Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit

Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit

USDA Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest, Bergland Ranger District, Ontonagon County, Michigan

T49N, R41W, Section 4, NE ¼ of the S1/2; Section 5, SW1/4; and Section 8, N1/2

Introduction

This Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) documents the Forest Service actions for implementation of the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits project. The Responsible Official for this project is Susanne M. Adams, District Ranger of the Bergland and Ontonagon Ranger Districts on the Ottawa National Forest (ONF).

The USDA Forest Service has prepared, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit project. Federal laws and policies require the Forest Service, as the surface managing agency, and BLM, as the agency responsible for sub-surface resources, to consider these applications. The BLM is the permitting agency.

The Forest Service is responsible for making recommendations to the Regional Forester, who will provide a response to the BLM. The EA documents the environmental analysis that was completed, and discloses the potential environmental effects of the proposed actions and alternatives to those actions. The EA and its project record are hereby incorporated by reference. Development of the EA is in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. The EA is available for public review at the Ontonagon District Office and the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda- pop.php/?project=38891.

The project area is located on the Bergland Ranger District of the ONF in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and encompasses approximately 720 acres (Appendix A, Maps A-1 and A-2).

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 12/14/2012 1

Federal Minerals

The Mineral Resources on Weeks Law Lands Act of March 4, 1917 (Weeks Law) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to permit mineral prospecting on lands acquired by Weeks Law authority. All lands applied for in the permit area on the Bergland Ranger District were acquired under the Weeks Law or the Clarke McNary Act (subject to all laws applicable to the lands acquired under the Weeks Law). Federally owned minerals are generally available for exploration, unless specifically precluded by an act of Congress or other formal withdrawal.

The BLM has the responsibility and authority over federally owned minerals (including those lying under NFS lands) by direction in the President’s Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, which transferred the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to prospecting permits for hardrock minerals on acquired Weeks Law lands to the Secretary of Interior. Hardrock minerals include base metals, precious metals, industrial minerals, and precious or semi-precious gemstones. The term hardrock minerals include mineral deposits that are found in sedimentary and other rocks (43 CFR 3501.5, 2003). Prospecting permits allow for the exploration for leasable mineral deposits on BLM administered hardrock minerals. Administrative responsibility for surface resources remains with the Secretary of Agriculture.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need of this EA is to respond to one hardrock minerals Prospecting Permit Application submitted by Trans Superior Resources, Inc. to the BLM and to make recommendations to the Regional Forester about whether to consent to the issuance of a permit. This action is needed because federal laws and policies require the Forest Service, as the surface managing agency, and BLM, as the agency responsible for sub-surface resources, to consider these applications. The BLM is the permitting agency.

Decision

I have decided to implement Alternative 2 as described in the EA (pp. 7-8 and 13-23). Based on the findings of the EA, I approve this project. This approval includes my recommendation that the Ottawa Forest Supervisor requests the Regional Forester to consent to the BLM’s issuance of prospecting permit for the project area. My decision includes specific stipulations to be accomplished by the permittee as directed by the Forest Service Official administering the permit (EA, pp. 17-23 and Appendices B, C, and D of this decision). This decision includes the use of existing Forest system roads and the construction of temporary roads in a portion of the project area. This decision also includes the issuance of a special use permit for surface use and occupancy of NFS lands. The minerals applied for in the prospecting permit include gold, nickel, cobalt, platinum group metals, and associated minerals.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 2 12/14/2012

Some minor modifications have been made to the wording of stipulations 3 and 4 (p. 17 of the EA), and stipulations 17 and 18 (p. 19 of the EA). These changes were made to address public comments and have no impact on the analysis or the determinations that were made.

Stipulations 3 and 4, and 17 and 18 are presented from the EA and read as follows:

“3. In areas where heritage resource surveys have not been completed, no earth disturbing activities shall occur prior to completion of a survey. Expense and implementation of survey will be the responsibility of the permittee.

4. If heritage resources are discovered during the implementation of exploration activities, the project shall halt and the Forest archaeologist shall be notified.

17. To protect rare plants associated with roadside ditches in certain areas of FR 630, prohibit parking, staging and other activities along and off the edge of the main road surface in T49N R41W Section 4 and Section 3 SW¼. Use of FR 630-K will require approval of a Forest botanist as to season of use, placement of culverts or other items in ditch, and location of access route within FR 630–K’s right-of-way (Map C-2).

18. Road spurs leading off the north/east side of FR 630 in Section 4 (such as FR 630- J, -L and –N) may be used for access to the proposed prospecting area. Use of the unclassified road slightly to the northwest of FR 630-K (Map C-2) is not a concern for the plants, nor would any temporary access routes that may be needed farther to the northwest of FR 630–K along FR 630.”

The reworded stipulations are presented below in italics:

“3. In areas where heritage resource surveys have not been completed, no earth disturbing activities shall occur prior to completion of a survey. The Forest can review the location of the drilling OR the survey can be contracted by the project proponent.

4. If heritage resources are discovered during the implementation of exploration activities, the work in the immediate area shall halt until the Forest Service can provide further direction.

17. To protect rare plants associated with roadside ditches in certain areas of FR 630, prohibit parking, staging and other activities along and off the south/west edge of the main FR 630 road surface in T49N R41W Section 4 and Section 3 SW¼. The unclassified road slightly to the northwest of FR 630-K (Map C-2) may be accessed from FR 630 and used, as may any temporary access routes that may be needed farther to the northwest of FR 630–K along FR 630. Road spurs leading off the north/east side of FR 630 in Section 4 (such as FR 630-J, -L and –N) may be used for access to the proposed prospecting area.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 3 12/14/2012

18. Use of FR 630-K will require approval by a Forest botanist as to season of use, placement of culverts or other items in ditch, and location of access route within FR 630–K’s right-of-way (Map C-2).”

Decision Rationale

Based on a thorough review of the EA and the project record, the site visits, public comments and the ID Team responses to public comments, I have selected Alternative 2 for implementation. This Alternative best meets the Forest Service minerals program policy direction and Goal #36 of the ONF’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), which are based on the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. The stipulations for this project will protect the surface resources of the ONF.

The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 states that the continuing policy of the Federal Government is to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining and minerals industries and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2800, page 6). The mission of the Forest Service in minerals management is to encourage, facilitate, and administer the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources on NFS lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nation (FSM 2800, page 3).

The 2006 Forest Plan establishes management direction for all NFS lands within the Ottawa National Forest boundary. The overall minerals management goal (2006 Forest Plan, page 2-10) is to provide mineral resources to support economic growth through environmentally sound development on NFS lands. The Forestwide management direction for federal minerals (2006 Forest Plan page 2-35) is to: “Generally, permit surface disturbing exploration (including core drilling) in most areas, except within or adjacent to developed recreation sites during the recreation use season. Permit exploration especially where there is a potential to discover minerals of compelling domestic significance (as defined by U.S. Department of the Interior).”

The project area is located within management areas (MAs) 6.1 and 6.2. Management area 6.1 is classified as “semi-primitive non-motorized”. Concerns were raised during the official comment period regarding the activities associated with mineral exploration and their compatibility with this management area. However, while I understand and appreciate those concerns, this area has not been withdrawn from mineral exploration, and as such is available for mineral prospecting. In addition, the environmental effects anticipated from the issuance of the prospecting permit and the mineral activity associated with this project are either negated entirely through project specific stipulations, or are minimal and of short duration (Project Record - 3101, and pp. 29-34 of the EA). This area has experienced mineral activity in the past with similar stipulations applied to that project and no adverse impacts were observed. Finally, the project does not involve construction of permanent roads or an increase in public use of roads, and therefore does not deviate from the Forest Plan direction for the MA 6.1.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 4 12/14/2012

Therefore, I do not believe there are compelling reasons to remove MA 6.1 from the project area.

Other Alternatives Considered

The No Action Alternative was developed as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and serves as a baseline for the analysis. It was not selected because it does not follow Forest Plan direction to facilitate mineral exploration where there is potential to discover minerals of compelling domestic significance (as defined by the Department of Interior) and does not meet the purpose and need of the project.

Tribal Input

The Forest Service is the federal agency responsible for managing the National Forests for the benefit of present and future generations. The Forest Service’s policy is to carry out its programs and activities in a manner that is sensitive to the Tribes’ traditional practices and beliefs in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Tribal-USDA Forest Service Relations on National forest lands within the Territories Deeded in Treaties of 1836, 1837 and 1842. The Tribes’ ceded territory rights include the right to gather wild plants and to harvest wild animals on lands administered by the Forest Service.

Following the 2006 Forest Plan direction, and also in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Tribal-USDA Forest Service Relations on National forest lands within the Territories Deeded in Treaties of 1836, 1837 and 1842, this project was discussed at staff to staff meetings with the tribes most closely situated to the Ottawa National Forest: the Lac View Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. As a part of the Forest Service responsibility to provide open and frequent dialogue, the Kenton District Ranger, the project’s ID Team Leader, and I met with tribal staff of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), which included the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) on July 12, 2012. We also met again on September 7th, 2012, with KBIC and a representative from GLIFWC. The Iron River/Watersmeet District Ranger and the Environmental Coordinator met with the THPO and Natural Resources Director for the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa on May 16th, 2012. In all three of these meetings this project was discussed. Additionally, I also participated in site visits to the project area with KBIC staff and the Lac du Flambeau tribe. I also met with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) on one occasion on site. These field visits were conducted on September 7, 2012 and October 5, 2012. In addition, these Tribes, and DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 5 12/14/2012

several other Tribes in the upper mid-west were also given two weeks before the official comment period for the EA to review the document and to provide additional time for their consideration of this project.

Scoping documents and the EA were also sent to other tribes, including Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band, Bay Mills Indian Community, Bad River Chippewa, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Lac Courte Orielles Chippewa, Lac du Flambeau Chippewa, Red Cliff Chippewa, and St. Croix Chippewa tribes. In addition, the scoping documents were also sent to GLIFWC.

Comments received during the project scoping process included one letter from GLIFWC (Project Record – documents 2429 through 2432) and one letter from the KBIC THPO (Project Record 2601). The letter received from GLIFWC was reviewed and considered by the ID Team (Comment Matrix – Project Record 2101, and the Analysis Framework – Project Record 3101) and contained recommendations for the EA; some of which were incorporated into the stipulations as applicable. For example Stipulations 6, 9, 11, 12, and 43 – 48 were either refined or added because of the recommendations from GLIFWC. Two comment letters were received from tribal governments in response to the EA. These comments came from KBIC, and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. One letter was also received from GLIFWC. Additionally, one comment was received from a member and resident of KBIC.

Public Involvement

Public involvement for the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit project was sought through public review and comment of documentation released during the scoping and the EA comment periods. The scoping letter, describing the project’s purpose and need and the proposed action, was mailed to individuals, groups and public agencies on May 10, 2012. The project was also listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (e.g., the Ottawa Quarterly) beginning in the Spring 2012 edition. Project information was available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs- usda-pop.php/?project=38891.

On September 22, 2012, an EA was mailed to interested and affected parties. During the comment period, a total of 58 letters were received, of which two were received after the comment period expired. These letters came from individuals, environmental organizations, and tribal governments. These comments expressed both concern and support for the project. Some of these comments were incorporated into the EA as applicable for this project and project area.

Comment Review Process I spent considerable time reviewing each comment to gain an understanding of the concerns and support that were expressed. This review allowed me to be able to determine if anything was overlooked in the analysis process or if the EA needed refinement. The project’s ID Team also reviewed all of the comments, and then worked together to ensure that each concern that was expressed, received thoughtful DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 6 12/14/2012

consideration and a thorough response contained in the Response to Comments ( Appendix E). I reviewed the public comments and response to comments to aid in making my Decision.

Finding of No Significant Impact

In order to determine the significance of an action, the regulations found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 states: “Significantly, as used in NEPA, requires considerations of both context and intensity”, pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.27. The project was considered in both context and intensity and the determination made for both follows:

A) Context: “In the case of site specific actions, significance would usually depend on the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short and long- term effects are relevant” (FSH 1909.15, 65.1, Part 02).

This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have international, national, region-wide, or statewide importance. The resource effects analysis disclosed in the EA reveal that most of the environmental effects of project implementation are confined to the project area, with some effects extending into cumulative effects analysis areas, but not beyond. I considered both the short and long-term effects of mineral exploration activities as described in the EA (pp. 29-34) and in the Analysis Framework (Project Record - 3101). It is my determination that the effects of implementing Alternative 2 will not be significant locally, regionally or nationally.

The discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to the intended action and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit project area (Maps A-1 and A-2).

B) Intensity: This refers to the severity of impact and the following areas should be considered in evaluating the intensity of the actions. Discussion is organized around the ten significance criteria described in the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.27).

1. Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. I considered both beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the alternatives as presented in Chapter 3 of the EA. Short-term impacts are minimized or avoided entirely by using the project specific stipulations, Standard Stipulations, and the BLM’s stipulations (EA, pp. 17-23, 36-40; and Appendices B, C and D of this decision), as well as State of Michigan regulations (Project Record – 56104). I have given careful consideration and find there will be no significant impacts as a result of the project.

2. Consideration of the effects on public health and safety. The selected alternative will not significantly affect public health and safety. The existing road system facilitates multiple use management of forest resources. Use of trucks and a drill rig is not expected to conflict with other forest uses. Exploration will be in DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 7 12/14/2012

compliance with the Michigan Minerals Wells Act (Project Record – 56104). Provisions in this act provide protection to public health and safety. As stated on page 13 of the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101), “Ground water quality would not be adversely impacted from the proposed exploration with implementation of Michigan’s well drilling regulations and the stipulations of the proposed action.” Further details are provided in the Analysis Framework on pages 14 and 23 with respect to the safety and quality of groundwater.

3. Consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area (e.g. such as historic features, park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers or wetlands). There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area. There are no historic features, park lands or prime farmlands within the project area. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) within the project area. The West Branch Ontonagon WSR is located out of the project area; even so, Stipulation #12 specifically prohibits drafting from designated WSRs, further ensuring the protection of this resource (EA, p. 18, and Appendix B of this Decision).

Several of the comments received indicated concern for permitting mineral exploration with the Trap Hills region, which many of the commenters felt were unique to them because of resources such as the rocky outcrops, the steep bluffs, Cascade Falls, botanical resources, and the North Country National Scenic Trail. I appreciate that several commentors find this area special. Analysis disclosed that any impacts will be minimal and short term to botanical and wildlife resources, and no effect to aquatic, soils, geological, recreational, or timber resources (Analysis Framework – Project Record 3101, BE – Project Record 52101 and the EA on pages 27-34).

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Based upon previous implementation of similar projects and the results of the EA, the effects of the selected alternative actions on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Fifty-eight comments were received in response to the proposal. The differences in comments reflect a range of opinions, and do not of and by themselves constitute controversy. I interpret the controversy criteria to be the degree to which there is scientific controversy relative to the results of the effects analysis, not whether one favors or opposes a specific alternative. This does not mean that the decision to proceed with the project will be acceptable to all people, as some may find that their needs and interests are not served by the selected alternative.

The effects of the selected alternative on the various resources are not considered to be highly controversial by professionals, specialists, or scientists from associated fields of geology, hydrology, wildlife biology, and forestry, etc. The best available science was utilized in the preparation of the effects analysis and no scientific controversy has been identified. Although I anticipate this decision will not be acceptable to all, I have determined that the effects as displayed in the EA and

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 8 12/14/2012

supporting documentation in the project record are not likely to be highly controversial. Therefore the effects of the proposed action are not likely to be highly controversial.

5. Consideration of the degree to which effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. This decision is similar to past actions, and its effects are reasonably expected to be similar. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (see EA pp. 29-33). Similar mineral exploration projects have been located on the Ottawa in the past as well as on neighboring national forests. Based on my knowledge and professional experience I am confident we understand the effects of the project and this project will not result in unknown or uncertain risks or outcomes.

6. The degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about future considerations. While a precedent for allowing mineral exploration on Federal land and minerals has already been set in regulation and law, each application is reviewed on its own merit to determine whether or not drilling will be permitted. Exploratory drilling does not establish a precedent for futuremining. Similarly, mining is not a reasonably foreseeable action if no valuable ore body is discovered. Furthermore, the “special stipulation” which is presented on page 4 of the EA, expressly states the permit for mineral exploration does not constitute a permit for mining activities. Any proposal for mineral development would require additional permitting and analysis by the Forest Service and BLM. I have determined that there are no precedent-setting actions proposed in the EA, and this is not a decision in principle about future considerations, nor does it establish a precedent.

7. Consideration of the action in relation to other actions within individually insignificant, but cumulative significant effects. This project was developed in full consideration of NEPA and its regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) as disclosed in the Environmental Assessment (p. 12). An Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) was developed for this project in accordance with FSH 1909.15, Section 12.3, which I used to determine the magnitude of anticipated effects, including cumulative effects. Therefore, I have determined that the ID Team correctly analyzed cumulative effects. Cumulative effects were evaluated and documented in the Analysis Framework (pp. 14-15, and 23, Project Record - 3101), the biological evaluation (pp. 13 and 16, Project Record - 52101), and the EA (pp. 30-31).

According to 40 CFR 1508.7., the definition of cumulative impacts is “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” (Forest Service Handbook, 1909.15, 05). Furthermore, the effects of those actions must overlap in both space and time

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 9 12/14/2012

(Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 15.2). This information is presented on page 11 of the EA.

The project area has not seen recent timber sale activity in several years. The last two timber sales to occur in this area were Knife Rock and Cascade, which were closed around 1999 and 2003, respectively. There also has been no wildlife opening activity which would expand and enhance openings. Because of this, there are no residual effects from these past projects.

With respect to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable mineral exploration activity, there is one exploration project for private minerals that began in 2008 in and adjacent to the project area. One hundred and sixty acres of the 2008 project are co-located with the current 2012 project. This occurs in the southwest corner of T49N, R41W, Section 5. An additional 1,760 acres lie to the north, west, and est. The activities approved for private mineral exploration in the 2008 DM include core drilling and geophysical surveys, etc. The geophysical surveys are the same type of work as what has been analyzed in the current project and involve a straight survey line width about three feet. Several different types of surveys may be used to determine the mineral source beneath the surface. None of these surveys are considered ground disturbing or invasive.

However, what is important to note is that according to the 2008 DM (Project Record - 510101), no additional core drilling is planned to take place as a part of that project within the co-located portion of the project area. The only activity that was authorized in that part of the project area was the completion of geophysical surveys. Most of the approved surveys have been conducted in the SW ¼ of section 5. Effects of geophysical surveys in the project area are very slight, as only the brush within the survey path is removed, and only when necessary.

All of the effects analyzed in the EA for the current federal mineral exploration proposal are confined to the project area. As stated in the EA, the project would result in very minor impacts to some sensitive plant and animal species within the project area boundary (see FONSI item 2 under the National Forest Management Act...) These effects are expected to be very minor and short-term in nature because of the temporary nature of operations, small size of the drill core, and implementation of recommended stipulations (pages 30-31), as well as the BLM stipulations (Appendix B of the EA), and the Michigan regulations.

To further clarify, the cumulative effects analyses did not focus on only those actions occurring within the same location and timespan as the proposed project. The information pertaining to spatial and temporal bounds as described in the EA (p. 11) refers to FSH 1909.15, Section 15.2 which states “Spatial and temporal boundaries set the limits for selecting those actions that are most likely to contribute to a cumulative effect. The effects of those actions must overlap in space and time for there to be potential cumulative effects.” Due to the minor and short-term nature associated with the proposal, and the implementation of stipulations, the bounds of

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 10 12/14/2012

analysis were confined to the project area (e.g., the area requested in the permit application).

None of these effects would overlap in space with current or reasonably foreseeable geophysical or core drilling work on the adjacent portion of the private minerals exploration. The effects of past geophysical surveys on the portion of private mineral exploration project would overlap in space, but would not overlap with these effects in time as much of the vegetation has already returned. The effects of future geophysical work in the overlapping 160 acres have been analyzed in this EA as a part of the effects analysis. Those activities from the 2008 project would not be additional to what has been analyzed.

There are no past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within or near the project that would have cumulative effects. During the environmental analysis for this EA, the 2008 project was taken into account and carefully considered. The ID Team determined that no actions from either the 2008 project or this project are anticipated to occur together in a manner that would lead to cumulatively significant impacts. Although individual prospecting permits may occur at the same time elsewhere on the Ottawa, the limited geographic area and short duration of potential prospecting impacts mean no spatial overlap of activities is expected.

Therefore, after a thorough review of the 2008 minerals exploration project, the EA for this project, the project record, the analysis framework, and the response to comments, I have determined that this project will not result in cumulatively significant effects when considering past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, including other mineral exploration activities within the Ottawa and in the vicinity of the proposed project.

8. The degree to which the action may affect listed or eligible historic places. This project meets federal, state and local laws for protection of historic/cultural properties. A project specific inventory of the project area has been conducted. Project specific stipulations have ensured that the selected alternative will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources (EA p. 17). Refer to page 9 of this document for National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) findings.

9. The degree to which the action may affect an endangered species or their habitat. The action will not adversely affect any proposed, endangered or threatened species or its habitat. A biological evaluation (BE) is complete and located in the project record (52101). The analysis completed in the BE resulted in a determination of No Effect for Canada lynx and Kirtland’s warbler, which are federally listed species. Conclusions are described in the EA (pp. 31-32). The BE’s findings state that there is no indication that implementing Alternative 2 will move a proposed, threatened, or endangered species towards federal listing or increase its present federal listing. If any federally proposed or listed animal or plant species are found at a later date or, if any new information relevant to potential effects of the

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 11 12/14/2012

project on these species becomes available, then the project would be stopped and the Section 7 consultation process, as per the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would be initiated.

10. Whether the proposed action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. I have determined that my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency policy. Project stipulations will help assure compliance with these laws (Appendices B, C, and D of this decision). The action is additionally regulated through Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations, Part 625 (Project Record – 56104) and is subject to all applicable state, county and federal requirements. The following summarizes findings required by major environmental laws.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1600 ET SEQ)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and accompanying regulations require that several specific findings be documented at the project level. Those findings that apply are described below.

1. Consistency with Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)): This project implements the Ottawa’s Forest Plan and this decision is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan's long term goals (p. 2-10). As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan, as discussed on page 4 of this document.

2. Sensitive Species: Federal law and direction applicable to Regional Forester’s Sensitive species (RFSS) include the National Forest Management Act and FSM 2670. In making my decision, I have reviewed the analysis and projected effects on all RFSS plant and animal species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the Ottawa (Project Record - 52201). There is no indication that this project would cause effects different than those disclosed in the Biological Evaluation (BE) (Project Record – 52101). The following information from the BE’s determinations serves as the basis for my decision regarding Sensitive Species. The implementation of Alternative 2 “may impact individuals of a species but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” of some sensitive species. These species are presented in Table 1 below. For all other listed species, Alternative 2 will not have an impact.

I concur with the findings documented for these species in the BE. Alternative 2 is not expected to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for any of the above mentioned species.

The Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards - The integrity of the project area’s water and riparian features will be maintained. The project’s stipulations will DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 12 12/14/2012

provide site-specific measures to assure riparian areas retain their ecological function. The analysis also indicates that implementation of this decision will not produce direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on aquatic resources (EA pp. 29-30). The Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards will be met (EA, p. 33).

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16USC 1531 et.seq) - A biological assessment has been completed (included in the BE, located in the project record - 52101) and a determination of no effect to threatened and endangered listed species was made. Conclusions are described in the EA on pages 31-32.

National Historic Preservation Act - All sites will be avoided and protected following the standards set forth under the guidelines of the Memorandum of Agreement between the USDA Forest Service and the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer. A project-specific inventory of all activity areas will be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities (see Appendix B of this decision). If any previously unknown sites are found within an area of potential effect during project implementation, the project will be redesigned to avoid the site, or measures will be designed to mitigate the effects of the project on the site and submitted to the Michigan State Historical Preservation Office as required by law for their review and consultation. Based upon analysis in the EA (pp. 32-33), I have determined that there are no impacts to heritage resources from implementation of this decision. A Section 106 compliance letter (project record – 55101) documents these findings. A confirmation letter from the KBIC THPO was received (project record - 2601) stating that there were no heritage sites known to the THPO in the project area.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - Cascade Creek and its tributary flow into the West Branch of the Ontonagon River, which is a designated Wild and Scenic River. Specific stipulations have been designed to ensure that free flow of the WSR is not interrupted by putting limitations on drafting from Cascade Creek and prohibiting drafting from any Wild and Scenic River (EA, p. 18), and Appendix B of this decision. Based upon this information, I have determined that there will be no effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Environmental Justice Act of 1994 - Public involvement occurred for this project, and the results did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. I have considered the effects of this project on low income and minority populations and concluded that this project is consistent with the intent of this Order (EO 12898). The local community was notified of this project through the public participation process (EA pp. 8-12), and through the official comment period for this project.

Summary of Findings

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA (pages 29-34), I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 13 12/14/2012

My review of the analysis prepared by the ID Team indicates that this decision is consistent with 2006 Forest Plan management direction, is compliant with other applicable laws, and responds to public concerns.

After thorough consideration of the EA, BE, Analysis Framework, public comments and references, I have determined that the actions selected do not produce significant effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of the impacts (40 CFR 1508.27)., The site- specific effects of Alternative 2, in both the short and long-term, are not significant. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not needed.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. A written notice of appeal must be submitted within 45 calendar days after the Legal Notice is published in the Ironwood Daily Globe. However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, then filing time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day. The date of the publication of the Legal Notice is the only means for calculating the date by which appeals must be submitted; do not rely upon any other source for this information. The ONF cannot provide the legal notice publication date, as the publication date can vary, depending upon the Daily Globe schedule.

The Notice of Appeal must be sent to:

Appeal Deciding Office Anthony V. Scardina c/o USDA, Forest Service Gaslight Building, Suite 700 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202-4616.

The Notice of Appeal may alternatively be faxed to: (414) 944-3963, Attn: Appeals Deciding Officer, USDA, Forest Service, Eastern Regional Office. Those wishing to submit appeals by email may do so to [email protected]. Appeals must be submitted by 11:59 on the closing date of the appeal period.

