Northern Land and Sales Land Exchange Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Land and Sales Land Exchange Project Draft Decision Notice Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest, Houghton and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan June 2015

2 For More Information Contact: Michelle Holland, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Phone: Fax: Responsible Official: Linda L. Jackson, Forest Supervisor Ottawa National Forest E6248 US Highway 2 East Ironwood, Michigan Phone: Fax: *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) (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 , or call Toll free, (866) (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) (TDD) or (866) (relay voice users). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest Introduction This Draft Decision Notice documents the proposed selection of a land exchange involving acres of Federal land, which would be exchanged for acres of non- Federal land currently owned by Norman Pestka, of Northern Land & Sales. This action was analyzed under Alternative 2 in the February 2015 Environmental Assessment (EA). The Responsible Official for this project is Linda L. Jackson, Forest Supervisor for the Ottawa National Forest. The parcels are located on the Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, in Houghton and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan (Appendix A, Maps). 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 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. Appraisals for the federal and non-federal lands were approved for agency use on April 24, 2015 with an effective date of value of January 9, The values are valid through January 8, Through the market appraisal, it has been determined that this land exchange meets the requirement that the value of the federal and nonfederal lands be balanced; with "balanced" being defined as the non-federal land being valued within 25% of the federal land. Values would be equalized up to the 25% through a cash payment. Objection Process This Draft Decision Notice has been prepared in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 218. These regulations provide for public review as part of the predecisional, administrative review process for environmental assessments. This process allows eligible parties to seek resolution of their unresolved concerns by filing an objection prior to a final Decision being made. The enclosed cover letter and its attachment provide instructions for filing an objection for this project. Background Information In preparing this Draft Decision Notice, I have taken into consideration the comments received throughout the planning for this project, including the scoping period that began in June 2014, and the official 30-day comment period, which began in February

4 Northern Land & Sales Land Exchange Project The February 2015 EA documents the results of the effects analysis for two alternatives: Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action). Development of this EA was performed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR The February 2015 EA has been reviewed by the ID Team and minor errors were discovered as follows. This document serves to note and correct these unintentional inaccuracies; the original EA will not be modified. An error was discovered regarding the location of the County Road Commission s garage. The EA stated that this structure was located in the opening of stand 10 (p. 23), however, it is located in a cleared area within stand 9. Page 21 of the EA originally stated that under either alternative, the number of Regional Forester s Sensitive Species receiving a May Impact Individuals (MII) determination was two; it should have been four, as shown in the Biological Evaluation (little brown myotis and tri-colored bat, Connecticut warbler and fourtoed salamander. Biological Evaluation, p. 21). The February 2015 EA is available for public review at any Ranger District office, as well as the Ottawa s website: The scoping letter, EA and this Draft Decision Notice are also available at the following libraries: Gogebic Community College, Ironwood Michigan; J. Robert Van Pelt Library, Michigan Tech University; and Olson Library, Northern Michigan University (NMU). Description of the Proposed Decision As the Responsible Official, I have considered several factors during my evaluation of this project. I have reviewed the project file documentation, including the purpose and need for action; public input; and the direction outlined in the Ottawa National Forest s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). I propose to implement Alternative 2 as described and analyzed in the February 2015 EA. I have determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary based upon the analyses presented in the EA, which includes the Finding of No Significant Impact (EA, pp ), as well as the entirety of the project file. In summary, the land exchange includes exchanging approximately acres of Federal land for acres of land owned by the proponent (Mr. Pestka). The Federal land includes two separate parcels; Parcel 1 is 50 acres and Parcel 2 is 1.07 acres (see Appendix A). The exchange will include a deed covenant 1 to protect approximately acres of wetland on Parcel 1. In this instance, the deed covenant will restrict any 1 A covenant is typically an agreement or contract to do or refrain from doing something, and if validly reached, is enforceable by a court. 2

