som - state of michigan · federal agencies, increasing our familiarity with nepa from multiple...

Revised 4/21/2016

CONTRACT CHANGE NOTICE Change Notice Number 08 .

toContract Number 751B6600003.

CO

NTR

AC

TOR

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.

STATE Pr

ogra

mM

anag

er

Mary Rabe Wildlife Division

9300 Lee Highway 517-284-3122

Fairfax, VA 22031 [email protected]

Jodi Young

Con

tract

Adm

inis

trato

r Kip Conley Procurement Services

707-992-0768 517-284-5975

[email protected] [email protected]

CV0066485

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT Services Department of Natural Resources 525 W. ALLEGAN ST., LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 P.O. BOX 30028 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909

CONTRACT SUMMARYDESCRIPTION: Habitat Conservation Plan for Four Cave-Dwelling Bat Species in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin

INITIAL EFFECTIVE DATE INITIAL EXPIRATION DATE INITIAL AVAILABLE OPTIONS

EXPIRATION DATE BEFORE CHANGE(S) NOTED BELOW

10/06/2015 09/30/2018 2 -1 year 09/30/2020PAYMENT TERMS DELIVERY TIMEFRAME

Net 45 days N/AALTERNATE PAYMENT OPTIONS EXTENDED PURCHASING

P-card Direct Voucher (DV) Other Yes NoMINIMUM DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

N/ADESCRIPTION OF CHANGE NOTICE

OPTION LENGTH OF OPTION EXTENSION LENGTH OF EXTENSION REVISED EXP. DATE

5 years 09/30/2025 CURRENT VALUE VALUE OF CHANGE NOTICE ESTIMATED AGGREGATE CONTRACT VALUE

$2,943,499.00 $2,943,499.00 DESCRIPTION: Effective 8/14/2020, the DNR is extending this contract by 5 years with the approval of the State Administrative Board on 7/21/2020. All other terms, conditions, specifications and pricing remain the same per the Contractor and agency agreement.

Revised 4/21/2016

CHANGE NOTICE NO. 08 TO CONTRACT NO. 751B6600003

FOR THE CONTRACTOR:

Company Name

Authorized Agent Signature

Authorized Agent (Print or Type)

Date

FOR THE STATE:

Signature

Laura L. Gyorkos, Manager, Procurement Section

Department of Natural Resources Agency

Date


thh i d A t Si

Trina L. Fisher, Contracts Administrator

8/14/2020

Laura Gyorkos Digitally signed by Laura Gyorkos Date: 2020.08.31 12:37:42 -04'00'

STATE OF MICHIGANPROCUREMENT ServicesDepartment of Natural Resources525W. ALLEGAN ST., LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933P.O. BOX 30028 LANSING1 MICHIGAN 48909

CONTRACT CHANGE NOTICE

Change Notice Number 04to

Contract Number 751 B6600003


9300 Lee Highway -—

Fairfax, VA 22031

Jodi Young

707-992-0768

[email protected]

03611001

Mary Rabe I WildlifeDivision

cool — ——

517-284-3122

- —

Rabem©michigan.gov

Lisa VanOstran I ProcurementC Services

‘-284-5975.jI(

vanostranlmichigan.gov

CONTRACT SUMMARYDESCRIPTION: Habitat Conservation Plan for Four Cave-Dwelling Bat Species in Michigan, Minnesota andWisconsin

INITIAL EFFECTIVE DATE INITIAL EXPIRATION DATh’2- INITIAL AVAILABLE

10/06/2015 09/30/2018 2-1 year 09/30/2018

• PAYMENT TERMS A ,, DELIVERY T1MEFRAME

Net45days N/AALTERNATE PAYMENT OPTIONS EXTENDED PURCMASING

H P-card H Direct Voucher (DV) H Other H Yes No

MJN!MuM DELIVERY REqUIREMENTS •1 tr’N/A

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE NOTICELENGTH OF I REVISED EXP. DATEOPTION LENGTH OF OPTION EXTENSION EXTENSION I

H I I.

6ÜRRENT VALUE I VALUE OF CHANGE NOTICE ESTIMATED AGGREGATE CONTRACT VALUE

51,117,368.00 I $192,905.00 $1,310,273.00DESCRIPTION: Effective 3/24/2017, the following items are added to this Contract: 2017 NEPA Statement of Work.This Contract is being increased by $192,905.00. All other terms, conditions, specifications and pricing remain the

same per the Contractor and agency agreement.

Revised 5/4/2016

CHANGE NOTICE NO.04 TO CONTRACT NO. 751B6600003

FOR THE CONTRACTOR:


Company Name

c&j tPOQAuthorized Agent Signature

Trina L. Prince

Authorized Agent (Print or Typo)

June 22, 2017

Date

0

fu&ca2

FO’ HE STATE:

/- G-vo)d,)JName & flUe

Department of Natural ResourcesAgency

Date 110/17

Revised 4/2112016

Lake States ITP NEPA Compliance2017 SCOPE OF WORK AND WORK PLAN

PREPARED FOR

Region 3 USFWS and THE LAKE STATE DNRS

KFNT I Rh *110 N At

ICF Jones and Stokes

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

Contact: Leo Lentsch

843.333.3706

PRE PA R ED SY:

June 2017

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., 2017 sow and work Plan

List of Acronyms

DNR Department of Natural Resources

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

(CF (CF Jones and Stokes

ITP incidental take permit

Lake States Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSHCP Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

SOW Scope of Work

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

0 Page ii


SECTION 1: INTRODUCTIONIssuance of an ITP requires compliance with NEPA.

This process typically trails development of the HCP

document by 6 months to 1 year or more. The NEPA•OLijlI$%iSiblh% hi flhhuLhIhI

process associated with the Lake States HCP was

not initiated in 2016, although the framework for c;ollahoz•ationcompliance has been discussed. In general, 1 of 3 NFL’levels of effort are required to satisfy NEPA

-‘ t

compliance requirements: Categorical Exclusions,.4 I!andbaokfor

sVEPt I’rrwt,iw,:en

Environmental Assessments, and Environmental

Impact Statements.

During discussions on development of the Lake

States HCP, the USFWS field offices and the regional

office indicated that they (as the lead federal agency)—?

would approve third party contracts, and would initiate

scoping as an open process without specifically

stating if the NEPA document would be an EA or an

EIS. This approach is justified because although there

is a large geographic area (3 States) associated with the HCP, over 46.7 million acres of

forestlands in the 3 states, local multiple jurisdictions, multiple species, as well as

approximately 1,000,000 private landowners, it is unknown if significant impacts would be

identified. Later in the environmental review process, the USFWS will determine if an EA or

ElS will be required.

The NEPA process will be initiated with public scoping activities in 2017. This SOW and

Work Plan assess the environmental impact analysis of the Lake States, multiple-applicant,

forest practices HCP. This effort will bring together varied private interests and involves state

and federal jurisdictions, stakeholders, and members of the public, while addressing potential

impacts to numerous species and components of the human environment. The NEPA process

will analyze impacts associated with the issuance of an ITP based on the Lake States KCP

that covers the three states within the Midwest Region (3) of the USFWS. The development

of the Lake States HCP will address several significant environmental issues, and will provide

a solid framework for the NEPA process. This document summarizes the experience and

expertise of the ICF Team, a general approach, and discusses the work to be completed in

2017.

SECTION 2: ICF Team Experience and Qualifications

To maintain the aggressive schedule and create a legally defensible NEPA document, the

right personnel, project experience, and regional resources are required. The ICF Team’s

extensive experience developing HCPs and completing complex NEPA analyses, combined

with our local resource expertise, allows us to fully understand and appreciate the complexity

this project. Our proposed approach to completing the NEPA analysis reflects this

understanding and provides a framework for developing a programmatic NEPA document that

0 Page 3

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., 2017 SOW and Work Plan

reflects the USFWS’ independent assessment of the proposed action, and that provides the

information necessary to consider issuance of an ITP.

2.1 NEPA Expertise

Our team has unparalleled experience with the NEPA

process, having prepared hundreds of NEPA documents in

the past 10 years. ICE is a leader in developing technical

manuals, educational materials, and conducting training

courses for a range of NEPA topics. Our staff authored one

of the most widely used NEPA reference books (The NEPA

Book: A Step-By-Step Guide on How to Comply With the

National Environmental Policy Act) and regularly conduct

NEPA training courses. We are dedicated NEPA

practitioners, and our team members have been in

federal agencies, increasing our familiarity with NEPA from

multiple perspectives. The ICF team works on NEPA projects throughout the country, including

in USFWS Region 3. Below we describe our experience in two main areas of relevance for

this project: (1) NEPA associated with HCPs, and (2) large, complex NEPA projects.

ICF specializes in developing HCPs and the NEPA process associated with implementing

HCPs. Our staff have been involved in the preparation of more than 100 projects developing

HCPs, regional programmatic ESA Section 7 consultations, and/or their associated NEPA

environmental compliance. We understand the approach and process USFWS uses when

considering the environmental effects of implementing HCPs, including how to define the

proposed action, its baseline, and what elements of the HCP analysis can be used within the

NEPA document. Our expertise in managing NEPA reviews for implementing HCPs, our

strong leadership to facilitate agency coordination and resolve issues to avoid schedule

delays, and a deep bench of over 100 NEPA and ESA practitioners and technical experts

allows us to adapt to a dynamic project environment without impacting document quality,

schedule, or budget.

0

-C.-. h

A:

Unparalleled NEPA Expertise

Hundreds of NEPA projects inthe last 10 yearsExperience with multi-stateNEPA

• Authored the NEPA book• Training and lecturing on

NEPA

leadership roles within state and

Page 4


We also bring a deep understanding of USFWS policies and

procedures for NEPA and ESA compliance, exhibited by the

senior staff committed to this project with state and federal

wildlife agency work experience (see callout box to the right).

Senior Advisors Robert Williams and Allan Pfister are former

USFWS Field Office Supervisors who have collectively

overseen or been involved with over 100 NEPA projects, many

of which were associated with HCPs.

Our NEPA Compliance/Quality Control lead, John Hansel,

provided guidance, review, and direction on over 100 NEPA

documents for the National Marine Fisheries Service. We

routinely work closely with USFWS preparing and implementing

HCP5 and NEPA for HCPs, and we provide instruction to

USFWS staff at the National Conservation Training Center. All

of this experience, plus our track record of high-quality

documents and scientific rigor, have fostered strong relationships with USFWS and successful

support of USFWS in the NEPA process.

2.2 Key StaffOur team is composed of available and enthusiastic technical specialists, NEPA practitioners,

and senior advisors with a demonstrated track record of preparing high-quality, legally-

defensible NEPA documents for large and complex projects, including those associated with

the issuance of ITPs, as well as local NEPA projects and other projects assessing impacts on

local resources. The table below briefly summarizes the relevant background and experience

of our designated key personnel.

Leo Lentsch, Project Director 35 MS Large-scale ITP, ESNNEPA compliance, federal/state agencies

Hova Woods, Project Manager 15 MPA Large-scale ITP, ESNNEPA assessments, federal/state agencies

Madeline Terry, Deputy PM 15 BS Large-scale ITP, NEPA assessments and process

Nick Baker, Biology Lead 13 MEM Local species assessments, NEPA assessmenls and process

Tiffany Mendoza, Public Involvement 11 BA Public involvement specialist, NEPA process

0

Former Resource AgencyEmployees on the ICF Team

• Robert Williams, USFWS(30+years) Field Office Supervisor

• Allan Pfister, USFWS (19 years)Field Office Supervisor

• Leo Lentsch, Utah Division ofWildlife (13 years) ResearchProject Manager/StatewideProgram Coordinator for NaUveSpecies; USFWS (4 years)Biologist

• John Hansel, NMFS (4 years)National NEPA Coordinator

Name, Role Yrs Degree Relevant Experience

Page 5

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., 2017 sow and Work Plan

SECTION 3: Technical ApproachThis section addresses the technical approach for preparing the NEPA document. We

developed this approach based on our experience preparing NEPA documents for the issuance

of ITPs, as well as our understanding of the effects typical of forest practices and familiarity with

the biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources located in the 3-state region covered by

the Lake States HCP. Below we identify the key outcomes of a successfully completed NEPA

process, before summarizing our general approach and assumptions for the project. We then

provide a scope of work that addresses the individual technical areas and tasks needed to

support and initiate the NEPA compliance process in 2017, including key assumptions and

deliverables for each task.

3.1 Key OutcomesOur technical approach focuses on two key outcomes: (1) supporting a legally-defensible NEPA

compliance process, and (2) identifying and implementing efficiencies to meet the aggressive

schedule.

Outcome: Support a Legally Defensible NEPAl Compliance Process

The proposed federal action analyzed in the NEPA document will be issuance of an ITP by

USFWS for activities described in the Lake States HOP. The legal defensibility of the NEPA

document will be largely contingent on how well the NEPA compliance process supports the

decision made by USFWS. While procedural in nature, NEPA requires federal agencies to take

a “hard look” at the effects of their proposed action, and to ensure that their decision reflects

consideration of those effects. Accordingly, our proposed approach focuses on preparing a

comprehensive and coherent NEPA analysis that clearly articulates the methodology and

decision framework used to consider the effects of the proposed Lake States HOP and

alternatives, and that is supported by a transparent and well documented administrative

process. In addition, the NEPA process will:

• Reflect USFWS’s independent analysis of the Lake States HOP and alternatives.

• Identify alternatives that reflect the underlying purpose of the Lake States HCP — to

provide a regional, integrated approach for long-term conservation of covered species

within the covered lands, while allowing for sustainable and economically viable forestry

practices.

• Provide a comprehensive programmatic impact discussion, focused on the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Although the NEPA document will address a wide range of resources areas, the analysis will

focus on the effects of implementation of the Lake States HOP and alternatives on covered

species. A more general analysis of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the

proposed action on other resource areas, such as air quality, visual resources, and noise, will

also be provided, with consideration given to other federal, state, and local approvals that may

be necessary before the activities covered in the Lake States HOP can be implemented. In

addition, given the geographic scope of covered lands and lack of information on the site

Page 6


specific locations of future forestry activities, the effects analysis will necessarily be

programmatic in nature.

Outcome: Identify and Implement Efficiencies to Meet Project Schedule

ICF has successfully managed numerous NEPA compliance processes to meet ambitious

schedule milestones. For example, Hova Woods, the ICF Project Manager, led completion of

the EIS for the Midwest Wind Energy MSHCP within the schedule period by assembling a

focused, dedicated team of technical staff, ensuring regular communication with and direction

from USFWS, and working closely with the MSHCP team to ensure a common understanding

of the proposed plan. Our team appreciates the importance of schedule to this process, and

will work closely with the USFWS and the Lake States DNRs to identify efficiencies in the NEPA

process. The schedule included in this document reflects concurrent - rather than sequential —

review of some work products to streamline development of NEPA deliverables. We have also

included concurrent review periods by USFWS, State Cooperating Agencies, and the Solicitor’s

Office to expedite the review process. These efficiencies will allow development of the Public

Draft NEPA document within a 52-week period from the issuance of the Notice of Intent in the

Federal Register; and completion of the Final NEPA document by May 2019 (24 months after

execution of the NEPA contract). Additional schedule efficiencies may also be identified at the

kickoff meeting with the project team, after we have had an opportunity to consider the

document review and public process with USFWS and State of Michigan and to better

understand the status of the Lake States HCP.

3.2 General Approach

Our general approach for the successful completion of the NEPA document is to:

• Develop a programmatic approach to the NEPA analysis using existing data sources

(including data prepared in support of the Lake States HCP), familiarity with forestry

industry impact mechanisms, and a thorough understanding of the species and

resources most likely to be impacted by Lake States HCP covered activities.

• Use a conservative approach for analyzing impacts and accounting for uncertainty.

• Provide meaningful opportunities for the public, stakeholder, and resource agencies to

review and comment on the NEPA document.

• Provide strong project management.

In corporate a Programmatic Approach to the NEPA Analysis

The effects analysis in the NEPA document will be programmatic to accommodate the large

geographic scope of covered lands and to address the lack of information on specific locations

and timing of forestry activities over the term of the Lake States HCP. To the extent possible,

the ICF Team will use existing data sources to inform this analysis, including data prepared in

support of the Lake States HCP where it can inform USFWS’ independent assessment of

environmental impacts. Where Lake States HCP data are inadequate or missing, the CF Team

will identify other existing data sources that may be used to inform the NEPA analysis. For

example, we anticipate using species distribution information available from USFWS, along

with information provided in the Natural Heritage databases and Natureserve to characterize

0 Page 7


the habitats of threatened and endangered species not covered under the Lake States HCP,

and to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to those species from implementation

of the covered activities and/or conservation strategy.

While there may be gaps in data or information necessary for a more informed project-specific

analysis (e.g., species-specific data on nest locations), we believe this approach will allow

USFWS to characterize the types of effects associated with covered activities, and identify

additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts not

otherwise addressed by the conservation strategy. This approach is also consistent with the

nature of the proposed action, where issuance of an ITP would facilitate but not specifically

approve proposed new or ongoing forest management activities, and where avoidance and

minimization measures are often associated with site-specific development approvals by other

federal, state, or local agencies. Moreover, this approach was successfully used by USFWS

Region 3 during development of the Midwest Wind Energy MSHCP currently under

development as well as the NiSource MSHCP EIS which was completed in 2013.

Use a Conservative Approach to Analyze Potential Impacts

To account for any uncertainty in the location or specificity of covered activities, the effects

analysis will use a conservative approach to identify reasonably foreseeable impacts — i.e., in

areas where forestry activities may occur, the effects analysis will consider that forestry

activities would occur and characterize potential impacts accordingly (i.e., a worst-case

scenario). Similarly, if a species habitat may be present in an area covered under the Lake

States KCP, the analysis will assume presence unless data supports absence. Our familiarity

with forestry projects will also ensure the NEPA document anticipates the full range of impacts

potentially associated with those activities including such activities as ancillary road

improvements to accommodate transport of forest products.

Provide Meaningful Opportunity for Public, Stakeh older, and Agency Comment

In designing the public outreach strategy for the NEPA process, we recommend USFWS look

for opportunities to make the review and comment process as simple, accessible, and

transparent as possible. As an example, we have found that hosting comment meetings for

NEPA documents in an open house format, in conjunction with project stations staffed by

technical experts where the public may ask questions and provide written comment, can diffuse

tensions that can occur in a more traditional speaker/commenter format. The review and

comment process can also be facilitated by developing a project-specific website focused on

providing timely information on the status of the Lake States HCP and NEPA document, like

the website currently available for the Midwest Wind Energy MSHCP effort. A website can also

serve as an additional forum for providing comments or asking questions during development

of the NEPA document, and can provide a single location where interested stakeholders can

look for available documents and process summaries. We have included a Task in our technical

approach to assist USFWS with developing a project-specific website if requested.

Our more than 250 in-house communications, public outreach, and facilitation professionals

have substantial experience developing outreach and participation programs. Public

Involvement lead Tiffany Mendoza was specifically selected for this project because of her

experience supporting HCP NEPA processes. She and her team will use this experience to

0 Page 8


assist USFWS in tailoring a program that ensures wide dissemination of public notice materials

and provides maximum opportunity for participation during the public involvement periods.

Provide Strong Project Management Support

Preparation of a NEPA document for a high-profile HCP that covers multiple states and

jurisdictions and is subject to an ambitious schedule will require strong project management

support and attention to detail by the selected consultant. Cur project management team,

comprised of Project Director (Leo Lentsch), Project Manager (Hova Woods), and Deputy

Project Manager (Madeline Terry), has decades of collective experience organizing, facilitating,

and leading multi-disciplinary teams toward successful completion of both NEPA and ESA

compliance processes. They understand and have recent experience with the internal and

external review processes that USFWS utilizes to complete HCP NEPA documents, and will

help the team develop aggressive but reasonable expectations for the document review and

approval process. Their management approach focuses on frequent and timely communication

with USFWS, the Lake State DNRs, as well as the State Cooperating Agencies (as appropriate)

to allow for efficient resolution of critical path issues, tracking key milestones and decision

points, and monitoring the project schedule, budget, and staffing assumptions.

In summary, our project management approach emphasizes our (1) management principles,

(2) project coordination, (3) budget and schedule controls, and (4) quality control. Task 1 has

been identified to capture the effort, assumptions, and deliverables associated with

implementing that approach.

Management Principles

ICF has demonstrated success in the development and preparation of large complex NEPA

documents across the nation. We have been very successful at developing NEPA documents

supporting issuance of lTPs. This success is due, in part, to our management framework,

which includes the following principles:

• Ensure that the team is staffed by the most appropriate and qualified personnel with

the relevant experience and capabilities required for the project.

• Use a workload forecasting system to immediately know the availability of individual

staff and better coordinate their support of the project.

• Monitor project budgets and schedules using state-of-the-ad tools.

• Task senior staff with directing, overseeing, managing, and reviewing the efforts of

junior staff to assist in the completion of work products.

• Facilitate the coordination and efficient implementation of complex projects through

emphasis on task management.

• Work with the USFWS to create the vision for each component of the project, then

clearly communicate this vision to task leaders and all team members.

CommunicationlCoordination

The successful completion of all NEPA work products will be contingent on regular

communication with the project team and timely feedback and technical direction from

0 Page 9


USFWS. Our project management staff will prepare for and facilitate bi-weekly conference

calls with USFWS and State of Michigan (and other entities as appropriate) to assess project

milestones and pending deliverables, and to identify potential data gaps or analytical

shortcomings.

Critical to the success of the NEPA process is a close working relationship between the ICF

Team and USFWS, Lake State DNRs, and other appropriate entities such as county

governments, as well as engagement of other resource agencies early in the process.

Budget/Schedule Controls

Our Management Team will be responsible for contract and schedule management;

preparation of monthly status reports and invoices; participation in bi-weekly team conference

calls; and project oversight to ensure all NEPA-related work products are delivered on time

and within budget. ICE has proven project management and quality control systems in place

to ensure quality deliverables and services within the schedule and budget. We use DeItek

Vision, a customized accounting system that accurately allocates costs and provides real-time

project management information by project task. The system isa flexible database with robust

reporting functions that support a standard suite of reports and custom-designed reports.

Weekly financial updates are available through the online system to project managers for each

contract, task, and subtask. Upon contract execution, we will set up period of performance,

budget, and hourly allocations for each staff member and subcontractor by task for the contract

in the Deltek system. As Project Manager, Hova Woods will communicate budgets and

allocated hours to each of staff member assigned to the project.

With oversight from Project Director Leo Lentsch, Hova will be responsible for tracking and

maintaining the budget. She will track level of effort and costs incurred on a weekly basis

through ICF’s online system. For a cost-sensitive project such as this one, the ICF system will

provide cost tracking data against a deliverable/milestone schedule for each task. This

information will be used to prepare the monthly budget report for the State of Michigan and

USFWS. Our system is designed to effectively provide multiple controls on project budgets

and schedules. On a monthly basis, financial administrative staff will prepare a budget

summary and invoice, which Hova will review and approve. She will also prepare a progress

report to accompany these documents in our submittal to State of Michigan and USFWS.

Project Manager Hova Woods and Deputy Project Manager Madeline Terry will manage the

project schedule in coordination with the HCP schedule to identify (1) critical path processes

for maintaining the schedule, (2) interrelationships between work efforts to understand how

changes in work products impact the overall timeline, and (3) opportunities to streamline or

coordinate efforts.

Conflict of InteresU3’’ Party Contracting

ICE has a strong Conflict of Interest Policy that governs the behavior of our company and staff

(available upon request). The adherence of this policy ensures avoidance of conflict of

interest. As such, a clear operational firewall would exist between the HCP and NEPA teams

for this effort. The proposed NEPA Team utilizes separate staff starting with the Project

Manager through the technical staff. To solidify the roles and responsibilities for this effort we

Page 10


suggest an MOU that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the USFWS, the Lake States

DNRs, and the ICF Team.

It is also important to note that we are not currently or projected to be committed to another

project that would constitute a conflicting interest in conforming to this effort. Further, no

projects currently being undertaken or projected to be undertaken by the ICF Team will result

in delays in completing the NEPA document in a timely manner. We are fully committed to

providing the staff resources necessary to complete the proposed NEPA work plan and have

the ability to draw from dozens of environmental professionals including environmental

specialists, biologists, cultural resources specialists, economists, attorneys, and community

affairs specialists.

A critical aspect of quality management of the work processes is balancing performance,

quality, and budget expenditures. As Project Director, Leo will ultimately be responsible for the

quality of work delivered by ICF. This plan is built on lessons learned from successful delivery

of numerous projects for USFWS.

SECTION 4: SOW and Work Plan

4.1 Overview

Table 4-1 below provides an overview of the overarching steps in the process that we anticipate

will need to be taken, at the direction of USFWS, to complete the NEPA process for issuance of

the Lake States ITP. This is intended to provide a high level overview and context for the work

that will be done during the first phase of the NEPA contract and funding. Table 4-2 below

provides our proposed schedule for the work associated with the NEPA 2017 SOW. The overall

schedule is based on the start date in June 2017 for the NEPA Purchase Order. The exact

schedule will be finalized in coordination with the USFWS.

Table 4-1. Anticipated tasks to complete the NEPA process associated with issuing an ITP for the

Lake States HCP

1. Project Startup, Scoping, and Public Involvement

2. Scope, Methodology, and Approach to the NEPA Analysis

3. Preliminary Draft NEPA Document

4. Revised Draft NEPA Document

5. Public Draft NEPA Document and Notice of Availability

6. Public Comment Meetings on the Public Draft NEPA Document

7. Response to Comments on the Public Draft NEPA Document

8. Prepare Draft Final NEPA Document

9. Prepare Final NEPA Document

10. Respond to Comments on the Final NEPA Document

11. Compile Working File in Support of Administrative Record

0

.

. ....

j4çtn

:ç r

Page 11


Table 4.2. 2017 NEPA SOW Schedule

NEPAMeeUngsandDeiibles, :.:•:*ScheduleMilestonçØ

.

Stan date End date (tentative)

Project Start-up

Kickoff meeting June 2017 n/a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) June 2017 July 2017

Scoping & Public Involvement

Public Involvement Plan June 2017 July 2017

Project Website June 2017 July 2017

Mailing List June 2017 July 2017

Notice of Intent publication in the Federal Register June 2017 July 2017

Notification and Outreach Materials: Press releases; Letters; July 2017 August 2017Postcards; Emails

Scoping Meeting Materials (PPT presentation, display boards, July 2017 August 2017brochure/handout, comment forms)

Scoping Meetings (2) & Site visit— State 1 August 2017 August 2017

Scoping Meetings (2) & Site visit — State 2 August 2017 August 2017

Scoping Meetings (2) & Site visit — State 3 August 2017 September 2017

Webinars (2) September2017 September2017

Purchase Order ends September 30, 2017

4.2 2017 sow and work Plan

Based on the current project schedule and funds available, the ICF Team has developed this

SOW and Work Plan to accomplish the deliverables and meetings described below for Task

1 (project startup, scoping, and public involvement) by the end of Fiscal Year 2017, September

30, 2017. Additional work beyond this date will be needed to complete the NEPA process

steps listed above. The exact timing of these tasks will depend on the overall HCP and NEPA

project schedule and funds available.

The SOW and Work Plan below is directly tied to our cost estimate, schedule, and assumptions

and therefore is broken out into the ICE Teams effort that will be billed Time & Materials (T&M)

and the tasks that are billed fixed price. Within the T&M costs, we include a contingency fee

which can be accessed for overages on fixed-price deliverables, or overages on T&M tasks.

The following sub-sections describe:

Meetings, Coordination, and Other Support that will require approval and will support

project startup, scoping, and public involvement (T&M work activities) — Section 4.2.1

Page 12


• NEPA deliverables required to support project startup, scoping, and public involvement

(fixed price deliverables) — Section 4.2.2

4.2.1 Meetings, Coordination, and Other Support (T&M Work Activities)

Kickoff Meeting

A productive NEPA kickoff meeting is a critical first step Our Management Team will organize

and facilitate the kickoff meeting, after first soliciting input from all key staff and senior advisors.