Acceptable formats for electronic comments are text or html email, Adobe portable document format, and formats viewable in Microsoft Office applications. Hand-delivered appeals may be submitted at the above address between 7:30 and 4:00 pm CT Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 and will only be accepted from those who have provided comments during the formal, 30-day comment period.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 14 12/14/2012

APPENDIX A MAPS

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 16 12/14/2012

Y X XY

XY X X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY X Y

XY X

X Y

XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

XY X X Y

X Y

XY X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY X Y Y

XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

XY X XY XY XY

X Y

XY XY XY XY

X Y

Y X Figure A-1: General Location Map 1

X Y

Y X 29 28 27 26 25 30

29 28 27 26 25

Y X 30

X Y Y

36 31 X 32

Y X 33 34

Trans Superior Resources, Inc 35 36

Y X 31 32 33 34

35 36

Y Federal HardX rock Minerals Prospecting Project 31

D X Y

T49N R41W Sections 4,5 and 8 A

Y X O

R Y X

Y Ü X Map A-1 1 C

6 I

Y X 5 4 3 2

1 W

Y X 6 5 R

4 3 2

Y X O 1 6

0 N Y X 63 FR -

T Y

X N

X O

X Y

12 7 Y

X 8 9

10 11 Y

X 12 7

8 9

Y X 10 11

12 7

X Y

X Y Y

13 18 X

17 16

Y X 15 14

13 18 Y

X 17 16 15

14 13

Y X 18

X Y

64 M

¤£X Y

X D 00 Y

X L FR4 Y

24 19 X O

20 -

Y X 21 22

T 23 24

Y X 19 N 20 21

22 23 O

X 24 19

X Y

X Y Y

25 30 X

Y 29 X 28 27

26 25

Y X 30 29 28

27 26

X 25 30

Y X Project Areas

X Y

X Main Access Roads to Project Y

36 31 X

Y 32 X 33 Pioneer Multiple Use Trail

34 35

Y X 36 31 32

33 34

Y X Cas3c5ade Hiking Tra36il

Bergland 31 32

X Y Y XY XY X

Y XY X

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y Y

! X Y

X Y

X Y Y

XY X North Country National Scenic Trail

X Y

Y YX

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY County Roads

X Y Y

1 XY X

X Y Y XY 6 X

5 4

Y X XY Y

3 2 X

Y X XY 28 1 Forest Service Roads

Y X 6

Y X 5

XY ¤£ 4

X Y Y X 3

XY 2

X Y X Y X Y

Y X Y 1

X 6 Y

X XY 5

X State Highway

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X Streams

YX X Y

X Y

Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

XY 12 7 X Non FS Lands Y

XY 8 X

X 9 Y

XY 10 X

X Y Y X 11

Y 12 X

Y X 7

XY Y

0 0.5 1 2 Miles X 8 9

XY 10

X Y Y X 11

XY Forest Service Lan12ds 7 XY

X Y

Y X GRS 11/19/2012 XY

XY X Y

XY X 8

XY X

XY X X Y

XY Y

XY 13 18 X

X Y Y 17 16 15 14 13 18 X XY

XY X Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

XY X Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY Environmental Assessment for Trans Superior Resources Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals PrX ospecting Project.

X Y

XY X X Y

Y XY X

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

Y X X Y Y XY X Y

XY X

X Y X Y X Y

X Y X Y

X Y XY

X Y X Y X Y Y X XY XY XY XY XY XY X Y Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y Y

XY X

X Y X Y

XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y

XY X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y Y

XY X X Y

X Y

XY X Y

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X X Y

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

X XY Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

XY Y

XY X

XY X Y

Y XY X

X Y

Y XY X

XY Y

XY X

Y XY X

XY X

Y XY X

XY Y

XY X

Y XY X

X Y

Y XY X

XY X Y

X Y

XY Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Figure A-2: Detailed Project Area Map 2

630 31 32 -R 33 34 Trans Superior Resources, Inc Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project 630-N T49N R41W Sections 4,5 and 8 Map A-2 Ü Parcel B

630-L

0 8 4 6 5 630-K 4 -J 3 0 0 3 0 6 6 4 30 2

0 0 4 6

3 4 C lift on 4 0 C 7 63 re Parcel A 2 ek - E Bu sh C reek 472 632 46 k 9 e 1 B e B - r - 3 C 2 3 7 6 e 4 d Project Areas a c B s - Cascade Hiking Trail a 468 2 C 7 4 North Country National Scenic Trail -D Pioneer Multiple U6s3e3 Trail 7 8 Main Access Roads to Project 9 10 Forest Service System Roads 3 Unclassified Roa6d3s ALP Section -N 3 3 Streams 6 4 Contour Lines 6 6 Federal Lands

0 0.25 0.5 Miles Non Federal Lands GRS 11/19/2012

Environmental Assessment for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Project APPENDIX B PROJECT STIPULATIONS Cultural Resources 1. Any cultural resource sites located prior to prospecting activities will be avoided by all prospecting activities. The area to be avoided will be determined by the Forest archeologist. 2. If there is a need to disturb a cultural resource site, treatment measures will be developed by the Forest archaeologist, through collaboration with the State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), to alleviate any adverse effects that may be caused during exploration. Expense and implementation of treatment measures will be the responsibility of the permittee. 3. In areas where heritage resource surveys have not been completed, no earth disturbing activities shall occur prior to completion of a survey. The Forest can review the location of the drilling OR the survey can be contracted by the project proponent. 4. If heritage resources are discovered during the implementation of exploration activities, the work in the immediate area shall halt until the Forest Service can provide further direction. Wetlands, Floodplains, and Streams 5. Wetlands will be defined as sites dominated by poorly or very poorly drained soils as defined and depicted by Ecological Landtype Phase (ELTP) mapping. A Forest Service Official will determine if any other site-specific analysis is needed for wetland determination. 6. Drilling activity will avoid wetlands where possible. The final decision concerning which wetlands could be avoided will be made during review and approval of a site-specific operating plan provided by the permittee. If drilling operations are allowed within a wetland, at a minimum the following mitigations apply: A. Drilling, road use, and road construction will occur within a wetland only after the wetland surfaces have been protected, either through the use of mats or similar devices, or when frozen enough to provide access and use without breaking through the frozen layer. Road lengths within wetlands will be kept to a minimum. B. There will be no dredging permitted within wetlands. There will be no placement of dredge or permanent fill material within a wetland. If some temporary fill material is needed, filter fabric will be used as a DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 19 12/14/2012

base. The fill material and fabric will be removed following completion of drilling. Per State requirements, no sump pits will be allowed in wetlands. Recirculation tanks would be used. 7. No fuel will be stored in wetlands or floodplains. 8. No sump pits will be allowed in floodplains. 9. Drilling, sump construction and storage of fuel or equipment is prohibited within 100 feet of rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, ponds, seeps or springs, unless approved by a Forest hydrologist. Approved activities within 100 feet will include such items as parking of certain vehicles, temporary access routes, and other unforeseen activities that would not result in contamination of adjacent water resources or when sedimentation potential is mitigated as directed in other stipulations (i.e. road construction). 10. When drafting water, use upland or hardened sites, such as roads adjacent to water sources, in order to avoid impacting wetlands, floodplains, streams and ponds. All drafting locations will be pre-approved by a Forest Service representative with input from a Forest hydrologist, soil scientist or aquatic resource specialist. 11. Streams will not be dammed or dredged for drafting purposes; water flow will be maintained and in-stream sedimentation and erosion will be avoided. Drafting shall not noticeably alter stream discharge, or stream or pond water levels as determined by a Forest Service official. 12. Drafting will not be permitted within a designated Wild and Scenic River. Wildlife and Plants 13. Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester’s Sensitive (TES) plant and animal protection needs will be handled on a site-by-site and species-by-species basis. Protection measures will be collaboratively developed by project’s botanist and/or biologist and the Responsible Official, incorporating conservation strategies contained in approved recovery plans, conservation approaches, as well as the 2006 Forest Plan, and professional judgment. 14. If exploration activities occur during denning and nesting seasons, active dens and nests of TES species will be avoided to the extent practical. Measures to minimize disturbance of dens and nests of TES species will be negotiated between Trans Superior Resources, Inc. and the Forest Service Responsible Official, with input from the project biologist. 15. To protect rare plants associated with rock outcrops and cliffs, on exposed rock balds larger than approximately 20 feet in diameter, such as in T49N R41W Section 5, N½ SW¼ (vicinity of North Country Trail) and Section 8 SE¼ SE¼ DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 20 12/14/2012

NE¼ (vicinity of Cascade Falls Trail upper loop), ground disturbance by prospecting equipment is prohibited. As much as possible, limit foot and equipment travel and staging, by using alternate routes under the tree canopy and, off the exposed rock. 16. To protect two locations of Regional Forester’s Sensitive orchids in Bergland Ranger District’s Compartment 70, stands 6 and 30, a 50-foot radius separation buffer will be implemented from the orchid locations for geophysical surveys and a 100-foot radius separation buffer will be implemented for drilling sites. No prospecting activity may occur within these circular buffers. The two locations, north of FR 630-L near the east end, are flagged and the latitude and longitude will be provided to the permittee. 17. To protect rare plants associated with roadside ditches in certain areas of FR 630, prohibit parking, staging and other activities along and off the south/west edge of the main FR 630 road surface in T49N R41W Section 4 and Section 3 SW¼. The unclassified road slightly to the northwest of FR 630-K (Map C-2) may be accessed from FR 630 and used, as may any temporary access routes that may be needed farther to the northwest of FR 630–K along FR 630. Road spurs leading off the north/east side of FR 630 in Section 4 (such as FR 630-J, -L and –N) may be used for access to the proposed prospecting area. 18. Use of FR 630-K will require approval by a Forest botanist as to season of use, placement of culverts or other items in ditch, and location of access route within FR 630–K’s right-of-way (Map C-2). Roads and Drilling Pad Construction 19. The Forest Service Official shall approve the location and standards for all roads to be utilized. Roads used for prospecting purposes will be stabilized and maintained during use. The following standards shall be applied: A. System Roads – Roads used shall be opened, maintained, and left in pre-project condition or better. The need for and installation or replacement of drainage structures shall be determined by the Forest Service; existing drainage structures shall be opened and functioning; closure devices removed shall be reinstalled as directed by the Forest Service. B. Unclassified Roads – Use of any unclassified roads (e.g., roads not administratively managed as part of the Forest’s transportation system) shall be approved by the Forest Service prior to use. Any work required for use shall be directed by the Forest Service. Upon completion of use, roads shall be rehabilitated to conform to the natural lay of the land with erosion control structures and berms installed as DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 21 12/14/2012

directed by the Forest Service. (Road closure may include pulling logs and debris onto the road surface within the first 100 feet of a berm to discourage illegal Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, as directed by a Forest Service Official.) C. New Construction of Temporary Roads – Locations shall be approved by the Forest Service prior to construction; work to be completed prior to use shall be directed and accepted by the Forest Service. Upon completion of use, roads shall be rehabilitated to conform to the natural lay of the land with erosion control structures and berms installed as directed by the Forest Service. (Road closure may include pulling logs and debris onto the road surface within the first 100 feet of a berm to discourage illegal Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, as directed by a Forest Service Official.) 20. During mineral exploration activities, road signs will be posted alerting users of potential traffic conflicts. Signage shall be in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2005) and approved by a Forest Service representative (project record). 21. Standards for road construction, reconstruction and use may include the following:  Roads, culverts and bridges will be designed to allow aquatic organism passage in perennial streams, unless otherwise prescribed; and  Sediment-capturing structures will be constructed along roads and streams where needed to prevent road sediment from entering the water. Such structures must be weed-seed free (no hay bales). 22. For snow plowing of roads, the entire travel way and turnouts shall be plowed open; holes shall be plowed in snow berms to allow for drainage during spring thaw. Snow berms will be reduced at road intersections to create a smooth transition from plowed roads to unplowed roads. A minimum 4 inch depth of a compacted snow mat shall be maintained on the roadbed during blading. 23. Roads will be closed to use if there is evidence of excessive damage occurring to the road, as determined by a Forest Service Official. 24. Temporarily close access roads during extended periods of inactivity. 25. Vegetation, weed-seed free (Ottawa high, new invader, and medium priority NNIP species) mulch, riprap and retaining walls will be used as directed by a Forest Service Official. Use clean, weed-seed free (Ottawa priority species as above) gravel and other fill materials.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 22 12/14/2012

26. Each drilling pad or proposed clearing will be approved by a Forest Service Official prior to soil-disturbing activities. Where possible, sites will be confined to areas of previous disturbance. Retain shade and native vegetation, including trees in and around prospecting activity to the maximum extent possible to suppress non-native invasive plants and prevent their establishment and growth. 27. Equipment operations on slopes ranging from 18-35% will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by Forest Service personnel before operations will commence. Equipment operations on slopes of 35% or greater will not be permitted. Operations 28. Ground-disturbing activities will follow season of operation guidelines for the Ecological Land Type Phase (ELTP). Operation outside of these periods must be approved in advance by Forest Service personnel. For activities occurring on system roads, seasonal road standards may provide an exception to this stipulation. 29. Topsoil (typically the upper six inches of soil) that is removed during exploration activities will be stockpiled separately. The reserved topsoil will be replaced over the disturbed area as the final step in returning the surface to its original contour. 30. Absorbent mats or other absorbent materials will remain under the drill rig and other equipment, in case of oil or hydraulic leaks during the operations and be available for on-site refueling and servicing of all the machinery used in the operation. Additional absorbent materials, such as a standard spill kit, shall be on-site. 31. Any spills or releases of oils, fuels, or other toxic or hazardous materials must be reported to the Forest Service and BLM, and remediated per applicable State and Federal Laws. 32. All residues created from prospecting activities, such as slash, shall be removed from water bodies, trails and road clearing limits, except where requested to be placed for road closure. For a distance of 25 feet from the road clearing, along Forest Roads 400, 630, 468, and 504 (Pioneer Multi-Use Trail), all slash resulting from the exploration activities shall be lopped and scattered to lie within three feet of the ground. Drill sites shall be kept in a sanitary manner. All garbage generated shall be removed. 33. All stakes, flagging, and markers used to mark gridlines or other locations shall be removed after they are no longer needed.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 23 12/14/2012

34. Removal of trees five inches in diameter or greater will be kept to a minimum. Trees to be cut that are five inches in diameter or greater shall be designated and marked in advance by a Forest Service Official. 35. A Forest Service Official will approve areas to be cleared of woody vegetation. All woody vegetation shall be cut parallel and as close as possible to the ground surface to prevent sharp points or uneven surfaces. 36. On the upper loop of the Cascade Falls Trail, there shall be a 200 foot setback for all mineral exploration activities from the trail to preserve the visual integrity. 37. Use of the North Country National Scenic Trail parking area and the Cascade Falls parking area for any activities is prohibited (drill sites, parking, staging, etc.). These areas are to be kept open for public use. 38. On Forest Road 468, there shall be a drilling equipment setback of 200 feet from the road clearing. 39. Use of Forest Road 504 (Pioneer Multi-Use Trail) is prohibited from December 1st until March 15th (snowmobile season). Crossing of trail on approved roads is acceptable; activity signs shall be posted on the trail where roads cross. Outside of the above prohibited time period, the use of Forest Road 504 (Pioneer Multi- Use Trail) may be approved for access to drill sites. The road must be kept open for recreational use and parking or staging of equipment on the trail or the trail clearing is prohibited. There shall be a drilling equipment setback of 200 feet from the Pioneer Multi-Use Trail. All signage shall be in accordance with MUTCD specifications. 40. Gates on or accessing Forest Road 504 shall be kept closed and locked to prohibit use by public highway vehicles. 41. When the Burning Index (BI) is greater than 16 (fire danger is very high or extreme), a Forest Service Official may request that operations are temporarily suspended. 42. Operational or safety signing may be permitted as long as first approved by a Forest Service Official. Revegetation and Invasive Species 43. Drafting equipment shall be cleaned prior to arriving at the Forest. Drafting equipment shall also be cleaned prior to moving from one waterbody to another in order to avoid transporting aquatic invasive species, or diseases. Cleaning the drafting equipment shall include one of the three following methods: soaking with chlorine bleach 5.25% (200 ppm) for at least 10 minutes, then a thorough rinse; drying in the sun for at least 4 hours and remaining dry at least 5 days; or high- pressure hot water spray (180oF for at least 15 minutes). Should the permittee DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 24 12/14/2012

wish to use a different cleaning method, a Forest Service official shall approve that method beforehand. 44. There will be no back-flushing of water from the draft tank back into the water source. If there is a need to empty the draft tank, emptying the tank may be permitted by a Forest Service official in an upland area. 45. The permittee’s designated representative shall use reasonable measures to make sure each piece of equipment that will work off a collector road is visually free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could contain or hold seed, eggs or other propagules (pieces that could start a new infestation) prior to arriving at the Forest. Reasonable measures shall not require the disassembly of equipment components or use of any specialized inspection tools. Equipment shall be considered free of soil, seeds, and other such debris when a visual inspection does not disclose such material. For internal equipment surfaces, permittee shall sweep vehicle cabs and deposit refuse in waste receptacles prior to movement onto the Ottawa NF. 46. The permittee’s designated representative must advise a Forest Service Official of measures taken to clean equipment and arrange for Forest Service inspection prior to such equipment being placed in service. The Forest Service shall have two days, excluding weekends and federal holidays, to inspect equipment after it has been made available for inspection. After inspection, or after two days, prospecting activities may proceed. 47. If the permittee desires to clean equipment on National Forest System land, such as at the end of a project or prior to moving to a new site that is free of invasive species of concern, the designated representative and Forest Service shall agree on locations for the cleaning and control of off-site impacts, if any. 48. The permittee’s designated representative shall ensure all equipment, clothing, boots, and other gear which will be used in geophysical surveys are visually free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could contain or hold seed, eggs or other propagules (pieces that could start a new infestation) prior to arriving at the Forest. 49. Minimize soil disturbance to the maximum extent practical, consistent with prospecting objectives. 50. Freshly disturbed soil areas may be left to revegetate naturally or as follows under direction of a Forest Service Official:  Seed where non-native invasive species are expected to be primary colonizers;

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 25 12/14/2012

 If non-native colonization potential is low, avoid seeding to favor natural regeneration of native herbs and shrubs; and  Any seeding should use a local native seed mix or a non-native, non- persistent seed mix appropriate to the site, as approved by an Ottawa NF botanist.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 26 12/14/2012

APPENDIX C

R9 REGIONAL OFFICE STANDARD STIPULATIONS

From the R9 RO FSM Chapter 20 Supplement, 2800-2006-1 2822.42 – Exhibit 4 USDA – FOREST SERVICE STANDARD STIPULATIONS - PERMIT (FSM 2820) Serial No.: Permittee: National Forest: The permittee is notified and agrees: All work and any operations authorized under this permit shall be done according to an approved operating plan on file with the ______at ______Plans generally require a minimum of 45 days for Forest Service review. Bureau of Land Management must also review and also approve. Operating plan will contain information the Forest Officer determines reasonable for assessment of (1) public safety, (2) environmental damage, and (3) protection for surface resources. Content of such plans will vary according to location and type of activity and may contain: 1. Steps taken to provide public safety. 2. Location and extent of areas to be occupied during operations. 3. Operation methods including size and type of equipment. 4. Capacity, character, standards of construction and size of all structures and facilities to be built. 5. Location and size of areas where vegetation will be destroyed or soil lay bare. 6. Steps taken to prevent and control soil erosion. 7. Steps taken to prevent water pollution. 8. Character, amount, and time of use of explosives or fire, including safety precautions during their use. 9. Program proposed for rehabilitation and revegetation of disturbed land. DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 27 12/14/2012

Copies of all permits obtained from State or Federal agencies pertaining to work might be required. Archeological studies, if required, will accompany plan. The Forest Supervisor or his/her designated agent has authority to temporarily suspend or modify operations in whole or in part due to emergency forest conditions such as high fire danger or other unsafe situations. The permitee must keep the ______informed about progress of operations to the extent reasonably necessary for assuring public safety. This is especially important with geophysical inventory and testing activities because of their mobile nature. The ______will alert the permittee to circumstances, which may affect safe and efficient conduct of work activities. Terms of this lease are considered violated if not done according to these stipulations. See Special Stipulations & Notifications ______Permittee R9-2800-6b (3/83) 5

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 28 12/14/2012

APPENDIX D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PERMIT STIPULATIONS Sec. 1. Rights conferred by issuance of prospecting permit. Permittee is granted the exclusive right to prospect on and explore the lands to determine the existence of a valuable deposit of the mineral applied for or any compound of that mineral in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Permitee must diligently prospect the lands by core drilling or other acceptable methods. The permittee may remove only such material as is necessary to demonstrate the existence of a valuable mineral deposit. Sec. 2. Operating regulations. (a) Permittee must comply with all regulations of the Secretary of the Interior; and, as to the lands described herein under his jurisdiction, to the regulations and orders of the Secretary of Agriculture. (b) Permittee must comply with the provisions of the operating regulations of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (43 CFR 3590) and all orders issued pursuant thereto. Copies of the operating regulations may be obtained from the BLM. (c) Permittee must maintain a permit bond in the amount determined by the BLM. (d) Permittee must allow inspection of the premises and operations by duly authorized representatives of the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, or other agency administering the lands and provide for the free ingress and egress of Government officers and users of the lands under authority of the United States. Sec. 3. Multiple use. (a) Valid existing rights acquired prior hereto on the lands described herein will not be adversely affected hereby. (b) The granting of this permit will not preclude the issuance of other permits, leases, or other development of the same lands. (c) The permitted lands will be subject, at all times, to any other lawful uses by the United States, its lessees, permittees, licensees, and assigns, but such use should not materially interfere with the permittee's operations hereunder. (d) The Government reserves the right to sell or otherwise dispose of the surface of the permitted lands under existing law or laws hereafter enacted, insofar as such disposal will not materially interfere with the rights of the permittee. (e) The permittee must afford all facilities for inspection of the prospecting work on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior or head of agency administering the lands and to

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 29 12/14/2012

make a report, on demand, of all matters pertaining to the character, progress, and results of such work. (f) The permittee must observe such conditions as to the use and occupancy of the surface of the lands as provided by law, in case any of said lands will have or may be entered or patented with a reservation of mineral deposits to the United States. Sec. 4. Removal of deposits. Permittee must remove from the lands only such deposits as may be necessary to experimental work or to establish the existence of valuable deposits within the permit area and must keep a record of all minerals mined. Sec. 5. Rental. Permittee must pay an annual rental of 50 cents per acre, or fraction thereof, but not less than $20 per year. The annual rental payment must be made on or before the anniversary date of the permit, payable to Minerals Management Service. Sec. 6. Extension of permit. (a) This permit may be subject to extension under applicable regulation upon approval by BLM and upon the showing of entitlement hereto. (No extension may be granted for sodium or sulphur prospecting permits.) (b) Application for extension of this permit, where authorized by law or regulation, must be filed in the proper BLM office at least 90 days prior to the date of expiration of this permit. Unless such an application is filed within the time specified, this permit will expire without notice to the permittee. Sec. 7. Assignments. All assignments or transfers of this permit or of any interest therein must be filed with the BLM for approval in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate regulation and will take effect as of the first day of the month following approval thereof, or, if transferee so requests, as of the first day of the month during which such approval is given. Sec. 8. Relinquishment of permit. Permittee may relinquish this permit, in whole or part, by filing in the proper BLM office a written relinquishment which, upon acceptance by the BLM, will be effective as of the date of filing. Sec. 9. Termination or cancellation. (a) This permit will terminate automatically upon failure of the permittee to pay the rental on or before the anniversary date thereof. (b) This permit may be cancelled in accordance with the regulations upon failure by permittee to comply with the regulations or the provisions of the law, or for violation of any of the terms or stipulations of the permit and exploration plan. Such cancellation may occur if such failure or default continues for 30 days after service of written notice thereof by the BLM.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 30 12/14/2012

Sec. 10. Protection of surface, natural resources, and improvements. The permittee agrees to take such reasonable steps as may be needed to prevent operations on the permitted lands from unnecessarily: (1) causing or contributing to soil erosion or damaging crops, including forage, and timber growth thereon or on Federal or non- Federal lands in the vicinity; (2) polluting air and water; (3) damaging improvements owned by the United States or other parties; or (4) destroying, damaging or removing fossils, historic or prehistoric ruins, or artifacts; and upon any partial or total relinquishment or the cancellation or expiration of this permit, or at any other time prior thereto when required and to the extent deemed necessary by the lessor to fill any pits, ditches and other excavations, remove or cover all debris, and so far as reasonably possible, restore the surface of the permitted land and access roads to their former condition, including the removal of structures as and if required. The BLM will prescribe the steps to be taken and restoration to be made with respect to the permitted lands and improvements thereon whether or not owned by the United States. Sec. 11. Antiquities and objects of historic value. When American antiquities or other objects of historic or scientific interest including but not limited to historic or prehistoric ruins, fossils or artifacts are discovered on lands covered by this permit, or discovered during performance of this permit, the item(s) or condition(s) will be left intact and immediately brought to the attention of the contracting officer or his authorized representative. Sec. 12. Discovery of Valuable Deposit: A permittee may file an application for a noncompetitive lease not later than 60 days after expiration of the prospecting permit. An applicant for a noncompetitive lease must show that a valuable deposit of the mineral specified in the prospecting permit was discovered within the permit area and during the life of the permit. For noncompetitive lease applications for sodium, potassium and sulphur, it additionally must be shown that the lands are chiefly valuable for that mineral (as opposed to nonmineral disposition of the lands). See regulations in 43 CFR, Part 3500 for filing requirements for specific minerals. Sec. 13. Equal opportunity clause. This permit is subject to the provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, as amended, which sets forth the nondiscrimination clauses. A copy of this order may be obtained from the BLM.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 31 12/14/2012

APPENDIX E RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Introduction A legal notice of opportunity to comment on the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project (the project) was published in The Ironwood Daily Globe paper on September 22, 2012 (as required by 36 CFR 215.5). In addition, the EA was mailed to 134 interested individuals and organizations. In response, the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team received a total of 58 comment letters, of which 56 were received within the official 30-day comment period and thus establishing eligibility to appeal (215.13a).

Each comment has been read and responded to by the ID Team members; the comments and responses are provided in this document. Because the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are cooperating agencies on this project, a BLM representative was also part of the ID Team, and read and reviewed each comment and provided additional responses, where appropriate.

The individuals who provided comments and a summary of their comments are presented in Table 1. These individuals have been assigned a number in the table for ease of reference in the responses.

