3.

Proposed Action The general forest recreation opportunities offered on Federal Parcels 1 and 2 would no longer be available to the public. The Proposed Action includes acquiring a parcel of private land that has existing roads and easy walk in access to the Ontonagon River from Victoria Dam Road. Existing roads on the private parcel need to be reviewed under a separate decision to determine if they would be system roads or included on the Ottawa Motorized Vehicle Use Map. Until then, public motorized use would not be authorized on the parcel. However, acquiring Parcel 3 would provide an immediate, increased opportunity for walk in public access to the Ontonagon River, offering a more diverse recreation experience. With easy access to the river, opportunities for canoeing and fishing would be available, and as Parcel 3 is more remote than Federal Parcels 1 and 2, it would offer more opportunity for hunting and quiet sport pursuits. This parcel would be incorporated into MA 1.1a and managed for a roaded natural motorized recreation environment.

Cumulative Effects

There are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area that would result in cumulative effects to recreation when considered in conjunction with the effects of the Proposed Action.

Botany

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) A biological evaluation for plants and wildlife has been completed; see the Wildlife section for additional information. Biological Evaluations must arrive at one of the four


13

possible determinations for RFSS: 1) “no impacts” (NI; where no effect is expected); 2) “beneficial effects” (BEN; where effects are expected to be beneficial); 3) “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” (MII; where effects are expected to be insignificant [e.g. unmeasurable], or discountable [e.g., extremely unlikely]); 4) “likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”, (LRT; where effects are expected to be detrimental and substantial). The entirety of the BE is in the project file. Due to the current low potential for RFSS plants on Parcels 1 and 2; the opportunity to survey for and protect populations on the parcel that would be acquired; the protection of some wetland acreage; the lack of documented rare plants on the parcels; and the minor amount of acres involved in the proposed exchange, the effects to RFSS plants are discountable. Therefore, the determination for all RFSS plant species is No Impact.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Cutleaf toothwort (Dentaria laciniata also known as Cardamine concatenata) is a low-growing native spring ephemeral in the mustard family, and is a Management Indicator Species (MIS) as it is representative of other spring ephemerals. Spring ephemerals are perennials with relatively low growth rates and slow reproduction, which tend to not compete well with disturbance-tolerant species (McLachlan and Bazely 2001). Matlack (1994) describes cutleaf toothwort as having no particular seed dispersal vector (other than gravity), which limits its ability to migrate. Cutleaf toothwort typically inhabits northern hardwoods and occasionally rocky areas. On the Ottawa National Forest, cutleaf toothwort is an indicator species for management in northern hardwoods.

Affected Environment Field survey in 2014 found that Parcel 1 includes a 22 acre upland red maple stand, which has the potential to provide habitat for cutleaf toothwort. However, habitat within Parcel 2 is unsuitable for this MIS and therefore it will not be discussed further. Parcel 3 has not been entirely mapped, but a quick review of aerial photographs suggests 25 to 30 acres are northern hardwoods. Field survey in 2014 confirmed the presence of a stand of northern hardwoods south of Victoria Road, although much is infested with the non-native invasive plant (NNIP) glossy buckthorn which may inhibit toothwort. No cutleaf toothwort was observed in the field surveys, but the surveys were conducted in late summer and fall when toothwort would not be visible even if present.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects In general, past intensive timber harvest and other activities likely extirpated many cutleaf toothwort plants as well as decreased the total acreage of northern hardwoods on the Forest. Ongoing disturbance and slow recolonization rates common to forest herbs (Verheyen et al. 2003), stand management, succession and other activities contribute to current toothwort population levels. There are no present management actions in the bounds of analysis that overlap in time (duration) or space (extent) with the Proposed Action.


14

No Action No exchange of parcels would occur and therefore no direct or indirect effects to the parcels would occur. On Parcel 1, the red maple stand could continue to possibly provide toothwort habitat and any toothwort plants present would remain undisturbed. The older quaking aspen stand could begin to convert toward a hardwood cover type, possibly providing potential toothwort habitat in the future. In non-Federal Parcel 3, the habitat and any existing toothwort populations would not be disturbed in the short term. The private parcel would remain privately owned and it is assumed the current recreational use with occasional timber harvest would continue. Spread of the buckthorn infestation could remove areas from the potential available habitat for colonization by toothwort. However, availability of habitat does not appear to be limiting for this plant (Fox et al. 2012). Outside of the buckthorn areas, natural succession and aging of the hardwood stand could be beneficial to toothwort over time as more down woody material and complex forest floor structure develops. Also, Matlack (1994) notes that older second growth stands have had more time for accretion of forest interior species like toothwort which are slow to disperse and recolonize.

Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, in the reasonably foreseeable future, the red maple stand (and adjacent aspen stand) could be clearcut harvest in Parcel 1 as authorized under the Ridge VRMP. Clearcutting would retain the aspen type and likely convert the maple stand to aspen, which would remove these areas as suitable for toothwort.

Proposed Action There would be no direct effects on cutleaf toothwort from the activity of changing ownership. Indirect effects could occur from activities on the parcels after transfer. After the proposed exchange, logging is likely in the upland red maple stand in Parcel 1 that may host toothwort. If management activities favor northern hardwoods, and development of mature forest structure, then this parcel would continue to provide some MIS habitat. If the parcel is sold after harvest as a recreational parcel, some additional clearing is likely, with loss of any toothwort plants or habitat that may be present (see project file for detailed discussion of timber harvest effects on toothwort). Parcel 3 would be managed according to Forest Plan direction, which could include maintaining the northern hardwood cover type for cutleaf toothwort (Forest Plan, p. 2-13). However, no management is currently being considered in this area.

