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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“Human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. The means that economic or social effects are not intended by them selves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement.” While there is considerable debate and disagreement, much of that debate surrounds Forest Service land management policy and is beyond the scope of this project. There may never be full agreement on that policy; however that policy was decided through law, which includes our Forest Plan. This decision is in full compliance with law, regulation and policy. The fact that the debate continues does not result in that being a significant issue for this project. B. Intensity – CEQ 1508.27 (b) states that intensity refers to the severity of the impact. The severity of the impact will not be significant based on the following: 1. Both adverse and beneficial impacts of the selected alternative are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. Beneficial effects have not been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects. Based on my experience, the EA, BE, and planning record, there are no significant adverse or beneficial effects of the selected alternatives. As discussed for Alternative 2 above, the primary impacts to the BWCAW are sights and sounds of snowmobiles in the winter. There will be no physical impacts to the Wilderness. Intensity of the sound is fairly simple to relate, the perception is more difficult. A normal conversation is about 72 decibels at 0.5 feet and 60 decibels at 2 feet (EPA, 2006). A snowmobile operated at 15 miles per hour is measured at 73 decibels at 50 feet (ACSA, 2004). The closest distance to Royal Lake is 600-800 feet from the proposed route, so the decibel level would be 24 decibels lower (MPCA 1999) to 49, for a person on Royal Lake, through open air. For comparison sake, a typical library is 50 decibels while a remote forest is 30 decibels. At the design speed (average safe speed for the trail) of 15 miles per hour, it would take a snowmobile roughly eight minutes to travel the 2.2 miles through the northern route. Again, at that slow pace, the time a snowmobile might be visible would be about 5 seconds at a perceptible level of approximately 49 decibels. In this location of the BWCAW, I find that impact is not significant. Sights and sounds are also an issue for Alternative 4. There are folks who don’t want to hear snowmobiles from their cabins on McFarland Lake. Alternative 4 would put greater sounds near those cabins; snowmobiling is quite common near roads and would occur even under no action. These impacts, although they may be unwelcome, are not significant. Intensity of the impact to rare plants is not significant since there were no federally listed sensitive plants found along the route. Indirect impacts are speculative, i.e. “What if rock climbers started using these cliffs?” Or, “What if 36
snowmobiles tried to ride down the slope into the Wilderness?” Or “What if ATVs do get onto the trail?” There are criteria included with this decision to address each of these situations. Further, Gerdes (2001) describe cliffs in the Rove Slate complex as “dynamic and prone to crumbling” and “unsuitable for climbing” (pg 19). And, I would offer that it would be highly impractical for a snowmobiler to attempt a ride down that steep slope into the Wilderness (see figure A-14). Intensity of impact to the Rove Slate complex is also not significant. Soil impacts will generally come from construction and the amount of soil disturbance determined in the EA in extremely small, less than an average driveway would cause. If Alternative 4 needs to be constructed, the soil impacts would be greater, but still not significant when comparing the acres of impact to the whole of the cumulative impact area (EA pg 41). 2. Public health and safety will be protected under the selected alternatives by the design elements and mitigation measures. Alternative 2 specifically separates snowmobiles and automobiles and therefore “dual use” safety issue is resolved. Alternative 4 has some risk that snowmobilers may find the plowed surface more desirable. Again that is speculation, an appropriate trail would be provided that separates snowmobiles from regular vehicles. My experience in Michigan and Wisconsin with similar situations is that snowmobilers tend to stay on trails provided, including those on shoulders. 3. There are no known unique geographical characteristics that will be significantly affected by the actions of this decision. The EA (Chapter 3) analyzed effects to all relevant resources. There will be no known significant adverse effects on historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. During revision of the Forest Plan broad consideration was given to special management complexes, unique biological areas and candidate research natural areas. The Forest Plan Record of Decision did not allocate the South Fowl Lake area into one of those special management areas. 4. Based on consultation with others, comments received from the public, past experiences with similar projects, and the Environmental Assessment, I have determined there are no highly controversial effects (CEQ 1508.27). This does not mean that implementation of the project will be acceptable to all people; in fact public involvement has demonstrated this to be a highly charged project. People have expressed passionately divergent views on how to manage this portion of National Forest land and what values are most important to them. However, the effects of the project displayed in the EA do not have substantial controversial scientific disagreement. 5. Actions from Alternatives 2 and 4 are similar to those that have occurred on other parts of the Gunflint Ranger District, and effects of this action will be 37
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 and 10: Congress clearly intended that land
Page 11 and 12: BWCAW) was revised following the co
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: soils. Where located on the bench a
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?