Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9

Transcription

1 Forest Service Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Supervisor s Office 500 Hanson Lake Road Rhinelander, WI (Phone) (Fax) TTY: 711 (National Relay System) Internet: File Code: 1570 Date: November 13, 2012 Route To: (Rowell ) Subject: To: Appeal of the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Bye Land Exchange, Tell City Ranger District, Hoosier National Forest, Appeal # A215 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 This letter constitutes my recommendation for the above-referenced appeal by Mr. Scott Ronczka. This appeal challenges the decision for the Bye Land Exchange, Tell City Ranger District of the Hoosier National Forest (HNF). Forest Supervisor Melany Glossa signed the Decision Notice for this project on August 13, 2012, and the legal notice was published August 16, 2012, in the Perry County News, Tell City, Indiana. My review has been conducted pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 215 Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities. To ensure that the analysis and decision were completed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies, I have considered the issues set forth by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal (NOA) and have reviewed the decision documentation submitted by the HNF. My recommendation is based upon a review of the Project Record (PR), including but not limited to, the scoping letter, public comments, the Environmental Assessment, the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) and the Response to Comments (RTC). Appeal Issues Issue 1: Public access to public lands is better with the no action alternative. The Appellant states, ( ) [t]he public has better access to Tract 1 (if properly maintained by the USFS) and Tract 2 then would be realized through Tracts 3, 4 and 5 if this land exchange proposal is adopted (NOA, p. 1) Response: Provisions of 36 C.F.R (b) require that the Responsible Official make a determination that the public interest will be well served by a land exchange. Numerous factors must be considered when assessing the public interest. The Responsible Official must ultimately find that [t]he resource values and the public objectives served by the non-federal lands or interests to be acquired must equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives served by the Federal lands to be conveyed. 36 C.F.R (b)(2)(i). On reviewing the PR, especially the EA and DN, I find the Appellant s concern regarding access to Tract 1 in conflict with field observations documented in the PR. The adjacent landowners America s Working Forests-Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

2 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 2 have installed fence around much of Tract 1 further isolating this parcel from public access (PR; DN/FONSIAppendix.docx RTC 1, p. 1). Moreover, the Appellant concedes there is currently no maintained access to Tract 1. The limited access to this Tract is by foot travel only. The PR supports the access benefits to the agency of this exchange. Specifically, with regard to access the exchange connects two current National Forest System lands (NFS) that are isolated to larger acreages of public lands (EA, pp. 6-7). The PR shows that Tracts 1 and 2 will remain isolated from the HNF under the No Action alternative. Acquisition of Tracts 3 and 4 will eliminate inholdings and consolidate ownership. The PR clearly documents that access to Tract 1 is limited, and access to the HNF will be improved by consolidating parcels (EA, pp.15-16). Equally important, the Appellant does not reference any specific instances where the Bye Land Exchange PR is inaccurate, deficient, or in error. The Appellant simply notes, as indicated in the PR, there is presently limited access to Tract 1, and faults the agency for not having maintained the access. The Appellant also concedes that as a result of the exchange there will be improved access to the HNF. The Appellant would prefer the agency improve access to Tract 1. The HNF has considerable discretion in resolving complex access questions. The Appellant would prefer the HNF improve access to the isolated Tract 1. However, the analysis and PR demonstrate that the purpose and need includes consolidation of ownership, and more importantly, improved access to National Forest System land. The PR demonstrates these objectives will be met by the exchange. I find the Appellant s claims are without merit. On reviewing the PR, especially the EA and DN, I find the Appellant s concern regarding access to Tract 1 failed to consider field observations, specifically the fact that the adjacent land owners have installed fence around much of the parcel. Review of relevant regulations and the Bye Land Exchange PR supports the rationale for Not Selecting the No Action Alternative (DN/FONSI, p. 7, EA, p. 6). The Appellant suggests the HNF consider he has voluntarily allowed the public to pass through his property for hunting and recreational purposes in the past. Such voluntary access has no reasonable assurance of continuing now or in the future, should ownership change. The Forest Service (FS) cannot advise the public to cross private land as a means of access to NFS lands. We appreciate the Appellant s altruism, but cannot rely upon this as a solution to the limited access to the isolated Tract 1. The PR clearly demonstrates that the HNF gave careful consideration to the question of access to the isolated Tract 1. The analysis set forth in the PR supports the access benefits to the public as a result of the exchange. The Appellant does not take issue with the fact that Tract 1 currently has limited access, or that access to the HNF would be improved by consolidation of ownership as a result of the exchange. Rather, Appellant urges the HNF to consider improving access to Tract 1. The HNF does not have funding to take action on this request. Moreover, the Appellant has failed to note the fencing that has further isolated Tract 1. I have given the Appellant s concerns careful consideration, but based upon my review of the PR recommend that the requested relief be denied.

