Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact South Fowl ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Purpose of and Need for Action I have considered several factors when thinking through this project and why it needs to be done. I have not found any absolute legal requirement that the Forest Service provide further access to the Fowl Lakes. However, as mentioned above, snowmobiling is legal on both Fowl Lakes and on the Canadian side of the border lakes to the west. There is a section of the ’78 Act that did weigh into my thinking. Sec. 18. (a) EXPANSION OF RECREATION PROGRAMS. The Secretary is authorized and directed to expedite and intensify the program of dispersed outdoor recreation development on the Superior National Forest outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, as designated by this Act. The Secretary shall consider in such new program development the need for the following: additional snowmobile trails, particularly those now planned or under construction; remote campsites on lightly developed lakes; and lake access sites and parking facilities to provide motorized recreation experiences similar to those previously available in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. While this does not necessarily compel a particular action in a particular place, in my mind Congress encouraged the Forest Service to take a hard look at improving facilities outside the BWCAW especially when removing similar facilities from within the Wilderness. Also as mentioned, doing nothing would leave an untenable situation with the narrow trail from South Fowl Road to the Lake and the steep hill on the Arrowhead Trail as it heads south of McFarland Lake. Therefore, I have determined that action is appropriate. The purpose of this project is to develop safe, adequate and legal snowmobile access from the McFarland Lake area to South Fowl Lake on the Gunflint Ranger District, Superior National Forest. This trail would provide public access to the border lakes without threatening private land or damaging the wilderness resources. A route designated by the Forest Service, in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR and Cook County, better handles existing use on a single preferred route away from other crosscountry alternatives. Forest Plan Direction The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) amended the Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) to require each National Forest prepare, maintain and as appropriate revise a Land Management Plan (PL 93-378 sec 6(a)). Pursuant to PL 93-378 Sec 6(e) Forest Plans shall provide for multiple use and Sustained yield of product and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained- Yield Act of 1960 and, in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. In compliance with NFMA the Superior National Forest conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) and prepared a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for which a Record of Decision was signed in 1986. Those portions of the Forest Plan pertaining to wilderness management were revised, an EIS was prepared and the Forest Plan was amended in 1993. Further, the remainder of the plan (outside the 10
BWCAW) was revised following the completion of an EIS with the record of decision signed in August, 2004. The environmental assessment (EA) for this project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Superior National Forest Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan dated August, 2004, as permitted by 40 CFR 1502.2. The Forest Plan established multiple use goals, objectives, standards and guides for managing the Forest. Proposed alternatives have been evaluated in terms of guidance provided by the Plan. The management area (MA) involved as designated by the Superior Forest Plan is MA.10.2 General Forest Longer Rotation. All of the trail construction alternatives are located within MA 10.2 (pg 3-10). Emphases for land and resource conditions are to provide a wide variety of goods and services that include scenic quality, recreation opportunities, and access to those opportunities. Interactions between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities. Management activities are directed to move the area toward Roaded Natural ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) characteristics. Open roads provide access to resources and roaded recreational opportunities. The setting for MA 10.2 is described as where recreation use and/or lake density is high, or the potential for recreation use is high. Snowmobile trails and lake access may be provided in this area. DECISION I have given careful consideration to the resources affected; the guidance provided by law, regulation and policy as well as the public discourse that has resulted from this proposal. My decision is somewhat different than what would normally be made for a proposal. I have decided to approve both alternatives 2 and 4 with some caveats. Only one route may be constructed and used at a time. Alternative 2 (the northern route) is approved for construction under the given criteria. If at some time, a decision is made to use Alternative 4, then the northern route must be abandoned and obliterated. I have walked the routes for alternative 2 and 4 several times, a few of those times with our civil engineering technician and our recreation specialist to discuss construction techniques and impacts. I have observed soil types to estimate potential impacts. I’ve looked at the proposed routes in both summer and winter to estimate effects to the BWCAW. I’ve mentally constructed the trail to estimate the impacts to trees, vegetation, scenery, various wildlife species, as well as the general land forms in the vicinity (see Appendix A). I have looked into the history of the area and read all the public comments on this proposal. My decision is based on this knowledge of the project area and a review of the South Fowl Lake Snowmobile Access Environmental Assessment, the Biological Evaluation, the project file, law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan. 11
Page 1 and 2: United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4: INTRODUCTION This document describe
Page 5 and 6: Logged Area Logging trail ends here
Page 7 and 8: the “Lands Nobody Wanted”. This
Page 9: Congress clearly intended that land
Page 13 and 14: I am also approving the closure of
Page 15 and 16: Appendix A includes photos and disc
Page 17 and 18: has led me to believe those impacts
Page 19 and 20: Figure 7. Photo showing Tilbury Tra
Page 21 and 22: I will also mention that during thi
Page 23 and 24: “The Forest Service's oversight f
Page 25 and 26: “That is why it is so critical th
Page 27 and 28: CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL FOREST MA
Page 29 and 30: as orienteering, hunting, fishing,
Page 31 and 32: Royal Lake would not be affected by
Page 33 and 34: closure or the trail will be oblite
Page 35 and 36: soils. Where located on the bench a
Page 37 and 38: snowmobiles tried to ride down the
Page 39 and 40: Snowmobile Access Environmental Ass
Page 41 and 42: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact South Fowl ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?