Table 1 – List of Commenters and Concerns

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number 1 10/02/2012 Keith and Sharon a. Support Meyer 2 10/04/2012 Daniel Wernette a. Support 3 10/11/2012 Orv Langhor a. Opposes closing the snowmobile trail – wants a snowmobile reroute. 4 10/12/2012 Jeff McCusker, a. Support – appreciates the FS’ NPS consideration of the North Country National Scenic Trail. 5 10/13/2012 Frank J. Verito a. Requests comment letters received during scoping. b. Does not feel there are enough alternatives. c. Wants an alternative with half the amount of land in the project area. d. Trans Superior does not belong on our public forest. e. Thinks the Forest Plan should be amended for our present day needs and the decision suspended until that occurs. f. Thinks we are operating under DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 32 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number outdated rules – “rules of 1970”. g. Allow no road construction or turn around areas. h. Could compromise if only existing roads and clearings are used. i. Thinks the FS would be encouraging rutting and sedimentation. j. Drill pad clearings would create a visual obstruction larger than the pad itself. k. Does not believe the sump pit liners should be left behind after exploration. l. Concerned about drilling in wetlands and road construction – does not like potential allowance for these activities. m. It is impossible to rehabilitate an unclassified road in the short-term. n. Berms and debris placed on the roads are unsightly. o. Placing debris on the road can spread NNIP. p. No new road construction is acceptable. q. The FS is encouraging sedimentation and NNIP. r. Sediment traps do not collect all the sediment and are not often maintained. s. Operation on slopes over 18 percent should not occur. t. No tree removal over 5” in diameter should occur for any reason. u. The map fails to specify a contour interval so slope cannot be determined. v. Wants the project area cut off so the steep face of the bluff adjacent to the NCNST is not included. w. Cleaning does not prevent the spread of NNIP. 6 10/19/2012 Toby Fraser a. General opposition to the project. 7 10/19/2012 Jeffrey Loman, a. Thinks the FS should prepare an KBIC tribal EIS. member b. Believes the FS should not allow

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 33 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number additional exploration until “the recent Uranium Advisory” in Baraga County is more fully explored and addressed. c. Thinks mining exploration is cumulative and should not be allowed, even with the mitigations in place through the environmental assessment. d. Does not believe the FS can have a finding of no significant impact in the decision. e. Believes the FS and BLM should not approve more mining without preparing an EIS. f. Believes the FS first obligation is to uphold treaty rights. 8 10/19/2012 Alexis Raney a. Concerned that any type of mining activity in the upper reaches of Cascade Creek could negatively impact water quality and hydrology of the waters downstream. b. Believes the Trap Hills is a unique and beautiful place in the UP and should not be subjected to mining activity. c. Wants the FS and BLM to deny the permit based on the location and the project’s proximity to a previous and ongoing exploration permit. 9 10/20/2012 Wendy Johnson a. General opposition to the project. 10 10/20/2012 Mindy Otto a. Concerned with the project impacts to water quality and the watershed. b. Concerned with the project impacts to tourism. c. Concerned with the project impacts to habitat destruction. d. Believes the project is a mine. 11 10/20/2012 Rod Sharka a. Concerned that allowing mining will result in closing more and more of the Ottawa NF. b. Concerned that minor development including exploration would result in a threat to water, plants, animals, natural resources, recreation, tourism, and resident

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 34 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number population’s “way of life”. c. Believes there is scientific controversy with respect to a uranium advisory in the project area and surrounding area. d. Believes that the FS and BLM should not issue a permit for mineral exploration on the Ottawa. 12 10/20/2012 Emily Whittaker a. Concerned that the “people’s property, including its minerals” is available to a private company. b. Concerned that the project location is in a recreation area, and that exploration would inhibit recreation. c. Wants the permits to be denied. 13 10/21/2012 Teresa Bertossi a. General opposition to the project. 14 10/21/2012 Shawn Carlson a. Support of the project 15 10/21/2012 Carla Champagne a. General opposition to the project. 16 10/21/2012 Terri Irving a. General opposition to the project. 17 10/21/2012 Eeva Miller a. General opposition to the project. 18 10/21/2012 Allan Olson a. Concerned that the mining of metals in a sulfide salt deposit is environmentally threatening. 19 10/21/2012 Catherine Parker a. General opposition to the project. 20 10/21/2012 Kathleen Searl a. General opposition to the project. 21 10/21/2012 Walt Shiel a. Opposes a non-US company exploring and pursuing US natural resources. 22 10/21/2012 Rico Torreano a. General opposition to the project. 23 10/22/2012 Allan Baker a. General opposition to the project. 24 10/22/2012 Michael Carr, a. Stipulation #3 should be deleted. Trans Superior b. Stipulation #4 should be reworded. Resources, Inc. c. The wording of stipulations 17 and 18 are confusing. 25 10/22/2012 Gene Champagne a. Believes exploratory drilling would be an intrusion into a pristine area. b. Believes that there is scientific controversy regarding a uranium advisory in the project area. c. Believes that there is public controversy about this project. d. Believes the proposed project will threaten flora, fauna, natural resources, tourism, and recreation. e. Believes that this project will add to the cumulative effects when combined with other similar DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 35 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number projects. f. Believes the FS should publish an EIS for this project. 26 10/22/2012 Laura Farwell a. Concerned over the negative impact on the environment and health of the Ottawa. b. Does not believe project will have economic benefits. c. Concerned that there is a lack of regulatory enforcement. 27 10/22/2012 Steve Garske a. The EA should include the location status and impacts of the 2008 adjacent private minerals project. b. Believes the EA is dismissive with respect to scoping concerns that mining is a reasonably foreseeable or connected action to exploration. c. Believes the public has a right to know what Trans Superior has found so far in their explorations. d. Does not believe the FS should allow exploration here because of the proximity of the Trap Hill, the Norwich Bluff, Cascade Falls, the West Branch of the Ontonagon River, and the three recreational trails within or near the project area. 28 10/22/2012 Jim Malosh a. General opposition to the project. 29 10/22/2012 Catherine Paavola a. Concerned the project will impact the recreational areas. b. Concerned the project will affect water quality. 30 10/22/2012 Constance Sherry a. Concerned because the area is crossed by the NCNST and there could be impacts to non-motorized users. b. Mining would disrupt this environmentally sensitive area. 31 10/22/2012 Joanne Thomas a. Believes the surface estate is dominant over the minerals estate. b. Concerned that the permittee will not follow the laws. 32 10/22/2012 Norman Tuinstra a. General opposition to the project.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 36 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number 33 10/22/2012 Nancy and Al a. Concerned that the FS did not Warren complete an EIS. b. Concerned that the project does not take into account long term environmental consequences. 34 10/22/2012 Sherry Zoars a. Concerned with the project’s impact to hikers and recreation and that the pristine nature of the project area will be spoiled by mining and exploratory mining. b. Concerned how mining might affect the possible uranium deposits in the area. c. Believes the surface estate is superior to the mineral estate. 35 10/23/2012 Bad River Band of a. Share the concerns raised by Lake Superior GLIFWC in their June 11th Chippewa response to scoping. 1. Regulations and stipulations should adequately protect Forest Service lands from the adverse impacts of mineral exploration. 2. Proposed mineral prospecting activity must protect the environment and reserved treaty rights. 3. A 30 day comment period is inadequate. 4. Believes we should better evaluate the cumulative impact of mineral exploration. 5. Believes the Ottawa should prepare a programmatic EIS for mineral exploration activity. 6. An EIS for prospecting should be prepared on the Ottawa. 7. Concern over significant cumulative impacts from ground and surface water contamination, fragmentation, road construction, and NNIP. 8. Believes individual EAs are inadequate to identify and evaluate the environmental threats from mineral exploration for sulfide mineral DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 37 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number and uranium ores. 9. Believes the stipulations are incomplete and overly vague. 10. Believes the stipulations from the Chiquamegon-Nicolet and the Superior National Forest’s for similar mineral exploration projects are more concise and specific. 11. Believes the stipulations should be more specific and the Ottawa should adopt the stipulations from nearby Forests. 12. Believes the stipulations should include isolating sulfide and uranium bearing drill cuttings. 13. The stipulations should identify measures to minimize the potential impacts of brines. 14. The requirements of Michigan R 299.2357 should be stipulated for exploration drilling, regardless of drilling depth. 15. Michigan R 299.2357 should be fully articulated in the stipulations. 16. Stipulations should include precautions to protect aquifers and surface waters from drill cuttings containing brines, sulfides, and uranium deposits. 17. Stipulations should include specific conditions and activities that can take place within 100 feet of a water resource. 18. Gravel, fill and mulch should be weed free. 19. Stipulations should be more specific on how drill bits should be cleaned to avoid cross- contamination. 20. Believes that the requirement that inspection of cleaned equipment occur within two working days appears to be DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 38 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number overly restrictive. 21. Work should only take place in wetlands when the ground is frozen. 22. The stipulations should contain a minimum stream size for drafting. 23. The stipulations should ensure that the quantity of water used for drafting is limited. 24. Believes that the stipulations should consider the effects of forest fragmentation from drill pads and other exploration activities. 25. Believes that an EIS should be completed. 26. Believes that the stipulations have vague words such as “may”, “should”, etc. b. Believes that an EIS should be completed first before the issuance of exploration permit. c. Believes the stipulations are overly vague. d. Does not believe that collateral impacts of exploratory drilling were addressed. 36 10/23/2012 David Allen a. Concerned that the project will affect TES. b. Concerned that the project will

affect NNIP. c. Believes that the FS should have more stringent requirements in the Trap Hills area. d. Does not believe exploratory drilling should be allowed; however could be accepting if drilling did not break the tree canopy. 37 10/23/2012 Lori Anderson, a. Wishes to be added to the mailing Save Our Sky Blue list for this project and receive any Waters future documentation regarding this project. b. Concerned that possible adverse effects on scenic and recreational resources have not been fully addressed.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 39 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number c. Believes that the FS responsibility to protect natural resources should not be monetarily or politically driven. d. Believes that the end result of mining will be the degradation of the Ottawa. e. Believes that an EIS should be prepared before proceeding with the project. f. Believes that the FS has not sufficiently analyzed the cumulative effects from the project with respect to wildlife, water resources, and natural resource areas. g. Believes the FS is ignoring the cumulative impacts associated with the activities of exploration. h. Believes the FS cannot ignore that future mining is a likely as result of exploration. i. Believes the FS should address whether mining companies can obtain any rights or privileges during the exploration process. j. Believes the FS should disclose whether the agency retains the absolute right to deny future mining activities. k. Believe the FS should address the environmental impacts of future mining activities now. l. Believes mineral exploration and mining decreases property values. 38 10/23/2012 T. Church a. Concerned that proposed mining activities would harm existing resources. b. Wants the FS to prohibit roads in semi-primitive, non-motorized area because they would adversely impact the management goals of the area.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 40 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number 39 10/23/2012 J. Cameron a. Concerned about damage to the Coleman project area’s flora and fauna. b. Concerned over the impacts to the recreation experience. c. Concern over losing solitude and quiet. d. Concerned over the environmental impact of access roads. e. Concerned over the spread of NNIPs. f. Believes this area needs the FS’ protection. 40 10/23/2012 Margaret Comfort a. Requests the information from the Trans Superior Resource’s 2008 project – she would like to know what they discovered. 41 10/23/2012 Sarah Culver a. General opposition to the project. 42 10/23/2012 GLIFWC a. Believes there is a risk of release of high chloride waters from exploratory drilling. b. Believes the FS should implement stipulations to prevent the escape of brines to surface and ground water. c. Believes there should be a stipulation that requires testing of water in the borehole for chlorides. d. Believes the FS stipulations are inadequate with respect to protecting surface waters and groundwater from brines. e. Believes the Ottawa NF should incorporate the Superior NF’s stipulations that address potential concerns with brines. f. Would like incorporation of June 11th scoping comments. 43 10/23/2012 Marc Fink, Center a. Believes that the FS must prepare For Biological an EIS before the project can Diversity proceed. b. Wants the FS to disclose whether a strip mine would be allowed on Weeks Act lands. c. Believes the FS used an improper definition of cumulative impacts. d. Believes the FS did not adequately address the “unique” characteristics of the project area.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 41 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number e. Believes the EA did not address the degree of controversy. f. Believes the EA did not disclose the uncertain and unknown risks, and that an EIS should be prepared. g. Would like to be added to the mailing list for this project. 44 10/23/2012 Michelle Halley, a. Believes the FS should deny the National Wildlife exploration because the area is Federation ecologically unique and sensitive. b. Believes the project would be in conflict with recreation. c. Wants the FS to deny the request for exploration. 45 10/23/2012 Eric Hansen a. Believes the Trap Hills are a special place and thinks the FS should protect them. 46 10/23/2012 Don Henson a. Concern over soils. b. Concern about cumulative impacts. c. Concern over recreation. 47 10/23/2012 Joe Hovel, a. Believes the FS must protect the Northwoods rare and unique features of the Alliance project area. b. Believes that there are rare plants in the project area. c. Concerned with the proximity of the North Country National Scenic Trail and the protection of this trail for hikers. d. Concerned with the impact of the project on water resources – especially Cascade Creek and the West Branch of the Ontonagon River. e. Concerned with the impact of the project on the viewshed of the NCNST. f. Concerned that not enough effort went into identifying rare plants in the project area. g. Believes the EA is not sufficient to address the effects of prospecting with the possibility of mining.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 42 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number 48 10/23/2012 Barbara Keniston a. General opposition to the project. 49 10/23/2012 William Malmsten, a. General opposition to the project. Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition 50 10/23/2012 Chauncey Moran a. Believes that exploration leads to mineral development. b. Believes the FS should have more stringent siting requirements due to the proximity of the Trap Hills. 51 10/23/2012 Rosa Musket a. Concern over water quality. 52 10/23/2012 Linda Rulison, a. Believes that the NCNST should Friends of the be protected from mining. Land of Keweenaw b. Believes some areas are to special to mine. 53 10/23/2012 Richard Sloat a. General opposition to the project. 54 10/23/2012 Anne Steinberg a. Concern about the NCNST. 55 10/23/2012 Keren Tischler a. Concerned that the project’s associated access roads, water use and noise would interfere with the public’s enjoyment of the nearby NCNST and Cascade Falls Trail. b. Wants the FS to prohibit access roads in MA 6.1 because of concern about the spread of NNIPs. c. Believes that access roads in MA 6.1 will encourage ATV use. 56 10/23/2012 Fran Whitman a. General opposition to the project.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 43 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number 57 10/26/2012 Keweenaw Bay a. Concern about the direct, indirect, Indian Community and cumulative effects to the access and quality of habitats and ecosystems that support the KBIC community. b. Concerned that federal treaty obligations are not given the same consideration as mineral prospecting activities. c. KBIC favors stipulations that are thoroughly protective of the adverse impacts of mineral exploration. d. Concern over the potential of acid formation from sulfide minerals upon exposure to air and water. e. Concerned that the exploration site is upstream of the West Branch Ontonagon River, and potentially could cause problems to the watershed and fish. f. Endorses comments from the June 11th, 2012 GLIFWC scoping letter and the email from GLIFWC dated October 23rd, 2012. g. Wants more detailed and protective language in the stipulations. h. Wants safeguards in place to prevent the escape and contamination to ground and surface waters from bedrock brines. i. Wants a stipulation that specifies the allowable limits of the quantity of stream water used for drafting. j. Wants BMPs to be implemented for drill cuttings and sump pit contents. k. Wants lime to be added to the sump water and the contents of the sump pits sent off to a treatment plant, if any sulfides are present. l. Does not want sump pit liners to be buried on site. m. Erosion and sediment loading controls should be implemented on site. DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 44 12/14/2012

Identification Date Name Concerns/Support Number n. Drilling should be limited to winter. o. If more than one acre is disturbed for drill pads, then a Multi Sector General Permit for stormwater discharge should be obtained. p. Wants evaluation and documentation of compliance of the project operations sent to the tribes and public. q. A performance bond should be issued to Trans Superior Resources, Inc. r. An EIS should be completed. s. Concerned over the potential cumulative impacts of the project. 58 10/30/2012 Doyle Vergon a. General opposition to the project.

Following, each comment letter is shown in its entirety and includes any typographical errors. Each commenter’s text is presented in quotations. The elements within each comment letter that have been identified as concerns which are within the scope of th and site-specific to this project have been assigned a number and a letter that corresponds to those presented above in Table 1. When a response is warranted, the number and letter are presented in bold font. The ID Team responses are presented in italics immediately below the concern.

Tribal and public comments have been separated into two sections. The first section contains the public comments and responses to those comments; the second section contains the tribal comments and those responses. The Forest Service has a responsibility to consult with tribes through a government to government relationship. As such comments received from individual tribes, tribal affiliated organizations, and tribal residents have been separated from public comments. It is important to note that while the identification numbers are not sequential in the following section, they all correspond to the identification numbers in the above table.

Public Comments

1. Keith and Sharon Meyer

1a: The following comments are from a telephone conversation with Susanne M. Adams and Keith Meyer. The couple supports Alternative 2. They have a place in Greenland, Michigan. They use the Pioneer Trail in both the winter and summer, and have no concerns there. Mr. Meyer believes the UP needs the money, and that “the economy is dying on the vine.”

Response: Thank you for your comment. DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 45 12/14/2012

2. Daniel Wernette 2a: “I think that you should let Trans Superior Resources Inc. prospect as in alternative #2.”

Response: Thank you for your comment.

3. Orv Langohr 3a: “As a member of Lake States Resource Alliance Inc., I am concerned that you have not provided for snowmobiling, which is a great economic impact to this area. “See item 39, page 22.” I would think a snowmobile reroute could be completed for Forest Roads. Riding would not be prohibited from December 1st until March 15th the snowmobile season.”

Response: On October 15, 2012, LeAnn Colburn, an Environmental Coordinator on the Ottawa National Forest, called Mr. Langohr to clarify that the stipulations prohibit Trans Superior Resources, Inc. from using the Pioneer Trail from December 1 to March 15 for mineral exploration activities, and does not prohibit any recreational use by the general public. The Pioneer Trail would not be closed to the public as part of this project.

4. Jeff McCusker, National Park Service, Manager of North Country National Scenic Trail

4a: “Hi Leann, I'm writing to let you know that I reviewed the EA for this project, and I appreciate how you've taken the North Country National Scenic Trail into account throughout the analysis, and if the project goes as planned, I don't see any impacts to the experience of trail users or the trail. The North Country Trail in that area is developed and maintained by the Peter Wolf Chapter of the North Country Trail Association, who are partners of the NPS and Forest Service, and I've passed the link to the EA on to them. They've told me that they will let us know if any unexpected impacts to the trail do surface during the mineral exploration activities. If you could update your contact list with the contact information below, I'd appreciate it. Don't hesitate to contact me on any plans or projects related to the North Country Trail, and I'll be glad to help any way I can. Sincerely, Jeff”

Response: Thank you for your comment.

5. Frank J. Verito 5a: “Dear Ms. Adams: These are my opinions against the Trans Superior Resources Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project, pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Long-established instructions specify that I receive all citizen comments with all documentation. Because my other Federal Hardrock files are dated 2008 and 2009, I’m not sure whether I’ve commented on this previously. Had ONF DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 46 12/14/2012

management followed directions, I wouldn’t have this uncertainty. Please send all 26 public comments to the address below at once, and input on my file in larger letters that I need this information on all projects.”

Response: On October 16, 2012, Mr. Verito was mailed the 26 comment letters from scoping.

5b: “To provide only two alternatives, one being a no-action, is unacceptable. The guidelines call for providing an adequate range, not all or nothing.”

Response: The number of alternatives developed has been deemed reasonable by the Responsible Official, based upon the range of public comments received and the direction set by 40 CFR 1505.1(e) (EA, p. 14). Two alternatives were analyzed; Alternative 1 offers a No Action alternative in response to NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1502.14[d]), and Alternative 2 is based upon the proposed prospecting permit and recommended stipulations.

As outlined in Section 1.7 of the EA, no unresolved conflicts (e.g., issues) were identified with the proposed prospecting permit, and therefore the development of additional alternatives is not required (40 CFR 1501.2[c]; and Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 14).

5c: “Please publish an alternative with roughly half the proposed exploitation.”

Response: See the response to 5b. Sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 of the EA outline the scope of this project and decision framework. Specifically, the 720-acre project area boundary, for which the effects analysis was completed, was identified through a proposed prospecting permit application submitted to the BLM by Trans Superior Resources, Inc. The responsibility of the Forest, as the surface managing agency, is to:

 Protect and maintain the natural resources within the project area in accordance with the Forest Plan through the proposed stipulations within the area identified.  Submit a recommendation to the Regional Forester, based on the analysis findings and public input, to provide a “consent or non-consent” within the permit area identified in the application to the BLM.  Authorize the surface use and occupancy of National Forest System land if the BLM issues a permit. The implementation of the proposed stipulations would limit exploration activities within the project area to lessen the effects of operations. Furthermore, the amount of acreage that could be disturbed by core drilling for this project is less than one percent of the acreage of the project area.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 47 12/14/2012

5d: “Trans Superior Resources does not belong in our public forest.”

Response: While the Forest Service respects the commenters opinion, the authority and responsibility to allow mineral prospecting activities on federal lands, including National Forests, is already decided by law, policy, and the Ottawa National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) and is therefore outside the scope of this project. Page 3 of the EA states “The Mineral Resources section of the Weeks Act of March 4, 1917, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to permit mineral prospecting on lands acquired by Weeks Act authority. All lands applied for in the permit area on the Bergland Ranger District were acquired under the Weeks Act or the Clarke McNary Act (subject to all laws applicable to the lands acquired under the Weeks Law Lands Act). National Forest System lands are generally available for exploration, unless specifically precluded by an act of Congress or other formal withdrawal. Examples of this would include the Wild and Scenic River Corridors, as well as Wilderness Areas.”

The federal policies and regulations pertaining to mineral exploration, which are based upon the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, apply to management of National Forest System Lands. Page 7 of the EA states that “The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 states that the continuing policy of the Federal Government is to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining and minerals industries and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2800, page 7). The mission of the Forest Service in minerals management is to encourage, facilitate, and administer the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nation (FSM 2800, page 4).

The 2006 Forest Plan specifically states “The Forest Service will manage the Ottawa National Forest for multiple uses. The Ottawa is open for any legal public activity or management action, unless specially restricted in law, policy, or the 2006 Forest Plan. While allowed, such activities and actions may require administrative review and authorization before they are implemented.” (p. 1-9). Additionally, the Forest Plan has Goal 36, (p. 2-9), which states” Provide mineral resources to support economic growth through environmentally sound development on National Forest System lands.” On page 2-35 of the Forest Plan, Forest-wide management direction is as follows: “Generally, permit surface disturbing exploration (including core drilling) in most areas, except within or adjacent to developed recreation sites during the recreation use season. Permit exploration especially where there is a potential to discover minerals of compelling domestic significance (as defined by U.S. Department of the Interior).” The Forest Plan is quite clear that the Forest is managed for multiple uses and supports mineral activities and the EA clearly states Forest Plan direction on page 7.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 48 12/14/2012

5e: “ONF management had every opportunity to update the policies in the FP revision. Please suspend this decision until the Plan has been amended for our present-day needs, and make the decision retroactive to this project.”

Response: As outlined in Section 1.9 of the EA, management direction established through the Forest Plan is outside the scope of this analysis. In addition, the proposed activities have been determined to be consistent with Forest Plan direction (EA, page 12).

5f: “We seem to be operating under the rules of 1970. The world has changed a lot since then. ONF and all lands for that matter are more finite.”

Response: See Response 5d.

5g: “Allow no road construction to any standard, or turn-around areas.”

Response: Page 15 of the EA states that existing roads or trails are used wherever possible, and that any road construction that may occur is set to the lowest standard possible for access in order to protect resources. Such roads are usually temporary in nature. In areas where soils are more poorly suited, temporary construction of winter standard roads on frozen ground would provide access with lower impact (Grigal D.F. 2000, p. 171). In addition, stipulations 6, 19, 21, and 26 would be in place to minimize impacts from temporary road construction activities. Also see Response 5d.

Grigal, D.F. (2000). Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 138, 167-185. 5h: “We may be able to compromise if only existing roads and clearings are used.”

Response: See Response 5g. Also, on Page 27 of the EA, it is stated that the intent of Trans Superior Resources, Inc. is to use existing forest openings; timber sale areas; trails and roads; or purpose built temporary access trails for both geophysical surveys and drilling sites. Where temporary access trails are needed, stipulations addressing temporary road construction (19C), as well as others, would be in place to mitigate potential impacts.

5i: “We have too much unnecessary rutting and sedimentation throughout ONF as is. Why are you encouraging more?”

Response: Based on professional expertise of the ID Team, the analysis concludes that there would be no rutting and sedimentation because stipulations require that roads be properly constructed, and use occurs during appropriate conditions and seasons for the standard at which the road was developed. The following stipulations were developed to avoid or minimize impacts such as DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 49 12/14/2012

rutting and sedimentation or potential impacts from road construction and use: 6, 6A, 6B, 19, 19A, 19B, 19C, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, and 40 (EA, pages 18-22).

5j: “To salt our public forest with 70 X 70-foot drilling pads is unacceptable. These clearings create a visual obstruction many times larger than the pad itself, yet ONF personnel treat the blemish as 70 X 70 feet in order to underscore the impact to the public.”

Response: The drilling pad footprint is a relatively small size, such that it would be hard to see, unless from a high vantage point, or if one were standing near the pad itself. Most (93%) of the project areas visual quality objectives (VQO) are classified as partial retention. Partial retention means that management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (See Forest Plan, Appendix G). Small drilling pads fit within this definition. In addition, most of the aspen clearcuts from previous logging operations are of sufficient height to screen any new openings. If you were in the foreground, the short-term visual effect of removing vegetation would be replaced by woody vegetation soon after the operations are finished.

5k: “Sump pits, if I recall have liners that are left behind after the prospecting, leaving a permanent impact. I have vigorously opposed having any trace of the damage or litter left behind. This is in extreme opposition to the original intent of establishing the NFS system. Use portable water tanks on existing roads only.”

Response: These are State regulations, and not subject to change by either the FS or the BLM. Those requirements are specified in the Michigan Mineral Well operations Regulations Part 625 Rule 2357.9 which states that unless the pit exceeds 500 PPM of chloride anions or 10,000 PPM total petroleum hydrocarbons then the pit shall be buried with the liner intact. Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625 (Project Record – 56104) requires that the sump pit liners be buried in place with the cuttings inside of the liner. In order for this concern to be addressed in the manner the commenter would prefer, this concern must be brought before the State of Michigan. There are however testing requirements according to the Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625 that would require off-site disposal if certain criteria (Chloride Anions and Hydrocarbons) exceed a set concentration. The testing of the fluids and cuttings contained in the sump pit is the responsibility of the permitee; they provide certification to the supervisor of mineral wells or authorized representative of the supervisor of mineral wells of the test results (MI Mineral Wells Regulations part 625). In addition, the state requirements specify that “The drilling mud pit shall be buried not less than 4 feet below the original ground grade level.” (Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625). This requirement ensures that the liner is not visible, and protects the pit from disturbance. There is no scientific evidence to indicate an unusual condition in the project area that would require superseding this state requirement.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 50 12/14/2012

5l: “No entity (ONF management) that would allow an exploitive enterprise to tarnish our public forest can be trusted to monitor or to derive at stipulations. For example, Page 17 reads, “Drilling will avoid wetlands WHERE POSSIBLE.” This is a run-on sentence. Cut the sentence after “Drilling will avoid wetlands,” or else please keep your name off of public documents. The same applies to “Road lengths within wetlands WILL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM.” These statements give exploitive industry the green light to traipse upon our resource as they please. Keep them out of our wetlands altogether.”

Response: Refer to Response 5d related to the authority for approving federal mineral exploration. The ONF has not received the drilling operation plan, which would have the exact locations where road construction and drill pads are proposed as well as which existing roads would be used. When this plan is received, FS staff would review the locations and determine if the soil type can support the proposal. There are many options that may be pursued, given the proposal and specific soil type. For example, season of use restrictions may be applied in some locations depending on the standard to which the road was developed and the type of soils the road may pass through. Large mats may be used to cross some soil types. Some wetlands may be very narrow, such as ash drainways, and allowance of some fill material with a culvert may be permitted. A decision as to what would and would not be allowed would not occur until the specifics of road use, road construction and drill locations is submitted and evaluated.

Additionally, stipulation 28 on page 21 of the EA states that “Ground-disturbing activities will follow season of operation guidelines for the Ecological Land Type Phase (ELTP). Operation outside of these periods must be approved in advance by Forest Service personnel. For activities occurring on system roads, seasonal road standards may provide an exception to this stipulation.

5m: “To rehabilitate an unclassified road is impossible, in the short term anyway.”

Response: Stipulations to minimize road impacts (6, 19, 21, 24, 26, and 28) are incorporated into the project. In addition, temporary roads created would be decommissioned when no longer being used for the project and would be returned to productive forest land. Natural soil processes such as swelling and shrinking due to moisture changes and movement of soil particles by freezing and thawing (including frost heave) and biological activity (i.e., worms) tend to restore soil physical properties to pre-disturbance conditions (NCASI 2004, p. 38). Therefore, the effects of temporary roads are short-term in nature. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (2004). Effects of heavy equipment on physical properties of soils and on long-term productivity: A review of literature and current research. Technical Bulletin No. 887. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 51 12/14/2012

5n: “Berms are also unsightly, as is debris placed on the road.”

Response: The commenter’s opinion is noted; however, the use of berms and slash as road closure devices are standard practices for the Forest Service.

5o: “Placing debris on road can also contribute to the spread of NNIP.”

