- -- - ---- --- -- -- -----

DECISION NOTICEand

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTfor the

RACO CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hiawatha National ForestChippewa County, Michigan

Sault Ste. Marie Ranger DistrictUSDA Forest Service, Region 9

I. DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

A. DECISION

Based on the analysis documented in the Raco Construction Environmental Assessment (EA), itis my decision to implement the Proposed Action (section 2.1) and design criteria (Appendix A).

B. RATIONALE

I weighed numerous factors in making my decision, including compliance with the HiawathaNational Forest (HNF) Facility Master Plan, Forest Service policy, as well as federal and statelaws (EA, section1.2.2), environmental effects (EA, sections 3.1 - 3.10), Hiawatha NationalForest Plan (FP) direction (pp. 3-14 through 3-16), the needs of Raco Work Center employeesand users (EA, section 1.2), and the future use and development of the Raco Work Center (EA,Section 1.2.1). The project received one general comment from an individual wishing to bid onproposed demolition and construction; therefore, I had no public issues to consider.

1. Does the Proposed Action meet the Purpose and Need (PN)?

. Address budgetary concerns and improve facility cost efficiencies on the HiawathaNational Forest by operating the minimum number of facilities.

. Provide barrier free, limited access for National Forest visitors and customers; and dailyaccess for employees.

. Provide energy efficient and sustainable facilities that are centrally located to result in alower carbon footprint from Forest Service related activities.

. Reduce the amount of annual and deferred maintenance on administrative facilities.

Phases one and two of this project will construct two new buildings and remove five agingstructures. These actions will result in lower deferred maintenance costs for the HNF. TheProposed Action complies with national direction to reduce the number of facilities and thecost to manage those facilities. It provides for future reduction in the number of buildingscurrently maintained by the HNF because three employees now stationed at the Sault Ste.Marie District Ranger Office and two employees now working at the Moran Work Center willbe reassigned to the Raco Work Center. The Sault Ste. Marie District Ranger Office will besold and four buildings at Moran will be decommissioned, resulting in an additional fivebuildings being removed from the HNF facilities plan.

Decision NoticeRaco Construction Project

Page 1 of 6

Currently, the existing office at the Raco Work Center does not meet American DisabilitiesAct (ADA) requirements. New construction at Raco will make the office space for employeesfully accessible (Facility Master Plan).

By meeting Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for a 2,500 squarefoot office building at the Raco Work Center, constructing a new energy efficient fire cacheand heavy equipment and fire engine building the HNF is taking positive steps to provideenergy efficient and sustainable facilities.

Based on the above rationale I believe the Proposed Action and associated design criteriabest achieves the PN and is compliant with all rules, regulations, and laws.

2. Does the Proposed Action protect other resources?

Soils and Hvdroloav. There will be no detrimental impacts to these resources, in partbecause of the small footprint of the Proposed Action activities, and application of bestmanagement practices (BMP). Although the Proposed Action will result in a somewhat largerfootprint of buildings and parking area, none of the runoff will travel more than a few feet fromthe site due to rapid infiltration into the sandy soils (EA, 3.1.1.3). Ground water will beprotected by the improvements to the wastewater system and will comply with State ofMichigan wastewater permitting (EA, 3.1.1.3). While removing old buildings and constructingnew buildings, wastewater treatment, and parking facilities will cause soil disturbance, it willnot cause erosion or sedimentation to move beyond the project area because of low slopes,low erosivity of soils, and because of landscaping and revegetation called for in design plans(EA, section 3.1.2.3).

Threatened. Endanaered. and Sensitive (TES) Plant SDecies. Because there is nohabitat in the project area for TES plants, there will be no effect on these species (EA,section 3.3.2; BE, Appendix C).

Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP). With the developed status of the Raco Work Center,NNIP are not a threat to native plant communities because they do not exist on the site.There will be no effect on native plant communities by implementing the Proposed Actionactivities (EA, section 3.4.2).

Wildlife (TES). Because there is no habitat in the project area for TES animal species, therewill be no effect on these species (EA, section 3.5.1; BE, Appendix C).

Wildlife (MISand other). There will be no effects to either sensitive or non-sensitive speciesdue to the small scope of the project and that proposed activities are occurring in alreadydeveloped areas (EA, section 3.5.1).