Cumulative Effects

Under the Proposed Action, Parcel 3 could be managed to retain the northern hardwood forest type. Recreational use of the parcel, such as for hunting is possible, and is not expected to harm toothwort persistence in the stands. Natural succession and forest stand aging may be beneficial. Thus there is little accumulation of effects.


15

Overall, both alternatives may have a negative trend for toothwort, with possible loss of some toothwort plants and habitat. However, recent analysis of monitoring data from 2006 through 2011 found no difference in abundance of cutleaf toothwort in stands treated with timber harvests versus untreated stands (Fox et al. 2012). Geographic position in relation to source populations appeared to have more effect on where toothwort occurs. Loss of toothwort plants (if any) in the limited areas of the parcels would not affect plant numbers elsewhere, since toothwort can only migrate short distances by vegetative reproduction or seed dispersal (such as 1 meter or less per year, Matlack 1994). Under either alternative, the buckthorn infestation on the non-Federal parcel would continue to persist without management actions to address its spread, thereby decreasing the available habitat for toothwort.

Non-Native Invasive Species A complete list of current NNIP of concern to the Ottawa National Forest is available in the project file, and is based on priority ranking completed in May 2005, using the Alien Plant Ranking System (APRS 2000).

Affected Environment In Federal Parcel 1, a field survey in 2014 found Ottawa high or medium priority NNIP including spotted knapweed and exotic honeysuckle. At the county garage site, several NNIP were observed in a previous survey, including spotted knapweed, sweet clover, reed canary grass and lower priority species such as Queen Anne’s lace, tansy and burdock. No NNIP were observed in Federal Parcel 2. A field survey of the non-Federal Parcel 3 in 2014 found the following Ottawa high or medium NNIP: extensive patches of glossy buckthorn; spotted knapweed; and wild parsnip (the latter along Victoria Road); as well as minor NNIP like Queen Anne’s lace; flat pea; and tansy. Bishop’s goutweed was previously mapped on the parcel. Glossy buckthorn infestations are common and quite large in the vicinity of Old Victoria.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Due to the small area affected in the exchange, activities are not expected to result in NNIP spread outside the project area (except, as noted below, the county road commission’s activities which can spread NNIP seed, perhaps to anywhere in the county where road work occurs using equipment from that garage. This potential spread of lower priority-NNIP can occur whether the garage is under special use permit or on county-owned land, so this larger area is not analyzed as it does not help distinguish between the project alternatives). Past land use actions have combined to produce the present day’s existing conditions with the Ottawa National Forest’s high, medium and low priority NNIP occurring in the


16

project area. Past actions that contributed to the spread of NNIP include seeding for erosion control (deliberate introductions and accidental inclusions of NNIP in seed mixes); recreation including OHV use and hiking when propagules are moved from one site to another; timber harvest activities that moved propagules and created favorable settings for infestations; as well as road and trail use.

No Action With no exchange of parcels and therefore no project-related ground disturbance, there is low potential for invasive plant spread in the short term. Other NNIP could establish in the exchange parcels, spread by wind, water, animals, or human activities. For Parcel 1, existing infestations, such as spotted knapweed in dry uplands, are expected to persist and may slowly spread into areas where the existing native plant communities do not repel these invaders. The NNIP on the county garage site could be addressed through the existing special use permit, but these NNIP are not high priority invaders, and full eradication is unlikely. This means road commission activities could continue to be a potential source for spread of some lower priority NNIP seed throughout the county. For Parcel 2, no vegetation changes are expected and NNIP establishment is unlikely in the well-shaded forest floor. The non-Federal Parcel 3 would remain owned by Mr. Pestka and it could be expected that the parcel would continue to be managed for occasional timber harvest and recreational use. If ground disturbance occurs, spread of NNIP is possible. Existing infestations, such as glossy buckthorn, are expected to persist and may slowly spread.

Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, timber harvest could occur on Federal Parcel 1 as analyzed in the Ridge VRMP. Clearcutting in the red maple and the adjacent aspen stand would retain the aspen type and likely convert the maple stand to more aspen. Dense aspen regeneration typically repels NNIP, and equipment cleaning prior to harvest on NF land is used to slow the spread of NNIP. Following harvest, there are slight cumulative effects on NNIP spread on skid trails and roads (Buckley et al. 2002; Devine et al. 2011; Zenner and Berger 2008). Efforts to contain NNIP would never be fully successful in eradication of all NNIP. For the private parcel, any future timber harvest implemented by the landowner could result in NNIP spread. The buckthorn would likely be stimulated by canopy opening, and would spread as well as possibly inhibiting tree regeneration. Other NNIP are mostly likely in the skid trails and roads, as is the case for Parcel 1. See the more detailed discussion of timber harvest effects under the Proposed Action, below.

Proposed Action

There would be no direct effects on NNIP from the activity of changing ownership. The following indirect effects could occur from activities on the parcels after transfer.