3 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 3 Issue 2: Timber values not sufficiently addressed. (NOA, p. 1) Issue 9: Exchange appears to be based solely on timber value and violates the trust of the American tax payer. The Appellant states, ( ) [I]t can rightly be assumed that there is only a desire for Tracts 1 and 2 due to the substantial timber value to be gained. Again, this is a violation of the trust of the American tax payer to give away this value to one entity. (NOA, p. 2) Response: I have combined the two issues because of their similarity. The appraisals followed the appraisal standards specified in the appraisal instruction letter, specifically the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA), The Federal Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act (FURAA) (42 U.S.C. 4601), and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) (EA, pp. 9-10; FONSI, p.8-9, PR). This land exchange is proposed under the authority of the Weeks Act of March 1, 1911, as amended; the Federal Land and Policy Management Act, as amended; and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988 (EA, p. 9). The Appellant contends the FS is giving away taxpayer timber value to one individual to complete this land exchange. The Appellant does not provide any evidence or analysis of the value of standing timber, but simply asserts that the value of timber on the federal parcels exceeds the value of timber on the private tracts. The PR discloses that land appraisals determine value based upon many factors, only one of which is the value of timber currently on the parcels (EA, pp. 9-10). The comment suggests that timber value is the sole or dominant consideration in land appraisal, when in fact this is not the case. All five tracts of land involved in the exchange were appraised by a third-party licensed land appraiser and verified by FS certified appraisers. Market value is defined by what a willing and typical buyer would be expected to pay and a willing and typical seller would be willing to sell for in the open market under current market conditions. In a land exchange, the guiding principle is that privately owned land and federally owned land be treated the same. The same appraiser evaluates all of the tracts. Each appraisal addressed the specific features of that parcel, however, and the sales and analysis for each parcel will be based upon that property s specific features. The exchange is based upon value compared to value, and not acres compared to acres. If the one party s property is worth more per acre than the other property, this is reflected in the opinions of value. Appraisals typically consider: The physical features of the property, which include size, upland and wetlands, topography, flood plains, utilities, water amenity, timber value, etc., depending upon property type and market. The regional and local markets for the specific property type are evaluated to identify typical buyers, trends in pricing, volume of sales, demographics and other supply and demand factors, etc.

4 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 4 Highest and best use is the analysis, which incorporates the data in the first part of an appraisal. An opinion of highest and best use is based upon the legally permissible uses, the physically possible uses, and the use(s) which result in the greatest economic return. Approaches to value and selection of comparable data are then done. Approaches to value are dependent upon the property type, primarily. For land, that will most likely be the sales comparison approach, which requires selecting and evaluating sales of similar properties and comparing them to the subject. Sales comparison analyses must consider interests conveyed, financing impacts on value, motivations (or other non-market factors), conditions of sale (time adjustments), location, physical features, etc. The Income approach may be required for large timber tracts and for improved properties where investment income could be expected. The Cost approach is typically used for improved properties where the buildings or structures are not too old. A limited cost approach may be used for estimating the contributory value of minor structures in a land appraisal. The last step in an appraisal is the final reconciliation of all approaches used, if more than one, and conclusion of the final opinion of value (PR; DN/FONSI, Appendix.docx RTC 2, pp. 1-2). The Appellant s conclusion assumes that the value of timber on the federal parcels is greater than the timber on the private parcels. The Appellant then relies on the assumed difference in standing timber value alone without considering any of the other factors used in land value appraisal. Generally, market value is defined by what a willing and typical buyer would be expected to pay and a willing and typical seller would be willing to sell for in the open market under current market conditions. It is reasonable that both parties would consider multiple factors, and not just the value of standing timber, to determine the value of the parcels. Thus, the value of a particular parcel is generally the result of a combination of factors and not determined simply by one factor such as standing timber value. Moreover, the value of standing timber will fluctuate with market conditions. Tract 1 has been harvested in the past (EA, p. 12). Timber is a renewable resource, the volume and value of which changes over time. All five tracts of land involved in the exchange were appraised by a third-party licensed land appraiser and verified by FS certified appraisers. The same appraiser evaluates all of the tracts. Each appraisal addressed the specific features of that parcel, however, and the sales and analysis for each parcel will be based upon that property s specific features (PR ). As the Appellant noted, the exchange is based upon value compared to value, and not acres compared to acres. If one party s property is worth more per acre than the other property, this is reflected in the opinions of value. The PR clearly shows that all tracts involved in the exchange were appraised according to national appraisal standards as well as FS protocol. The PR does not support the Appellant s assertions that based on timber alone the appraisals were inaccurate. The Appellant provides no analysis of standing timber values, or evidence that based on timber value alone the appraisals were inadequate or in error. The Appellant simply focuses on one factor, the assumed difference in standing timber value, and asserts that the appraisals are incorrect. Based upon review of the

