White Spruce Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service White Spruce Assessment Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Saint Ignace Ranger Station Hiawatha National Forest Chippewa and Mackinac Counties, Michigan May

2 Introduction The White Spruce Assessment is located on the Saint Ignace and Sault Saint Marie Ranger Districts of the Hiawatha National Forest (HIF). This Draft Decision Notice (DDN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) documents my selection, as Deciding Official for this project, of management activities that will be implemented from this project and the rationale for these decisions. This project will implement the HIF 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (also known as the Forest Plan), and includes proposed management activities that are designed to contribute to achieving the desired condition outlined in that Forest Plan. This DDN/FONSI incorporates by reference the White Spruce Environmental Assessment (EA). The White Spruce analysis area encompasses approximately 907 acres of land National Forest System (NFS) ownership scattered across the East Zone of HIF. No towns or organized communities are located in the analysis area. Strongs and Moran are located in the general vicinity. See Figure 1 for a map showing the location of the project area. A project EA was developed to display the results of effects analysis for two alternatives: a no action alternative and a proposed action alternative that was designed to move the vegetation and other conditions in the project area from its existing condition toward the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. Development of the White Spruce EA was performed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA is available for public review at the St. Ignace Ranger District office, and at the following website: Documents in the project file are available upon request. 2

3 3

4 Decision and Reasons for the Decision After reviewing the environmental analysis, supporting documents and public response, I have decided to fully implement the Proposed Action as described on pages 13 and 14 of the EA for the following reasons: I have decided to implement the Modified Proposed Action for the following reasons: 1. It is fully responsive to the Purpose and Need (EA, Chapter 1). The Purpose and Need for this project (EA, Chapter 1) states that The purpose of this project is to salvage dead and dying white spruce plantations that have been, or are currently being, severely impacted by the ongoing spruce budworm outbreak. This action is needed because stands proposed for treatment are dense plantations that are highly susceptible to these outbreaks, which if catastrophically impacted would likely not naturally regenerate to minimal stocking requirements. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan and helps move the project area toward desired conditions described in that plan. Specifically, the purpose and need for this project includes: Salvage dead and dying white spruce from plantations. Improve the diversity, health and resiliency of stands. Fuels management. Transportation system. Each element of the selected alternative will meet all of these purpose and needs. 2. The selected alternative provides a comprehensive, rigorous, and thorough set of project design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) specifically designed to minimize adverse environmental effects. These measures have been demonstrated to be effective in mitigating potential effects from the selected activities. The selected alternative and the design criteria and BMPs reflect a cooperative effort by the Forest Service, other public agencies, and interested publics as to the appropriate actions to be taken in order to meet the purpose and need. Design criteria, as described in Appendix A to this document and referenced in the White Spruce Chapter 2 and related documents, will be practiced to minimize or negate impacts to all resources. Additionally, use of BMPs, as outlined by the State of Michigan s Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land, will be implemented as a minimum standard for all proposed activities in this project, as directed by the Forest Plan on pages 2-14 and My decision and findings are based on my expertise and knowledge of the area, the White Spruce EA, including the Biological Evaluation (EA Appendix C), and other appendices prepared to support the EA, the White Spruce Project Record, and the Forest Plan. Selected Actions Actions authorized for implementation are summarized in Table 1. Appendix A lists applicable design criteria and Appendix B lists each stand proposed for silvicultural treatment. 4