We anticipate discussing this SOW and Work Plan, the schedule, MOU, roles and

responsibilities (USFWS, States, ICF), and points of contact (e.g., Project Manager as primary

Point of Contact for day-to-day activities and Deputy Project Manager as secondary Point of

Contact).

We will discuss the key issues and challenges of NEPA process implementation with the

USFWS and the Lake State DNRs.

During the kickoff meeting, we will discuss the States’ roles in the site reviews.

Project Coordination Calls

Project coordination conference calls with USFWS will be scheduled either during the kickoff

meeting or shortly thereafter. Our management team will participate in bi-weekly conference

calls with the project team. ICF could also accommodate an in-person project coordination

meeting in the Regional office, if it is coordinated with the Scoping meetings and site visit

location and dates.

Scoping Meetings & Site Reviews

We will assist USFWS in completing the public scoping

process in support of the NEPA document. Specifically, this

task includes preparation and participation in up to 6 public

scoping meetings — two in each of the three states — and 2

publicly-available webinars. Site visits with USFWS staff will

be an important step in gathering information on the proposed

action. This task includes time for up to two members of our

team to participate in up to three site reviews, coordinated

with the scoping meetings in terms of location and timing.

Information obtained during the site reviews will inform our

ability to more specifically characterize covered lands and will

provide additional detail on the nature of the covered activities

and potential impacts. The States’ roles in these site reviews

will be discussed during the kickoff meeting.

Webinars

The ICF Team has experience with successful webinar-based public meetings on other similar

projects (HCP NEPA with USFWS as the lead federal agency). To that end, we anticipate

hosting two public webinars to accommodate the interested parties who cannot attend the in

0

Facilitating the Public Process

public meetings associated with

NEPA compliance processes.

Page 13


person meetings. Often, we find this is one of the most effective outreach methods for projects

that span a large geographic area. We anticipate hosting 2 webinars in 1 week, during a week

when we are not holding any in-person meetings.

Assumptions

• Two members of the ICE Team will attend the kickoff meeting in person.

• At least one member of the management team will participate in the project

coordination calls.

• Up to 8 project coordination calls will be scheduled, with each lasting up to 1 hour.

• Up to 2 in-person scoping meetings in each of the 3 states.

• Up to 1 site visit in each of the 3 states.

• Scoping meetings and site visits will be scheduled such that the ICE Team can

accomplish 2 scoping meetings, I site visit, and the travel associated with them within

one week (5 business days).

• Up to 2 ICE staff will attend each of the weeklong trips, covering both the scoping

meetings and site visit.

• The general locations and dates of scoping meetings will be confirmed 30 days prior

to travel to minimize travel costs.

• Up to 3 ICE staff will facilitate and present during the webinars. The public webinars

will last no more than 1 hour each.

4.2.2 NEPA Deliverables for Project Startup, Scoping and Public lnvolvement (Fixed

Price Deliverables)

MOU

To ensure effective communication and solidify the roles and responsibilities for this project we

suggest an MOU that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the USEWS, the Lake States

DNRs, and the ICF Team. We will discuss the MDU during the project kickoff meeting to inform

our preparation of this document. Using this discussion and ICF’s experience with similar

efforts, ICE will draft the MOU for consideration by the USFWS and Lake States DNRs. ICE will

prepare a final MOU based on consolidated comments from USFWS and Lake States DNRs.

Public Involvement Plan

Effective public and stakeholder involvement and documentation and application of input

received will be a key process consideration for the Lake States NEPA document. Our public

involvement lead, Tiffany Mendoza, has over II years of public involvement and

communications experience and has led public involvement on dozens of NEPA documents.

During the project kickoff meeting we will confirm the key elements of the public involvement

strategy for the Lake States NEPA document. The Public Involvement Plan will include

templates and draft content for the scoping notification letter and other informational mailers

to be utilized throughout the Lake States NEPA process, as well as suggested meeting

Page 14


formats. ICE public involvement staff will work closely with the USFWS to organize meeting

locations and times and determine the appropriate format for the public meetings.

Following the kickoff meeting, we will prepare a Draft Public Involvement Plan which will

include coordination with the states on their involvement with the stakeholders and ensure

compliance with all applicable regulations and laws, as appropriate. We will provide the Draft

Public Involvement Plan to the USFWS and finalize it based on USFWS input.

Project-Specific Website

As described above, we believe the public review and comment process could be improved

by developing a project-specific website focused on providing timely information on the status

of the Lake States HCP and NEPA process. Under this task, our team will assist USFWS in

developing this website, which will serve as a one-stop source of information for the public,

and will include summary information about the HCP and NEPA processes, links to publicly

available documents, and links to other relevant sources of information. Suggested content of

the website includes:

• Brief description of the HCP NEPA document and general information on the habitat

conservation planning program.

• Brief overview of the NEPA compliance process and consideration of the proposed

action.

• Brief description of public comment opportunities for the NEPA document (EA or EIS),

including public scoping.

• Hyperlinks to publicly available documents, such as media releases, meeting

handouts, FAQs, and the Public Draft and Final NEPA documents.

• Project milestones and schedule.

• Information on how to provide public comments.

• Project contact information.

We will develop text and page layout recommendations for the webpage, including a simple

layout design compatible with the existing USFWS website, and will provide a list of suggested

links to be included on the webpage (e.g., link to the USFWS Region 3 habitat conservation

planning program).

Mailing Lists

Under this task, Tiffany Mendoza, our Public Involvement lead, will oversee the development

and maintenance of a computerized mailing list of resource agencies, local media contacts,

tribal contacts, elected officials, community/environmental groups, and other members of the

public who have expressed interest in the Lake States HCP or NEPA process, among others.

The initial list will be developed in collaboration with USFWS and the Lake State DNRs, and

will be updated through the public scoping process. The list will be provided in an MS Access

compatible database and maintained throughout the project. No outside mailing lists/email

addresses will be purchased. ICF assumes the mailing list will include no more than 4,000

individual addresses, and that ICF will not purchase target zip codes to develop the mailing

list. All communication with the mailing list will be by email.

0 Page 15


Notice of Intent

(CF will work closely with USEWS to prepare a draft Notice of Intent for publication in the

Federal Register. After receiving one set of consolidated comments from the USFWS on the

draft Notice of Intent, ICE will prepare the final Notice of Intent.

Notification and Outreach Materials

ICE will develop notices/announcements for publication in local newspapers or radio stations

to notify the public and stakeholders about the scoping period. ICE will utilize free

advertisement opportunities (e.g., public service announcements) to publicize the scoping

meetings. ICE will prepare up to one letter/postcard to be sent to the mailing list via email

announcing the scoping period and meetings.

Scoping Meeting materials

ICE public involvement staff will work closely with the USEWS to organize meeting locations

and times, determine the appropriate format for the meetings, and develop meeting materials.

ICE will prepare a common set of materials (displays, maps, brochure) for use at each public

scoping meeting. Location specific materials will be limited to additional or refined state-

specific maps of the covered lands and resources. ICF will prepare up to six large display

boards, a brochure/handout, comment sheets, registration cards, and name tags for the

scoping meetings.

Assumptions

• Oral comments will not be taken at the scoping meetings and a court reporter will not

be required.

• The facility rental cost for each scoping meeting will not exceed $500. At least half of

the facilities will be free.

0 Page 16

4.3 Cost Estimate

This section provides:• Two detailed summary tables of the costs associated with preparing all of the materials

associated with the work described in Section 4.2 of this document. (Table 4-3 and

Table 4-4).

• Detailed assumptions associated with that work.

Table 4-3. Meetings, Coordination, and Other Support based on T&M with Approval

Work Activity Labor Total Cost

Project Operations (up to 8 calls) $10140 $0 $10,140

Kickoff Meeting Attendance $8,860 $2,228 $11,088

Scoping Meetings (2) & Site visit — State 1 $14,000 $3,575 $17575

Scoping Meetings (2) & Site visit — State 2 $12,400 $3575$15975

Scoping Meetings (2) & Site visit — State 3 $11,600 $3575$15175

Webinar prep call & dry run (total 2 calls) $5520 $0$5520

Live Public Webinars (2) $3,220 $1 650$4870

Contingency Fund $14,467 $0 $14,467

Overage on Work Activity; Overage on Tasks; or WorkItems_To_Be_Determined

Total T&M Not to Exceed Value $80,207 $14,603 $94,610

0


Page 17


Table 44. Fixed Price Deliverable for Scoping and Public Involvement

V Cost breakdown—

NEPA Fixed Price DelIverables Direct Total CostDraft I Final Expenses

Project Management

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) $2,440 $1,305 $0 $3,745

Scoping and Public Involvement

Public Involvement Plan $12,195 $2,625 $0 $14,820

Project Website $1 7,320 $5,590 $1,650 $24,560

Mailing List $10,250 $4,010 SO $14,260

Notice of Intent publication in the $2,530 $1,150 $0 $3,680Federal Register

Notification and Outreach Materials: Si 1 320 $2 090 $550 513 960Press release; Letter; Postcard; Email . ,

Scoping Meeting Materials: PPTpresentation, display boards, $17,510 $3,910 $1,650 $23,070

brochure/handout, comment fonns

rothl Cost 573 665 $20 680 $3,850 $98,095

SECTION 5: Overview of Project Completion

The overall schedule is based on a start date in June 2017 for the NEPA kickoff. A general

schedule is presented below. However, a detailed revised schedule will be developed in

coordination with the USFWS as part of the project kickoff.

The NEPA schedule is tied directly to the HCP schedule due to the requirement for the HCP

to inform the NEPA document. If the HCP schedule slips, the NEPA schedule typically slips

as well, However, for the purposes of the 2017 tasks, it is unlikely the schedule for 2017 will

slip because scoping should be able to proceed as long as the basic elements of the

Proposed Action are developed enough to be communicated to the public. Even if there are

Page 18


unknowns or undefined aspects of the Proposed Action, this can be communicated as such

to the public.

Our overall approach and detailed scope of work are based on the following general

assumptions:

• The project timeline starts from execution of the NEPA contract (June 2017) and

ends with dIstribution of the Final NEPA document (May 2019).

• The NEPA project schedule is dependent on the HCP schedule and milestones, due

to the nature of the HCP to inform the NEPA document.

• All comments from USFWS on draft deliverables will be consolidated and reconciled

(i.e., will not conflict) before they are sent to CF for incorporation into final

deliverables.

• We have assumed USFWS will review and comment on three iterations of the Draft

NEPA document and two iterations of the Final NEPA document: the Preliminary

Draft; Revised Draft; “Screen Check” Public Draft; Draft Final; and ‘Screen Check”

Final. Review of these deliverables by other entities, such as State Cooperating

Agencies or the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office, is assumed to occur

concurrent with these reviews, and that additional comments from those entities

would be compiled and reconciled with USFWS comments.

• Data used for the Lake States HCP development will be made available for analysis

and incorporation into the NEPA document, as appropriate.

• ICF will meet with the USFWS to review the scope of work and agree to the project

schedule.

0 Page 19

and

Pub

lic

Invo

lvem

ent

App

roac

hto

NE

PA

Ana

lyti

s

‘Ocu

men

t

umen

t

lern

ari

dN

OA

On

Pub

lic

Dro

ftN

EP

AD

ocum

vnt

anP

ublr

cD

raN

EP

AD

ocum

ent

Doc

umen

t

imen

t

,ient,

onFi

nal

NE

PA

Doc

umen

t

Sup

pofl

ofA

dmin

islm

bve

Rec

ord

esto

nes

tPC

hapt

e,z

I

+li

_E

.i±

zzrz

t—

——

Final 2017 HCP

SCOPE OF WORK AND WORKPLAN

PREPARED FOR THE LAKE STATE DNRS

P R E P A R E D BY:


9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

Contact: Leo Lentsch 843.333.3706

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., Draft 2017 SOW and WORKPLAN

Page iv

List of Acronyms

ATFS American Tree Farm System CE Categorical Exclusion CF Commercial Forest CFR Code of Federal Regulations CI Certificate of Inclusion DNR Department of Natural Resources EA Environmental Assessments EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis Program FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FSC Forest Stewardship Council HCP Habitat Conservation Plan ICF ICF Jones and Stokes ITP incidental take permit Lake States Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin MFL Managed Forest Law NEPA National Environmental Policy Act QFP Qualified Forest Program SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard SFIA Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act SOW Scope of Work U.S.C. United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Page 1

INTRODUCTION SECTION 1: This document builds upon the original and revised 2016 Scopes of Work (SOWs) and the associated contract between ICF Jones and Stokes (ICF) and the State of Michigan. A synopsis of the decisions to date, as well as other relevant decisions, follows. Building on this framework and the status of Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) development, the 2017 SOW and Workplan section provides details on the redefined work to be completed for the remainder of 2017. A revised schedule of deliverables as well as an overall project schedule is provided as an overview of the timeframe for completing the incidental take permit (ITP) issuance process. It is important to note that the work described in the 2017 SOW is based on the 2017 Section 6 funding cycles. As such, it does not closely follow the calendar year. Rather, it generally follows an annual funding cycle that is tied to the issuance of the contract to ICF. Additionally, this scope of work is a continuation of the work started in 2015 and 2016 and contracted in those years. It is also important to note that the annual work plans follow the general approach for developing an HCP, complying with NEPA, and applying for an incidental take permit as described in the original proposal submitted by the ICF Team. As new information was obtained and new direction provided to the ICF Team, appropriate modifications to the process have been integrated into the annual workplans as well as the completion of individual tasks.

1.1 Relevant HCP Decisions and Direction As described above, several relevant and strategic decisions were made by the Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs) for each state, relative to the Lake States HCP, based on the work performed under the 2016 SOWs. These decisions include the following: Activities to be covered by the ITP (Covered Activities);

Species to be covered by the ITP (Covered Species);

Area and/or Lands to be covered by ITP (Covered Area/Lands); and

Take Permits and use of Certificates of Inclusion (CIs).

Technical Approach for Environmental Baseline and Covered Species

Technical Approach for Potential Effects

Technical Approach for Data Assembly and Use Relative to Covered Activities and other Needs


Page 2

2017 SOW AND WORKPLAN SECTION 2: This section describes the work activities that will be implemented with 2017 funds. In general, it will build upon the work currently accomplished while addressing the new direction for the project based on the decisions presented above. An important component of the work for 2017 will also be implementing a separate SOW and Workplan for NEPA.

2.1 Meetings, Coordination, and Other Support During early development of the HCP, the ICF Team and the HCP Coordinator identified the need to enhance efforts to interact with the Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee on strategic issues associated with development of the HCP. As such, this work is divided into 2 major categories: 1) Project Operations Coordination and 2) Strategic Advice, Planning and Coordination. It is important to note that coordination sometimes requires working directly with the Lake States DNRs (ITP applicants only) and at other times involves the larger Steering Committee (which also includes USFWS).

2.1.1 Project Operations Coordination (Meetings) Keeping the HCP Coordinator, as well as the Lake State DNRs, apprised of progress and any potentials issues that could cause project delays is an important component of developing the HCP. We anticipate meetings to be a half-hour in length as needed, and be attended by the project manager or the deputy project manager. The HCP Coordinator and ICF will determine when a meeting is needed. The project director and technical lead will participate as needed. This task also acknowledges that some meetings will require a full hour, and meetings will be adjusted as needed.

2.1.1.1 Assumptions Meetings associated with project operations will be based on a time and materials (T&M)

contracting standard, where specific estimates of the time and costs will be subject to prior approval by the State of Michigan based on direction from the Lake States DNRs and/or Steering Committee

There could be as many as 24 (once every two weeks) coordination calls during 2017

The ICF Management Team will:

o Prepare for the calls

o Participate in project management conference calls, as needed

o Identify project operational issues that need assistance by the HCP Coordinator and/or resolution by the Lake States DNRs and/or Steering Committee

o Inform HCP Coordinator when a meeting with the HCP Coordinator and/or Steering Committee is needed


Page 3

The HCP coordinator will:

o Coordinate the review and, as appropriate, feedback or direction from the Lake State DNRs on any issues raised by the ICF Team

o Coordinate the review and, as appropriate, feedback or direction from the Lake Steering Committee on any issues raised by the ICF Team

o Schedule the calls as needed

o Develop agendas for the calls, as needed

o Prepare a summary memo of the call for distribution to the Lake State DNRs

2.1.1.2 ICF Deliverables Facilitation materials for conference calls with Lake States HCP Coordinator

o List of relevant issues

2.1.2 Strategic Advice, Planning, and Coordination (Meetings) The ICF Team will provide strategic advice, planning, and coordination in support of HCP development as needed. This task supports the HCP Coordinator, the Lake States DNR representatives, and the Steering Committee by addressing strategic questions, walking through regulatory issues and challenges, and providing technical advice specific to the HCP process and document development. Over the course of HCP development and specifically within the remainder of the 2016 calendar

year, the individual Lake State DNRs, as well as the larger Steering Committee, will need to provide input on the following strategic elements: Environmental/Socioeconomic input from interested parties

Stakeholder Committee structure, participant, roles, and responsibilities

Incorporation of county/municipal and private lands into the HCP

CI Process Development

HCP Development

o Conservation Strategy Chapter

o Plan Implementation and Assurances Chapter

o Funding Chapter

o Alternatives Chapter

o Literature Cited

o Technical Appendices To obtain the appropriate level of input, the ICF Team needs an efficient pathway to communicate and obtain feedback from the Lakes State DNRs, Steering Committee, and local stakeholders for development of the Lake States HCP during 2017. To address this need, we have outlined


Page 4

additional elements associated with the coordination between the Lake State DNRs and the Steering Committee.

2.1.2.1 Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee Coordination More direct coordination and interaction with the Lakes State DNRs, as well as the Steering Committee, during 2017 will continue to provide an efficient pathway to communicate and obtain feedback associated with development of the Lake States HCP. Based on the list of work elements described above, the ICF team will identify specific topics and, as needed, prepare materials for discussion and feedback from the Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee. To distinguish between meetings with the Lake States DNR and meetings with the full Steering Committee (Lake States DNR plus USFWS), these meetings and associated coordination have been separated.

Lake State DNRs. The assumptions and deliverables associated with Lake State DNR meetings and coordination are provided below.

Assumptions

ICF Team participation in meetings that facilitate coordination with the Lake State DNRs will be based on a T&M contracting standard where specific estimates off the time and costs will be subject to prior approval by Michigan DNR based on direction from the Lake State DNRs

o There could be up to 12 calls with the Lake State DNRs through the 2017 calendar year

Each Lake State DNR will individually provide input and/or direction to the ICF Team that is specific to the needs of their state.

The ICF Team will:

o Solicit feedback and discuss strategic issues pertaining to HCP development based on technical memos and/or draft chapters prepared by the ICF Team

Identify strategic issues that need resolution by the Lake State DNR representatives

Identify strategic issues that need resolution by the Steering Committee

Update HCP Coordinator on HCP development progress

o Participate in up to 6 calls for the individual Lake States DNRs

Subjects for these calls/webinars during 2017 are likely to include, but not limited to, Stakeholder Committee role and participation, CI process, CI participant representatives, Covered Activities on Private Lands, Environmental Baseline, Species Distribution Methods, and the Effects Analysis

Provide appropriate materials for review by the HCP Coordinator 2 weeks prior to the call


Page 5

Provide appropriate materials to the Lake State DNRs for discussion 1 week prior to the call

Identify any monthly calls for which USFWS participation is needed (i.e., Steering Committee call).

o Participate in up to 6 (2 per state) calls with individual Lake State DNRs, as requested

Meet with Lake State DNRs individually via conference calls to discuss specific permitting issues/needs for their state, as appropriate

The HCP Coordinator will:

o Coordinate review and, as appropriate, incorporate feedback or direction from the Lake State DNRs on materials produced by the ICF Team

o Facilitate the calls

Schedule the calls

Develop agendas for the calls

Facilitate the discussion

Prepare a summary memo highlighting important discussion elements and any decisions that are made

o Prepare summary memos, as appropriate, highlighting important discussion elements and/or any relevant decisions that are made by the Lake State DNRs

ICF Deliverables

Materials/webinars (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for “monthly” conference calls with Lake State DNRs, if requested

Materials/webinars (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for individual state DNR meetings, if requested

Steering Committee

Assumptions

ICF Team participation in meetings that facilitate coordination with the Steering Committee (Lake State DNRs plus USFWS) will be based on a T&M contacting standard where specific estimates off the time and costs will be subject to prior approval by Michigan DNR based on direction from the Lake State DNRs

o There could be up to 6 calls with the Steering Committee

The ICF Team will:




Page 6

o Participate in up to 6 calls for the Steering Committee

Subjects for these calls/webinars during 2017 are likely to include, but not limited to, Stakeholder Committee role and participation, CI process, CI participant representatives, Covered Activities, Environmental Baseline, Species Distribution Methods, and the Effects Analysis


Provide appropriate materials to the Steering Committee for discussion 1 week prior to the call

o Participate in up to 2 in-person meetings with the Steering Committee

Meet in June and November and/or December to discuss direction of the Lake States HCP

Provide materials for review by the HCP Coordinator 1-2 weeks prior to the meetings

Provide materials for the Steering Committee 1 week prior to the meeting


o Coordinate review and, as appropriate, incorporate feedback or direction from the Steering Committee on materials produced by the ICF Team

o Facilitate the Steering Committee calls

Schedule the calls


Arrange for participation of USFWS representatives (i.e. Steering Committee), if needed



o Facilitate in-person meetings

Schedule the meetings

Develop agendas for the meetings


o Prepare summary memos, as appropriate, highlighting important discussion elements and/or any relevant decisions that are made by the Steering Committee


Page 7

ICF Deliverables

Materials/webinars (e.g. PowerPoint presentations/handouts as appropriate) for conference calls with Steering Committee, if requested

Materials (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for the 2 in-person meetings with t h e Steering Committee, if requested

2018 SOW and Workplan

2.1.2.2 Stakeholder Engagement Support The ICF Team will assist the Lake State DNRs, as requested, in stakeholder engagement.

Assumptions Each State will develop and implement stakeholder engagement as the State deems

appropriate.

The ICF Team will: o Aid the Lake State DNRs based on a T&M contracting standard where

specific estimates of the time and costs will be subject to prior approval by Michigan DNR based on direction from the Lake State DNRs

o Advise and assist the Lake State DNRs with stakeholder engagement and upon request attend stakeholder engagement meetings by teleconference

o Provide feedback and recommendations on stakeholder engagement following any meeting participation, if requested

o Create within the project budget a dedicated line item to support ICFs participation in stakeholder engagement


o Assist with stakeholder engagement upon request of the States

ICF Deliverables Attend stakeholder engagement meetings by teleconference upon request of the States

Provide feedback and recommendations on stakeholder engagement following any meeting participation

2.1.2.3 Support States with Engagement of Certificate of Inclusion Holders The purpose of this task is to initiate engagement with potential COI Participants. A COI is an agreement between the landowner and the State whereby the landowner upholds the terms of the HCP in exchange for limited take authorization. When USFWS authorizes a general ITP, individuals conducting the covered activity per the general permit must obtain a CI. To this end, the landowners would apply for a COI that generally includes the following items: General ITP under which the applicant wants coverage.

Description of the covered activity under the general permit.


Page 8

Signed statement that the applicant understands the general incidental take permit and the conservation plan, will apply with the applicable terms and conditions, and will implement the applicable measures of the conservation plan.

Permit authorization is subject to the signee carrying out conservation measures, the terms and conditions of the permit, and the terms and conditions of any applicable Implementation Agreements between federal and state agencies.

A COI signee/holder also agrees to carry out all assigned conservation measures for the prescribed number of years.

By signing onto a COI, a landowner is party to all the conditions and requirements agreed to by the primary signatories to the HCP (i.e., the Lake State DNRs). The landowner, therefore, needs to know unequivocally that a COI is a contract and that signing on carries all the associated responsibilities.

Assumptions Each State will develop and implement a COI holder engagement process as the State deems

appropriate.

The ICF Team will: o Aid the Lake State DNRs based on a T&M contracting standard where

specific estimates of the time and costs will be subject to prior approval by Michigan DNR based on direction from the Lake State DNRs

o Advise and assist the Lake State DNRs with engagement of potential CI holders as requested

o Provide feedback and recommendations on the engagement following any meeting participation, if requested

o Create within the project budget a dedicated line item to support ICFs participation in COI holder engagement



ICF Deliverables Provide feedback and recommendations on COI holder engagement process as requested

2.2 HCP Development The requirements of a HCP are defined in Section 10 of the ESA and its implementing regulations. They include the following: An assessment of impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of 1 or more federally

listed species.

Measures the permit applicant will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate for such impacts; the funding that will be made available to implement such measures; and the procedures to deal with unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances.


Page 9

Alternative actions to the taking that the applicant analyzed, and the reasons why the applicant did not adopt such alternatives.

Additional measures that the USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate. The work outlined in the 2016 SOWs included the preparation of preliminary and administrative draft of chapters 1-4 (Introduction, Covered Activities and Covered Area, Environmental Setting and Covered Species, Potential Biological Impacts and Take Assessment). The following draft chapters and supporting materials will be prepared under the 2017 SOW and Workplan: Chapter 5: Conservation Strategy Chapter

Chapter 6: Plan Implementation and Assurances Chapter

Chapter 7: Funding Chapter

Chapter 8: Alternatives Chapter

At the beginning of the 2018 calendar year, all the materials supporting preparation of an Administrative Draft HCP (entire compiled HCP document) will be completed. As reflected in the schedule below, stakeholders, are expected to review individual administrative draft chapters as determined by each individual state. To this end, each state will develop and implement a process for stakeholder engagement and appropriate chapter review.

2.2.1 Conservation Strategy Chapter (5) The ICF Team, in coordination with the Lake States, will develop new and/or describe appropriate existing conservation measures for the Lake States HCP. Initially, we will review potential conservation measures from existing materials to develop a list of region-wide conservation measures that could be implemented to achieve the goals and objectives for the covered species and activities. Each will be reviewed for adequacy in achieving species and habitat goals and objectives of the Lake States HCP. We will revise existing conservation measures and/or develop additional conservation measures, as necessary. Conservation measures will include actions that avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for the effects of covered activities on the covered species. Additionally, the ICF Team will assess and estimate the potential net effects on covered species of implementing covered activities in concert with conservation measures outlined in the HCP. We will assess and quantify the effects of implementing conservation measures and other covered activities on each covered species and habitat. The expected outcomes will be expressed as the net change in status of each covered species and habitat in the same units used to assess level of take for each species and habitat. Based on the results of the assessment of outcomes, we will develop modifications, if necessary, to proposed conservation measures to ensure all species and habitat goals and objectives are achieved.

2.2.1.1 Prepare Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan As required by ESA under Section 10, the ICF Team will prepare a monitoring and AMP for the Lake States HCP. The monitoring element of the plan will include compliance and effectiveness monitoring activities. Compliance monitoring will be conducted to verify that the permittees are carrying out the terms of the HCP, permit, and IA. Effectiveness monitoring will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the permitted action and to determine if the HCP goals and objectives are being achieved. The adaptive management element of the plan will be


Page 10

developed to address species for which uncertainties exist regarding effective conservation measures and the outcome of conservation. The monitoring element of the plan will be designed to collect and provide information at a level of detail necessary to conduct an effective AMP.

2.2.1.2 Assumptions Preparation of the deliverables associated with Chapter 5 is based on a fixed price

This chapter will have a regional overview plus a major section for each state:

o Overview

o Michigan

o Minnesota

o Wisconsin

The information needed for this chapter will be obtained from the best available scientific information and follow the methods outlined in the technical approach memo prepared by the ICF Team.

Information presented in this Chapter will include the following: A description of existing management practices that may serve as conservation measures on

forestlands by ownership category in each state;

A description of, as well as the relevance of, the forest certification processes as it applies to BMPs and/or conservation measures on forestlands by ownership category in each state;

A description of, as well as the relevance of, individual state voluntary forest management programs and other efforts, as appropriate, as they apply BMPs and/or conservation measures on forestlands by ownership category in each state;

The synthesis of this information, in combination with the environmental baseline and potential effects of forest management activities will ultimately form the foundation upon which the net effect of issuing an ITP will be estimated for each state and each landownership category.