5 Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest new construction or changing of the natural elements of the identified wetlands in any manner. Lands conveyed out of Federal ownership become subject to the laws, regulations and zoning authorities of state and local governing bodies. The Ottawa National Forest will incorporate non-federal Parcel 3 (48.70 acres) into the land management base. This parcel is located within a Forest Service purchase unit 2, specifically established for the purpose of acquiring and protecting lands along the Ontonagon River corridor. Prior to the conveyance of Federal lands, the proponent will 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), 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; currently authorized maintenance and motorized use of this road will continue. Rationale for the Proposed Decision I have tentatively selected Alternative 2 for implementation based on the following rationale. Purpose and Need for the Proposal The Ottawa National Forest 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. This Decision is consistent with the priorities stated above as outlined in the following section. The proposed selection of Alternative 2 will lower resource management costs associated with Federal Parcel 1. Specifically, there would be no need to maintain 1.02 miles of boundary line where Federal and non-federal land currently meet. Opportunities to reduce boundary line maintenance decreases the potential for trespass, as well as the management issues and costs related to any potential encroachment. 2 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. 3

6 Northern Land & Sales Land Exchange Project Exchanging out of Federal Parcel 1 will reduce management costs as there will no longer be a need to manage the 6-acre special use permit issued to the Ontonagon County Road Commission. This complex special use permit requires annual inspection of the garage facilities (as shown in photo), and occasionally more frequent oversight to ensure compliance with the permit, as well as Federal law. The 1.07 acres of Federal Parcel 2 will provide an opportunity to provide suitable land to local communities for public purposes as stated in the purpose and need. The proponent has stated that he intends to deed this parcel to the community of Duncan Township for expansion of their cemetery. This proposed land exchange will assist us in the protection of fish and wetland values associated within a major river corridor. Non-Federal Parcel 3 is completely surrounded by National Forest land, and therefore gaining this parcel will enhance future land management efficiencies. Acquisition of the property will also help to solidify public ownership of 3,000 feet of frontage on the Ontonagon River, as well as acreage within this corridor. This will afford opportunities to better manage for fish, wetlands, and other river resource values. As stated, the proponent plans to deed acreage to Ontonagon County and Duncan Township to assist them with their needs. Therefore, this proposed exchange will meet the purpose and need to provide land that is suited to, and needed for, community development and other public purposes to local communities. In addition, this proposed exchange will provide additional public access to the Ontonagon River for such recreational purposes as canoeing, fishing and swimming in addition to general forest use. Public Comments Public involvement for this project was sought during the scoping period and 30- day comment period for the EA. I carefully reviewed the comments received during both of these comment periods pursuant to 36 CFR 218b. Scoping Comment Period The scoping letter outlined the purpose and need for action, as well as the location and description of the original Proposed Action (e.g., exchanging acres of Federal land for acres on non-federal land). This document was sent to more than 94 parties in June Seven interested parties and one group submitted comment letters in response to the scoping letter. Based on the concerns expressed pertaining to the potential value difference between the Federal and non-federal parcels, I modified the Proposed Action. The proponent was agreeable to a reconfiguration of Federal Parcel 1 to lessen the likelihood of a value 4

7 Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest difference outside of the 25% difference allowed, which also resulted in excluding several acres of wetland from the proposed exchange. These modifications were carried forward into the EA s analysis for Alternative 2. I determined that no issues were present in the comments received, and therefore, no additional alternatives were developed for detailed analysis. EA Comment Period The official 30-day comment period began in February Two comments were received. Additional information regarding public participation for this project is outlined in the February 2015 EA (pp. 4-8). The Interdisciplinary Team s response to the EA comments is attached (see Appendix B, Response to Comments). I have determined that there are no unresolved conflicts with Alternative 2 based on the comments received for the EA. Other Alternatives Considered In deciding which management practices to implement, I also considered the no action alternative (Alternative 1) and two alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. These alternatives provided a reasonable range of alternatives based on the public comments received and the scope of the proposal (February 2015 EA, p. 5). The following discussion summarizes the other alternatives considered and provides information as to why each is not being considered for implementation. Alternative 1 This alternative was developed as required in 40 CFR (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. Federal Parcels 1 and 2 would continue to be managed in compliance with Forest Plan objectives. I have not selected Alternative 1 as it would not contribute toward the purpose and need of the proposal. This 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. Other Alternatives Two additional alternatives were considered, but eliminated from analysis. I have determined that no changes have occurred that would require the ID Team to re-evaluate any of these options under detailed analysis for my decision making process. This Draft Decision adopts the rationale disclosed in the February 2014 EA for not carrying these alternatives through the analysis process (p. 8). 5

