Jordan River National Fish Hatchery Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Hunt Plan - Environmental Assessment
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Environmental Assessment
Jordan River National Fish Hatchery
Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game and
Big Game Hunt Plan
January 13, 2020
Prepared by
Mark Olson
Jordan River National Fish Hatchery
Elmira, MIEnvironmental Assessment for Opening to hunting of select migratory birds,
upland game and big game on Jordan River National Fish Hatchery
This Environmental Assessment is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this
preferred action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the
Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and
policies. The National Environmental Policy Act requires examination of the effects of proposed
actions on the natural and human environment.
1.0 Introduction
Proposed Action
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to open hunting opportunities for duck, geese,
merganser, coot, rail, snipe, woodcock, ruffed grouse, turkey, whitetail deer, bear, crow,
cottontail rabbit, gray and fox squirrel, coyote, red and gray fox, bobcat, raccoon, opossum,
skunk, weasel, snowshoe hare and woodchuck on the Jordan River National Fish Hatchery in
accordance with the state of Michigan’s hunting regulations and the hatchery’s Hunt Plan
(Appendix B). The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates
as outlined by the Secretary of the Department of Interior to recognize compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the Federal Lands and ensure that
opportunities are provided within the National Fish Hatchery system for compatible wildlife
dependent recreational.
This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency
refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes and other agencies. Therefore, the
final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed
action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the Environmental
Assessment and the 2020-2021 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The
Service cannot open a refuge or hatchery to hunting and/or fishing until a final rule has been
published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge or hatchery to hunting and/or
fishing.
Background
National fish hatcheries are guided by the mission and goals of the National Fish Hatchery
System, the purposes of an individual hatchery, Service policy, laws and international treaties.
The Jordan River National Fish Hatchery is located five and one-half miles north of Alba,
Michigan (pop. 295) in Star Township, Section 6 Township 30 North, and Range 5 West in
Antrim County, Michigan. The hatchery was established under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act and Authorized under 48 Statute 401, dated March 1934. The approximately
102 acres that constitute the federal hatchery was deeded to the U.S. Government from the State
of Michigan on April 14, 1960 with an issuance of a Public Use Deed.
Hatchery construction started in 1962 and was complete by 1964. The first fish production began
in the fall of 1964, with initial stockings from the hatchery in the spring of 1966. Major
infrastructure facilities on the station include two developed springs (Five Tile and Six Tile
2Creeks), main hatchery building, three fish production buildings, effluent treatment plant, five
on-site residences and various ancillary storage buildings.
The original mission of the hatchery was the production of lake trout for restoration projects in
the Great Lakes. Average annual lake trout production varied over the decades, but typically ran
between 1.8-2.5 million yearling lake trout and 1.0-1.2 million spring fingerling lake trout for
transfer to other national fish hatcheries. Beginning in 2007 the station began producing 10-15
thousand catchable brook trout to support youth educational and recreational programs. In 2012,
the station began off site operations to collect multiple coregonid species for restoration activities
across the Laurentian Great Lakes. On-site production of coregonids began in fiscal year 2018 at
the hatchery.
National fish hatchery areas are maintained for the fundamental purpose of the propagation and
distribution of fish and other aquatic animal life and managed for the protection of all species of
wildlife (50 CFR Ch.l 70.1). It is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities on Jordan River National Fish Hatchery. The need of the proposed action also
meets the Service’s implementation of Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347 Conservation Stewardship
and Outdoor Recreation and S.O. 3356 Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife
Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories by expanding
hunting opportunities and aligning Service regulations with State regulations.
This Environmental Assessment is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this
proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the
Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and
policies. The National Environmental Policy Act requires examination of the effects of proposed
actions on the natural and human environment.
2.0 Alternatives
Alternatives Considered
Alternative A – Hatchery is closed to hunting – No Action Alternative
No action would be taken by the Service to formally open hatchery lands to hunting. This
alternative would effectively close all hatchery lands to the public for hunting. Hunting has
traditionally been allowed at the hatchery since it was opened in 1964. Under the no hunting
action alternative, the Service would operate the hatchery only for fish management purposes.
Public access would be allowed for self-guided tours of the hatchery as well as scheduled guided
tours.
Alternative B – Open migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting – Preferred
Alternative
3The hatchery has prepared a hunt plan, Jordan River Hatchery Migratory Game Bird, Upland
Game and Big Game Hunting Plan, which is presented in this document as the Preferred Action
Alternative.
Under the Preferred Action Alternative:
The hatchery has prepared a hunt plan (Appendix B), which is presented in this document as the
proposed action. Multiple-species will be allowed to be hunted on hatchery land in accordance
with state of Michigan hunting regulations. Seventy-four acres will be open to hunting while 28
acres will be closed to hunting around buildings and water intakes and outfalls. Twenty five
species will be open for hunting under this alternative through all approved means of take as
described in Michigan Department of Natural Resource hunting rules and regulations. Species
opening includes duck, geese, merganser, coot, rail, snipe, woodcock, ruffed grouse, turkey,
whitetail deer, bear, crow, cottontail rabbit, gray and fox squirrel, coyote, red and gray fox,
bobcat, raccoon, opossum, skunk, weasel, snowshoe hare and woodchuck.
