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