17

For Parcel 1, Mr. Pestka has stated his intent to transfer about 6 acres to the county for the road commission garage. This area is already quite weedy under road commission use, and is expected to continue to have lower priority NNIP infestations and perhaps to be a source for spread of seeds on road equipment or in with gravel, fill, and salt taken from the site for use elsewhere. The remainder of the parcel (except the wetlands to be protected under a deed covenant) may be logged and divided for sale. Timber harvest may increase NNIP presence in several ways: 1) Due to soil disturbance (especially in summer operations), harvest may favor germination of seeds in the seed bank as well as create favorable establishment sites with reduced competition. 2) Seeds may be introduced by unclean harvesting equipment. 3) Canopy opening due to timber harvest can affect opportunities for invasive plant spread and establishment. Again, establishment of NNIP following harvest actions is most likely in skid trails and landings, where the intact vegetation and soils are disturbed and amount of light increased (Buckley et al. 2002; Devine et al. 2011; Zenner and Berger 2008). Sale of parts of Parcel 1 for recreational properties could mean clearing and development. These activities can result in NNIP infestations, although these infestations are often of low priority, sun-loving invaders. For Parcel 2, it is expected that the parcel would be cleared and used to expand the Duncan Township cemetery. Like recreational property development, clearing for the cemetery may result in infestations of minor weeds. The wild chervil infestation along FH 16 may spread onto the newly cleared land, as could spotted knapweed and other NNIP. If the non-Federal Parcel 3 is acquired by the Ottawa, it would be added to MA 1.1a, and managed according to Forest Plan direction. Continued use of Victoria Road may spread NNIP seeds in the exchange parcel, as is the case for Alternative 1. Buckthorn and other existing infestations are expected to persist and may spread, particularly the buckthorn. No NNIP infestations would be treated as part of the land exchange, but they could be treated later under the Ottawa National Forest NNIP Control Project. Overall, Parcels 1 and 2 are likely to have more NNIP under the Proposed Action than the No Action, while Parcel 3 under Proposed Action would remain heavily infested with buckthorn, but have little other NNIP change.

Cumulative Effects

Under the Proposed Action, Parcel 3 would be managed according to Forest Plan direction. Recreational use of the parcel could occur (such as hunting), which can spread some NNIP such as garlic mustard if recreationists are not careful to clean their gear between locations. The OHV use occurring on the private parcel would be restricted, which would lower the potential for spread of NNIP by OHVs (Rew and Pollnack 2010). Additional actions beyond the exchange proposal activities are not expected in the bounds of analysis for Parcels 1 and 2, thus there is little accumulation of effects. Efforts to contain NNIP would never be fully successful in eradication of all NNIP.


18

Soil and Water

Affected Environment The Ecological Classification System (ECS) for the Ottawa is a nested hierarchical mapping system that can be utilized in many levels of planning. Within this hierarchy, Ecological Land Type Phases (ELTPs) are site specific units which are applicable for analysis at the project level (Cleland, et al., 1997). ELTPs have three integrated components; landform, soils, and vegetation. They can be used to provide site capability information, and were used as a basis for understanding the ecological characteristics of the parcels included in the proposed land exchange. Information outlining brief descriptions for all of the ELTPs that occur within the project area that may affect, or be affected by, the proposed activities can be found in the project file. In addition, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Mapping Units (MUs) are included for the areas currently located off of federal ownership (Soil Survey Staff), as ECS mapping does not include lands outside of the Ottawa’s proclamation boundary. The ELTPs and MUs that were determined to underlie the areas included in this proposed exchange were examined. Federal Parcel 1 is located within the Lake Gogebic – West Branch Ontonagon River 6th level sub-watershed. There are no streams, lakes or ponds within the parcel, although GIS data indicates both an intermittent and perennial stream pass through it. However, knowledge of site conditions reveals that the streams are actually wetlands and do not carry channelized stream flow. The parcel contains an Ontonagon County Road Commission garage and storage facility, under a special use permit. A sediment mitigation berm, stipulated by the Forest Service special use permit, is located near the salt storage shed where concentrated runoff had been creating erosion and sedimentation into the adjacent wetland. The berm is currently trapping material and protecting the wetland from further sedimentation. There soil and water characteristics within the parcel are common on the Ottawa. Federal Parcel 2 is located within the Smith Creek – East Branch Ontonagon River 6th level sub-watershed. There are no streams, lakes or ponds located within this parcel and the soil characteristics are common on the Ottawa. The non-Federal Parcel 3 is located within the Mill Creek – Ontonagon River 6th level sub-watershed. There is about 0.2 miles of an intermittently flowing stream within the southwest corner of the parcel. The stream is located within a wetland that fills an old river oxbow and beaver have created a large beaver pond throughout much of the stream network. While the old river oxbow is not uncommon to the area, it is an interesting aquatic feature and a relic of a dynamic post glacial river system. There are some OHV paths within the parcel, with one trail leading down a short steep slope to the adjacent Ontonagon River, causing a very small amount of bank damage and sedimentation.


19


No Action The proposed exchange of land parcels would not take place, resulting in no change to the current ownership. Wetland and floodplain acres currently in federal ownership would remain the same, with no current adverse impacts. The special use permit on Federal Parcel 1 would continue, and the mitigation berm and nearby wetland would continue to be monitored for erosion and sedimentation from the facility. There would be no anticipated activities within Federal Parcel 2, thereby allowing the soil resource to continue natural soil formation processes. The non-Federal Parcel 3 would remain privately owned by Mr. Pestka. The OHV use along the river’s edge may continue; however, the sedimentation amount is currently so small that there is no change in the river’s water quality.