Waterfowl hunting (ducks, geese, merganser, coot, rail, snipe) will only be allowed in Open Area
B, the hatchery discharge which is approximately an acre in size. Open Area B will also be open
to all other means of hunting described in this alternative. In addition, there is no open season for
sharptail grouse, pheasant and bobwhite quail hunting in Antrim County, however we are
opening to these species incase the county opens the season in the future. Waterfowl hunting will
be closed in Open Area A, but open to all other hunting, due to the small and limited areas
available and the importance of biosecurity in protecting the fish rearing water from outside
contamination.
The objectives of a multiple-species hunting program on the hatchery are to provide:
• The public with a recreational experience-to-experience wildlife on more hatchery lands
and increase opportunities for hunters, especially for youth and families
• Biological diversity by preserving the natural diversity and variety of biotic communities
occurring on hatchery lands.
There will be no hatchery sponsored mentored hunts at the hatchery, however the hatchery will
be open to all state specific seasons for youth and disabled hunts.
Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts:
• The Service will continually monitor for conflicts and evaluate mitigation measures that
may be necessary to solve or to minimize conflicts between users. At this time due to the
location or hiking trails, parking areas and other user access it is believed that conflict
will be minimal.
This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting/fishing and fulfills the Service’s
mission.
Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration
Opening to waterfowl hunting in Open Area A is an alternative that was not further considered
due to potential impacts to water quality that would lead to the hatchery not meeting their
mission. Hunters, hunting dogs, waders and decoys can be sources of contamination to hatchery
4intake water. Viruses, bacteria and parasites can be transmitted from outside sources and cause
harmful pathogenic outbreaks in the hatchery fish populations.
There are no unresolved conflicts about the proposed action with respect to the alternative uses
of available resources based upon input from interested parties. There is agreement that the
proposed action is sufficient, therefore, the Service does not need to consider additional
alternatives. (43 CFR 46.310).
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment
Jordan River National Fish Hatchery is primarily upland habitat of mixed hardwood species,
mainly beech and maple, approximately 48 acres and two acres of wetlands. The remaining 23
acres of land proposed to open hunting on is riparian of mixed alder choke cherry and aspen. One
acre of waterfowl hunting is hatchery discharge and is open water. The 29 acres closed to
hunting consists of developed roads fish rearing buildings, sheds, occupied housing, manicured
grass and landscape with scattered trees. One acre of waterfowl hunting is hatchery discharge
and is open water.The hatchery consists of approximately 102 acres in Star Township, Section 6
Township 30 North, and Range 5 West in Antrim County, Michigan. See map of the general area
and proposed project site on the hatchery in Attachment 1 of the Hunt Plan (Appendix B).
Environmental Consequences of the Action
This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource,
including direct and indirect effects. This Environmental Assessment only includes the written
analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource
could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.”
Impact Types:
• Direct effects are those that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and
place.
• Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
• Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives
Species to be hunted/fished
Multiple species are proposed to be hunted on the hatchery, including duck, geese, merganser,
coot, rail, snipe, woodcock, ruffed grouse, turkey, whitetail deer, bear, crow, cottontail rabbit,
gray and fox squirrel, coyote, red and gray fox, bobcat, raccoon, opossum, skunk, weasel,
snowshoe hare and woodchuck. Each species is discussed in more detail below. In general, it is
expected that there will likely be no significant impact to any species proposed to be hunted on
the hatchery in Alternative B. Hundreds of acres of state land surround the hatchery and wildlife
are free to move between hatchery land and state land for resources and cover.
5Alternative A – No Action
Hunting would remain closed and no hunting opportunities would exist on the 74 acres of
hatchery land. There would be no take of any of the species mentioned above.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
Opening the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting will result in the take of some individual
animals but is unlikely to result in significant impacts to local and regional populations as harvest
rates are set by the state of Michigan to ensure persistence of species into the future. Species
hunted that are not harvested would be disturbed by hunter presence; however, the impact is
likely to be temporary in nature. Hunting access will be by foot traffic, dispersed across the
landscape, so impact is likely to be minimal. Specific impacts to each species proposed to open
to hunting is as follows. Take and number of hunters are estimated on annual basis.
Waterfowl (Duck, Goose, Coot, Merganser)
Estimated number of hunters: 5
Estimated Take/Harvest: 10 ducks/mergansers; 0 goose and coot
In 2018, 53,828 people purchased a Michigan waterfowl hunting license (Frawley, 2020). In all
of Michigan, 239,600±20% ducks were harvested by 33,200±22% hunters, 93,900±26% geese
were harvested by 31,800±22% goose hunters, and 200 ± 196% coots were harvested by 200 ±
196% hunters in 2018 (Raftovich, et. al, 2019). It is estimated that there will be limited take of
waterfowl on the one acre of land opening for waterfowl hunting on Open Area B unit. This will
likely not have significant impacts to waterfowl species as only 10 ducks/mergansers are
estimated to be harvested by 5 hunters on an annual basis. Hunting practices in this area will
have limited disturbance as most hunters use will use this area opportunistically and likely will
not set up traditional decoy spreads.
