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

soils. Where located on the bench area, there is expected to be no overland flow
of water to cause erosion.
Where the parent material and soils change toward the east end of the route, the
topography is flatter and more similar to that on which we have currently several
trails located. Experience shows erosion is not significant.
Similarly, water quality will not be significantly affected by either Alternative.
Potentially minor amounts of sediments may be produced by this action.
However, it is highly unlikely sediments will move from the trail surface, let
alone reach the slopes down toward Royal Lake (see Appendix A). There will be
no heavy equipment in the riparian areas. Each Alternative will have an approach
to South Fowl Lake for access to and from the lake. The riparian impacts of
clearing brush will not affect ecological function, will not be intensive and will
meet water quality standards found in the Forest Plan on page 2-13 through 15.
There will not be a loss of wetlands, nor a significant change to wetlands and
hydrologic function. Alternative 2 crosses roughly 100 feet of lowland cedar on
State land as the route descends from the bench. Alternative 4 crosses a similar
stretch near McFarland Lake. Snowmobile trails are not uncommon in wetland
areas and experience has shown me that there are effects to the vegetation upon
which the trail is located but, minimal if any, indirect effects to surrounding
vegetation and normal water flows are maintained.
My approach to approving two alternatives is different than normal, but I am
confident the effects have been displayed for each of these alternatives. One or
the other will be implemented, not both at the same time. It could be that
Alternative 2 is put in place and through use of the criteria in this decision, it is
later determined that Alternative 4 should be constructed. In that event
Alternative 2 will be obliterated prior to construction of Alternative 4. The only
impacts between the two that might be cumulative are soil related. Cumulative
impacts between the two, similar to a 100 foot driveway (EA pg 41), are so very
minor that together, they wouldn’t be significant.
3. Social impacts are and will be present. It has been interesting attempting to
determine exactly what the social impacts are. Some folks talk about the
economics from construction. In the context of typical budgets for the Superior
National Forest, those are not significant for any Alternative, even if the accuracy
was off by 100%. Wilderness impacts from the perspective of sights and sounds
are primarily social impacts. These impacts are generally what the debate has
been about over the past two years. It is the same, at times very heated, debate
that has been going on for the last few decades as to what is the proper
management for both the Superior National Forest and the BWCAW. CEQ
1508.14 “Human environment” provides guidance on social impacts.
35