The Lake State DNRs will review the annotated outline and select preliminary Tables and Figures.

The Lake State DNRs will review the preliminary draft chapter 5

The Steering Committee will review the administrative draft chapter 5

The ICF Team will:

Prepare a Conservation Strategy Assessment Methods Memo

• It will provide relevant information to the Lake State DNRs and then the Steering Committee on our proposed assessment approach. This document will include the proposed approach for developing and complying information on BMPs and conservation measures on state,


Page 11

county/municipal, and privately owned forestlands including methods for determining the following:

• Distribution of BMPs and/or conservation measures on forestlands by ownership category

• Description of forestry practices by ownership category

• Estimation of the extent of conservation measures by ownership category

A final memo will not be prepared. However, modifications to the approach may occur based on feedback from the Lake States and/or Steering Committee.

o Conduct an analysis/assessment based on the agreed-upon methods

o Prepare an annotated outline with select preliminary Tables and Figures of the analytical methods agreed to in the technical memo

o Prepare a preliminary draft Conservation Strategy Chapter

Incorporate comments and direction from Lake State DNRs on annotated outline within 4 weeks of receiving comments

o Prepare an administrative draft Conservation Strategy Chapter

Produce an administrative draft chapter based on comments received on the preliminary draft chapter within 5 weeks of receiving the comments (4 weeks for comment and 1 week for assimilation)

Provide 4 weeks for review of the administrative draft chapter


o Coordinate review and input from the Lake State DNRs on the Conservation Strategy Assessment Technical Memo

o Memorialize any decisions based on the memo

The HCP Coordinator may to choose to revise and finalize the Technical Memo for submission to the USFWS to memorialize the decisions.

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake State DNRs on the annotated outline and preliminary results (Tables and Figures)

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the preliminary draft of the Conservation Strategy Chapter

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the administrative draft of Conservation Strategy Chapter

o Memorialize any significant decisions relative to the Conservation Strategy Chapter


Page 12

2.2.1.3 ICF Deliverables Conservation Strategy Assessment Method Technical Memo

Annotated Outline with preliminary tables and figures

Preliminary draft Conservation Strategy chapter

Administrative draft Conservation Strategy chapter

2.2.2 Plan Implementation and Assurances Chapter (6) The Plan Implementation and Assurances Chapter will be a significant element of the Lake States HCP that addresses several critical considerations. As such, this chapter will need to address the following issues: Implementing Entity and Process, Assurances Language, Changed Circumstances and Remedial Measures, Plan Amendment Process, and Certificate of Inclusion (CI) process.

2.2.2.1 Describe Implementing Entity and Process A description of the entity, or entities, responsible for implementing the conservation measures, monitoring, and adaptive management actions identified in the Lake States HCP will be described in this chapter. The ICF Team will work with the Lake States to identify the implementing entity and describe the implementing process.

2.2.2.2 Develop Assurances Language The ICF Team will assist the Lake States in the development of descriptions of assurances for the Lake States. The assurances may address such issues as:

No surprises

No additional commitments (land, water, funding)

New species listings

Neighboring landowners

Safe harbors

Other items as appropriate

2.2.2.3 Describe Changed Circumstances and Remedial Measures Under Section 10 of ESA, the Lake States HCP is required to identify anticipated and possible changed circumstances relative to the implementation of the Lake States HCP (e.g., the listing of new species, occurrence of natural events such as fire and flooding, etc.). The Lake States HCP should identify strategies and protocols for addressing such anticipated changes, thus allowing appropriate program adjustments without having to amend the Lake States HCP. The ICF Team will describe a process for addressing changed circumstances for the Lake States HCP. Work conducted under this task includes:

Review of other approved HCPs in the region to identify how changed circumstances and unforeseen circumstances to identify possible approaches for addressing these plan elements


Page 13

Development and recommendation of strategies and protocols for addressing changed circumstances and unforeseen circumstances based on the review of other HCPs and information about anticipated changed circumstances provided to the ICF Team by the Steering Committee

2.2.2.4 Describe Plan Amendment Process Under Section 10 of ESA, an HCP may be amended to accommodate changes in how the HCP is implemented (e.g., changes in schedule, geographic scope, funding-levels) or changes that are necessitated by unforeseen circumstances. Unforeseen circumstances are future circumstances that could not be anticipated by the Lake States or FWS that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a covered species. The process used to amend the permit or the HCP largely depends on the type and magnitude of the proposed change. The ICF Team will describe an amendment process for the Lake States HCP. Work conducted under this task includes:

• Review of other approved regional HCPs to identify possible processes for addressing potential future amendments to the Lake States HCP

• Development and recommendation of processes for amending the Lake States HCP

2.2.2.5 Certificate of Inclusion (COI) Process The ICF Team, in coordination with each of the Lake State DNRs, will develop the appropriate materials to outline the COI process for the Lake States HCP. The ICF Team envisions that these materials will articulate 1) Purpose and Applicability, 2) Development of Standards and Procedures, 3) Application Process, 4) Issuance of a Certificate of Inclusion, 5) Terms of the Certificate of Inclusion, 6) Notice of Issuance, 7) and Term of the Program. We also anticipate development of an example application package. Attachment A provides an example of the potential content language as well as important considerations that can be included in the CI process.

2.2.2.6 Assumptions Preparation of the deliverables associated with Chapter 6 is based on a fixed price

This chapter will have an regional overview plus a major section for each state:

o Overview

o Michigan

o Minnesota

o Wisconsin

The information needed for this chapter will be obtained from the best available scientific information and follow the methods outlined in the technical approach memo prepared by the ICF Team. Much of the work will address the informational requirements associated with inclusion of county/municipal and private forestlands in the CI Process.

The Lake State DNRs will review the annotated outline with preliminary results (primarily Tables and Figures).

The Lake State DNRs will review the preliminary draft chapter


Page 14

The Steering Committee will review the administrative draft chapter

The ICF Team will:

Prepare the Plan Implementation (COI) Memo that provides relevant information to the Lake State DNRs and then the Steering Committee on our proposed assessment approach. This document will include the proposed approach for integrating the information on forest practices on state, county/municipal, and privately owned Forestlands into the Covered Activities chapter including methods for determining the following:

• Distribution of forest activities on Forestlands by ownership category


• Estimation of the extent of forest management activities by ownership category



o Prepare an annotated outline with preliminary results (Tables and Figures) of the analytical methods agreed to in the technical memo

o Prepare a preliminary draft Plan Implementation and Assurances chapter

Incorporate comments and direction from Lake State DNRs on annotated outline within 5 weeks of receiving comments (4 weeks for comments and 1 week for assimilation)

o Prepare an administrative draft Plan Implementation and Assurances chapter

Produce an administrative draft chapter based on comments received on the preliminary draft chapter within 4 weeks of receiving the comments



o Coordinate review and input from the Lake State DNRs on the Implementation (CI) Memo


The HCP Coordinator may to choose to revise and finalize the Technical Memo for submission to the USFWS as a way to memorialize the decision.


o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the preliminary draft of chapter 6


Page 15

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the administrative draft of chapter 6

o Memorialize any significant decisions relative to chapter 6

2.2.2.7 ICF Deliverables COI Approach Technical Memo

Annotated Outline with preliminary tables and figures

Preliminary draft Implementation and Assurances chapter

Administrative draft Implementation and Assurances chapter

2.2.3 Funding Chapter (7) The ICF Team will, in coordination with the Lake States, develop, review, revise, and expand the cost estimates for implementing the Lake States HCP. With the assistance of the Lake States, the ICF Team will describe the funding mechanisms for the Lake States HCP.

2.2.3.1 Assumptions Preparation of the deliverables associated with chapter 7 are based on a fixed price


o Lake States Overview

o Michigan

o Minnesota

o Wisconsin

The ICF Team will:

o Prepare an annotated outline

o Prepare a preliminary draft Funding chapter


Provide 3 weeks for review of the preliminary draft chapter (2 weeks for review, one week for assimilation)

o Produce an administrative draft chapter based on comments received on the preliminary draft chapter within 3 weeks of receiving the comments



o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the annotated outline and preliminary select tables and figures


Page 16

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the preliminary draft of chapter 7

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the administrative draft of chapter 7


2.2.3.2 ICF Deliverables Annotated Outline

Preliminary draft Funding chapter

Administrative draft Funding chapter

2.2.4 Alternatives Chapter (8) The ICF Team will prepare descriptions of alternatives to take, the draft selection criteria, and the evaluations that have been conducted for selecting alternatives. As required under Section 10 of the ESA, following the selection of the proposed conservation plan the ICF Team will identify the reasons for rejecting alternatives, which will include the level of take associated with each alternative.

2.2.4.1 Assumptions Preparation of the deliverables associated with chapter 8 are based on a fixed price



o Michigan

o Minnesota

o Wisconsin

The ICF Team will:

o Prepare an annotated outline

o Prepare a preliminary draft Alternatives chapter

o Incorporate comments and direction from Lake State DNRs on annotated outline within 4 weeks of receiving comments

o Provide 3 weeks for review of the preliminary draft chapter


o Provide 4 weeks for review of the administrative draft chapter



Page 17

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the revised preliminary draft of chapter 8

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the revised administrative draft of chapter 8


2.2.4.2 ICF Deliverables Annotated Outline with preliminary tables and figures

Preliminary draft Alternatives chapter

Administrative draft Alternatives chapter

2017 SOW SCHEDULE SECTION 3: This section outlines our proposed schedule for the work associated with the revised 2017 SOW. The overall schedule is based on the start date of March 1st for the new Purchase Order (PO). This section includes: A table that outlines the specific details for the product deliverable schedule, and A figure that demonstrates the general relationship between work activities as well as

general time periods for HCP products. 2017 Funding SOW Deliverable Schedule

HCP Development Deliverables

Tech Memo

Annotated Outline

Prelim Draft Admin Draft

Chapter 5. Conservation Strategy

Chapter 5. Deliverables April 2017 June 2017 August 2017 November 2017

Chapter 6. Plan Implementation

Chapter 6. Deliverables May 2017 July 2017 September 2017 December 2017

Chapter 7. Funding


Page 18

Chapter 7. Deliverables NA August 2017 October 2017 December 2017

Chapter 8. Alternatives

Chapter 8. Deliverables NA October 2017 November 2017 December 2017


Page 19


Page 20


Page 21

Lake States HCP

2017 SOW Schedule Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Major Deliverables & MilestonesProject Management and Meetings

HCP DevelopmentPreliminary and Admin Draft HCP Chapters

Executive Summary

IntroductionCovered Activities

Environmental Setting Effects Analysis Conservation Strategy

Plan Implementation

Funding

Alternatives

Literature CitedAppendices

LegendPreliminary Draft Chapter Preparation

Lake States Review (Applicant)

Preparation Admin Draft Chapter

Lake State and Stake Holder Review Period

Preparation Admin Draft of HCP Document

ATTACHMENT A

EXAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR CONSIDERATION IN CI PROCESS

Purpose and Applicability The purpose of the issuance of Certificates of Inclusion is to provide certain Persons whose activities fall under the take prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA the option and benefits of complying with the terms of the Permit instead of having to obtain a separate incidental take permit under the ESA for those activities. Any Person, other than a Permittee, who desires to undertake one or more Covered Activities within the Permit Area may apply to a Permittee for a Certificate of Inclusion for that Person’s activities to be covered under the Permit. A Certificate of Inclusion will provide incidental take coverage to the Person to take Covered Species as an incidental result of Covered Activities within the Permit Area pursuant to the terms of the Permit and this Agreement.

Development of Standards and Procedures. Each Permittee that accepts applications for the issuance of Certificates of Inclusion will issue such certificates only: (i) after approval of the form of the certificate by the Implementing Committee; and (ii) in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Subsections XXX of the Lake States HCP, as may be appropriate, of the HCP for issuance of Certificates of Inclusion. The standards and procedures will be consistent with this Section and other applicable provisions of the Program Documents. A Permittee may establish an application fee schedule from time to time for applications for a Certificate of Inclusion and may determine the amount of the fee on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the level of effort required by the Permittee or its consultants or staff to process the application.

Application Process. A Person seeking to have an activity included in take coverage provided by the Permit will submit a complete application for the proposed activity to the Permittee with jurisdiction over the activity sought to be covered by the Permit. Each Permittee that issues Certificates of Inclusion will develop an application form consistent with the approved standards and will independently process applications that may be submitted by Persons seeking to conduct Covered Activities within the Permittee’s jurisdiction. Each application will contain a detailed description of the proposed activity, a map indicating the location of the proposed activity, an analysis of the potential impacts to Covered Species, and any other requested information, and will be accompanied by the application fee set by the Permittee. Each Permittee that issues Certificates of Inclusion will encourage compliance with the HCP through the Certificate of Inclusion process. The Permittee will deny an application for a Certificate of Inclusion if it determines, in its sole discretion, that the proposed inclusion is not consistent with the Permit, the HCP or this Agreement. Upon receiving from an applicant for a Certificate of Inclusion the required application materials and application fee, the Permittee will conduct any assessment and evaluation necessary for the Permittee to determine whether it should

approve the application and grant the Certificate of Inclusion.

Issuance of Certificate of Inclusion. Upon a finding by the Permittee with jurisdiction over the Covered Activity that the applicant for a Certificate of Inclusion has: (i) complied with that Permittee’s application requirements, standards and procedures; (ii) paid any application fees set by the Permittee; (iii) demonstrated, to the Permittee’s satisfaction, that the proposed activity complies with all terms and requirements of the Program Documents, and that issuance of the Certificate of Inclusion will not compromise the Long-Term Biological Goals, Key Management Objectives, and Flow-Related Objectives described for each Covered Species in Section 4.1 of the HCP, the Permittee may approve the application and issue a Certificate of Inclusion to the applicant. The Certificate of Inclusion will be signed by the issuing Permittee and the applicant. By signing the Certificate of Inclusion, the applicant agrees to be bound by and comply with the terms of the Certificate of Inclusion, the Permittee’s standards and procedures, and all applicable terms of the Program Documents. Upon obtaining the required signatures, the Permittee will cause the fully executed Certificate of Inclusion to be recorded in the Real Property Records in the applicable county and thereafter, during the term of the Certificate, the holder of the Certificate of Inclusion will be provided with incidental take coverage under the Permit. A breach of the obligations imposed upon the holder of the Certificate of Inclusion will not be considered a violation by the Permittee issuing the Certificate of Inclusion or any other Permittee or other third party provided with incidental take coverage.

Terms of Certificate of Inclusion. Incidental take coverage for any person who is provided with incidental take coverage pursuant to a Certificate of Inclusion will be available only to the extent the Person is in full compliance with all relevant requirements of the Certificate of Inclusion, the Program Documents, the standards and procedures adopted by the Permittee issuing the Certificate of Inclusion, and all other applicable legal requirements. Permittees will include as part of any Certificate of Inclusion, among other provisions:

(1) a condition requiring compliance with the Program Documents; (2) a specific designation of the land or property to which the Certificate of Inclusion applies; (3) a description of the Covered Activity for which the Certificate of Inclusion was issued; (4) in the event of a breach of the Certificate of Inclusion, and if after reasonable notice by the Permittee and an opportunity to cure, the person provided with incidental take coverage pursuant to a Certificate of Inclusion fails to cure, remedy, rectify, or adequately mitigate the effects of the breach, the Permittee will suspend or revoke the Certificate of Inclusion; (5) that the Certificate of Inclusion is valid for a specific term not to exceed two years, and that the person provided with incidental take coverage pursuant to a Certificate of Inclusion must submit an application to renew a Certificate of Inclusion prior to the expiration of the current term in order to renew the Certificate; (6) a requirement that a copy of the recorded Certificate of Inclusion be posted in

public view at the holder’s site at any time Covered Activities are being conducted by the holder and, if applicable, that the holder provide notice of the Certificate of Inclusion to any purchaser of its services or goods that are sold or used within the Permit Area; and (7) that the Certificate of Inclusion is not transferable unless approved by the issuing Permittee, and such Permittee will not approve a transfer unless the Permittee determines, to its satisfaction, that the transferee will comply with all terms and conditions of the Certificate of Inclusion and that the transferee will not cause any deviation from any Covered Activity described in the Certificate of Inclusion.

Notice Required After Issuance of Certificate of Inclusion. Any Permittee issuing a Certificate of Inclusion will promptly notify, and within 30 days of issuance, will provide a copy to the Service, the Implementing Committee, and the Program Manager. The Permittee will also notify such Persons of any suspension, revocation, transfer, or renewal of the Certificate.

Term of the Program. These provisions will govern the implementation of the Certificate of Inclusion Program unless and until they are revoked, replaced, or modified through the Adaptive Management Process

Budget:

MEETING AND OTHER SUPPORT Cost 1. Project Operations Calls (up to 8) $4,335 2. Lake States DNR Calls/Webinars (Up to 4) $9,695 3. Individual State Conference Calls (Up to Six) $17,340 4. Steering Committee Calls/Webinars (Up to 2) $4,125 5. Steering Committee In person meeting – Status and Relevant Issues Meeting $21,961

6. Contingency $0.00 Subtotal cost $57,456 HCP CHAPTER DEVELOPMENT - 2017 Conservation Strategy Chapter Technical Memo $34,534 Annotated Outline $41,870 Preliminary draft $83,383 Administrative draft $32,460 Chapter Total $192,247 Plan Implementation Chapter Technical Memo $29,030 Annotated Outline and Preliminary Results $27,920 Preliminary Draft $32,710 Administrative Draft $25,610 Chapter Total $155,270 Funding Chapter Annotated Outline and Preliminary Results $8,010 Preliminary Draft $18,100 Administrative Draft $17,340 Chapter Total $43,450 Alternatives Chapter Annotated Outline and Preliminary Results $4,810 Preliminary Draft $5,460 Administrative Draft $5,175 Chapter Total $15,445 $423,868

REVISED

2016 SCOPE OF WORK AND

WORKPLAN

PREPARED FOR THE LAKE STATE DNRS

P R E P A R E D BY:


9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

Contact: Leo Lentsch 843.333.3706

June 2016

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., Draft Revised 2016 SOW and WORKPLAN

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Proposed Lake States HCP Terminology ............................................................................. 1

1.2 Relevant HCP Decisions and Direction ................................................................................ 4

1.3 NEPA Status and Direction .................................................................................................. 8

SECTION 2: REVISED 2016 SOW AND WORKPLAN .................................................................................... 9

2.1 Meetings, Coordination, and Other Support ...................................................................... 9

2.2 HCP Development ............................................................................................................. 16

SECTION 3: 2016 SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................... 29

SECTION 4: REVISED 2016 BUDGET ........................................................................................................ 30

4.1 General Pricing Assumptions ............................................................................................ 30

4.2 Meeting Cost Assumptions: Time and Material (T&M) with Not to Exceed Value .......... 30

4.3 HCP Development Cost Assumptions: Fixed Cost Pricing ................................................. 32

SECTION 5: OVERVEIW OF PROJECT COMPLETION ................................................................................ 34

Page ii

List of Acronyms

ATFS American Tree Farm System CE Categorical Exclusion CF Commercial Forest CFR Code of Federal Regulations CI Certificate of Inclusion DNR Department of Natural Resources EA Environmental Assessments EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis Program FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FSC Forest Stewardship Council HCP Habitat Conservation Plan ICF ICF Jones and Stokes ITP incidental take permit Lake States Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin MFL Managed Forest Law NEPA National Environmental Policy Act QFP Qualified Forest Program SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard SFIA Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act SOW Scope of Work U.S.C. United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

INTRODUCTION SECTION 4: The states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Lake States) initiated development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in October 2015. Overall, the purpose of the Lake States Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs) is to preserve, protect, manage, and maintain the natural resources of each state. The Lake State DNRs are seeking compliance under Section 10(a)(1)(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for forestry and forestry-related activities within each state To this end, they are preparing an incidental take permit (ITP) application package that would specify the state DNRs as permit holders for the potential taking of 4 cave-dwelling bats. The application package requires an HCP, an associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document, and other appropriate materials. This document revises the original 2016 Scope of Work (SOW) and associated contract between ICF Jones and Stokes (ICF) and the State of Michigan (Appendix A). The changes result from decisions by the L a k e State DNRs to incorporate additional Forestlands in the Lake States HCP and to extend permit coverage through a Certificate of Inclusion (CI) process to nonfederal public (counties and municipalities) as well as private landowners. A synopsis of that decision, as well as other relevant decisions, follows. Building on this framework and the status of HCP development, the Revised 2016 SOW and Workplan section provides details on the redefined work to be completed for the remainder of 2016. A revised schedule and budget reallocating the remaining funds from the original 2016 SOW to appropriate tasks while also adding the additional Section 6 funds available for 2016 also all provided. Additionally, we identify the development of a 2017 SOW and Workplan for the 2017 calendar year and provide an overview of the cost and timeframe for completing the ITP issuance process.

4.1 Lake States HCP Terminology This section provides a list of preliminary terms (subject to review and revision) that are used in this workplan and subject to use in the HCP development process. They are included here to initiate the process of developing consistent terminology:

Categorical Exclusion (CE): Within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, a categorical exclusion refers to those categories of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementation of NEPA regulations and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required (see 40 CFR § 1508.4).

Certificate of Inclusion (CI): Private and nonfederal public property owners may seek coverage from the Permittees under the Lake States HCP through a Certificate of Inclusion (CI).To obtain a CI, property owners must be able to demonstrate that they own the land in question, meet USFWS eligibility criteria, and are able to fund and implement relevant conservation measures and monitoring as required by the HCP.

CI Holders/Participants: Private and nonfederal public property owners who have applied for and received take coverage from the Permittees under the Lake States HCP’s CI Program.

CI Process: The process through which the Steering Committee will identify potential CI Participants and engage with them to develop the following: 1) Lake States HCP CI eligibility criteria; 2) process for allocating take amongst CI Participants; 3) CI application package and process; 4) process for annual reporting and compliance monitoring.

CI Representatives: Individuals or entities capable of providing information, input and/or reviewing materials and requirements associated with the issuance of CIs within each state under the Lake States HCP.

CI Workgroup: A informal committee of CI representatives.

Covered Activities: Those activities analyzed in the HCP for which the Lake States seek an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Covered Species: Those species addressed in the HCP for which conservation measures will be implemented and for which the Lake States will seek authorization for take under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Representatives: A subset of members of the HCP Development Team that includes 2 representatives from each of the Lake State’s Department of Natural Resources. These individuals provide direction on development of the HCP package as “Permittees” in the Section 10 process.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document, prepared in compliance with NEPA, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1508.9).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement required by NEPA Section 102(2)(C), analyzing the environmental impacts of a Proposed Action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR § 1508.11).

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Federal legislation intended to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved, and provide programs for the conservation of those species, thus preventing extinction of native plants and animals.

Forestland: Forested areas where the primary use is forest management activities (i.e., Covered Activities). At least 10 percent of these areas are stocked with trees of any size, or formerly had such tree cover and is not currently developed for a non-forest use. The minimum area for classification as Forestland is 1 acre.

Incidental Take Permit (ITP): A permit issued under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act to private parties undertaking otherwise lawful projects that might result in the

take of an endangered or threatened species. Application for an incidental take permit is subject to certain requirements, including preparation by the permit applicant of a conservation plan, generally known as a “Habitat Conservation Plan” or “HCP.”

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): A plan which outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species. The plan usually includes measures to minimize impacts, and might include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and relocating plants or animals to another area. An HCP is required before an incidental take permit may be issued.

HCP Coordinator: A State of Michigan staff position that facilitates and coordinates the activities associated with development of the Lake States HCP.

Lake States: The 3 Great Lakes states that are engaged in development of the Lake States Forest Management Bat HCP: Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Requires all agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and utilize public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making. NEPA requires Federal agencies to review and comment on Federal agency environmental plans/documents when the agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impacts involved (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 4321-4327) (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508).

Nonfederal Public Forestlands: This land ownership category includes lands that county and municipalities either own outright or have a long-term management agreement for forest management activities.

Ownership/Management Classification: A classification based on ownership or long-term management agreements where the entity has control of decision making for the land. It encompasses all types of legal entities having ownership/management interest in the land, whether public or private.

Other Forestland: Forestland that is incapable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood, under natural conditions, because of adverse site conditions.

Permittees: The entities that receive incidental take authorizations for activities covered under the Lake States HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act. Each of Permittees will ultimately be responsible for compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Permit and implementation of the HCP. The Permittees may enter into agreements individually, amongst themselves, or with other entities to extend their take authorization to private and nonfederal public entities through a certificate of inclusion (CI) program.

Plan Area: The geographic boundaries of the HCP planning area, encompassing all areas that will be affected by covered activities and any areas where an incidental take has the potential to occur because of the covered activities.

Private Forestland: This land ownership category includes all private lands where forest management activities occur.

Reserved Forestland: Forestland sufficiently productive to qualify as timberland but withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, administrative designation, or other natural resource uses.

Timberland: Forestland producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood (more than 20 cubic feet per acre per year) and not withdrawn from timber utilization.

State DNR-owned Forestlands: Most of state-owned and state-managed lands are forested, and these lands are administered by forestry divisions and managed for timber production. However, some - state DNR-owned lands in the plan area are managed for other uses such as wildlife and recreation. These areas would potentially be defined as reserve Forestlands.

Stakeholder Group: The USFWS Five-Point Policy Guidance (65 Federal Register 35242 [June 1, 2000]) notes that for large-scale, regional, or exceptionally complex HCPs, applicants are encouraged to use public advisory committees. Stakeholder Groups are an example of such a committee and typically represent a variety of interests, including conservation organizations, academic institutions, and business and development interests. They generally meet at regular intervals and assist the Steering Committee in identifying HCP goals and objectives and other areas of interest and reviewing draft HCP materials.

Steering Committee: The group with primary responsibility for decision making related to the development of the Lake States HCP. It is comprised of 2 representatives from each of the Lake State’s Department of Natural Resources, and representation from the USFWS. As the USFWS participates in this committee in an advisory capacity, all minutes from Steering Committee meetings will become a part of the public record, whereas discussions only between DNR Representatives may remain private.

4.2 Relevant HCP Decisions and Direction As described above, several relevant and strategic decisions were made by the state DNRs, relative to the Lake States HCP, based on the work performed under the original 2016 SOW. These decisions include the following:

Activities to be covered by the ITP (Covered Activities);

Species to be covered by the ITP (Covered Species);

Area and/or Lands to be covered by ITP (Covered Area/Lands); and

Take Permits and CIs. Details associated with the decisions and/or direction provided to date are summarized and discussed in this section.

4.2.1 Covered Activities Covered activities are those forest management actions for which the state DNRs will seek an ITP (i.e., have the potential to cause “take”). As part of the original SOW, the ICF Team worked with the state DNRs to collect information on forest practices on the lands they owned and

managed. The ICF Team prepared an internal preliminary draft of the Covered Activities Chapter (Chapter 2) in March 2016. However, with the decision to include the activities of nonfederal and state landowners, this draft was not distributed to the Lake State DNRs. Rather, the preliminary draft will be revised based on information from additional landowners. It is also important to note that the state DNRs determined that 4 categories of activities need to be covered in the HCP:

Timber Harvest and Related Practices;

Road and Trail Construction, Maintenance and Use;

Prescribed Fire;

Implementation of the Conservation Programs. As described in Section 2 below, revisions to Chapter 2 will require a review of the kind and extent of all forestry management activities, including other activities that fall within the categories listed above, on nonfederal public and private Forestlands as well as developing a better understand for how those activities potentially differ from state DNR practices. Additionally, incorporation and integration of Forest Certification, as well as voluntary forest management programs that are unique to individual states, will be an important element of the covered activities chapter.