5 Table 1. Summary of Selected Actions. Resource Activity Proposed Action Harvest Clearcut with reserve trees 574 acres Harvest Shelterwood establishment 140 acres Harvest Variable retention harvest 193 acres Reforestation Replant to jack pine 67 acres Reforestation Replant to red pine 425 acres Reforestation Replant to white pine 270 acres Reforestation Replant to red pine and white pine mixed 91 acres Reforestation Natural regeneration 25 acres Transportation Road decommissioning 0.88 miles Transportation Road reconstruction 1.56 miles Transportation Temporary road construction 0.14 miles Transportation Temporary landings 0.40 miles Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I also considered a No Action alternative in detail (EA, Chapter 2). No additional action alternatives were proposed by Forest staff based on potential resource conflicts, and none were generated by unresolved resource conflicts revealed after thorough review of public scoping comments. I have determined this range of alternatives is adequate and follows Forest Service environmental analysis regulations at 36 CFR for consideration of alternatives. A description of these alternatives can be found in the EA on pages Only the Proposed Action and No Action were fully analyzed. A comparison of these can be found in the EA on pages Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Activities that would not require documentation under the NEPA, such as dispersed recreation use, annual road maintenance, and wildfire suppression would continue as needed. Natural succession would be allowed to take place in proposed stands. Public Involvement and Scoping This project was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in April The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during a scoping period that began March 7, Forest staff responded to comments received from the public and other agencies, including the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians. Responses to comments can be found in Appendix A of the EA. There were no significant issues identified during scoping and consultations. The White Spruce Assessment scoping letter explaining the purpose and need for action as well as the location and description of the proposed actions was sent to more than 250 interested and affected parties in March The scoping documentation was sent to Tribal governments, local government agencies, state agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency. The scoping documents were also posted on the HIF internet webpage at: and listed in the Forest s schedule of proposed actions. A legal notice was published in the March 6, 2016, edition of The Sault News (Sault Ste. Marie, MI). Eleven replies were received, and all comments were given careful consideration Forest staff (see Appendix A of the EA, Response to Scoping Comments ). There were no issues identified that resulted in the creation of alternatives to the proposed action. 5

6 The EA was released for the 30-day public comment period on March 17, 2017, with a legal notice published in The Sault News. Notification of the comment period was sent to those who commented during scoping. A total of four comment letters were received during the public comment period. The EA comments and responses to them are included in Appendix C of this document. I have reviewed comments received as a result of public scoping, those received during the 30 day comment period for the EA, and the responses to these comments composed by Forest staff. I appreciate the time and effort taken by members of the public to share their thoughts and concerns regarding this action, and I recognize that my decision may not satisfy all concerns expressed in the comments. These comments often reflect disagreement with the goals, objectives and management direction contained in the Forest Plan. Because the purpose and need for the project is to achieve certain resource goals identified in the Forest Plan, these comments are beyond the scope of the project. I believe that the Proposed Action balances sustainable resource use and ecological sustainability in a manner intended to satisfy competing public demands. None of the scoping comments provided any new site-specific information, either in the form of focused, applicable peer-reviewed studies conducted at the local or regional level, or in the form of site or resource conditions not previously identified by Forest staff. Because of this, no alternatives to the Proposed Action were formulated to address the purpose and need for the project, or advanced for full analysis in the draft EA presented for 30 day comment. Many of the comments received during the 30 day comment period are in the form of editorial comments or opinions regarding forest management practices. None of the comments dispute any specific aspect of the White Spruce EA, offer an alternate approach to any resource analysis, or challenge the FONSI based on any site- specific and relevant new information. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980 and 1992, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the Forest Service has consulted with the appropriate local State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. The Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for the Bay Mills Indian Community, The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community were provided an opportunity to comment on the project and have concurred with the determination of no adverse effect [36 CFR 800.5(b)] on historic properties within the area of potential effects determination (Project file). No other cultural sites or archaeological sites would be affected. Finding of No Significant Impact I, Robert West, have determined that an environmental impact statement should not be prepared. After considering the environmental effects described in the White Spruce EA, as well as the information in the project file, I have determined that the Proposed Action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). I base my findings on the following factors, organized by sub-section of the Council on Environmental Quality s definition of significance as follows. The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine significance, as defined by Forest Service Handbook Significant as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity of the expected project effects. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts (i.e. local regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. For site-specific actions, significance 6