Response: The commenter apparently refers to stipulation 19B of the EA, applicable to use of unclassified roads and excerpted here: “(Road closure may include pulling logs and debris onto the road surface within the first 100 feet of a berm to discourage illegal Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, as directed by a Forest Service Official.)” Logs, stumps, and other woody material from the adjacent woods could be pulled onto an unclassified road after prospecting is completed, to discourage use of the road by vehicles. This woody material is already at the location, so no new invasive plant seeds or parts are introduced to the project area by moving stumps and wood a few yards. If a downed log or stump had an invasive plant growing on it, possibly the plant might be encouraged to sprout by movement, but this seems unlikely. Moreover the project area does not currently have many non-native invasive plant infestations. As noted in the NNIP specialist report, small infestations of the following Ottawa high/new invader and medium priority non‐native invasive plants (NNIP) are recorded in the project area: wild chervil, marsh thistle, Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, sweet clover, and orange hawkweed. Low priority NNIP are also present, such as Queen Anne’s lace, tansy, bull thistle, and oxeye daisy. None of these is particularly known for growing on woody debris so the chance of spreading them by moving woody material a short distance seems very unlikely.

Possibly the commenter refers to dragging woody material through an infestation and causing fragmentation of the plants which might result in new plants. Since there are few infestations and few locations where woody material might be moved onto a road bed, this chance seems very low. Possibly the commenter refers to soil disturbance from moving the logs and stumps onto a road surface, as creating a surface for seeds to colonize. The woody material would cover up some of the bare soil although there may be microsites on the stumps or logs where plants could grow. There could be some soil disturbance where the woody material previously was located, but this is a small area and typically shaded which is unfavorable to most NNIP.

Moving the woody material is used to discourage ATV use. Such ATV traffic poses a much greater risk of ground disturbance and introduction of NNIP seeds, than does the wood movement. Overall, there is very low risk that moving wood a short distance within the project area would result in NNIP infestation, while this practice is expected to reduce risk of NNIP spread from vehicles.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 52 12/14/2012

5p: “No new road construction is acceptable, especially over streams.”

Response: Sedimentation from temporary road construction at stream crossings would be kept to a minimum since all crossings would require a State DEQ permit, which includes mitigation for sediment. Also see also Response 5i.

5q: “You’re encouraging sedimentation and NNIP over the entire PA.”

Response: See Response 5p. Regarding the spread of invasive plants, there is a chance for spread of NNIP during many ground disturbing activities on the Forest, including temporary road construction. Best management practices are used to lower this risk, such as stipulations 25 (use of weed-seed free mulch, gravel, and fill), 45-48 (equipment and gear cleaning), and 49-50 (soil disturbance and seeding). Targeting existing roads and openings for most prospecting activities lessens the need to construct new roads. Thus there are expected to be few locations where temporary road construction is needed. The Forest Plan EIS (2006) disclosed that there is an overall slight risk of NNIP spread with any ground disturbing activity, and even without such activity due to natural processes and vectors including wind, water and animals. Prevention practices are used to lower the risk of NNIP spread as much as possible while meeting the multiple use objectives of the Forest Plan.

5r: “Sediment traps aren’t known to collect all the sediment and also aren’t often well maintained.”

Response: This comment is tied to comments 5p and 5q. The “sediment traps” the commenter is describing are in response to stipulation 21 which states the following: “Sediment-capturing structures will be constructed along roads and streams where needed to prevent road sediment from entering the water. Such structures must be weed-seed free (no hay bales).” These structures are industry standard tools, such as silt fences and straw bales, to mitigate sedimentation from road construction and are known to be effective (USDA Forest Service 2005. Reference: USDA Forest Service. 2005. Riparian Restoration: Roads Field Guide. Forest Service Technology and Development Program. 7700 – Transportation Mgmt. August 2005 0577 1801-SDTDC. Pgs 54-56.

5s: “Operation on slopes is another long-standing concern of mine which ONF management has made no effort to lessen. Eighteen to 35% slopes are too steep for the weight of the equipment, and the way water flows. Five percent slopes may be acceptable so long as they’re accessible on existing roads.”

Response: Table 2 summarizes the potential erosion risk for the project area. The ratings noted in the table are based on the most limiting condition of the soil, and do not factor in the requirements and guidelines put in place to protect the soil resource. The ratings indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 53 12/14/2012

trail areas following activities that expose the soil surface. The ratings are based on slope and soil erosion potential.

Table 2. Erosion Risk, by Percent of Slope (approximate acres): Risk to the Soil Resource Percent of total project area Slight (Slope 0 to 18%) 81% Moderate (Slope 6 to 35%) 14% Severe (Slope 35 to 55%) 1% Very Severe (Slope 56 to 75%) 4%

A rating of “slight” indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climactic conditions; “moderate” indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion control measures may be needed; “severe” indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including re-vegetation of bare areas , are advised; and “very severe” indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical (Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture).

Approximately 95% of the soils in the project area pose only a slight or moderate risk of erosion. Where the risk of erosion is moderate, the appropriate erosion control measures (i.e. stipulations, water diversion structures, re-vegetating exposed soil areas, or operational avoidance) would be implemented in order to minimize soil erosion and its impacts. However, mitigation measures would be applied as needed, and would not be limited only to areas with moderate risk.

Areas in the severe and very severe risk categories are very susceptible to erosion where there is exposed soil. Operation on these slopes is typically avoided, as stated in the stipulations (27).

Slopes greater than 18% are handled on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure that long-term disturbance to the soil resource does not occur. The ONF acknowledges that not all slopes in the 18-35% range are operable. When making the determination of operability for a slope in the 18 – 35% range as mentioned in Stipulation 27, several factors are considered including water flow on the landscape, soil type, operational restrictions, and space for equipment maneuverability. Maps have been prepared to illustrate drainage, slope, seasonal operational restrictions, and riparian areas (Project Record – 57201 through 57206). Soil quality monitoring does occur on the Ottawa per Region 9 soil quality standards. Monitoring results confirm the effectiveness of the incorporation of project design criteria in protecting soil quality and soil productivity on the Ottawa (2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, p. 23).

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 54 12/14/2012

for Ontonagon County, MI. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

5t: “Item 34 on Page 21 states. “Removal of trees five inches or greater will be kept to a minimum.” It is not acceptable for any tree more than five inches in diameter to be cut—not for a survey line—not for road construction—not on our public forest.”

Response: The cutting of any trees is authorized to allow reasonable access to the project area for exploration or surveys. There is no objective to cut any trees for any silvicultural purpose, and it would only be for reasons such as reopening roads, creating a pad for drilling, or to allow reasonable access for equipment. Past experience with minerals exploration projects has shown that trees which are necessary to cut would primarily be in the suppressed or intermediate layer. There is not expected to be any change in current stand structure or composition from any tree cutting. There is a possibility there would be a very slight increase in the growth of the dominant and co-dominant trees by removing some of the smaller trees; however, this would have a negligible effect on the residual stems. Although Mr. Verito disagrees with the cutting of any trees, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the 1976 National Forest Management Act, and the Forest Plan require that National Forest lands be managed for a variety of uses on a sustained basis, which includes mineral exploration. Any merchantable trees harvested would be designated by the Forest Service and purchased by the exploration company and either removed or left on the site. Allowing some removal of vegetation for the exploration of minerals will not affect the ability of the Forest to manage this area on a sustainable basis. 5u: “The north portion of Parcel A is much too close to the NCT and much too steep. The map fails to specify a contour interval so readers can not determine the slope.”

Response: Figure C-2 on page 43 of the EA illustrates the project areas topographic contour lines. While Mr. Verito is correct in his statement, that contour intervals are not included on the map; the map is visually descriptive with its intent of illustrating the steepness of the landscape in the project area. The map illustrates the steepness of the northwest portion of parcel A. The contour interval is 20 feet.

Project stipulations are in place to protect the North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST). Stipulation 27 on page 21 of the EA states that “Equipment operations on slopes ranging from 18-35% will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by Forest Service personnel before operations will commence. Equipment operations on slopes of 35% or greater will not be permitted.” Also, stipulation 37 on page 22 of the EA states that “Use of the North Country National Scenic Trail parking area and the Cascade Falls parking area for any activities is prohibited (drill sites, parking, staging, etc.). These areas are to be kept open for public use.” These two stipulations help to ensure that the northwest portion of Parcel A DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 55 12/14/2012

and the NCNST will be protected. Furthermore, the National Park Service (as the agency designated to manage the NCNST) concurs with the conclusion that the trail will be protected through use of project stipulations. Also see Comment 4a.

5v: ONF management has no business incorporating the north portion of Parcel A into a PA—too steep. Cut off the project area south of the forest road, and have some training in simple geography prior to employment with the NFS. Anyone knows that contour intervals are to be included. Anyone knows not to have such a steeply sloped area in the PA. PLEASE!”

Response: See Responses 5s and 5u. The land area that comprises the project area is not determined by the Forest Service. The permittee applies for a permit through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and as such, the Forest Service completes the analysis based upon the project area in the application for permit from the BLM.

The northern portion of the analysis area has been identified in the project analysis as having slopes ranging from 18-35%, and 55-75%. This particular area would fall under stipulation 27 included in the EA on page 21. Under that stipulation, the slopes in the steepest range would not be permitted for operations, and some slopes in the 18-35% range may only be operated on after careful evaluation.

5w: “NNIP is spread by the equipment, automobile travel by employees and within the PA. Cleaning doesn’t eliminate the spread of NNIP, especially within the PA.”

Response: Vehicles, equipment, and employees of the prospecting company can be vectors for NNIP as can other Forest visitors, employees, and their vehicles and equipment. This is why stipulations are included for the prospecting company to clean equipment, boots, and other gear prior to entry to the project area. Such cleaning lowers the risk of NNIP spread. It cannot eliminate the risk of spread entirely but by using prevention practices, the company is less likely to contribute to NNIP spread. NNIP that are already present in the project area have a chance of spreading regardless of human activity; for example, the wild chervil on the edge of FR 630 may spread vegetatively farther down the road and then up a spur road, without help from Forest visitors or employees. Non-native invasive plants outside of the project area are also spread by natural factors and ongoing activities such as forest visitors who do not clean their car or hiking boots before coming to the Ottawa.

“Please explain to Trans Superior that we simply haven’t enough forest left in a natural condition for the children of tomorrow, and to conduct their exploitive practices on their own private properties instead of on land that was intended to be enjoyed by all. Sincerely, Frank Jeff Verito, 350-1/2 East Ridge Street, Marquette, MI 49855”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 56 12/14/2012

6. Toby Fraser 6a: “Hello, I am writing to register my dissent with the idea of approving more prospecting, or any other mines in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I do not think that any company should be allowed to continue searching for any minerals or precious metals on our public lands. It should not even be an option for a private company to mine and make a profit off of our public land. Please do not allow the prospecting to continue. Thank you, Toby Fraser 231‐726‐5080”

Response: It is important to note that this proposal is specific to only the project area as disclosed in EA (sections 1.3, 2.4, 3.4, as well as Appendix C). The commenter includes a more broad scale request, which is outside the scope of this project (i.e. “any minerals or precious metals on our public lands”). See Response to Comments 5c, 5d and 5v for additional information. The nation’s laws, the Forest Service regulations, and the 2006 Forest Plan, all clearly state that mineral exploration is an activity that is permissible on Federal lands.

With respect to the commenters statement “It should not even be an option for a private company to mine and make a profit off of our public land.”, this project is for mineral exploration and is not for a mine; therefore, comments related to mine development are outside the scope (see also EA pages 10-11)

In addition, a “special stipulation” is attached as part of the BLM prospecting permit. On page 4 of the EA, the special stipulation is defined as follows: Special Stipulation, (FSM 2822.1, R9 RO Supplement, Exhibit 1): “Pursuant to the provisions of the Act of March 4, 1917 (16 USC 520), Section 402 of the Re- Organization Plan No. 3 of July 16 1946 (60 Stat. 1097, 1099), the Act of August 7, 1947 (30 USC 352), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.) as said authorities have been or may hereafter be amended, no mineral development of any type is authorized hereby, and consent to the issuance of this prospecting permit as required by law and regulation (43 CFR 3507.11 (d)) and (43 CFR 3507.19 (c)) is given subject to the express stipulation that no mineral lease may be issued for the land under permit without the prior consent of the Forest Service, USDA and the proper rendition of an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the findings of which shall determine whether and under what terms and conditions for the protection of the land involved the lease may issue.” This stipulation expressly says that no mineral development is authorized with a prospecting permit and any future proposal for mine development in this location would require review and approval by the BLM and Forest Service.

7. Jeffrey Loman, KBIC Tribal Member (See Tribal Comments Section)

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 57 12/14/2012

8. Alexis Raney 8a: “To whom it may concern, I am writing to share my concerns regarding the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #3889. Trans Superior Resources' (TRS) exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest could put an important biological, cultural and recreational area at risk of permanent degradation.

The West Branch of the Ontonogon River is a federally-designated Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Cascade Creek flows through the southwestern corner of the proposed exploration area and joins the West Branch of the Ontonogon River, about half a mile south of the exploration area. ANY type of mining activity in the upper reaches of Cascade Creek could negatively alter the water quality and hydrology of the waters downstream. History has shown that water pollution (either surface or underground) is the most common legacy of mining activity.”

Response: In response to the commenter’s concerns that this project will or could cause permanent degradation, the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) and the EA in Section 3.5, have illustrated that there are minimal to no effects anticipated from this project, and as such, this project would not result in permanent degradation.

Please see the response to 6a that discusses mining. Furthermore, adverse impacts on water quality are not anticipated due to implementation of protection measures as required in Michigan’s mineral well drilling regulations (Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations, Part 625) as well as the BLM (EA Appendix B) and ONF stipulations specified for this project (EA pages 17-23). Further detailed analysis is presented in the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) that documents that no effects are anticipated to water quality from this project.

References: Michigan DEQ. 2008. Michigan’s mineral well operations regulations part 625. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geological Survey. Lansing, MI. 56 pages.

8b: “The Trap Hills, where this 720 acre prospecting permit is located, is a wild area consisting of high rock outcrops, spectacular views, mature and old-growth forests, and healthy rivers and streams. It supports populations of a number of rare plants whose main range is in western North America. It is a truly unique and beautiful part of the UP that should be spared the environmental degradation associated with the potential type of mining activity associated with the ore deposits that TRS is investigating.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 58 12/14/2012

Response: See Response 5d and Response 6a for more discussion on mining. The project area is does not contain any classified old growth, and Stipulations 36 and 38 on page 22 of the EA were designed to protect visuals and minimize any scenic intrusions created by exploration activities from vistas or high vantage points.

As outlined in Section 1.2 of the EA, National Forest System lands are generally available for exploration activities unless an area is Congressionally-withdrawn or precluded from such uses through other means (i.e., Forest Plan direction). As the mineral resource is federally-owned, and the proposed prospecting permit area has not been formally withdrawn, the project area is available for the proposed activities.

The project area lies within Management Areas (MAs) 6.1 and 6.2., and neither of these MAs have been withdrawn for mineral exploration. Additionally, the Trap Hills Escarpment Special Interest Area (SIA) – MA 8.3 lies farther to the west and is not a part of this project area, although this type of relief and topography is also seen to the north and east of the project area. (Note that the Forest Plan does prohibit authorization of federal mineral exploration that disturbs surface resources in MA 8.3).

“Area recreational trails include the North Country Trail (which borders the NW corner of the western parcel), the Cascade Falls hiking trail, and the Pioneer Multi-Use Trail.”

8c: “In 2008 TSR applied for and got a permit to prospect in a 3/4 square mile parcel of ONF land adjacent to one of the parcels on which they are applying for a permit this time. The company renewed their 2008 permit in 2010, and is apparently still prospecting there. While TRS is only requesting a prospecting permit, their ongoing activity in the area leads me to believe that an economically valuable ore deposit has been found and this is an advanced stage of defining the ore body that could become an active mine.

The United States and the State of Michigan have a duty to be diligent stewards of the Great Lakes,one of Earth's greatest freshwater resources. This requires taking the utmost care when considering possible hardrock mining operations located within any Great Lake watersheds.

Please carefully consider the ramifications of approving this permit. As a citizen of the Upper Peninsula of the State of Michigan, I request that you deny the permit based on the location (siting issue) of the prospecting permit and the potential for TRS or future mining interests to threaten the US or State of Michigan with a "takings" lawsuit if a hardrock mining permit associated with this possible ore body is denied in the future. Regards, Alexis Growe-Raney”

Response: See Response 6a.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 59 12/14/2012

9. Wendy Johnson 9a: “I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. Please do what you can to protect our natural resources...they are too far and few between! Thanks! Wendy Johnson”

Response: The commenter does not raise any site-specific concerns that require a response, but it should be noted that the EA analysis demonstrates that the stipulations proposed do protect natural resources.

10. Mindy Otto “Greetings, I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891". The project concerns me for three reasons: impacts to water quality, impacts to tourism .and habitat destruction.”

10a: “A hardrock minerals mine has a very high probability of polluting the surrounding watershed. With the mine's location and proximity to Lake Superior it would be an unnecessary irreversible risk to the water quality of the largest freshwater lake in the world.”

Response: See Response 6a for a discussion on mining and Response 8a for a response to water quality.

10b: This area serves as a source of income to the already impoverished Ontonagon County. Tourism, one of the largest industies in Michigan's Upper Peninsula today, relies on the pristine quality of our natural resources to provide jobs. This mine would undoubtedly change the natural landscape, make areas inaccessible, and alter the environment including air quality. This mine puts sustainable sources of income at risk. Yes, a certain amount of jobs will be created, but the industry of mining is inherently unsustainable and cannot provide income for future generations who will only be left with the unprofitable and ruined landscape.”

Response: See Response 6a for a discussion on mining. Forest Plan Guidelines emphasize that “management activities will generally reflect recreation objectives while minimizing conflicts with recreation uses”. Stipulations 37 - 39 on page 22 of the EA are in place to ensure that the recreation experience (i.e. tourism) in the project area would be minimally impacted by the project. In addition, the project activity is short in duration, and would not likely occur during periods of moderate to high recreation use.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 60 12/14/2012

10c: “The creation of this mine will destroy the natural habitat of native Michigan flora and fauna. The landscape will be irreversibly changed once a hardrock minerals mine is put in place. The Trap Hills region consists of high rock outcrops, spectacular views, mature old‐growth forests, and pristine rivers and streams. It supports populations of a number of rare plants whose main range is in western North America. This is a truly unique and beautiful part of the UP.”

Response: See Response 6a for a discussion on mining. See Response 8b. As described in the EA, the number of trees and amount of overall vegetation removal is expected to be minor (see EA Ch. 2 and Response 11b, below). We expect, based on past experience with minerals exploration, that there would be minor, and short-term, effects to habitats in the exploration area. Vegetation grows back quickly, thus the geophysical survey lines are nearly impossible to relocate after just a couple growing seasons. Core drilling pads are generally placed in pre-existing openings in the forest. So the exploration company usually just does a small amount of brush removal, and sets up the drilling equipment. The drill pads are usually covered in sedges, grasses, goldenrod and other pioneer plant species within a couple growing seasons, again providing habitat. The total area projected to be disturbed for the drill pads is less than one percent of the project area. This becomes discountable in terms of habitat availability in the project area. Moreover, the more unusual habitat on the high rock areas is protected from ground disturbance by Stipulation 15. See also the Biological Evaluation (BE) (Project Record – 52101) for more information on habitats and species associated with them.

10d: “I oppose the propecting permit decision and an Environmental Impact Assessment is needed before any other action takes place. Mindy Otto Program Manager Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve 906‐345‐9223”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, 7a, and 8b.

11. Rod Sharka “I have very serious concerns regarding the proposed exploration by Trans Superior Resources for precious metals in the Ottawa National Forest (Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project 38891).

The 720 acre (1.125 square miles) area where TSR wishes to explore is within the glorious Trap Hills region of the western U.P. The Trap Hills region consists of high rock outcrops, spectacular views, mature and old-growth forests, and pristine rivers and streams. It supports populations of a number of rare plants whose main range is in western North America. This is a truly unique and beautiful part of the U.P.

Area recreational trails include the North Country Trail (which borders the NW corner of the western parcel), the Cascade Falls hiking trail, and the Pioneer Multi-Use Trail. Cascade Creek flows through the southwestern corner of the DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 61 12/14/2012

proposed exploration area. It tumbles over scenic Cascade Falls before joining the West Branch of the Ontonagon River, about half a mile south of the exploration area. The West Branch is a federally-designated Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Breathtaking Norwich Bluff towers above the floodplain of the West Branch, about 3 miles east of the site. The trail running along the base of the bluff was being used by travelers at least 1000 years ago.”

11a: “Allowing mining will only result in closing more and more of our - not their, Ottawa National Forest.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, 8a, and 8b. Stipulations have been proposed to lessen the impact to Forest visitors to ensure recreation areas would remain open for continued public use. Any closures would be temporary for public safety.

11b: “Because of the above stated facts, the intrusion of even minor development activity (exploratory drilling) into this relatively pristine area would result in a threat to water, plants, animals, and other natural resources, recreation, tourism, and the resident population's way of life…”

Response: See Responses 5d and 8b. Threats to fauna from exploratory drilling and other exploration activities would be minor. As described in the BE (Project Record – 52101) for this project, there may be temporary disturbance-type impacts to individuals of several Sensitive wildlife species (e.g. wolf, three bats, Connecticut warbler, wood turtle, a mollusk, a dragonfly, and three rare butterflies). No population-level impacts are expected to any of these species, however. No effects are expected to the two federally-listed species that may occur on the Ottawa: Canada lynx; not confirmed on the Ottawa in over 40 years; and the Kirtland’s warbler; known to occur, but limited to young jack pine stands which do not occur within 10 miles of the project area (BE, Project Record - 52101). Effects to Management Indicator Species are described in the MIS Report (Project Record – 59101) for this project, and are expected to be relatively minor. American marten and ruffed grouse are not uncommon in the project area; however, the project area represents low-quality habitat for both. Proposed activities would not remove nor improve habitat for either species. Stipulations 13-18 are designed specifically to protect TES as well as Regional Forester Sensitive Species, (pages 18 and 19 of the EA).

Regarding aquatic animals, project stipulations are designed to minimize changes to water levels (Stipulation 11), and Stipulation 13 specifies a process by which threatened, endangered, and sensitive species protection would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Other stipulations would protect water quality (Stipulations 7 through 10). Stipulations 43 and 44 are specifically designed to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species to project area waterbodies when drafting water for drilling. These stipulations would protect water and aquatic animals from threats related to the proposed exploratory drilling.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 62 12/14/2012

With respect to rare plants, there are documented occurrences of Michigan-listed and Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants within the Trap Hills. Within the project area, the most likely locations for such rare plants are T49N R41W Section 5 N½ SW¼ and Section 8 SE¼ SE¼ NE¼, the higher elevation rocky areas. Ground disturbance for drilling is prohibited in these areas (Stipulation 15). The bulk of the prospecting project area is managed second growth forest, which has had timber treatments including aspen clearcuts (1997-99), precommercial thinning (1982), thinning (2003) and improvement cuts (1999, 2000, 2003). There is lower potential for rare plants in these managed stands, and limiting the exploration mainly to existing roads and openings further limits the species of rare plants which might have potential to occur where prospecting is proposed. Botany field surveys were conducted in 2012 (Project Record – 53103 and 53104). The two rare plant occurrences located during these surveys were well off any existing roads and are protected by stipulation 16. Previously, a population of a rare plant was documented along FR 630. This population has survived continual road use, periodic snowplowing, and, once, National Guard maneuvers, and is protected by stipulations 17 and 18. Given the protective stipulations and small area of impact from prospecting, rare plant populations are expected to persist unscathed with ample potential habitat available, currently and after the project is complete. See also the BE in the Project Record – 52101. The total area of possible prospecting effects is small (<1% of the NFS acreage projected to be used for drill pad sites) such that no common native plant species are expected to decline due to prospecting activities. Generally sedges and grasses fill in disturbed areas quickly on the Ottawa. Following completion of drilling and geophysical surveys, the project area is expected to look similar to current conditions, with scattered openings as exist now but predominately second growth forest. Botanizing opportunities are expected to remain available. For concerns regarding water quality, see Response 8a. For concerns regarding tourism and recreation, see Response 10b. 11c: “I am also aware of the scientific controversy related to the cause for the recent "Uranium Advisory" in the very area of this proposed project as well as the areas surrounding this project.

Response: See Response 7b.

11d: “Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management issuing permits to do mineral prospecting or exploratory drilling in the Ottawa National Forest (ONF). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Rod Sharka 7733 Palmer Lake Road Land O' Lakes, WI 54540”

Response: As stated in Section 1.2 of the EA, the BLM has the responsibility and authority over federally-owned minerals. Therefore, the BLM is the agency capable of granting or denying the issuance of a permit to Trans Superior Resources, Inc. DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 63 12/14/2012

12. Emily Whittaker, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve “Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to you today to urge you not to approve mineral exploration/extraction permits to companies requesting access in the Ottawa National Forest.”

12a: “This is unfair that the people's property, including its minerals, are available for wholesale to a private company. In particular, I am concerned about the potential permit request from Trans Superior Resources.”

Response: See Response 5d and 9a.

12b: “The area in which they are seeking to explore is federal recreation lands and it would impede with that use.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, and 11a. Please also see Comment 4a. Stipulations 36-39 were developed to protect public recreational uses.

12c: “I again urge you to deny such permits. Thank you for your consideration. Emily Whittaker Executive Director Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve”

Response: See Response 11d.

13. Teresa Bertossi 13a: “I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891.”

Response: See Response 9a.

14. Shawn Carlson 14a: “Greetings. I am acquainted with all of the mineral exploration and mining companies that are currently active in northern Michigan, or have been active in recent years. In my professional opinion, Trans Superior (Bitterroot Resources Ltd.) is an outstanding company with an exceptional record for both environmental protection as well as professional and courteous interactions with both Tribal communities and the public at large. Further, the small-scale drilling equipment employed by this company is of such low impact, that it is virtually impossible to even identify a drill site within a year or two after reclamation. I fully support this company's presence and activities in our state. Please extend them every possible assistance and courtesy. Sincerely, Shawn M. Carlson Mineralogist”

Response: Thank you for your comment.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 64 12/14/2012

15. Carla Champagne 15a: “Dear Susan Adams, I am a long time citizen of the Upper Peninsula and care deeply for the future of this beautiful and wild land. I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. Carla Champagne Big Bay, MI”

Response: See Response 9a.

16. Terri Irving 16a: “Hello, I do not like the Trans Superior Resources exploring for gold, nickel, cobalt and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Projext # 38891.

You need to support the citizens of the Upper Peninsula on this sensitive issue. Thanl you, Terri Irving”

Response: See Response 9a.

17. Eeva Miller 17a: “I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. This is a beautiful natural area that will be ruined. Eeva Miller”

Response: See Responses 8b and 9a.

18. Allan Olson “To Whom It May Concern: We would like to express our concern about Trans Superior Resources, a Canadian mining company, exploring an anrea in Ontonagan County in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan.”

18a: “They would be looking for metals found as sulfide salt deposit, the mining of which is environmentally threatening. Thank you, Dr. Allan & Maxine Olson.”

Response: Even though there is a potential for sulfide or other mineralization in the region, there is no guarantee that those mineral deposits would be in the project area. Deposits are either considered ‘salt deposits’ which occur from evaporation, or ‘sulfide deposits’ which generally develop from the introduction of sulfide bearing water, and are not associated together. If the permittee were to encounter a sulfide deposit during drilling exploration, the amount of cuttings produced would be minimal. A good estimate for cuttings produced from core drilling is about two cubic yards of material produced for a 3500’ deep core hole (Tech Memo 7 BLM). Therefore, there would not be enough material produced DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 65 12/14/2012

containing sulfides to have an impact. Also, state regulations require that the drill holes be plugged by filling them with cement after the exploration process is complete (Michigan's Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625, see Project Record -56104).