8 Northern Land & Sales Land Exchange Project New Information On April 2, 2015, the US Fish and Wildlife Service s final rule was released in the Federal Register to add the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to the primary threat of White-Nose Syndrome. Along with this designation, the Fish and Wildlife Service has developed an interim 4(d) rule as outlined in Section 4(d) of ESA that provides necessary and advisable measures for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat. The Fish and Wildlife Service has opened a 90-day public comment period on the interim 4(d) rule. More information about the final and interim 4(d) rules are located at The Federal Register website: ( At the time of the project s environmental analysis, the proposed rule for this bat species was to be listed as Federally-endangered. As stated in the EA, there is no indication that implementation of Alternative 2 will move a proposed listed species towards federal listing or increase the present status of federal listing (p. 29). Informal conferencing on a Not Likely to Jeopardize continued existence or adversely modify proposed critical habitat determination has been initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the proposed action alternative (Biological Evaluation, p. 4). The results of this projectspecific conferencing will be considered during the decision-making process for the Final Decision Notice. 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. Summary of Findings My review of the analysis prepared by the ID Team indicates that this Draft Decision is consistent with Forest Plan management direction, compliant with other applicable laws, and responds to public concerns. Although I anticipate that this Draft Decision will not be acceptable to all, I believe that Alternative 2 is the best option to meet the purpose and need for the proposal and remain consistent with the Forest Plan. After thorough consideration, I have determined that this Draft Decision will not constitute a major federal action, individually or cumulatively, and Alternative 2 would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The site-specific actions of the proposed alternative, in both the short and long-term, would not be significant (EA, pp ). Therefore, I have determined that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not needed. 6

9 Bergland, Kenton and Ontonagon Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest Contact For additional information concerning this Draft Decision Notice, contact Susanne Adams, Bergland/Ontonagon District Ranger at (906) or or Michelle Holland, Realty Specialist, at (906) or 7

10 Vicinity Map e La k er io Su p Legend Proposed Federal Exchange Parcel r Ottawa NF National Forest System Land Non-Federal Land Michigan Chequamegon-Nicolet NF Northern Land and Sales Proposed Land Exchange Federal Parcel 1 T49N R42W, Ontonagon County, MI 50 Acres Wisconsin 0 Appendix A - Maps Tuski Road Federal Parcel 1 50 acres Miles 0.25 Map Created 8/2/2013 Map Revised 02/05/2015 U.S. Forest Service - Region 9 Ottawa National Forest ¹ The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the data displayed on this map, and reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this information without notification. 1:20,000 Copyright: 2013 National Geographic Society, MI-OTF/MMH i-cubed

11 Federal Parcel acres Vicinity Map Lake Superior Ottawa NF Michigan Wisconsin Chequamegon-Nicolet NF Legend Proposed Federal Exchange Parcel National Forest System Lands Non-Federal Lands Miles Map Created 8/2/2013 Map Revised 02/05/2015 Northern Land and Sales Proposed Land Exchange Federal Parcel 2 T47N R37W, Houghton County, MI 1.07 Acres U.S. Forest Service - Region 9 Ottawa National Forest The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the data displayed on this map, and reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this information without notification. ¹ 1:20,000 Copyright: 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed MI-OTF/MMH

12 Non-Federal Parcel acres 1-acre Exclusion Vicinity Map Lake Superior Ottawa NF Michigan Wisconsin Chequamegon-Nicolet NF Legend Proposed Non-Federal Exchange Parcel National Forest System Lands National Forest Boundary Administrative Boundary Miles Map Created 8/2/2013 Map Revised 02/05/2015 Northern Land and Sales Proposed Land Exchange Non-Federal Parcel T50N R39W, Ontonagon County, MI Acres U.S. Forest Service - Region 9 Ottawa National Forest The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the data displayed on this map, and reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this information without notification. ¹ 1:20,000 Copyright: 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed MI-OTF/MMH