7 usually depends upon the effects in the local rather than in the world as a whole. This project is limited in scope and duration. The project was designed to minimize environmental effects through. Intensity refers to the severity of the expected project impacts and is defined by the 10 points below. Context This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have international, national, region-wide, or state-wide importance. 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 White Spruce Assessment project. In the short-term, normal activities associated with timber harvesting and associated management would occur. Chapter 1 (pages 9-12) and Chapter 2 (pages 13-22) in the EA describe the location, current conditions of various resources, purpose and need, and the proposed action. The resource effects sections in Chapter 3 (pages 23-70), along with specialist information represented in the project record, indicate that most of the environmental effects are confined to the project area. The long-term effects of this project would be: improved intra-stand diversity and stand health, increased stand resiliency, reduced hazardous fuel conditions in Wildlife Urban Interface and non- Wildlife Urban Interface areas, and an improved transportation system. The analyses are consistent with the management direction and standards and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan. It is my determination that the effects of implementing the Proposed Action fully would not be significant locally, regionally, or nationally. Intensity The following factors were considered to evaluate intensity. 1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial. I am considering both the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Overall, the impacts of implementation would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to resources within the project area. The analyses have found that no significant impacts would occur. See section 2.5.2, Comparison of Effects, (pages 19-22) of the EA for a summary of effects between the No Action and the Proposed Action. Potential benefits of this decision include, but are not limited to: fuels reduction, salvaging of white spruce volume, an increase in early successional breeding/foraging habitat, creation of snags through prescribed burning, and the initiation of new understory development. Some actions, such as the creation of early successional habitat will have adverse impacts on some species, but beneficial impacts to others. These changes are consistent with management direction outlined in the Forest Plan. Additional benefits include a more efficient transportation system through 1.56 miles of road reconstruction and through the decommissioning of 0.88 miles of unneeded roads. The potential for adverse impacts include, but are not limited to: the effects on habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, a temporary increase in fire hazard, and potential impacts to soil resources. It is noted that this project may also impact individual plants, but is not likely to trend toward the federal listing of Regional Forester Sensitive Species. Following the design criteria, mitigation measures, and BMPs will limit these potential negative effects so implementation will not cause significant impacts. 7

8 2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not significantly impact public health and safety. Harvesting timber is a common activity in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan so local residents and visitors are accustomed to seeing these operations. During timber harvesting, roads and trails used by logging equipment will be posted to alert the public of the activities. Other mitigations measures will take place as needed, such as temporary trail closures, to protect public safety during operations (pages 14-17). Prescribed fire may be used to reduce hazardous fuel conditions and for site preparation activities (pages 23-25). This can be an efficient and cost effective way to accomplish these objectives, however weather conditions and other factors dictate its use. Extensive planning efforts for the use of prescribed fire take place that include the formulation of burn plans which outline burn parameters that will safely and effectively accomplish the desired objectives. Prescribed burning will not take place if these parameters are not met, helping to ensure public safety. Past operations on similar projects have not resulted in instances where public safety has been affected. Therefore, I have determined that the implementation of the Proposed Actions would have no adverse effects on public safety. 3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. This project does not include activities that take place on or in the proximity of known cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands or ecologically critical areas. Some activities take place in stands that contain hydric soils, about 12 acres total, and vernal pools. These areas would be protected through the implementation of mitigation measures and design criteria (pages 14-17). In addition, portions of one stand, compartment 59 stand 70, falls within the East Branch Tahquamenon Wild and Scenic River Corridor. Portions that fall within this area will be excluded from treatment, thus limiting the effect on this resource and causing no significant impact. 4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. All activities in the proposed action are similar in nature to other projects that have occurred in the past. Through public scoping and comment periods a range of comments were received (pages ). These represent differing opinions but do not inherently constitute controversy. Forest staff uses, as reference (pages 77-82), scientific literature to help support their analysis and decision making process. Based upon previous implementation of similar projects and the use of best available science principals, I have determined the effects of implementing the Proposed Action are not highly controversial. 5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The implementation of the Proposed Action will be similar to many past actions across HIF so the effects upon the human environment are reasonably expected to be similar. The project file and EA demonstrate a thorough review of the best available and relevant scientific information and opposing views have taken place (pages 77-82). Forest staff have considerable experience with the types of activities being implemented. Based upon my knowledge of past actions and the professional and 8

9 technical reviews that have been completed, I have determined that there is not high uncertainty or a significant potential for unknown risks with this project. 6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. Since the Proposed Action is similar to other projects and the effects analyses is site specific to the project area, I have determined there are no precedent setting actions proposed. 7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The cumulative effects of the current proposal combined with past management and reasonably foreseeable future actions are analyzed and displayed under each resource section in Chapter 3 of the EA. Past and present site-specific projects have not been found to result in any known cumulatively significant impacts. Therefore the effects of implementing the Proposed Action in conjunction with past, present 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 the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources. A project specific inventory of the area has been conducted and all known or newly discovered site would be protected through the application of design criteria. A concurrence letter from SHPO was received for this project and is located in the project file. This project would meet federal, state and local laws for protection of historic places and will not result in loss or destruction of significant cultural or historic resources. 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. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not adversely affect any proposed, endangered or threatened species (Biological Evaluations, pages ). A concurrence letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was received for this site specific project and is located in the project file. There is no indication that implementing proposed activities would move a proposed, threatened or endangered species towards federal listing or increase its status. 10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The Proposed Action is consistent with Forest Plan direction and does not violate any federal, state, or local environmental protection laws. Documentation associated with this project meets NEPA disclosure requirements. Conclusion After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I have determined that full implementation of the Proposed Action will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. 9