19. Catherine Parker 19a: “Dear Ms. Adams, I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. I favor the "No Action" alternative. Thank you, Catherine Parker 322 W. Ohio St. Marquette, MI 49855”

Response: See Response 9a.

20. Kathleen Searl 20a: “I am very VERY concerned about Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest. Kathleen Searl 49953 State Hwy M‐26 Hancock, MI 49930”

Response: See Response 9a.

21. Walt Shiel “Re: Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891

As a year‐round resident, and landowner, of the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, I have a vested interested in protecting its environment as well as promoting sound policies and projects to improve our economy and add jobs.

I have no inherent objection to exploratory drilling for ores that are vital to our national security and economic progress. I am also aware that a full environmental impact study would have to be submitted and their mining plan approved before full‐scale mining could begin.”

21a: “However, I am opposed to allowing any foreign company, even a Canadian one, to mine our lands, something Canadian companies have been allowed to do for a long time.The US government should be doing whatever is necessary to encourage US companies to pursue the mining and recovery of US natural resources. It is foolish in the long run to allow foreign companies to manage and manipulate US resources. Walt Shiel 28151 Quarry Lake Rd ‐ Lake Linden, MI 49945 Keweenaw Peninsula”

Response: See Response 6a. This project would not authorize mine development. This concern is outside the scope of this project. Trans Superior DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 66 12/14/2012

Resources, Inc is a licensed US company, and as such is allowed to apply for a prospecting permit (Project Record – 41110). Trans Superior Resources is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bitterroot Resources LTD which is a Canadian company.

22. Rico Torreano 22a: “I wish to express my concern over Trans Superior Resources' exploration for minerals in the Ottawa National Forest. If an economic deposit is discovered, the political pressure brought by mining interests will overwhelm all opposition based on science or quality of life.

Response: See Responses 5d and 6a.

22b: The only way to protect the Ottawa National Forest is to deny the prospecting permit. Rico Torreano 1690 Co Rd. 492 Marquette, MI 49855”

Response: See Responses 11d and 9a.

23. Allan Baker 23a: “Susan Adams, District Ranger, I have lived in the UP four more than forty years and over the years I have learned full well about the legacy of mining here. This land is the “peoples” NOT the “Corporations”. They leave the mess that we will and have to live with. Miss Adams, you know I’m right! Allan Baker

"I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891".”

Response: See Responses 5d and 9a.

24. Michael Carr, Trans Superior Resources, Inc. “Dear Ms Adams, Further to your request for feedback on the USDA-Forest Service’s Environmental Assessment (EA) resulting from Trans Superior Resources, Inc.’s application for a prospecting permit on federally-owned minerals, I have the following comments on the EA and accompanying Project Stipulations;”

24a: “Paragraph 3.6.2 of the EA states “the project area was surveyed for historical artifacts in 1982 and again in 1993. These surveys did not locate any cultural resource sites within the project area.” If this statement is correct, then Stipulation 3 could be deleted.”

Response: Stipulation 3 has been reworded to show that expense of the heritage resource survey can be borne by the proponent OR by the Forest.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 67 12/14/2012

Numerous historic and archaeological sites have been documented on the Forest, including in the general area of proposed development. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 states that “no person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological resource located on public lands or Indian lands unless such activity is pursuant to a permit issued under section 4 of this Act…”

We have not received the drilling operation plan which would have the exact locations where drill pads and roads are proposed. At that time, the Forest can review the location of the drilling for heritage resources OR the survey can be contracted by the project proponent and reviewed by the Forest before operation.

Stipulation 3 has now been reworded to state “The project area has been completely surveyed for heritage resources. Should additional areas be required by the proponent, such as new roads in areas where heritage resource surveys have not been completed, than no earth disturbing activities shall occur prior to completion of a survey. The Forest can review the location of the drilling OR the survey can be contracted by the project proponent.”

24b: “Stipulation 4 states “If heritage resources are discovered during the implementation of exploration activities, the project shall halt and the Forest Archeologist shall be notified.” I believe the current wording of this stipulation is too broad, as there is; a) no process or timeline described for reinstating the exploration activities and b) the discovery of heritage resources in one discreet area of the project could result in a halt of exploration activities throughout the entire 720- acre project area. I propose the following alternative wording, which was successfully used by USDA-Forest Service in a mineral exploration EA prepared in 2007; “If heritage resources are discovered during the implementation of exploration activities, the project at that site shall halt and the Forest Archeologist shall be notified and the Forest Archeologist shall also notify the THPO.”

Response: Stipulation 4 has been reworded to show that work only in the immediate area need be suspended. The revised stipulation now states “If heritage resources are discovered during the implementation of exploration activities, the work in the immediate area shall halt until the Forest Service can provide further direction.”

24c: “The wording of Stipulations 17 and 18 is confusing, as the limitations on use of FR 630 are difficult to understand. Stipulation 17 severely limits activities along FR 630 in Sections 4 and 3 (SW1/4), while the last sentence of Stipulation 18 deems activities on FR 630 northwest of FR 630-K, which is also in Section 4, as “not a concern for the plants” Clarification of these stipulations would be appreciated.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 68 12/14/2012

Response: We will reword the stipulations to clarify, as shown below. Also, the stipulations can be clarified in the field for the prospecting company by the FS representative.

“Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on this very comprehensive EA document. Sincerely, TRANS SUPERIOR RESOURCES, INC. “Michael Carr” Michael S. Carr President”

25. Gene Champagne “I am a resident of Michigan's upper Peninsula and I have several concerns about the Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. Some of these concerns include the following;”

25a: “This is a relatively pristine area and even exploratory drilling would be an intrusion.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, 10c, and 11b.

25b: “There is scientific controversy related to the cause for a recent "Uranium Advisory" in the area of this proposed project.”

Response: See Response 7b.

25c: “There is public controversy about this proposal.”

Response: See Response 7d. The Responsible Official will review the public comments and will consider the level of public controversy when making her Decision.

25d: “There is a threat to water, flora, fauna, other natural resources, tourism, and recreation in the area of the proposed project.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 69 12/14/2012

Response: Any anticipated effects are minor and short-term. The EA clearly documents that minimal to no direct or indirect effects are anticipated for the resources analyzed in Section 3.5 (pages 29-33), with the implementation of the stipulations developed for this project. In addition to the EA, the Analysis Framework (Project Record 3101) provides a detailed analysis of the project area’s resources. This framework clearly illustrates that minimal to no effects are anticipated from Alternative 2, with the implementation of project specific stipulations, BLM stipulations, and State regulations. For additional discussion of water related concerns, see the responses to 5i, 5l, 5q, and 8a. For further discussion of flora, terrestrial and aquatic fauna, and recreational concerns see the responses to 10b and 11b.

25e: “This will add to the cumulative effects of other exploration and mining development that is already happening.”

Response: See Responses 7c, 8c, 43c related to cumulative effects of other exploration activities and Response 6a for a discussion related to mining.

25f: “There needs to be an EIS done as required by NEPA. Sincerely, Gene Champagne Big Bay, MI”

Response: See Response 7a.

26. Laura Farwell “To Ms. Susan Adams, District Ranger: I have serious concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891.”

26a: “Those concerns include, in part, negative impact on the environment and health, destruction of a National gem,…”

Response: See Responses 8b, 11b and 25d.

26b: “..the fallacy that a few temporary jobs will be the economic salvation of a region,..”

Response: As stated in Section 3.5 of the EA, the analysis determined that this project is anticipated to be temporary in nature and limited in scope. Therefore, limited benefits to the local economy are anticipated.

26c: “..and the lack of regulatory and enforcement competency and budget as stated by both federal and state agencies (w.r.t. proposed hardrock mining in Michigan and in other parts of the U.S.) Thank you. Dr. Laura D. K. Farwell Marquette, MI”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 70 12/14/2012

Response: There are numerous state and Federal regulations that pertain to mineral exploration projects. These include the Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625, the Forest Service Stipulations regarding the issuance of this prospecting permit as laid out in the EA and, the BLM regulations regarding permitting and bonding in 43 CFR 3500. Combined, these regulations and their counterparts in other states have been sufficient to provide the regulatory oversight that is an important part of the process (see clarifying response from Tim Howell, ID Team member and BLM staff, Project Record - 41110).

With respect to monitoring, the Forest Service’s role is to monitor to confirm that stipulations are being adhered to by the permittee; this is accomplished by Forest Service staff assigned to the project visiting the project while in operation. Additionally, FS staff also monitor if stipulations are helping to protect the natural resources, and if those stipulations can be improved upon for future projects. The BLM also plays an important role in monitoring and enforcement. The BLM does quarterly inspections while the project is ongoing (see email from Tim Howell to Caleb Butcher, Project Record – 4186).

The role of the State is to look for containment of cuttings and drilling fluids (in an excavated sump or a container), source of water, proximity of the drill site to surface water or wetlands, storage of fuel and other materials, including measures to minimize spills, and number of holes drilled in the area. During the plugging process the State DEQ staff confirms that materials and methods used are acceptable as well as the ratio of mix water to cement, and the total number of bags of cement required to plug the hole from bottom to top. (Melanie Humphrey, DEQ email conversation 11/13/2012, see Project Record - 4194). Budgetary concerns are outside the scope of this project; if a permit is issued, monitoring by federal and state agencies will be required.

Also see Response 6a for more discussion on mining. The commenter mentions “a lack of regulatory and enforcement competency”; this is a personal opinion and does not warrant a response. The budget of the Forest Service, the BLM, or any State agencies is beyond the scope of this project.

27. Steve Garske “Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal to allow additional minerals prospecting on the Ottawa National Forest. I have serious concerns about this project, as outlined below.

27a: To start with, the EA leaves out some important information when it comes to TSR's motivation for wanting to explore in this part of the Ottawa. Page 24 of the EA for this project states that, "At present, there is one private minerals project in the county on National Forest System lands, which was initiated in 2008. Since the project began, geophysical surveys have been completed, but to date, no drilling has occurred and no core samples have been collected." I assume that this statement refers to the 2008 "Private Minerals Exploration" DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 71 12/14/2012

project by TSR, on T49N, R41W, Sections 5 and 6, and T50N, R41W, Section 32. This 2008 project is adjacent to and partly overlaps (in SW4 Section 5) the southwesternmost parcel ("Parcel A") proposed for leasing in this latest EA.”

“The two projects are obviously related, and the EA for this project should include the location, status and impacts of the still-active 2008 TSR project.”

Response: The 2008 “Private Minerals Exploration in the Forest Road 400 Area” project has been incorporated by reference as allowed by 40 CFR 1502.21. The Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) and EA both included consideration of this project (EA, pp. 11 and 24). As described in the EA (page 24), the 2008 project is specific to exploration for privately-owned minerals, which differs from the current proposal to search for federally-owned minerals (EA, p. 7). At this time, the 2008 project has not been completed, with exception of some geophysical surveys (EA, p. 24).

The location of the permitted area associated with the 2008 project is outlined in the Project Record (56203). The commenter’s quote of the EA description is correct; the 2008 project area encompasses Sections 5 and 6 (Township 49N, Range 41W) and Section 32 (Township 50N, Range 41W) (Project Record – 510101). Therefore, both the current and 2008 project areas share the SW ¼ of Section 5, which encompasses approximately 160-acres. The 2008 project only included implementation of geophysical surveys in Section 5.

The Responsible Official determined that no impacts of the 2008 project would occur with implementation of design criteria and stipulations (Project Record – 510101). The 2008 project was authorized under a type of environmental documentation called a categorical exclusion (CE). Specifically, this project was addressed using a category that allows short-term mineral, energy or geophysical investigations and associated activities, such as road improvements for equipment and operations access (36 CFR 220.6[e][8])). Categorical exclusions require the evaluation of resource conditions to determine whether extraordinary circumstances (36 CFR 220.6[b]) related to a proposed project are present, which would require further analysis in an EA or EIS. For the 2008 project, the Responsible Official determined that there were “no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment (Project Record – 510101).

The Department of Interior’s Freedom of Information Act regulations are outlined in 43 CFR 2.7(c), which directs that Federal records and documents must be made available upon request, unless they fall under a category of exemption where information would be withheld. The commenter’s request for more information regarding the company’s interest for requesting a permit to explore for minerals on the Ottawa falls under Exemption 4 – “Trade Secrets and

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 72 12/14/2012

Confidential Business Information” (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/res/FOIA.html). one of the 9 exemptions.

27b: “Page 10 of the EA dismisses concerns by commenters that mining is a "reasonably foreseeable" or "connected" action to this latest exploration proposal. It goes on to say that "mining is not a reasonably foreseeable action if no ore body is discovered". It then states that three exploration projects have occurred on the Bergland RD between 2001 and 2008, with none of these projects leading to further development. This statement is disingenuous, particularly with regard to the 2008 project. The fact that this permit would allow prospecting by the same corporation in the very same area as the 2008 project is evidence by itself that this new permit is much more likely to lead to further development than the typical permit. Furthermore, one could logically argue that the 2008 permit is ALREADY leading to further development, in the form of the request for this new permit.”

Response: See Response 6a. As outlined in Sections 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 and 1.7, the scope of this project is very specific, both in its location and in the context of the parameters identified in the Decision Framework (EA, p. 8). That is, the actions proposed would occur only within the project area identified in Appendix C of the EA. In addition, if approved, the project would lead only to a prospecting permit allowing Trans Superior Resources, Inc. the right to conduct exploration activities, including core drilling, as well as land use and occupancy of NFS lands during operations.

The EA states that mining is not part of the activities involved with this project (Sections 1.2 and 1.7). The development of a mining operation would require a separate project. The Decision Framework for this project includes a recommendation to the Forest Supervisor for consent, if determined applicable; this consent does not imply a right to lease or mine (EA, pages 3 and 8). This statement is consistent with the Special Stipulation outlined in Forest Service Manual 2822.1 as disclosed on page 4 of the EA.

In response to the commenter’s concern that mining is a connected action, According to 40CFR 1508.25, Connected Actions are “Actions that: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Minerals development does not meet the definition of a connected action for the following reasons: first, mineral exploration does not automatically trigger mineral development or mining as a viable ore body would have to be discovered for this to happen, and that is not a foregone conclusion of exploration; second, while mineral development is a result of locating an ore body, development is also the dependent on other factors such as economic viability, among others; finally mineral exploration is not interdependent on mineral development.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 73 12/14/2012

27c: “The EA states that there is no evidence that mining would occur on this site if this permit is issued. Yet TSR has been prospecting in this area for 4 years now. They must have substantial data on what lies belowground. Where exactly have they conducted geophysical or other surveys, and what have they found? This is public land and I believe the public has a right to know. This information should be included in the EA for this project, as it clearly has a bearing on the likelihood that this new exploration will lead to mining.”

Response: See Response 27a. The release of information specific to the findings of Trans Superior Resources, Inc.is not available pursuant to the exemptions provided by 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and (c). However, the associated activities with this adjacent project are outlined in the Private Minerals Exploration in the Forest Road 400 Area Decision Memo (Project Record – 510101) that was released in 2008. This Decision Memo is available upon request.

The Trans Superior Resources, Inc. exploration that was started in 2008 was located in an area of private mineral ownership. The title holder of a private minerals estate does not have to report any findings to the public. The activities to date for this project have consisted of geophysical surveys; no core holes have been drilled. Geophysical surveys are conducted to identify areas of interest, and once those areas are determined, exploratory drilling occurs to identify confirm or negate the results of geophysical surface surveys.

“Several weeks ago I participated in the Ottawa's Public Lands Day. When we were done cleaning up an old dump we had a large haul trailer piled full of garbage, and an even larger trailer (one that could easily accommodate a large pickup truck with room to spare) piled high with old stoves, bedframes, barrels and other scrap metal. The scrap was hauled to a scrapyard outside Ironwood, where it will eventually be made into new stuff. Jobs and labor are required to do all this. If we are going to have a livable future for our descendants, recycling and reuse must be our future, not the environmentally destructive extraction of new metals from the ground to replace those that we have thoughtlessly "thrown away".”

27d: “With the Trap Hills Escarpment Special Interest Area (SIA) a couple miles to the southwest, the Norwich Bluff SIA a couple miles to the east, Cascade Falls and the Wild and Scenic West Branch to the immediate south, and three popular recreational trails running through the area, this is not the place to allow industrial minerals exploration. I therefore request that you choose Alternative 1 (No Action). Steve Garske PO Box 4 Marenisco, MI”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, 10b, and 11a. Also see Comment 4a.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 74 12/14/2012

28. Jim Malosh 28a: “"I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891". Jim Malosh”

Response: See Response 9a.

29. Catherine Paavola 29a: “I am very alarmed by this interest of Trans Superior to do exploration in this area. It belongs to all of us, not Trans Superior (Bitterroot), or any other company. This is one of the most beautiful recreational areas including clean streams and rivers,..”

Response: See Responses 5d, 5i, 5q, 6a, 8a, and 8b, as well as Comment 4a. The only recreational area (site) within the project area that has developed amenities is Cascade Falls. Stipulations have been written to protect these amenities, and preserve the experience. Stipulations 36 - 39 on page 22 of the EA have been developed to address any potential recreational use conflicts and to preserve the visual integrity of Cascade Falls, and its adjacent trail.

“……and is a favorite for citizens all across this country to visit, and enjoy. Everyone I talk with is worried that this is just the first step moving along the downhill (as in unstoppable) road to the Permitting Process, and we will do anything in our power (little as it is against such giants as Bitterroot, or Rio Tinto) to prevent this. THE PEOPLE (all Americans ) who own these federally designated rivers and trails have a greater right than Billionaire Corporations that just want to increase their bottom line. The degradation they impose on these pristine places that belong to us all can never be undone.

Please decide in favor of us little people who these lands were set aside for, and do not let prospecting proceed.”

29b: Also, please keep me informed and up to date. Thank You. Catherine Paavola”

Response: This individual will be added to the project’s mailing list.

30. Constance Sherry “I have deep concerns regarding Trans Superior Resource's exploration for minerals in Ottawa National Forest, especially the Trap Hills region in Ontonagon County that seems to be targeted.

I believe it is called Federal Hard Rock Minerals Prospecting Project # 38891.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 75 12/14/2012

30a: “This is an area crossed by the North Country Trail and is enjoyed by those of us who use the Ottawa National Forest for non-motorized uses.”

Response: See Response 5u and Comment 4a. The North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST traverses between the project parcels, and only touches Parcel A in one location; however, the trail does not pass through the parcel; this is illustrated on Map C-2 of the EA. These areas are protected under approved stipulations, and because of steep topography that is not suitable for exploration activities. Stipulation 27 on page 21 of the EA prohibits exploration on slopes greater than 35 percent, and the slopes in this particular area of the NCNST have a steeper grade than 35 percent.

30b: “Mining in the area would disrupt this environmentally sensitive area. Please deny any permits in this area. Thank You, Constance Sherry”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, and 8b.

31. Joanne Thomas “I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891.”

31a: It is always important to compare what's below the ground to what's above it (with the implication that sometimes what's above the ground is more important and should have precedence). “I believe that there are some places that are just too special to mine, even if it can be done with no harmful ecological impacts.

Response: See Responses 5c, 5d, 6a, and 8b.

At present we have laws in place which protect the environment but allow prospecting for mineral riches – and there's nothing wrong with that.”

31b: “The real problem is that the Big Miners run roughshod over those laws.”

Response: See Response 6a, and 26c. A requirement to BLM’s issuance of an exploration permit is that Trans Superior Resources, Inc. must adhere to and follow all state and Federal laws and regulations governing mineral exploration. If an observation and determination were made that Trans Superior Resources, Inc. was not operating within the regulatory framework of their permit, their operating rights would be revoked by the BLM, per regulation 3505.85 (see Project Record – 41110).

“As demonstrated so clearly at the Kennecott Eagle project Rio Tinto -rules the roost and, with illegal cooperation from our MDEQ has stomped on or slithered under all of our protests - to impose their will, to steal our resources.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 76 12/14/2012

It gets worse as our current crop of legislators pass amendments which pull the teeth from existing laws under a "streamlining" pretext. Joanne L. Thomas Allouez, Mi. 49805”

32. Norman Tuinstra 32a: “Susan Adams, District Ranger: I am very concerned about the Trans Superior Resources' mineral exploration in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project No. 38891. I live in an ares where mining interests have been and are still exploring and know first‐hand the damage to the environment, hardship for area citizens and modus operandi of the mining industry. Thank you for your service to the citizens of the country. Marla Tuinstra, W6334 Co. Rd. 358, Daggett, MId 49821”

Response: See Response 9a.

33. Nancy and Al Warren 33a: “I have serious environmental concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891, in particular, the decision not to complete an environmental impact statement to assess the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of this project.”

Response: See Responses 7a, 7c, and 43c.

33b: “Support for this project focuses on the need for jobs without regard for the long term environmental consequences. Nancy Warren PO Box 102 Ewen, MI 49925”

Response: With respect to the commenter’s first statement about the “need for jobs”, see Response 26b. Regarding the statement referring to “long term environmental consequences”, see the response to 26a. The purpose and need are stated on page 6 of the EA. The purpose is to “respond to a hardrock minerals Prospecting Permit Application submitted by Trans Superior Resources, Inc. to the BLM and to make recommendations to the Regional Forester about whether to consent to the issuance of a permit.”

34. Sherry Zoars “I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891.”

34a: “This scenic area is used by hikers and other recreationists and its pristine nature will be spoiled by mining, even exploratory mining.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 77 12/14/2012

Response: See Responses 5u, 29a, and 30a; also refer to Comment 4a for discussions on the hiking trails. See also Responses 6a, and 8b.

34b: “I am also concerned how mining might be affected by the possible uranium deposits that have been reported in the area.”

Response: See Responses 6a and 7b

Reference: Sherman, Hiedi M., Peter Taylor, John S. Gierke, and Cecilia P. Anderson. 2003. Elevated uranium in aquifers of the Jacobsville sandstone, Upper Peninsula, Michigan, USA. Available: http://cdb.fs.usda.gov/content/dav/fs/NFS/Ottawa/Program/2800MineralsGeology /2820LeasesPermitsLicenses/MIES56527Transuperior/ResponseToComments/E levated%20Uranium%20in%20Aquifers%20of%20the%20Jacobsville%20Sandst one.pdf.

34c: “I feel that in this special place, the above-ground resources are more valuable than the below-ground resources and must be protected. Sherry Zoars PO Box 701 Watersmeet, MI 49969”

Response: See Responses 5c, 5d, and 8b.

35. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (See Tribal Comments Section) 36. David Allen “I have gone through (but quickly) the EA for the project; it seems to be pretty good if you accept that mineral exploration should be allowed.”

36a: “I do have concerns regarding threatened and endangered species protection…”

Response: See response to 11b. The Forest completed a BE (Project Record 52101) in which direct, indirect and cumulative effects were analyzed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species. Stipulation 13 specifies a process by which TES species protection would be handled on a case-by-case basis.

36b: “…and protection from non‐native invasive species.”

Response: The Non-native Invasive Plants Specialist report discusses the current status of the project area with regard to invasive plants and the likelihood of spread from project activities. Please refer to that report for more information. See also responses to 5o, 5q, and 5w.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 78 12/14/2012

36c: “I think that, in the Trap Hills, more stringent requirements are needed.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, 10c, and 11b.

36d: “The Trap Hills are a superb recreational area. I think the Trap Hills should be made a National Recreation Area, with portions in Wild and Scenic Rivers and other portions having wilderness designation. Some logging is compatible with the prime focus on recreation and aesthetics. Selection cuts that do not seriously break the canopy (except those which are desired for game openings) are compatible with the mid‐range view shed from the bluffs. However, even exploratory drilling is likely to be industrial in nature; this type should not be allowed. Drilling that does not break the canopy is perhaps OK. Thanks for reading. Be well. Dave Allen”

Response: See Responses 5d, 5e, 5j, and 8b. With respect to the commenter’s statement about the “Trap Hills should be made a National Recreation Area”; that is outside the scope of this decision. Additionally, the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) and Section 3.5 of the EA clearly document that there will be minimal to no effects as a result of the project.

37. Lori Anderson, Save Our Sky Blue Waters

“Please accept these comments in regard to the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Trans Superior Resources Inc, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project (the Project), on behalf of Save Our Sky Blue Waters (SOS Blue Waters).”

37a: “Please include these comments as part of the Forest Service's official record for the Project and keep SOS Blue Waters on your mailing list (at the address below) to receive copies of all future notices, announcements, and documents related to this Project.”

Response: The commenter will be added to the project’s mailing list.

“SOS Blue Waters is a grassroots organization representing residents of the Upper Peninsula and surrounding region who have grave concerns about proposed metallic mineral exploration and mining projects occurring throughout the area.

The 720 acre area where Trans Superior Resources wishes to explore is within the scenic Trap Hills region of the western UP of Michigan. The Project area includes recreational trails such as the North Country Trail, the Cascade Falls Hiking Trail, and the Pioneer Trail.”

37b: “Possible adverse effects upon the scenic and recreational resources of the area have not been adequately addressed in the Project's EA.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 79 12/14/2012

Response: See Responses 5j, 5u, 29a, 30a, and Comment 4a. Stipulations were also developed to protect recreational resources from project impacts, which include stipulations 36 – 39, page 22 of the EA. Furthermore the Analysis Framework (Project Record 3101) thoroughly addressed potential impacts and concerns on recreational activities on pages 3-7.

37c: “The U.S. Forest Service has a legal responsibility to protect the resources and watershed of the Ottawa National Forest. This responsibility should not be subjugated to monetary priorities from mineral exploration leases and permits, and political pressure upon the agency to encourage mining.”

Response: See Responses 5c, 5d, 6a, 8b, and 26b. The EA’s analysis shows that Alternative 2 with the recommended stipulations would protect the natural resources within the project area (EA, Sections 2.6, 3.4 and 3.5, 3.6 and Appendices A and B)..

37d: “The end result of exploration and mining will be the degradation of the Ottawa National Forest and surrounding areas.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, 8a, and 8b.

37e: “SOS Blue Waters believes that the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Trans Superior Resources Project is insufficient, and that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared before the Project can proceed.”

Response: See Response 7a.

“The extent of highly controversial metallic mineral exploration and mining is already having negative impacts upon the wetlands, wildlife, watersheds and communities of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The topic of mining, including projects such as this where companies are allowed to explore for minerals, is an important issue involving great concern and controversy.”

37f: “The Forest Service has not sufficiently analyzed the cumulative impacts from this Project as well as past, present and future exploration and mining projects in terms of wildlife, water resources and other issues.”

Response: See Responses 6a 7c, 8a, 11b and 25d.

“The Forest Service has a legal responsibility toward managing Federal lands in a way that sustains the ecological viability and integrity of the land.”

37g: “Again, the Forest Service is ignoring cumulative impacts caused by the extent of mineral exploration and mining, which should be included in a full EIS. In addition, the USFS is ignoring the cumulative impacts of any one mineral

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 80 12/14/2012

exploration project, which may include 24 hour a day noise, impacts of road building and hauling in and out of equipment, disturbance of wildlife, destruction of plant habitat and wetlands, potential water and soil contamination, monitoring of sump pits and reclamation, filling in of drill sites, and the potential for sulfide bearing ores or cuttings being released into the environment.”

Response: See Responses 6a, 7a, 7c, 11b, 18a, 25d, 26c, 35a1, and 43c.