4.2.2 Covered Species Based on the covered activities, and as part of the HCP development process, the state DNRs informed the ICF Team that they had reviewed over 40 species (see other species discussed in the initial drafts of Chapter 1) for potential coverage under the HCP. As a result of that assessment, the Lake State DNRs will request authorization for the incidental take of 4 species of bats associated with forest management activities (Table 1-1). Only 2 of the 4 species covered by the HCP are currently listed by the USFWS under the ESA (Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats). Of these, the northern long-eared bat is listed as threatened with a Section 4(d) rule exempting most non-purposeful take from Section 9 take prohibitions. Issuance of an ITP for the 4 proposed covered species would allow for take of listed species as well as provide take coverage for the currently unlisted species if/when they become listed under ESA during the permit term (potentially a 30- to 50-year period). For northern long-eared bats, coverage under the HCP will ensure that changes to the 4(d) Rule or changes in status (from threatened to endangered) will allow take as described in the HCP, without any delays or disruption of activities. The ICF Team does not have a document from the state DNRs that memorializes the assessment and decision on which species to be included in the Lake States HCP. As such, we recommend that the HCP Coordinator, on behalf of the state DNRs, either direct the ICF Team or prepares a memo for submittal to the USFWS that captures this assessment and decision.

Table 1-1. Listing Status of Bat Species in the Lake States Habitat Conservation Plan

Covered Species Scientific Name Federal Statusa

State Status Michiganb Minnesotac Wisconsind

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Endangered Not Present Special Concern Northern long-eared bat

Myotis septentrionalis

Threatened Special Concern

Special Concern

Threatened

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Not listed Special Concern

Special Concern Threatened

Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus Not listed Special Concern

Special Concern

Threatened

a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015a

b State of Michigan 2015

c Minnesota Statutes 2015

d Wisconsin State Statute 2015. The Indiana bat has not been found in the state since 1960; therefore, its state status is Special Concern until determined otherwise.

4.2.3 Covered Area and Forestlands Covered Area defines the geographic boundaries of the HCP planning area. The geographic boundaries of the HCP encompass all areas that will be affected by the proposed action and any areas where an incidental take has the potential to occur because of the proposed actions. Simply stated, the Covered Area is the intersection of the locations where the proposed actions have a potential effect on the covered species. It is important to be precise when defining the land area covered by the HCP for the purposes of defining impacts associated with the proposed actions, to

avoid potential problems in later phases of the development process. As such, the first task of the original 2016 SOW was to assess the inclusion of nonfederal public and private lands in the HCP. In January 2016, the ICF Team completed an assessment of the lands within each state potentially covered by the HCP: “Assessment for Including Additional Lands in the Lake States Forest Management Bat HCP” (Covered Lands Assessment). Based on that assessment, the Lake State DNRs decided to extend take coverage from state-owned lands (approximately 9.2 million acres) to all nonfederal public and privately owned Forestlands in each state (approximately 37.5 million additional acres) (Table 1-2). It is also important to note that information obtained on the covered activities as well as development of the Introduction Chapter helped inform the designation of Covered Area and Forestlands. The designations described in the Lake States Terminology section above are based on that information, the Lands Assessment Memo, as well as designations developed by the United States Forest Service USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (FIA) (see http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/ and Oswalt et al. 2014, U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends) . This information and categorization/classification scheme identifies approximately 54.5 million acres of Forestland in the Lake States, of which approximately 46.7 million acres have the potential to contain forest management activities that will need take coverage at some point over the term of the permit:

4.2.3.1 Michigan (17 million acres of Forestland potentially covered) State DNR-owned Forestlands – Approximately 4.2 million acres

Nonfederal Public Forestlands – Approximately 422,000 acres

Private Forestlands – 12.5 million acres

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/

4.2.3.2 Minnesota (14.3 million acres of Forestland potentially covered) State DNR-owned Forestlands – Approximately 3.9 million acres

Nonfederal Public Forestlands – Approximately 2.8 million acres

Private Forestlands – Approximately 7.6 million acres

4.2.3.3 Wisconsin (15.3 million acres of Forestland potentially covered) State DNR-owned Forestlands – Approximately 1.2 million acres

Nonfederal Public Forestlands – Approximately 2.3 million acres

Private Forestlands – Approximately 11.9 million acres

Table 1-2. Forestland Ownership Categories by Lake State

Acres (thousands) per State*

Land Categories Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin Total All Lands Within a State 36,185 50,961 34,661 121,807 Forestland Ownership Federal Lands 3,062 2,990 1,614 7,666 State DNR Lands 4,166 3,879 1,151 9,196 Nonfederal Public (e.g., county, and municipal) 422 2,757 2,345 5,524 All Private 12,477 7,645 11,870 31,992 Private Corporate/Industrial 2,753 1,095 1,432 5,280 Private Nonindustrial or Family Forest 9,724 6,650 10,438 26,812 Forestland Potentially Covered in Lake States HCP 17,065 14,281 15,366 46,712 * These numbers are based on United States Forest Service USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis Program

(FIA). See http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/ and Oswalt et al. 2014, U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends.

The estimates outlined in Table 1-2 and above are useful for initial planning purposes. However, final numbers for DNR lands will be based on the GIS layers provided by the State DNRs. For example, the area of Lake State DNR Forestlands calculated from GIS layers could be as high as 11.5 million acres whereas the FIA estimated the total area of state DNR Forestlands at 9.2 million acres. To this end, Section 2 below describes the details associated with determining/verifying the extent and distribution of all covered lands and Forestlands in the HCP, as well as the relevant activities that occur on and adjacent to them.

4.2.4 Take Permits and Certificates of Inclusion Based on the Lands Assessment Memo, the Lake State DNRs decided to include the additional nonfederal public and private lands as part of the permitting strategy for the HCP. Several methods for covering additional lands were explored in the Lands Assessment Memo. The ICF Team recommended that the best mechanism for covering all of the additional lands would be through a CI process. For the purposes of the Lakes States HCP, the CI will be a document issued by each state DNR, as ITP permit holders, that will extend incidental take authorization to a person or entity consistent with the provisions of their ITPs. To this end, each Lake State DNRs would extend take coverage to nonfederal

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/

public and private Forestland owners using the CI process within their own state. Development of the CI process will be initiated in 2016 and completed during subsequent phases of HCP development as addressed in Section 2 below.

4.3 NEPA Status and Direction Issuance of an ITP requires compliance with NEPA. This process typically trails development of the HCP document by 6 months to 1 year or more. The NEPA process associated with this HCP has not yet initiated, although the framework for compliance has been discussed. In general, 1of 3 levels of effort are required to satisfy NEPA compliance requirements: Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Environmental Impact States (as defined above): During early discussions on HCP development, the USFWS field offices and the regional office indicated that they (as the lead federal agency) would likely require an EIS for this HCP. This approach is justified because of the large geographic area (3 States) associated with the HCP, over 46.7 million acres of Forestlands in the 3 states, local multiple jurisdictions, multiple species, as well as approximately 1,000,000 private landowners. To this end, significant impacts are likely to be identified and an EIS will be required. The NEPA process will be initiated with public scoping activities in 2017. A separate 2017 NEPA Process SOW will be developed and submitted to the Lake State DNRs (under a MOU with the USFWS) for approval in December 2016.

REVISED 2016 SOW AND WORKPLAN SECTION 5: This section describes the work activities that will occur for the remainder of the 2016 calendar year. In general, it will build upon the work currently accomplished while addressing the new direction for the project based on the decisions discussed above. Additionally, it will identify the reallocation of funds originally specified in the original 2016 SOW to appropriate budget categories for the Revised 2016 SOW and Workplan. An important component of the work for 2016 will also be development of 2 work plans for 2017: 1 for the HCP work and 1 for NEPA.

5.1 Meetings, Coordination, and Other Support During early development of the HCP, the ICF Team and the HCP Coordinator identified the need to enhance efforts to interact with the Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee on strategic issues associated with development of the HCP. As such, this work is divided into 2 major categories: 1) Project Management Facilitation and 2) Strategic Advice, Planning and Coordination. It is important to note that coordination sometimes requires working directly with the Lake States DNRs (ITP applicants only) and at other times involves the larger Steering Committee (which also includes USFWS).

5.1.2 Project Operations Coordination Bi-weekly conference calls were budgeted as part of each chapter in the original 2016 SOW. Keeping the HCP Coordinator, as well as the Lake State DNRs, appraised of progress and any potentials issues that could cause project delays is an important component of developing the HCP. As such, in the revised SOW, ICF proposes budgeting for meetings as needed, and monthly progress reports separately. We anticipate meetings to be a half-hour in length as needed, and be attended by the project manager or the deputy project manager. The HCP Coordinator and ICF will determine when a meeting is needed. The project director and technical lead will participate as needed. This task also acknowledges that some meetings will require a full hour, and meetings will be adjusted as needed.

Assumptions Meetings associated with project operations will be based on a time and materials (T&M)

contract approach, where specific estimates of the time and costs will be approved by the State of Michigan based on direction from the Lake States DNRs and/or Steering Committee prior to ICF engagement

There could be as many as eight coordination calls

The ICF Management Team will:

o Prepare for the calls

o Participate in project management conference calls, as needed

o Identify project operational issues that need assistance by the HCP Coordinator and/or resolution by the Lake States DNRs and/or Steering Committee

o Inform HCP Coordinator when a meeting with the HCP Coordinator and/or Steering Committee is needed

The HCP coordinator will:

o Coordinate the review and, as appropriate, feedback or direction from the Lake State DNRs on any issues raised by the ICF Team

o Coordinate the review and, as appropriate, feedback or direction from the Lake Steering Committee on any issues raised by the ICF Team

o Schedule the calls as needed

o Develop agendas for the calls, as needed

o Prepare a summary memo of the call for distribution to the Lake State DNRs

ICF Deliverables Facilitation materials for conference calls with Lake States HCP Coordinator

o List of relevant issues

5.1.3 Strategic Advice, Planning, and Coordination The ICF Team will provide strategic advice, planning, and coordination in support of HCP development as needed. This task supports the HCP Coordinator, the Lake States DNR representatives, and the Steering Committee by addressing strategic questions, walking through regulatory issues and challenges, and providing technical advice specific to the HCP process and document development. Over the course of HCP development and specifically within the remainder of the 2016 calendar year, the individual Lake State

DNRs, as well as the larger Steering Committee, will need to provide input on the following strategic elements:

Environmental/Socioeconomic Input from Interested Parties

Stakeholder Committee structure, participant, roles, and responsibilities

Incorporation of nonfederal public and private lands into the HCP

CI Process Development

Workplan for 2017 Approval

HCP Development (Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee - See Section 2.3)

o Chapter 1 Introduction (See Section 2.3.1)

Permit term

o Chapter 2 Covered Activities (See Section 2.3.2)

Covered activities for all landowners engaged in forest practice activities

Distribution of covered activities on the landscape

Potential extent and distribution of covered activities, including current participation in forest certification programs as well as voluntary forest

management programs on nonfederal and private lands in each state (Covered Area and Forestlands)

o Chapter 3 Environmental Baseline and Covered Species (See Section 2.3.3)

Environmental baseline description approach and methods

Species distributions approach and results

o Chapter 4 Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment (See Section 2.3.4)

Take assessment methods

Level of take by landowners in each ownership category To obtain the appropriate level of input, the ICF Team needs an efficient pathway to communicate and obtain feedback from the Lakes State DNRs, Steering Committee, and local stakeholders for development of the Lake States HCP during the remainder of 2016. To address this need, we have outlined additional elements associated with the coordination between the Lake State DNRs and the Steering Committee. We also describe a potential process for creating a framework for establishing Stakeholder Committees within each state.

5.1.3.1 Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee Coordination More direct coordination and interaction with the Lakes State DNRs, as well as the Steering Committee, during the remainder of 2016 will provide a more efficient pathway to communicate and obtain feedback associated with development of the Lake States HCP. Based on the list of work elements identified above, the ICF team will identify specific topics and, as needed prepare materials, for discussion and feedback from the Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee. To distinguish between meetings with the Lake States DNR and meetings with the full Steering Committee (Lake States DNR plus USFWS), these meetings and associated coordination have been separated.

Lake State DNRs. The assumptions and deliverables associated with Lake State DNR meetings and coordination are provided below.

Assumptions

ICF Team participation in meetings that facilitate coordination with the Lake State DNRs will be based on a T&M pricing approach where specific estimates off the time and costs will be approved by Michigan DNR based on direction from the Lake State DNRs prior to ICFs engagement

o There could be up to 4 “monthly” calls with the Lake State DNRs through the 2016 calendar year

Each Lake State DNR will individually provide input and/or direction to the ICF Team that is specific to the needs of their state.

The ICF Team will:


Identify strategic issues that need resolution by the Lake State DNR representatives


Update HCP Coordinator on HCP development progress

o Participate in up to 4 calls for the Lake States DNRs



Provide appropriate materials to the Lake State DNRs for discussion 1 week prior to the call

Identify any monthly calls for which USFWS participation is needed (i.e., Steering Committee call).

o Participate in up to 6 (2 per state) calls with individual Lake State DNRs, as requested

Meet with Lake State DNRs individually via conference calls to discuss specific permitting issues/needs for their state, as appropriate


o Coordinate review and, as appropriate, incorporate feedback or direction from the Lake State DNRs on materials produced by the ICF Team

o Facilitate the calls

Schedule the calls




o Prepare summary memos, as appropriate, highlighting important discussion elements and/or any relevant decisions that are made by the Lake State DNRs

ICF Deliverables

Materials/webinars (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for “monthly” conference calls with Lake State DNRs

Materials/webinars (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for individual state DNR meetings

Steering Committee

Assumptions

ICF Team participation in meetings that facilitate coordination with the Steering Committee will be based on a T&M pricing approach where specific estimates off the time and costs will be approved by Michigan DNR based on direction from the Lake State DNRs prior to ICFs engagement

o There could be up to 2 calls with the Steering Committee

The ICF Team will:



o Participate in up to 2 calls for the Steering Committee



Provide appropriate materials to the Steering Committee for discussion 1 week prior to the call

o Participate in up to 2 in-person meetings with the Steering Committee

Meet in June and November and/or December to discuss direction of the Lake States HCP

Provide materials for review by the HCP Coordinator 1-2 weeks prior to the meetings

Provide materials for the Steering Committee 1 week prior to the meeting


o Coordinate review and, as appropriate, incorporate feedback or direction from the Steering Committee on materials produced by the ICF Team

o Facilitate the Steering Committee calls

Schedule the calls


Arrange for participation of USFWS representatives (i.e. Steering Committee), if needed



o Facilitate in-person meetings

Schedule the meetings

Develop agendas for the meetings


o Prepare summary memos, as appropriate, highlighting important discussion elements and/or any relevant decisions that are made by the Steering Committee

ICF Deliverables

Materials/webinars (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for conference calls with Steering Committee

Materials (PowerPoint presentations/handouts) for the 2 in-person meetings with t h e Steering Committee

Two 2017 SOW and Workplans (HCP and NEPA)

5.1.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement Support The ICF Team will assist the Lake State DNRs, as requested, in stakeholder engagement.

Assumptions Each State will develop and implement stakeholder engagement as the State deems

appropriate.

The ICF Team will:

o Advise and assist the Lake State DNRs with stakeholder engagement and upon request attend stakeholder engagement meetings by teleconference

o Provide feedback and recommendations on stakeholder engagement following any meeting participation, if requested

o Create within the project budget a dedicated line item to support ICFs participation in both stakeholder engagement and CI holder engagement (see Section 2.1.2.3)



ICF Deliverables Attend stakeholder engagement meetings by teleconference upon request of the States

Provide feedback and recommendations on stakeholder engagement following any meeting participation

Create within the project budget a dedicated line item to support ICFs participation in both stakeholder engagement

5.1.3.3 Support Engagement of Potential Certificate of Inclusion Holders The purpose of this task is to initiate engagement with potential CI Participants. A CI is an agreement between the landowner and the state whereby the landowner upholds the terms of the HCP in exchange for limited take authorization. When USFWS authorizes a general ITP, individuals conducting the covered activity per the general permit must obtain a CI. To this end, the landowners would submit an application for a CI that generally includes the following items:

General ITP under which the applicant wants coverage.

Description of the covered activity under the general permit.

Signed statement that the applicant understands the general incidental take permit and the conservation plan, will apply with the applicable terms and conditions, and will implement the applicable measures of the conservation plan.

Permit authorization is subject to the signee carrying out conservation measures, the terms and conditions of the permit, and the terms and conditions of any applicable Implementation Agreements between federal and state agencies.

A CI signee also agrees to carry out all assigned conservation measures for the prescribed number of years.

By signing onto a CI, a landowner is party to all the conditions and requirements agreed to by the primary signatories to the HCP (i.e., the Lake State DNRs). The landowner, therefore, needs to know unequivocally that a CI is a contract and that signing on carries all the associated responsibilities. It is important to note that Forestland across all 3 states is predominantly privately owned; Michigan has 62%, Minnesota has 44%, and Wisconsin has 69% privately owned Forestland. Private land can be further subdivided into corporate/industrial and nonindustrial/family forest. Family forest landowners account for 26.8 million acres or 49% of all Forestland in the 3 states. Family Forestland can readily

change hands, which can create challenges in estimating the exact number of family Forestland owners. Nonetheless, all states combined have nearly 1 million family Forestland owners: Michigan has 400,000, Minnesota has 200,000, and Wisconsin has 360,000. The average ownership size is approximately 24, 33, and 29 acres, respectively. Average ownership size is an important feature because it can influence the likelihood of take of covered bat species and the likelihood of landowner participation in the HCP. It can also help to gauge the relative efficiency of investment when it comes to launching outreach and enrollment campaigns regarding the HCP. The high number of family forest landowners and the high percentage of land they own requires that specific methods or avenues for garnering participation need to be developed during 2017.

Assumptions The Lake State DNRs will work in partnership with ICF through the Steering Committee to

develop a process for engaging Potential CI Holders

The ICF Team will:

o Work in partnership with the Steering Committee to develop a process for engaging potential CI Holders


o Assist with CI engagement upon request of each state

ICF Deliverables Provide feedback and recommendations on CI process

Create within the project budget a dedicated line item to support ICFs participation in potential certificate of inclusion holder engagement

5.2 HCP Development The requirements of a HCP are defined in section 10 of the ESA and its implementing regulations. They include the following:

An assessment of impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of 1 or more federally listed species.

Measures the permit applicant will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate for such impacts; the funding that will be made available to implement such measures; and the procedures to deal with unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances.

Alternative actions to the taking that the applicant analyzed, and the reasons why the applicant did not adopt such alternatives.

Additional measures that the USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate. The work outlined in the original 2016 SOW included the preparation of preliminary and administrative draft chapters that would have included information on all of these components. However, with the addition of nonfederal public and private Forestlands (approximately 37.5 million additional acres), the remainder of 2016 will focus on the assessment of impacts. As such, the

following draft chapters will be prepared:

Revised Introduction and Background

Covered Activities and Covered Area

Environmental Setting and Biological Resources

Potential Biological Impacts and Take Assessment

5.2.2 Introduction and Background Chapter (1) As described above, the draft Introduction and Background Chapter was submitted to the Steering Committee in January 2016. The inclusion of additional Covered Lands will necessitate revisions to this chapter. In addition, ICF will address decisions about permit term under this task. The length of the permit term has an important effect on the calculation of the HCP impact analysis, and ultimate take numbers. Also, the permit terms must be justified to the USFWS. ICF proposes to develop a brief memo documenting the rationale for a permit term of different lengths (e.g., 15, 3 0, and 50 years).

Assumptions Preparation of the deliverables associated with Chapter 1 is based on a fixed price


The Steering Committee will review the Administrative Draft Chapter

The ICF Team will:

o Prepare the Permit Term Technical Memo

This document will describe the pros and con of various permit term lengths and allowing the Lake State DNRs and then the Steering Committee to make a final decision regarding permit term

The memo is informational. A final memo will not be required.

o Prepare a revised preliminary draft Introduction and background chapter

This revised chapter will integrate the introductory information associated with all Forestlands addressed by the Lake States HCP (State, Nonfederal Public, and Private).

Provide up to 2 weeks for review of the revised preliminary draft chapter

o Prepare a revised administrative draft chapter


Provide up to 2 weeks for review of the revised administrative draft chapter


o Coordinate review and input from the Lake State DNRs and then from the Steering Committee on the Permit Term Technical Memo

o Memorialize the permit term decision

The HCP Coordinator may to choose to revise and finalize the Permit Term Technical Memo for submission to the USFWS as a way to memorialize the decision.

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the revised preliminary draft of Chapter 1

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the revised administrative draft of Chapter 1

o Memorialize any significant decisions relative to Chapter 1

ICF Deliverables Permit Term Technical Memo

Revised preliminary draft of the Introduction and Background Chapter

Revised administrative draft of the Introduction and Background Chapter

5.2.3 Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter (2) As currently proposed (Section 1), the 4 main categories of forest management activities (Timber Harvest and Related Practices; Road and Trail Construction, Maintenance and Use; Prescribed Fire; Implementation of the Conservation Program) occur on approximately 46.7 million acres of Forestland in the Lake States that could potentially need take coverage under an ITP. A preliminary internal (ICF Team only) draft of this chapter, based only on the Lake State DNRs activities was prepared in March 2016. Revisions to that document will require a description of the forestry activities on nonfederal public and private Forestlands that highlights similarities as well as differences from DNR practices as well as an estimate of the extent of those activities on the landscape. Two important considerations for this chapter are the influence of Forest Certification as well as Individual State Voluntary Forest Management Programs on each of the forest management activities within each land-ownership category in each state. As such, understanding the influence of these programs on the application of forest management activities across the landscape will be an important analytical component of this chapter.

5.2.3.1 Forest Certification Understanding the use of Forest certification will be an important component of the HCP and the CI Process. Forest certification is widely seen as the most important initiative in recent decades to promote sustainable forest management. Forest certification is a voluntary process based on the premise of continuous improvement. It involves independent, third-party audits of a landowner’s program, practices, policies and on-the-ground forest practices. Each of these elements is measured against management standards that address environmental, social, and economic parameters. Certification provides an objective and quantitative means for recognizing and rewarding well-managed Forestland. For instance, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFI) prohibits conversion of 1 forest cover type to another type except in justified circumstances, such as dealing with disease. SFI also requires the minimization of chemical use (pesticides) and the use of only government-approved chemicals. Landowner groups in all 3 states participate in the most common and recognized forest certification programs: SFI, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). Together, nearly 22 million acres of Forestland are certified. Specifically, Michigan has 5.88

million certified acres (most acres are certified to SFI). Minnesota has 8.48 million certified acres and approximately 88% of the certified acreage is in public ownership (5 counties in northern Minnesota have a group certificate). Even though public Forestlands make up the bulk of the certified acres, there are nearly 1 million acres of certified private Forestland in Minnesota. Wisconsin has 7.51 million certified acres and 27 of Wisconsin’s County Forests are 3rd party certified to either SFI or FSC (17 counties are dual certified).

5.2.3.2 Individual State Voluntary Forest Management Program Similar to the Forest Certification, understanding the extent of use as well as its application to private landowners on the landscape will be an important component of this chapter. Each state has established forest management programs that encourage implementation of best management guidelines associated with forest management activities:

Michigan The Commercial Forest (CF) program in Michigan provides a significant property tax reduction to private landowners as an incentive to retain and manage their Forestland for long-term timber production in support of the state’s forest products industry. Landowners do not pay ad valorem taxes, which are based on a property’s assessed value, but pay a specific tax of $1.25/acre per year for land enrolled in the program. Additionally, the state of Michigan makes an annual payment (from the General Fund) of $1.25 per acre to each county with CF land, to help offset the lost local tax revenue. It is estimated that approximately 2.2 million acres of private Forestland owned by 1,800 landowners are enrolled in the program. CF landowners range from large, industrial timber producers to small, non-industrial businesses, private individuals, civic groups and trusts. The purpose of the Qualified Forest Program (QFP) is to encourage private Forestland owners to manage their land in an economically viable and environmentally sustainable manner. Landowners receive an exemption from local school operating taxes and/or exemptions from the uncapping of the taxable value of their property in the event of a change in ownership. Enrolled properties must have a forest management plan that is prepared by a Qualified Forester. Enrollees must also agree to manage their forest in accordance with the forest management plan. Enrollees must report to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development when a forest practice or timber harvest has occurred on a qualified property. If a landowner does not accomplish forest practices and harvests within 3 years of the time specified in the current forest management plan, the property will revert back to its former tax. Since its inception, approximately 80,000 acres have been enrolled in the program, which is only a fraction of the approximately 7.2 million of private Forestland in Michigan that comprises parcels of at least 20 acres in size.

Minnesota The Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act (SFIA) is 1 of the more popular programs available to private Forestland owners in Minnesota. Established in 2001, the program is administered by counties or Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The program functions as an incentive payment rather than a tax rebate or credit. Upon meeting the eligibility criteria, the landowner pays full property taxes and in turn gets a subsequent payment from the state. SFIA eligibility requires a minimum of 20 contiguous forested acres. Owners must adhere to a covenant, with a mandated minimum eight-year commitment. Enrollees are required to develop a forest management plan that is usually satisfied by a Forest Stewardship Plan (described below). Non-motorized public access is required for landowners who enroll more than 1,920 acres. In the first year of the program, 320 landowners enrolled with a corresponding 531,508 acres. Enrollment peaked in 2010 with 2,048 landowners having enrolled 917,586 acres. Starting in 2010, SFIA payments were capped at $100,000 per landowner. This action

had significant economic implications for some of the state’s largest Forestland owners who ultimately opted out. Unlike the SFIA program, the 2C tax classification-managed Forestland designation is a standard property tax rate deduction. The 2C classification lowers the class rate of eligible properties from percent to 0.65 percent. Similar to the SFIA program, eligibility requirements include a minimum of 20 acres as well as a written management plan. There is no stipulation for public access and the classification has a maximum enrollment cap of 1,920 acres per landowner. From 2008 (first year) to 2012, the number of enrolled acres increased nearly fivefold from 47,162 to 226,713 acres. The Rural Preserve Program was launched in 2011 to accommodate changes made to the Green Acres tax program. The program requires a minimum of 10 acres of rural vacant land, which may or may not be forested. The program does not require a conservation plan or public access. The land is taxed at the current use value as opposed to the estimated market value.

Wisconsin Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law (MFL) is a landowner property tax incentive program that encourages sustainable forestry on private woodlands in Wisconsin. MFL management plans contain recommendations related to forestry, wildlife management, water quality, endangered resources, and aesthetics. Roughly 3.2 million acres of private Forestland are enrolled in MFL program. Lands enrolled into the MFL program can also qualify for voluntary membership in the MFL Certified Group (ATFS and FSC). Landowners can opt-in or out of the MFL Certified Group at any time.

Assumptions Preparation of the deliverables associated with Chapter 2 are based on a fixed price

This Chapter will have an overview plus a major section for each state:

o Overview

o Michigan

o Minnesota

o Wisconsin

The information needed for this chapter will be obtained from the best available scientific information and follow the methods outlined in the technical approach memo prepared by the ICF Team. Much of the work will address the informational requirements associated with inclusion of nonfederal public and private Forestlands in the CI Process.

Information presented in this Chapter will include the following:

Verification the amount and general distribution (at a landscape scale) of Forestland under State, nonfederal public, and private ownership in each state to be covered by the HCP based on best available science and GIS information (e.g. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Forestlandowners/opentopublicapp.html);

A description of forestry practices as well as how they are similar or different on Forestlands by ownership category in each state;

A description of, as well as the relevance of, the forest certification processes as it applies to forest practices on Forestlands by ownership category in each state;

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/forestlandowners/opentopublicapp.html)%3B

A description of, as well as the relevance of, individual state voluntary forest management programs, as they apply to forest practices on Forestlands by ownership category in each state;

The synthesis of this information, in combination with the environmental baseline (See Section 2.3.3), will ultimately form the foundation upon which the level of potential take will be estimated for each state and each landownership category.

The Lake State DNRs will review the annotated outline with preliminary results (primarily Tables and Figures).