5 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 5 PR and the methodology for appraisals contained therein, I recommend the Appellant s request for relief be denied. Issue 3: Differences between the tracts relative to location, best use, geographic features and other criteria not displayed. (NOA, p. 1-2) Response: The Appellant asserts that based on his view of the differences in standing timber value, the appraisals are incorrect and the exchange will giv[e] away tax payer timber value to one individual to complete this land exchange. As noted above, the appraisal followed the appraisal standards specified in the appraisal instruction letter, specifically the UASFLA, the FURAA (42 U.S.C. 4601), and the USPAP (EA, pp. 9-10; FONSI, pp.8-9, PR). The PR documents many factors for both private and federal tracts that were taken into consideration in the analysis of this exchange. The Background section of the DN summarizes the more detailed information in the record concerning location, size, access, and water characteristics (DN, pp. 1 2). Further information on each tract was disclosed in the EA, e.g. topography, cultural resource, existing easements, distance to nearest town, vegetation and wildlife (EA, pp. 6, 7, 12-15). In addition, surveys were completed for each tract for karst, heritage assessment, and timber (PR, survey reports). All tracts were also included in the watershed resources and wildlife resource reports available in the project record. Geographic features, location and other factors referenced by the Appellant were disclosed in the PR and taken into consideration in the analysis. The Appellant does not provide any information or evidence that was overlooked or ignored. I find the PR appropriately described the attributes of the tracts relative to location, best use, geographic features and other criteria, and incorporated relevant and best available information. The site-specific analysis was properly tiered to the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Forest Plan and referenced existing studies, resource analyses, and monitoring information. Based on my review of the PR, I find the decision was based upon field surveys and review of available scientific information concerning the resource values present on these tracts. The analysis properly took into consideration factors such as geographic features, location and other criteria. Issue 4: The exchange will likely cause more acres to be susceptible to invasive species and erosion issues. The Appellant states, ( ) The majority of the existing proposed private lands (412 out of 442 acres) have been recently timbered. This makes them susceptible to invasive species and erosion issues as stated in the Environmental Assessment. Why make the current Tracts 1 and 2 susceptible to the same threats? (NOA, p. 2) Issue 7: Logging on Tracts 1 and 2 will increase the risk of invasive species spreading onto surrounding private lands. The Appellant states, ( ) If this land exchange is implemented, it will significantly increase the risk of non-native invasive species propagating on the timbered property (Tracts 1 and 2) and onto the surrounding private lands. (NOA, p. 2) Response: I am addressing these two issues together because of their similarity. The Appellant did not state a rule, policy or regulation that was not being adhered to. Title I (Sec. 101 [42 USC