Cumulative Effects

It is reasonably foreseeable that under the No Action alternative, Parcel 1 could be subject to treatment as analyzed in the Ridge VRMP. There would be no cumulative effects under this alternative, as there are no direct or indirect effects.

Proposed Action Under this alternative, the land exchange would take place. Parcel 1 may be subject to logging and eventual recreational developments, while Parcel 2 would likely become part of the existing Duncan Township cemetery. Any road construction or other development on either of the two parcels would result in a loss of the soil resource from a productive land base. Potential management activities would likely not incorporate the same level of soil and water protection measures provided by federal management, but may comply with Michigan Best Management Practices (BMPs) (MI DNR and MI DEQ, 2009), thereby resulting in some soil and water resource protection. Full implementation of BMPs would result in minor negative impacts to the soil resources. However, additional negative impacts (i.e. rutting, compaction, erosion) to both resources could be expected if state-level BMPs are not applied. The non-Federal Parcel 3 would be transferred to federal ownership, and would be managed in accordance with the Forest Plan direction for MA 1.1a. The existing cross-country OHV use occurring on the non-Federal parcel would no longer be allowed. The area experiencing a very small amount of OHV-caused erosion would become vegetated and sedimentation would cease along with the use. There would be no perceived changes to the adjacent river’s water quality and effects would be negligible. Any future management activities would require a full analysis of the proposed activities, which would include protection measures that would minimize impacts to soil and water resources. Completion of this proposed land exchange would result in a loss of 12.30 acres of wetlands from federal ownership and a gain of 10.80 acres of floodplain to federal ownership (see project record for Soil and Water Resource Analysis – Expected Effects


20

document, for a breakdown of wetland and floodplain acres by parcel). The wetlands that would be transferred from federal ownership into private ownership are all located in Federal Parcel 1. A deed covenant for the 12.30 acres of identified wetlands in that parcel would prevent development and timber harvest within the protected acres, and therefore no effects to protected wetlands would occur. The 5.4 wetland acres not covered in the deed covenant may have impacts as described above for Parcel 1. There are no wetland or floodplain features in Parcel 2.

Cumulative Effects

The wetlands adjacent to the County garage in Parcel 1 have been previously impacted by erosion and sedimentation; however, successfully applied mitigations have resulted in an improved site condition in those areas today. Effects of timber harvest following the proposed exchange would be dependent upon the level of BMP implementation and site development. Parcel 2 has no recent past or current impacts to soil resources since there have been no activities occurring there. Cemetery development would result in the removal of soil from the productive land base as roads and plots are developed. Past and current activities occurring in Parcel 3, including OHV and road use, have resulted in minor negative soil and water impacts. Cross country OHV travel would be eliminated, thereby reducing a minor amount of sediment. The existing road through the Parcel would continue to be used for accessing private property via an easement, and would be considered a dedicated use of the soil resource. There are no other foreseeable future activities known at this time. The proposed action could result in minor negative impacts to soil and wetland resources within Parcels 1 and 2. However, the degree of the impacts would be dependent upon the level of BMP implementation and site development that may occur on each of those parcels. Regarding Parcel 3, minor positive effects to the soil and water resources could be expected as a result of the exchange. A deed covenant within Parcel 1 would protect 12.30 acres of wetlands, while the remaining wetlands would be subject to relevant State and Federal Protection.

Wildlife and Fisheries

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

As required by the Endangered Species Act, a Biological Assessment (BA), which included a Biological Evaluation (BE), was prepared for the potential effects to proposed, threatened or endangered species. The BA must arrive at one of three possible determinations: 1) “no effect”, where no effect is expected; 2) “not likely to jeopardize continued existence or adversely modify proposed critical habitat'', where effects are expected to be beneficial, insignificant (unmeasurable), or discountable (extremely unlikely); or 3) “likely to jeopardize continued existence or adversely modify proposed critical habitat'', where effects are expected to be detrimental.


21

The following is a summary of the findings; the entirety of the BA/BE is in the project file. There was a finding of “No Effect” for both Canada lynx (federally threatened) and Kirtland’s warbler (federally endangered). There was a finding of “Not likely to Jeopardize” for northern long-eared bat, and A “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” finding was reached for the gray wolf (see the FONSI for additional information). Due to the lack of RFSS habitat, a “No Impact”

5 determination was given to all aquatic and terrestrial wildlife RFSS, with the exception of the little brown myotis and tri-colored bat. Potential habitat for these bat species is present on Parcel 1, and therefore a determination of “May Impact Individuals” was assigned under both alternatives. However, there is no indication that implementing either alternative would cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for either species.

Management Indicator Species The following discussion includes the effects of alternative implementation upon MIS. Ruffed grouse were selected as an indicator species for early successional forests, and although they are found in a variety of forest types, quaking and big tooth aspen provide optimal habitat. American marten were selected as an indicator species for mature conifer habitat with coarse woody debris. The mayfly-stonefly-caddisfly suite of insects selected as an indicator for cold-water streams will not be discussed as this habitat type is not present in the bounds of analysis. As there is no fisheries habitat located on any parcel, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects for aquatic species. In summary, minor changes to habitats discussed below resulting from either alternative, would not have an overall effect at the population level for any MIS due to the limited acres involved.


