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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternatives would be developed from significant public issues and the analysis would be completed on those alternatives. I chose a different process this time, because the interest of the public was obvious and keen. I chose to get public input before a proposal was developed to help me understand the scope of the project as well as to look for solutions that would gain broad support (a goal I did not achieve). My conclusions from early involvement were to develop alternatives to ensure I had fairly represented public issues. In early 2004 the interdisciplinary team had the alternatives framed up, along with sufficient information on each. I also learned the public was becoming divisive on this proposal. Therefore I chose a strategy to focus the discussion around the alternatives and narrow the debate to the real issues in an attempt to allow us to analyze them at the appropriate level. In the summer of 2004, I submitted the alternatives in the form of a scoping package to the public for a formal 30 day comment period. Interestingly because the potential for ATV use had been raised by the public, the comment period was extended to 60 days to comply with 36 CFR 295.3. A legal notice including a description of the proposed action was published in the Cook County News Herald on June 24, 2004. The published legal notice provided an address, phone number, and email address for those who wished to request a copy of the more detailed scoping package. That same day, a detailed scoping package requesting comments on the proposed project was mailed to over 388 individuals, groups, and agencies who have identified their interest in this type of project by placing their name on a mailing list maintained in the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Duluth. This scoping package included detailed information on the actions, issues, analysis to date and mitigation measures. We requested that comments be submitted within 60 days after the publication of the legal notice in the Cook County News Herald. Thirty-two responses were received from 29 individuals or groups (including one message with 68 signatures). A copy of their comments with Forest Service response is in project file for the South Fowl Environmental Assessment. During the comment period, the State requested a different format for working on this project. During the revised process of working with the State and based on our analysis of comments, I chose to amend two alternatives and add a fifth one. A change in Forest Service personnel, resulting in a change to my interdisciplinary team lengthened the time it took to complete the analysis. As time moved forward, the debate and discourse only grew. In light of the changes to the alternatives, extensive disagreement among the public and the increase in time needed to complete the assessment; I concluded it would serve all our needs to have another 30 day comment period before making a final decision. We received over 540 comments letters in this second comment period. 20
I will also mention that during this comment period, I led a field trip that was open to all people interested in the project. While the request for the trip came from a member of the public, my objective was to help folks clearly see what was proposed, what the potential impacts were and to understand the various views on the issues. The make up of the group that participated was nearly 50% on each side of this proposal. We primarily looked at the north route because that’s what generated the interest. Our discussion was cordial and focused on the issues. There was a fairly good exchange of thoughts between people on either side, with me and with each other. Unfortunately I believe, and comments received afterward support this conclusion, that each side only became firmer in their position. Although following 36 CFR 215.6 (b) (1) and CEQ 1503.4, all comments were read and fully considered, there was no weight given to the number of comments supporting or opposing a particular alternative. Similarly there was no weight given to the number of signatures on a petition supporting or opposing a particular alternative. There are some interesting occurrences to note during this project assessment. As mentioned above, there is extensive debate and disagreement over management of the Superior National Forest. Along with that debate, there is an underlying mistrust for Government and for each other. Many folks offered their opinion on which alternative I should choose: “Please accept this letter in support of Alternative 4 for the proposed snowmobile trail near the BWCAW in Superior National Forest.” “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the South Fowl Lake Snowmobile Access project. I support "Alternative 2: Modified North Route." I want to see this trail used because it is most like the historic Tilbury Trail that it is replacing.” “As a Native American, I care deeply about the land. If I felt this trail (Alt. 2) would harm the land, I would not support it.” “I've been going to the Boundary Waters since I was old enough to paddle a canoe. For me, the draw of the BWCAW is that the majority of it is free from motorized vehicles. As you paddle through the crystal clear water, the only sounds you hear is the lapping of waves and the occasional call of a bird (support for Alt. 4).” “I have also explored most of the routes of the BWCA and Quetico Parks in the past thirty years and deeply value these experiences in natural settings… I support the Alternative 2” 21
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: Figure 7. Photo showing Tilbury Tra
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?