10 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations National Forest Management Act (NFMA) The NFMA requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans. The HIF Forest Plan was approved in 2006 as required. This plan provides guidance for all natural resource management activities. The NFMA requires that all projects and activities be consistent with the approved Forest Plan. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project, and this project is designed to move the project area towards the desired conditions outline in the Forest Plan. Consistency with the Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)) This action is consistent with the Forest Plan Forest-wide management direction (Forest Plan, pages 2-1 to 2-26), specifically those found in section 2400 vegetation management (Forest Plan, pages 2-10 to 2-12). All of the expected impacts from implementing this analysis are consistent with the expected impacts disclosed in the HIF Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) for the Forest Plan. Based upon my review of the project file, I find that the Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest Plan. Sensitive Species Federal law and direction applicable to sensitive species include the NFMA and the Forest Service Manual (2670). In making my decision, I have reviewed the analysis and projected effects on sensitive plant and animal species occurring on the HIF that was presented in the BEs. All sensitive species were considered and the analysis in the EA reveals that they would be protected appropriately by design criteria identified in Chapter 2 of the EA. I discuss sensitive species under the impacts to resources section above. Please refer to that section for further information. Suitability for Timber Production (16 USC 1604(g)(2)): All lands proposed for timber management in this project have been identified as suitable for timber production (Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix F). Land suitability for the project area was field verified by Forest staff. The classification of land as suited or unsuited is also tied closely to the Ecological Classification and Inventory and Monitoring System, which provided ecological potential and capabilities for various Landtype phases. My decision is consistent with direction in the Forest Plan for MA Appropriateness of Even-Aged Timber Management Even-aged management has been selected as an appropriate method to meet some of the vegetation management objectives in the White Spruce Assessment area. The following criteria were used to determine the appropriateness of even-aged management: i. The selected silvicultural methods for each stand identified in the selected alternative are consistent with the rationale for using these methods provided for in the Forest Plan (p. 2-11). ii. The selected silvicultural methods for the stands identified in the selected alternative will accomplish the Purpose of and Need for the proposal (EA, Chapter 2, Purpose and Need section) and move vegetation toward long-term composition goals, as per Forest Plan objectives (EA Vegetation Management section). 10

11 The selected alternative will regenerate approximately 907 acres of dead and dying white spruce. Approximately 574 acres will be regenerated through clearcutting with reserves and approximately 140 acres will be regenerated through shelterwood establishment. Some treatments may be followed by site preparation (mechanical, manual, or burning) for natural regeneration or for planting. Optimality of Clearcutting Clearcutting are prescribed where they are the optimal method for regeneration. All clearcut prescriptions are with reserves ; that is, if present, an appropriate amount of overstory will be retained, as well as appropriate numbers of snags or potential snags (P, p. 2-17). Assurance of Restocking In the case of final harvest, (also called regeneration harvest ), areas should be restocked within five years post-harvest. Forest stocking records for past projects that are similar to White Spruce were reviewed. Use of standard silvicultural and site preparation methods, as identified in the White Spruce Assessment, resulted in successful restocking. First and third year stocking surveys are automatically scheduled for all regeneration harvests and will be conducted in the analysis area to monitor regeneration in all applicable areas. Endangered Species Act Formal consultation with USFWS regarding all federally listed species known to occur on the HIF took place during the development of the Forest Plan. The Programmatic BO did not address effects of the Forest Plan on Northern Long-eared Bat. Informal consultation is required for any proposal that may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect a proposed or federally listed species. As required by the Endangered Species Act, a Biological Assessment was prepared that addressed the potential effects to threatened or endangered species using the project area and has been provided to USFWS, East Lansing Field Office. The USFWS has been informally involved in the planning and analysis of this project. Based on this engagement and past projects with similar effects, I have received concurrence from the UWSFS with the determinations in the wildlife Biological Assessment. Therefore, the Section 7(a)(2) responsibilities will be met in respect to the Northern Long-eared Bat. (See also Finding of No Significant Impact, subsection 9 of this document.) National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the NHPA (Public Law , as amended) also requires federal agencies to afford the State Historic Preservation Officer a reasonable opportunity to comment. The Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for the Bay Mills Indian Community, The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community were provided an opportunity to comment on the project and have concurred with the determination of no adverse effect [36 CFR 800.5(b)] on historic properties within the area of potential effects determination (Project file). No other cultural sites or archaeological sites would be affected. Clean Water Act (Public Law ) All federal agencies must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates forest management activities near federal waters and riparian areas. The design criteria associated with 11