No Action No exchange of parcels would occur and therefore no direct or indirect effects to parcels would occur. The northern hardwood forest type present could continue to persist, and the aspen component could eventually convert to a mixed northern hardwood forest type. These habitat types would benefit wildlife that favors northern hardwoods, such as songbirds and small mammals. However, the loss of the aspen forest type would negatively impact species that rely on this species, such as ruffed grouse and deer.

Federal Parcel 2 would continue to be a long-lived conifer stand with no known forest actions planned for the site. The forest stand is adjacent to a deer wintering complex that serves as deer refuge in the winter. This parcel would also continue to support species such as American marten, red squirrels, and numerous amphibians and small mammals due to the relatively large amount of coarse woody debris and moist site conditions.

5 See Botany section for further definition of RFSS findings.


22

The majority of non-Federal Parcel 3 is in northern hardwood cover type. The hardwoods would continue to mature which would benefit several wildlife species. Coarse woody debris would accumulate as the stand ages, benefitting species relying on this type of habitat (small mammals and herpetofauna). There are some minor erosion and sedimentation concerns within the parcel due to OHV use that may or may not be addressed if ownership remains unchanged.

Cumulative Effects

The current parcels and the wildlife habitat present are likely in their existing condition due to the lack of any recent forest treatment on Parcels 1, 2 and 3. There are no other past or present actions in the bounds of analysis. In the reasonably foreseeable future, a portion of Federal Parcel 1 could be included in timber harvest planned under the Ridge VRMP. The red maple and aspen stands could be harvested and managed for quaking aspen (Ridge EA, Appendix E-11), which would benefit wildlife such as ruffed grouse, deer, woodcock, snowshoe hares, and various songbirds requiring temporary forest openings. It would also aid in meeting a forest plan goal of maintaining 12,000 acres of aspen in the 0-9 year age class. While beneficial for ruffed grouse, this action would not be expected to result in a cumulative effect for the population as a whole due to the scale of the Forest. The non-Federal Parcel 3 would likely continue to be managed for recreational use and occasional timber harvest, which could have both positive and negative cumulative effects on wildlife depending on the management of forest types.

Proposed Action Federal Parcel 1 would be transferred to Mr. Pestka, and the red maple and aspen stands would likely be harvested or cleared for recreational residences. Unless the stands are treated to ensure conversion to other forest types (or cleared), these stands would most likely be replaced with similar forest types, leading to similar effects described under Alternative 1.

Under the Proposed Action, Federal Parcel 2 would convert from a mature long-lived conifer forest type to a cleared site. This would result in the loss of 1-acre of winter deer habitat; it is on the edge of a large deer wintering complex. Deer may also use the developed cemetery for grazing and browsing at other times of the year, as observed when the site was surveyed. Non-Federal Parcel 3 would be transferred to National Forest land. The northern hardwood forest type would be managed per Forest Plan direction, which could benefit a variety of wildlife species. Erosion concerns related to OHV use along the river’s edge would be addressed, leading to a decrease in sedimentation to the Ontonagon River. The estimated 3,000 feet of river frontage on the Ontonagon River would come under federal ownership. It would be


23

expected that the riparian protection afforded through future Ottawa management activities would be beneficial to the river corridor.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

No other future actions are known for Parcels 1, 2 or 3, and therefore no cumulative effects are expected to occur. Natural succession and forest stand aging may be beneficial for species relying on northern hardwood habitats in Parcel 3; any management would occur as directed by the Forest Plan.

Cultural Resources This project would be an undertaking that requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR 800). The following information responds to applicable Forest Plan direction, the environmental analysis process, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Affected Environment Federal Parcels 1 and 2, located in Ontonagon and Houghton Counties respectively, have been surveyed for cultural resources and there is one documented site present. This is an historic period site that has been determined to be not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Michigan State Historic Preservation has concurred with this determination of eligibility (6/1/1987). No protective measures are required for the site. Non-Federal Parcel 3 has not been surveyed and there are no known cultural resources present.

Action and No Action Alternatives There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources under either alternative.

Vegetation

Affected Environment

Federal Parcel 1 is located in MA 6.2 which maintains high amounts of the northern hardwoods forest type, with some aspen emphasized in portions of the area. The parcel consists of 4 stands (9, 10, the majority of stand 11 and part of stand 12) on the Bergland Ranger District. Stand exam data has been collected on 9, 11 and 12 to support the Decision Notice and FONSI for the Ridge VRMP; stand 10 is the opening where the county garage is located. Stand 9 is currently over mature (70 years) mix along highway 64, stand 11 is adjacent and has an over mature aspen component in a red maple stand. Stand 12 is dominated by black ash with a large component of red maple, yellow birch, and white cedar with a few balsam fir, white spruce, hemlock and American elm.


