Forest-wide Travel Management Project. November 2009 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Superior National Forest

Transcription

1 Forest-wide Travel Management Project November 2009 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Superior National Forest Appendix C: Response to Comments Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 1

2 The Unites States Forest Service has asked for comments in regards to the Illegal road issue. The illegal use is biased. Only your Travel Management Proposal makes ATV use illegal. You cannot possibly enforce your plan 100% of the time unless you plan on having round the clock surveillance. If the Forest Service cannot enforce to all it would be a great discrimination. It is also discrimination for the Department of Natural Resources and Forest Service to be able to use the roads for their livelihood, yet I cannot for mine. Due to these purposes these roads will never be decommissioned and seventeen people cannot properly enforce this. I am asking to please take this matter to heat. My livelihood depends on it. My business depends on bear hunting and with out these roads it will prove a great financial hardship. It may shut down my business. Sincerly, Leif Gunderson Gold Mine Resort 1-1 Response to Comment 1-1: We understand that decommissioning some of the unclassified roads on the Forest or removing OHV use from system roads will affect local access, including for your business. Yet, some of these roads cannot support OHV use due to potential resource damage, and thus these were identified for decommissioning. We would note that Forest personnel have met with you on a number of occasions prior to the decision regarding roads you have concerns on. In regard to illegal use, it is not possible for law enforcement to monitor all roads and trails 100% of the time. Monitoring all the time is not viable for any given law or rule. Yet we believe that education and updated maps displaying which roads are open to OHV use will result in the vast majority of people complying with rules on where riding may occur. Law enforcement is one tool that may be used to reduce illegal use for those few who choose to operate illegally. We do not believe that illegal use will be eliminated under any alternative considered in the Supplement; the Supplement does state that there has been and continues to be illegal use on the Superior National Forest. With regard to decommissioning roads, decommissioning can be done to produce effective results as discussed in our Monitoring Reports. The Supplement does disclose the potential for illegal use on roads closed to OHV use, using roads open to OHV use as a starting point. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 2

3 Response to Comment 1-1 cont.: Finally, we would note that the decision in the Travel Management Project does not preclude future adjustments to the road and trail system and OHV use. After the decision is implemented and monitored, future adjustments to the road and trail system and OHV use may be made depending on issues that may arise. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 3

4 Response to Comment 2-1: Thank you for comments and we will keep you on the mailing list for the Travel Management Project. Response to Comment 2-2: We would note that the Travel Management Project (TMP) does not establish an off-highway vehicle (OHV) road and trail system where none previously existed. Off highway vehicle use is well established use on the Superior National Forest and under the existing condition there is already a road and trail system in place. The action alternatives of the TMP would create adjustments to the existing road and trail system. The Travel Management Rule specifically does not require the revision or reconsideration of previous decisions designating the existing route system (36 CFR (b)) We also note that in response to several public comments, the Supplement released in July 2009 has been revised and will be published along with the new decision. The amount of road and trail open to OHV within 1 mile of the BWCAW boundary under each alternative is displayed in the revised Supplement under Table SUP-4 in the Air Quality section. Alternative 2 Modified reduces the mileage of road and trail open to OHV within 1 mile of the BWCAW by about 4.2 miles as compared to the current road and trail system (Alternative 1). Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 4

5 Response to Comment 2-3: We have clarified and added information to the revised Supplement on non-visibility related pollutants; please see the Air Quality section of the revised Supplement. In summary, there would be a minor reduction in effects from OHVs to air quality in the BWCAW and a minor increase in effects to air quality in areas adjacent to roads and trails where OHV use is added under Alternative 2 Modified. Response to Comment 2-4: As stated above, we have clarified and added information to the revised Supplement on non-visibility related pollutants; please see the Air Quality section of the revised Supplement. In summary, there would be a minor reduction in effects from OHVs, including to vegetation, in the BWCAW and a minor increase in effects in areas adjacent to roads and trails where OHV use is added under Alternative 2 Modified. Response to Comment 2-5: We have clarified and added information to the revised Supplement on fugitive dust; please see the Air Quality section of the revised Supplement. In summary, very little fugitive dust would reach the BWCAW since 90% of fugitive dust settles within 50 meters of unpaved roads. There is extremely little road or trail mileage open to OHV within 50 meters of the BWCAW. In addition, there would be a reduction of road and trail mileage open to OHV within 1 mile of the BWCAW under Alternative 2 Modified, so effects of fugitive dust to the BWCAW would be reduced under Alternative 2 Modified. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 5