6 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R ] ) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. The issue of non-native species was brought forth from the Appellant during the official comment period. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA state [40 C.F.R ] An agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below, stating its response in the final statement. The regulation goes on to give examples such as making factual corrections or explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response as possible response to comments. During the public scoping period, the Appellant submitted a comment that a timber harvest on Tracts 1 and 2 would make those lands susceptible to invasive species and invasive species would then be transferred to the adjoining private lands. The interdisciplinary team responded that nonnative invasive species (NNIS) were identified in the analysis and acknowledged that all tracts proposed for exchange have existing NNIS populations (PR; DN/FONSI, Appendix.docx RTC 3). The team also recognized that existing private/public ownership patterns increase the complexity of NNIS management. Id. The EA acknowledged it was reasonably foreseeable that timber would be harvested in the future from Tracts 1 and 2 if the exchange were implemented (EA, p. 10 and 15). The EA (Section 3.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects) disclosed that ground disturbance often creates desirable habitat for these invasive species to increase, (EA, pp.12-16). The EA also stated that no significant effects to soil and water resources would be expected if best management practices, as identified by Indiana Department of Natural Resources, are implemented, (EA, p. 15). Harvest would be anticipated to change the age of the stands, but not the species composition Id. Commercial timber harvest is a management tool commonly used by the FS in Management Area 2.8 General Forest Management. Both Tracts 1 and 2 are located in Management Area 2.8 (EA, p. 5) and Tract 1 has been harvested in the past (EA, p. 12). It is possible that both federal tracts could be harvested in the future under the No Action alternative. The PR documents that the HNF took a hard look at the potential invasive species effects associated with the proposal. NNIS field surveys were conducted on all private and Federal tracts in the proposed land exchange. (PR; Tract 1-5 Karst SurveyFed.docx). The surveys indicated that Tracts 1, 3 and 4 all of which were harvested in the past currently have low to moderate NNIS populations. The interdisciplinary team noted that it was reasonable to expect similar effects to the tracts that would be harvested, and these effects were considered in the analysis and decision, (PR; DN/FONSI, Appendix.docx RTC 3). The analysis also discloses the difficulties in managing NNIS in isolated parcels. Access difficulties and the presence of untreated NNIS populations in adjacent private parcels can limit the effectiveness of treatments (EA, p. 15) The potential NNIS effects from harvest activities that may result from selection of the No Action alternative were also analyzed (EA, Section 3.2). As noted in the DN (p. 4), NNIS would continue to impact National Forest Systems lands (lands considered for exchange as well

7 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 7 as lands surrounding private inholdings) from neighboring lands that remain untreated. Thus, the likelihood of increased NNIS population is present for both the No Action and selected alternatives. The PR documents the HNF took a hard look at the potential for the spread of NNIS for all alternatives. The analysis notes that with proper mitigation (best management practices), the NNIS effects associated with possible future harvesting on federal Tracts 1 and 2 are not likely to be significant. Field notes (PR, Karst survey, Tract 4) shows limited NNIS present despite intensive past timber harvest. The HNF took into account other NNIS analysis information and properly tiered its analysis to the programmatic EIS. The effects were fully disclosed and the decision-maker made an informed decision concerning reasonably foreseeable effects resulting from the exchange. Public comments were considered and addressed in the PR. I find no evidence that the decision violated any law, regulation or policy with regard to possible NNIS effects, and recommend the relief requested by the Appellant be denied. Issue 5: The exchange will likely cause adjacent private lands to be timbered. The Appellant states, [I]f Tracts 1 and 2 are exchanged and significantly timbered, it will likely inspire other private land owners to do the same, so ultimately, the amount of negatively affected Indiana forests could be significantly greater than an additional 425 acres. (NOA, p. 2) Response: Provisions of 36 C.F.R (b) require that the Responsible Official make a determination that the public interest will be well served by a land exchange. Numerous factors must be considered when assessing the public interest. The Responsible Official must ultimately find that [t]he resource values and the public objectives served by the non-federal lands or interests to be acquired must equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives served by the Federal lands to be conveyed. 36 C.F.R (b)(2)(i). The future use and management of the adjacent lands to those at issue is beyond the scope of this analysis. Moreover, the future actions of numerous private landowners is simply too speculative to be analyzed in an environmental assessment. Individual landowner objectives and fluctuating timber markets will impact future private logging actions. Even if Bye Real Estate and Development, Inc. were to log Tracts 1 and 2 in the future, neither they nor the FS control or determine what other local landowners do on their land. Simply put, this land exchange has independent utility. The HNF has no plans for future exchanges in this area that are related to this proposal. The purpose and need for this action are specific to the lands affected. The decision has no precedential effect and does not facilitate or make any other land transactions or private land actions more likely to occur. The existing condition of the non-federal and federal parcels is clearly disclosed in the EA, Chapter 3, Environmental Effects, pp The EA acknowledges that it is likely that timber harvest may occur on the tracts that are being traded from Federal to private ownership. (EA, p. 15). In addition, the DN (pp. 4-5) emphasizes that Responsible Official did consider comments from the adjacent landowners regarding real estate values prior to her decision. The DN also addresses 12 criteria for Land Adjustments (USDA 2006, Appendix E) set forth in the Hoosier Forest Plan that are met by this decision (DN, p. 6).