24

Federal Parcel 2 is located in MA 1.1a which features an early seral species management. The parcel consists of part of one stand on the Kenton Ranger District. The majority of the parcel is forested with northern hardwoods with large component of hemlock. Parcel 2 is part of a larger stand currently classified as unsuitable for timber management due to poor access. The stand is also classified as potential old growth. This classification was carried forward from the “managed old growth” category at the time of the Ottawa’s Forest Plan revision (USDA, 2014). The current species in the stand would be similar to the non-Federal Parcel 3, with a higher percentage of hemlock. The non-Federal Parcel 3 is located in MA 1.1a which features an early seral species management. The majority of the parcel is forested with northern hardwoods with the exception of the oxbow located in the southern part of the parcel. This area is dominated by the wetlands created by the oxbow. Data taken in the adjacent stands suggest the dominant species to be sugar maple with red maple, hemlock, yellow birch, black ash, aspen, basswood, with a few paper birch, ironwood, white pine, and American elm.


No Action Under the No Action alternative, no exchange would occur. Parcels 1 and 2 would remain in federal ownership and would be managed according to the Forest Plan. Parcel 3 would continue to be managed for vegetation and/or recreational purposes. Occasional timber harvest may occur. It is reasonably foreseeable that the Forest Service would manage Parcel 1 according to a previous decision (Ridge VRMP) which included clearcutting both stands 9 and 11 to regenerate aspen, increasing the aspen component in the area. There are no other past, present or future actions known to impact the vegetation on Parcels 2 and 3.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would result in a gain of 47.63 acres in MA 1.1a, and a loss of 50 acres in MA 6.2. Similar to the No Action alternative, Federal Parcel 1 would be harvested by the proponent, and it is likely that it would convert mainly to aspen. Federal Parcel 2 would be cleared of timber for expansion of the cemetery. In addition, the Proposed Action would result in a very minor (1 acre) decrease in old growth on the Ottawa National Forest, but this small acreage would not have a measurable effect on overall achievement of the Forest Plan desired conditions for old growth. Parcel 3 would be managed under Forest Plan direction, and any future actions would be analyzed through the NEPA process. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions within the parcels under the Proposed Action that would affect vegetation.


25

Finding of No Significant Impact The Forest Supervisor, Linda L. Jackson, is the Responsible Official for this project; her determination for legal requirements is outlined in the following section. As the Responsible Official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project file, and I have determined that the Proposed Action alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives, the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this EA. In the case of site-specific actions, significance depends on the effects in the project’s locale rather than the world as a whole. Both short and long-term effects are relevant (FSH 1909.15, 65.1, Part 02). This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have international, national, region-wide, or state-wide importance. The outcomes and effects sections reveal that most of the consequences from project implementation and additional environmental effects are confined to the project area. Therefore, it is my determination that the effects of implementing the proposed alternatives would not be significant locally, regionally, or nationally. Discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to the intended action and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with the project area.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project file. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information, experience with similar projects, and knowledge of conditions obtained through remote sensing measures. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b). 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist

even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. Benefits include, but are not limited to, consolidating National Forest land for more efficient and lower cost resource management, as well as providing suitable land to local communities. It would also increase public recreation opportunities by providing additional lands along the Ontonagon River, while protecting wildlife, fish and wetland


26

values. Overall, this exchange would progress the Ottawa’s land base towards the desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan. Concern was expressed by commenters about future management of the currently Federal Parcel 1; however, the proposed future uses of the parcels (timber management, recreation and development of private home sites) are consistent with established uses on adjacent lands and with local zoning ordinances. In consideration of the outcomes and effects disclosed in this EA as well as the project file, I have evaluated both the beneficial and negative impacts disclosed. I have determined that these impacts are not significant. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The Proposed Action would not significantly affect public health and safety. Based on past experience with land exchanges similar in nature, there have been no instances where public safety has been affected. Lands conveyed out of federal ownership become subject to the laws, regulations and zoning authorities of state and local governing bodies. The acquired non-Federal lands would be managed by the Forest Service and subject to federal laws and regulations. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical

or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

There are no park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area.

National Historic Preservation Act

No direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected from project implementation, as the one site identified on National Forest land is an historic period site, and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Michigan State Historic Preservation has concurred with this determination of eligibility (6/1/1987); and no protective measures are required for the site. Based upon the results of the analysis performed, the Proposed Action has been determined to be consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

No direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected from project implementation, as none of the parcels are located within a Wild and Scenic River corridor.

Wetland Management - Executive Order (EO) 11990

The exchange would result in a net exchange of 12.30 acres of wetland from federal ownership. As directed in Forest Service Handbook 5409.13 section 33.43c, for compliance with EO 11990, 12.30 wetland acres currently on federal lands (Parcel 1) would be protected from development by a deed covenant. The remaining 5.4 wetland acres would be subject to relevant State and Federal protection.


27

Floodplains - EO 11988

The exchange would result in a net gain of 10.80 acres of floodplain into federal ownership. The exchange is compliant with direction in EO 11988, and it is not expected that there will be any adverse effects to floodplains as a result of the exchange. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are

likely to be highly controversial.