Heritaae Resources. Six of the 12 existing buildings at the Raco Work Center are identifiedas heritage resources that are more than 50 years old. Three of these buildings will beremoved. In accordance with 36 CFR 800, the project was reviewed by the State HistoricPreservation Officer who concurred with HNF archeologists that no historic properties wouldbe affected by this project (EA, section 3.8.5).

Page 2 ot6 Decision NoticeRaco Construction Project

- - -- -----

II. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The No Action Alternative documented the effects of keeping the Raco Work Center in itscurrent condition. The analysis shows that the Raco Work Center would continue to be out ofcompliance with the ADA, that it would not meet the Facility Master Plan, and not meet ForestPlan direction to reduce deferred maintenance costs and maintain the minimum number ofbuildings to carry out the mission of the Forest Service. Furthermore, it does not move towardsestablishing energy efficient and sustainable buildings that will result in a smaller carbonfootprint of HNF facilities. The No Action Alternative was not selected because it does not meetthe purpose and need for this project.

Because there were no issues, no additional alternatives were analyzed (EA, sections 1.7 and2.1). It is my judgment that the Proposed Action and No Action constitute a sufficient range ofalternatives because only one supportive commenfwas received.

III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Raco Construction EA was first identified in the July 2009 Schedule of Proposed Actions.On July 6, 2009, scoping letters detailing the Proposed Action and a Civil Rights ImpactAnalysis were mailed to approximately 75 adjacent landowners and other individuals andorganizations that have expressed an interest in receiving information on HNF projectproposals. A legal notice was published in The Evening News on July 9, 2009 (paper of record,Sault Ste. Marie, MI) and the public scoping package was posted on the HNF website. Onephone call was received. No issues were raised.

IV. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I considered the following factors in determining that an environmental impact statement (EIS) isnot needed (40 CFR 1508.27):

A. CONTEXT

The activities will occur at the Raco Work Center, which is located in the northern portion of theEastside of the HNF (Appendix B, map). Environmental effects resulting from these activitieswill be localized, with implications for only the immediate area where activities will occur. Theseactivities have been disclosed in the EA in sections 3.1-3.10. The analysis disclosed that thereare no cumulative effects to any resource (EA, sections 3.1.1.3, 3.1.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, 3.4.2,3.5.1, 3.6.1, 3.7.3, 3.8.4, 3.9.2, 3.10.2).

It is my determination that the effects of implementing the Proposed Action will not be significantlocally, regionally, or nationally.

B. INTENSITY

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse.

I have considered both beneficial and adverse effects; however, the beneficial effects havenot been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects.

The EA discloses the effects this project's activities will have on the watershed (soils,

Decision NoticeRaco Construction Project

Page 3 of 6

hydrology, wetlands), (EA, section 3.1), non-native invasive plants, (EA, section 3.4) TESanimals and plants and management indicator species (EA, sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5), andheritage resources (EA, section 3.8). Impacts resulting from my decision are not unique tothe HNF. Based on the analysis and previous experience, I conclude there will be nosignificant effects.

I conclude there will be no significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts fromimplementation of the activities proposed in the Raco project area.

2. The degree to which the Proposed Action affects public health or safety.

The Proposed Action will improve access to the Raco Work Center, ensure safe water, andimprove treatment of wastewater. Based on the environmental analysis and implementationof projects similar to this in the past, I conclude there will be no significant effects to publichealth or safety.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area.

The EA did not identify any impacts to unique characteristics of the area. The project is notlocated near any wild and scenic river corridors, nor parks, or prime farm lands. There are nowetlands in the project area (EA, section 3.1.3). Botanical and wildlife surveys wereconducted throughout the analysis area (EA, sections 3.3 and 3.5) and the analysisdetermined there are no ecologically critical areas where management activities would occur.Based upon these considerations, I conclude there will be no significant effects on uniquecharacteristics within the geographic area.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely tobe highly controversial.

The effects of these actions are not controversial. During the public involvement process,only one supportive comment was received (EA, section 1.7). For this reason, I concludethere will be no significant effects on the quality of the human environment that are likely tobe controversial.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highlyuncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

The activities in my decision are similar to many past actions, both in this project area and inadjacent areas across the Eastside of the HNF. The Interdisciplinary Team conducting theanalysis used monitoring as a frame of reference and combined that knowledge withscientifically accepted analytical techniques and the best available information to estimateeffects of the proposal (EA, sections 3.1 - 3.10). There is nothing in the project area that hasnot been encountered previously. Therefore, none of the actions involves unique or unknownrisks.