Rail and Snipe
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
Rail and snipe hunting is not likely to occur in the Open Area B unit which is opened to hunting
of these species. In Michigan there were zero rails harvested by zero rail hunters in 2018.
Snipe hunting is more popular than rail hunting as 4,800 ± 196% snipes harvested by 4,800 ±
196% hunters in 2018 (Raftovich, et. al, 2019). There is likely no impact beyond temporary
disturbance on these species, as they will not be hunted.
Woodcock
Estimated number of hunters: 2
Estimated Take/Harvest: 5
Statewide in 2015 there were approximately 36,466 active woodcock hunters with an
approximate average seasonal harvest of 2.5 per hunter (Stewart and Trowbridge, 2019).
Michigan leads the nation in the number of active woodcock hunters and harvests even though
harvest and hunters numbers have declined. In 2019, it was estimated that 29,300 ± 25%
woodcock hunters harvested 59,600 ± 34% woodcocks in Michigan. Opening both the Open
Area A and Open Area B units to woodcock hunting will provide an annual opportunity to two
6hunters to take an estimated five woodcock off the hatchery. This will likely not have significant
impact to the local and regional woodcock population.
Ruffed grouse
Estimated number of hunters: 2
Estimated Take/Harvest: 2
Preliminary ruffed grouse harvest data for the 2015 season show that 85,175 hunters reported
spending 575,131 days in the field hunting grouse, with approximately 217,942 grouse harvested
(Stewart and Trowbridge, 2019). Ruffed grouse are forested birds and will likely be taken on the
hatchery in Open Area A. Annually it estimate that two ruffed grouse hunters will harvest two
grouse. This will likely not have significant impact to the local and regional grouse population.
Crow
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
Statewide annually, approximately 15,000 hunters harvest 72,000-109,000 crows (Brakefield,
2014). It is not expected that crows will be targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting.
Cottontail rabbit and Snowshoe hare
Estimated number of hunters: 2
Estimated Take/Harvest: 2
In 2017, 62,526 cottontail and 12,192 snowshoe hare hunters harvested 169,388
cottontails and 23,072 snowshoe hares. In both instances, this is approximately of 35%
decrease in harvest from 2015 (Frawley, 2017b). On an annual basis, two rabbit/hare
hunters would harvest two hare and rabbits. There is limited habitat available for this
species and hunting opportunities will likely not surmount to large harvests of
rabbits/hares. This will likely not have significant impact to the local and regional
rabbit/hare populations. Trapping is not considered a method of take under this hunting
program.
Gray and Fox Squirrel
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
Approximately 8,784 squirrel hunters harvested 81,073 squirrels in 2017 (Frawley,
2017b). Although squirrel hunting is a popular hunting activity statewide, it is not
expected that squirrels will be targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting and
thus there would likely be no significant impact to squirrels. Trapping is not considered a
method of take under this hunting program.
Coyote
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
According to the 2017, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Furbearer harvest
survey, statewide 9,392 hunters pursued mainly coyotes and raccoons. In 2017, hunters in
7the state of Michigan harvested approximately 13,501 coyotes (Frawley, 2019a). It is not
expected that coyotes will be targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting and
thus there would likely be no significant impact to coyotes. Trapping is not considered a
method of take under this hunting program.
Gray and Red Fox
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
The mean harvest of red fox by both hunters and trappers has declined since the mid-1980s.
In 2017, A total of 2694 fox hunters harvested approximately 1215 red fox and 102 gray
fox in the state of Michigan (Frawley, 2019a). It is not expected that either red or gray fox
will be targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting and thus there would likely
be no significant impact to these species. Trapping is not considered a method of take
under this hunting program.
Bobcat
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
According to Michigan Department of Natural Resource 2016 bobcat harvest data, 1,846
harvested 260 bobcats and spent 15,136 days hunting It is not expected that bobcats will
be targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting, thus it is unlikely there will be
significant impact to bobcats. Trapping is not considered a method of take under this
hunting program.
Raccoon
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
In 2017, hunters in the state of Michigan harvested 34,127 raccoons (Frawley, 2019a). It is
not expected that raccoons will be targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting,
thus it is unlikely there will be significant impact to raccoons. Trapping is not considered a
method of take under this hunting program.
Opossum, skunk, weasel and woodchuck
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
No hunting data were found for opossum, skunk, weasel and woodchuck. It is not
expected that opossum, skunk, weasel and woodchuck will be targeted or harvested on the
74 acres open to hunting as these species are typically trapped. Trapping is not considered
a method of take under this hunting program.