All actions proposed are similar in type and intensity to activities that have previously occurred in the past. A range of comments were received in response to the project’s proposals, including comments supporting and opposing the Proposed Action (see project file). The differences in comments reflect a range of opinions, and do not of and by themselves, constitute controversy. I interpret controversy criteria in a FONSI to be the degree to which there is scientific controversy relative to the results of the effects analysis, not whether one favors or opposes a specific alternative. Information received as part of the public commenting process has been evaluated by the ID Team; I have determined that no points of scientific controversy exist. Based upon previous implementation of similar projects, the effects of the Proposed Action on the quality of the human environment are not considered as highly controversial. While there are many different views about some of these specific management actions, the activities proposed are consistent with Forest Plan direction and best available science. Therefore, I have determined that the effects of the alternatives are not likely to be highly controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The human environment is the natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people with that environment (40 CFR 1508.14). The alternatives are similar to past actions on the Ottawa, and the land exchange’s effects upon the human environment are reasonably expected to be similar (Analysis Framework, p. 6, III(c)(ix)). The project file demonstrates a thorough review of the best available and relevant scientific information, consideration of opposing views, and, where appropriate, the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. We have considerable experience with the types of activities being implemented. Actions proposed are similar to the types of activities that have been used for many years on the Ottawa. Based upon my knowledge of past actions and professional and technical knowledge and experience, I am confident that we understand the effects of these activities on the human environment (see project file). There are no unique or unusual characteristics about the area that would lead to an unknown risk to the human environment.


28

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

As previously stated, the alternatives include activities that are similar to past actions on the Ottawa; therefore, the effects are expected to be similar. The effects analysis is site-specific to the project area and is consistent with the Forest Plan. Therefore, no precedent-setting actions are proposed. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts. The cumulative effects of past management, combined with the current proposal, and reasonably foreseeable future actions for each resource are displayed in the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives section. These analyses were reviewed in consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on cumulative effects analysis (see project file references). Cumulative effects analysis for the project area, by resource, was conducted as outlined in this EA as well as associated specialist resource analyses (see project file). In addition the analysis reviewed private land management activities and considered them in the cumulative effects analysis. Therefore, effects of the alternatives, when considered in conjunction with other past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities are not expected to lead to significant cumulative effects. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,

structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

This project would meet federal, state and local laws for protection of historic places. A project-specific inventory of the Federal Parcels 1 and 2 has been completed. All known or newly discovered sites will be protected to ensure protection of cultural resources in accordance with federal laws and regulations (see Intensity factor #3 for more information). 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or

threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

A Biological Assessment (BA) was completed and documented with the project Biological Evaluation, and is hereby incorporated into this decision document by reference. The alternatives would not affect the federally listed species Canada lynx and Kirtland’s warbler. On December 19, 2014, the District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the Final Rule issued on December 28, 2011, that designated and delisted a Distinct Population Segment of the Western Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011)


29

(Humane Society of the United States v. Jewell, et. al., Civ. No. 13-186). The court ordered that the final rule delisting the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes be vacated and that protection for the gray wolf as a federally endangered species be reinstated in Michigan. Therefore, to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the proposed alternatives have been reviewed for potential impacts to gray wolf. The Forest Service has determined that alternatives may impact, but are not likely to adversely impact the gray wolf (See Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Section, above, and Biological Evaluation in the project file). Per Section 7, the Forest Service has reinitiated consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting concurrence with this determination. On October 2, 2013, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to the primary threat of White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). More information about this proposed listing is available at the Federal Register website (http://www.federalregister.gov; October 2, 2013 edition, pp. 61045-61080). None of the proposed actions in this project would jeopardize this bat species or its habitat. If the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service lists this bat species (decision expected during the spring 2015), the Ottawa would initiate consultation according to the ESA Section 7 Handbook (USDI FWS 1998). To ensure consultation can be completed efficiently if the species is listed, the Forest Service has initiated informal conferencing with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting concurrence with this initial determination for the species. There is no indication that implementing the alternatives will move a proposed listed Threatened or endangered species towards federal listing or increase the present status of federal listing. If any other federally proposed or listed animal or plant species are found at a later date, or if any new information relevant to potential effects of the project on these species become available, then the Section 7 consultation process, as per the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would be initiated. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. Actions proposed would not threaten a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection laws. Documentation associated with this project does meet National Environmental Policy Act disclosure requirements. Numerous laws, regulations and agency directives require that this project be consistent with their provisions. I have determined that this project is consistent with all laws and regulations. The following summarizes findings required by major environmental laws.

Clean Water Act

The integrity of project area’s water and riparian features would be maintained as a result of the application of general Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (pages 2-2 to 2-9).


30

Supporting information in the project file indicates that implementation of the alternatives would not produce appreciable impacts on water resources. Therefore, the Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards would be met.

Environmental Justice - EO 12898

This Executive Order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. Public involvement occurred for this project, and the results did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. I have considered the effects of this project on low income and minority populations and concluded that this project is consistent with the intent of this Executive Order. The local community was notified of this project through the public participation process (see project file).

National Forest Management Act (NFMA 16 USC 1600 ET SEQ.)

This Act requires that several specific findings be documented at the project level. These include the following: 1. Consistency with the Forest Plan (16 USC 1604[i]): This project would implement

the direction of the Forest Plan. In addition, the effects analysis and project file demonstrates the project is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. As required by NFMA, I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan.

2. Federal law and direction applicable to Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species include the National Forest Management Act and the Forest Service Manual 2670.

All plant and aquatic wildlife RFSS species received a No Impact determination. All terrestrial wildlife species received a No Impact finding, other than the little brown myotis and tri-colored bat species, which were given a May Impact Individuals determination. The alternatives would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability for either bat species. See the Botany and Wildlife/Fisheries sections for more information. I have reviewed the analysis and projected effects on all RFSS plant and animal species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the Ottawa. There is no indication that implementing the Proposed Action would cause effects different than those disclosed in the BE. I concur with the findings and determinations outlined above.