The Steering Committee will review the Administrative Draft Chapter

The ICF Team will:

Prepare the Covered Activities Assessment Methods Memo that provides relevant information to the Lake State DNRs and then the Steering Committee on our proposed assessment approach. This document will include the proposed approach for integrating the information on forest practices on state, nonfederal public, and private owned Forestlands into the Covered Activities Chapter including methods for determining the following:

• Distribution of forest activities on Forestlands by ownership category


• Estimation of the extent of forest management activities by ownership category



o Prepare an annotated outline with preliminary results (Tables and Figures) of the analytical methods agreed to in the technical memo

o Prepare a preliminary draft Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter


o Prepare an administrative draft Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter




o Coordinate review and input from the Lake State DNRs on the Covered Activities Assessment Technical Memo




o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the preliminary draft of Chapter 2

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the administrative draft of Chapter 2


ICF Deliverables Covered Activities Assessment Method Technical Memo

Annotated Outline with preliminary results of the analysis

Preliminary Draft Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter

Administrative Draft Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter

5.2.4 Environmental Setting and Covered Species Chapter (3)

5.2.4.1 Environmental Setting The ICF team will describe the environmental setting of the 3 Lake States Region as well as the permit area within each state. This environmental setting section will include the following topics: vegetation types, location, topography, geology and physiography, soils, climate, hydrology, and land use. Based on the Forest Service Level III Ecoregion Map by Bailey, all 3 states are characterized by the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (212) and Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (222). Portions of western Minnesota and a small, discrete area in southern Wisconsin are also characterized by the Prairie Parkland Province (251). The boundary between the Eastern Broadleaf Forest and Laurentian Mixed Forest Provinces generally runs northwest to southeast. Several general characteristics are common to all 3 states north of this boundary:

State Land acreage tends to be greater.

Forest cover is more extensive, forests contain more conifers, and wetlands are more abundant.

Urban and agricultural development is significantly lower.

Landscape conditions related to these ecological zones affect the distribution and abundance of cave-dwelling bats.

In addition, geological conditions related to known and potential locations of bat hibernacula vary across the 3 states, with exposures of bedrock occurring in discrete locations (e.g., igneous rocks of the Canadian Shield extend from Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula to northeastern Minnesota, and karst formations are found in the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin and southeastern Minnesota). Together, these and other factors create complex and diverse landscape conditions that can be aggregated and used in data analyses. Each state has a robust and centralized data set of GIS and other information, including recent aerial imagery, land cover, wetlands, infrastructure, parcels and ownerships, rare species and plant communities, soils, and related content. Additionally, a variety of information sources, such as the distribution of private Forestland open to recreation in Wisconsin (http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/opfl/), help illustrate the distribution of Forestlands in relation to those features.

5.2.4.2 Covered Species As described earlier, understanding the distribution of the covered species in relation to the Covered Activities is a critical step in determining the potential level of take. In addition to the environmental setting, this chapter will describe bat distribution for the 4 covered species. The State DNRs have provided occurrence data on all 4 covered bats, including data on roosts, summer male captures, reproductive female captures, juvenile captures, and hibernacula (both extant and historical), as

available. ICF will also utilize similar occurrence data that may be available for nonfederal public and private lands. These data can be used to assess the distribution of each bat species using an appropriate approach for each species, which can range from an approach that assumes bat presence across all forest types to a predictive model that estimates and quantifies the distribution of species on the landscape based on species occurrence data and information available in GIS layers). Three different methods for assessing habitat distribution for covered species are described below.

Assumed Presence This approach assumes a covered species is evenly distributed across all mapped forest types within the Lake States. This approach has the inherent characteristic that it oversimplifies bat usage of the landscape and will over-estimate the number of individual bats affected by covered activities. The effects analysis must consider the effect of covered activities on bat habitat as well as bat populations. While it might be possible to demonstrate that impacts to bat habitat can be offset by a variety of forest management practices, it will be more challenging to offset potential impacts to the populations. By overestimating numbers of bats, more areas of forest could be subject to restrictive

http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/opfl/)

conservation measures under the HCP.

Simple Distribution Models: Northern long-eared bat, Little brown bat, Tricolored bat, and Indiana bat (except Summer)

The biological characteristics of 3 of the covered species lend themselves to using simple distribution models to characterize their distribution on the landscape. For these species, a simple model may be developed in which habitat for covered species is characterized by basic variables such as distance from hibernacula, land cover type, and/or elevation. As such, the distribution of bats on the landscape can be restricted to those areas that are biologically defensible. To this end, it provides a reasonable approach for estimating the potential effects on habitat while reducing the estimate of number of bats impacts by forest management practices.

Predictive Habitat Model: Potentially Indiana Bat During summer, Indiana bats are highly selective of habitat type and thus we are still exploring the possibility of using a habitat model (such as maximum entropy, Phillips et al. 2004, Phillips et al. 2006) to identify “hot-spots” of Indiana bat occurrence. By refining, the amount of habitat potentially impacted to realistic and defensible metrics, this approach can also reduce the potential numbers of bats impacts in the populations. The ICF team will prepare a technical memo that outlines the appropriate methods for determining the distribution of the covered species relative to the covered lands. Additionally, while the chapter will present a general overview of the Covered Species, a detailed description of the species and their habitat features will be provided as an appendix.


This Chapter will have an overview plus a major section for each state:


o Michigan

o Minnesota

o Wisconsin

Additional occurrence data for bats will be obtained within the time period for drafting the chapter

Spatial data for the environmental setting will be publicly available or can be derived using the DNR datasets and best available scientific information

The ICF Team will:

o Prepare a technical memo outlining the methods to be used to describe habitat distribution for the covered species

The memo is being prepared to inform the Lake State DNRs as well as solicit input

A final memo will not be prepared. However, modifications to the approach may occur based on feedback from the Lake States and Steering Committee.

o Conduct the analysis/assessment based on the agreed-upon methods.

o Prepare an annotated outline with preliminary results from the analytical methods agreed to in the technical memo

o Prepare a preliminary draft Environmental Setting and Covered Species Chapter


Provide 4 weeks for review of the preliminary draft chapter




o Coordinate review and input from the Lake States and Steering Committee on the Covered Activities Assessment Technical Memo



o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the annotated outline and preliminary results

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the preliminary draft of Chapter 3

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the administrative draft of Chapter 3


ICF Deliverables Environmental Baseline and Covered Species Assessment Method Technical Memo


Preliminary Draft Environmental Setting and Covered Species Chapter

Preliminary Draft Covered Species Appendix

Administrative Draft Environmental Setting and Covered Species Chapter

Administrative Draft Covered Species Appendix

5.2.5 Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter (4) Forest management activities comprise a variety of activities that have a potential impact on bats, including beneficial effects. In fact, most of the activities that foresters undertake are aimed at manipulating forests to

follow ecological succession to a desired endpoint. Our project-specific experience has taught us to take the following steps to develop a realistic understanding of how each of the covered activities will affect each of the bat species.

Describe covered activities in ecological terms. The ICF team will evaluate each of the covered activities in terms of how it affects bats—this will allow us to combine activities with similar impacts, which in turn leads to a simpler product.

Describe impact mechanisms for covered activities. The ICF team will evaluate each of the covered activities to identify mechanisms that could result in impacts to each of the bat species and its habitats.

Evaluate the level of impacts for cave-dwelling bat (including habitat impacts). The ICF team will evaluate impact mechanisms to identify appropriate methods for measuring anticipated levels of take for each covered activity (e.g., area of habitat affected, number of individuals taken). We will then evaluate covered activities and associated impact mechanisms to estimate level of take.

Describe indirect impacts of covered activities. Because forest management actions alter forest composition and structure at varying rates, an understanding of the long-term effects of a particular action is critical. For example, the same prescribed fire may destroy 1 potential roost tree, but greatly improve the overall value of that stand for foraging bats. The HCP must address the net effect of forestry actions on covered species.

Describe cumulative impacts of covered activities. Cumulative impacts on covered species and habitats as a result of implementing covered activities in association with nonfederal actions within the plan area will be evaluated (cumulative effects of federal actions will be evaluated in the NEPA document).

As mentioned above, the manner in which take is measured depends on the ability to determine, to the extent possible, the number of individual animals of a covered species occupying an affected area of habitat. Depending on available information, the ICF team anticipates expressing take levels for the HCP primarily in terms of overall habitat (amount of forest and its quality), but the number of bats or the percent of population at risk will be an important technique for evaluating different avoidance and minimization measures. This estimate will be particularly important when addressing cumulative impacts (e.g., the Midwest Wind HCP will change the environmental baseline for bat populations). The ICF team will describe and quantify take for each of the bat species. The description of take will be consistent with habitat goals and objectives identified for the species and with the conservation measures. We anticipate that the description of take will be an iterative process and will be largely dependent on avoidance and minimization actions and the level of impact associated with implementing the HCP. Consequently, the level of take and the associated impacts from implementing the HCP will be subject to revision as the HCP is developed and incorporated into the Expected Outcomes Chapter.


This Chapter will address information pertaining to all Lake States as well as each individual state.The ICF Team will:

o Prepare a technical memo outlining the methods to be used to estimate take of the covered species

The memo is being prepared to inform the Lake State DNRs as well as solicit input

A final memo will not be prepared. However, modifications to the approach may occur based on feedback from the Lake States and Steering Committee.

o Conduct the analysis/assessment based on the agreed-upon methods

Overlay of selected species distributions on each landowner category and activities to determine the maximum take boundary

Description of proposed take assessment methods segregated, as appropriate, by ownership type

Summary of tradeoffs for analyzing individual bats and population (in addition to acres affected)

o Prepare an annotated outline with preliminary results from the analytical methods agreed to in the technical memo

o Prepare a preliminary draft Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter

Provide 4 weeks for review of the preliminary draft chapter

o Prepare an administrative draft Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter




o Coordinate review and input from the Lake States and Steering Committee on the Covered Activities Assessment Technical Memo



Coordinate review of the annotated outline and preliminary results

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Lake States on the revised preliminary draft of Chapter 4

o Coordinate the review and consolidate comments from the Steering Committee on the revised administrative draft of Chapter 4


ICF Deliverables Potential Effects Assessment Method Technical Memo


Preliminary Draft Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter

Administrative Draft Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter

Revised 2016 SOW SCHEDULE (BELOW) SECTION 6: This section outlines our proposed schedule for the work associated with the revised 2016 SOW. The overall schedule is based on the start date of July 1st for the new PO. This section includes: A table that outlines the deliverable schedule, and A figure that demonstrates the relationship between work activities as well as review

periods for the deliverables.

2016 Revised SOW Deliverable Schedule

HCP Development Deliverables

Task 1 Task 2 Tech

Memo Annotated

Outline Prelim Draft

Admin Draft

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Chapter 1. Deliverables January

2017 NA February

2017 March 2017

Chapter 2. Project Description/Activities

Chapter 2. Deliverables October

2016 December

2016 January 2017 March 2017

Chapter 3. Environmental Settings and Biological Resources

Chapter 3 Deliverables October

2016 December

2016 February

2017 April 2017

Chapter 4. Potential Biological Impacts and Take Assessment

Chapter 4 Deliverables October

2016 December

2016 February*

2017 April* 2017

• - October 1 PO or PO#2

REVISED 2016 BUDGET

– (BELOW) We have provided the following materials: A summary table that includes details on invoicing associated with the original PO, Two detailed summary tables of the costs associated with preparing all of the materials

associated with the work described in Sections 1 and 2 of this document. Detailed assumptions associated with that work. Incorporation of the terms of the original contract as well as Exhibit C from the original

proposal, as appropriate.

6.1 General Pricing Assumptions

Michigan DNR is the primary contact for the ICF contract

The costs associated with the revised 2016 SOW will be used to modify, as appropriate, the original contract pricing, task order, and schedule.

The costs associated with coordination, planning, and strategic advice, as appropriate, are based on a T&M pricing with a not-to-exceed value for the work associated with those activities (See Section 2.1 and Table 4-1)

The costs for preparing the deliverables identified in Section 2.2 and Table 4-1 above are based on firm fixed prices

Detailed assumptions associated with the work elements are described in Section 2.2 and 2.3 above

Additional detailed pricing assumptions for each component, as appropriate, are provided below

Printing costs for the deliverable documents identified in this document are not included.

Costs for maintaining websites, mailings, outreach, or newsletters and not included

6.2 Meeting Cost Assumptions: Time and Material (T&M) with Not to Exceed Value

6.2.1 General Assumptions Meeting costs are based on T&M Pricing

o Hourly labor rates for 2016 are based on the labor table in the original contract

o Labor costs are based on actual preparation time, meeting participation time and as appropriate plus 2 hours (each way) for travel to and from in-person meetings as appropriate

o Travel costs are based on the terms in the original contract

o Meal costs are based on the terms in the original contract

The ICF Team will provide Michigan DNR a completed meeting participation form for each proposed webinar, or in-person meeting

The ICF Team will secure approval from Michigan DNR before participating in any calls, webinars, in-person meeting or other support activities described in Section 2 in the revised 2016 SOW

The ICF Team will invoice for meeting costs on a monthly basis

Based on direction from the Lake State DNRs no CI Workgroup meetings will occur in 2016

6.2.2 Michigan DNR Assumptions: ICF assumes Michigan DNR and/or the HCP Coordinator will: Organize and distribute, as appropriate, materials for meetings

Prepare agendas for meetings

Invite attendees to meetings

Provide logistical support for all meetings

Secure and/or pay for all meeting facilities

Print copies of all handouts

Prepare meeting summaries

Prepare memos that memorialize key decisions

6.2.3 ICF Team Participation Assumptions The ICF Team assumes we will attend the following calls/meeting, as needed: Project Operations Facilitation calls with the HCP Coordinator (up to 8)

Lake State DNRs calls/webinars (up to 4)

o One call/webinar during each month where in-person meetings do not occur

o On average 90 minutes are estimated per meeting per participant

o Up to 4 ICF Team members will participate

o Up to 4 hours will be required for each call for preparation of materials

o Up to 8 hours will be required for each webinar for preparation of materials

Individual Lake State DNRs calls/webinars (up to 6)

o One with each Lake State DNR in July-August 2016 (Up to 3)

o One with each Lake State DNR in November or December 2016 (Up to 3)

o Calls/Webinars will be up to 4 hours in length

o Up to 4 ICF Team members will participate

o Up to 4 hours will be required for preparation of materials for each meeting

Steering Committee Calls and/or Webinars (up to 2)

o One during each month where critical issues need to be discussed with USFWS

o On average 60 minutes are estimated per meeting for participation

o Materials prepared for the Lake State DNRs on similar issues, with adjustments directed by the states, will be used for these calls/webinars

Steering Committee in-person meetings (up to 2)

o One in January or February 2017

Plan work activities for 2017

Stakeholder Committee Assistance

o Assist with each Lake State DNR, as needed

Engage in CI Process Planning

Assist with each Lake State DNR, as needed

6.3 HCP Development Cost Assumptions: Fixed Cost Pricing

6.3.1 General Assumptions ICF will produce the deliverables based on direction from Michigan DNR who is acting on

behalf of the Lake State DNRs and Steering Committee.

ICF will produce the deliverables based on the revised 2016 schedule.

ICF will invoice upon completion of each deliverable identified in Section 2 and Section 3.

ICF assumes deliverable meets contract requirements unless notified by Michigan DNR within 7 days of submitting an invoice.

Any changes to specific methods or approach used to prepare a deliverable will be considered out of scope if those changes are inconsistent with the original direction provided to the ICF Team by Michigan DNR on behalf of the Lake State DNRs and/or the Steering Committee.

Changes to the agreed-to timeframes of the revised 2016 schedule (e.g., review periods) may incur additional costs if these modifications were a result of Michigan DNR, the Lake State DNRs, the Steering Committee or their representatives.

6.3.2 Deliverable Assumptions ICF will produce the following deliverables based on direction from Michigan DNR, who is

acting on behalf of the Lake State DNRs and the Steering Committee:

o Chapter 1

Permit Term Technical Memo

Revised preliminary draft of the Introduction and Background Chapter

Revised administrative draft of the Introduction and Background Chapter

o Chapter 2

Covered Activities Assessment Methods Technical Memo

Annotated outline with preliminary results of the analysis

Preliminary Draft Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter

Administrative Draft Covered Activities and Covered Area Chapter

o Chapter 3

Environmental Baseline and Covered Species Assessment Methods Technical Memo


Preliminary Draft Environmental Setting and Covered Species Chapter

Preliminary Draft Covered Species Appendix

Administrative Draft Environmental Setting and Covered Species Chapter

Administrative Draft Covered Species Appendix

o Chapter 4

Potential Effects Assessment Methods Technical Memo


Preliminary Draft Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter

Administrative Draft Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT COMPLETION SECTION 7: Completion of the HCP process is outlined in the Section 6 Grant application submitted by the State of Michigan (Appendix B). The following schedule is based on that planning effort as well as integrated with the projected accomplishments in 2016.

Schedule to be provided to DNR Project Manager.

REVISED 2016 BUDGET

Project Costs through June 30, 2016 for completed work activities.

2016 Completed Work Activity Labor Direct Expenses Total Cost

Initial Start Up Meeting $8,755 $2,270 $11,025

Data Webinars/Calls $3,162

$3,162

Revised 2016 Workplan Meeting (June 2016) $16,947 $4,167 $21,114

Chapter 1 (Preliminary and Admin Drafts) $11,325

$11,325

Lands Assessment Memo $24,545

$24,545

Total Cost Through June 30, 2016 $71,171

41

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PROCUREMENT

P.O. BOX 30028, LANSING, MI 48909 OR

525 W. ALLEGAN, LANSING, MI 48933

NOTICE OF CONTRACT NO. 751B6600003

between

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

and

NAME & ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR PRIMARY CONTACT EMAIL

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc Jodi Young [email protected]

9300 Lee Hwy PHONE VENDOR TAX ID # (LAST FOUR DIGITS ONLY)

Fairfax, VA 22031 (707) 992-0768 0361/001

STATE CONTACTS DIVISION NAME PHONE EMAIL

PROJECT MANAGER Wildlife Mary Rabe 517-243-3122 [email protected] CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATOR Finance and Operations Jana Harding-Bishop 517-284-5938 [email protected]

CONTRACT SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION: Habitat Conservation Plan for Four Cave-Dwelling Bat Species in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin

INITIAL TERM EFFECTIVE DATE INITIAL EXPIRATION DATE AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3 years 10/6/2015 9/30/2018 2 – 1 year PAYMENT TERMS F.O.B. SHIPPED TO

Net 45 N/A N/A ALTERNATE PAYMENT OPTIONS EXTENDED PURCHASING ☐ P-card ☐ Direct Voucher (DV) ☐ Other ☐ Yes ☒ No MINIMUM DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS:

N/A MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:

ESTIMATED CONTRACT VALUE AT TIME OF EXECUTION: $693,500

42

Notice of Contract #: 751B6600003

For the Contractor: On-file in DNR Procurement 10/12/15 ___________________________________ __________________ Jodi Young, Contract Administrator ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. For the State: On-file in DNR Procurement 10/12/15 ___________________________________ __________________ Laura Gyorkos, Manager State of Michigan

Date

Date

43

Habitat Conservation Plan for Four Cave-Dwelling Bat Species in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin

EXHIBIT A

STATEMENT OF WORK CONTRACT ACTIVITIES

1.0 Project Identification 1.01 Background/Project Description

ICF will in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR), and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (these four agencies make up what is hereafter referred to as the Steering Committee (SC)) develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), in preparation to submit an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), ICF will work in conjunction with the Steering Committee to draft and submit the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. The MI DNR is the lead agency for this contract and has a full time person on staff as the project coordinator to coordinate activities on behalf of the Steering Committee with the Contractor. The Steering Committee will be the decision making body for content of the HCP. The HCP will request the authorization for the incidental take of four cave-dwelling bat species; Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and the tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) that may result from management activities on lands in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The lands in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin provide potential foraging, roosting, maternity colony, and fall swarming, and winter habitat for all bat species that occur in these states, except for Indiana bat in Minnesota. The HCP will clarify the activities associated with management activities which may cause incidental take of covered bat species and analyze the likely result from such takings. This information will be used to develop an adaptive management strategy by identifying the measures the three states will take to minimize and mitigate direct and indirect impacts to the four covered bats. For forest management activities, the current USFWS’s Forest Management Practices for Conserving Indiana Bats apply particular restrictions on forest management practices down to the stand level. Seasonal harvesting restrictions and canopy retention guidelines in particular inhibit the ability of the Agencies to implement strategies that will ensure sustainable and diverse forest habitat conditions at the landscape scale. ICF will use existing data to the greatest extent possible and a compilation of known data, including existing digital products, maps, survey data, etc. The three partnering states will provide any pertinent data they have available. 1.02 Contract Activities

The cave dwelling bat HCP for forest management activities on state land in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin must meet all of the requirements set forth in the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. In addition to these laws, the project process and plan must meet and be consistent with other applicable Federal, State and local policies, and regulations.

Work on the HCP and EA will be collaborative effort between the contractor and the Steering Committee to

44

meet the objectives of this project. The ICF team project approach is divided into three main sections:

1. Project management covers coordination of bi-weekly calls, project updates, meeting support, oversight of budget and schedule for the HCP process.

2. HCP development includes an assessment of additional lands in each state as well as the delivery

of a preliminary administrative draft (task 1), an administrative draft (task 2), a public review draft (task 3) and a final HCP (task 4).

3. NEPA document development addresses the necessary components of an EA and associated public outreach. A final EA is not required by the USFWS.

Section 1: Project Management:

The ICF team will provide project coordination, process management, meeting support, and oversight of the budget and schedule. Meeting and coordination assumptions for each of these groups are summarized below. Progress reports will be provided every other week at conference calls. These will include progress updates on each chapter, including data compilation and analysis and meetings attended for each chapter. In addition, ICF will provide quarterly reports that summarize progress made in all key deliverables. The MIDNR Project Manager will be responsible for the following project management duties: Coordinate biweekly calls with ICF for project updates. Develop and maintain contacts list (agencies, organizations, the public, and any entities receiving

emails or mailings). Schedule, organize and facilitate meetings of the Bat HCP SC as well as any other meetings

associated with the HCP; this includes logistics, organizing webinars, inviting attendees, preparing agendas and meeting summaries, and production of all related materials and handouts.

Ensure full participation of Bat HCP SC members; confirm attendance of members or their alternates; and manage decision making process as needed.

Facilitate document review process. Consolidate all comments on draft documents; assist with identification and resolution of disagreements among the states.

Provide hosting services for all webinars.

The ICF team will be responsible for the following project management duties: attend meetings as requested by the Steering Committee. Attend biweekly teleconference calls. Attend kick-off meetings, Steering Committee meetings, stakeholder meetings and assist the DNR

Project Manager with meeting facilitation as determined necessary. Preparation and distribution of preliminary administrative draft and administrative draft HCPs by

chapter. Preparation of the draft HCP for public review. Preparation of the final HCP. Preparation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) materials for submission to the USFWS.

Meetings associated with public outreach are addressed separately as part of the NEPA process. The first steering committee meeting will also serve the dual purpose of a kick-off meeting. This meeting would initiate ICF’s work and focus on key issues; it would also establish lines of communication and clarify technical requirements. The Steering Committee will determine with input from ICF exactly what types of meetings to be held (Webinar vs in-person) and how many ICF staff are needed for each meeting scheduled. The cost of ICF’s participation in each meeting will be determined using the pricing provided in Exhibit C.

45

In addition to steering committee and stakeholder meetings, members of the ICF team, as determined by the Steering Committee will attend FWS and technical committee meetings.

Section 2: HCP Development: Assessment of additional lands

ICF will do an assessment for each state to determine if non-federal public lands and private lands should be included in the HCP. There are two general approaches to cover additional lands in the three states under the HCP.

One is to allow for Private or Non‐Federal Public landowners to voluntarily opt‐in to the HCP

through a certificate of inclusion process or something similar. This is an agreement between the landowner and the state for the landowner to uphold the terms of the HCP in exchange for limited take authorization.

The second approach is to use the state’s forestry permit system to extend its take permit to private or local landowners under their “direct control.” This approach may only be available in some states and with some landowners, depending on the scope and legal framework of the state’s permit system.

ICF will evaluate the two general approaches described above as well as assess other important considerations associated with obtaining take coverage for the additional lands, including but not limited to the following:

What other federal mechanisms exist that could build on the Incidental Take Permit process (e.g.Section 7 Memorandum of Understanding, Low Effect HCP) to provide take coverage for private lands?

Does each state have a forestry permit process that allows the state to meet the USFWS definition of having “direct control” over private, corporate, or local public agency timber operations?

Are private or local timber operations that are subject to this permit process extensive enough and in locations to have impacts to listed bats and therefore need take coverage?

Do private or local timber operators want take coverage under the state’s HCP, and are they willing to pay an additional fee for the regulatory certainty it provides?

Are the locations and amounts of private or local timber operations that would be covered predictable over the permit duration to allow estimates of take of each covered species?

The general extent of the additional timber lands to be evaluated are summarized in table A.1 below. The analysis would utilize information obtained from other work elements associated with HCP development (e.g., environmental baseline, covered species, covered activities). The assessment would focus only on ESA and NEPA compliance requirements. ICF will prepare a draft memo subject to one revisions based on input from the states and optional input from USFWS. The States will have up to 2 weeks to review the draft and provide input. ICF would prepare a final technical memo that includes the options for addressing the additional timberlands, as well as the potential cost and schedule for providing take coverage.

The assessment will include up to 3 phone meetings with the states to discuss the results of the analysis and one phone meeting with USFWS. The assessment will be completed within 10 weeks from contract start date.

46

Upon completion of the assessment each state will determine which land types will be covered under the HCP and will adjust the contract as needed to reflect the changes from State Owned only lands being covered in the HCP.

Table A.1 Summary of Forest Lands by State and Type

Summary of Forest Lands to Potentially be Included in the HCP Forest Lands (acres X 1 million )

Forest Lands Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota All States State Owned (included in HCP)

4.2

1.1

3.4

8.7

Other Public (Non-Federal)

0.8

2.4

2.9

6.1

Private 12.6 10.9 7.6 31.1 All Potential HCP Lands

17.6

14.4

13.9

45.9

HCP Development: Figure A.2 illustrates chapter integration for a similar HCP EIS. The figure demonstrates how the various chapters fit together to complete the required analyses for major portions of the HCP.

Table A.2 Chapter Integration

47

A programmatic HCP is an HCP prepared for broad categories of covered activities, such as state or regional policies or programs. Programmatic HCPs address covered activities occurring over large areas and may include groupings of similar actions or repeating actions over longer periods of time than project-specific HCPs.

The following sections describe specific approaches for preparing the HCP document and project deliverables.

Assumptions

The HCP Development task will include the following components:

Deliverables: Task Due Date

Task 1 : Preliminary Administrative draft (for state personnel review) 8/31/16 Task 2: Administrative draft (for Steering Committee Review) 8/31/16 Task 3: Public draft 8/31/17 Task 4: Final HCP 9/30/2018 HCP shall include the following chapters: Chapter 1: Executive Summary Chapter 2: Introduction and Background Chapter 3: Project Description/Activities Covered by permit Chapter 4: Environmental Settings/Biological Resources Chapter 5: Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment Chapter 6: Conservation Program Chapter 7: Plan Implementation Chapter 8: Funding Chapter 9: Alternatives Chapter 10: Literature Cited Chapter 11: Appendices

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

The ICF team will prepare an executive summary for the HCP that highlights relevant information contained in the document. The executive summary typically includes sections addressing overview, plan area, covered species, permit term, covered activities, conservation program, net effects, monitoring and adaptive management, implementation, cost, and funding.

Assumptions

The executive summary will be prepared after the other chapters have been completed.

Chapter 2: Introduction and Background

The HCP introduction will provide a discussion of relevant background information such as the need for the plan; permit duration, and overview of covered activities. To provide readers with an understanding of the regulatory purpose and need for the plan, the chapter will also include an overview of the requirements of Section 10 of ESA and other policies and regulations relevant to covered bats and the activities addressed by the HCP.

Chapter 3: Project Description/Describe Activities Covered by Permit

This HCP will cover more than 11 million acres of lands managed by the State Agencies with the potential for additional non-federal public and private lands. State Forests within these areas are managed chiefly for the purposes of timber production, recreation, and wildlife.

