appendix a crane lake land exchange biological...

Crane Lake Land Exchange

Environmental Assessment A-1

APPENDIX A CRANE LAKE LAND EXCHANGE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION I. Introduction This Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) documents the potential effects to the federally-listed threatened Canada lynx and its designated critical habitat, and to Region 9 terrestrial Regional Forester sensitive species that could result from the proposed Crane Lake Sustainable Land Corporation Land Exchange on the Superior National Forest (SNF). II. Management Direction The BA portion of this document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5(3), and 2672.4, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. This BA tiers to the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the revision of the Forest Plan (USDA 2004, pp. 6-7) and the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Gray wolf, Canada Lynx, and their critical habitats (USDA, 2011). This BA provides more site-specific information on the effects of the proposed project to federally-listed species. On April 2, 2012 the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) updated the 90-day species list of threatened (LT), endangered (LE), Experimental/Non-essential (XN), proposed and candidate species that may occur within the area of the SNF and LaCroix Ranger District. This letter confirms the following federally-listed species and critical habitat that should be considered for projects conducted on the SNF:

Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) - Threatened (LT) Canada lynx critical habitat

The BE portion of this document evaluates the effects of the proposed Crane Lake Sustainable Land Corporation Land Exchange on Regional Forester-listed sensitive species (RFSS - U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Manual sections 2670.3, 2670.5 (3), 2672.4). The species evaluated in this report include all terrestrial animal species on the revised R9 sensitive species list (Table A-2) for the Superior National Forest (USDA, 2012). Species viability is assessed at the planning area level which is the entire 3.9 million-acre Superior National Forest. This BE is also consistent with Executive Order 13186 that promotes the conservation and avoidance or minimization of adverse impacts on those RFSS that are migratory birds (USDA, 2008), and to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and other pertinent statutes (USDA, 2008).

Superior National Forest



III. Description and location of the Proposed Action The USDA Forest Service has an opportunity to complete a land exchange with the Crane Lake Sustainable Land Corporation. Federal lands proposed for this exchange total approximately 352 acres and are adjacent to the Town of Crane Lake in T67N, R17W, Sections 23 and 26. Nonfederal lands proposed for this exchange include three separate parcels totaling approximately 265 acres in the general vicinity of Crane Lake and some distance south of the town. The two purposes for analyzing this land exchange are as follows: 1. The first purpose is to acquire and consolidate National Forest System (NFS) land adjoining

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), the Vermilion River, and other existing NFS lands. This is needed because some of the nonfederal lands meet the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) acquisition criteria Priority 1, which includes key parcels that are needed to protect and manage administrative or congressionally designated, unique, proposed, or recommended areas. All proposed lands are desirable for inclusion in the NFS.

2. The second purpose is to convey land allowing for sustainable development and management of municipal facilities by the Town of Crane Lake and to achieve significant federal cost savings in boundary management and special-use administration. This is needed because six special-use permit authorizations could be eliminated if the federal lands were conveyed, including permits currently held by Crane Lake Water and Sanitary District, Crane Lake Volunteer Fire Department, Lake Country Power, and Frontier Communication.

Federal Lands: The primary planned future use of the federal lands is to provide expansion space within and adjacent to the Town of Crane Lake. Current town uses on the federal lands include a fire hall, telephone building, wastewater treatment pipes, and roads. Completion of this land exchange would allow the town to construct a town hall/community building and to provide recreation areas/green space in the community. Also, after the exchange some of the former federal parcels may ultimately be sold or conveyed to other parties for the purposes of enhancing residential and business development, space for which is currently very limited. The probability, scope, and scale of these potential developments are unknown. Nonfederal Lands: Nonfederal lands to be acquired in this proposed exchange would be incorporated with adjacent federal ownership and managed pursuant to Forest Plan Management Area direction for the particular area. Parcels with obvious unique resource values such as the Vermilion River frontage and proximity to the BWCAW would be managed to enhance and to protect those resources and public recreation opportunities. There are no current plans to develop or construct any significant improvements on any of the nonfederal parcels. This land exchange is not a vegetation management project therefore no wildlife habitat would be altered due to this action. Under the Border EIS, parcels 1-5 are scheduled for clearcutting, but the land exchange would nullify this USFS management action. Any modification of habitat after ownership of the federal parcels is transferred would be assessed by the new owners


prtaylorTypewritten Text



according to land use policies of the state of Minnesota. In addition, parcels 1-3 are being utilized by the Town of Crane Lake under six existing special-use permits. Municipal facilities or roads currently exist on these three parcels. Map 1: Vicinity Map displays the general location of the land exchange area. Maps 2-4 display the areas of the federal and nonfederal lands. See Appendix C for parcel maps. IV. Effects of the Proposed Action on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Existing Condition: The project area is within lynx critical habitat. The Border Project EIS analysis used lynx analysis indicators as appropriate indicators for analysis of effects to proposed/revised critical habitat and its constituent elements. These indicators address relevant Primary Constituent Elements of lynx habitat in that they are those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Table BA 5 in the Border Project EIS cross-walked the lynx indicator analysis to these Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs). Since this proposed land exchange was assessed in the Border EIS it is consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA 2009 – BA). Analysis Area: The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects area for Canada lynx is the SNF-4 LAU. Because of the scattered nature of the federal and nonfederal parcels in the land exchange and small relative size of these parcels, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects area for RFSS are the identified parcels and the immediate area surrounding them based on tiering to previous work completed in the Border Project EIS. The Crane Lake Land Exchange proposal was analyzed as part of the Border Project EIS analysis and with new proposal information (USDA 2009 and 2010). If federal areas were converted from forest to some other land use, this would reduce the amount of habitat for wildlife species (specifically species which utilize aspen-birch forest). Accounting for the federal and nonfederal lands being proposed for exchange, there would be the long-term net decrease of 87 acres of wildlife habitat on the SNF as an indirect and cumulative effect of the Crane Lake Land Exchange. Threatened and Endangered Species The following table, A-1, displays a probability of effect for the proposed action, based on a pre-field review of available information and/or survey information, the evidence of, or potential for the project area to contain suitable, and/or potential habitat for the following species.




Table A-1: Effects Criteria and Summary – Federally-listed Species Species (scientific name) (Listing status)

Probability of Occurrence

Probability of Effects

Consequence of Effects

Determination of Effects

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (LT)

Not likely to occur

Yes Low NLAA

LE = Listed Endangered; LT = Listed Threatened; XN = Experimental, Nonessential; C = Candidate Probability of Occurrence: Not likely to occur – Unconfirmed sightings and/or no federal/State/other confirmed records of the species occurring in the area. Low probability – Limited confirmed federal/State/other records of the species occurring in the area. Moderate probability – Several confirmed federal/State/other records of the species occurring in the area. High probability – Surveys indicate the species occurs in the area. Sources: Nature Serve database, and NRIS, MN DNR Heritage Program, AniMap and MNCBS databases. Probability of Effects: No - No evidence of, or potential for, the species habitat; Yes - Evidence of, or potential for the species habitat. Consequence of Effects: None - No effect on species or habitat; Low - Negligible effects (direct or indirect) on species or habitat. Effects can be controlled by seasonal or spatial stipulations. No cumulative effects are expected; Moderate - Possible effects on habitat or population. Effects cannot be completely mitigated by modifying activity but are manageable through special management actions. Cumulative effects are possible. No irreversible or irretrievable effects are expected; High - Effects on species or habitat are likely to occur. Cumulative, irreversible or irretrievable effects are probable. Determination of Effect definitions: NE = No Effect, NLJ = Not Likely to Jeopardize, BE = Beneficial Effect, NLAA* = May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect, LAA** = May Affect – Likely to Adversely Affect, and NLJE = Not Likely to Jeopardize the continued Existence or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. * Requires written concurrence from the USFWS. ** Categorical exclusions are not appropriate if this is the determination. No further discussion is needed for species with a NONE consequence of effect. Species with a Low consequence of effect may not be carried forward for further analysis if they occur incidentally, or they occur at low endemic levels and Forest Plan direction provides adequate protective measures at the project- or Forest-levels. This should be summarized in the Further Discussion section. Border Project EIS LAU Analysis Summary: The Border Project EIS analyzed the condition of the SNF-4 LAU for the 2004-2014 time period. Compared to the baseline existing condition the effects of the selected alternative were analyzed. The following information summarizes the condition of the LAU during this time period (USDA 2009 – Border EIS: Chapter 3 - BA).