With respect to the commenters concerns on noise effects (drilling sounds, etc.) on wildlife, while there would be a number of loud sounds produced during exploration activities, the Forest Service addressed disturbance issues including noise when analyzing project effects in both the BE and MIS Report. The BE on page 13 (Project Record – 52101) states: “Direct effects to habitat are expected to be minimal overall for animals, as described above. Minor habitat effects are expected for Connecticut warbler and tawny crescent. Disturbance of a few more RFSS animals’ breeding, feeding and sheltering behaviors is expected to occur, however. Due to the limited footprint of the project area, the relatively short duration of human presence at any one location (from a few hours in the case of walk-through geophysical surveys to a few days in the case of core-drilling) long- term abandonment of any portion of the project area by a breeding pair or territorial individual of these species is not expected.” Implementation of stipulations 13 and 14 on page 18 of the EA would further ensure that direct disturbance (by noise or other disturbing traits of mineral exploration) of breeding behaviors of TES species would be minimal. The occurrence of this equipment is short-term in duration and similar to other types of equipment used for forest management activities and public recreational vehicles.

In regards to the commenters concern about soil contamination, stipulation 30 on page 21 of the EA was designed to protect the soil resources from any mechanical fluids and states “Absorbent mats or other absorbent materials will remain under the drill rig and other equipment, in case of oil or hydraulic leaks during the operations and be available for on-site refueling and servicing of all the machinery used in the operation. Additional absorbent materials, such as a standard spill kit, shall be on-site.”

37h: “The Forest Service cannot ignore that future mining is likely to occur as the result of these mineral exploration projects.”

Response: See the Responses 6a and 27b.

“The more resources mining companies spend on exploration, the more likely mining is to occur. The more time and money that is spent on mineral exploration, the more difficult it will be for the Forest Service to deny leasing and mining permits in the future.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 81 12/14/2012

37i: “The Forest Service must address whether the mining companies are able to obtain any rights or privileges to the lands being explored through their mineral exploration pursuits.”

Response: See Response 5d. Trans Superior Resources, Inc. cannot gain any rights automatically through the exploration process. The exploration permit only provides the right to explore for mineralization. If an economic deposit is found, then Trans Superior must apply for a lease. This would be a second application process that is contingent upon a discovery of an economically viable mineral deposit. Any lease application would be reviewed to meet our regulatory criteria and then evaluated through a different and separate NEPA process from this project to determine any and all environmental impacts. The EA clearly describes the process on pages 2-4.

37j: “If any rights or privileges are obtained through prospecting projects such as the proposed Trans Superior Resources, the Forest Service must say whether or not the agency retains the absolute authority to completely deny the mining companies the opportunity to mine these lands in the future regardless as to what is discovered through the exploration process.”

Response: See Responses 6a and 27b.

37k: “If the Forest Service does not retain the absolute authority to completely deny future mining of these lands regardless of the outcome of the exploration projects, the potential resulting environmental impacts of the future mining activities must be addressed and disclosed now.”

Response: See Responses 6a and 27b.

“National Forest Lands and Mining

SOS Blue Waters believes that approving mineral prospecting permits and mineral exploration is contrary to the purpose for which these lands were acquired.

According to the EA: "All lands applied for in the permit area on the Bergland Ranger District were acquired under the Weeks Act or the Clarke McNary Act (subject to all laws applicable to the lands acquired under the Weeks Law Lands Act)."

See also: The Lands Nobody Wanted - Weeks Act March 1, 1911 The Weeks Act gave permission to the federal government to purchase private land in order to protect the headwaters of rivers and watersheds in the eastern United States and called for fire protection efforts through federal, state, and private cooperation. It has been one of the most successful pieces of

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 82 12/14/2012

conservation legislation in U.S. history. To date, nearly 20 million acres of forestland have been protected by the Weeks Act, land that provides habitat for hundreds of plants and animals, recreation space for millions of visitors, and economic opportunities for countless local communities. Found HERE”

37m: “Lastly, mineral exploration and mining decrease property values and displaces existing economic development, and diminishes the use of the land for other purposes.”

Response: See Response 26b. Mineral exploration occupies a very small foot print on the ground, and once the exploration is completed, the vegetation re- establishes itself rapidly. As such exploration does not diminish land use for other purposes such as recreation and timber management. As this project is not a mine (see the Response to 6a that discusses mining), further discussion of mining impacts is not warranted. Property values are not within the decision framework of this project. With respect to displacing existing economic development, the major industry in the project area is logging, and this project will not impact any logging operations, as there is no current logging activity in the immediate vicinity of the project area.

“SOS Blue Waters believes that alternative 1, The No Action alternative should be chosen. At the very least, the Trans Superior Resources Project should have a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared before advancing. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lori Andresen [email protected] Save Our Sky Blue Waters P.O. Box 3661 Duluth, MN 55803”

38. T. Church “I'd like to submit comments on the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit application (Project #38891) of Trans Superior Resources, Inc. for exploration of gold, nickel, cobalt and platinum group metals in the Trap Hills region of the Ottawa National Forest. The Trap Hills and the North Country Trail, as well as the water resources in this area are important to help maintain the local quality of life and the current economic strengths of the area as a recreational and retirement magnet. The types of minerals that are associated with this permit application represent a real challenge when balancing the hope for local mining employment while protecting the existing resources. There are few if any examples of this type of mining being done without negative impacts to the water resources. The current infrastructure of roads, utilities and remote location would require substantial changes, impacting further the current uses and resources.”

38a: “I am concerned that the proposed mining activities, including drilling, roads, impacts to water use and quality and other operations would hurt the unique existing resources in this region and the public's continued enjoyment of them.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 83 12/14/2012

Response: See Responses 5g, 5h, 6a, 8a, 8b, and 11b.

38b: “I urge you to prohibit roads in semi-primitive, non-motorized management areas, as these will adversely impact the current user groups and the management goals for the area.”

Response: See Responses 5g, 5h, and 8b. Also, see Comment 4a. The management goals of MA 6.1 do not preclude Federal mineral exploration. If Alternative 2 is selected for implementation, a special use permit for land use and occupancy would be issued. This instrument would serve as the authority required to use motorized equipment roads within MA 6.1 to remain consistent with the Forest Plan (p. 2-15). Furthermore, the permittee would be required to lock the gates in the project area that they use for access to discourage use by the public in this MA. Stipulation 40 on page 22 of the EA states “Gates on or accessing Forest Road 504 shall be kept closed and locked to prohibit use by public highway vehicles.”

“I appreciate this opportunity to submit comments. T. Church PO Box 778 Watersmeet, MI 49969”

39. J. Cameron Coleman 39a: “Dear Susan Adams: This writing is to comment on the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospectiong Permit application (Project #38891) of Trans Superior Resources, Inc. for exploration of gold, nickle and other metals that are federally owned and beneath the Trap Hill in the Ottawa National Forest. My opposition to granting permits for further exploration is based on a number of concerns as follows: -Disturbance and damage to the flora and fauna of the Trap Hills”

Response: See Response 8b and 11b.

39b: “-Disruption and degradation of recreation experience, such as hiking, bird watching, and wildlife viewing”

Response: See Response 5j, 5u, 10b, 29a, 30a, and also Comment 4a.

39c: “-Loss of solutitude and quiet”

Response: See Response 37g.

39d: “-Environmental impact from access road”

Response: See Responses 5g and 5h. Stipulations 6, 19, and 21-28 have been developed to minimize road impacts and are incorporated into the project (EA, pages 17, 19-21).

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 84 12/14/2012

39e: “-Potential damage to the area due to introduction of invasive species”

Response: See Responses 5o and 5q.

“This area needs our protection. It is very small and is fragile. My wife and I have hiked it with our children and grandchildren, seen the streams and water falls, and enjoyed the beauty. To go down the road to mining is to painful to entertain. Thank you for your time and consideration of my letter of opposition. Sincerely, J. Cameron Coleman 16355 Ewen Airport Rd. Ewen, MI 4992”

40. Margaret Comfort “Dear Ms. Adams, I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891.”

40a: “Such a project is not in the best interest of the People of the State of Michigan, nor the People of the Upper Great Lakes region. Why would you even consider running the risk of ruining this Paradise? For Christ's sake, this is the Ottawa. She is a gem. Are not you supposed to be Protectors and Stewards? What was TSR doing back in 2008? Do you even know? What did they find? If you were responsible for safeguarding and stewarding this land, which you are, wouldn't you want to know??“ I kindly request an answer to this question: what did they find?”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, 27a and 27c.

“Don't let them (TSR or any of these companies) hide under the pseudo-cloak of "proprietory information". That is nothing but a blatant smoke-screen. Why do they want to do more prospecting? This type of industry is NOT sustainable and it will severely and perhaps permanently damage something that is (Nature). Also, when your bureaucratic boss "caves"; don't you. Got it? I beseech you to rise to the occasion and examine what originally drew you to your profession: love of the Land, love of Nature. What was it Ms. Adams? Pls bear that in mind every single day. I do not want to pursue utterly rude things like boycotts and demonstrations. That is a big waste of both of our precious energies. However, I will do whatever it takes to protect this gem. That I do promise you. We, the People of the State of Michigan, need your promise too. With Gratitude to you and your staff, Margaret Comfort, PA-C Michigamme, MI Originally from Saginaw Twp (Michigan) downstream-from-Dow along the banks of the dioxin-laced Tittabawassee River (which'll probably never be fully cleaned up and has scientifically-proven breast cancer clusters along her shores). Trust me on this one: my oncologist and I know all about it. If you want the data, holler. I can also send you the studies from WVU and Duke re the clusters of disease for those who live downstream from the Mtn-Top-Removal-Mining regions of Appalachia.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 85 12/14/2012

41. Sarah Culver 41a: “Dear Ranger Adams, Please share my thoughts on the planned exploratory drilling in the Trap Hills region by Trans Superior Resources. Our state's real wealth lies in its abundance of clean fresh water. Not only are we charged with the stewardship of nearly 20% of the world's remaining fresh water, we are also responsible for preserving the inestimable treasures of our remaining wilderness areas. Unless we are vigilant in preserving these regions--not only for ourselves and our descendents--but for the entire world. People travel here from all over the world to delight in the splendor of our majestic forests and enchanting rivers,waterfalls, and lakes. Human beings need to escape from the dreary, noisey, over-developed " cityscapes" and the monotony of our modern suburbs. Contact with the natural world is perhaps the most healing way to re-create oneself. Our state has always been a favorite destination of those in need of this connection. Even from the purely financial point of view, we would be foolish to destroy a two billion dollar a year tourist industry to allow a mining corporation to exploit--and destroy--what can never be replaced. The legend of King Midas is not only a bedtime story for children, but a cautionary tale for us all. Thank you for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Sara E. Culver 15260 Lake Michigan Drive West Olive, MI

Response: See Responses 5d, 8a, and 8b.

42. GLIFWC (See Tribal Comments Section) 43. Marc Fink, Center For Biological Diversity “Dear Ms. Adams, Please accept these comments regarding the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity. The Center works through science, law and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction. The Center has offices in a number of states, including Duluth, Minnesota, and has more than 474,000 members and online activists. The Center has hundreds of members in the Upper Peninsula and surrounding region, including members who use and enjoy the proposed project area.”

43a:“The Center believes that the EA prepared for the Trans Superior Resources project is insufficient, and that an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared if this project is going to proceed, for a number of reasons including the following:”

Response: See Response 7a.

43b: “First, the Forest Service fails to disclose or address within the EA whether or not a strip mine would be allowed on these national forests lands under the Weeks Act. It is the Center’s understanding that a strip mine would not be DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 86 12/14/2012

allowed under the Weeks Act, and if the Forest Service was clear and consistent on this point, mining companies may not apply for or propose exploratory drilling on these lands. See e.g., October, 2009 Draft EIS for PolyMet’s NorthMet project on Superior National Forest, stating that “[i]t is the position of the United States that the mineral rights leased by PolyMet do not include the right to open pit mine the National Forest System land”; Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final EIS on Superior National Forest, stating that exploration and mining is allowed on Weeks Act lands only when “such development will not interfere with the primary purposes for which the land was acquired (in most cases the regulation of the flow of navigable streams and production of timber).”

Response: This project does not involve a mine; please see the response to 6afor further discussion on mining. A strip mine or an open pit mine is outside the scope of the EA. Neither mines nor mineral development are proposed at this time.

43c: “Second, the EA relies on an improper definition in neglecting to assess and disclose cumulative impacts.”

“According to the EA, there are no projects that occupy the same “space and time” as the proposed action, and therefore there are no cumulative effects. EA at 12. NEPA, however, requires the Forest Service to include connected, cumulative, and similar actions in the same NEPA analysis, and only “similar actions” is defined by similarities in timing or geography. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. Moreover, even if proposed projects are not connected, cumulative, or similar, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25, the Forest Service is still required to consider cumulative impacts when determining whether an EIS is required. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). And NEPA does not limit cumulative impacts to only those occupying the same space and time, but rather broadly defines cumulative impact as the impact resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. By including past and reasonably foreseeable future actions, cumulative impacts are by definition not restricted those occupying the same time. Moreover, projects may clearly result in cumulative impacts that do not occupy the exact same space, such as cumulative reductions in the habitat of a wildlife species with a large home range, cumulative impacts on recreation such as increased noise and aesthetic impacts, and the cumulative degradation of a particular watershed.

In fact, the EA acknowledges additional projects in the area, including an exploration project initiated in 2008 that has yet to be completed. EA at 11. The Forest Service must fully consider all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that may result in cumulatively significant impacts, and cannot evade the cumulative impacts requirement by simply declaring that each individual project is insignificant. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7) (“Significance cannot be avoided by

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 87 12/14/2012

terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts”).”

Response: This project was developed in full consideration of NEPA and its regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) as disclosed in the Environmental Assessment (p. 12). An Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) was developed for this project in accordance with FSH 1909.15, Section 12.3, which assisted the Responsible Official to determine the depth of analysis appropriate for the ID Team to formulate, commensurate with the proposal’s scope, public input and the magnitude of anticipated effects, including cumulative effects. Therefore, the appropriate definition and processes to develop the cumulative effects analyses were undertaken (EA, p. 11). The definition used for cumulative effects analysis on page 11 of the EA comes from Forest Service policy as described in the Forest Service Handbook (1909.15), which is also a direct quote from 40 CFR 1508.7. The Responsible Official will make a final determination for this project, which will include consideration of the "significance" of effects of this proposal, given the context and intensity of the anticipated effects. For a site-specific action, significance usually depends on the effects in the locale rather than the world as a whole. This determination is relative to the scope of the environmental effects as described in the EA. As outlined in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Responsible Official’s role in this project includes recommending consent to the Forest Supervisor, if applicable. With respect to the 2008 project, unless the effects of two or more actions overlap in time and space, it is not possible to evaluate an incremental effect on a resource. With respect to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable mineral exploration activity, there is one exploration project for private minerals that began in 2008 in and adjacent to the project area. One hundred and sixty acres of the 2008 project are co-located with the current 2012 project. This occurs in the southwest corner of T49N, R41W, Section 5. An additional 1,760 acres lie to the north, west, and east. The activities approved for private mineral exploration in the 2008 DM include core drilling and geophysical surveys, etc. The geophysical surveys are the same type of work as what has been analyzed in the current project and involve a straight survey line width about three feet. Several different types of surveys may be used to determine the mineral source beneath the surface. None of these surveys are considered ground disturbing or invasive.

However, what is important to note is that according to the 2008 DM (Project Record - 510101), no additional core drilling is planned to take place as a part of that project within the co-located portion of the project area. The only activity that was authorized in that part of the project area was the completion of geophysical surveys. Most of the approved surveys have been conducted in the SW ¼ of section 5, with some still left to be accomplished. Effects of geophysical surveys in the project area are very slight, as only the brush within the survey path is removed, and only when necessary.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 88 12/14/2012

To clarify, the cumulative effects analyses did not focus on only those actions occurring within the same location and timespan as the proposed project. The information pertaining to spatial and temporal bounds as described in the EA (p. 11) refers to FSH 1909.15, Section 15.2 which states “Spatial and temporal boundaries set the limits for selecting those actions that are most likely to contribute to a cumulative effect. The effects of those actions must overlap in space and time for there to be potential cumulative effects.” Due to the minor and short-term nature associated with the proposal, and the implementation of stipulations, the bounds of analysis were confined to the project area (e.g., the area requested in the permit application).

43d: “Third, the EA neglects to properly address the unique characteristics of the geographic area of the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3).” “The proposed project is in the Trap Hills region of the western Upper Peninsula, which consists of unique rock formations, spectacular views, rare old-growth forests, waterfalls, and pristine rivers and streams. The area also supports populations of rare plants. And the area’s recreational values are further

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 89 12/14/2012

increased by numerous trails, including the North Country Trail, the Cascade Falls hiking trail, and the Pioneer Multi-Use Trail.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 5j, 5u, 8b, 10b, 11b, 29a, 30a, and Comment 4a. Pages 24-26 of the EA provides a thorough description of the project area to include topographical features, geology, vegetation, water resources, soils, wildlife, botany, recreation, and transportation. Landscape, natural, and recreational resource features were all factored into the analysis for this project.

43e: “Fourth, the EA neglects to address the degree to which the potential effects of the proposed action are likely to be highly controversial or involve uncertain or unknown risks. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4), (5).”

Response: See Response 7d.

43f: “As demonstrated by the Eagle mine, sulfide mining proposals in the U.P. are clearly controversial, and also result in uncertain and unknown impacts. An EIS for the proposed exploratory project is therefore required.”

Response: The Eagle Mine is not involved with this project; as such, the Eagle Mine is outside the scope of this project. See Response 6a. In response to the controversial nature and the uncertain and unknown impacts, please refer to Response 7d. Finally, with respect to whether or not the FS should prepare and EIS, please see Responses 7a and 7d.

43g: “Thank you for your consideration of these comments, and please add me to the mailing list for this proposed project. Sincerely, Marc Fink Center for Biological Diversity 209 East 7th St. Duluth, Minnesota 55805”

Response: The commenter will be added to the mailing list for this project.

44. Michelle Halley, National Wildlife Federation “On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. I urge you to adopt Alternative #1 -- no action.”

44a: “The area proposed for exploration is ecologically unique and sensitive, enough so to warrant denial of exploration in that region of the Forest.”

Response: Please see the responses to 5d, 8b, and 11b.

44b: “Further the area is heavily used by hikers and other recreational uses which is the best use of that area.”

Response: See Responses 5u, 8b, 10b, 29a, and 30a. Also see Comment 4a. DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 90 12/14/2012

44c: “Again, I urge you to deny the exploration request. F. Michelle Halley Attorney National Wildlife Federation”

45. Eric Hansen “Dear Ms. Adams, I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources’ exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. As the author of Hiking Michigan’s Upper Peninsula – A Guide to the Greatest Hiking Adventures in the U.P., a project I walked 900 miles researching, I’m intimately familiar with the Trap Hills and have spent extensive time there. Backpacker Magazine published my feature article about the Trap Hills in 2002. I’m also seen solid evidence of the widespread public affection throughout our region for this memorable place. My slide shows highlighting the Trap Hills have drawn dozens of overflow audiences (with attendance as high as 300) to presentations throughout Upper and Lower Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. I’ve also done numerous 40‐minute segments as a guest on Wisconsin Public Radio – and calls about the Trap Hills have come in from all over Wisconsin, and neighboring states. In addition, as an outdoor writer, and hiking enthusiast, I’m a veteran of 34 treks to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, successful ascents of most of the high peaks of Glacier National Park and a telemark‐style ski descent of Colorado’s hghest peak.”

45a: “That background and credentials qualify me to note one simple, powerful truth ‐‐ the Trap Hills are a very special place, one deserving our protection – not a future as an industrial sacrifice zone.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, and 11b.

“Do not let this prospecting/mining proposal go forward. Do not let the Trap Hills, a place for rejuvenation and spiritual renewal for so many, become a West Virginia‐‐like land of sorrow. Sincerely, Eric Hansen”

46. Don Henson “To whom it may concern, How many springtails does it take to grow one white pine? How does the white pine get access to the nitrogen it needs so badly from these springtails? Well part of this is known after serious study for the past 20 years or so, but little has trickled into the forestry schools, let alone many well DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 91 12/14/2012

intentioned foresters. I don't know if anyone has figured an estimate of the number of springtails to grow a white pine, but it must be some enormous amount. Then comes the fact that we don't yet know what chemical that the fungus helping feed the white pines makes, and even more importantly where the fungus gets the ingredients it uses. Mycorrhizal relationships that most wild plants have are very complex in order to do things such as keep a springtail in animated suspension, or say a hibernation like state, so the fungus can use nitrogen molecules to barter with the white pine for photosynthetic molecules of starch and sugars that are quite rare in the fungal world. The fungus typically is also connected to who knows how many other plant species if they are available to it, and this is perhaps where it gets the components to make the compound to control the springtails. This part is not known yet, but there would be a lot of interested scientists wanting to study that chemical for perhaps improving everything from anesthesia to seizures or tremors in humans. In order to do all this we have to maintain some of these reserves of biodiversity to be able to presently study these billions of organisms in situ, as 95 percent are so specifically evolved and interconnected they can't be moved and live.”

46a: “The soil ecosystem, including tens of thousands or more organisms not even scientifically named, will be destroyed. About 95 percent of the organisms will be killed, as they aren't even transferable to the lab by scientists to study how this complexity that mother nature has created over the millennia work together. The many medicines and other important products that have come from the the small percentage of organisms that can be studied further in the lab is very important to us and our economy. The untrained person will say . . . well just go over to the wilderness area near by and get the species you need. Well there is a major problem with that, which is the species that have helped create so many drugs for cancer, immunosuppression, and other uses don't seem to occur in other areas. The diversity and interdependence of the organisms in these soil ecosystems is so specialized that extremely careful attempts to move them to the lab for further study has not worked for about 95 percent of the organisms in this amazing ecosystem. This is also true of just minor management impacts to these areas, such as roads for drill rigs”

Response: The ONF acknowledges that there is a diverse and innumerable amount of soil biota living in forest soils, and that soil fertility and forest health are linked to that community. Minimizing impacts to the microfloral and faunal communities can be done by minimizing impacts of compaction and erosion (stipulations 19, 23, 27, 28), conserving organic matter (stipulations 6A, 29, 49), encouraging the rapid re-establishment of plant diversity (stipulations 25, 45-48, 50), minimizing the size of openings (stipulation 26), and by providing microsite refugia (stipulations 32, 35) (Marshall 2000, p. 53-54).

Historically, the Great Lakes States were almost wholly clearcut and burned. Yet all these lands now contain forests. Although such land stewardship should not

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 92 12/14/2012

be emulated, the resiliency of the forest and associated soil biological communities is impressive (Grigal 2000, p. 177).

Marshall, V.G. (2000). Impacts of forest harvesting on biological processes in northern forest soils. Forest Ecology and Management 133, 43-60.

Grigal, D.F. (2000). Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 138, 167-185.

46b: “The above is to try to enlighten the fact that if one doesn't keep up with the science of forest ecosystems and other types that are relatively undisturbed, they will be making decisions based on now dated and false knowledge and have heavy cumulative impact on resources of "compelling domestic significance. You will recognize this quote from the Forest Plan of 2006. This was added since the 1996 forest plan to stress the domestic aspect of resources, and yet we are spending our tax monies that support the National Forests and all sorts of other political agencies in the upper peninsula and nearby states to support the interests of foreign companies at nearly 100 percent. I believe this doesn't fit very well in the cumulative practices that are not only giving them the hard rock minerals, but we are being asked to pay some of their costs of extracting them.. Of course if you use a 1909 Forest Service Manual to cite your source on Cumulative Effects, it might not sound the same as if you used much more modern knowledge on the subject.”

Response: See Response 7c and 43c. With respect to the commenter’s statement about a 1909 Forest Service Manual – this refers to the file code and not the year the document was published. The most current 1909 chapters were published in 2011 and 2012.

“This as well as the fact that these sites may provide all sorts of things for our country and our workers, if only someone would support our people and their need for jobs. Not some brief mining period and then ship the metals and other extractions right out of the country without even passing go. Seems as though "go" has been or is eliminated for these companies with a bill that has been introduced to eliminate their tax burden that all the rest of us have.

Then again, these rare soil ecosystems have been the source of many revolutionary new drugs, from cyclosporine, first discovered in a Norway forest reserve soil sample in the 1960s and by about 1980 changed the whole outlook for people that needed organ transplants, to the more recent rapamycin found in a soil sample from remote Easter Islands and also has resulted in transplant help, but is also showing strong abilities to help fight some cancers. Well over half (60-70 percent) of our new drugs come from areas like this, and with the quickly evolving situation of drug, herbicide, and pesticide resistance in the many changing organisms, we can ill afford to destroy yet another remote landscape. I wonder why our state senator and representative, as well as federal

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 93 12/14/2012

representative aren't interested in gaining the interest of big pharmaceutical companies to study this area for many years after big mining interests will have left the country?

By the way, a new drug (also from a soil organism) that is being worked on by various medical institutions, including Harvard will change the way we now view transplants and the rejection problem. Within the last year it has been discovered that the old sexual disease gonorrhea has gone ballistic and is in a current drug resistant form killing people in a most ugly way again. So watch who you sleep with. This is all just some of my concerns about such areas that we understand so little, and destroying the integrity of all of them. I was hiking Cascade Falls trail years before most had ever realized there was such a place, as well as the rest of the Trap Hills. Their is probably still a "High Country VMP" in some iteration in the Forest Service desires to feed more of one thing to one industry which is being replaced by computers and digital storage of information anyway. I wonder if someone will invent digital baby diapers or a similar equivalent now?”

46c: “At any rate my concerns for these areas are the whole range from simply being there in their own right as mother nature intended and the people here before us did a so much better job of stewarding, to the number of people that actually think the National Forests are for recreation as well. Apparently even the forest service from the amount of data about recreation on their web sites, as opposed to timber harvests, you would think that they would be concerned about the recreation opportunities…..”

Response: See Responses 4a, 5u, 8b, 10b, 29a, and 30a. The EA on page 22 protects recreational resources in and near the project area through stipulations 36 – 39. Additionally, the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) on pages 3-7, thoroughly takes into account recreational resources.

“….and the impact the already heavy interest seems to be coming forth to grab and run with the resources that we shouldn't be asked to help pay to take most of them out of the country along with all the manufacturing jobs they will create for some other countries. This on down to the fishing and other tourist jobs that are threatened when people developing things like mines don't even have to live in the area of what they leave and the condition they leave it in, but they don't even have to stay in our country with the jobs. So yes I am concerned about what we are plunging head first into, did anyone check to see how deep the water is before we dive in? Most sincerely, Don Henson Botanical consultant, as well as several other fields of expertise.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 94 12/14/2012

47. Joe Hovel, Northwood Alliance

47a: “We have reviewed the information concerning prospecting in the Trap Hills area. Our group has serious concerns over intrusions into the Trap Hills area. This is a precious area with rare features and the FS must protect these unique features.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, 11b, and 25d.

47b: “Members who are botany recreationists talk about the rare plants in the area and the excitement of visiting the Trap Hills.”

Response: See the response to 11b concerning rare plants. 47c: “The proximity to the North Country Trail is concerning and demands the utmost care and protection of the features which trail enthusiasts enjoy.”

Response: See Responses to 5u, 8b, 29a, and 30a. Additionally see Comment 4a.