Wild Turkey
Estimated number of hunters: 4
Estimated Take/Harvest: 3
8In Michigan, 68,740 hunters harvested 29,563 turkeys in the spring of 2018 and 14,479 hunters
harvested 4,305 turkeys in the fall of 2017 (Frawley, 2019c). Harvest of four turkeys on an
annual basis by three hunters will be less than one percent of state take for turkeys. Harvest at the
hatchery will likely not have significant impact to the local and regional turkey populations.
White-tailed deer
Estimated number of hunters: 2
Estimated Take/Harvest: 1
In 2018, 554,331 hunters spent 7.5 million days afield harvesting 3 61,000 deer. In Antrim
county approximately 2950 deer are harvested annually on 316,340 acres of land with an average
of one deer harvested per 107 acres of land (Frawley, 2019d). Based on that estimate it is likely
that two hunters will harvest one white-tailed deer on an annual basis. This will be less than one
percent of state take for deer. Harvest at the hatchery will likely not have significant impact to
the local and regional deer populations.
Bear
Estimated number of hunters: 0
Estimated Take/Harvest: 0
In 2018, an estimated 5,066 hunters spent nearly 35,515 days afield and harvested about 1,521
bears. Only 291 bears were harvest in the lower Peninsula of Michigan were the hatchery is
located (Frawley, 2019e). Due to the low density of bears, it is not expected that bears will be
targeted or harvested on the 74 acres open to hunting. It is unlikely there will be significant
impact to bears.
Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species
Jordan River National Fish Hatchery has a long history as a lake trout production hatchery in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The station, established in 1963, is dedicated to the restoration of
this ecologically important fish species in the Great Lakes. Historically, the lake trout was the
top predator in all the offshore regions of the lakes, but factors such as overfishing, invasive
species and habitat alteration have greatly impacted populations. Over 1.7 million lake trout are
reared annually at Jordan River for restoration programs in the Great Lakes.
The cisco was once the most common pelagic species of fish in the Great Lakes system and
supported large commercial fisheries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Due to multiple factors
including overfishing, invasive species introductions and habitat degradation populations were
extirpated or severely impacted by the 1950’s. In 2018 Jordan River began a restoration initiative
for this fish in Lake Huron with other federal, tribal, provincial and state partners.
A very popular program at Jordan River is the “Baby Brookies” Cooperative Project. This
program produces 5,000 trophy-sized brook trout for children’s fishing events across the state of
Michigan. This cooperative effort with area schools, youth organizations, non-governmental
organizations and volunteers offer the opportunity for area youth to become involved in the
culture of this highly sought after species. Local youth assist staff with the propagation and
distribution of the fish to free, cooperative-sponsored fishing events. Involved students develop a
sense of responsibility for natural resources while providing a family-oriented resource for the
American public.
9Non-hunted wildlife would include small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, and shrews;
reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and
invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders.
Alternative A – No Action
Hunting would remain closed and there would be no impact to other wildlife and aquatic species.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
Opening the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting is unlikely to result in significant disturbance to
wildlife as there would only be an additional 17 users of the hatchery. Disturbance of other
wildlife and aquatic species during the migratory birds, upland/small game and big game hunting
seasons may increase slightly however this disturbance will be temporary in nature. Any
additional human activity will typically cause movement of some resident wildlife temporarily
and because the hatchery is surround by natural habitat there should be sufficient habitat to
support the response. Non-hunted wildlife would include small mammals such as voles, moles,
mice, and shrews; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders,
frogs and toads; and invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except for
migratory birds and some species of migratory butterflies and moths, these species have very
limited home ranges and hunting would not affect their populations regionally. Some species of
butterflies and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the “flyway” level
should be negligible.
Any hunter interaction would be similar to that of non-consumptive users. Disturbance to non-
hunted wildlife would increase slightly. However, significant disturbance would be unlikely since
many of these species are hibernating and many are relatively inactive during the fall season in
northern Michigan. Most hunting occurs during fall and winter, when many species have already
migrated or are dormant for the winter. Hunting access will be by foot traffic only and dispersed
across the landscape, so impact is likely to be minimal. Both of these qualities make hunter
interactions with small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians during most of the hunting season
uncommon. Invertebrates are also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions
with hunters during the hunting season.
The only hunting seasons that would take place during the spring breeding and nesting season
would be for wild turkey. The active breeding season for most birds (with the exception of
winter breeding raptors) is within April-July. Hunter participation on the hatchery expected to be
minimal for wild turkey. Hatchery regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to
non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife
other than the game species legal for the state of Michigan season not permitted.
Threatened and Endangered species and Other Special Status Species
There are four federally threatened and endangered species that are known to, or have occurred
in Antrim County, northern long-eared bat, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, pitchers thistle and
red knot.
The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat with a body length of 3 to 3.7 inches but a
wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. Their fur color can be medium to dark brown on the back and tawny
10to pale-brown on the underside. As its name suggests this bat is distinguished by its long ears,
particularly as compared to other bats in its genus of Myotis.
The eastern massasauga is a small, thick-bodied rattlesnake that lives in shallow wetlands and
adjacent uplands in portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. The eastern massasauga has been declining over the past
three decades due to loss and fragmentation of its wetland habitat. Throughout its range, biologists
have confirmed that less than half of the eastern massasauga’s historical populations still exist.