13 Appendix B Response to Comments On February 10, 2015, a legal notice was published in the Ironwood Michigan Daily Globe to announce release of the project s Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated 30-day comment period. The EA was sent to 15 interested parties, and another 11 parties were notified of the document s availability on the Ottawa National Forest s website. This project has been listed on the Forest s Schedule of Proposed Actions since the Summer 2014 edition. The Schedule of Proposed Actions is a publication that is sent to approximately 95 individuals, groups and public agencies and is also available via the Internet. In addition, this project was listed on the Forest s website to further encourage public participation: This document presents the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team s response to those comments received based on the information and analysis disclosed in the EA. It is important to acknowledge that this is not a stand alone document; it must be used in concert with the comment letters received and the references to other documentation outlined in the ID Team s responses, such as the Ottawa National Forest s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Original comment letters and other sources of information cited in this document are available upon request. The ID Team s responses have been developed to address those comments that are site specific in nature to the project and management strategies proposed. Comments are presented in chronological order according to date received. Original text from commenters is shown in quotations. Each comment letter addressed in this document has been assigned a number for tracking purposes. An overall theme of each comment appears in bold font to assist the ID Team to focus the response given the subject matter. Table 1. Comment Summary Commenter ID # Commenter Name Response Page # Timely Comment (Y or N) 1 Commented During the Scoping Period (Y or N) 2 1 Frank Jeff Verito 2-9 Y Y 2 Kenneth Mazurek 10 Y Y 1 Timely is defined as a letter received or postmarked by March 12, A timely, site-specific, written comment affords an individual/organization standing (i.e., eligibility) to participate in the objections process offered for this Draft Decision Notice. No comments were received after this date. 2 If yes, the scoping comments from this individual/organization have been incorporated into the project file, and are available upon request. 1

14 1. Frank Jeff Verito Title/Organization: Interested Citizen Comment 1a Request for larger-scaled maps to determine relationship of parcels to wetlands and rivers for his needs as well as all stakeholders. ID Team Response: Based on input for the scoping letter, Mr. Verito was sent maps at a scale of 1:20,000, which included the proposed parcels for exchange outlined on topographical maps. These maps were incorporated into Appendix A of the EA mailed to all interested parties. Comment 1b Opposition to the proposal due to the comments from nearby residents, the un-assessed land values and the further mistrust in ONF management that this proposal has generated. The commenter believes that the appraisal should be completed prior to scoping. i. Page 5 tries to legitimize the exchange considering the 25% value rule which is impossible to ascertain without knowing the merchantable value. ii. iii. Wait until your appraisals are completed and start the project over properly so the public ownership knows what we re dealing with from the beginning. You need to find out what the merchantable value of the property is before you disturb the public ownership with your frivolity. Your proposal is premature. We need another comment opportunity once we re provided the necessary information, or else start over from scratch so we have the necessary information from the inception of the proposal. ID Team Response: Federal regulations do not restrict the timeline for appraisal completion prior to a scoping effort. Using our best available knowledge at the time, the parcels were proposed and analyzed with the idea that they would likely fall within the 25% value determined by law. Once completed, unless an exchange agreement is signed, an appraisal is typically only valid for 1 year from the time of the appraiser s site inspection. Because an exchange agreement can only be signed once the environmental analysis is completed, an appraisal may be completed while the analysis is ongoing. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 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. A decision cannot be made without the appraisal being completed, reviewed and approved for use. Appraisals for the federal and non-federal lands were approved for agency use on April 24, 2015 with an effective date of value of January 9, The values are valid through January 8, Through the market appraisal, it has been determined that this land exchange meets the requirement that the value of the federal and nonfederal lands be balanced, as described above. Values would be equalized up to the 25% through a cash payment. 2

15 The commenter s mention of his opposition to the proposal based on the comments of nearby residents does not provide enough information for the ID Team to respond. Comment 1c Appraisal needed now due to the appearance of giving the developer the deal of his life over the sale of a resource that was originally intended to have belonged to all citizens equally. ID Team Response: This proposal does not include the sale of land; it is a land exchange. The Responsible Official determined that the required analysis for effects based on the exchange of land could occur without a completed appraisal. The resource analyses completed for the Environmental Assessment did not require the final determination of market value, or monetary value, for the parcels proposed for exchange. Using our best available knowledge at the time, the parcels were proposed with the idea that they would likely fall within the 25% value determined by law; and if information became available to indicate they would not, the acreages and analysis could be adjusted accordingly. In this instance, all of the potential lands proposed for exchange were analyzed, with the final configuration being 30 less Federal acres than originally proposed. As stated in the EA, the final appraisal was in the process of being completed at the time the EA was mailed; therefore, this information was not included in the EA or in the supporting documentation in the project file. An appraisal has since been completed, and the exchange will be fully compliant with federal law and regulation in regards to the values of the properties being exchanged. The appraisal which determines those values is also fully compliant with federal law. We acknowledge the commenter s concern pertaining to the parcels originally intended to have belonged to all citizens equally. However, as outlined in the EA, the Forest Plan s direction includes working toward gaining efficiencies in land management through land exchanges (EA, p. 4). The purpose and need for the proposal is specifically based on this direction. The Responsible Official will weigh commenter concerns along with the objectives of this proposal during her decision-making process. With this exchange, as with all land exchanges, there must be a trade-off in benefits to the public and private interests. Using the information presented in the EA, as well as the Project File, it will be the Responsible Official s decision to determine whether a greater public interest is served by implementing the exchange. Federal Parcels 1 and 2 are not located within an area that is withdrawn from certain management activities, (e.g., wilderness), and are therefore available for exchange. As with any land management activity, the Forest Service cannot guarantee that adjacent landowners will agree with the proposed action. However, we act as land stewards for all of the public and it is our responsibility to take into account the larger picture, rather than those projects that benefit only the few. The purpose and need for this proposal would benefit the resources and the public at large. The Responsible Official determines whether the value of the resources acquired through the exchange (recreational, aquatic, wildlife) versus the value of the resources that would be exchanged, will serve the greater public interest. See the response to Comment 1b for more information about the proposed parcel configuration. 3