1. Alternative 2 meets or exceeds Forest Plan direction. Alt. 2 maintains at least 67 percent snowshoe hare habitat (Table BA 8), 47 percent denning habitat (Table BA 9 - denning habitat is likely underestimated), and 76 percent canopy cover (Table BA 10).

2. Alt. 2 improves lynx habitat by increasing within-stand diversity and structure with conifer planting (Table BA 11).

3. Alt. 2 would slightly reduce snow-compacted trail density (Table BA 12). 4. Alt. 2 would maintain suitable habitat (Tables BA 6 to BA 10) and avoid negative

impacts. 5. Canopy cover remains at least 76 percent in Alternative 2 (Table BA 10). 6. Alt. 2 remains below the 15 percent threshold (Table BA 7). 7. Alt. 2 addressed the Primary Constituent Elements of lynx proposed critical habitat

(Table BA 5). Lynx winter track surveys were conducted for the Border Project EIS in addition to winter track surveys during 2008-2010 through nonfederal parcels 5 and 6. The BA for the Border Project EIS concluded the selected Alternative 2 (modified) would have the following determinations (USDA, 2009).




1. Timber Harvest – NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect 2. Reforestation – NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect 3. Timber/Wildlife Stand Improvement – NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect 4. Road Management – NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect 5. Fuels Reduction – NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect 6. Brush Shearing – NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect

In addition, it was determined that the project was not likely to adversely modify proposed critical habitat for Canada lynx. The USFWS concurred with these determinations for the Border Project EIS on 12/5/2008, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In 2011, the Superior National Forest reinitiated formal consultation on the 2004 Forest Plan based on the designation of revised critical habitat for Canada lynx in 2009 (USDA, 2011). The USFWS concurred that the continued implementation of the Forest Plan for the Superior National Forest may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx and its designated critical habitat (USDI, 2011). No other projects have occurred within the SNF-4 LAU that would have altered lynx critical habitat after the Border Project EIS analysis was completed. Further Discussion: The SNF-4 LAU was extensively assessed during the Border Project EIS, and did not reveal any significant issues or concerns for wildlife species. That analysis concluded that the land exchange proposal would not significantly adversely impact any federally-listed threatened/endangered species (USDA 2009 and 2010). This conclusion was based on two factors;

1) there are no known occurrences of Canada lynx on any of the federal parcels (1-9) to be exchanged, and

2) nonfederal parcels to be acquired (parcels 4-6) have the potential to provide quality and underdeveloped habitat for Canada lynx adjacent to the BWCAW (USDA, 2010).

The nonfederal parcels to be acquired (parcels 1-3 and 7-8) occur in a highly mixed ownership area and would benefit other wildlife species more than lynx, but the acquisition of these parcels would still provide some federal lynx habitat counted towards the overall SNF-4 LAU. An indirect effect of the Crane Lake Land Exchange would be the long-term net decrease of 87 acres of lynx habitat in the SNF-4 LAU. The 352 acres of federal lands proposed for this exchange comprise approximately 0.010 percent of the total lynx habitat on all ownerships in SNF-4, and approximately 0.013 percent of the total lynx habitat on National Forest System Lands (NFS) in SNF-4. The nonfederal parcels 4-6 (111.5 acres) to be acquired are immediately adjacent to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The acquisition of these parcels would prevent future development and contribute to interior forest habitat conditions in that area (USDA, 2010). Due to this low amount of change and that there would be an offset of lands based on lands given to the USFS, albeit with an 87 acre net loss, this land exchange is not expected to result in a detectable change in the lynx habitat analysis calculations disclosed in the Border Project EIS.




Indirectly, the planned future use of the current federal land parcels 1-9 may provide expansion space within and adjacent to the Town of Crane Lake, resulting in further potential habitat changes. The habitat around the Town of Crane Lake is expected to experience higher levels of human activity than is common on other NFS lands within the land exchange area. Lynx use in these nine federal parcels is expected to be very low and of lesser value compared to NFS lands a further distance from the town. Completion of this land exchange would allow the town to construct a town hall/community building and to provide recreation areas/green space in the community. Cumulative effects were assessed in the Border Project EIS. However, the exchange would nullify the timber harvest and some of the former federal parcels may ultimately be sold or conveyed to other parties for development. If developments occur a net loss of 87 acres of lynx habitat in SNF-4 would likely occur. This is considered an irretrievable and irreversible effect due to the change in ownership. No other foreseeably future actions are known at this time in SNF-4. Municipal developments currently exist on federal parcels 1-3; federal parcels 4-9 are also immediately adjacent to human housing developments. It is unknown if lynx would forage and den in parcels 1-9 as they are so close to existing and future human development. Further construction and/or green space/recreation development on these parcels may affect habitat availability for lynx. Also, some of the federal parcels may ultimately be sold or conveyed to other parties for the purposes of enhancing residential and business development, space for which is currently very limited. The probability, scope, and scale of these potential developments are unknown. All future uses of the federal lands would be in accordance with State, county, local laws and ordinances, and the town’s long-range development plan. Determination of Effects: The 2010 Feasibility Analysis concluded that the land exchange will not likely significantly adversely impact any threatened/endangered species or sensitive (TES) species based on the Border Project EIS analysis and survey work (USDA, 2010). The small amount of habitat in federal parcels being exchanged immediately adjacent to and part of the Municipality of Crane Lake, MN would lessen the amount of lynx habitat in the SNF-4 LAU by 87 acres. However, the acquisition of nonfederal parcels would conserve lynx and other wildlife habitat adjacent to the BWCAW. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a net decrease of 87 acres of available lynx habitat if the exchanged federal parcels are fully developed by the Town of Crane Lake and potential other parties. Based on this information and the Border Project EIS LAU Analysis, this land exchange is expected to May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) Canada lynx and its critical habitat. Forest Sensitive Species As part of the Border Project EIS, the federal lands that would be exchanged were analyzed and surveyed for effects to wildlife (USDA 2009 and 2010). Analysis at that time found all the lands to be exchanged contained potential foraging habitat for boreal owls and suitable nesting habitat for northern goshawk and great grey owls. Surveys were conducted for goshawk on all tracts




and no goshawks or stick nests were found. Owl surveys were conducted in nonfederal parcel 5 and an adjacent stand. No owls or nests were found. Wolf tracks were found west of parcel 5 (USDA, 2010). There are no known occurrences of sensitive species on any of the federal parcels to be exchanged (USDA 2009, 2010, and 2012). However, these species have not yet been formally detected and documented in State and federal databases. Regardless, it is assumed that suitable habitat conditions exists and is available for those species with moderate to high probabilities of occurrence and effects (Table A-2). Suitable habitat conditions in the project area are absent or very limited for several species with a low or no probability of occurrence. Based on this “none” or low probability and consequence of effects, determinations are appropriate for these species (Table A-2). Table A-2 displays probability of occurrence and effects, and consequence and determination of effect for the action. This is based on: 1) a pre-field review of available information and/or survey information, 2) the evidence of, or potential for the project area to contain suitable and/or potential habitat, 3) the probability of occurrence for the following sensitive species, and 4) the review of the proposed action and selected alternative. Table A-2: Effects Criteria and Summary - Forest Sensitive Species