The Pitcher’s thistle is a native thistle that grows on the beaches and grassland dunes along the
shorelines of Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron. It is now found in Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin and in Ontario Canada. Pitcher’s thistle was extirpated from Illinois but has been
reintroduced in Lake County. Pitchers thistle does not exist on Jordan River Hatchery land.
The red knot is a type of shorebird known as a sandpiper. It is a large sandpiper at about 10 inches in
length and 4.8 ounces in weight. The red knot wingspan is typically 20-22 inches. This bird has
short, thick legs and a short, straight bill. The red knot is actually a drab gray color most of the year,
but when in breeding plumage exhibits vibrant russet red colors. Male and female red knots look
similar. Red knots are one of the most colorful types of sandpipers.
Red knots breed in dry tundra areas such as extreme northern Alaska, Canada, northern Greenland,
and Russia. They winter at intertidal marine habitats near coastal inlets, estuaries, and bays.
Wintering grounds for the red knot include coastal sites from Massachusetts and California
southward to southern South America. Red knots also winter at coastlines in Europe, Africa, Asia,
and Australia. Red knots are an uncommon migrant in Michigan and never abundant here, but could
be spotted along Great Lakes shorelines (shorebird) heading north in late May or again in late July.
Alternative A – No Action
As hunting will not occur under this alternative, there would be no impacts to these species.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
The proposed hunt opening on the 74 acres of Jordan River Hatchery is inside the range of the
northern long-eared bat, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, pitchers thistle and the red knot. There
are no critical habitat designations within this site. There will likely be no significant impacts to
these species under this alternative. A Section 7 Consultation as completed and a determination of
no effect. See Appendix C for full Section 7 analysis.
Vegetation
Vegetation varies on the hatchery from mixed deciduous and coniferous forest, riparian areas,
low shrubs, small trees and scattered large trees.
Alternative A – No Action
No action would be taken by the Service to open the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting. There
will likely be no impacts to existing vegetation. Over a long time period of potentially no deer
hunting on the refuge under this alternative there could be minor negative impacts to local
vegetation composition from over browsing of deer that utilize the hatchery.
11Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
Vegetation varies on the hatchery from mixed deciduous and coniferous forest small trees, and
scattered large trees. With the opening of hunting on the 74 acres of hatchery land, vegetation is
likely not expected to be significantly impacted from use by hunters. Because of the low number
of users expected and limited days of use expected primarily in the fall, winter and early spring
the impact will be minimal. There may be minor beneficial impacts to vegetation and to a variety
of species habitat due to the curtailing of resident deer numbers, which can cause adverse
impacts to vegetation.
Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the
Alternatives
The hatchery is open to public access for self-guided tours of the hatchery as well as scheduled
guided tours. Annually, the hatchery averages about 12,000 visitors.
Alternative A – No Action
No action would be taken by the Service to open the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting. This
alternative would produce no impacts to existing visitors and public users that are not hunters.
Hunters that have traditionally used the hatchery for fishing in the past would be negatively
impacted by the closure however it is likely a negligible impact given opportunities to hunt in
surrounding areas.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
Opening the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting will not increase impacts on visitors and will
not increase potential for conflicts with other public users. It is expected that a relatively low
number of hunters present during legal hunting hours and legal seasons will have little or no
direct or indirect impact on non-hunting visitors. Any engagement by the two types of users is
expected to be positive and educational and may create better understanding for all. Because of
the location of parking lots, public access to the hatchery and visitor center and the location of
the trails, it is unlikely that the Service will need to mitigate for any impacts by the proposed
opening to hunting.
Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives
Through 1980, six properties in Antrim County had been placed on the National Register of
Historic Places. None of the properties are located within the boundaries of the proposed
hatchery hunting. There are no properties on the National Register of Historic Places within the
hatchery boundaries.
Alternative A – No Action
No action would be taken by the Service to open the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting. This
alternative would produce no impacts to cultural resources.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
There are no properties on the National Register of Historic Places within the Hatchery boundaries.
Hatchery hunting activities are not expected to disturb archeological resources that may be buried
in the ground. Hunting as proposed will not affect cultural resources and there will be no
12cumulative impacts to such resources. Activities that might cause an effect to a historic property
would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.
Affected Hatchery Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the
Alternatives
Land Use
According to a 1998 land use survey of Star township the largest acreage was in forest land at
11,542 acers, grass and shrub land at 3,636 acres, agricultural land at 3,977 acres, urban & built
up at 2,715 acers, water at 48 acres and wetlands at 45 acres (Antrim County Government,
2016).
Alternative A – No Action
No action would be taken by the Service to open the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting. This
alternative would produce no impacts to hatchery management, operations, buildings or the
water supply.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
The proposed alternative to open 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting does not pose a conflict
with hatchery management, buildings or operations. It is not expected that there will be a
significant increase in road or parking use because of the low numbers of hunters expected
during the seasons and hunting hours. Due to the nature of the water source(s) for the hatchery,
hunting is not expected to affect water flow or impair water quality. No direct impact or indirect
impact expected by employing this alternative.