16 Comment 1d Assertion that Acting Forest Supervisor was: (1) secretive about tree types on Federal parcels 1 and 2 ; and (2) neglected to address requests for information. ID Team Response: The commenter s concerns are directed at the scoping letter for this project and the associated correspondence shared during that 30-day comment period. The objective of the scoping letter was to introduce the project s location, purpose and need and inform the public about the commenting process. Information regarding the specific vegetative composition for any given project is typically provided in the affected environment section of the EA. For the Northern Land & Sales proposal, this information is outlined on pages 23 and 24 of the EA. The scoping letter did offer that questions could be answered, and additional information was available, upon request. In this case, Susanne Adams, District Ranger, did send a personal response to Mr. Verito on July 24, 2014 that outlined a summary of tree species and topography on each parcel (see project file). Along with this letter, the Responsible Official provided information pertaining to two other requests for information; specifically regarding the difference in acreage between the Federal and non-federal parcels at that time, and maps showing a larger scale, with contour lines (as referenced in response to Comment 1a). It should be noted there has been a change in the Responsible Official (Forest Supervisor) between the scoping period and the present. The Forest Supervisor position during scoping was filled temporarily with an acting Forest Supervisor who assumed the duties until the position was permanently filled with Linda L. Jackson. Mrs. Jackson is the Responsible Official for this project, as noted on the cover letter for the EA, the information contact page of the EA and in the Finding of No Significant Impact (EA, page 24). Comment 1e Request for the following information: (1) stand locations to be added to maps; (2) clarification on how the stand boundaries overlap with the defined parcels; and (3) stand ages and vegetation composition as outlined. i. The age of the non-federal stand isn t clear because no large scale map is provided to indicate how much of the parcel Stand 9 occupies versus stand 11. Seventy years old and overmature indicate that the stands are old and merchantable. The older age of the stand is mentioned by a local resident who s accusing you of offering the appellant too good a deal ID Team Response: Table 2 of the EA summarizes the approximate stand acreages, and Figure 1 displays their locations. To provide a more clear explanation of stand information, this table also includes stand ages and compositions per Federal parcel for comparison purposes. The ID Team assumes that the commenter s first statement of Comment 1e is referring to Federal Parcel 1, as Stands 9 and 11 are not located on non-federal Parcel 3. 4

17 As shown in Table 2, Stand 9 occupies about 14 acres and Stand 11 occupies about 22 acres (see project file, timber specialist input). The commenter is correct, the EA does define that Stands 9 and 11 are merchantable. These stands were previously selected to receive vegetation management under the Ridge Vegetation and Road Management Project s decision (EA, pp. 23 and 24). Under the No Action alternative, there would be no land exchange and therefore these stands would be eligible to be harvested under the Ridge Project for clearcut and regeneration to aspen stands. Table 2. Summary of Stand Information per Parcel Parcel Stand Acres Age Vegetation Composition years Aspen with component of red maple, northern red oak and balsam fir N/A Non-forested opening years Red maple with aspen component Black ash with a large component of years red maple, yellow birch, and white cedar with a few balsam fir, white spruce, hemlock and American elm years Northern hardwoods with component of eastern hemlock. 3 Private Land Last harvest date unknown A portion of this parcel is forested with mixed hardwoods. Data taken in the adjacent stands suggest the dominant species to be sugar maple with a mix of red maple, hemlock, yellow birch, black ash, aspen, basswood, and a few paper birch, ironwood, white pine, and American elm. Part of the parcel also includes young aspen with interspersed openings. There is an oxbow located in the southern part of the parcel along with the wetlands created by the oxbow. There is also a narrow riparian zone along the Ontonagon River. 3 The landscape is not identified at a stand level for private land. Stand information is specific to units identified by the Forest Service where areas are assigned numbers for tracking and management purposes. The development of stand numbers and identification of conditions per stand would only occur if land exchange is authorized. At that time, specific information regarding tree ages and species composition would be recorded. 5