Species Probability

of Occurrence




Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles)

Low Yes Low MIIH

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Low Yes Low MIIH Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Moderate Yes Low BI

Bald eagle b (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

High Yes Low BI

Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis)

Moderate Yes Low MIIH

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) Moderate Yes Low MIIH American Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus)

Low Yes Low MIIH

Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea)

Low Yes Low MIIH

Gray Wolf a (Canis lupis) High Yes Low MIIH Eastern heather vole (Phenacomys ungava)

Low No None NI

Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus)

High Yes Low MIIH

Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis)

High Yes Low MIIH

Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)

Low Yes Low MIIH




Table A-2: Effects Criteria and Summary - Forest Sensitive Species

Species Probability

of Occurrence




Freija's Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus centaureae freija)

Not likely to occur

No None NI

Nabokov's Blue (Plebejus idas nabokovi)

Not likely to occur

No None NI

Taiga (Disa) (Manicus) Alpine (Erebia mancinus)

Not likely to occur

No None NI

Wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Not likely to occur

No None NI

Probability of Occurrence: Not likely to occur – Unconfirmed sightings and/or no federal/State/other confirmed records of the species occurring in the area. Low probability – Limited confirmed federal/State/other records of the species occurring in the area. Moderate probability – Several confirmed federal/State/other records or high confidence of the species occurring in the area. High probability – Surveys indicate the species occurs in the area. Sources: Nature Serve database, and NRIS, MN DNR Heritage Program, AniMap and MNCBS databases. Probability of Effects: No - No evidence of, or potential for, the species habitat; Yes - Evidence of, or potential for the species habitat. Consequence of Effects: None - No effect on species or habitat; Low - Negligible effects (direct or indirect) on species or habitat. Effects can be controlled by seasonal or spatial stipulations. No cumulative effects are expected; Moderate - Possible effects on habitat or population. Effects cannot be completely mitigated by modifying activity but are manageable through special management actions. Cumulative effects are possible. No irreversible or irretrievable effects are expected; High - Effects on species or habitat are likely to occur. Cumulative, irreversible or irretrievable effects are probable. Determination of Effects: NI - No Impacts; BI - Beneficial Impacts; MIIH - May impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the species or population, and WIFV* = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. * Considered a trigger for a significant action in NEPA. No further discussion is needed for species with a NONE consequence of effect. Species with a Low consequence of effect may not be carried forward for further analysis if they occur incidentally, or they occur at low endemic levels and Forest Plan direction provides adequate protective measures at the project- or Forest-levels. This should be summarized in the Further Discussion section. No further discussion is needed for species with a No Impact determination. a The gray wolf, a former federally-listed species, was delisted (removed from the Endangered Species List) on 1/27/2012. b The bald eagle, a former federally-listed species, was delisted (removed from the Endangered Species List) on 8/9/2007. Federal agencies are required to monitor these species for five years after delisting. Based on this requirement, these species are assessed as a USFS sensitive species section for effects analysis purposes.. The Little brown bat, Tri-colored bat, and northern myotis have been documented during surveys in NE Minnesota (USDA, 2009a). All three species are known to hibernate in the Soudan Mine, a large hibernaculum located approximately five miles from the SNF proclamation boundary. The SNF established six acoustic monitoring transects in 2009, including one on each district (two on Kawishiwi). Each transect is surveyed three times per year during the summer breeding season. To date, only the 2009 data has been analyzed. Of all of the calls recorded during the 2009 surveys, 56 percent were identified to species. Of these, 33 calls were identified as little brown bats (23 percent of detections), with detections on all districts except the Laurentian District. The 2009 acoustic transects on the SNF did not identify any northern myotis or tri-colored bats. However, these species may have been represented in the 64 calls (44 percent) that were not identified to species. One little brown maternity colony has been documented on the SNF; this colony is in a building near Ely (USDA, 2011a). Habitat conditions in the cumulative




effects area could support summer roosting and foraging by the Tri-colored bat based available forest habitat. No winter or summer roosting sites for Little Brown Bat and Northern Myotis are known to occur within federal parcels 1-9, but habitat conditions could support roosting by these species. Based on site conditions there is no potential for suitable habitat for Freija's Grizzled Skipper, Nabokov's Blue, and Taiga Alpine based on their habitat requirements. There is no potential for wood turtle to occur since the species is only known to occur on sand bars in the St. Louis River drainage. Further Discussion: The proposed action, Alternative 2, would not directly modify nesting, roosting, denning, rearing and/or foraging habitat conditions for RFSS species. Disturbed and altered habitat conditions exist due to parcels 1-9 long-term proximity to human development and occupation in and around the community of Crane Lake, MN. On-the-ground surveys and inquiries into species databases indicate no northern goshawk or Great gray owl presence. Also, boreal owl and bald eagle nests, grey wolf denning, and eastern heather vole sites are not known to occur within federal parcels 1-9 (USDA, 2010). Several of these parcels were identified for timber harvest in the Border Project EIS (USDA, 2009). Indirect and cumulative effects could be the overall net decrease of 87 acres of available wildlife habitat for RFSS species on the SNF to nest and/or forage. This is considered an irretrievable and irreversible effect due to the change in ownership. However, in the Border EIS, the proposed Crane Lake Land Exchange was analyzed and did not reveal any significant issues or concerns for wildlife. It was determined that the land exchange will not likely adversely impact any threatened/endangered or sensitive (TES) species (USDA, 2010). These effects could be in partially mitigated by acquiring the nonfederal parcels in the Vermilion River and BWCAW areas. The tracts to be acquired have potential to provide quality habitat for wildlife. Acquisitions in the Vermilion River area would allow the USFS to manage riparian and potential bald eagle and olive-sided flycatcher nesting and foraging habitat, and prevent future development of that area thereby conserving riparian habitat. The acquisition of nonfederal parcels 4-6 (111.5 acres) immediately adjacent to the BWCAW would benefit all RFSS. The acquisition of these parcels would prevent future development and contribute to interior forest and lake-side habitat conditions in that area (USDA, 2010). Indirectly, the planned future use of the current federal land parcels 1-9 may provide expansion space within and adjacent to the Town of Crane Lake, resulting in further potential habitat changes. Completion of this land exchange would allow the town to construct a town hall/community building and to provide recreation areas/green space in the community. Developments currently existing on parcels 1-3 and 4-9 are also immediately adjacent to human housing development. Further construction and/or green space/recreation development on these parcels may affect habitat availability for some species and have no effect to others. In addition, some of the federal parcels may ultimately be sold or conveyed to other parties for the purposes of enhancing residential and business development, space for which is currently very limited. Species that would forage but not den or nest in parcels 1-9 would likely have little or no effect