Administration
The hunting program is designed to be administered with minimal hatchery resources. The costs
of administering the hatchery-hunting program comes out of the hatchery annual budget.
Expenses include program management, staff resources, boundary posting, signage and
brochures. Law enforcement of hatchery and State hunting regulations, trespass and other
violations associated with management of the hatchery is the responsibility of a state law
enforcement.
Alternative A – No Action
No action would be taken by the Service to open the 74 acres of hatchery land to hunting. This
alternative would produce no impacts to hatchery administration.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
Opening 74 acres of hatchery land to public hunting will have minor impact to the administration
of the hatchery. Funding and staffing for hunting activities will include administration of the plan
and we will rely on state of Michigan for any necessary law enforcement patrol or actions.
Wildlife habitat enhancement and management will be administered within existing budgets. All
wildlife habitat enhancement and management will be to meet the purpose of the hatchery and
not specifically for supporting huntable species.
13Affected Socio-ecomonic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate
environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high
or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities
and low-income populations and communities.
The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health
impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified no
minority or low-income communities within the impact area and thus no impact will occur in
either alternative. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected
by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.
Local and Regional economies
The hatchery is located approximately 5.5 miles from the unincorporated town of Alba, Michigan,
with a population of 295. Several other small towns are also within thirty to ninety miles away.
The predominant land uses in the vicinity of the hatchery are grazing, farming, and some timber
harvest. The city of Mancelona Chamber of Commerce lists the hatchery as one of the area’s main
attractions. The hatchery averages about 12,000 visitors per year.
Antrim County, MI had a population of 23,292 in 2017 people with a median age of 50.4 and the
population declined1.1% over the past seven years. The median property value in Antrim County
is $151,000 in 2017, which is 33.4% lower than the national average of $226,800 in 2019 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2019).
Alternative A – No Action
Not opening hunting on the 74 acres of land would not affect the local and regional economies.
Very little hunting occurs on hatchery ground currently and the hatchery is surrounded by state
land. Not opening hunting to 74 acres would not displace hunters or keep hunters from
participating in hunting activities on open public lands adjacent to the hatchery.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
Recreation and the outdoor lifestyle are important aspects of the culture and society of Michigan
but the opening of the 74 acres of hatchery land is not expected to affect the economics locally or
exterior to the Jordan River area. This is explained by the fact that the hatchery land has been
open to hunting and other recreation since 1964. Thus, any impacts are expected to be negligible.
Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise
from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially when different actions affect different
areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time from actions in the
14past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another,
partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects
add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.
The sections below contain brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives
considered and anticipated direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on each resource.
Other Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Affected Environment
Hunting
Hunting has been allowed on the refuge since 1964. Hunting and fishing occurs throughout the
entire state of Michigan and across the United States as every citizen has the opportunity, under
law, to hunt and fish. Nationally the number of hunters decreased 16 percent from 2011 to 2016
(DOI et al. 2016). Eleven and a half million people 16 years and older enjoyed hunting a variety
of animals within the United States in 2016 while in that same year it was estimated that 20
people hunted on the hatchery (0.0002% of all hunters in the U.S. that year). In 2019, Michigan
sold 2,171,111 hunting licenses (both state residents and out of state residents) for a total of
$36,141,004.00 (Service, 2019). Most hunters that will utilize the hatchery are local hunters with
resident licenses.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact
Jordan River Hatchery will conduct hunting programs within the framework of State and Federal
regulations. Population estimates of huntable species (likely to experience harvest) were examined
on a regional, state, and flyway scale. Hunting frameworks and take limits are set based upon these
estimates. The proposed hatchery hunting program rules will be the same as, or may be more
restrictive than, hunting regulations throughout the State of Michigan. By maintaining hunting
regulations that are the same as or perhaps more restrictive than the State, the hatchery can ensure
that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of management on a more regional basis.
Such an approach also provides consistency with large-scale population status and objectives. The
hatchery will consistently coordinate with the state about the hunting program. Because the
hatchery will use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt
program every 5 years and revising (if necessary), the Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to
ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of population growth and
development on wildlife populations and their habitats.
Other wildlife-dependent recreation (i.e. road and trail development and use)
Although the hatchery is a visitor destination in the Jordan River, MI area, the use and
development of trails and roads on the hatchery has remained the same since their development.
Impacts to wildlife species and wildlife habitats is has been captured in previous analysis for this
existing infrastructure.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact
Recreation and the outdoor lifestyle are important aspects of the culture and society of Michigan.
Recreational opportunities have been developed in the area surrounding the hatchery and at this
time there is no known development of future road and trail development that would have
foreseeable impact to wildlife or their habitats.
15Development and Population Increase
Antrim County, MI has a population of 23,975 people with a median age of 46.3 Between 2016
and 2017 the population of Antrim County, MI declined from 23,215 to 23,133, a -0.353%
decrease (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019).