18 Figure 1. Stands on Federal parcel 1 proposed for exchange. ii. No mention is made of the age of Stand 12 and where the stand lies. ID Team Response: See Figure 1. Stand 12 is located primarily on the most eastern portion of the 50 acres encompassed by Federal Parcel 1. Since this stand includes a mix of several species as outlined in the EA (p. 23), the overall age of trees within it may vary. In addition, only a portion of this stand would be exchanged. However, the timber specialist input states that the general year of origin for this stand is estimated at 115 years of age. iii. I can only assume that the younger Stand 13 lies in the eastern lowland which is no longer proposed for exchange. What I d like to know now is the composition and age of the eastern portion of the Federal parcel that was removed from the exchange. Being it s more of a wetland, I assume there is less valuable timber on those thirty acres. Is this so? ID Team Response: See Figure 1. The commenter is correct; Stand 13 is located to the east of the current proposal. This stand is comprised of 35 year old aspen and encompasses about 8 acres. This information was included in the response to questions that the commenter raised after the scoping period (see project file). Stand 13 was not described in the EA as it was excluded from analysis due to the Responsible Official s parcel configuration modification to address scoping comments. The value of the timber on the 30 acres excluded from Federal Parcel 1 is unknown. No timber values on either the Federal or non-federal parcels were assessed as part of this project. The market appraisal has determined the land values of the proposed parcels, not the value of the timber on the property. As outlined in the EA (page 6), the total acreage of Federal Parcel 1 is 50 acres. This is a decrease of 30 acres from the original scoping proposal. This acreage change was incorporated into the Proposed Action to address comments received about the potential difference in value between the Federal and non-federal land, as well as potential effects to wetlands. The commenter is correct that the portion of Federal Parcel 1 excluded from the exchange included wetland acreage. With the exclusion of the 30 acres (i.e., all 8 acres (approximately) of Stand 13 6

19 and approximately 22 acres of Stand 12), the number of net acres of wetland requiring protection through a deed covenant decreased from 25.9 acres to 12.3 acres (Analysis Framework, p. 6). iv. On the downside, the property lies in a SPMA and maintains a high amount of northern hardwood. No age of these hardwoods is mentioned in the EA, which indicates that you re trying to hide the high value from those readers who didn t ask specifically for that information. ID Team Response: This comment refers to Federal Parcel 1, which is located in Management Area 6.2 emphasizing a semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreational environment as disclosed on pages 3, 11 and 23 of the EA. The commenter is referring to the language in the EA that generally describes the vegetation composition within the SPM as outlined in the Forest Plan s desired conditions (p. 3-61). However, the project area is defined only as parcels being proposed for exchange as outlined in the Analysis Framework (Section 3[c][vi]; this document was published on the website [ and is also available upon request). Therefore, we have site-specific information for Stands 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Federal Parcel 1 and Stand 65 within Federal Parcel 2. Additional information was sent to the commenter based on his scoping comment letter, which included a description of the stands stated above; much of this information was later incorporated into the EA, pages As stated above, Stand 13 was excluded after the parcel configuration was modified. As stated above, the monetary value of the timber on stands within the Federal parcels is not known; to estimate this value at this time would be speculative. It should be noted that in the exchange, the Forest Service would be gaining a mostly wooded parcel, which also contains northern hardwoods Comment 1f Concern regarding value difference between Federal Parcels and non- Federal Parcel. I wasn t the only citizen to complain about the lopsided exchange. That Mr. Lenzo proposed the extra thirty acres to begin with is irresponsible. ID Team Response: Although the final appraisal had not been completed at the time the EA was published, the Responsible Official was responsive to public concerns. She addressed concerns received pertaining to a potential value difference through modifying the Proposed Action (EA, p. 8). As stated and explained in response to Comments 1b and 1c, this project will be compliant with federal law regarding land values. Comment 1g Concern regarding creating a new isolated Forest Service parcel through exclusion of the 30 acres from the proposal. Maybe the strangest aspect of the revised proposal is leaving the thirty-acre wetland in a small parcel that isn t contiguous with any part of ONF, which defeats the logic of this portion of the exchange. The idea in the FP is to reduce the number of isolated parcels, not to create new ones which is exactly what the revised proposal does. This is a shame because the 48.7-acre parcel is completely surrounded by ONF land and also consists 7