due to potentially further development. These indirect effects would be similar to what may occur by the municipality but the scope and scale of these developments are unknown. All future uses of the federal lands would be in accordance with State, county, and local laws and ordinances, and the town’s long-range development plan. Determination of Effects: The 2010 Feasibility Analysis concluded that the land exchange will not adversely impact any sensitive (RFSS) species based on the Border Project EIS analysis and survey work (USDA, 2010). Additional analysis indicates the land exchange amounts to a very small percentage of the overall amount of wildlife habitat on the Superior National Forest. The acquisition of nonfederal parcels would conserve RFSS habitat adjacent to the BWCAW and in the Vermilion River area, and benefit bald eagle and olive-sided flycatcher. Based on this information and Border Project EIS wildlife analysis, this proposed land exchange is expected to result in the various determinations of effect for Regional Forester-listed sensitive species as listed in Table A-2. There is no indication that the viability of any RFSS is at risk in the planning area based on this proposed project. V. References

USDA-Forest Service. 2004. Programmatic Biological Assessment for the revision of the Forest Plan. M.Shedd. Planning Biologist. Supervisors Office, Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDA-Forest Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between the USDA-Forest Service and USDI-fish & Wildlife Service. FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264. Pursuant to Executive Order 13186, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds USDA-Forest Service. 2009. Border Project EIS. 10/09/2009. LaCroix Ranger District, Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=22957 USDA-Forest Service. 2009a. Superior National Forest Monitoring Report.

USDA-Forest Service. 2010. Crane Lake land Exchange – Feasibility Analysis: Wildlife. June 18, 2010. T. Stefanic, District Wildlife Biologist. LaCroix Ranger District, Superior National Forest, Cook, MN.

USDA-Forest Service. 2011. Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Gray wolf, Canada Lynx, and their Critical Habitats. A.Dohmen, Forest Wildlife Program Manager. Supervisors Office, Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Status of three cave hibernating bats on the Superior NF: A summary of available information and Forest Plan Management Direction. On file. USDA-Forest Service. 2012. Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) list. 02/06/2012. Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN.



christinenelsonTypewritten Text

christinenelsonTypewritten TextA-11



This page is intentionally blank.


Superior National Forest Crane Lake Land Exchange

Environmental Assessment B-1

APPENDIX B

RESPONSE TO SCOPING COMMENTS

All comments received on the Crane Lake Land Exchange Project were reviewed by the

interdisciplinary team and Forest Supervisor. The following explains how public comments

were categorized and addressed. Categories of comments include:

1. Issues Analyzed in the Environmental Assessment: An issue is a point of debate with a proposed action based on some anticipated effect(s). Issues may drive alternatives

based on extent of geographic distribution of effects, duration of effects, and intensity of

interest or conflict generated.

2. Issues that do not drive alternatives: Issues that do not drive alternatives are 1) not within the scope of the proposed action, 2) not relevant to the decision to be made, 3)

already decided by law, regulation, or policy, 4) conjectural or unsupported by scientific

evidence, or (5) limited in geographic distribution, duration or intensity of effects. Issues

about effects that can be mitigated through further clarification of the proposed action,

standards and guidelines, or mitigation measures may also not drive alternatives.

3. Alternatives, including mitigation measures: Alternatives are other reasonable courses of action or mitigation measures not included in the proposed action (CEQ 1508.25 (b)).

Alternatives may be based on key issues or may be suggested by the public during

scoping. The EA describes which alternative will be analyzed in detail or analyzed

briefly and eliminated from further study.

4. Non-issue comments and questions: Non-issues are comments that do not debate possible effects of the proposed activities. They may be questions, asking for more

clarification of the proposed action.

5. Comments noted: Some comments are statements of opinion or preference about the proposed actions. These are considered by the interdisciplinary team and provide

information on individual and group values and preferences relating to this project.

However the scoping process is not a vote and comments are not used in that manner.

Table B-1 displays each commenter and how their comments were categorized according to the

five categories. Response to each commenter is then displayed. There were no issues identified

that drove analysis of alternatives considered in detail in the Environmental Assessment (EA).

One alternative was identified from scoping comments that was considered but not carried forward

for detailed analysis (see EA, Chapter 2).

Table B-1: People Who Submitted Comments on the CLLE Scoping Report and

Disposition of Comments in Relation to this Analysis

1. Tom Conley– (5) and (2) 2. Mike Carlson– (4)

3. Stan Gruska–(2) 4. Joe Babiracki– (5)

5. Ronald Rutchasky– (4) 6. Brian Eggert– (4)

7. Bruce Beste– (2) 8. Deena Congdon– (5)

9. Cathy Erickson– (4) 10. John Haberman– (4)



Table B-1: People Who Submitted Comments on the CLLE Scoping Report and

Disposition of Comments in Relation to this Analysis

11. David Dill, State Representative– (5) 12. Robert Scott, Crane Lake Water & Sanitary

District– (5)

13. Michael E. Burris– (5) 14. Arthur Eggen– (5)

15. Jo Ann Pohlman– (5) 16. Ted and Judy Bodeen– (2)

17. Paula O’Connell– (2) 18. Sue Hankner– (5)

19. Paulette Holt– (2), (3), (5) 20. Reva Carlson–(2), (5)

21. Joe Rokala, MN Department of Natural

Resources– (4)

22. Jeff Sanborn, Fire Chief for Crane Lake

Volunteer Fire Department– (2) and (5)

23. Brian Pfeifer– (4) 24. Yolanda Pifer– (4)

25. Jerry Brown– (2) 26. Ed and Donna Thornton–(2) and (5)

27. Ruth Carlson, The Crane Lake Sustainable

Land Corporation– (5)

28. Donald Nightingale– (4)

29. Virginia Stanke– (5) 30. Sandra Bodkin– (5)

31. Dale Heins– (5) 32. Jerry Pohlman, Chairman of the Town of

Crane Lake– (5)

33. Jerry and Brenda Pohlman– (5) 34. Randall R. and Gail A. Daniels– (5)

35. Jim Janssen, Voyagaire Lodge &

Houseboats– (5)

36. Jim Janssen– (5)

37. Anonymous 1– (5) 38. Anonymous 2– (2)

39. Terry Howard– (4) 40. Thomas A. Holt– (3) and (5)

41. David McNamara– (5) and (2)

1. Tom Conley

Comment CL-001-1: “Many thanks for your letter of November 18 (file code 1920/5430) in

which you inform us of a proposed land exchange with the Crane Lake Sustainable Land

Corporation. We have reviewed the note and studied the map that you kindly enclosed in your

mailing.

If I read the legend correctly, tracts 1, 2 and 3 will be adjoined to a stretch of land bordering the

western edge of the Vermilion River in the areas of section 15, T65N, R17W. From our

standpoint, that is, from a property almost adjacent to the tracts you plan to obtain, the

acquisition could not be better: the native character of the Vermilion, which I believe is

designated as a Wilderness river, would preserve areas vital for ambient flora and fauna and

assure a pristine landscape for those who canoe and fish in the area. We are less familiar with

two other areas (tracts 4-6 and 7-8) but sense that as federal land the section that is set between

the BWCA to the east and close to the northeastern shores of Crane Lake would have the good

effect of extending the canoe area.