Conclusions The effects analysis considered both the context and intensity of the action in determining its significance as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27. Based upon the analysis, I have determined that the Proposed Action would not significantly affect the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. My review of the analysis prepared by the ID Team indicates that this project is consistent with Forest Plan management direction, compliant with other applicable laws, and responsive to public concerns. The site-specific actions of the Proposed Action, in both the short and long-term, would not be significant.


31

References APRS Implementation Team. 2000. Alien plants ranking system version 5.1.

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/aprs/aprs.htm. (Version 30SEP2002).

Buckley , D.S., T.R. Crow, E.A. Nauertz, and J.C. Zasada. 2002. Effects of management on the composition and structure of northern hardwood forests in Upper Michigan. Forest Science 48(1):133-144.

Cleland, D.T.; Avers, P.E.; McNab, W.H.; Jensen, M.E.; Bailey, R.G., King, T.; Russell,

W.E. 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Published in, Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A., ed. 1997. Ecosystem management applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. pp. 181-200.

Council on Environmental Quality. 2005. Guidance on the consideration of past actions

in cumulative effects analysis. Memorandum. Executive Office of the President. Washington D.C.

Devine et al. 2011. Tracking the establishment of invasive exotic species in a timber harvest. Kentucky Woodlands Magazine 6(2):16-17.

Fox, M.M., S.J. Trull, and B. Orr. 2012. Suitability of Cardamine concatenata (Michx.)

Sw. as an indicator species on the Ottawa National Forest. Michigan Botanist 51: 121-132 dated 2012, published 2014.

Jubenville, Alan; Twight, Ben W. 1993. Outdoor recreation management: theory and application, third edition. Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA. 31-40. Matlack, G.R. 1994. Plant species migration in a mixed-history forest landscape in

eastern North America. Ecology 75(5):1491-1502. McLachlan, S.M. and D.R. Bazely. 2001. Recovery patterns of understory herbs and

their use as indicators of deciduous forest regeneration. Conservation Biology 15(1):99.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality. (2009). Sustainable soil and water quality practices on forest land. Publication Number IC4011. Lansing, MI.

Rew, L. and F. Pollnac. 2010. Seed dispersal by vehicles. In April 2010 Newsletter of

the Center for Invasive Plant Management, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 2 pp.


32

State of Michigan. 2005. Public Act 451, Part 413, Transgenic and non-native organisms. Available: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/. P. 1.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Ottawa National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plant Control

Project. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact. Ironwood, Michigan.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2006 Ottawa

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Volume I. USDA Forest Service Eastern Region. pp. 3-92, 3-95-96.

USDA Forest Service Eastern Region. 2006. Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ottawa/ Pp. 1-10, 2-2 to 2-9, 2-12 to 2-13, 2-36, Appendix B1-B5.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2900 – Noxious weed management.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/. 28 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Old Growth Classification and Management Under the

2006 Forest Plan, v. 9/2014. Ottawa National Forest, Ironwood, Michigan. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey.

Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed January 2014. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook:

Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species At. US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Service. March 1998 Final. 315 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern-long eared bat as endangered or threatened species; Listing northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register 78 (191): 61046-61020.

Verheyen, K., O. Honnay, G. Motzkin, M. Hermy and D.R. Foster. 2003. Response of

forest plant species to land-use change: a life-history trait-based approach. Journal of Ecology 91:563, 573-575.

Zenner, E.K and A.L. Berger. 2008. Influence of skidder traffic and canopy removal

intensities on the ground flora in a clearcut-with-reserves northern hardwood stand in Minnesota, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 256 (2008):1785–1794.

Tus

ki R

oad

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Legend

¹0 0.25

Miles

U.S. Forest Service - Region 9Ottawa National Forest

T49N R42W, Ontonagon County, MI50 Acres

The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied,regarding the data displayed on this map, and reserves the right tocorrect, update, modify, or replace this information without notification.

Lake Superior

Ottawa NF

Chequamegon-Nicolet NF

MichiganWisconsin

Vicinity Map

MI-OTF/MMH

Northern Land and Sales Proposed Land Exchange

Federal Parcel 1

Map Created 8/2/2013Map Revised 02/05/2015

Federal Parcel 150 acres

1:20,000

Proposed Federal Exchange Parcel

National Forest System Land

Non-Federal Land


Legend

¹0 0.25

Miles


T47N R37W, Houghton County, MI1.07 Acres


Lake Superior

Ottawa NF


MichiganWisconsin

Vicinity Map

MI-OTF/MMH


Federal Parcel 2


Federal Parcel 21.07 acres

Proposed Federal Exchange Parcel

1:20,000

National ForestSystem Lands

Non-Federal Lands


Legend

¹0 0.25

Miles


T50N R39W, Ontonagon County, MI48.70 Acres


Lake Superior

Ottawa NF


MichiganWisconsin

Vicinity Map

MI-OTF/MMH

Administrative Boundary


Non-Federal Parcel


Non-Federal Parcel48.70 acres

1-acre Exclusion

Proposed Non-Federal Exchange Parcel

1:20,000

National Forest Boundary

National ForestSystem Lands

how to file commentsa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2015-07-08 · 1 how to...

Documents