12 the selected alternative ensure that the terms of the CWA are met, primarily prevention of pollution caused by erosion and sedimentation. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order requires that all federal actions consider potentially disproportionate effects on minority and low-income communities, especially if adverse effects on environmental or human health conditions are identified. Adverse environmental or human health conditions created by any of the alternatives considered would not affect any minority or low-income neighborhood disproportionately. The activities proposed in the selected alternative were based solely on the existing and desired condition of the project area. In no case were the project designs based on the demographic makeup, occupancy, property value, income level, or any other criteria reflecting the status of adjacent nonfederal land. Reviewing the location, scope, and nature of the proposed alternatives in relationship to non-federal land, there is no evidence to suggest that any minority or low-income neighborhood would be affected disproportionately. Conversely, there is no evidence that any individual, group, or portion of the community would benefit unequally from any of the actions in the proposed alternatives. Invasive Species Management, FSM 2900 This EA includes treatment of terrestrial invasive species. The project s design criteria were developed to minimize risk of new invasive species introductions (EA, Chapter 2). Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 USC ) The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia). Specific provisions in the statute include the establishment of a federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention... for the protection of migratory birds... or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." Because forest lands provide a substantial portion of breeding habitat, land management activities within the HIF can have an impact on local populations. Migratory birds have been considered in this EA (Wildlife section). Wild and Scenic Rivers The East Branch Tahquamenon Wild Scenic River traverses the analysis area. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 requires protection of the free flow and the outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was included in the act. The selected alternative was designed to be in compliance with the Act. Approximately 8 acres of rowed white spruce plantation would be clearcut and naturally regenerated. Clearcut of rowed white spruce plantation and natural regeneration would move the stand towards a more natural appearance in the long-term (EA page 60). Summary of Findings My review of the analysis prepared by Forest staff indicates that this decision is consistent with Forest Plan management direction, compliant with other applicable laws, and responds to public concerns. After thorough consideration, I have determined that actions selected do not constitute a major federal action, individually or cumulatively, and these actions will not significantly affect the quality of the 12

13 human environment. The site-specific actions of the Proposed Action, in both the short and long-term, are not significant. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not needed. Administrative Review and Objection Rights This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written comments during scoping or other designated comment period. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted comments unless based on new information arising after the designated comment period(s). Objections for this project, including any attachments or supporting documentation, will be accepted for 45 days beginning on the first day after the date of publication of the legal notice in the newspaper of record; The Sault News (Sault Ste. Marie, MI). Please submit objections to Regional Forester Kathleen Atkinson, by one of the following methods: mail: 626 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800, Milwaukee, WI 53202, telephone: (414) , facsimile: (414) , or objectionseastern-region@fs.fed.us (please put Objections to the White Spruce Assessment in the subject line). Office hours, for those who wish to hand deliver their comments, are 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday- Friday (except Federal holidays). Acceptable formats for electronic objections are text or html , Adobe portable document format, and formats viewable in Microsoft Office applications. It is the responsibility of the objectors to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner (36 CFR (a)). The date of publication of the legal notice is the only means of calculating the length of the objection period. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. If the objection period ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, comments will be accepted until the end of the next Federal working day. Implementation If no objections are filed within the 45-day time period for this Objection Period, then a final decision may occur on, but not before, the 5th business day following the end of the objection filing period. If an objection is filed, a Final Decision will not be signed until all concerns and instructions (identified by the Reviewing Officer) have been addressed (36 CFR [b]). Contact and Signature For further information concerning the White Spruce Assessment, contact Samuel Barnes, project team leader, at (906) ext. 128, during normal business hours or by at smbarnes@fs.fed.us. Approved by: Robert West District Ranger Saint Ignace Ranger Station Hiawatha National Forest Date 13

14 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. 14

15 15