8 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 8 The Appellant s assertions are speculative and lack factual evidence. There simply is no information that supports their claim that the Bye land exchange would influence additional logging on other private lands. The PR documents the reasons for the proposal, as well as the potential effects. This action has no precedential effect on future federal or private landowner decisions. It is an independent decision undertaken for the site-specific purposes set forth in the record. There is no evidence to support the Appellant s request for relief based on this speculative claim, and I recommend this claim be denied. Issue 6: Larger tracts of isolated land may result in invasive species growing unchecked. The Appellant states, [B]ecause of the isolated nature of these larger tracts of land, there is a higher likelihood that these invasive species could grow unchecked for a substantial amount of time before being found by a trained eye. (NOA, p. 2) Response: The Appellant did not state a rule, policy or regulation that was not being adhered to. Title I (Sec. 101 [42 USC 4331] ) of the NEPA of 1969, contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. The issue of nonnative species was brought forth from the Appellant during the official comment period. The CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA state [40 C.F.R ] An agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below, stating its response in the final statement. The regulation goes on to give examples such as making factual corrections or explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response as possible response to comments. All private and Federal tracts in the proposed land exchange were surveyed for NNIS (PR; Tract1-5 Karst Survey Fed.docx). The EA acknowledges that NNIS already occur on all tracts associated with the project. The EA further indicated that ground disturbance often creates desirable habitat for these invasive species to increase, (EA, pp ). The methodology, data, analysis, and findings of the NNIS survey work are disclosed in the PR. No one, including the Appellant, raised any issues with the NNIS survey findings during the comment period. Survey methodology is an area of considerable discretion. Review of the record indicates that the HNF followed appropriate protocols and directives regarding NNIS work. The analysis was informed by current data gathered by local field personnel. Related NNIS studies and information from the Forest Plan EIS and other analyses are included in the PR. Future mitigation of the existing NNIS on the private tracts was analyzed. The EA states, [r]ecommendations include, but are not limited to, planting of trees and shrubs; treating nonnative invasive plant species; disking compacted areas; contrasting [sic] water bars; seeding; and installing silt fence, barrier posts, gates, or vernal pools (EA, p. 17). These actions are simply recommendations and are not mandatory requirements or stipulations to the exchange. Other future recommendations for NNIS control may be developed after additional analysis or review (PR; DN/FONSI, Appendix.docx RTC 8). The survey and treatment of NNIS is dependent upon site-specific factors, published science, and agency expertise. Survey and treatment are not controlled by tract size. The NNIS sites located