6 Response to Comment 2-6: See response to Comment Response to Comment 2-7: We have further considered the question of the amount of OHV use and the location of OHV use under the alternatives and have included information in the revised Supplement. In summary, there would not be an appreciable difference in the number of OHV users or miles traveled between alternatives. There would be a minor shift in the location of OHV use. Under Alternative 2 Modified, use near the BWCAW would decrease due to closures near the wilderness, while use would increase on loop roads further away from the wilderness. The result would be a minor decrease in negative effects to air quality in the BWCAW. Response to Comment 2-8: We have added further explanation to the Air Quality section of the revised Supplement on the use of the 0.005% figure for cumulative effects from visibility-related pollutants. We have also added information to the revised Supplement on cumulative effects from non-visibility related pollutants. Response to Comment 2-9: See response to Comment 2-3 and 2-7. In addition, we would note that Alternative 2 Modified actually reduces the amount of road and trail open to OHV use within 1 mile of the BWCAW and negative effects to air quality in the BWCAW would be less under Alternative 2 Modified than under the no action alternative. This is the case for both visibility-related and non-visibility related air pollutants. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 6

7 Response to Comment 2-9, cont.: With regard to calculating OHV miles traveled or hours operated, we do not believe that this method is necessary to give an estimation of the effects of the alternatives. Monitoring by the Superior NF as well as the State of Minnesota has shown that air quality on the Superior and in Northeastern Minnesota is high, and this accounts for existing OHV use. See the Affected Environment and Analysis Methods sections of the Air Quality section of the revised Supplement for details. Furthermore, the action alternatives are adjustments to the existing system, not the creation of a new OHV transportation system. We do not anticipate an appreciable change in the number of OHV users or miles traveled as a result of the action alternatives. A substantial number of new, non-local riders would not be drawn to the Forest as a result of implementing an action alternative. Instead, existing local riders would change the location of riding as a result of the action alternatives. See section of the revised Supplement for further discussion. The degree of potential effects is limited by these factors. The revised Supplement discusses these factors, and discloses locations of OHV use and the resulting effects to air quality in the BWCAW since that would vary slightly between the alternatives and air quality in the BWCAW was identified in the Regional Forester s reversal. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 7

8 Response to Comment 2-9, cont.: These factors point to the conclusion that the methods of effects analysis in the Supplement are sufficient to give a reasonable estimation of effects from the Travel Management Project. An analysis using OHV miles or hours traveled is not necessary. Response to Comment 2-10: As discussed in response to comment 2-9, the changes considered in the action alternatives would shift the location of OHV use and not result in an appreciable difference in OHV user numbers or distance traveled between alternatives. We believe that the analysis in the revised Supplement is sufficient and a detailed analysis of temperature, weather, seasonal variation and topography would not provide information that would be necessary to estimate effects. In fact, the comprehensive modeling done to determine Minnesota s contribution to the total visibility impairment at the BWCAW, which we relied on in our calculations, included all of these factors (i.e. temperature, weather, seasonal variation and topography) Given that the Regional Forester s reversal identified air quality effects to the BWCAW, we have provided information on the amount of road and trail open to OHV use within 1 mile of the BWCAW (e.g. geography) in the revised Supplement and resulting effects to air quality (see Table SUP-4). Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 8

9 2-12 With regard to disclosing effects to visibility as a percentage, this is necessary since an absolute figure such as tons of emissions would not provide very useful information on effects to visibility. For example, stating that an OHV emits a certain quantity of visibility-related pollution does not inform the reader as to how that affects visibility in the BWCAW. While the Supplement contains both tons and percentages (see Table SUP-1), we believe that effects to visibility are better summarized as a percentage to provide meaningful information as to how much a given effect is contributing to the visibility situation. This also allows the reader to determine how much a change in that given effect would contribute to the visibility situation. In the case of OHV emissions that would result from the Travel Management Project, it is a fraction of 0.005% of effects to visibility under all alternatives. Response to Comment 2-11: Please see section (Analysis Methods) of the revised Supplement for a description of the methods used to disclose effects to visibility in the BWCAW. The Regional Haze Rule and State Implementation Plan are sources of information informing the Analysis Methods. See response to comment 2-9 regarding analysis using OHV miles or hours traveled. Response to Comment 2-12: We agree that, as with all impact assessments, there are uncertainties in our analysis such as: Minnesota s individual pollutant-bypollutant contribution to visibility impairment could vary somewhat around the 28% figure, the 28% is a projection for 2018, etc. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 9