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact
Because the hatchery will use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing
the hunt program every 5 years and revising (if necessary), the Service’s hunt program can be
adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of population
growth and development on wildlife populations and their habitats.
Use of lead ammunition
Use of lead ammunition is allowed under Michigan regulations for deer and upland hunting, but
many State wildlife areas along with federal refuges prohibit the use of toxic (lead) shot. Lead
shot cannot be used for waterfowl however, lead ammunition is permitted for big game
muzzleloader hunts and hunting of small game species as defined by state regulations. Non-toxic
ammunition is recommended for all hunts on the hatchery. Research has indicated that lead can
be present in gut piles left by deer hunters after field dressing. Bald eagles and other raptors feed
on the gut piles and may ingest the lead, leading to poisoning.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact
The continued allowance of toxic shot for hunting of some species is estimated to have a
negligible impact on the cumulative impacts of lead in the environment. Especially given the
limited size of hunting area proposed to be opened and limited game expected to be harvested.
The Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the
cumulative impacts of lead on hatchery habitats or wildlife.
Climate Change
The climate of Antrim County, MI is typical for a Northern latitude region. Rainfall is 32 inches
a year and snowfall averages 119 inches a year. Average summer high is 79 degrees and the
average winter low is 14 degrees (Best Places, 2019).
Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety
of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems
means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will
actually have. In particular, the localized effects of climate change are still a matter of much
debate. In the Midwest, the effects are more frequent flooding and warmer overall temperatures
(EPA 2016).
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact
The proposed action is not anticipated to contribute to the impacts of climate change. Under both
alternatives, the hatchery would use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program,
reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually ( if necessary), the Service’s hunt
program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of
climate change on migratory birds, upland game and big game.
16Summary of Analysis
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of
No Significant Impact.
Alternative A – No Action Alternative
As described above, no action would be taken by the Service to open hatchery lands to public
hunting. This alternative would effectively close the hatchery lands to the public for hunting that
has been allowed in the past, under the no hunting action alternative; the Service would operate
the hatchery as usual. This alternative would not meet the purpose and needs of the Service as
described above, because it would not provide additional wildlife-dependent recreation
opportunities in the form of hunting. There would be no impact on administration, hatchery
operation or maintenance. There would be no discernable impact on wildlife species or habitats.
Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative
As described above, it is expected that opening the 74 acres of land to all species legal hunting
under State of Michigan seasons and regulations will likely not significantly impact the natural
environment. Non-hunting visitors will not likely be significantly impacted, because most
visitation is centered at the hatchery and because of time of year that hunting seasons occur and
times of day that hunting will likely occur, and due to the expectation that general hunter
visitation will be relatively low. Based upon current available information on harvest quotas and
hunter success rates it is unlikely that any of the species that will experience a harvest at the
hatchery will be negatively impacted locally or on a management unit or even statewide scale.
The Service does not anticipate much of a change in the use of roads or parking areas so it is
unlikely that this alternative will affect hatchery operations or maintenance needs. Opening the
74 acres of hatchery land to public hunting will be a minor impact administratively. Funding and
staffing for hunting activities will include administration of the plan and we will rely on state of
Michigan for any necessary law enforcement patrol or actions. This alternative helps meet the
purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it provides additional wildlife
dependent recreation opportunities on the hatchery to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates
as outlined by the Secretary of the Department of Interior.
Mitigation Measures and Condition
The hatchery limits or excludes hunting activities where there are biological concerns. This is
the case for five and six tile springs located on the hatchery. This area is off limits to all
hunting. An Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation was conducted and it was
determined that the proposed alternative is not likely to conflict with recovery and/or
protection of these species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal
agencies to evaluate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitats
and an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act specifically
for the hunting program and addresses each of these species, it was determined there would
be no effect related to this action.. In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority non-
hunting recreational uses the boundaries of all lands owned or managed by the Service are
posted with hatchery boundary signs. Areas administratively closed to hunting are clearly
marked with “No Hunting Zone” or “Area beyond This Sign Closed “signs. Overall, hunting
impacts to visitor services/recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and
17local. Past conflicts have been minimal and we anticipate future conflicts to be about the
same. There would be no administrative use conflicts.
Monitoring
The hatchery land will fall under the monitoring and evaluation that the state of Michigan
performs in managing wildlife and habitat in Antrim County and statewide. In addition, the
station will stay apprised on the status of threatened and endangered species on the hatchery
through consultation and local monitoring. All conflicts between users will be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis and if too many conflicts arise at any given point the hatchery will reevaluate
the hunting program. It is not likely users will be in conflict as they utilize different parts of the
hatchery at typically different times of year.
List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted
Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Roger Gordon, Project Leader, USFWS-Jordan
River National Fish Hatchery; Mark Olson, Deputy Regional Hatchery Supervisor; Kurt
Schilling, Regional Hatchery Supervisor; Kristin Rasmussen, Interim Hunt and Fish
Coordinator, USFWS- National Wildlife Refuge Program; Brandon Jones, Acting Hunting and
Fish Chief, USFWS- National Wildlife Refuge Program; Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission.