9 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 9 on the tracts have been identified. The notion that larger tracts of isolated land may result in undiscovered invasive species is speculative. While the FS did not walk every part of the tracts in question, a reasonable survey was completed and the field data analyzed and disclosed. NEPA does not require perfect surveys. Additionally, NNIS is addressed on p. 4 of the DN and states under the rationale for not selecting the No Action Alternative that Nonnative invasive species would continue to impact NFS lands (lands considered for exchange as well as lands surrounding private inholdings) from neighboring lands that remain untreated. The Appellant has provided no evidence or information to support the allegation that either the methodology or results of the NNIS survey was inadequate. The Appellant simply asserts because tracts are large, NNIS information may be flawed. It is always possible to conduct additional surveys or gather more information. The HNF took a hard look at NNIS effects based on the best available published science and fieldwork. The NEPA does not require new surveys or specify particular methodologies for assessing impacts. The PR documents the work of the HNF to inform the decision-maker and the public regarding existing NNIS populations, and the spread of NNIS under the various alternatives. I find the analysis and reasoning of the interdisciplinary team and Responsible Official to be persuasive, and recommend the Appellant s request for relief be denied. Issue 8: Adding Tracts 3, 4 and 5 will not add significantly to the contiguous NFS lands. Keeping Tracts 1 and 2 will benefit more people, wildlife and forest ecology. The Appellant states, On a percentage basis, the addition of Tracts 3, 4 and 5 will not significantly contribute to the existing contiguous Tracts of Hoosier National Forest. However, Tracts 1 and 2 will benefit many more people, wildlife and forest ecology if left as they are in the public domain. (NOA, p. 2) Issue 12: Tracts 1 and 2 are not characterized correctly. The Appellant states, The idea that Tracts 1 and 2 are better suited for uses other than National Forest lands is not correct. There has been no development at all near Tract 1 for years. ( ) My land ( ) is enrolled in the State of Indiana Classified Forest program to PREVENT development of the land. Also ( ) this [illegal ATV use] is not a pervasive problem as the Environmental Assessment would lead someone to believe. (NOA, p. 3) Response: I have combined these two issues for discussion based on their similarity. The Appellant did not state a rule, policy or regulation that was not being adhered to. Provisions of 36 C.F.R (b) require that the Responsible Official make a determination that the public interest will be well served by a land exchange. Numerous factors must be considered when assessing the public interest. The Responsible Official must ultimately find that [t]he resource values and the public objectives served by the non-federal lands or interests to be acquired must equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives served by the Federal lands to be conveyed. 36 C.F.R (b)(2)(i). The Rationale for the Selection of the Proposed Action (DN, p. 5) and the Public Interest Determination (DN, pp. 8-9) explain the Responsible Official s reasons for choosing the

10 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 10 proposed action. The benefits gained in the exchange for wildlife and forest ecology are specifically described in the Increase habitat management opportunities discussion (DN, p. 5); Maintain and Restore Sustainable Ecosystems and Maintain the Restore Watershed Health (DN, p. 7). The Decision states the proposed action trades two parcels of land that are geographically isolated from the remainder of the Hoosier National Forest for three parcels that connect and fill-in National Forest lands. The description for how the Forest Plan criteria for Land Adjustments (USDA 2006, Appendix E) are met is outlined in the DN (DN, p. 6). A similar comment regarding adjacent land development was submitted during the official scoping period (DN, Appendix, p. 9 RTC 11). The interdisciplinary team responded and noted the adjacent land had these characteristics: Aerial photography assessment of the areas surrounding the Federal tracts indicates typical, rural Indiana development. There are various levels of land management including farm fields, private homes with various acreages, and private forest lands adjoining the tracts. The rational for how the decision addresses the seventh criterion states, Because the Federal tracts proposed for exchange are surrounded by rural development and have issues relating to management efficiency and recreational use along with the environmental considerations with the EA; I believe these lands are well suited for other uses rather than National Forest Systems land. This finding is strongly supported by analysis of resources set forth in the EA. The acquisition of the private three tracts in the exchange would contribute to the goal of consolidating the ownership of the HNF in the following ways: 1) Tract #3 will create an approximately 2,800 acres block by connecting a smaller isolated block of NFS lands to a larger block (EA, p. 6); 2) Tract #4 is estimated 127 acres and connects two blocks of NFS Lands to create a consolidated block of NFS lands over 1,000 acres (EA, p. 5 and 3). Tract #5 would eliminate a private inholding and create a larger contiguous block of Federal ownership (EA, p. 17). In addition to the consolidation of ownership, other public benefits of the exchange can be found in the analysis (EA, pp ). Tracts 4 and 5 have gray and Indiana bats located within 1.5 mile of these properties and habitat is present on those tracts. The HNF will gain cultural resources in this exchange. Tract 3 contains part of a municipal watershed (EA, p. 3). With regard to forest and wildlife resources, the Forest took a hard look at the effects of exchanging the federal parcels (EA, pp ). The Rationale for the Selection of the Proposed Action (DN, p. 5) and the Public Interest Determination (DN, pp. 8-9) explain the Responsible Official s reasons for choosing the proposed action. The Appellant questions the illegal use of ATVs in Tract 1. The illegal All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use is documented for Tract 2 in the PR. The EA speaks to illegal ATV use on Tract 1 (EA, p. 6). The Decision Appendix RTC 9 described illegal ATV use in Tract 2 v (DN Appendix, p. 9 RTC 9). The EA is incorrect as having illegal ATV Tract 1. I find the Responsible Official considered the benefits of the people, wildlife and forest ecology in relation to the land exchange and made the determination that the public interest will be well served by the exchange. Illegal ATV use specific to Tract 1 was not used in the rationale for the