48

Covered activities are described in the HCP and are those actions for which the State Agencies will receive a permit. A potential list and description of covered activities was provided by the State Agencies. The ICF team will review the list and descriptions of covered activities and will develop the draft text for the covered activity descriptions in the HCP. The list will also enable ICF team biologists and foresters to focus review of existing information, develop specific questions, and identify specific gaps in the data potentially needed to address critical uncertainties. Having worked on State Lands with forest issues and on numerous HCPs, ICF will provide a streamlined process for developing and refining this list that includes a programmatic approach to each activity. For example, the ICF team will work proactively with foresters in each of the State Agencies to understand the state-specific underlying forest practices and crosswalk terms up front to expedite the effects analysis, grouping activities in a way that functionally affect bats. In addition, based on experience, ICF will use a landscape approach in lieu of site-specific canopy retention guidelines to leverage benefits of a programmatic HCP.

Potential covered activities will include:

Cutting trees for regeneration: clearcut, clearcut with residual, overstory removal, seed-tree harvest, shelterwood, group tree selection, and individual tree selection

Cutting trees for stand improvements: crop-tree release, cleaning, and thinning Using equipment for felling, skidding, chipping, and processing trees Earth moving associated with road construction and maintenance and landing-area development Spraying herbicides and pesticides in association with invasive species management Prescribed fire for fuel reduction, vegetation management, and invasive species control Construction of deer exclosure fencing Planting seedlings Cutting firewood Trail construction and maintenance activities Soil supplements Biological controls

From the list of activities provided, use of herbicides and pesticides is not an activity that can currently be permitted because the FWS has not reached agreement with the EPA on the effects on listed species of registered pesticides. For the purposes of the HCP, the FWS typically assumes that herbicides and pesticides should not cause take if used in accordance with guidelines. In addition, planting seedlings will not require coverage because it is not an impact on covered bats. Installation of other fencing and road use are activities that the State Agencies may consider adding to the covered activities list.

Assumptions

To the extent available data regarding covered activities will be provided by the State Agencies. The coverage area includes the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin with the lands to be determined based on the initial assessment.

Chapter 4: Environmental Setting/Biological Resources

This chapter will address the environmental setting of the plan area and provide information on the biological resources within the three states, with a focus on describing the four covered species.

Environmental Settings

The ICF team will describe the environmental setting of the larger plan area (likely the entirety of all three states) and the permit area. This environmental setting section will include the following topics: data, vegetation types, location, topography, geology and physiography, soils, climate, and hydrology.

49

Based on the Forest Service Level III Ecoregion Map by Bailey, all three states are characterized by the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (212) and Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (222). Portions of western Minnesota and a small discrete area in southern Wisconsin are also characterized by the Prairie Parkland Province (251). The boundary between the Eastern Broadleaf Forest and Laurentian Mixed Forest Provinces generally runs northwest to southeast.

Several general characteristics are common to all three states north of this boundary:

State Land acreage tends to be greater. Forest cover is more extensive, forests contain more conifers, and wetlands are more abundant. Urban and agricultural development is significantly lower. Landscape conditions related to these ecological zones affect the distribution and abundance of

cave-dwelling bats. In addition, geological conditions related to known and potential locations of bat hibernacula vary across the three states, with exposures of bedrock occurring in discrete locations (e.g., igneous rocks of the Canadian Shield extend from Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula to northeastern Minnesota, and karst formations are found in the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin and southeastern Minnesota). Together, these and other factors create complex and diverse landscape conditions that can be aggregated and used in data analyses.

Each state has a robust and centralized data set of GIS and other information, including recent aerial imagery, land cover, wetlands, infrastructure, parcels and ownerships, rare species and plant communities, soils, and related content (see Project Controls “Access to and Use of Existing Biological Data” below). These data can be used to remotely determine the distribution and abundance of suitable habitat for the four cave-dwelling bats species. Collaborations between federal and state agencies concerned with these bats have also produced proprietary data sets that could be obtained through data use and licensing agreements, which, among other items, constrain how data may be presented publicly. This information will be integrated with the bat-specific analytical approach described below and lead to a qualitative model of bat distribution and abundance.

Covered Species – Four Cave-Dwelling Bats

The Indiana bat is a "tree bat” in summer and a "cave bat” in winter. There are four ecologically distinct components of the annual life cycle: winter hibernation, spring staging and autumn swarming, spring and autumn migration, and the summer season of reproduction. The first step proposed by the ICF team is to produce habitat models for each life cycle stage in the three-state region. This critical step will allow us to determine where there is a realistic chance that covered bats (especially maternity colonies) occur. ESI has existing models for Indiana and northern long-eared bats that can be tailored to the area and additional species covered by the Three State Forestry HCP. Models are and will be based on previous studies and habitat associations and will include an evaluation of bat use at low elevations, as well as areas where patches of large trees occur in proximity to open areas, such as meadows, wetlands, and agricultural fields (especially hay fields and grazing lands, as opposed to row crops). Habitat models will be used by our team in three ways—first, to identify approaches to avoid and minimize impacts to bats; second, to calculate take; and third, proposed forest management scenarios will be tested to determine the effect of future conditions on the covered bats. The understanding of how models (i.e., estimated bat distribution) interact with other chapters of the HCP is critical to successful execution of the plan. Figure A.3 above demonstrates how species modeling provides the building blocks for HCP development.

Assumptions:

Data or information gaps will not hinder the progress of the HCP to meet the desired timeframe. However, if data or information gaps are identified that will not be able to be obtained during the timeframe of the HCP;

50

the ICF team proposes that this information be gathered during implementation of the HCP as part of an adaptive management program.

Chapter 5: Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment

The following steps will be used to develop a realistic understanding of how each of the covered activities will affect each of the bat species.

Describe covered activities in ecological terms. The ICF team will work with the State Agencies to evaluate each of the covered activities in terms of how it affects bats—this will allow us to combine activities with similar impacts, which in turn leads to a simpler product.

Describe impact mechanisms for covered activities. The ICF team will evaluate each of the covered activities to identify mechanisms that could result in impacts to each of the bat species and its habitats.

Evaluate the level of impacts for cave-dwelling bat (including habitat impacts). The ICF team will evaluate impact mechanisms to identify appropriate methods for measuring anticipated levels of take for each covered activity (e.g., area of habitat affected, number of individuals taken). ICF will then evaluate covered activities and associated impact mechanisms to estimate level of take.

Describe indirect impacts of covered activities. Because forest management actions alter forest composition and structure at varying rates, an understanding of the long-term effects of a particular action is critical. For example, the same prescribed fire may destroy one potential roost tree, but greatly improve the overall value of that stand for foraging bats. The HCP must address the net effect of forestry actions on covered species.

Describe cumulative impacts of covered activities. Cumulative impacts on covered species and habitats as a result of implementing covered activities in association with non-federal actions within the plan area will be evaluated (cumulative effects of federal actions will be evaluated in the NEPA document).

The manner in which take is measured depends on the ability to determine, to the extent possible, the number of individual animals of a covered species occupying an affected area of habitat. Depending on available information, the ICF team anticipates expressing take levels for the HCP primarily in terms of overall habitat (amount of forest and its quality), but the number of bats or the percent of population at risk will be an important technique for evaluating different avoidance and minimization measures.

The ICF team will describe and quantify take for each of the bat species. The description of take will be consistent with habitat goals and objectives identified for the species and with the conservation measures. ICF anticipates that the description of take will be an iterative process and will be largely dependent on avoidance and minimization actions and the level of impact associated with implementing the HCP. Consequently, the level of take and the associated impacts from implementing the HCP will be subject to revision as the HCP is developed.

Assumptions:

The ICF team assumes that the data or information gaps will not hinder the progress of the HCP to meet the desired timeframe. However, if data or information gaps are identified that will not be able to be obtained during the timeframe of the HCP, ICF proposes that this information be gathered during studies associated with conservation measures and/or an adaptive management program.

51

Chapter 6: Conservation Program

This chapter will describe the conservation program for the HCP and is expected to be one of the more time-consuming and complex chapters of the plan. It will require an analysis and approach that balances the need for forest management practices, including timber harvest, and conservation of covered bat species to the maximum extent practicable. The ICF team will address regulatory requirements for biological goals and objectives, conservation measures, and mitigation and monitoring.

The ICF team will develop and describe appropriate conservation measures for the HCP that avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for the effects of covered activities on covered bat species. Initially, ICF will review potential conservation measures from previous reports and recovery plans to develop a list of ecosystem-wide conservation measures that could be implemented to achieve the biological goals and objectives. Each will be reviewed for adequacy in achieving the species and habitat goals and objectives of the HCP. ICF will revise the existing conservation measures and develop additional conservation measures, as necessary. ICF anticipates that development of conservation measures will be an iterative process and will be largely dependent on the various types and quantities of habitat for each species. Consequently, conservation measures may be subject to revision as information about potential bat habitat is identified through the HCP process. Conservation measures will largely be grouped according to seasonal habitat for each bat species.

Current guidelines require postponing timber harvest in potential summer habitat areas to those months when bats are hibernating. This has been used as a conservation measure in the past. However, this is very restrictive when applied across all covered bat species. To address this issue, the ICF team will develop conservation measures by incorporating the following concepts:

Large portions of the plan area may not be suitable for the formation of maternity colonies or may be only marginally suitable. Potential areas where habitat may not be suitable for summer bats include the following: Areas of high elevation Areas with trees too small to serve as primary roosts (noting that forest succession may

cause these areas to shift through time) Some areas may be improved by allowing some level of timber management.

In some cases, bat populations may be constrained by a lack of suitable foraging habitat; such habitat can be created through timber harvest.

Some timber stands may be too dense for use by some covered bat species; some thinning or harvest may improve habitat for these species.

It is known that prescribed fire kills trees that then become viable roost trees, thus enhancing habitat for bats; snags can also be created during timber harvest.

Using the habitat suitability models to time management activities in high-risk areas (i.e. where bats are most likely to be present) such that they have the lowest risk

Considering how current timber management practices will impact future habitat quality for bats, as different types of timber harvest will create different successional stages of forest over time

In addition, as required by the 5-Point Policy, the ICF team will develop a monitoring and adaptive management program for the HCP. The monitoring element of the plan will include compliance and effectiveness monitoring activities. After the conservation program, monitoring is often one of the most expensive components of implementing an HCP. Compliance monitoring will be conducted to verify that the permittees are carrying out the terms of the HCP and its permit. Effectiveness monitoring will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the permitted action and determine if the HCP’s biological goals and objectives are being achieved. The adaptive management element of the plan will be developed to address the uncertainties that exist regarding effective conservation measures and the outcome of conservation.

52

The ICF team will design a standardized monitoring and reporting program to ensure a consistent approach across the covered lands. This program will use the latest effective survey techniques and provide greater certainty regarding monitoring costs.

Chapter 7: Plan Implementation and Assurances

Implementation

Under the ESA, HCP implementation begins when the Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP is issued. Primary responsibility for HCP implementation rests with the permittees (the State Agencies).

This chapter describes the overall implementation policies of the HCP, including institutional arrangements, organizational structure, approval processes, and roles and responsibilities of the State Agencies, FWS, and other stakeholders, as appropriate. A description of the entity, or entities, responsible for implementing the conservation measures, monitoring, and adaptive management actions will be described in the HCP. The ICF team will work with the steering committee to identify the implementing entity and describe the implementing process for the HCP.

Assurances

The Federal No Surprises Regulation provides assurances to Section 10 permit holders that no additional money, commitments, or restrictions of land or water will be required should unforeseen circumstances requiring additional mitigation arise once an ITP is in place. Unforeseen circumstances are defined by federal regulation as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by an HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the applicant or the FWS at the time of the HCP’s development and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. Under “No Surprises,” as long as ITP permit holders are properly implementing an HCP that has been approved by the FWS, no additional commitment of resources will be required beyond those specified in the plan. Should unforeseen circumstances occur, the permit holder will work with the FWS to address them, to the extent feasible, within the existing funding and other constraints outlined in the HCP. Conversely, changed circumstances are defined by federal regulation as those circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the HCP that can be reasonably anticipated by the applicant or FWS and to which the parties can plan a response. Permit holders are required to budget resources to respond to changed circumstances should they occur. As a result, an important component of the HCP will be clearly defining those circumstances that are considered unforeseen or changed for the purposes of the plan.

Changed Circumstances

Under Section 10 of the ESA, the HCP is required to identify anticipated and possible changed circumstances relative to the implementation of the HCP (e.g., the listing of new species, modifications to conservation measures or covered activities, modifications to the monitoring program). The HCP should identify strategies and protocols for addressing such anticipated changes, thus allowing appropriate program adjustments without having to amend the plan.

ICF will describe a process for addressing changed circumstances. Work conducted under this task includes:

Review of other approved HCPs in the region to identify changed circumstances and unforeseen circumstances and possible approaches for addressing these plan elements

Development and recommendation of strategies and protocols for addressing changed circumstances and unforeseen circumstances based on the review of other HCPs and information about anticipated changed circumstances provided to the ICF team by the steering committee

53

Plan Amendment Process

Under Section 10 of the ESA, an HCP may be amended to accommodate changes in how the HCP is implemented (e.g., changes in schedule, geographic scope, funding levels) or changes that are necessitated by unforeseen circumstances. Unforeseen circumstances are future circumstances that were not anticipated by the steering committee or FWS and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a covered species. The process used to amend the permit or the HCP largely depends on the type and magnitude of the proposed change. ICF will describe an amendment process for the Three State Forestry HCP.

Chapter 8: Funding

The funding chapter outlines the estimated costs to implement the HCP over the permit term and the State Agencies with funding assurances. The federal ESA requires that HCPs specify “the funding that will be available to implement” conservation actions that minimize and mitigate impacts on covered species. The ICF team will estimate costs to implement the HCP by working closely with the State Agencies and with the registered foresters on our team. With the assistance of the steering committee, ICF will describe the funding mechanisms for the plan. The ICF team has included an economist with a background in forestry to aid with this analysis.

Chapter 9: Alternatives

The ESA requires that applicants specify alternative actions to the take of federally listed species. Because all species covered by the plan will be treated as listed, all four cave-dwelling bat species must be addressed in this chapter. Alternatives commonly included in the alternatives chapter of an HCP are the no-action or no-take alternative and any specific alternatives that would reduce or increase the level of take below or above levels anticipated for the proposed HCP. To meet requirements for an HCP, the ICF team will provide a brief description of the HCP alternatives: these can be different from the NEPA alternatives.

Chapter 10: Literature Cited

The ICF team will compile the literature used for this project into a final chapter.

Chapter 11: Appendices

The ICF team will prepare appendices that include the appropriate relevant information. Examples of potential appendices include a methods appendix for the species models and species accounts for the bats.

Section 3: NEPA Document Development:

This task addresses the approach for preparing the NEPA compliance documentation and process for an EA. For the purpose of this contract, ICF assumes State Agencies will obtain concurrence from the FWS before directing the consultant to prepare an EA, or proceed with an EA with the understanding that, at the end of the EA process, FWS may determine the development of an EIS is required. Should the USFWS determine that an EIS is required rather than an EA, the Steering Committee will determine how to proceed and the contract will be adjusted accordingly.

Assumptions The NEPA document will be an EA. Formal public scoping will not be conducted.

54

The FWS will provide direction on the content, scope, and approach to the EA analysis in compliance with NEPA and FWS NEPA policy.

Information, including GIS data from the HCP, will be made available to the NEPA team for incorporation into the EA.

The ICF team will prepare an administrative draft EA, a public draft EA, and written response to comments on the draft EA.

During the public comment period on the draft EA, it is anticipated there may be up to three public meetings in each state.

Public comments on the draft EA will not exceed 50 unique substantive comment letters and no more than 500 pages of unique substantive comment letters.

The EA will analyze no more than three alternatives, including the HCP, the no-action alternative, and possibly another alternative.

Section 3a: Prepare Administrative Draft EA

The ICF team will prepare an administrative draft EA in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, FWS, and Council on Environmental Quality regulations and guidance and other applicable federal laws and regulations. We will compile the best available scientific information to assess the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, including the no-action alternative. ICF proposes to use existing data from the HCP, data provided by the State Agencies, and other relevant sources and databases to characterize and map (as appropriate) the affected environment for each resource considered in the EA. It is assumed the resource areas addressed in the EA are likely to include biological resources (birds, bats, threatened and endangered species, and vegetation); wetlands; socioeconomics and environmental justice; cultural resources; noise; air quality and climate; and soils. ICF will work with the FWS to refine the analytical approaches to use in the EA and to dismiss resource areas from detailed analysis as appropriate. The administrative draft EA will include the following chapters and any necessary supporting appendices: Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 3: Affected Environment Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Chapter 5: Cumulative Impacts Chapter 6: List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted Chapter 7: Literature Cited

The ICF team will submit draft chapters for FWS (and any cooperating agencies) review on a rolling basis, as shown in the supporting project schedule (see Attachment A). This will allow for the preparation of a public draft EA in a timely manner. ICF will address comments from the FWS and any cooperating agencies on the draft chapters and prepare a final administrative draft EA. ICF will address and respond to one set of consolidated and reconciled comments from FWS and any cooperating agencies for each preliminary draft chapter that ICF submits for review.

Section 3b: Prepare for and Participate in Public Meetings on the Draft EA

ICF will execute up to nine public meetings on the draft EA. ICF will ensure each meeting facility meets the criteria of being affordable ($400 or less per facility rental), accessible (i.e. parking, Americans with Disabilities Act compliant), and available, as well as ensuring they are located in safe, neutral, appropriate areas for maximum public participation. ICF will staff each of the public meetings, which will encompass three meetings per state over a three-week period, to ensure early set-up, organization, proper flow to the room and meeting, and enough people in attendance to handle crowds, information requests, and mailing list registration. ICF is assuming three meetings on the draft EA in each state (Michigan, Minnesota, and

55

Wisconsin). Meeting locations will be determined in conjunction with the Steering Committee. ICF will prepare meeting materials to include up to nine large displays, six small displays, a comment form, registration card, and other materials as requested by the FWS. Additionally, ICF will oversee the development and maintenance of a computerized mailing list of resource agencies, local media contacts, elected officials, community/environmental groups, and other members of the public who express interest in the project. The initial list will be developed in collaboration with the FWS, and ICF assumes the FWS will provide some initial data for ICF to maintain. ICF assumes that a project website, email account, and hotline will be managed and developed by the FWS. ICF will do the following tasks in preparation for EA Public Meetings: Prepare draft public ad campaigns in newspapers, etc. Prepare draft public notices for the federal register Development of public information materials Coordination of public information campaign.

Section 3c: Respond to Public Comments

The ICF team will compile and organize comments on the draft EA, including comments received at the public meetings. If needed, ICF will work with the FWS to develop a project-specific coding structure that will allow comments to be sorted and organized. The comments will be compiled into a report to facilitate responses by the FWS, cooperating agencies, or our technical experts, as appropriate. The final product will be a response to comments report. As in Task 3a, ICF will address and respond to one set of consolidated and reconciled comments from the FWS and any cooperating agencies on the response to comments report.

Section 3d: Submit Working File in Support of the Administrative Record

The FWS will verify the proposed content and format of the working file and request any changes prior to the start of work on the EA. Following submittal of the final version of the response to comments report, ICF will compile and submit to the FWS the working file in support of the administrative record for the NEPA process. The following types of files will be included:

Internal team meeting and conference call agendas, handouts, and draft notes Public comment materials, including copies of all public meeting materials and comment letters Draft sections of the EA, including FWS comments on draft deliverables Public draft EA, including all Federal Register and other legal notices Copies of all public comments and responses to public comment Copies of references cited in the public draft EA

1.03 Out of Scope Activities

The following activities are considered out of scope for the HCP portion of this contract as the Project manager will assume these responsibilities:

Organize the Steering Committee for this project Organize, coordinate and put together the steering committee and stakeholder committees Schedule steering committee, stakeholder, or public meetings Communicate with the media

1.04 State Review, Acceptance and Testing Process and Criteria

Each chapter of the HCP identified in Section 1.02 must be reviewed and approved by the Steering Committee.

56

Upon completion of a chapter the Contractor must submit the proposed draft to the Project Manager

The Steering Committee has 14 calendar days to review and provide feedback to the Contractor. The Contractor will have 14 calendar days to incorporate the requested changes into the document

and re-submit for review and approval.

1.05 Final Acceptance

2.0 Contractor Responsibilities

2.01 Transition – N/A

2.02 Training – N/A

2.03 Technical Support, Repairs and Maintenance – N/A

3.0 Staffing

3.01 Project Manager

The Contractor must appoint a Project Manager who will be directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Contract. The Project Manager must be specifically assigned to the State account, be knowledgeable on the contractual requirements, and respond to State inquires within 2 business days.

Contractor’s Project Manager must respond to inquiries from the DNR Project Manager within 48 hours of request.

The Contractor may not remove or assign a new Project Manager without the prior consent of the State. Prior consent is not required for reassignment for reasons beyond the Contractor’s control, including illness, disability, death, leave of absence, personal emergency circumstances, resignation, or termination for cause. The State may request a résumé and conduct an interview before approving a change. The State may require a 30-calendar day training period for replacement personnel.

3.02 Customer Service Toll-Free Number – N/A

3.03 Technical Support, Repairs and Maintenance – N/A

3.04 Project Staffing

Name, Role Key S

taff

Firm

Year

s of E

xper

ience

Educ

atio

n

Perc

ent A

vaila

bilit

y

Loca

tion

Issua

nce o

f IT

PS

NEPA

Com

plian

ce

Larg

e Sca

le P

rojec

ts

Midw

est R

esou

rces

Stat

e and

Fed

eral

Clien

ts

Multi

ple S

take

hold

ers

Project Management Team Leo Lentsch, Project Director

ICF 33 MS 50 SC

Paola Bernazzani, Project Manager ICF 20 MS 75 OH

Shawna Barry, Deputy Project Manager

ICF 10 MA 35 VA

57

Name, Role Key S

taff

Firm

Year

s of E

xper

ience

Educ

atio

n

Perc

ent A

vaila

bilit

y

Loca

tion

Issua

nce o

f IT

PS

NEPA

Com

plian

ce

Larg

e Sca

le P

rojec

ts

Midw

est R

esou

rces

Stat

e and

Fed

eral

Clien

ts

Multi

ple S

take

hold

ers

HCP Development Technical Staff David Zippin, PhD, Senior Advisor and QA/QC

ICF 25 PhD 15 CA

Al Pfister, Senior Advisor and QA/QC ICF 36 MS 25 CO

Craig Hedman, PhD, Lead Covered Activities and Conservation Program

ICF 26 PhD 75 FL

David Aslesen, Project Description / Covered Activities

AES 19 BS 25 WI

Kim Chapman, PhD, Lead Environmental Setting AES 30 PhD 15 MN

Bill Stoll, Environmental Setting AES 5 MA 25 IL

Dale Sparks, PhD, Lead Impacts and Covered Species ESI 20 PhD 40 OH

Lucas Bare, Implementation, Assurances, Impacts

ICF 13 MESM 35 CO

Todd Jones, Alternatives ICF 3 MS 35 NC

Lynn Robbins, PhD, Conservation Strategy

ESI 47 PhD 25 MO

Nick Dennis, PhD, Funding ICF 16 PhD 25 CA

Jacques Veilleux, PhD, Conservation Program ESI 15 PhD 25 NH

Greg Anderson, PhD, GIS ESI 5 PhD 75 OH

Jason Carlson GIS AES 15 MS 20 WI

NEPA Compliance Hova Woods, NEPA Compliance Task Lead

ICF 14 MPA 50 IN

58

April Zohn, Senior Advisor and QA/QC

ICF 15 BS 15 OR

John Hansel, JD, Senior Advisor and QA/QC

ICF 38 JD 25 VA

Dave Johnson, Lead Biological Resources

ICF 15 BS 35 DC

Virgil Brack, PhD, Biological Resources (Bats)

ESI 35 PhD 35 OH

Genesis Mickel, Biological Resources (Threatened and Endangered Species)

AES 11 MS 40 MN

Lawrence Brewer, PhD, Biological Resources (Vegetation)

ESI 37 MS 25 OH

John Larson, PhD, Biological Resources (Wetlands)

AES 23 PhD 35 WI

Alex Uriarte, PhD, Human Resources (Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice)

ICF 15 PhD 35 VA

Richard Starzak, Human Resources (Cultural Resources)

ICF 35 MA 20 CA

David Coate, Physical Resources (Noise)

ICF 35 MS 35 VA

David Ernst, Physical Resources (Air Quality/Climate)

ICF 35 MCR

P 20 MA

Ralph Grismala, PE, Physical Resources (Soils)

ICF 36 MS 25 TN

Jennifer Piggott, Lead Public Involvement

ICF 13 BA 40 MA

Tiffany Mendoza, Public Involvement

ICF 10 BA 50 VA

Nick Baker, Administrative Record

ICF 9 MEM 35 NC

3.05 Organizational Chart

59

3.06 Disclosure of Subcontractors

60

Business Address: 4525 Este Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45232

Email Address: [email protected] , [email protected]

Phone #: 513.451.1777

Services to be provided under this contract:

Lead Bat Biological Modeling; Lead Bat Species Accounts; Lead HCP Impact Analysis; Conservation Strategy Support; Co-Lead NEPA Impact Analysis; Lead GIS Mapping/Analysis

Business Address: 21938 Mushtown Road., Prior Lake, Minnesota

Email Address: [email protected], [email protected]

Phone #: 952.447.1919

Services to be provided under this contract:

Lead Environmental Setting; Support Covered Activities; Support GIS Mapping; NEPA Support, Local Resources Experts

Contractor must provide percent of work to be performed by each subcontractor:

ESI = 35%

AES = 15%

3.07 Security

The Contractor will be subject to the following security procedures:

• Clearly identifying uniforms • Name Badges

4.0 Project Management

4.01 Project Plan

Understanding of the Project Scope

An HCP will outline when, where, and how to avoid practices that may take Indiana, northern long-eared, little brown, and tri-colored bats and, when avoidance is not possible, will identify measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts. The HCP and its associated NEPA compliance will allow the State

mailto:[email protected]




61

Agencies to manage their forests in ways that are both beneficial to bats and other wildlife while meeting their own strategic forest management plans and missions.

The ICF team will prepare two drafts of the HCP for Steering Committee review, public draft and a final HCP. The ICF team will ensure that the HCP conforms to the federal guidelines and policies set forth in the Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/hcpbook.html), as amended by the 5-Point Policy and other more recent policies.

ICF has scoped for the preparation of an EA, as indicated in the responses to questions provided by the State Agencies. However, an EIS may be necessary, given the geographic size of the plan area and FWS precedent. ICF will work with State Agencies (and the FWS) to help determine what level of NEPA compliance is required to avoid costly and time-consuming missteps. Because the current proposal is scoped as an EA, an administrative draft EA and public draft EA are planned. A final draft is not required for an EA, but typically the FWS will provide written response to comments to include in its findings of no significant impact (FONSI). The interaction of the HCP and NEPA processes and the anticipated timeline are provided in Table A.3: HCP and NEPA Development Approach. In addition to development of the administrative and public draft HCP and EA, the ICF team will perform the following tasks:

Compile existing relevant data Determine permit duration in consultation with FWS Refine State Agency activities that have the potential to take covered bat species Determine anticipated levels of take of the covered species Identify and evaluate the measures the State Agencies will implement to avoid, minimize, and

mitigate potential direct and indirect impacts Develop a monitoring and implementation plan to ensure compliance and gauge the effects and

effectiveness of the HCP Determine compliance needs under NEPA Respond to public comments on the NEPA document Maintain and submit the working file in support of the administrative record

Collaborative Work Style with Partners

The ICF team will use a positive, problem-solving approach that encompasses internal processes, FWS involvement, and stakeholder input. With respect to all interactions involved in HCP development, ICF will aim to address multiple points of view and achieve consensus. Components of the process will include the following:

Sharing relevant information, which is critical for effective solutions Focusing on issues, not personalities Focusing on the present and future, not the past Focusing on the interests underlying the issues Focusing on mutual interests and helping to satisfy the other party’s interests as well as your own Developing options to satisfy those interests that should be evaluated by objective criteria, rather

than power or leverage

For critical decisions where it is difficult to obtain consensus, the Steering Committee shall have a pre-determined process which will be implemented to lead to a decision.