List of Preparers
Mark Olson, Deputy Regional Hatchery Supervisor
Tim Smigielski, Fish Biologist, Regional Program Coordinator, USFWS Region 3 Fish and
Aquatic Species Conservation Program
State Coordination
Letters were sent to two individuals in the state of Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Wildlife Division on December 16, 2019. The results of this coordination are reflected in this EA
and Hunt Plan. Jordan River Hatchery will continue to consult and coordinate with the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources annually to maintain regulations and programs that are
consistent with the state; as well as, to monitor populations of game species and set harvest
goals. The refuge will strive to maintain consistent regulations with the state of Michigan
whenever applicable.
Tribal Consultation
A letter was hand delivered on December 12, 2019 to the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission. Emails were sent to tribes by tribal liaison, Christy Deloria on 12/16/2019. Tribes
and tribal members are welcome to provide comment during the public comment period.
Public Outreach
This draft environmental assessment and hunt plan will be posted on the hatchery website and
public comments will be solicited. Comments or requests for additional information may be
submitted through any of the following methods:
Email: mark_olson@fws.gov. Include “Jordan River National Fish Hatchery Hunt Plan”
in the subject line of the message.
18Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Mark Olson, 5600 American Blvd West,
Bloomington, MN 55437-1458
All comments received from individuals become part of the official public record. We will
handle all requests for such comments in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act regulations in 40 CFR 1506.6(f). The Service’s practice
is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public
review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their
home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish
us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of
your comments.
Determination
This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of
finalization of the Environmental Assessment.
☐The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact.”
☐The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the
Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
19References
Antrim County Government. 2016. Land Use. http://www.antrimcounty.org/land_use.asp.
Accessed January 2020.
Best Places. 2019. Climate in Antrim County, Michigan.
https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/county/michigan/antrim. Accessed January 2020.
(DOI) U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-
nat.pdf. Accessed January 2020.
(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. What Climate Changes Means for Minnesota.
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
09/documents/climate-change-mn.pdf Accessed: December 2019.
Frawley, Brian J. (2019a) 2019, March. 2017 Michigan Furbearer Harvest Survey: Wildlife
Division Report No. 3670. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2017_furbearer_harvest_survey_report_65305
3_7.pdf. Accessed January 2020.
Frawley, Brian J. (2019b) 2019, December. 2017 Small Game Harvest Survey: Wildlife Division
Report No. 3681. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2017_smal_game_harvest_survey_report_675
898_7.pdf. Accessed January 2020.
Frawley, Brian J. (2019c) 2019, August. 2018 Michigan Spring Turkey Hunter Survey: Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report No. 3675. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2018_spring_turkey_survey_report_664372_7
.pdf. Accessed January 2020.
Frawley, Brian J. (2019d) 2019, July. Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report 2018 Seasons:
Wildlife Division Report No. 3673. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2018_deer_harvest_survey_report_662078_7.
pdfAccessed January 2020.
Frawley, Brian J. (2019e) 2019, August. 2018 Michigan Black Bear Hunter Survey: Wildlife
Division Report No. 3674. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2018_bear_harvest_survey_report_662099_7.
pdf. Accessed January 2020.
Frawley, Brian J. 2020, January. 2018 Waterfowl Harvest Survey: Wildlife Division Report No.
203688. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2018_waterfowl_harvest_report_677054_7.pd
f. Accessed January 2020.
Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S.C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird hunting
activity and harvest during the 2017-2018 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
(Service) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Hunting License Data.
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Natl%20Hunting%20License%20Re
port%202019.pdf. Accessed January 2020.
Stewart, Alan C. and Trowbridge, Jacob. 2019, September. Ruffed Grouse and American
Woodcock Status In Michigan, 2019: Wildlife Report No. 3658.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/ruffed_grouse_and_woodcock_status_2019_6
65104_7.pdf Accessed January 2020.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American Fact Finder: Antrim County, MI.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml. Accessed
January 2020.
21Appendix A
Other Applicable Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations
List any additional steps taken by the Service to comply with these laws. This should include
steps that the Applicant has taken to comply with these laws that have additional impacts on the
environment, including any applicable permits. It should also include any steps the Service has
taken to meet its responsibilities to comply with these laws, but should be clear about whose
responsibility and action it is, the Applicant’s or the Service’s. If a law is selected additional
compliance was required.
Cultural Resources
☐ American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part
7
☐ Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3
☐ Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part
1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7
☐ National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts
60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810
☐ Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11
☐ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part
10
☐ Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed.
Reg. 8921 (1971)
☐ Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996)
There are no expected impacts to cultural resources. Activities that might cause an effect to a historic property
would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.
Fish and Wildlife
☐ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22
☒ Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50
CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450
☐ Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m
☐ Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904
☐ Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21
☐ Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66
Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001)
A consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Specie Act was conducted as part of this
Environmental Assessment. A finding of “no effect” was determined for all species and critical
habitats. See Appendix C.
Natural Resources
☐ Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61,
82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23
☐ Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.
☐ Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.
22You can also read