11 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 11 Decision, thus although the EA contains this mistake it does not undermine the decision. The information used to base this determination is documented in the Decision, EA and PR; I find no violation of any law, regulation or policy. Issue 10: Costs for land lines and restoration needs are not realistic. The Appellant states, ( )[A] figure of $64,700 is estimated for land line and corner marking of Tracts 1 and 2? I suggest that should this land exchange not have been proposed, $0 would have been spent in 2012 or any year thereafter for the foreseeable future.so the actual savings would be $0. Also I don t see how it is possible to do any significant work at all on the proposed private grounds (442 acres)( ) for $3,000 as stated in the Appendix #8. Neither number is realistic in terms of $ saved or $ to be spent. (NOA, p. 3) Response: The Appellant did not state a rule, policy or regulation that was not being adhered to. The issue of unrealistic cost estimates was brought forth from the appellant during the official comment period. This issue was raised during the official comment period. RTC 8, in the Decision Appendix explains how the FS arrived at the costs estimates for the restoration recommendations. The Mitigation Estimates.msg found in the PR list the cost estimates used to calculate the $3,000. These restoration recommendations cost were calculated based on past contractor prices. The DN states the government would save approximately $64,700 in land line marking and maintenance by consolidating NFS lands (DN, p. 8). The Landline Costs.xlsx found in the PR provides a landline cost analysis for the two federal tracts and three private tract included in the exchange. The landline cost analysis shows that the $64,700 is an estimated saving from the total change in land line marking and maintenance needs. The analysis looked at the costs of all corners gained and lost, existing line eliminated and addition of the new line. The exchange will result in decrease of 6.7 miles of needed boundary line and 15 corners (DN, p. 6). I find the Responsible Official did respond to the issue of unrealistic cost estimates in the RTC and followed NEPA by incorporating relevant and best available information during the NEPA process. Based on my review, I find no evidence that the decision was based on unrealistic cost estimates. Issue 11: There is a negative impact on adjacent landowner s property values. The Appellant states, The extent of the negative impact of the proposed land exchange of Tracts 1 and 2 on adjacent landowner s property values may be difficult to quantify, but is real. ( ) That is the exact reason I and many other adjacent landowners bought our land in the first place. There was a real benefit in being adjacent to National Forest land. This is what we are losing so that one person may benefit. (NOA, p. 3) Response: The concern regarding increased private property values on property that adjoins NFS lands was addressed on p. 4 of the DN and states, Property equity is evaluated based on the sale of a property. Since determination of a final sale price is dependent on many factors including willing buyers/sellers, marketing, comparable properties, local, regional, and national

12 Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, R9 12 economies; consideration of effects to surrounding property values based on transfer of land from Federal to private ownership can only be speculative. Verification with the Crawford County Assessor s Office confirmed that property values are based on purchase price and not location or adjacent properties (FONSI, p. 5). Valuation of the Federal traded lands is done with consideration for comparable values that support the local and regional markets. The HNF has made a reasonable investigation and has discovered no evidence of correlation between private property values and the presence of an isolated, adjacent tract of NFS lands (FONSI, p. 5). The belief that land in Crawford County, Indiana, is worth more due to its being adjacent to a tract of Forest land has no basis in fact. The PR clearly shows that all tracts involved in the exchange were appraised according to national appraisal standards as well as FS protocol. The PR does not support the Appellant s assertions, and there is no basis for the concern that property values will decrease. I find the Appellant s claims are without merit. Recommendation After reviewing the PR materials for the Bye Land Exchange and after reviewing and considering the concerns raised by the Appellant, I find no violation of law, regulation, or policy with respect to the issues in this appeal. I recommend the decision for the Bye Land Exchange Project be upheld. Sincerely, /s/ Paul I. V. Strong PAUL I. V. STRONG Appeal Reviewing Officer Forest Supervisor cc: Patricia R Rowell