In addition to established processes for collaboration, the ICF team will maintain strong working relationships with FWS offices and staff. Central to ICF’s our approach is providing FWS with a technical document that is clear, well organized, and scientifically sound.

62

Table A.3: HCP/NEPA Development Approach

Table A.4: Three Tiered QA/QC Process

63

Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Technical Procedures

ICF uses mutually agreed-upon objectives. For this project, ICF will tailor their standard QA/QC program to directly respond to State Agency expectations and internal process. As illustrated in Table A.4, ICF’s 3 tiered system serve as the foundation for our QA/QC program and it will be modified as needed to reflect changing needs or requirements. The process consists of three tiers—technical team review, management review, and production/delivery review. The QA/QC program will be applied to a variety of services and deliverables, as listed below. Each step in the process includes documentation of the comments, response to comments, and sign off by the appropriate reviewer.

Tier 1

Technical document review. To ensure scientific accuracy and completeness, senior technical experts conduct peer reviews of all technical documents before they are submitted to the task order manager for review and approval. In addition, before documents are published, they are reviewed by a technical writer/editor to ensure analytical information in the document is presented in a readable format, is understandable to the general public, and is presented in a clear and informative writing style.

Regulatory process/permitting review. Our regulatory compliance experts review documents to ensure that they meet all content and procedural requirements and guidelines and are legally defensible according case law. QA/QC also includes review of permit applications and supporting analyses and documents.

Tier 2

During Tier 2, the task leads, the project manager, and the project director will review the product.

Tier 3

Tier 3 includes final review of the document by a technical editor, followed by a final check and approval of the document for distribution to the client. The project director will provide final approval for distribution to Michigan DNR and the FWS.

Project Controls

Cost Control and Scheduling ICF recognizes that adherence to project budgets and schedules is critical to meeting the needs of this project. ICF uses Deltek Vision, a customized accounting system that accurately allocates costs and provides real-time project management information by project task. The system is a flexible database with robust reporting functions that support a standard suite of reports and custom-designed reports. Weekly financial updates are available through the online system to project managers for each contract, task, and subtask. ICF will set up period of performance, budget, and hourly allocations for each staff member and subcontractor by task for the contract in the Deltek system. Project Manager Paola Bernazzani will communicate budgets and allocated hours to each of the staff members assigned to the project.

64

With oversight from Project Director Leo Lentsch, Paola will be responsible for tracking and maintaining the budget. She will track level of effort and costs incurred on a weekly basis through ICF’s online system. For a cost-sensitive project such as this one, the ICF system will provide cost-tracking data against a deliverable/milestone schedule for each task. This information will be used to prepare the monthly budget report for Michigan DNR. The system is designed to effectively provide multiple controls on project budgets and schedules. On a monthly basis, financial administrative staff will prepare a budget summary and invoice, which Paola will review and approve. She will also prepare a progress report to accompany these documents in our submittal to Michigan DNR. Paola will closely monitor the progress of the project in relation to the schedule, ensure that deadlines are met successfully, and respond to changes in events as they are encountered. She will ensure that the schedule is regularly updated. The schedule will include important milestones, such as dates of task initiation and completion, as well as due dates of major deliverables. Project schedule and budget control will occur in a hierarchical, two-step process. The first step will be a critical understanding of the scope of work that is required to successfully complete the project and a concomitant ability to accurately budget, in terms of time and money, for the cost-effective completion of the identified scope of work. ICF has found that most cost overruns and project delays result from a poor or unrealistic understanding of the required project scope and time and costs to complete. ICF’s experience in HCP development provides us with the ability to not only appropriately scope and budget to prepare the HCP and NEPA documents, but to provide meaningful guidance on anticipated estimates of subsequent costs and funding needs to complete the ITP process. Once an appropriate budget and schedule have been established, cost and schedule control requires hands-on participation of the ICF project manager, team leads, and project staff. ICF uses project management systems and a critical path-scheduling program such as Microsoft Project® to track and control the schedule of each significant activity. The system is an integrated cost accounting and project management program designed to rapidly and accurately track a project’s status. Costs accrued are entered into the accounting system each Monday in the form of labor hours from timesheets, invoices from subcontractors, and expenses from expense reports. This information can be accounted for in the system by task for each phase of the project. Following entry, budget data is available to project managers and staff in real time on a task-by-task basis and include the following: Weekly expenditures Expenditures to date Hours charged by individual Itemized accounting of subcontractors and other direct charges

With the project management system, the project manager and task leads can quickly monitor the performance of any task for the preceding week. In this way, ICF will efficiently and cost-effectively track the performance and budget status of all work assignments.

Access to and Use of Existing Biological Data As required by NEPA and the ESA, the ICF team will compile the best available scientific information to assess the impacts of natural resource and recreation facilities development, management, and maintenance on the northern long-eared bat. ICF will use or modify existing data obtained from the three State Agencies and data from other county, state, and national sources of natural resource data (see Table A.6 below) to characterize and map the affected environment for covered species. These data will be used to: Define the location of covered lands Describe the nature of covered activities Develop a programmatic effects analysis that considers impact mechanisms typical of natural

resource and recreational facilities development and management (e.g., habitat disturbance during

65

management or harvest of forest resources, road construction for timber sales, construction and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities, mineral extraction permitting)

Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to covered species

Define and describe additional measures necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to other resources identified in the scoping process

Accurate and adequate GIS mapping of resources will be critical to completing the EIS analysis and will largely be based on the existing GIS datasets identified in Table A.5. The ICF team’s ability to have available and incorporate data from the State Agencies, as well as county, state and federal GIS data sets, will be critical for reducing costs and meeting timelines. Accordingly, under this task, ICF will work with Michigan DNR as the lead agency to refine the sources of data and analytical approaches that may be used for the HCP, including data developed in support of any related analyses that may be applicable, such as forest inventory and analysis (FIA) datasets. To the extent necessary, ICF will identify data gaps and potential implications of these gaps on the HCP analysis, budget, and schedule. This understanding will be used to determine the most efficient process for accurately characterizing and mapping resources, including pertinent biological or physical resources and areas of potential disturbance. Potential natural resource development areas, identified by such measurements as past and anticipated future timber sales, parks and recreational facility siting and development, and mining permits, will also be included in the HCP to establish a baseline. Both AES and ESI will play a critical role in this process, given their extensive experience working in the three states and the Great Lakes region and their specific expertise with the ecosystems and land cover types, forest management and other development activities, human effects on the environment, and covered bat species that will be incorporated in the HCP.

Table A.5. Existing Data Sources Proposed for Use in the HCP

Resource Area Data Sources

Geology and Mineral Resources

Mine permit, reclamation, and mineral resource inventory for the three states; generalized geologic maps (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] and State Geologic Survey GIS data); hazard (fault zones, seismic hazards, landslide incidence) data (USGS and National Atlas of the U.S. [NAUS] GIS data)

Soils Soils inventories (STATSGO or SSURGO); Natural Resources Conservation Service GIS data)

Socioeconomics U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Energy Information Administration and state data and reports on demographics, employment and income, energy production, fiscal revenues and local livelihoods and values

Biological Resources FIA (Forest Service); county and state forest inventory and assessment databases; National Land Cover Database (EPA/USGS); Ecoregions (Forest Service and state natural resource agencies); State Wildlife Action Plans; Audubon Important Bird Areas; Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Conservation Areas; State Natural Heritage datasets and

Midwestern Mapping Experience

AES’ regional natural resource inventory and mapping project covered over 5,000 square miles in the Midwest.

66

Resource Area Data Sources NatureServe rare features data; other scientific and expert papers on wildlife, sensitive habitats, forest management practices.

Water Resources Regional and sub-regional watersheds (Hydrologic Unit System); National Wetland Inventory data; National Hydrography dataset; sensitive groundwater aquifers (EPA and NAUS GIS data); National Water Information System (USGS data); FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps

Land Ownership, Land Use, and Recreation

State GAP parcel dataset; county and state land parcel inventories for the three states; Utilities data (Environmental Systems Research Institute GIS data); roads and airport data (NAUS GIS data); federal land ownership data (NAUS GIS data); National Park Service ownership data; NRCS and State Department of Agriculture data

Visual Resources / Aesthetics BLM/Forest Service/National Park Service visual resource inventories; state DOT scenic highway guidelines

Air Quality Air quality attainment information (EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation GIS data)

Noise California Department of Transportation Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

National Register of Historic Places; SHPOs; federally listed tribes

Public Safety State repositories for hazardous waste; CERCLA contaminated sites database; National Priorities List

Climate Change North Central Forest Experiment Station state-level and regional reports on expected climate change effects to natural resources; Intergovernmental Plan on Climate Change and Midwest Regional Climate Center data estimates; state natural resource agency climate adaptation strategies

Contractual Changes and Amendments ICF’s experience preparing HCP and NEPA documents of all sizes and complexity allows us to accurately estimate anticipated scope, schedule, and cost when bidding on a project. However, during the course of a project, a variety of items can affect scope, schedule, and cost, including changes in regulations and policy, additional effort in response to public and cooperating agency input, changes in project descriptions, and other items. ICF will make every effort to maintain scope, schedule, and budget, but understand the importance of implementing a clear and agreed-upon process for dealing with unanticipated changes in project scope, schedule, and cost, if they do arise. ICF will use the following approach to identify and address requested changes in project scope, schedule, and budget.

Step 1 – Propose Change: As soon as a change in scope is identified or requested, ICF will fill out columns 1-5 in the change management matrix (Table A.6 below) identifying the proposed change in scope and the justification. ICF will send the change management matrix to the Michigan DNR project manager to review the proposed change in scope and justification.

67

Step 2 – Review of Change: The Michigan DNR project manager will review the proposed scope and justification and provide revisions or approval to ICF. ICF will document Michigan DNR approval in column 7 of the change management matrix.

Step 3 – Determination of Approval: Depending on the level of effort, cost, and other factors, Michigan DNR will determine if the change in scope can be approved via email or if a formal contract modification is required.

Step 4 – Documentation of Approval if Modification is not Required: If a formal contract modification is not required, ICF will document Michigan DNR approval of the change in scope and cost in column 7 of the change management matrix.

Step 5 – Preparation of Contract Modification: If a formal contract modification is required, ICF will prepare a detailed statement of work (SOW) for Michigan DNR review and approval to ensure the effort is consistent with expectations.

Step 6 – Clarify Implications: Michigan DNR will provide revisions or approval of the formal SOW for the modification.

Step 7 –Approval of Modification: Upon Michigan DNR approval of the SOW for the modification, ICF will transmit the SOW, the change management matrix, and a detailed cost estimate for review and approval. Upon approval, Michigan DNR will supply to ICF a modification for signature, and ICF and Michigan DNR will incorporate the modification into the contract.

Table A.6. Change Management Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reference1 Requirement2 Baseline3 Change Justification Cost and Schedule

Implications Change

Approval4

1 Reference # – Refers to the SOW task or other unique identifying feature of the proposed change. 2 Requirement – Refers to the requisite condition as described (or not) in the contract, SOW, or other feature identified under Reference #. 3 Baseline – Refers to the existing performance condition prior to implementing the proposed change. 4 Change Approval – Documents the date and authorized approval of the proposed change by members of the Change Control Board.

Schedule Our approach and scope are designed to meet an aggressive schedule and produce an administrative draft HCP in 12 months, final HCP within two years, and completed NEPA compliance within three years. ICF will ensure that the plan maintains momentum, costs are contained, and permits are issued as soon as practicable. ICF manages aggressive schedules by understanding the project’s critical paths, such as agency turnaround time, client needs, key issues and decisions, internal coordination, and mandatory comment periods. ICF will work in parallel on multiple issues and anticipate project needs before they occur. Our proposed schedule is presented in Attachment A. The ICF team has provided some minor modifications to the schedule to account for joint delivery of the NEPA and HCP documents, including the public draft documents.

68

4.02 Meetings

The Contractor must attend the following meetings: Every other week teleconference/webinar with MI DNR project manager Contractor should plan on attending a kick-off meeting in person within 60 days of contract signing. The Steering Committee will schedule other meetings, as it deems appropriate

The DNR Project Manager must approve in writing all contractor costs (travel, lodging, meals, staff time) in writing for meetings at least two weeks prior to any meeting. The Contractor will be expected to make travel arrangements as far in advance as possible, travel in the most economical means to ensure the most cost effective meetings as possible. The MIDNR will make arrangements and cover the cost of all web based meetings. 4.03 Reporting

The Contractor must submit, to the MI DNR project manager.

HCP Chapter Deadlines(chapters are spelled out in HCP Development – above):

Task 1 – Preliminary Administrative Draft for State Agency

Task 2 – Administrative Draft for Steering Committee

Task 3 – Public Review Draft

Task 4 – Final HCP

Chapter 2015 2016 2016 State

Review Draft 2017

Final Draft 2017

State Review Draft

2017 2018

Final Draft 2018

1 June July Jan July Nov July

2 Dec Jan Jan July Nov July

3 Jan Feb Feb Aug Dec Aug

4 Feb March Feb Aug Dec Aug

5 April May March Aug Jan Sept

6 May June March Aug Jan Sept

7 June June April July Nov Sept

8 June July April July Dec Sept

9 July July April July Dec Aug

10 Aug Aug April July

11 July July April July Dec Aug

Task 1 and 2 are to be completed by August 2016

Task 3 is to be completed by August 2017

69

Task 4 is to be completed by September 2018

Environmental Assessment (EA) Chapter Deadlines (chapters are spelled out in Section 3a: Prepare Administrative Draft EA)

Chapters Administrative Draft Public Draft

1 December 2016 September 2017

2 February 2017 September 2017

3 May 2017 September 2017

4 July 2014 September 2017




5.0 Pricing

5.01 Price Term

Pricing is firm for a 365 day period (“Pricing Period”). The first pricing period begins on the Effective Date. Adjustments may be requested, in writing, by either party and will take effect no earlier than the next Pricing Period.

5.02 Price Changes

Adjustments will be based on changes in actual Contractor costs. Any request must be supported by written evidence documenting the change in costs. The State may consider sources, such as the Consumer Price Index; Producer Price Index; other pricing indices as needed; economic and industry data; manufacturer or supplier letters noting the increase in pricing; and any other data the State deems relevant. Following the presentation of supporting documentation, both parties will have 30 days to review the information and prepare a written response. If the review reveals no need for modifications, pricing will remain unchanged unless mutually agreed to by the parties. If the review reveals that changes are needed, both parties will negotiate such changes, for no longer than 30 days, unless extended by mutual agreement. The Contractor remains responsible for Contract Activities at the current price for all orders received before the mutual execution of a Change Notice indicating the start date of the new Pricing Period. 6.0 Ordering

6.01 Authorizing Document

The state shall authorize and commit to the contractor by issuance of a purchase order.

7.0 Invoice and Payment

7.01 Invoice Requirements

All invoices submitted to the State must include: (a) date; (b) purchase order; (c) description of the Contract Activities; (d) price per item according to Exhibit C; and (f) total price.

70

If an invoice includes travel the Contractor must submit actual invoices for reimbursement for airfare, rental cars (including gas), parking, and lodging. Contractor must also include departure and return times for staff to attend meetings for the purpose of meal reimbursement. For mileage reimbursement requests, Contractor must provide departing city, destination and total mileage round trip.

7.02 Payment Methods

The State will process payment for services completed in the following manner: ICF may bill in the according to the pricing table in Attachment A at the following intervals:

Item: When payment will be made Meetings Expenses may be submitted monthly for payment Cost for Assessment and Recommendations Upon receipt and acceptance of report HCP Chapters May bill upon acceptance by chapter per task EA Chapters May bill upon acceptance by chapter for each draft

(Administrative and Public Review) Preparation for EA Meetings Upon completion of the first EA meeting 8.0 Liquidated Damages

Late or improper completion of HCP Chapters covered by Task 1, 3 and 4 in the pricing table will cause loss and damage to the State and it would be impracticable and extremely difficult to fix the actual damage sustained by the State. Therefore, if there is late or improper completion of the Contract Activities stated above the State is entitled to collect liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000 and an additional $100 per day for each day Contractor fails to remedy the late or improper completion of the Work.

Unauthorized Removal of the Project Manager will interfere with the timely and proper completion of the Contract, to the loss and damage of the State, and it would be impracticable and extremely difficult to fix the actual damage sustained by the State. Therefore, the State may assess liquidated damages against Contractor as specified below. The State is entitled to collect $1,000 per individual per day for the removal of the Project Manager without prior approval of the State. The State is entitled to collect $1,000 per individual per day for an unapproved or untrained key personnel replacement.

72

HCP for Four C

ave-Dw

elling Bat Species in M

ich2015Sept

Bi-W

eekly Teleconferences/Webinars

Executive S

umm

aryIntroduction and B

ackgroundP

roject Description/Activities C

overed by Perm

itE

nvironmental S

ettings/Biological R

esourcesP

otential Biological Im

pacts/Take Assessment

Conservation P

rogramP

lan Implem

entationFundingAlternativesLiterature C

itedAppendicesC

onsolidation Chapters

FWS

Review

(includes Regional O

ffice and DO

I Solicitor R

eview)

Revise H

CP

Chapters

Prepare P

ublic Draft H

CP

(Release w

ith NE

PA P

ublic Draft)

Com

ment P

eriod

HC

P C

omm

ent Response

Screen C

heck FinalFinal H

CP

(Release w

ith Final NE

PA)

Introduction and Purpose and N

eedP

roposed Action and AlternativesAffected E

nvironment

Consolidated C

haptersP

ublic D

raft EA

Revise E

A Chapters

Release P

ublic Draft (w

ith HC

P P

ublic Draft)

Public M

eetingsC

omm

ent Period on P

ublic Draft E

A (60 Days)

Finalize NE

AP

Docum

entC

ompile &

Response to P

ublic Com

ments

Written File for Adm

inistrative Report

LegendWriting/revisions

Public Comm

entState A

gency ReviewFW

S Review

Type To Be D

etermined

webex

Methods

Species Accounts

Proposed Schedule

Final HC

P

State Lands Only HCP NEPA EA Preparation

Adm

inistrative Draft E

A

Attachment A

Including Additional Lands Assessment

Adm

inistrative Draft H

CP

Chapters

To Be D

etermined

To Be D

etermined

Pub

lic Draft H

CP

AugSep

Oct

State Lands Only HCP Developm

entS

teering Com

mittee M

eetingsS

takeholder Com

mittee M

eetings

FebM

arApr

May

JunJul

JulAug

Sep2018

OctNov

DecJan

Kickoff M

eeting

2017Oct

NovDec

Jan2016

Mar

AprM

ayJun

JulAug

SepFeb

DecJan

FebM

arApr

May

Jun

Project Adm

inistrationM

ajor Deliverables & Milestones

Execute H

CP

contract

OctNov

Version (12/27/13) 73

Exhibit A

Assessment and Recommendations for including additional lands in the three state forest practices HCP: To include: Non-Federal Public Lands in all states, then private forestry lands in each of the three states.

TOTAL COST FOR ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS $24,545

HCP CHAPTERS

Task 1 Cost to Draft

Each Chapter Preliminary

Administrative Draft

For State Agency Review: Year 1

Task 2 Cost to Revise

Each Chapter Prepare

Administrative Draft

For Steering Committee

Review: Year 1

Task 3 Cost to Revise

Each Chapter Public Review

Draft For Public

Review: Year 2

Task 4 Cost to Finalize Each Chapter

Final Document Prepare Final HCP: Year 3

1. Executive Summary $3,440 $435 $2,900 $1,235

2. Introduction and Background $10,385 $940 $5,995 $2,280

3. Project Description/Activities Covered by Permit $41,150 $3,910 $25,628 $7,615 4. Environmental Settings/Biological Resources

$57,104

$6,919

$31,184

$16,375

5. Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment

$95,567

$7,871

$37,703

$17,745

6. Conservation Program $15,670 $1,690 $7,870 $4,965

7. Plan implementation $8,130 $900 $3,180 $2,260

8. Funding $7,710 $395 $925 $1,355

9. Alternatives $4,322 $650 $2,030 $2,300

10. Literature Cited $0 $0 $0 $0

11. Appendices $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL COST FOR HCP DOCUMENT $397,506 $35,658 $172,900 $81,728

HCP Development Assumptions: Costs for biweekly coordination calls with MIDNR PM are included in the costs of preparing the documents. Costs for biweekly calls exclude the cost of preparing agendas for the calls and call summaries that document

any PM decisions made during the calls (See general assumptions associated with meetings below). Costs for Steering Committee and Stakeholder Meetings are estimated separately (See meetings below). Costs for consolidating the chapters into a single document are included in the cost per chapter.

Version (12/27/13) 74

Costs for including private lands in the HCP are not included in the cost estimate to prepare the documents. Costs would be determined based on the results of the Optional Task to evaluate options for including private lands in the HCP.

Costs for including the USFWS solicitor and final Steering Committee review of the administrative draft are included in the estimate to prepare the public review draft.

Costs for printing for the Administrative Review, Public Review, and Final documents for distribution are not included.

Costs for maintaining websites, mailings, outreach, or newsletters are not included. MIDNR will consolidate all comments on draft documents.

NEPA BASE COSTS (STATE LAND ONLY)

Preparation for a EA Public Meeting (one-time fee) $9,750

Chapter Administrative Draft of EA Public Review Draft of EA

Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need

$6,815 $3,945

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives

$7,835 $11,195

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

$43,090 $27,730

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

$50,242 $21,577

Chapter 5: Cumulative Impacts

$7,200 $6,440

Chapter 6: List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted

$3,005 $3,125

Chapter 7: Literature Cited

$2,000 $940

TTOTAL COST FOR EA DOCUMENT $120,187 $74,952

NEPA EA Document Assumptions:

Costs for biweekly coordination calls with MIDNR PM are included in the costs of preparing the documents. Costs for biweekly calls exclude the cost of preparing agendas for the calls and call summaries that document

any PM decisions made during the calls (See general assumptions associated with meetings below). Costs for consolidating the chapters into a single document are included in the cost per chapter. As requested, we have assumed that an EA, not an EIS will be required by the USFWS. Costs for preparing a FONSI are not included. USFWS typically does this. Costs (labor and travel) associated with meetings (e.g., in person coordination, scoping, public) are not included. These

are detailed separately. Costs for printing of the Administrative Review and Public Review documents for distribution are not included. Costs for maintaining websites, mailings, outreach, or newsletters and not included. Costs for preparing a Final EA are not included. A final EA document is not required under NEPA. However, USFWS

may request this. NEPA compliance costs could change based on USFWS direction.

Version (12/27/13) 75

Meetings (Kick-off, Steering, Stakeholder and Public) (Cost per day Contract Staff to attend)

Lodging To be reimbursed at actual rate

Rental Car (includes gas) To be reimbursed at actual rate

Airfare To be reimbursed at actual rate

Parking To be reimbursed at actual rate

Mileage for non-rented vehicles $.390 per mile

Meals $44 per day ($10.25 each for breakfast and lunch, $23.50 for dinner)

Administrative mark up on travel costs 5% (based direct travel costs lodging, rental car, airfare, parking and mileage)

Labor costs will be billed at the hourly rate for the staff person who attends the meeting. Labor costs will include meeting time as well as actual travel time in the amount not to exceed 4 hours per staff person.

Labor Rates for meetings:

Individual Staff Working Title Team Assignment Labor Category Initial Hourly

Rate ICF STAFF

Leo D Lentsch Project Director HCP and NEPA Senior Project Director $225

David Zippin HCP QA/QC HCP Technical Director $225

Richard Starzak NEPA Cultural Resources NEPA EIS Technical

Director $225

David Coate NEPA Noise NEPA EIS Technical Director $225

John Hansel NEPA QA/QC NEPA Technical Director $225

David Ernst NEPA Air/Climate NEPA EIS Technical Director $225

Allan Pfister HCP QA/QC HCP Managing Consultant $210

Paola Bernazzani HCP Project Manager HCP Senior

Consultant III $205

Hova Woods NEPA Deputy Project Manager NEPA Managing

Consultant $185

David Johnson NEPA Biology Lead NEPA Senior Technical Analyst $185

Jennifer Piggott NEPA Public Outreach NEPA Senior

Consultant III $185

Version (12/27/13) 76

April Zohn NEPA QA/QC NEPA Senior Consultant III $185

Nick Dennis HCP Funding Lead HCP Senior Consultant II $170

Alex Uriate NEPA Social and EJ NEPA Senior Consultant I $155

T Mendoza NEPA Public Involvement NEPA Senior

Consultant I $155

Madeline Terry NEPA Project Manager NEPA Managing

Consultant $150

Lucas Bare HCP Modeling Support HCP Senior

Consultant II $150

Shawna Barry HCP Deputy Project Manager HCP Senior

Consultant I $135

Brent Read NEPA GIS NEPA EIS Senior Consultant II $135

Jessica Feldman NEPA Cultural NEPA EIS Senior Consultant II $135

Nick Baker NEPA Biology NEPA Senior Consultant II $125

Todd Jones HCP Technical Support HCP Associate

Consultant I $115

Generic Support Staff

HCP Technical Support HCP Associate

Consultant I $115

Anne Morley Graphic Support NEPA EIS Senior Consultant II $115

Generic Support Staff HCP GIS HCP GIS Coordinator $105

Elyse Mize NEPA EIS Project Coordinator NEPA EIS Senior

Consultant I $105

Generic Support Staff

NEPA Publication Specialist NEPA EIS Technical Editor $105

John Rogers NEPA EIS

Administrative File and Research

NEPA EIS Associate Consultant II $95

Generic Technical Editor

HCP and NEPA Documents HCP and NEPA Technical Editor $95

Generic Invoicing Support HCP and NEPA HCP and NEPA Finance Project

Administrator $70

ESI STAFF* Virgil Brack NEPA Biology NEPA Lead Biologist $183.75

Dale Sparks HCP Covered Species Lead HCP Lead Biologist $157.50

Wendy Baltzersen NEPA Biology NEPA Senior Biologist $157.50

Jacques Veilleux HCP Covered Species Biologist HCP Senior Biologist $147

Lynn Robbins HCP Biologist HCP Biologist $131.25 Lawrence Brewer NEPA Biologist NEPA Biologist $131.25

Version (12/27/13) 77

Rob Dean HCP Support Biologist HCP Biologist $110.25

John Spaeth NEPA Support Biologist NEPA Biologist $110.25

Jason Damm HCP Support Staff HCP Biologist $94.50 Greg Anderson HCP Support Staff HCP Biologist $86.10 Mike Bunning NEPA Support Staff NEPA Biologist $86.10

Jo Gaofalo HCP Support Staff HCP Biologist $75.60 David Tull HCP Support Staff HCP Biologist $68.25

AES STAFF*

Kim Chapman Lead HCP Biologist HCP Lead Avian Biologist $183.75

John Larson NEPA Wetland Biology NEPA Wetland

Biologist $157.50

Jason Carlson HCP Biologist HCP Biologist $120.75 Genesis Mickel NEPA Biology NEPA Biologist $120.75 David Aslesen HCP Biologist HCP Biologist $110.25

F4 Tech/Forestry Innovation*

Craig Hedman HCP Covered Activities HCP Forester $204.75

Version (12/27/13) 78

STATE OF MICHIGAN

STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS This STANDARD CONTRACT (“Contract”) is agreed to between the State of Michigan (the “State”) and ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (An ICF International Company), a Limited Liability Company. This Contract is effective on October 6, 2015 (“Effective Date”), and unless terminated, expires on September 30, 2018. This Contract may be renewed for up to two (2) additional one (1) year period(s). Renewal must be by written agreement of the parties and will automatically extend the Term of this Contract. The parties agree as follows:

1. Duties of Contractor. Contractor must perform the services and provide the deliverables described in Exhibit A – Statement of Work (the “Contract Activities”). An obligation to provide delivery of any commodity is considered a service and is a Contract Activity. Contractor must furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and supplies necessary for the performance of the Contract Activities, and meet operational standards, unless otherwise specified in Exhibit A.