I surmise that the acreage in T67N, R17W, Sections 23 and 26 would be used to enhance the

character of Crane Lake. Our feeling is that tourists who drive to the northeastern end County

Road 24 happen upon a town that has no visible public landmark to welcome them. It is

comprised of an array of small resorts, a parking lot or two, a tavern-lodge, and a few

warehouses amidst a scatter of boat-trailers. Non descript, the town, if a town it is, lacks

compass and charm. Were the land used for “the construction of a town hall/community

building” and for provision of “green space within the community” Crane Lake might indeed

acquire some of the aura that is the envy of Ely. It would imperative to have good planners and

architects provide the local communities including Buyck and perhaps even Orr) with ideas and

blueprints for development. It would seem logical to have projects discussed and implemented

collectively and communally.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. The values of the lands involved in the proposed

exchange are discussed in the Environmental Assessment.

Comment CL-001-2: “May I use the forum of this letter to pursue some other ideas? My wife

and I are owners of 152 acres of land in T65N, R17W, a good deal of which hugs the eastern

edge of the Vermilion River. We wonder if in the course of the decade before us the Department

of Agriculture might be interested in purchasing the land for the sake of preserving the natural

character of the River and the surrounding forest. Were it to be left as it is, as forest, it would

keep intact the beauty of the area. To have as much national forest ownership along the River

would seem to assure the wild nature of the River. The issue is not pressing, but nonetheless it

might be occasion for us to meet and exchange ideas in the months ahead. Since moving from

Minnesota to Massachusetts we have spent most of our time at our property in the summer

months. Those would be a convenient time, should you wish, to meet. Until then, with keen

holiday wishes.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. At this time only the parcels identified in the Scoping

document are under consideration for this exchange. You are welcome to contact the Forest

Service to discuss other ideas as a separate matter.

2. Mike Carlson

Comment CL-002-1: Mr. Carlson requested to remain on the land exchange mailing list.

Response: Mr. Carlson will remain on the CLLE mailing list.

3. Stan Gruska

Comment CL-003-1: “To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter about the land swap

between the City of Crane Lake and the Superior National Forest. I do not believe this swap is in

the best interest of land owners and would like to contest the swap. I purchased this land with the

assumption that there was access to some public land, through my private land, for recreational

use. I also liked the fact that the property behind mine was undeveloped property. Other owners



have stated that the land swap was disclosed to them upon purchase that there was a possible

land swap. I didn’t receive any disclosure of a possible land swap verbally or in writing. Please

call me if you have any further questions.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. We understand that you do not support the land

exchange; however, the parcels considered for the exchange have been selected based on a

number of criteria identified in the Purpose and Need section of this document. While your

property’s adjacency to federal lands may change through this exchange, we have tried to

maintain access to National Forest System lands through the selection of parcels with particular

natural and scenic values identified in the Purpose and Need section of this document. There

would be minimal change to overall access to the Superior National Forest from this project.

4. Joe Babiracki

Comment CL-004-1: “Thank you for your recent letter addressed to Interested Parties of the

Crane Lake Land Exchange. I was very informative. The purpose of this letter is to respond very

positively for the continuation of this project to completion.

Positives of the exchange include the Town of Crane Lake acquiring land for development for

private individuals. This would raise the tax base, benefiting all residents of the township. The

Town would also acquire land for a much needed town hall as well as green space for recreation

within the community. The Crane Lake Volunteer Fire Department would acquire the land which

houses their fire hall making further development possible.

Land, especially that which meets the acquisition criteria of Priority 1, acquired by the Forest

Service would be managed and protected positively. I refer especially to the land adjoining the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

I see this land exchange as a win-win for the Citizens of Crane Lake and the Forest Service.”

Response: Thank you for your comment.

5. Ronald Rutchasky

Comment CL-005-1: Mr. Rutchasky requested to remain on the project mailing list.

Response: Mr. Rutchasky will remain on the CLLE mailing list.

6. Brian Eggert

Comment CL-006-1: “You are requesting comments on the above listed file.

At this time, I don't have issue with the proposed items.....but would like to stay informed about

your progress and the end results. A significant portion of the land is within a half mile of my

property and these decisions could have potential for future concerns. Thank you.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. We will keep your name on the CLLE mailing list.



7. Bruce Beste

Comment CL-007-1: “I wish to begin by thanking Joan Weckman and all the other Forest

Service staff who met with me on Friday afternoon December 2 in Cook Mn. I believe the other

staff were Christine, Liz, Tim, and Tim. I thought the meeting was productive and helped my

understanding of the Crane Lake Land Exchange.

The reason I attended is because I had two immediate concerns. One of them was addressed at

the meeting. I was questioning how the land exchange would affect the hiking and snowmobile

trails behind Voyagaire on parcels 5 and 6 on the map that was provided to me. I now

understand these are addressed with permanent easements across those lands 12 months of

every year. If that is correct, that concern is addressed effectively.

My other concern is that currently I have access upon and across the public lands in parcels 7,

8, and 9, plus the portion of parcel 3 west of County Highway 24. I own property that is adjacent

to parcel 7 at it’s NE corner and 335 feet south along it’s eastern boundary. Currently I have the

opportunity to hike and hunt on these parcels and the other public lands west of the lands in the

land exchange. I am concerned to protect this access for myself, my children, and my friends and

other company who come to Crane Lake to enjoy the forests and lakes. I prefer to see these lands

stay public and for public access.

Please keep me on the mailing list so that I am properly notified of any developments or public

comment periods before or after the environmental assessment is completed.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. It is the case that the hiking and snowmobile trails

would have permanent easements as part of the exchange.

Although the proposed exchange may change the adjacency of your property to federal lands in

parcels 7, 8, and 9, we have strived to maintain access to National Forest Systems lands in the

vicinity of your property. The parcels identified for exchange have been selected based on

several criteria listed in the Purpose and Need section of this document and conform to the land

management goals set forth in the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (Forest Plan). There would be minimal change to overall access to the Superior National

Forest from this project.

8. Deena Congdon














I see this land exchange as a win-win for the Citizens of Crane Lake and the Forest Service.” Response: Thank you for your comment.

9. Cathy Erickson

Comment CL-009-1: “Please keep me informed of the progress of this exchange. I am a

business owner and tax payer of Crane Lake.”

Response: Ms. Erickson will remain on the CLLE mailing list.

10. John Haberman

Comment CL-010-1: “Hello, I've reviewed all the available information but don't have any

specific comments at this time. However, please keep me on the project mailing list so I will

continue to receive the information necessary to formulate subsequent comments if necessary.”

Response: Mr. Haberman will remain on the project mailing list.

11. David Dill, State Representative

Comment CL-011-1: “I support the efforts of the US Forest Service and Crane Lake in

completing the proposed land exchange. The exchange would enhance the landholdings of the

US Forest Service, the BWCA and assist the Crane Lake community with much needed public

land for township purposes and private development. I know these types land exchanges are

complicated but support the continued effort.”


12. Robert Scott, Chairman of the Crane Lake Water & Sanitary District

Comment CL-012-1: “I am writing to you today to express the opinion of the Crane Lake

Water and Sanitary District in regards to the ongoing land trade involving the Town of Crane

Lake, The USFS and two individual residents of Crane Lake. It is our position that this is a very

positive transaction. If successful this would provide us with more opportunity to expand the

sewer system and help to reduce the burden felt by all the residents of the District. The financial

health of the District is paramount in protecting the clean waters of the BWCA as well as the

Voyageurs National Park.”