47d: “Water resources are very important. We will be concerned about all of the above should this project proceed. As noted in the EA the West Branch of the Ontonagon River is just outside of the project area. Cascade Creek is an example of how the areas steep topography could potentially pollute the Wild and Scenic West Branch. The EA notes there is not an abundance of water resources in the project, but the exceptional land forms in the area demand concern for any there are, especially with the unique Cascade Creek and Falls. At least a number of our members, including myself, consider the West Branch from Lake Gogebic to Norwich and then Victoria to be one of the premiere paddling destinations in the Ottawa, as evidenced by our organized Earth Day trip in 2004. Sadly the recent dry years have made this opportunity more rare.”

Response: See response to comment 8a.

47e: “The North Country Trail is in very close proximity to apparent areas to be disturbed. We feel the EA should do more to address the potential disturbances to hikers if prospecting is occurring near the trail, or in the view shed of the trail.”

Response: See Responses 5j, 5u, 8b, 29a, and 30a. Also see Comment 4a. The EA on page 22 protects recreational resources in and near the project area through stipulations 36 – 39. Additionally, the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) on pages 3-7, thoroughly takes into account recreational resources. Furthermore, Stipulation 15 on page 18 of the EA, protects botanical resources associated with rocky outcrops in the vicinity of NCNST and the Cascade Falls Trail.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 95 12/14/2012

47f: “We also wonder if adequate effort went into studying the landscape for rare plants. We were very disappointed in other studies conducted in the past on the Ottawa, namely the Delich Land Exchange. The Forest must conduct all possible actions to identify the possibility and location of any rare plants and wildlife in an area as special as the Trap Hills.”

Response: As is typically done on the Ottawa NF for ground-disturbing projects, we first checked our Forest spatial database of documented rare plant sites for occurrences in the project area. Then we checked the Michigan Natural Features Inventory database for documented occurrences. Following these checks, we conducted field surveys in the project area. Surveys were conducted by Ottawa Botanists, who both hold master’s degrees in Botany and have many years of local field experience. Surveys were conducted on the following dates in 2012: 5/24 and 8/7 (east parcel, ~ 240 acres) and 5/16, 5/23, 8/1 and 9/4 (west parcel, ~480 acres), see Project Record – 53103 and 53104.

Species lists from the surveys are included in the project file. Certainly the surveys did not exhaustively search every acre of the project area. The surveys were focused on existing roads and landings, which are proposed for use, and on habitats which have higher potential for rare plants and are included in the working area. The level of survey effort was comparable to other projects on the Forest with comparable levels of ground disturbance. The high elevation locations discussed earlier, which host documented rare plants (see response to 8B, 47B), were not resurveyed since no prospecting would occur in those areas (Stipulation 15).

Two adjacent orchid locations were found during the field surveys. Much of the project area is managed second growth forest with lower potential for rare plants. Within the two parcels, there have been aspen clearcuts (1997-99), precommercial thinning (1982), thinning (2003) and improvement cuts (1999, 2000, and 2003). Surveys were conducted prior to most of these treatments (other than the 1982, which predates botany staff on the Ottawa) and no rare plants were documented. Stipulation 13 would ensure protection measures for RFSS plants if found.

47g: “In general we are concerned that the EA may not be sufficient to address the effects of prospecting when the possibility of a major disturbance such as mining exists.”

Response: See Responses 6a, 7a, and 27b. The DN/FONSI has not been prepared at this time. The Responsible Official will determine whether or not the EA is sufficient, or if an EIS should be prepared.

“Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the EA of the Trans Superior Resources Inc. prospecting project in the Trap Hills area of the Ottawa National Forest. Joe Hovel director Northwood Alliance Inc. 6063 Baker Lake Rd.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 96 12/14/2012

48. Barbara Keniston 48a: “I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest; Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. Sincerely, Barbara Keniston”

Response: Response 9a.

49. William Malmsten, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition 49a: “Dear Ms. Adams: On behalf of myself and the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition I wish to express our grave concerns over plans for mining exploration in the Trap Hills area of the Ottawa National Forest. Trans Superior Resources’ exploration could have an extremely negative impact on this splendid portion of the Ottawa National Forest. Please keep us informed on the status of this project. Sincerely, William Malmsten, President, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition”

Response: See Response 9a.

50. Chauncey Moran “Susan M. Adams Comments on permitting of exploration for any minerals, oil, gas, or any commodity should not permitted in the Trap Hills area for any reason…”

50a: “...... as exploration that leads to discovery of any commodity will ultimately lead to attempt to develop those discovered resources.”

Response: See Responses 6a and 27b.

50b: “After being aware of these efforts for over 50 years with decades on the ground viewing the aftermath of exploration and development demonstrates that there must be siting provisions and policies that do not permit or allow this type of activity to occur of those area of special ecological significance such as is found in the Trap Hills wilderness area...... ” “.It contains all of those physical attributes that bring millions of visitors over time to the UP of Michigan to seek out an area that which has been lost or developed in other regions of the world that were once wild and pristine...... Please consider the uniqueness of that area before considering any development of process...... or exploration.....At the least a truthful and accurate Environmental Impact Assessment would disqualify any such activity..... Therefore specifically to this project in the Ottawa National Forest Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project # 38891 by Trans Superior Resources I object to issuance of any permit or agreement which allows any prospecting in the Trap Hills Area...... To date no hard rock mine has ever been in operation without polluting water resources.....period...... otherwise it would be continuously on the cover of mining periodicals...... Remain faithful and hopeful Chauncey J. Moran” DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 97 12/14/2012

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, 7d, 8b, and 27b. Note that the Trap Hills is not a congressionally-designated wilderness and is not managed as wilderness; portions are designated as a special interest area (SIA) (MA 8.3) per the 2006 Forest Plan. However, the Project is not located in or adjacent to the Trap Hills SIA.

51. Rosa Musket 51a: “to further compromise our water. Every re3source exploration has done that thus far and no matter the distance the water is inevitably affected. Would it not make sense to value our water before it is so devalued and sold back to us into eternity by the water companies. Minerals and fossil fuels have no lasting value as far as any usefulness is concerned, Water is what has begun and sustained life on this planet. Please, for all the grandchildren allow their birthright ...from near the shores of Gitchee Gumee/Lake Superior rosa musket Marquette,MI”

Response: See Response 8a.

52. Linda Rulison, Friends of the Keweenaw “Dear Ms. Adams: On behalf of myself and Friends of the Land of Keweenaw (FOLK), I would like to provide formal written comments about this project. The Trap Hills are one of the gems of the Ottawa. It is well known to Ottawa staff that they are an area rich in history, spectacular scenic beauty, diverse recreational opportunities, and rare plants.”

52a: “FOLK has a stretch of the North Country National Scenic Trail which we have been maintaining. It is an area that we consider to be very special and should be protected from mining.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, 8b, 27b, 29a, 30a, and 47e. Also see Comment 4a.

“In terms of the administration of this project, should it be approved, the Ottawa should "go the extra mile" to make sure that everything is done in a way that meets, or ideally exceeds, minimum requirements. Should the project reveal valuable mineral deposits, and an application is made to extract those minerals, you can expect opposition to the approval of such mining if it is felt that an operating mine in this area would have negative ecological or recreational impacts. One must always weigh the value of what's below the ground in relation to the value of what's above the ground.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 98 12/14/2012

52b: “Some areas are just too special to mine. Sincerely, Linda Rulison FOLK president”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, and 8b

53. Richard Sloat 53a: “To Whom It May Concern, I have grave concerns regarding Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891. Limited time has not allowed me to thoroughly study the information provided. I do know a thorough hydrology study was not conducted at the Perch Lake area where Kennecott wanted to explore several years ago. A private hydrology study was done and, I believe, concluded there would be many detriments to the water if exploration were to happen. So, until I have ample time to study the situation I object to exploration of all hardrock mineral prospecting projects in the Ottawa National Forest. Sincerely Richard Sloat 223 8th Avenue Iron River, MI., 49935”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, and 9a.

54. Anne Steinberg “Dear Ms. Adams, I am seriously concerned about Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest, Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #3889.

In the past ten years, I have made quite a few trips to the Trap Hills -- to camp and hike. I go there to enjoy the quiet and the large undisturbed vistas. This is a special area -- one that is rare in our region. Over the years, I've seen more people visit the Trap Hills as the word spreads.”

54a: “What I've seen of the proposals for mineral exploration will have a serious negative impact on the Trap Hills. For example, the exploration will be very near the North Country trail.”

Response: See Responses 5d, 8b, 11b, 26a, 29a, 30a, 43c, and 47e. See Comment 4a.

“I urge you to stop the Trans Superior Resources project. Thank you Anne Steinberg 2934 N. Prospect Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53211”

55. Keren Tischler “Dear Susan Adams: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit application (Project #38891) of Trans Superior Resources, Inc. for exploration of gold, nickel, cobalt and platinum

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 99 12/14/2012

group metals that are federally-owned and beneath the Trap Hills region of the Ottawa National Forest.”

55a: “I am concerned that further exploratory drilling, associated access roads, water use and noise could compromise the unique resources in this region and the public's continued enjoyment of them via the nearby North Country Trail and the Cascade Falls Trail.”

Response: Please see responses to 5d, 5u, 8b, 11b, 29a, 30a, 37g, and 47e. See Comment 4a.

55b: “I especially urge you to prohibit access roads in semi-primitive, non- motorized management areas, as these will undoubtedly invite future invasive plant species introduction and establishment ….”

Response: Existing roads would be used where possible. See response to 5q relative to temporary road construction and NNIPs. On pages 19 and 20 of the EA, stipulations 19B and 19C specifically address the closure and rehabilitation of unclassified and temporary roads after the project is complete. Also see Response 8b with respect to MA 6.1 (semi-primitive, non-motorized management area).

55c: “…and ATV use.”

Response: Off-highway vehicle use is limited as the project area is within MA 6.1 (semi-primitive non-motorized). As a result of the project no changes to authorized public motor use are proposed. All roads and trails currently closed to the public will remain closed. Stipulations 19, 19B, and 19C on pages 19 and 20 of the EA, specifically require the permitte to rehabilitate and return any unclassified or newly constructed temporary roads back to the “natural lay of the land.” Additionally stipulations 19B and 19C further state “Road closure may include pulling logs and debris onto the road surface within the first 100 feet of a berm to discourage illegal Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, as directed by a Forest Service Official.”

“Thank you for your consideration, Keren Tischler 44051 Baltic Onkalos Corner Rd. Atlantic Mine, MI 49905”

56. Fran Whitman 56a: “Dear Susan Adams, District Ranger, I am writing because I have serious concerns about Trans Superior Resources' exploration for gold, nickel, cobalt, and platinum in the Ottawa National Forest. This would be the "Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891". This is our national forest. I was born, raised and lived in the Upper Peninsula most of my life. I came back here for a reason, to enjoy the beauty, aesthetics,rurality, woods, low population etc. If the forests become a mine pit for DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 100 12/14/2012

exploring foreigners, we will eventually look like Sudbury. I am sure you did not go into forestry to deal with the adverse effects of mines. I am totally against exploration and mining in our United States National Forests. Thank you, Fran Whitman 13856 Ford Drive L'Anse, Michigan 49946”

Response: See Response 5d, 6a, 8b, and 27b.

57. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (See Tribal Comments Section) 58. Doyle Vergon 58a: “It is realized the comment period for above has expired but not knowing date of publication did not help.

I, for one, would be very much in favor of Alternate 1, (no action) but realize the chances of this are slim to none.

I have visited and enjoyed the Ottawa since the early 1960's, first as a deer hunter and later for the summer and fall activities. I am a property owner in Marenisco and have been for ten plus years.

The changes I have witnessed in the last 50 plus years have me really concerned. Some of the following comments have been expressed before in response to other projects within the Ottawa but in my opinion are still valid.

The increase and indiscriminate use of all terrain vehicles (ATV;s) is running rampant. During 2005 the Travel Management Rule 101 was introduced. I understand it was enacted in part to regulate and define where and when ATV's could be used. Maps were published and virtually every trail, abandon and closed logging roads and old RR grades ended up with a designated marker. Many of these were only a few hundred yards and some with no sign whatsoever of a trail. The expense of this and later map revisions must be staggering. ATV lobbyists sure have done a job with this.

During the Spring and Summer months I have seen numerous ATV's going past our place covered with so much mud they were hard to identify. These were not from some mud bog rally but from designated trails. Not long ago forest managers were concerned with the tread on hiker's boots.

For many years I have received the Ottawa Quarterly. Programs and activities have drastically changed. The listing of "Special Use Permits" of various types and "land swaps" have taken over the majority of the report.

I am 78 years old and can still find a few spots away from "designated trails" but they are fast disappearing. I shutter to think what will remain for my grandchildren and future generations.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 101 12/14/2012

One can appreciate the need for employment in the upper peninsular but do not feel this mining project is the answer. Increased timber production could provide the same results and be more beneficial with the wild life habitat and general health of the Ottawa. Of course with the stipulation access roads be closed after the timber operation.

Michigan tourism industries motto "Pure Michigan" will need some changes real soon. The Western Upper Peninsula adage "Forever Untamed" will no doubt require a more expedient revision.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Doyle Vergon”

Response: See Responses 5d, 6a, 8b, 11b, and 9a. With respect to the commenter’s discussion on off-highway vehicles management, those activities are outside the scope of this project.

Tribal Comments

7. Jeffrey Loman, KBIC Tribal Member 7a: “As a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community I respectfully assert that the Department of Agriculture and/or Department of the Interior must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to inform the decision on Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Project #38891 and any other mining activity it has the authority to regulate in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.”

Response: An EIS is required for all major federal actions significantly effecting the human environment. Significance is determined by both context and intensity and has been defined to include the following: (a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long- term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: (1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 102 12/14/2012

(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. (7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. (8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. (9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR 1508.27).” The human environment “shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. . . . This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement (40CFR 1508.14).

The project activities are described on pages 13 – 23 of the EA and the project consequences are described on pages 24-34 of the EA. The Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) also describes that there will be minimal to no impacts from this project. For further discussion on mining, see Response 6a.

The DN/FONSI has not been prepared at this time. The Responsible Official will determine whether or not the EA is sufficient, or if an EIS should be prepared.

“The entire Ottawa National Forest area, including this site, is one by which we retain hunting, fishing and gathering rights (ceded territory) under treaties with the United States. Since ceding this land it has been essentially clear cut, subjected to ill conceived game management practices that, among other things - wiped out our wolves, wolverines, and other animals we depend on. Our ceded territory has already been extensively mined and subjected to countless other industrial activities that have injured our natural resources (note the fish advisories) and collectively has harmed the Reservation environment and interfered with the utilization of our Reservation that the United States Government has the authority and responsibility to protect.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 103 12/14/2012

7b: “This very area is one where we gather roots and plants for medicinal purposes. More recently, our ceded territory has been subject to extensive mining exploration and the construction of new mines that further threaten our treaty rights and diminish our right to worship and practice other activities essential to the preservation of our way of life.

The recent "Uranium Advisory" in Baraga and other counties is likely a result of recent extensive exploration and no additional exploration should be allowed until this new found uranium contamination has been carefully investigated and addressed in full measure.”

Response: With respect to the commenter’s concern about plants, please see Responses 11b, and 47f.

With respect to “Uranium Advisory”, this advisory refers to drinking water wells, and is not associated with mineral exploration (WUPDHD website 10/31/2012). Drinking water wells in the area have been known to have uranium levels above the US EPA’s maximum contamination levels (MCL) (H.M. Sherman et al. 2007). MCL for uranium in drinking water is 30 µg/L (30ppb). Uranium tends to show up in wells that have been drilled into Freda Sandstone or the Jacobsville Sandstone bedrock formations (neither formation are within the project boundary). There are two wells north of Lake Gogebic in the Portage Lake Volcanics that that were tested as part of a study by Sherman et. al. (2003) and those two wells show that they had less than one ppb uranium. There were four wells tested 20 kilometers east of Lake Gogebic, also in the Portage Lake Volcanics that had uranium concentrations of 1-10ppb and are well within the MCL set by the EPA (Sherman et. al., 2003). This project area is located about six miles northeast of Lake Gogebic in the Portage Lake Volcanics. Uranium and radium are naturally occurring compounds found in and around magmatic plutons (rocks formed below the earth surface from magma). Core drilling activities neither enhance nor detract from these deposits. In addition, core drilling techniques would prohibit movement of material from one stratum to another (Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625).

It is also important to note that Alternative 2 includes the mineral resources that Trans Superior Resources, Inc. has specifically requested in their permit application – that is gold, nickel, cobalt, platinum group metals, and associated minerals (EA, Section 1.5). The proposed permit does not include a search for uranium.

References: Western Upper Peninula Health Department. Available: http://www.wupdhd.org/environmental-health/water-supply-protection-well- program/uranium-and-fluoride-advisory/

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 104 12/14/2012

Sherman, Hiedi M., John S. Gierke, and Cecilia P. Anderson. 2007. Controls on spatial variability of uranium in sandstone aquifers. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 27, no. 2: 106-118.

Sherman, Hiedi M., Peter Taylor, John S. Gierke, and Cecilia P. Anderson. 2003. Elevated uranium in aquifers of the Jacobsville sandstone, Upper Peninsula, Michigan, USA. Available: http://cdb.fs.usda.gov/content/dav/fs/NFS/Ottawa/Program/2800MineralsGeology /2820LeasesPermitsLicenses/MIES56527Transuperior/ResponseToComments/E levated%20Uranium%20in%20Aquifers%20of%20the%20Jacobsville%20Sandst one.pdf Access date 11/6/2012

Michigan DEQ. 2008. Michigan’s mineral well operations regulations part 625. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geological Survey. Lansing, MI. 56 pages. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/ogs-mineral-wells-2004- Rules_261318_7.pdf

7c: “Taken cumulatively, there is absolutely no way continuing to allow more mining exploration is lawful - even after the preparation of an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, no matter what mitigation may be in place.”

Response: According to 40 CFR 1508.7., the definition of cumulative impacts is “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 05). Furthermore, the effects of the actions must overlap in both space and time (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 15.2). This information is presented on page 11 of the EA.

Page 11 of the EA gives a complete definition of cumulative impacts. Furthermore to have cumulative effects, the project must generate direct and indirect effects. Based upon the effects analysis presented on pages 29-34 of the EA, and the thorough discussion of concerns and potential effects in the Analysis Framework (Project Record - 3101), this project would generate minimal to no direct and indirect effects with the implementation of FS stipulations, BLM stipulations, and State regulations. With respect to mining please see Response 6a.

With respect to the commenter’s statement referring to the lawfulness of mineral exploration, please see the response to 5d and 8b. For further discussion of the effects analysis, please see 25d.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 105 12/14/2012

7d: “The aforementioned ongoing impacts to out trust resources, uncertainty and controversy clearly will not allow for a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).”

Response: See Response 7a. With respect to the commenter’s statement regarding uncertainty, the Ottawa National Forest has had several exploration projects in the past, located across the Forest, and there is little uncertainty as to the impacts of an exploration site on the natural resource base. In regards to the statement referring to controversy, the analysis for this project incorporated the best available science, which will be taken into consideration by the Responsible Official during her decision-making process, in addition to public input.

7e: “Should the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management approve more mining without preparing an EIS - be assured that the agency(s) will be subjected to legal challenge.”

Response: See Responses 6a and 7a.

7f: “As the trustee to Indian tribes and the natural resources that appertain to my tribe your obligation is first to uphold the treaties that the United States has entered into with Indians - not the resource extraction desires of mining companies. We will not stand for the continued erosion of our rights and culture - either as a community or individually.

Response: The Forest Service is the federal agency responsible for managing the National Forests for the benefit of present and future generations. The Forest Service’s policy is to carry out its programs and activities in a manner that is sensitive to the Tribes’ traditional practices and beliefs. The Tribes’ ceded territory rights include the right to gather wild plants and to harvest wild animals on lands administered by the Forest Service. And to ensure that management of these lands protects their ability to meaningfully exercise these rights.

This project has been mindful of tribal treaty rights on ceded lands. Much effort went into designing project stipulations that were specific to the locale and project impacts. This project is expected to produce minimal to no impacts to the resources, or access to resources in the project area with the application of FS stipulations contained in the EA (pages 17-23), in addition to the BLM stipulations, and the state of Michigan regulations. An experienced ID Team consisting of individuals skilled in various aspects of natural resource management completed a detailed environmental analysis for this project. This process is documented in the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101). The Analysis Framework thoroughly addressed concerns of the Tribes and public raised during scoping and provides the backbone of the EA, Section 3.5 – Environmental Impacts Related to Concerns (pages 29-31).

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 106 12/14/2012

During this process, wildlife and botanical resources were thoroughly considered and protected (Stipulations 13-18), pages 18 and 19 of the EA, water and wetland resources were protected (Stipulations 5-12), pages 17 and 18 of the EA, cultural resources were protected (Stipulations 1-4), page 15 of the EA, and transportation and access was protected (Stipulations 19-24), pages 19 and 20 of the EA. In addition to the above resources, there are numerous other stipulations to protect resources from NNIPs, erosion, sedimentation, spills, etc. The potential impacts to the natural resource base have been closely scrutinized, and according to the results of the environmental analysis will be well protected with the implementation of these stipulations.

During the scoping process in May and June of 2012, GLIFWC sent the FS a containing several suggestions and concerns about the project, dated June 11th (Project Record – documents 2429 through 2432). This letter brought additional items to consideration, which assisted in refinement of the draft stipulations, as well as the addition of new stipulations, and deleting other stipulations that were non-applicable to this project. However, the FS did not incorporate all of GLIFWC’s concerns and input. This project is specific to the geographic locale of the Bergland Ranger District on the Ottawa National Forest. The project is not located in Minnesota or Wisconsin, and has its own geological and natural resource features. Many of the recommendations contained in the June 11th letter were related to stipulations developed to minerals projects on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin and Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. As such, those stipulations while considered were not incorporated into the document, because the ID Team believed in their professional opinion they were not warranted.

“Thank you for allowing the opportunity to comment. Jeffery Loman PO Box 142 L'Anse Indian Reservation, Mi 49946”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 107 12/14/2012

35. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa “Dear Ms. Adams: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the exploration permit submitted by Trans Superior Resources to engage in exploratory drilling in the Ottawa National Forest. “

35a: “We reiterate the concerns raised by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC in its June 11th letter (attached).” This letter is presented below in its entirety.

“Dear Ms Adams, Thank you for providing the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) staff an opportunity to comment on the mineral prospecting activities proposed for portions of the Ottawa National Forest (Ottawa) north-east of Bergland.

GLIFWC is acting in coordination with our member tribes, to review and comment on prospecting in the Ceded Territories. As you may know, GLIFWC is an organization exercising delegated authority from 11 federally recognized Ojibwe (or Chippewa) tribes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.1 Those tribes have reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights interritories ceded in various treaties with the United States. GLIFWC’s mission is to assist its member tribes in the conservation and management of natural resources and to protect habitats and ecosystems that support those resources. In Michigan, the Ceded Territories include the Ottawa National Forest.

The letter of May 10th indicates that the U. S. Forest Service (USFS) is in the process of developing an Environmental Analysis (EA) on the proposed prospecting north-east of Bergland. The following comments are submitted by GLIFWC staff with the explicit understanding that each GLIFWC member tribe may choose to submit comments from its particular perspective.

As a preliminary matter, GLIFWC member tribes are concerned over the amount and nature of hardrock mineral prospecting in the National Forests within the ceded territory, including the Ottawa. Although the tribes understand that all national forest lands are open to mineral prospecting unless specifically excluded,…..”

35a1: “…they favor regulations and stipulations that adequately protect Forest Service lands from adverse impacts of mineral exploration and development.”

Response: This project was analyzed by a well experienced ID Team that also included the BLM, representing multiple resource areas. During the course of public scoping, the ID Team evaluated the comments received and used them to help shape, refine, and develop the stipulations. In addition to the public comments, the ID Team relied upon their past experience with similar projects on the Forest to develop the stipulations. As such, the stipulations represent a comprehensive and thorough means of protection for the Ottawa’s resource DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 108 12/14/2012

base. These stipulations are detailed in the EA on pages 16-23. In addition to the stipulations identified in the EA, there are numerous other Federal and State laws and regulations that will also ensure the project is conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner.

“The USFS, as a federal agency, has a trust responsibility to consider tribal interests, including the rights reserved by treaty and the animals and plants within the treaty areas. Furthermore, the USFS and 10 GLIFWC member tribes entered into an agreement in December, 1998. The agreement (Memorandum of Understanding or MOU) deals primarily with the exercise of the tribes' treaty rights to use natural resources on National Forest lands within the areas ceded in the treaties.”

35a2: “The USFS’s trust responsibility and MOU with GLIFWC member tribes requires that any proposed mineral prospecting activity must protect the environment and the tribes reserved treaty rights.”

Response: See Response 7f.

35a3: “The provided 30 day comment period is inadequate for tribal staff to fully evaluate the potential impacts of prospecting on resources important to the tribes. As a partner in resource conservation, a signatory to the aforementioned MOU, and as a tribal trustee we ask that the Ottawa National Forest initiate earlier consultation with the tribes concerning prospecting and other mineral development on the Forest. Such early notice will enable tribal staff to plan and implement resource evaluation in the areas proposed for prospecting.”

Response: The 30-day comment period referred to in this letter is the scoping period, which was a comment period in which the Responsible Official requested public input to identify concerns and potential issues prior to the ID Team undertaking the analysis for this project. It is important to note that the EA comment period is formal, and no extension of the 30 day period associated with the release of the EA is allowed (36 CFR 215.6).

However, tribal Consultation is conducted in addition to the NEPA process due to the special relationship between the federal government and Tribes. It is ongoing and occurs early and often throughout the life of a project. Consultation with tribal governments did take place for this project, and efforts will continue through the planning process.

Meetings were held with FS staff and tribal staff: on May 16th with Lac View Desert Band of Chippewa, and on July 12, 2012 with KBIC and September 7, 2012 with KBIC and a GLIFWC representative. In all three of these meetings this project was discussed. Additionally, site visits to the project area also occurred on September 7, 2012 with FS staff and GLIFWC and KBIC, and on October 5th, 2012, with Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and KBIC.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 109 12/14/2012

35a4: “The type and scale of exploration in the Western U.P. and historic and ongoing exploration and mineral development activity suggests a need to better evaluate the cumulative impact of mineral exploration proposals on Forest resources and uses. The current exploration for which an EA is proposed, is only a portion of the exploration activity that has or is anticipated to occur on the Ottawa.” ”

Response: See Response 7c and 43c.

35a5: “Because of the change in character and intensity of mineral development activity in and near the Ottawa National Forest, a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared to characterize the potential impacts from mineral activities in and near the Forest.”

Response: See Response 7a. This proposal is for a single site-specific activity on 720 acres, not for a program of exploration or development. A programmatic EIS is appropriate when a federal agency is proposing to initiate a new program which would result in a series of similar activities. In the case of this project, the Forest Service is responding to a single site-specific permit request and thus site- specific analysis is required by NEPA. The Forest Service is not proposing a new program of mineral exploration and thus a programmatic EIS is not appropriate.

“In recent years, exploration and mineral development companies have acquired private mineral rights and leased public mineral rights in much of the western Upper Peninsula. In addition to iron which drove much of the search for minerals in the past 50 years, the companies active in the western Upper Peninsula are searching for sulfide mineral and uranium deposits. These types of ore pose human health and environmental risks not posed by iron ore. Exploration drilling in Marquette County has shown that sump pit water from sulfide mineral exploration does not meet the water quality one might expect from exploration for less reactive ores and must be handled with greater care.”