20 mainly of northern hardwoods whose age is not indicated in either the public document or the response to my comments. That it s MA 1.1 for early-successional management does not indicate the age. ID Team Response: We acknowledge the commenter s concern. As with all input, this concern will be evaluated during the Responsible Official s decision-making process. It is important to note that the 30 acres (i.e., portion of Stand 12 and all of Stand 13) removed from the Proposed Action does retain a shared property corner to Forest Service land to the northeast. Regardless of a parcel s location on the landscape (contiguous or not), the resources on the 30 acres would continue to be managed in accordance with Forest Plan direction. As with many other isolated parcels across the Forest, if the exchange takes place, the remaining 30-acres of federal land would have the potential to be exchanged out of in the future. The ID Team believes that the commenter is also referring to the non-federal parcel, as this is the parcel that is 48.7 acres and surrounded by National Forest System land. In the context of this comment, it appears that the commenter is supportive of acquiring the non-federal parcel due to its similarity to Federal parcel 1. The Proposed Action would incorporate the non-federal 48.7 acres into the Ottawa s land management base, resulting in increased land management efficiencies for this area as outlined in the purpose and need for the project. Table 2 above (Comment 1e), addresses information regarding the existing conditions of non-federal Parcel 3 to the extent that is known at this time. Comment 1h Concern for retaining larger trees within Federal Parcel 2 The small, 1.1-acre parcel I m not as concerned with so long as the larger trees are kept when the cemetery is expanded. ID Team Response: If the land exchange is authorized, the type of management on Federal Parcel 2 would be subject to local zoning ordinances. The Forest Service cannot stipulate that retention of large trees occur on private land. Comment 1i Concern pertaining to old growth classified within Federal Parcel 2 If the classification is currently managed OG, than OG of the same or greater size needs to be added elsewhere. There is no mention in the document of where the OG acreage would be added. ONF is too ravaged already to compromise any more OG. WHERE ARE YOU PROPOSING TO ADD THIS AMOUNT OR MORE TO THE OG SYSTEM? ID Team Response: The project area and analysis is limited to the parcels proposed for land exchange (Analysis Framework, Section 3[c][vi]). Therefore, the Proposed Action is limited to the exchange of Federal land for non-federal land and establishing a deed covenant as outlined in the EA (p. 6). Old growth classification is not included in this project s purpose and need. Classifying 1.07 acres of old growth in another area, or additional acreage, is outside the scope of this project and not required by federal law, regulation or policy. 8