13. Michael E. Burris














14. Arthur Eggen

Comment CL-014-1: “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Crane Lake Land

Exchange. My reason for writing this letter is to respond favorably for the continuation and

completion of this important project.

In keeping with the Superior National Forest’s acquisition criteria Priority 1, and Crane Lake’s

“Community Action Plan”, this land exchange makes perfect sense to me as a resident and

taxpayer in the affected area. The two purposes for analyzing this land exchange, as outlined in

your letter dated November 18, 2011, are in the best public interest.

To help determine the scope of analysis for environmental issues, my comment is that the

proposed federal and non-federal lands have been, or will be reviewed through procedures of

the National Environmental Policy Act. I am confident that those procedures will show that this

land exchange is environmentally and sustainably sound.

I urge you to move this project forward in the interest of the greater public. I look forward to

commenting again as this important land exchange proceeds to fruition. ”

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have prepared an environmental analysis (EA) to

determine if there are any issues or significant impacts pertinent to the proposed land exchange.

Please review the EA for further discussion of the NEPA process. Feel free to contact us with

any questions or concerns.



15. Jo Ann Pohlman














16. Ted and Judy Bodeen

Comment CL-016-1: “We have some questions. Is this proposed land exchange going to affect

the value of our property? How close is the proposed land to our property? Does the proposed

land touch our property?

Please keep us on your mailing list and also keep us informed.”

Response: After reviewing the maps and data from the St. Louis County Assessor’s office, we

do not believe that your property on Bowser Ct. is adjacent to any of the parcels proposed for

this land exchange. Additionally, we cannot speculate how the exchange would impact the

market value of your property. It appears from the County Assessor’s maps that the nearest

proposed parcel for exchange is approximately 500 yards to the west of your property. If you

have any additional questions, please feel free to contact us.

17. Paula O’Connell

Comment CL-017-1: “I’m writing in response to the letter sent to me outlining the purposed

land exchange in Crane Lake. I am an owner of a year round cabin bordering section 4 & 5. My

husband and I purchased this property around 1975 and finally build our family cabin six years

ago. We have also been supporters of the Crane Lake community. However, I am vehemently

opposed to a land exchange that would take away BLM land at the end of our street which is

Bowser Court. Also, I do not agree the Crane Lake needs a community center. Crane Lake is a

small, special place where one can access the wilderness right out our back doors. That is why

we drive 4 ½ hours to our cabin. I also feel that this exchange may facilitate personal gain for a

few at the expense of many. In this day when development is gobbling up pristine forest, at an

alarming rate, I see no need to do that to a very special area like Crane Lake. It is also very

perplexing to be a taxpayer and have not attended any information meetings.



I would like to see you have a meeting in the summer when more of the seasonal owners of

property could attend. Please keep me on your mailing list.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. We understand you do not support the exchange.

While the proposed land exchange may change the adjacency of your property to federal lands,

we do not believe that it will limit your access to the Superior National Forest or the recreational

opportunities that are available. There would be minimal change to overall access to the Superior

National Forest from this project.

The need for a community center emerged as part of the Town of Crane Lake’s 2001

Community Action Plan. The planning process included identifying the needs, strengths, and

weaknesses of the area. The Action Plan identified a need for sustainable community

development and a desire to own the federal lands on which the Town’s public works are

located. The Forest Service administers six special-use permits for various public works

facilities on federal lands. Because the community is relatively “landlocked” by federal lands, a

need was identified in the Community Action Plan for more private land to meet the Town’s

municipal needs. Overall, the lands selected for this exchange have been selected based on

priorities detailed in the Purpose and Need section of Chapter 1 of this analysis.

Ms. O’Connell will remain on the mailing list.

Comment CL-017-2: Ms. O’Connell phoned stating that she received the scoping package. She

is not supportive of the proposal as presented. Her concerns were primarily land going to active

developers and only a few people would benefit from the exchange. She desires to stay on the

mailing list and had some concerns that some seasonal residents did not receive the mailing.

Response: Thank you for your comments regarding the exchange. While the Crane Lake

Sustainable Land Corporation will be the recipient of the lands, the Town of Crane Lake is an

active member of the CLSLC and would likely exercise the interests of the town with regard to

community development and the Community Action Plan. The reality specialist spoke with Ms.

O’Connell. Ms. O’Connell will remain on the project mailing list.

18. Sue Hankner
















19. Paulette Holt

Comment CL-019-1: “I am writing in opposition to the proposed Land Exchange in Crane

Lake. As a property owner bordering the Superior National Forest, I do not agree with this

proposal. There are several reasons for my strong opposition.

I will be denied all the activities the Superior National Forest affords me in my back yard:

hiking, snowshoeing, hunting, birdwatching, all of the things that the Superior National Forest

was created for. This not only affects me but my family and friends and every property owner

that abuts the National Forest. The preserved land that belongs to everyone is being taken away.

The removal of the Superior National Forest land bordering my property will greatly decrease

my property value.

This land exchange will transfer the majority of the land to two private people which is not what

the Superior National Forest was created for. It was reserved for ALL people to use and enjoy.

To step back and look at the community, the majority of the Superior National Forest is a

wonderful entrance to the Voyaguers National Park and by transferring so much bordering land

to two private people, it diminishes the beautifully preserved natural entrance to this area. There

is the possibility of potential damage to resort owners by their clients not being allowed to hunt,

snowshoe, etc. from their cabins. Crane Lake does not need any more resorts failing because of

depressed occupancy.

Please reconsider this land exchange. The original Town of Crane Lake Community Design is a

realistic and workable plan for Option 1 & 2 for the 80 acres but the land exchange has grown

tremendously with hundreds of acres of additional land traded to two private persons. I do not

believe this large-scoped land trade is in the best interest of the community nor the Superior

National Forest users.

I appreciate being included on all future mailings and reports relating to this Crane Lake Land

Exchange.”

Response: Thank you for your comments. While the proposed land exchange may change the

adjacency of your property to federal lands, we do not believe that it will limit your access to the

Superior National Forest or the recreational opportunities that are available. There would be

minimal change to overall access to the Superior National Forest from this project. With regard

to your comment about decreasing the value of your property, we cannot speculate on how the

proposed land exchange will impact the market value of your property. The proposed land

exchange is between the Superior National Forest and the Crane Lake Sustainable Development

Corporation, of which the Town of Crane Lake is a member for the purpose of implementing

their Community Action Plan. The parcels identified for exchange have been selected based on

several criteria listed in the Purpose and Need section of this document and conform to the land


Plan. . In developing this analysis we did consider an alternative with a smaller subset of parcels

to only address the need for municipal infrastructure (see Environmental Assessment, Chapter 2).



This alternative was dismissed from further analysis primarily because it does not meet the stated

Purpose and Need and additionally because there are no parties willing to exchange a smaller set

of parcels that meet the acquisition goals of the Agency. Overall, the lands selected for this

exchange have been selected based on priorities detailed in the Purpose and Need section of

Chapter 1 of this analysis.

You will continue to remain on our mailing list and be updated about the proposed project.