10 2-12 Response to Comment 2-12 cont.: The main point to realize is that these uncertainties are irrelevant in comparison to the overall impact of these sources which is about 0.005%. Even if all of these uncertainties were cumulatively off by a factor of ten low (which we feel is unlikely since each uncertainty could go either way and would likely serve to offset each other) the impact would still be 0.05%. We feel we have done a sufficient level of analysis given the level of impact. Response to Comment 2-13: We have clarified the analysis area section in the revised Supplement that will be released with the new decision Response to Comment 2-14: Please see Indicator 6 in the Common Wildlife section of the revised Supplement for the mileage of roads and trails open to OHV within 1 mile of the BWCAW. As stated in the 2008 Decision Notice, a reduction in mileage of roads and trails near the BWCAW would result in a reduction in effects to wildlife and other natural resources in the BWCAW. As stated in Response to Comment 5-18 on p. 46 of Appendix C to the December 2008 Decision Notice, there would be a reduction in mileage of roads under Alternative 2 Modified in areas of interest including Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas and 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Areas. This would reduce effects to natural resources, including wildlife, in these areas. As explained in the 2008 Decision Notice, OHV would not be added in Unique Biological Areas, Candidate Research Natural Areas and Research Natural Areas and 1.3 mile of unclassified road would be decommissioned. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 10

11 Response to Comment 2-15: Increased OHV use in Minnesota would not vary by alternative. We do not consider an adjustment in the location of roads and trails open for OHV use on the Superior National Forest to appreciably alter regional or statewide trends for OHV registrations and use. With regard to the publication of a MVUM, the Superior NF already publishes a map showing OHV riding opportunities that is available at all of our offices. The publication of the MVUM would be essentially an update to the existing map and would not result in an appreciable change in ridership because it would be published. We wish to clarify the change in ridership that would result from the creation of loop riding opportunities. There would be little change in the total number of riders on the Forest because of the creation of these loops. The creation of loops would not result in a substantial number of non-local users traveling to the Superior NF to use these loops. However, use would be added to the loops and taken away from other areas of the Forest by predominately local users. Many of these other areas are more remote, short spurs that would be decommissioned. We believe that effects to wildlife and other natural resources due to this shift would represent an overall reduction in negative effects. Please see section of the revised Supplement for discussion on these points related to wildlife. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 11

12 This is not to say that the addition of OHVs to roads already traveled by motor vehicles would result in zero additional effects in these locations. These additional effects, however, would be minor as roads traveled by motor vehicles are designed to a higher standard that reduces the chance of resource damage such as erosion and rutting (see the watershed section of the EA, section ). With regard to disturbance to wildlife, this was considered in the Biological Evaluation (i.e. p. 12). Disturbance is also discussed in the General Wildlife section of the revised Supplement. Response to Comment 2-16: The revised Supplement, the BE, BA, and the Threatened and Endangered Species Section of the December 2008 EA does disclose beneficial effects of decommissioning. For example, see section of the Supplement, section of the TES section of the EA, tables 4 and 6 in the BE, and page 8 of the BA. The reduction in road density described is referring to decommissioning and is described as reducing negative effects or improving habitat for wildlife. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 12

13 Response to Comment 2-17: We have compiled a list of mitigation measures that accompany the Travel Management Project and this will be included in the project file. Mitigation measures reducing effects to wildlife include the measures listed in the Illegal Use section of the revised Supplement and the prohibition of OHV use on dual use trails during the wet season (see the 2008 DN on p. 13) However, we consider the design of the Travel Management Project as key in reducing negative effects to wildlife and other resources such as water quality, soils and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This is for several reasons, such as: 1. There would be a reduction in the mileage of roads on the Forest in Alternative 2 Modified (see Indicator 1 in the General Wildlife section of the Supplement). 2. There would be a reduction in the mileage of roads open to OHV within 1 mile of the BWCAW in Alternative 2 Modified (see Indicator 6 in the General Wildlife section of the Supplement). 3. Use of OHVs would be shifted from short spur roads in more remote areas to roads already used by motor vehicles in less remote areas. The overall mileage of roads and trails open to motorized use would not change much under Alternative 2 Modified (2178 miles) as compared to the no action alternative (2328 miles) (6% decrease or 150 miles). Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 13

14 Response to Comment 2-18: Please see Response to Comment 2-21 and Response to Comment 2-19: An important consideration of the effects of the Travel Management Project is that the direct and indirect effects would be the difference between: a) the effects of the extent of and uses of the existing system of roads and trails, and b) the effects of the extent of and uses of the resulting system of roads and trails due to an action alternative. In other words, the actions in the Travel Management project do not create the effects of the entire road and trail system. The cumulative effects are the effects of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions when added to this difference. When a reduction in effects due to this difference are added to relevant cumulative actions, the sum result of action alternatives is a reduction in cumulative effects as compared to the cumulative effects of the existing condition or no action alternative. While not zero, negative effects from OHVs traveling on roads already used by motor vehicles are less than on unclassified roads in more remote areas of the Forest Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 14