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

These actions are similar to other management activities previously implemented and do notset precedence for other projects that may be proposed to meet the goals and objectives ofthe Forest Plan.

Page 4 of 6 Decision NoticeRaco Construction Project

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant butcumulative significant impacts.

The analysis in the EA documents that there are no cumulative impacts associated with thisdecision for any resource (EA, sections 3.1.1.3, 3.1.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.5.1, 3.6.1,3.7.3, 3.8.4, 3.9.2, 3.10.2). Based on this analysis, I conclude there are no cumulativesignificant impacts.

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 HistoricPlaces, or may cause loss, or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, orhistorical resources.

Six of the structures at the Raco Work Center are eligible for listing in the National Registerof Historic Places (NRHP). In compliance with Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966, as amended, and in accordance with 36 CFR 800, all public landsinvolved with actions in the Proposed Action have been inventoried for heritage resourcesthrough numerous cultural resource surveys conducted between 1983 and 2005. Copies ofthe cultural resource reports are located in the office of the State Historic PreservationOfficer (SHPO). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c-f), the HNF has provided the Michigan SHPOwith the additional materials required by their office for review and consultation. Under theauthority of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, theMichigan SHPO has concurred that this project will have no adverse effects on historicproperties in the project area (SHPO compliance letter, March 16, 2010). Additionalanalysis of heritage resources are provided in the EA (section 3.8)

Based on the above, I find there will be no significant impacts on structures eligible for listingon the NRHP, nor any loss or destruction of scientific, cultural, or historic places. Contractclauses and the design criteria will protect existing resources and any yet undiscoveredresources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatenedspecies or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973.

Thereis no habitatfor TESplantsin the projectarea(EA,section3.3.2).

There will be no significant impacts to endangered or threatened animal species (EA,section 3.5.1). There is no critical habitat in the project area.

My decision will have no effect on plants or animals; therefore, there will be no adverseimpacts to threatened or endangered species.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirementsimposed for the protection of the environment.

Project activities adhere to Forest Plan direction, and standards and guidelines. The FEISand Record of Decision for the Forest Plan indicate the consistency of the Forest Plan withlaw, regulation, and policy (FP pp. 1-1 to 1-3). The EA documents compliance with federaland state endangered species acts (BE, Appendix C), heritage resource protection laws (EAsections 3.8.1 and 3.8.3), and other resource protection requirements (EA, sections 3.1 -3.10). I conclude that this action does not violate federal, state, or local laws designed forthe protection for the environment.

Decision NoticeRaco Construction Project

Page 5 of 6

C.FINDING

I find, based upon the analysis disclosed in the EA and my consideration of the significance ofthe context and intensity factors in sections A and B above, that this is not a major federalaction, that will either individually or cumulatively significantly affect the quality of the humanenvironment; therefore, an EIS is not needed.

V. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

I find that the actions of this decision comply with the requirements of the National ForestManagement Act of 1976. I have reviewed the Forest Plan and determined that this decision isconsistent with the Forest Plan's goals and objectives (FP, pp. 2-14, 3-34 and section IV.B.10).All of the expected impacts from implementing this analysis are consistent with the expectedimpacts disclosed in the FEIS for the Forest Plan.

VI. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Implementation of this project may begin immediately (36 CFR 215.9).

VII. APPEAL RIGHTS

There will be no appeal period since only supportive comments were received (36 CFR 215.2(e) (1)).

VIII. CONTACTS

For more information, you may contact Beth Funderburg, NEPA Specialist, St Ignace RangerDistrict, W 1900 West US Hwy 2, St Ignace MI 49781; (906) 643-7900. The complete projectrecord is available for public review at the St Ignace Ranger District, W 1900 West US Hwy 2, StIgnace MI 49781. This decision document may also be found on the HNF website athttp://fs.usda.qov/qoto/hiawatha/proiects.

~.,tJi~ Date: f///q//OI .

Page 6 of 6 Decision NoticeRaco Construction Project