21 The 1.07 acres of Stand 65 (comprising Federal Parcel 2) is only a portion of the total stand, which is estimated as 14 acres. Therefore, the majority of the stand would be retained as old growth. The EA states that the Proposed Action would not have a measurable effect on the overall achievement of the Forest Plan s desired conditions for old growth (EA, p. 24). The desired condition of old growth in Management Area (MA) 1.1a is 1-3% (Forest Plan, p. 3-4). There are no requirements for any given project to meet the desired conditions for a management area. If the land exchange is approved, it would result in a decrease of % old growth within this MA. The current percentage of old growth in MA 1.1a is 9.8% or 4,747 acres (see project file); and therefore, exchanging out of the 1.07 acres of classified old growth would be very minor in context to all the acres that are already classified in this MA. As outlined in the EA (p. 24), the current vegetation composition of the 1.07 acres is similar to the non-federal Parcel, except there is a higher percentage of eastern hemlock on the non-federal Parcel. Comment 1j Concern regarding actions on non-federal Parcel 3. i. The bottom line is, the parcel next to the river should not be subject to exploitation to begin with. Whether the parcel is under NFS ownership isn t as important to me as that it be left alone. To build on a flood plane would be ridiculous. ii. The No Action paragraphs mentions that there d be less opportunity to protect fish and wetland values, but doesn t indicate why, or what is likely to happen if the parcel remains under private ownership. A local property owner said this is not an equal exchange because of an unstable bank. If the bank is unstable, the owner should be mandated to fix it, not pawn the property off on the public to pay (my deduction is based on other citizen comments.) ID Team Response: The EA information disclosed does not include an assumption that non- Federal Parcel 3 would be subject to exploitation or development within the floodplain for this area. As disclosed on page 5 of the EA, the assumption for the analysis is that non-federal Parcel 3 will continue to be managed for recreational use and occasional timber harvest by the proponent under the No Action alternative. The commenter is correct in stating that the EA discloses that the No Action alternative would result in less opportunity to protect fish and wetland values (p. 6). To clarify, the intent of this statement is simply that acquiring the non-federal Parcel would afford an opportunity to manage the area in accordance with Forest Plan direction as outlined in the Proposed Action (EA, p. 7). This direction would include protection for several resource values, including fish, wetlands, recreation and general forest uses. Furthermore, additional benefits to non-federal Parcel 3 are discussed on page 19 of the EA. Specifically, current erosion and sedimentation concerns associated with OHV use would not continue if managed under Federal jurisdiction. In response to comments received as part of the scoping effort, the ID Team developed a Comment Matrix (discussed on page 5 of the EA), which categorizes comments and outlines how concerns can be addressed (see project file). In response to concerns pertaining to river bank conditions of non-federal Parcel 3, the ID Team determined that the steep clay hill 9

22 mentioned by the commenter was not located on the private property. Thus, there are no concerns pertaining to resource damage from this type of landscape feature. Comment 1k Clarification regarding the current proposed parcel configuration To write, Therefore, to address commenter concerns, the Responsible? Official excluded FORTY acres from the Federal parcel 1 reduced the likelihood that the difference between the Federal and non-federal parcels would exceed the 25% difference allowed, is unfathomable. First off, we realize the reduction would reduce the likelihood, but to what? We still don t know the value. Secondly, IS IT THIRTY ACRES OR FORTY? ID Team Response: The acreage of Federal Parcel 1 is 50 acres, and therefore, it is a 30 acre reduction from the original parcel configuration outlined in the scoping letter (i.e., 80 acres; see response to Comment 1e [page 6] regarding the rationale associated with this change). Given scoping comments, the Responsible Official did reduce the acreage of Federal Parcel 1 to 40 acres. However, preliminary findings from review of the parcels suggested that there may be an imbalance in value if this configuration was used (EA, p. 8). Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis. To provide further transparency about our deliberative process and information about the range of alternatives considered, the EA does describe this intermediate alternative considered. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. See response to Comment 1b for further information regarding the final market appraisal. A formal Freedom of Information Act request to the Regional Office by the commenter would need to occur regarding value information. 2. Kenneth Mazurek Title/Organization: Interested Citizen Comment 2a Concern about use of pipeline by the proponent on Federal Parcel 1 if exchange is authorized. ID Team Response: Any activity on or around the pipeline would need to be coordinated with the pipeline company. The pipeline company would retain an easement even if the property was owned by the proponent. Comment 2b Concern that the proponent would not abide by deed covenant; and questioned whether the Forest Service or Township would be responsible for monitoring if deed covenant restrictions are followed. ID Team Response: By law, the proponent would be held to the deed covenant. For any development, local zoning ordinances and State laws would apply. 10

23 In the first few years following the exchange, the Forest Service would informally monitor whether the proponent s land management adheres to the restrictions outlined in the deed covenant. The Township would not have a role in this monitoring effort. Comment 2c Concern that the proponent would be able to log the 30 acres excluded from the Proposed Action; and that no logging could occur on the 30 acres due to the presence of wetlands. ID Team Response: The 30 acre parcel would remain part of the Ottawa National Forest s land base under any alternative, and therefore is not available for management by the proponent. As outlined in response to Comment 1e, the 30 acre parcel consists of a portion of Stand 12 and all of Stand 13. It would be speculative to discuss future management on the Federal Parcel 1 for these 30 acres. However, management actions would be consistent with Forest Plan direction. 11