Contractor must: (a) perform the Contract Activities in a timely, professional, safe, and workmanlike manner consistent with standards in the trade, profession, or industry; (b) meet or exceed the performance and operational standards, and specifications of the Contract; (c) provide all Contract Activities in good quality, with no material defects; (d) not interfere with the State’s operations; (e) obtain and maintain all necessary licenses, permits or other authorizations necessary for the performance of the Contract; (f) cooperate with the State, including the State’s quality assurance personnel, and any third party to achieve the objectives of the Contract; (g) return to the State any State-furnished equipment or other resources in the same condition as when provided when no longer required for the Contract; (h) not make any media releases without prior written authorization from the State; (i) assign to the State any claims resulting from state or federal antitrust violations to the extent that those violations concern materials or services supplied by third parties toward fulfillment of the Contract; (j) comply with all State physical and IT security policies and standards which will be made available upon request; and (k) provide the State priority in performance of the Contract except as mandated by federal disaster response requirements. Any breach under this paragraph is considered a material breach. Contractor must also be clearly identifiable while on State property by wearing identification issued by the State, and clearly identify themselves whenever making contact with the State.

2. Notices. All notices and other communications required or permitted under this Contract must be in writing and

will be considered given and received: (a) when verified by written receipt if sent by courier; (b) when actually received if sent by mail without verification of receipt; or (c) when verified by automated receipt or electronic logs if sent by facsimile or email.

If to State: If to Contractor: Jana Harding-Bishop 525 W. Allegan St Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected] 517-284-5938

Jodi Young PO Box 654 Penngrove, CA 94951 [email protected] 707-992-0768


Version (12/27/13) 79

3. Contract Administrator. The Contract Administrator for each party is the only person authorized to modify any

terms and conditions of this Contract (each a “Contract Administrator”):

State: Contractor: Jana Harding-Bishop 525 W. Allegan St Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected] 517-284-5938

Jodi Young PO Box 654 Penngrove, CA 94951 [email protected] 707-992-0768

4. Project Manager. The Project Manager for each party will monitor and coordinate the day-to-day activities of

the Contract (each a “Project Manager”):

State: Contractor: Mary Rabe 525 West Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48909-7944 [email protected] 517-243-3122

Leo Lentsch 8310 S Valley Hwy #240 Englewood, CO 80112 [email protected] 843-544-0125

5. Performance Guarantee. Contractor must at all times have financial resources sufficient, in the opinion of the

State, to ensure performance of the Contract and must provide proof upon request.

6. Insurance Requirements. Contractor must maintain the insurances identified below and is responsible for all deductibles. All required insurance must: (a) protect the State from claims that may arise out of, are alleged to arise out of, or result from Contractor's or a subcontractor's performance; (b) be primary and non-contributing to any comparable liability insurance (including self-insurance) carried by the State; and (c) be provided by an company with an A.M. Best rating of "A" or better and a financial size of VII or better.

Insurance Type Additional Requirements

Commercial General Liability Insurance

Minimal Limits: $1,000,000 Each Occurrence Limit $1,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury Limit $2,000,000 General Aggregate Limit $2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Deductible Maximum: $50,000 Each Occurrence

Contractor must have their policy endorsed to add “the State of Michigan, its departments, divisions, agencies, offices, commissions, officers, employees, and agents” as additional insureds using endorsement CG 20 10 11 85, or both CG 2010 07 04 and CG 2037 07 0.

Automobile Liability Insurance

Minimal Limits: $1,000,000 Per Occurrence

Workers' Compensation Insurance

Minimal Limits: Coverage according to applicable laws governing work activities.

Waiver of subrogation, except where waiver is prohibited by law.

Employers Liability Insurance

Minimal Limits: $500,000 Each Accident $500,000 Each Employee by Disease $500,000 Aggregate Disease.

Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance



Version (12/27/13) 80

Minimal Limits: $3,000,000 Each Occurrence $3,000,000 Annual Aggregate Deductible Maximum: $50,000 Per Loss

If any of the required policies provide claim-made coverage, the Contractor must: (a) provide coverage with a retroactive date before the effective date of the contract or the beginning of Contract Activities; (b) maintain coverage and provide evidence of coverage for at least three (3) years after completion of the Contract Activities; and (c) if coverage is canceled or not renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, Contractor must purchase extended reporting coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of work. Contractor must: (a) provide insurance certificates to the Contract Administrator, containing the agreement or purchase order number, at Contract formation and within 20 calendar days of the expiration date of the applicable policies; (b) require that subcontractors maintain the required insurances contained in this Section; (c) notify the Contract Administrator within 5 business days if any insurance is cancelled; and (d) waive all rights against the State for damages covered by insurance. Failure to maintain the required insurance does not limit this waiver. This Section is not intended to and is not be construed in any manner as waiving, restricting or limiting the liability of either party for any obligations under this Contract (including any provisions hereof requiring Contractor to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the State).

7. Administrative Fee and Reporting – N/A.

8. Extended Purchasing Program – N/A

9. Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent contractor and assumes all rights, obligations and

liabilities set forth in this Contract. Contractor, its employees, and agents will not be considered employees of the State. No partnership or joint venture relationship is created by virtue of this Contract. Contractor, and not the State, is responsible for the payment of wages, benefits and taxes of Contractor’s employees and any subcontractors. Prior performance does not modify Contractor’s status as an independent contractor. Contractor hereby acknowledges that the State is and will be the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the Contract Activities and all associated intellectual property rights, if any. Such Contract Activities are works made for hire as defined in Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976. To the extent any Contract Activities and related intellectual property do not qualify as works made for hire under the Copyright Act, Contractor will, and hereby does, immediately on its creation, assign, transfer and otherwise convey to the State, irrevocably and in perpetuity, throughout the universe, all right, title and interest in and to the Contract Activities, including all intellectual property rights therein.

10. Subcontracting. Contractor may not delegate any of its obligations under the Contract without the prior written approval of the State. Contractor must notify the State at least 90 calendar days before the proposed delegation, and provide the State any information it requests to determine whether the delegation is in its best interest. If approved, Contractor must: (a) be the sole point of contact regarding all contractual matters, including payment and charges for all Contract Activities; (b) make all payments to the subcontractor; and (c) incorporate the terms and conditions contained in this Contract in any subcontract with a subcontractor. Contractor remains responsible for the completion of the Contract Activities, compliance with the terms of this Contract, and the acts and omissions of the subcontractor. The State, in its sole discretion, may require the replacement of any subcontractor.

11. Staffing. The State’s Contract Administrator may require Contractor to remove or reassign personnel by providing a notice to Contractor.

12. Background Checks. Upon request, Contractor must perform background checks on all employees and subcontractors and its employees prior to their assignment. The scope is at the discretion of the State and

Version (12/27/13) 81

documentation must be provided as requested. Contractor is responsible for all costs associated with the requested background checks. The State, in its sole discretion, may also perform background checks.

13. Assignment. Contractor may not assign this Contract to any other party without the prior approval of the State. Upon notice to Contractor, the State, in its sole discretion, may assign in whole or in part, its rights or responsibilities under this Contract to any other party. If the State determines that a novation of the Contract to a third party is necessary, Contractor will agree to the novation, provide all necessary documentation and signatures, and continue to perform, with the third party, its obligations under the Contract.

14. Change of Control. Contractor will notify, at least 90 calendar days before the effective date, the State of a

change in Contractor’s organizational structure or ownership. For purposes of this Contract, a change in control means any of the following: (a) a sale of more than 50% of Contractor’s stock; (b) a sale of substantially all of Contractor’s assets; (c) a change in a majority of Contractor’s board members; (d) consummation of a merger or consolidation of Contractor with any other entity; (e) a change in ownership through a transaction or series of transactions; (f) or the board (or the stockholders) approves a plan of complete liquidation. A change of control does not include any consolidation or merger effected exclusively to change the domicile of Contractor, or any transaction or series of transactions principally for bona fide equity financing purposes. In the event of a change of control, Contractor must require the successor to assume this Contract and all of its obligations under this Contract.

15. Ordering. Contractor is not authorized to begin performance until receipt of authorization as identified in Exhibit

A.

16. Acceptance. Contract Activities are subject to inspection and testing by the State within 30 calendar days of the State’s receipt of them (“State Review Period”), unless otherwise provided in Exhibit A. If the Contract Activities are not fully accepted by the State, the State will notify Contractor by the end of the State Review Period that either: (a) the Contract Activities are accepted, but noted deficiencies must be corrected; or (b) the Contract Activities are rejected. If the State finds material deficiencies, it may: (i) reject the Contract Activities without performing any further inspections; (ii) demand performance at no additional cost; or (iii) terminate this Contract in accordance with Section 23, Termination for Cause.

Within 10 business days from the date of Contractor’s receipt of notification of acceptance with deficiencies or rejection of any Contract Activities, Contractor must cure, at no additional cost, the deficiency and deliver unequivocally acceptable Contract Activities to the State. If acceptance with deficiencies or rejection of the Contract Activities impacts the content or delivery of other non-completed Contract Activities, the parties’ respective Project Managers must determine an agreed to number of days for re-submission that minimizes the overall impact to the Contract. However, nothing herein affects, alters, or relieves Contractor of its obligations to correct deficiencies in accordance with the time response standards set forth in this Contract.

If Contractor is unable or refuses to correct the deficiency within the time response standards set forth in this Contract, the State may cancel the order in whole or in part. The State, or a third party identified by the State, may perform the Contract Activities and recover the difference between the cost to cure and the Contract price plus an additional 10% administrative fee.

17. Delivery - N/A

18. Risk of Loss and Title – N/A

19. Warranty Period - N/A

20. Terms of Payment. Invoices must conform to the requirements communicated from time-to-time by the State. All undisputed amounts are payable within 45 days of the State’s receipt. Contractor may only charge for Contract Activities performed as specified in Exhibit A. Invoices must include an itemized statement of all charges. The State is exempt from State sales tax for direct purchases and may be exempt from federal excise tax, if Services purchased under this Agreement are for the State’s exclusive use. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all prices are inclusive of taxes, and Contractor is responsible for all sales, use and excise taxes, and any other similar taxes, duties and charges of any kind imposed by any federal, state, or local governmental entity on any amounts payable by the State under this Contract.

Version (12/27/13) 82

The State has the right to withhold payment of any disputed amounts until the parties agree as to the validity of the disputed amount. The State will notify Contractor of any dispute within a reasonable time. Payment by the State will not constitute a waiver of any rights as to Contractor’s continuing obligations, including claims for deficiencies or substandard Contract Activities. Contractor’s acceptance of final payment by the State constitutes a waiver of all claims by Contractor against the State for payment under this Contract, other than those claims previously filed in writing on a timely basis and still disputed. The State will only disburse payments under this Contract through Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). Contractor must register with the State at http://www.michigan.gov/cpexpress to receive electronic fund transfer payments. If Contractor does not register, the State is not liable for failure to provide payment. Without prejudice to any other right or remedy it may have, the State reserves the right to set off at any time any amount then due and owing to it by Contractor against any amount payable by the State to Contractor under this Contract.

21. Liquidated Damages. Liquidated damages, if applicable, will be assessed as described in Exhibit A.

22. Stop Work Order. The State may suspend any or all activities under the Contract at any time. The State will

provide Contractor a written stop work order detailing the suspension. Contractor must comply with the stop work order upon receipt. Within 90 calendar days, or any longer period agreed to by Contractor, the State will either: (a) issue a notice authorizing Contractor to resume work, or (b) terminate the Contract or purchase order. The State will not pay for Contract Activities, Contractor’s lost profits, or any additional compensation during a stop work period.

23. Termination for Cause. The State may terminate this Contract for cause, in whole or in part, if Contractor, as

determined by the State: (a) endangers the value, integrity, or security of any location, data, or personnel; (b) becomes insolvent, petitions for bankruptcy court proceedings, or has an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding filed against it by any creditor; (c) engages in any conduct that may expose the State to liability; (d) breaches any of its material duties or obligations; or (e) fails to cure a breach within the time stated in a notice of breach. Any reference to specific breaches being material breaches within this Contract will not be construed to mean that other breaches are not material.

If the State terminates this Contract under this Section, the State will issue a termination notice specifying whether Contractor must: (a) cease performance immediately, or (b) continue to perform for a specified period. If it is later determined that Contractor was not in breach of the Contract, the termination will be deemed to have been a Termination for Convenience, effective as of the same date, and the rights and obligations of the parties will be limited to those provided in Section 24, Termination for Convenience.

The State will only pay for amounts due to Contractor for Contract Activities accepted by the State on or before the date of termination, subject to the State’s right to set off any amounts owed by the Contractor for the State’s reasonable costs in terminating this Contract. The Contractor must pay all reasonable costs incurred by the State in terminating this Contract for cause, including administrative costs, attorneys’ fees, court costs, transition costs, and any costs the State incurs to procure the Contract Activities from other sources.

24. Termination for Convenience. The State may immediately terminate this Contract in whole or in part without penalty and for any reason, including but not limited to, appropriation or budget shortfalls. The termination notice will specify whether Contractor must: (a) cease performance of the Contract Activities immediately, or (b) continue to perform the Contract Activities in accordance with Section 25, Transition Responsibilities. If the State terminates this Contract for convenience, the State will pay all reasonable costs, as determined by the State, for State approved Transition Responsibilities.

25. Transition Responsibilities. Upon termination or expiration of this Contract for any reason, Contractor must, for a period of time specified by the State (not to exceed 90 calendar days), provide all reasonable transition assistance requested by the State, to allow for the expired or terminated portion of the Contract Activities to continue without interruption or adverse effect, and to facilitate the orderly transfer of such Contract Activities to the State or its designees. Such transition assistance may include, but is not limited to: (a) continuing to perform the Contract Activities at the established Contract rates; (b) taking all reasonable and necessary measures to transition performance of the work, including all applicable Contract Activities, training, equipment, software, leases, reports and other documentation, to the State or the State’s designee; (c) taking all necessary and

http://www.michigan.gov/cpexpress

Version (12/27/13) 83

appropriate steps, or such other action as the State may direct, to preserve, maintain, protect, or return to the State all materials, data, property, and confidential information provided directly or indirectly to Contractor by any entity, agent, vendor, or employee of the State; (d) transferring title in and delivering to the State, at the State’s discretion, all completed or partially completed deliverables prepared under this Contract as of the Contract termination date; and (e) preparing an accurate accounting from which the State and Contractor may reconcile all outstanding accounts (collectively, “Transition Responsibilities”). This Contract will automatically be extended through the end of the transition period.

26. General Indemnification. Contractor must defend, indemnify and hold the State, its departments, divisions, agencies, offices, commissions, officers, and employees harmless, without limitation, from and against any and all actions, claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, attorney fees, and expenses (including those required to establish the right to indemnification), arising out of or relating to: (a) any breach by Contractor (or any of Contractor’s employees, agents, subcontractors, or by anyone else for whose acts any of them may be liable) of any of the promises, agreements, representations, warranties, or insurance requirements contained in this Contract; (b) any infringement, misappropriation, or other violation of any intellectual property right or other right of any third party; (c) any bodily injury, death, or damage to real or tangible personal property occurring wholly or in part due to action or inaction by Contractor (or any of Contractor’s employees, agents, subcontractors, or by anyone else for whose acts any of them may be liable); and (d) any acts or omissions of Contractor (or any of Contractor’s employees, agents, subcontractors, or by anyone else for whose acts any of them may be liable). The State will notify Contractor in writing if indemnification is sought; however, failure to do so will not relieve Contractor, except to the extent that Contractor is materially prejudiced. Contractor must, to the satisfaction of the State, demonstrate its financial ability to carry out these obligations. The State is entitled to: (i) regular updates on proceeding status; (ii) participate in the defense of the proceeding; (iii) employ its own counsel; and to (iv) retain control of the defense if the State deems necessary. Contractor will not, without the State’s written consent (not to be unreasonably withheld), settle, compromise, or consent to the entry of any judgment in or otherwise seek to terminate any claim, action, or proceeding. To the extent that any State employee, official, or law may be involved or challenged, the State may, at its own expense, control the defense of that portion of the claim. Any litigation activity on behalf of the State, or any of its subdivisions under this Section, must be coordinated with the Department of Attorney General. An attorney designated to represent the State may not do so until approved by the Michigan Attorney General and appointed as a Special Assistant Attorney General.

27. Infringement Remedies. If, in either party’s opinion, any piece of equipment, software, commodity, or service

supplied by Contractor or its subcontractors, or its operation, use or reproduction, is likely to become the subject of a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret infringement claim, Contractor must, at its expense: (a) procure for the State the right to continue using the equipment, software, commodity, or service, or if this option is not reasonably available to Contractor, (b) replace or modify the same so that it becomes non-infringing; or (c) accept its return by the State with appropriate credits to the State against Contractor’s charges and reimburse the State for any losses or costs incurred as a consequence of the State ceasing its use and returning it.

28. Limitation of Liability. The State is not liable for consequential, incidental, indirect, or special damages, regardless of the nature of the action.

29. Disclosure of Litigation, or Other Proceeding. Contractor must notify the State within 14 calendar days of receiving notice of any litigation, investigation, arbitration, or other proceeding (collectively, “Proceeding”) involving Contractor, a subcontractor, or an officer or director of Contractor or subcontractor, that arises during the term of the Contract, including: (a) a criminal Proceeding; (b) a parole or probation Proceeding; (c) a Proceeding under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; (d) a civil Proceeding involving: (1) a claim that might reasonably be expected to adversely affect Contractor’s viability or financial stability; or (2) a governmental or public entity’s claim or written allegation of fraud; or (e) a Proceeding involving any license that Contractor is required to possess in order to perform under this Contract.

30. State Data. All data and information provided to Contractor by or on behalf of the State, and all data and

information derived therefrom, is the exclusive property of the State (“State Data”); this definition is to be construed as broadly as possible. Upon request, Contractor must provide to the State, or a third party designated by the State, all State Data within 10 calendar days of the request and in the format requested by the

Version (12/27/13) 84

State. Contractor will assume all costs incurred in compiling and supplying State Data. No State Data may be used for any marketing purposes.

31. Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information. The parties acknowledge that each party may be exposed to or

acquire communication or data of the other party that is confidential, privileged communication not intended to be disclosed to third parties. The provisions of this Section survive the termination of this Contract.

a. Meaning of Confidential Information. For the purposes of this Contract, the term “Confidential Information” means all information and documentation of a party that: (a) has been marked “confidential” or with words of similar meaning, at the time of disclosure by such party; (b) if disclosed orally or not marked “confidential” or with words of similar meaning, was subsequently summarized in writing by the disclosing party and marked “confidential” or with words of similar meaning; and, (c) should reasonably be recognized as confidential information of the disclosing party. The term “Confidential Information” does not include any information or documentation that was: (a) subject to disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); (b) already in the possession of the receiving party without an obligation of confidentiality; (c) developed independently by the receiving party, as demonstrated by the receiving party, without violating the disclosing party’s proprietary rights; (d) obtained from a source other than the disclosing party without an obligation of confidentiality; or, (e) publicly available when received, or thereafter became publicly available (other than through any unauthorized disclosure by, through, or on behalf of, the receiving party). For purposes of this Contract, in all cases and for all matters, State Data is deemed to be Confidential Information.

b. Obligation of Confidentiality. The parties agree to hold all Confidential Information in strict confidence and not to copy, reproduce, sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, give or disclose such Confidential Information to third parties other than employees, agents, or subcontractors of a party who have a need to know in connection with this Contract or to use such Confidential Information for any purposes whatsoever other than the performance of this Contract. The parties agree to advise and require their respective employees, agents, and subcontractors of their obligations to keep all Confidential Information confidential. Disclosure to a subcontractor is permissible where: (a) use of a subcontractor is authorized under this Contract; (b) the disclosure is necessary or otherwise naturally occurs in connection with work that is within the subcontractor's responsibilities; and (c) Contractor obligates the subcontractor in a written contract to maintain the State's Confidential Information in confidence. At the State's request, any employee of Contractor or any subcontractor may be required to execute a separate agreement to be bound by the provisions of this Section.

c. Cooperation to Prevent Disclosure of Confidential Information. Each party must use its best efforts to assist the other party in identifying and preventing any unauthorized use or disclosure of any Confidential Information. Without limiting the foregoing, each party must advise the other party immediately in the event either party learns or has reason to believe that any person who has had access to Confidential Information has violated or intends to violate the terms of this Contract and each party will cooperate with the other party in seeking injunctive or other equitable relief against any such person.

d. Remedies for Breach of Obligation of Confidentiality. Each party acknowledges that breach of its obligation of confidentiality may give rise to irreparable injury to the other party, which damage may be inadequately compensable in the form of monetary damages. Accordingly, a party may seek and obtain injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other legal remedies which may be available, to include, in the case of the State, at the sole election of the State, the immediate termination, without liability to the State, of this Contract or any Statement of Work corresponding to the breach or threatened breach.

e. Surrender of Confidential Information upon Termination. Upon termination of this Contract or a Statement of Work, in whole or in part, each party must, within 5 calendar days from the date of termination, return to the other party any and all Confidential Information received from the other party, or created or received by a party on behalf of the other party, which are in such party’s possession, custody, or control; provided, however, that Contractor must return State Data to the State following the timeframe and procedure described further in this Contract. Should Contractor or the State determine that the return of any non-State Data Confidential Information is not feasible, such party must destroy

Version (12/27/13) 85

the non-State Data Confidential Information and must certify the same in writing within 5 calendar days from the date of termination to the other party.

32. Data Privacy and Information Security – N/A

33. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard – N/A 34. CEPAS Electronic Receipt Processing Standard – N/A

35. Records Maintenance, Inspection, Examination, and Audit. The State or its designee may audit Contractor

to verify compliance with this Contract. Contractor must retain, and provide to the State or its designee and the auditor general upon request, all financial and accounting records related to the Contract through the term of the Contract and for 4 years after the latter of termination, expiration, or final payment under this Contract or any extension (“Audit Period”). If an audit, litigation, or other action involving the records is initiated before the end of the Audit Period, Contractor must retain the records until all issues are resolved.

Within 10 calendar days of providing notice, the State and its authorized representatives or designees have the right to enter and inspect Contractor's premises or any other places where Contract Activities are being performed, and examine, copy, and audit all records related to this Contract. Contractor must cooperate and provide reasonable assistance. If any financial errors are revealed, the amount in error must be reflected as a credit or debit on subsequent invoices until the amount is paid or refunded. Any remaining balance at the end of the Contract must be paid or refunded within 45 calendar days. This Section applies to Contractor, any parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization of Contractor, and any subcontractor that performs Contract Activities in connection with this Contract.

36. Warranties and Representations. Contractor represents and warrants: (a) Contractor is the owner or licensee

of any Contract Activities that it licenses, sells, or develops and Contractor has the rights necessary to convey title, ownership rights, or licensed use; (b) all Contract Activities are delivered free from any security interest, lien, or encumbrance and will continue in that respect; (c) the Contract Activities will not infringe the patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of any third party; (d) Contractor must assign or otherwise transfer to the State or its designee any manufacturer's warranty for the Contract Activities; (e) the Contract Activities are merchantable and fit for the specific purposes identified in the Contract; (f) the Contract signatory has the authority to enter into this Contract; (g) all information furnished by Contractor in connection with the Contract fairly and accurately represents Contractor's business, properties, finances, and operations as of the dates covered by the information, and Contractor will inform the State of any material adverse changes; and (h) all information furnished and representations made in connection with the award of this Contract is true, accurate, and complete, and contains no false statements or omits any fact that would make the information misleading. A breach of this Section is considered a material breach of this Contract, which entitles the State to terminate this Contract under Section 23, Termination for Cause.

37. Conflicts and Ethics. Contractor will uphold high ethical standards and is prohibited from: (a) holding or acquiring an interest that would conflict with this Contract; (b) doing anything that creates an appearance of impropriety with respect to the award or performance of the Contract; (c) attempting to influence or appearing to influence any State employee by the direct or indirect offer of anything of value; or (d) paying or agreeing to pay any person, other than employees and consultants working for Contractor, any consideration contingent upon the award of the Contract. Contractor must immediately notify the State of any violation or potential violation of these standards. This Section applies to Contractor, any parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization of Contractor, and any subcontractor that performs Contract Activities in connection with this Contract.

38. Compliance with Laws. Contractor must comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations.

39. Prevailing Wage – N/A

40. Nondiscrimination. Under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101, et seq., and the

Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1101, et seq., Contractor and its subcontractors agree not to discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or a matter directly or indirectly related to employment, because of race,

Version (12/27/13) 86

color, religion, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, marital status, or mental or physical disability. Breach of this covenant is a material breach of this Contract.

41. Unfair Labor Practice. Under MCL 423.324, the State may void any Contract with a Contractor or

subcontractor who appears on the Unfair Labor Practice register compiled under MCL 423.322. 42. Governing Law. This Contract is governed, construed, and enforced in accordance with Michigan law,

excluding choice-of-law principles, and all claims relating to or arising out of this Contract are governed by Michigan law, excluding choice-of-law principles. Any dispute arising from this Contract must be resolved in Michigan Court of Claims. Contractor consents to venue in Ingham County, and waives any objections, such as lack of personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens. Contractor must appoint agents in Michigan to receive service of process.

43. Non-Exclusivity. Nothing contained in this Contract is intended nor will be construed as creating any

requirements contract with Contractor. This Contract does not restrict the State or its agencies from acquiring similar, equal, or like Contract Activities from other sources.

44. Force Majeure. Neither party will be in breach of this Contract because of any failure arising from any disaster

or acts of god that are beyond their control and without their fault or negligence. Each party will use commercially reasonable efforts to resume performance. Contractor will not be relieved of a breach or delay caused by its subcontractors. If immediate performance is necessary to ensure public health and safety, the State may immediately contract with a third party.

45. Dispute Resolution. The parties will endeavor to resolve any Contract dispute in accordance with this

provision. The dispute will be referred to the parties' respective Contract Administrators or Project Managers. Such referral must include a description of the issues and all supporting documentation. The parties must submit the dispute to a senior executive if unable to resolve the dispute within 15 business days. The parties will continue performing while a dispute is being resolved, unless the dispute precludes performance. A dispute involving payment does not preclude performance.

Litigation to resolve the dispute will not be instituted until after the dispute has been elevated to the parties’ senior executive and either concludes that resolution is unlikely, or fails to respond within 15 business days. The parties are not prohibited from instituting formal proceedings: (a) to avoid the expiration of statute of limitations period; (b) to preserve a superior position with respect to creditors; or (c) where a party makes a determination that a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy. This Section does not limit the State’s right to terminate the Contract.

46. Media Releases. News releases (including promotional literature and commercial advertisements) pertaining to

the Contract or project to which it relates must not be made without prior written State approval, and then only in accordance with the explicit written instructions of the State.

47. Website Incorporation. The State is not bound by any content on Contractor’s website unless expressly incorporated directly into this Contract.

48. Order of Precedence. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of the Contract, the exhibits, a purchase order, or an amendment, the order of precedence is: (a) the purchase order; (b) the amendment; (c) Exhibit A; (d) any other exhibits; and (e) the Contract.

49. Severability. If any part of this Contract is held invalid or unenforceable, by any court of competent jurisdiction,

that part will be deemed deleted from this Contract and the severed part will be replaced by agreed upon language that achieves the same or similar objectives. The remaining Contract will continue in full force and effect.

50. Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of this Contract will not constitute a waiver.

51. Survival. The provisions of this Contract that impose continuing obligations, including warranties and

representations, termination, transition, insurance coverage, indemnification, and confidentiality, will survive the expiration or termination of this Contract.

Version (12/27/13) 87

52. Entire Contract and Modification. This Contract is the entire agreement and replaces all previous agreements between the parties for the Contract Activities. This Contract may not be amended except by signed agreement between the parties (a “Contract Change Notice”).