20. Reva Carlson

Comment CL-020-1: “We own property in Crane Lake MN and just recently heard about the

proposed land exchange. We are currently out of state, so we have been unable to attend the

meetings. Based on the information we have received from Joan Weckman and in discussions

with various individuals in Crane Lake we have the following concerns:

1. Our property is located at 7591 Hilltop Road. It is our understanding that the current

proposed land exchange would limit the amount of public land around us (parcels 4, 5 & 6),

which was a main factor when we purchased in this community. We also have concerns as to

what this privatized land might be used for. We believe it is in the best interest of the community

to leave this land public for all to enjoy.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. Although the proposed exchange may change the

adjacency of your property to federal lands in parcels 4, 5, and 6, we have strived to maintain

access to National Forest Systems lands in the vicinity of your property. There would be minimal

change to overall access to the Superior National Forest from this project. The parcels identified

for exchange have been selected based on several criteria listed in the Purpose and Need section

of this document and conform to the land management goals set forth in the Superior National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Comment CL-020-2: “2. Currently there is access to public lands in parcels 7, 8, and 9, and

part of parcel 3 west of the County Highway 24. As of now, we have the opportunity to hike on

these parcels and those public lands west of the parcels in the land exchange. We are concerned

this access may be limited or denied because of the proposed land exchange. We would prefer to

see these lands stay public and therefore guaranteeing public access for all those who come to

Crane Lake to enjoy the area.”


adjacency of your property to federal lands in parcels 7, 8, and 9, we have strived to maintain

access to National Forest Systems lands in the vicinity of your property. The parcels identified

for exchange have been selected based on several criteria listed in the Purpose and Need section

of this document and conform to the land management goals set forth in the Superior National


Comment CL-020-3: “3. How would the land exchange affect the hiking and snowmobile trails

behind Voyagaire Lodge & Houseboats on parcels 5 and 6? Joan Weckman stated that she



would insure we are on the mailing list for future mailings. Please feel free to utilize this e-mail

address to provide communications also, so that we are properly notified of any developments or

public comment periods before or after the environmental assessment is completed.

If you would please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, we would appreciate it.”

Response: The snowmobile trail that passes through parcels 5 and 6 and the hiking trail in the

northeast corner of parcel 6 would have a permanent easement recorded on the title for those

parcels. This trail would provide year-round access to National Forest System lands to the south

and west of the Town of Crane Lake. Please see Chapter 3.2 for more detailed information on

the impacts to recreational opportunities. We will keep you on the land exchange mailing list.

21. Joe Rokala, MN DNR

Comment CL-021-1: “Thank you for allowing DNR to comment on the Crane Lake Sustainable

Land Corporation Land Exchange Proposal #36327. DNR staff reviewed the proposal and it is

our understanding that the USFS will retain easements as part of the exchange for the existing

snowmobile trail. DNR has no additional comments. Thank you for taking the snowmobile trail

into consideration.”

Response: Thank you for the comments on the project. That is correct that the Superior

National Forest will retain easements (deed restrictions) on those portions of the exchange lands

that contain the snowmobile trail that passes through parcels 5 and 6.

22. Jeff Sanborn, Fire Chief-Crane Lake Volunteer Fire Department

Comment CL-022-1: “I am writing to you to comment on the proposed land exchange between

the Superior National forest and the Crane Lake Sustainable Land Corporation.

As you know our organization the Crane Lake Volunteer Fire Department has an existing lease

on a portion of the proposed lands that would be transferred to the Crane Lake Sustainable Land

Corporation. Our existing fire station is located on that property. We have been assured that

little or nothing will change as far as our fire station is concerned and that most likely the

property we are currently leasing from the Superior National Forest would be transferred to us

at a very reasonable cost.

With the knowledge that nothing will change drastically for our organization and in light of the

fact that our community has needed available space for a long time the membership of our

organization is in support of the proposed land exchange. We feel that there are only positive

things to come out of this for our organization and the Town of Crane Lake. We would like to

thank you and your staff for the opportunity to comment on the proposed exchange and all the

efforts that have gone into the project.”

Response: Thank you for your comments. While the Superior National Forest supports the

proposed exchange, we cannot speculate on the future uses of lands included in the exchange.



23. Brian Pfeifer

Comment CL-023-1: “Please keep me on your mailing list.”

Response: Mr. Pfeifer will remain on the CLLE mailing list.

24. Yolanda Pifer

Comment CL-024-1: A message was left by Ms. Pifer stating she had a few questions on the

exchange.

Response: The Reality Specialist tried to return the phone call and was informed by the

recipient of no such individual at that number.

25. Jerry Brown

Comment CL-025-1: “As a neighbor of Tracts 1-3 in Buyck it would be helpful in forming an

opinion of the swap if I knew 1) who now owns the dispersed private lands that will be swapped

for contigous federal lands bordering Crane Lake and 2) who is the CLSLC, meaning who are

the members and how does this private corporation relate to the Town of Crane Lake who is

suppose to benefit from the swap? The CLSLC website has little and inadequate information. Is

my impression correct that essentially lower (non-buildable) tracts will be swapped for higher

(buildable) tracts? I am concerned that Portage township will lose taxable lands as a result of

the swap.”

Response: Thank you for your comments. The ‘dispersed private lands’ that are part of the

exchange are currently owned by the Crane Lake Sustainable Land Corporation (CLSLC). The

CLSLC is a corporation with whom the Town of Crane Lake is a member. While we cannot

speculate on who would ‘benefit’, the Town of Crane Lake as a member of CLSLC would likely

receive lands for municipal and recreational uses and to implement the Crane Lake Community

Action Plan. The selection of lands for the exchange was done to accomplish the goals stated

within the Purpose and Need section of Chapter 1 of this document. The impact of this exchange

on the taxable land base of Portage Township was not within the scope of this analysis.

Comment CL-025-2: “I emailed a response quite a while ago but had no feedback. This letter is

to inform you I would like to be kept in the loop on this land exchange.

I have a limited understanding of the CLSLC or the feasibility of Crane Lake’s plan to build a

Community Center. I have no understanding why Portage Township has not been notified about

the exchange when it is their tax base that is eroded as a result of a loss of taxable land. I do

understand and appreciate why Crane Lake would want the 80 acres of FS land fronting the

Handberg Road in exchange for remote and rather un-useable acreage in Buyck on the

Vermillion River, either with or without a Community Center in mind. I would tend to support

Crane Lake’s efforts in that regard as a public entity. I have less of an appreciation for and



understanding of the proposed exchange as it benefits the other two private parties of the

CLSLC.

In the absence of a clearer or complete understanding of the facts I must question in general the

exchange of some 352 acres of wooded and apparently higher FLS land for 265 acres of private

land that is lower with questionable development potential, therefore having less value, at least

some of which has been logged off recently besides. Your Scoping Report refers to both a net

decrease in FS acreage and a net increase in FS wetlands from the exchange, which could mean

the CLSLC might well be getting more value from the exchange than they are giving up. On the

other hand you do indicate appraisals will be made to ensure the exchange is fair, equitable and

in the general public’s interest. Frankly, I would object to the exchange if I had reason to believe

private individuals were benefiting at my expense. I leave it to the FS to make sure that is not

happening here.”

Response: Thank you for your comments. While there is a difference in the number of acres

involved in the exchange, the final acres to be exchanged would reflect balanced values based on

appraisals. The parcels identified for exchange have been selected based on several criteria

listed in the Purpose and Need section of this document and conform to the land management

goals set forth in the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. We will

keep you on the project mailing list.