35a6: “In light of recent increases in exploration and mineral development activity, a focus on sulfide minerals, and the potential for there to be cumulative impacts of past and reasonably anticipated future exploration, an Environmental Impact Statement for prospecting in the Ottawa should be prepared in accordance with NEPA guidelines.”

Response: See Responses 7a, 7c, 35a5, and 43c.

35a7: “Of particular concern is the potential for significant cumulative impacts due to ground and surface water contamination, forest fragmentation, road construction, and introduction of invasive species.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 110 12/14/2012

Response: See Responses 5q, 7a, 7c, 8a, 11b, and 43c. In addition to the effects discussion presented in Chapter 3 of the EA, an Analysis Framework (Project Record 3101, pp. 3-25) was prepared by the ID Team as a part of the effects determination. This framework determined that there were minimal to no effects generated by the project with implementation of FS stipulations, BLM stipulations, and State regulations. As such, negligible cumulative impacts would be generated.

With respect to fragmentation, within the context of the Ottawa National Forest and the western UP, fragmentation was addressed during Forest Plan development. Documentation prepared during Plan revision contains lengthy analysis of vegetation composition, patch size of forest types, and connectivity. The analysis concluded the following: “Relative to most of the upper Midwest, however, the western UP has escaped the massive clearing for agriculture, broadscale forest type changes, or other dramatic landcover changes. Clearly, the western UP represents one of the least altered landscapes in the eastern US” (see Cleland et al., 2004a in Forest Plan project file, and FEIS volume II, Response to Comments, Appendix J, page J- 71).

Within this project area specifically, which is essentially one interconnected patch of second growth northern hardwoods, set within a larger unfragmented landscape of MA 6.1, the proposed drilling and other exploration actions would not create biologically- meaningful fragmentation. Existing roads and log landings would be used to the extent practical for drilling, and clearing of sight lines for geophysical surveys are expected to be about 3’ wide. These very minor changes to forest vegetation cannot be construed as fragmentation in the scientific sense typically used in the literature. Within a year or two, the sight lines cannot be detected, and the roads and small landings quickly blend into the managed forest landscape of the Ottawa (personal observation, Brian Bogaczyk). Very few (if any) canopy trees would be removed; wholesale canopy clearing is required to cause fragmentation in the typical ecological sense.

35a8: “Individual Environmental Analyses are inadequate to identify and evaluate the environmental threats that may be posed by extensive mineral exploration for sulfide mineral and uranium ores. A broader programmatic Environmental Impact Statement addressing exploration throughout the Ottawa National Forest should be developed instead.”

Response: See Responses 7a and 7b, and 35a5.

35a9: “Stipulations. Regardless of the method of impact evaluation, the permits that may be ultimately issued must include adequate stipulations to protect the natural resources on which the tribes depend. The stipulations attached to the letter of May 10th are a good first step in providing protection to the environment but are incomplete and overly vague.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 111 12/14/2012

Response: See Response 35a1. Based upon GLIFWCs comments during scoping, many of the draft stipulations that were provided with the scoping letter were revised, clarified, or removed altogether. The comment matrix (project record – 2101) and the Analysis Framework (project record – 3101) both document the ID Team’s review and actions taken for GLIFWC’s recommendations during scoping.

35a10: “The Superior National Forest recently completed an EIS for hardrock mineral prospecting that identified stipulations and the Chequamegon-Nicolet recently updated stipulations for prospecting (both attached). Both those Forests provide substantially greater detail in their stipulations. Stipulations that are more precise are more easily understood by all parties involved and are likely to result in the desired protection of natural resources.”

Response: The ID Team reviewed the Superior National Forest’s and the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest’s stipulations that were supplied by GLIFWC as Attachment A (Project Record – 2429) and Attachment B (Project Record – 2430) as a part of this letter. Additionally, the ID Team documented the needed actions to this recommendation on page 6 of the scoping comment matrix (Project Record – 2101). Those recommendations included reviewing the stipulations and incorporating specific stipulations as necessary and as related to the Ottawa, bearing in mind that both the Superior and Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests are in different geographical and geological settings compared to the Ottawa as well as having different sets of state regulations addressing prospecting.

35a11: “The Ottawa N.F. should be more specific in its stipulations and consider adopting relevant stipulations from other, nearby Forests.”

Response: See Response 35a1. The stipulations outlined in Section 2.6 of the EA have been developed in consideration of several factors.

 Stipulations were designed in consideration of the scope of this project, including the extent of the proposed activities and site- specific location. Broader scaled stipulations still do apply as outlined in Appendices A and B of the EA.  Stipulations from other Forests were reviewed by project specialists to determine if any specific stipulations could be adopted for this project. Some of the differences in the stipulations on other Forests occur because there are different regulations in different states.  The list of stipulations was modified to incorporate changes recommended by the public during the scoping comment period.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 112 12/14/2012

 The stipulations were developed so that they did not reiterate Forest Plan direction, State regulations or other federal laws and regulations (EA, Section 2.6). In addition, the Analysis Framework used in the development of Alternative 2 was created in a manner that was consistent with these laws, regulations and policies.  Finally, some of the stipulations associated with this project have been used before on similar projects and have proved successful in allowing the flexibility for the activities, while ensuring resource protection. “Preliminary suggestions on stipulations are as follows. Drilling. Exploration has occurred in the western Ottawa for sulfide mineral ores and for uranium. Both these ores can cause significant damage to the environment.”

35a12: “Thus, it should be stipulated that core and cuttings that are from sulfide mineral or uranium bearing deposits should be handled to isolate them so that contaminants do not escape to the environment.”

Response: See Response 7b. Additionally, all drill cuttings regardless of mineralization or other ‘contaminates’ are isolated through a lined sump pit which is in accordance with the Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625. This practice and regulation effectively isolates these cuttings from the surface.

The State of Michigan requirements for drilling mud pits mitigate potential contamination due to location and groundwater requirements, liner requirements, and testing requirements, among others. The permittee would be required to follow State of Michigan regulations.

“Methods for determining the environmental and health risk posed by cuttings must be specified. The rocks of the western U.P. frequently contain substantial brines. Drilling of core can release these brines to the surface or cause contamination of usable aquifers.”

35a13: “The stipulations should identify measures to minimize the potential impacts of brines. Abandonment of bore holes should be addressed in the stipulations. In particular, abandonment timing and methods should prevent the cross contamination of aquifers or the escape of brines to the surface. Temporary abandonment of bore holes should be allowed for only a limited

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 113 12/14/2012

duration and only after the holes are accurately surveyed so as to permit re- location.”

Response: The State of Michigan requirements minimize the potential impacts of brines through sealing to prevent cross contamination between strata, the use of lined mud pits, and abandonment direction (Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625). The permittee would be required to follow State of Michigan regulations. See Analysis Framework Aquatics Resources #1.

Additionally, aquifers are adequately protected from ‘mixing’ of sulfide bearing mineralization and uranium deposits through plugging in accordance with the Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625. In conjunction with the proper sump construction and lining in accordance with the same regulations, there will be no release of any of these materials on the surface. Brine solutions are not known to occur in the vicinity of the project area and are not a concern. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that brines exist in the project area or anywhere adjacent to the project area.

“Sump pits. The Michigan rules implementing Part 625 (Mineral Wells) of Act 451 have requirements for the location, construction and closure of sump or mud pits. However, Michigan rules exempt exploration drilling that does not penetrate below the deepest fresh water aquifer.”

35a14: “The requirements of Michigan R 299.2357 (Drilling mud pits) should be made applicable to and stipulated for all exploration drilling on National Forest lands, regardless of drilling depth.”

Response: The drilling depth will be greater than the aquifer, and as such, a drilling depth requirement is not necessary to bring into the stipulations. The drilling depth will exceed the depth of the lowest aquifer, thus requiring adherence to Michigan R 299.2357.

“The Michigan rules include requirements that mud pits not be constructed within the water table, that they must be lined with 20-mil PVC or equivalent, and that the pits be buried at least 4 feet below the original grade as well as other procedures to protect the environment from contamination.”

35a15: “In order to protect the valuable natural resources within the Forest, the requirements of R 299.2357 should be fully implemented for all exploration activities and fully articulated in the stipulations.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 114 12/14/2012

Response: Please see response 35a14. As part of the Analysis Framework (project record – 3101), and also stated on page 28 of the EA, an analysis assumption of this project is that Michigan state laws and regulations will be followed. It is expected that these regulations will be followed by Trans Superior Resources, Inc. during the implementation of this project. Many documents, laws, codes, and regulations are incorporated by reference in order to reduce the volume of a given document. According to CFR 40 1502.21 “Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and comment shall not be incorporated by reference.” While CFR 40 1502.21 is in reference to an EIS, this direction would still apply and be relevant to an EA. As such, fully articulating Michigan R 299.2357 in the EA is not necessary to ensure compliance with Michigan Law.

35a16: “In addition, precautions must be stipulated to ensure that, if the cuttings are from sulfide mineral or uranium deposits, or if brines are encountered, they do not contaminate usable aquifers or surface waters and are safely disposed of.”

Response: See responses to 7b, 8a, 35a12, 35a13. See Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) Aquatics Resources #1.

35a17: “Activities near surface waters. In the proposed stipulations the forest hydrologist could allow activities within 100 feet of rivers, streams, ponds, seeps or springs, otherwise activities are prohibited. Under what conditions might the forest hydrologist approve of drilling, sump construction, or fuel storage within 100 feet of these surface water bodies? The stipulations should identify specific conditions under which such activities might be allowed to take place near surface water bodies. In addition, lakes appear to have been inadvertently left off the list of protected waters.”

Response: The EA gives examples of the type of activities that can occur within 100 feet of surface water bodies; stipulation 9 (EA page 18). Furthermore, this stipulation was revised based upon input from this letter. There are no lakes within the project area and therefore no mention of lakes in the EA stipulations. See Analysis Framework (Project Record - 3101), Aquatics Resources #6.

35a18: “Invasive species. The stipulations should require that all gravel and fill material be clean and weed free. All mulch used for reclamation of the drill site or roads should be required to be weed-seed free.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 115 12/14/2012

Response: Weed-free gravel, fill, and mulch are specified in Stipulation 25. Also see the Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101, Botany section, pages 7- 10.

35a19: “There needs to be more detail as to how drill bits must be cleaned in order to avoid cross-contamination of aquifers.

Response: See Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) Aquatics Resources #7, which states “This commenter would like to see more detail on drill bit cleaning. This particular stipulation the commenter is referring to was developed for a prior EA on another project, and was included with the scoping package to provide a set of example or draft stipulations to illustrate the comprehensiveness of the stipulations contained within an EA of this type. While many of those stipulations are applicable from those examples, several are not. For this project, drill bit cleaning is not a concern that would warrant designing a stipulation for. As such, no stipulation would be included in this EA for drill bit cleaning. Additionally, due to the very nature of exploratory drilling, the bit is constantly cleaned with water, and through the act of drilling itself, which serves to constantly expose a fresh surface on the drill bit.”

35a20: The requirement that inspection of cleaned equipment occur within two working days appears to be overly restrictive. It is imperative that equipment be adequately cleaned to prevent transportation of invasive aquatic and terrestrial species.”

Response: A similar clause specifying equipment cleaning has been mandatory in Ottawa National Forest timber sale contracts, as well as for other national forests in the Eastern Region, since 2004. A two working day inspection time has been used in these contracts for several years, and has been met without difficulty. There are several people trained on the Forest to do this inspection. We fully expect the two day requirement for inspection can be met for the federal minerals project as it has been met for timber sale projects on the Forest. (See also Project Record - 53209, an email from Contracting Officer Charlotte Bofinger regarding inspection capability on the Ottawa NF for equipment cleaning inspections in timber sales.)

35a21: “Hydrology / Water Quality / Floodplains All exploration activities should be restricted to those times when wetlands are frozen. For example, the Chequamegon-Nicolet N.F. stipulates avoidance of wetlands and when avoidance is not possible, that drilling and road construction occur only when wetlands are frozen.”

Response: See response to 5l. The EA Stipulations 6, 6A, 6B, provide wetland protection, with frozen condition access as one of the potential protection measures. See Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) Aquatics Resources #8.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 116 12/14/2012

35a22: “There should be a minimum stream size that may be used as a water source and a minimum lake or pond size that may be used as a water source.”

Response: The EA Stipulations specify that drafting may not noticeably alter discharge or water levels. Therefore, very small streams or ponds would have noticeable changes and by default would not sustain drafting. See Analysis Framework (Project Record – 3101) Aquatics Resources #9.

35a23: “The quantity of water withdrawn should be limited to that which does not impact the water body. For example, the Superior N.F. stipulates that cumulative withdrawal can be at most 10% of flow and can not cause more than a 2-inch drop in wetlands, ponds, or lakes.”

Response: See Response 35a22.

35a24: “Fragmentation. Forest fragmentation effects of road and drill pad building and other activities on forest interior species must be considered. In particular, cumulative effects of past and foreseeable future fragmentation must be analyzed.”

Response: See Response 35a7.

35a25: “Because of the complexity of the potential impacts from mineral exploration, particularly exploration for sulfide mineral and uranium ores and the cumulative impacts of past and foreseeable future mineral activities, an EIS appears to be the most appropriate NEPA process for these and other reasonably anticipated prospecting proposals.”

Response: See Responses 7a, 7b, 7c, and 43c.

35a26: “The existing stipulations, provided with the Forest’s letter as Attachment 1, are too vague and unspecific. Language in the stipulations such as “may include”, “use reasonable measures”, “kept to a minimum”, and “whenever possible” do not provide the specificity that an operator would need to plan and operate in a manner that conforms to the Forest’s mandate to protects the environment.”

Response: See Responses 35a1, 35a9, 35a10, and 35a11.

“Again, we appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and look forward to further discussion of prospecting on the Forest. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John Coleman Environmental Modeler / Mining Specialist”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 117 12/14/2012

“The Bad River Bank of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and other Lake Superior Chippewa Bands retain an interest in the lands within and around the Ottawa National Forest, which provides for the right of our citizens to harvest natural resources in the ceded territories pursuant to the Treaty of 1842.”

35b: “We object to the issuance of an exploration permit in the absence of an Environmental Impact Statement that takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of past and proposed mining activities.”

Response: See Responses 7a and 7c.

35c: “We further object to the issuance of an exploratory permit which includes stipulations with vague language….:

Response: See Responses 35a1, 35a9, 35a10, 35a11, and 35a25.

35d: “…and fails to address the collateral impacts of exploratory drilling, as more fully explained in GLIFWC’s June 11th letter. Sincerely Mike Wiggins, Jr. Chairman”

Response: See Responses 7c, 8b, 11b, and 25d.

42. GLIFWC “Susanne, I agree with the hydrologist's response that the source of the chloride is most likely geologic features in the watershed. However, historical exploration records are scattered and not always complete, so that without a more detailed history of exploratory drilling in the area it would be premature to assume that historical exploration holes are not providing a conduit for the bedrock brines.”

42a: “Regardless of whether the brine water is from natural seeps or un-plugged boreholes, the high chloride and conductivity in Bush Creek indicates that there is risk of release of high chloride waters by exploratory drilling.”

Response: The State of Michigan drilling requirements include protection measures for chloride, including drilling mud pit liners and testing. See response to comments 35a13 and 35a16. The chloride levels of Bush Creek, as measured and presented by GLIFWC, are within EPA’s standards. The information they shared provides insufficient scientific evidence to indicate there are elevated chloride anions in the region and it would be premature to conclude there would be risk of releasing high chloride waters through exploratory drilling (see Project Record - 4187). The commenter also states historical exploration records are scattered and not always complete. Neither the State of Michigan nor the Ottawa NF have records indicating past mineral exploration took place near Bush Creek (Communication with State of Michigan Melanie Humphries, located in Project Record - 4188). The Forest does keep folders of all mineral activity conducted on DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 118 12/14/2012

Forest Service surface ownership and has begun building a GIS layer on previous as well as current mineral exploration projects on Forest Service lands for future reference.

42b: “As we stated in our scoping comments of June, stipulations to prevent the escape of brines to groundwater and surface water need to be implemented.”

Response: See Response 35a1. The State of Michigan regulations provide sufficient protection from brines. See response to comments 35a13 and 35a16. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence to indicate the existence of brine solutions in the project area or anywhere adjacent to the project area.

42c: “Those stipulations should include the testing of water in the borehole for chlorides.”

Response: In the Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625 there are testing requirements for Chloride Anions in the pit, with a threshold of 500 PPM. Any stipulation regarding Chloride anion testing for the borehole would be premature due to the lack of scientific evidence surrounding the existence of these type deposits in the region.

42d: “The currently proposed stipulations do not adequately address the potential for contamination of aquifers or surface waters by bedrock brines.”

Response: Additional stipulations to address the potential for contamination of aquifers or surface waters by bedrock brines were not deemed necessary given the State of Michigan requirements already in place (Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625). See also Responses 35a13 and 35a16.

Reference: Michigan DEQ. 2008. Michigan’s mineral well operations regulations part 625. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geological Survey. Lansing, MI. 56 pages.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 119 12/14/2012

42e: “In MN, the Superior National Forest has begun to take measures to limit the potential for escape of bedrock brines to the surface or into aquifers. Similar stipulations should be implemented on the Ottawa.”

Response: The Ottawa National Forest and The Superior National Forest are situated in different geological regions with different bedrock strata types. As such, each Forest could and would be expected to behave differently if subjected to the same type of project actions. Therefore, the Superior’s stipulations were not adopted for mineral prospecting, but rather, site specific stipulations were developed which apply to the Ottawa National Forest and this project area. Additionally, the bedrock brines the commenter refers to, are not known to exist within the project area, and this geographic region, and as such are not specifically addressed. Additionally, The Superior NF, in Minnesota, works with different state regulations than the Ottawa NF, which works with Michigan regulations. Michigan regulations take precautions to protect the environment from brine contamination. See responses to 42b, 42c.

42f: “Thank you for considering our June comments…”

Response: See Responses 35a1-35a26.

“….and these additional comments on the Trans Superior Resources FR400 exploration EA. We look forward to working with the Forest to better identify the source of the high chloride water found at the site. john coleman”

57. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community “Dear Mrs. Adams: Thank you for providing Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Community) staff an extended opportunity to comment on the proposed mineral prospecting activities by Trans Superior Resources Inc. in the Ottawa National Forest, north-east of Bergland, Michigan.

As you know, the Ottawa National Forest and proposed mineral prospecting by Trans Superior is located within the Community’s 1842 Treaty territory. Under the Treaty with the Chippewa of 1842, the Community reserved subsistence and cultural usufructuary rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather throughout these lands that were ceded to the United States of America.”

57a: “Direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the access and quality of the habitats and ecosystems that support treaty-reserved resources-significantly related to legacy sites, extensive metallic mineral prospecting, mining and related activities-are of great concern to the Community.”

Response: See responses to 7c, 7f, 8b, 11b, 25d, and 43c.

57b: “While it is understood that all National Forest System lands are open to mineral prospecting, except those specifically excluded, it should equally be DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 120 12/14/2012

considered that federal treaty obligations to signatory tribal nations are included under Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause.”

Response: See Response 7f. The Ottawa NF is meeting our obligations to the MOU; is following the 2006 Forest Plan; and is consulting with tribes and will continue to do so in the future for this project and other Forest Service projects.

“The relationship between the Tribe’s and the Forest Service is best understood in the June 11, 1999 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Tribal - USDA – Forest Service Relations on National Forest Lands within the Territories Ceded in Treaties of 1836, 1837, and 1842. This MOU recognizes:

 Existing treaty rights of Tribes to hunt and fish and to gather wild plants on National Forest lands in accord with applicable regulatory authorities of the States or other federal agencies having jurisdiction over such activities.  The Forest Service shares in the United States Government’s trust responsibility and treaty obligations to work with the Tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect the Tribes’ ceded territory rights on lands administered by the Forest Service.  The Tribes’ culture and lifeway depends on this harvest activity, and they wish to protect and enhance the natural resources upon which they rely.  The Tribes measure the protection of these resources in terms of ensuring their sustainability for use by the seventh generation hence.  The Forest Service shall consider the effects of its decisions on treaty resources and the ability of the Tribes to exercise treaty gathering rights. In decision and analysis documents, including those required by the National Forest management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, decision-makers will show how tribal information and involvement was taken into account in analyzing the effects of potential management actions and in making the decision.” 57c: “With this in mind, the Community favors regulations and stipulations that are thoroughly protective of the adverse impacts of mineral exploration development.”

Response: See Responses 8b,11b, 25d, and 35a1.

57d: “Especially activities associated with metallic minerals that hold greater potential for containing sulfide minerals, in which acid can form when exposed to the elements of air and water.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 121 12/14/2012

Response: The Michigan Mineral Well operations Regulations Part 625 require specific site set-up and abandonment procedures that greatly reduce impact to the environment and considerably reduce the risk of contamination from potential sulfide mineralization. This is why these Michigan regulations require a sump pit liner, and also why the regulations require these liners to be buried in place. The State of Michigan regulations are in place to avoid the release of any water from the pit, and the release of any minerals that may contain sulfide mineralization.

57e: “The prospective exploration site is also located at somewhat high elevation and upstream of creeks and streams that feed the West Branch of the Ontonagon River, which is an important watershed resource for fish and other treaty-reserved resources used by the Community.”

Response: See Responses 8a, 11b, 25d, and 36a.

57f: “The following comments reiterate, endorse and supplement comments previously submitted by Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) staff on June 11, 2012 as well as their additional comments submitted via email on October 23, 2012.”

Response: See responses to 35a1-35a26 and 42a-42f.

57g: “Without more detailed and protective language included in the stipulations to address the impacts associated with exploratory drilling of metallic minerals, the Community may object to the issuance of the permit.”

Response: See Responses 35a1, 35a9, 35a10, and 35a11.

57h: “Comments: 1. Safeguards to prevent the escape of bedrock brines should be implemented to avoid contamination to groundwater and surface waters by mandating proper management of borehole casing and abandonment of all mineral borings.”

Response: The Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625 has specific and sufficient guidelines for proper management of borehole casings and abandonment. These regulations must be followed in the State of Michigan regardless of land ownership (i.e. private, state, or federal lands). Michigan's Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625 is applicable to mineral exploration and will be followed in regards to proper plugging of all core holes as well as sump construction and disposal of sump contents. Also see responses to 35a13 and 42b. There is no scientific evidence to indicate brine solutions in the project area. Mineral exploration does not contaminate the groundwater nor does it exacerbate current conditions. The presence of and the potential for contamination from brines in the project area is therefore not a concern.

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 122 12/14/2012

57i: “2. Stipulations should clearly determine specific allowable limits of water sources to be used for drafting. Please consider the example Superior national Forest stipulations provided by GLIFWC that specify minimum stream size and no more than 10% change in flow and a 2 inch reduction in water levels to limit impact to the water body.”

Response: See responses to 35a22 and 35a23.

57j: “3. Regardless of MDEQ requirements, best management practices should be implemented for the management of drill cuttings and sump pit contents.”

Response: The State of Michigan requirements are considered best management practices and will be followed for this project (Michigan’s Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625). The Environmental Assessment was completed on the basis that all Michigan regulations would be followed. This is documented in the Analysis Framework Assumptions (Project Record – 3101) and detailed in the EA on page 28.

57k: “Specifically, if material in the drill holes, drill cuttings and sump water contain any sulfide elements, lime should be added and substances should be sent to an appropriate and identified wastewater treatment plant and landfill.”

Response: The State of Michigan requirements sufficiently protect the environment from contaminants. See response to comments 18a, 35a12, and 35a16.

57l: “There must be absolutely no circumstances in which sump pit liners (or other litter) remain on site and buried with (or without) the drill cuttings. Buried trash of this nature would remain indefinitely.”

Response: See the response to 5k.

57m: “4. Erosion and sediment loading controls should be implemented at the site.”

Response: See Responses 5i, 5q, and 5r. Stipulations 19A-C, 21-29, 49, & 50 are in place to minimize erosion impacts associated with this project. Under the guidance of those stipulations, as well as language from the BLM and State of Michigan requirements, erosion and sediment loading controls would be implemented at the site.

57n: “5. Drilling should be limited to the winter when the ground is frozen and the surface impact can be limited. Such stipulation should be a clear requirement beyond recommendation or guidance.”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 123 12/14/2012

Response: See Response 5l and 35a20. We have not yet received a plan of operation and final drill site or road locations may be located on soils that don’t warrant frozen operations.

Stipulation 28 states that “Ground-disturbing activities will follow season of operation guidelines…” for the area being operated. Not all areas have a winter frozen restriction, however. Stipulations 6 and 6A address operations in areas that do have that requirement. Seasonal operating restriction information has been included in the Project Record - 57205.

57o: “6. If one or more acre of land is disturbed for drill pads and road construction, Trans Superior should be required to apply for a Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP). Best management practices should be implemented regardless to prevent stormwater pollution.”

Response: The Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP), administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, does not apply since the project is not located within a federally recognized Indian reservation (phone conversation with EPA Region 5’s Brian Bell – documentation located in the Project Record - 3468). Best management practices that would prevent impacts to project aquatic resources would be implemented and are found in project stipulations and Michigan Mineral Well Operations Regulations Part 625 (EA pages 17-23 and EA Appendix B). ). The total area estimated to be impacted by core drilling is about one acre (15 pads @ 3000 sq.ft.).

57p: “7. Evaluation and documentation of compliance of Trans Superior exploratory operations should be reported to the public and Tribes.”

Response: The Responsible Official has been and will continue to maintain communication with KBIC regarding this project. Degree and methods of public communication of inspection and monitoring activities conducted by the State is beyond the scope of this project. However, monitoring reports and documentation, (see the monitoring section of the EA on page 16) conducted by the Forest Service for Forest Service activities will be provided as they become available.

57q: “8. A performance bond should be required by the permittee.”

Response: The BLM does require a bond in order to operate on the permit. The bond must be in good standing and the requirements are stipulated in the BLM’s regulations (43CFR 3504.5). The BLM does not however require a performance bond: performance bonds are associated with contracts. “A performance bond is a surety bond issued by an insurance company or a bank to guarantee satisfactory completion of a project by a contractor.” Since there is no project per

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 124 12/14/2012

se for Trans Superior Resources to complete, there is no contract as they are not being paid to perform a task; a performance bond could never be used by the BLM to meet their bonding requirements. The only type of bonding the BLM requires is for reclamation purposes, and this is explicitly stated in their regulations with a minimum amount. See email correspondence from Timothy Howell, BLM ID Team member on this matter (Project Record – 4191).

57r: “In addition, an Environmental Impact Statement should be developed in order to better inform the holistic view of impacts of past and proposed mineral exploration and direct/indirect mining impacts in the Ottawa national Forest. “

Response: See responses to 6a, 7a, 7c, 43c, and 35a8.

57s: “While it is understood that such analysis is confined to a particular place and within a particular time, the determined scope of place and time can vary. To the Community, “cumulative impacts” would consider combined, incremental effects of mining and exploration activity, and take a view of impacts that accumulate over time, from one or more sources, which can result in the degradation of important treaty-reserved resources in the Ottawa National Forest.”

Response: Please see responses to 7c, and 43c.

“Again, we appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and continued discussion regarding mining related activities in the Ottawa National Forest. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jessica L. Koski Mining Technical Assistant Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (906) 524-5757 ext. 25 cc: Warren C. Swartz, KBIC President Susan LaFrenier, KBIC Secretary Lori Ann Sherman, KBIC Natural Resources Director Charles Brumleve, KBIC Environmental Mining Specialist”

DN/FONSI for Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit 125 12/14/2012