26. Ed and Donna Thornton

Comment CL-026-1: “We are landowners in Section 26 T67 R17W with property which abuts

Parcel 7 (federally owned, NW1/4 SW1/4 Section 26) of the proposed land exchange in Crane

Lake. We do not support the land exchange as it is currently proposed.

I understand the desire of the Forest Service to exchange Federally owned parcels 1, 2 and 3 as

they are encumbered by two buildings and part of the Crane Lake sewer system. These parcels

are also desired by the Town of Crane Lake for expansion.”


adjacency of your property to federal lands in parcel 7, we have strived to maintain access to

National Forest Systems lands in the vicinity of your property. There would be minimal change

to overall access to the Superior National Forest from this project. The parcels identified for

exchange have been selected based on several criteria listed in the Purpose and Need section of

this document and conform to the land management goals set forth in the Superior National


Comment CL-026-2: “Access: Many of the people and visitors of Crane Lake use the

recreational trail FR 486 and adjacent lands for snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, etc. This is a

main corridor from town to the scenic overlook rocks west of town and to the large tracts of

federal land to the west of town. Giving up parcels 5 and 6 (federal lands) would limit access to

these federal lands. An easement for snowmobiling would not allow for hunting on lands

adjacent to the trail, nor hiking in the summer, as is the case today. I have talked to guests of

resorts in Crane Lake who appreciated the local access to these lands for recreational purposes.

On a more personal note, we purchased our 10 acres in Section 26 adjacent to Parcel 7 with the



purpose summer and winter recreational activities. Having direct access to Federal lands out

our “backdoor” was a large part of our decision to buy the land. If the land exchange goes

through as planned we will no longer have that ability to access federal lands from our property

curtailing hiking and hunting opportunities for friends and family.”


adjacency of your property to federal lands in parcels 5, 6 and 7, we have strived to maintain

access to National Forest Systems lands in the vicinity of the Town of Crane Lake and your

property. There would be minimal change to overall access to the Superior National Forest from

this project. The parcels identified for exchange have been selected based on several criteria

listed in the Purpose and Need section of this document and conform to the land management

goals set forth in the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Comment CL-026-3: “Equitable Exchange: As proposed, the Forest Service will exchange 352

acres for 265 acres of non federally owned land. Since the actual appraisals have not yet been

completed, it is unknown if this exchange is equitable, ie, dollar for dollar. As a Certified

General Appraiser in the state of Minnesota, well versed in rural and timber values, I do have

some concerns about proposed exchange. Tracts 1, 2 and 3 of the non federal land include both

river frontage and road access and would be considered quite desirable and carry more value

than surrounding land. Parcels 4, 5, and 6 (non federal held) are accessible only by water after

crossing federally or other private land. On the open market this land would have limited value.

Parcels 7 and 8 non federal land is accessible but is primarily cut over land with significant wet

areas and these parcels would have limited appeal and value on the open market. The federal

lands to be exchanged near Crane Lake have significant timber value and due to location have

desirability for development and would likely carry more value per acre than other lands 3-10

miles from town. Since the initial land exchange involves 352 acres of land near town for 265

acres of other land it does raise my concern as a tax payer, land owner and as a licensed

appraiser. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed exchange.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. As stated in the Scoping documents as well as the

environmental analysis, the final acres to be exchanged would reflect balanced values based on

appraisals performed consistent with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land

Acquisition (USFLA). The parcels identified for exchange have been selected based on several

criteria listed in the Purpose and Need section of this document and conform to the land


Plan.

27. Ruth L. Carlson, President of The Crane Lake Sustainable Land Corporation

Comment CL-027-1: “The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter dated November 18,

2011 addressed to Interested Parties. We wish to respond very positively for the continuation of

the land exchange project.

At completion of the exchange, all the citizens of the Town of Crane Lake and the U.S. Forest

Service will benefit. The Town will be addressing the needs as defined in the Crane Lake

Community Action Plan of 2000. More land into private ownership, land for a town hall,



community building, and green space for recreation were all defined needs in the plan. More

property in private ownership will broaden the tax base a financial benefit for all citizens. The

Crane Lake Volunteer Fire Department would acquire the land which houses their fire hall. This

would allow further development for the Department’s needs.

Land, sensitive to over-development, especially which meets the acquisition criteria of Priority I,

will be positively managed and protected. I refer, especially to the land adjoining the Boundary

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the East Bay area of Crane Lake and land on the Vermillion

River.

We know there is support to this project from a great majority of the area people. We will be

pleased to see this project to completion. Thank you for your support.”

Response: Thank you for your comments.

28. Donald Nightingale

Comment CL-028-1: “I have no particular comments to make at this time on the proposed

action, but I do wish to remain on the mailing list.”

Response: Mr. Nightingale will remain on the CLLE mailing list.

29. Virginia Stanke














30. Sandra Bodkin

Comment CL-030-1: “I support and encourage the completion of the land exchange between

the Superior National Forest and the Town of Crane Lake. I believe this is a Win-Win-Win



situation for all three sides-the township, the property owners and the Superior National Forest,

as the stated two purposes in your letter #1920/5430, November 18, 2011.

The forest service has always been good neighbors to our small community, but the added layer

of bureaucracy involved in building on forest service lands, and the fact that the forest service

controls such a large percentage of vacant land in our area, makes it difficult to let the

community grow.

I would like to be notified when the environmental assessment is available. Thank you for

including me on your mailing list.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. We will keep Ms. Bodkin on our mailing list.

31. Dale Heins

Comment CL-031-1: “After reading your letter, the proposed land exchange sounds like a

great opportunity for the town and the surrounding area of Crane Lake. I would like to be

included on your mailing list, Thank you.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. Mr. Heins will remain on the CLLE mailing list.

32. Jerry Pohlman, Chairman of the Town of Crane Lake

Comment CL-032-1: “The Crane Lake Township Board of Supervisors wants to thank you for

the opportunity to present favorable comments in regard to the scoping process of the Crane

lake Land Exchange.

It was with the assistance of the Superior National Forest and the Economic Farm Recovery

Program that our community was able to craft a Community Action Plan (CAP) in 2001. The

CAP, through large citizen participation, identified the need for a local form of government and

other priorities that would make Crane Lake a more viable and sustainable community. In 2002

Crane Lake Township was created by an overwhelming favorable vote of eligible residents. The

new township then proceeded to embrace other priorities identified in the CAP. The current land

exchange with the USFS is in keeping with some of those priorities. 1.) The development of a

community center with green space. 2.) More land for private development and affordable

housing.

Today, The Crane Lake Township Board of Supervisors continues to support and develop the

priorities of both the 2001 and 2006 revised CAP. We find that the Crane Lake Land Exchange is

in fact in the best interest of our township residents as well as the citizens and taxpayers of the

United States. The two purposes for analyzing the exchange as outlined in a letter to Interested

Parties dated November 18, 2011, are consistent and justifiable to the scoping process as this

project moves forward. We do not foresee any identifiable environmental issues or concerns at



this time. Understanding that the exchange proposal will be analyzed through the National

Environmental Policy Act procedures, we look forward to the findings of further public review.

The Crane Lake Land Exchange is very intrinsic to the economic and environmental

sustainability of our community. We look forward to the completion of this important project.”

Response: Thank you for your comments.

33. Jerry and Brenda Pohlman












I see this land exchange as a win-win for the Citizens of Crane Lake and the

appendix a crane lake land exchange biological...

Documents