15 Response to Comment 2-19, cont.: Thus, another way of stating the concept of offsetting due to decommissioning and shifting use is that Alternative 2 Modified would result in a reduction of cumulative effects as compared to the cumulative effects of the no action alternative. Response to Comment 2-20: Circumstances are continually evolving, and at some point an environmental document must be finalized even though new actions may become reasonably foreseeable before a decision is issued. New actions such as the Tracks project should be considered to determine whether or not the analysis in the environmental document remains a reasonable estimate of effects or not. In the case of the Tracks project, the effects of this vegetation management project do not substantially alter the analysis of the Travel Management Project EA and Supplement. A net reduction in system roads results in a small reduction of negative cumulative effects as compared to the situation without the Tracks Project. The interdisciplinary team considered any actions (including the Tracks Project) that have become reasonably foreseeable between the publication of the 2008 Decision Notice for the Travel Management Project and the current time to determine if these new actions substantially alter the validity of the effects analysis in the December 2008 EA and the Supplement. The conclusion of this consideration was that the December 2008 EA and the revised Supplement are still valid estimates of the effects of the Travel Management Project. This is documented in the project file and will be referenced in the new decision. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 15

16 Response to Comment 2-21: The ability of the Forest Service to implement projects is dependent on funding, which is appropriated by Congress and thus in some cases it is not able to be predicted exactly when a given road planned for decommissioning will be decommissioned. Nonetheless, when funding is available roads approved for decommissioning will be decommissioned. In addition, the Superior NF has also made efforts to secure funding for decommissioning through additional channels. For example, requests for funding to decommission unclassified roads identified in the Travel Management Project have been made from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and the Great Lakes Initiative funding sources. Administrative appeals and litigation on projects may also affect timelines for implementation. The Transportation section of the 2007 Monitoring Report displays progress in decommissioning roads. Finally, see the Economics section of the EA for further discussion on costs. We recognize that there is the potential for illegal use on roads identified for decommissioning, that have not yet been decommissioned. The Supplement states that there is the potential for illegal use on roads closed to OHV travel, including temporary roads, by using roads open to OHV travel as a jumping off point (see section ). Indicator 1 in the Supplement compares the alternatives for this potential illegal use. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 16

17 2-32 We wish to clarify that there would not be an appreciable difference in OHV ridership on the Forest among all alternatives. The difference between alternatives would be in the locations of riders rather the overall number of riders or miles traveled. Please see the section of the revised Supplement for further discussion. Response to Comment 2-22: We have conducted the analysis for roads open to OHV use within 1 mile of the entire BWCAW boundary and this is displayed as Indicator 7 in the Illegal Use section of the revised Supplement Response to Comment 2-23: The Supplement does consider all ownerships under the cumulative effects analysis in the illegal use section (section ). We believe that the creation of seamless riding opportunities and loop riding opportunities actually has the potential to reduce illegal use since it provides for a riding experience that may have been satisfied in an illegal manner where such opportunities did not exist. However, we also recognize that illegal use may occur due to confusion about what is legal in what location. The publication of the Motor Vehicle Use Map would help reduce this confusion. We also recognize that total miles open to OHV use may contribute to the potential for illegal use as displayed in Indicator 1 in the Illegal Use section. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 17

18 2-33 Response to Comment 2-24: The decommissioning of system roads would not be part of the Travel Management Project decision for several reasons. This was never identified in the purpose and need or proposed action, nor was it discussed or effects disclosed in the Environmental Assessment. The public never had an opportunity to comment on such a proposal either. For these reasons, the decommissioning of system roads as a part of the decision for the Travel Management Project would not meet requirements under relevant law, regulation and policy for effects disclosure or public involvement. Please see Chapter 1 of the EA for the purpose and need for the Travel Management Project. However, nothing precludes the Forest Service from proposing to decommission (or construct) system roads in projects where that is identified as a part of the purpose and need, action alternative(s) and environmental consequences in the appropriate environmental document. This has occurred in several vegetation management projects where system roads have been identified for decommissioning and/or construction and may be proposed in future projects. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 18

19 2-34 Response to Comment 2-25: Roads accessing harvested areas are generally temporary roads, which are closed to public OHV use. The Supplement states the potential for illegal use on roads closed to public OHV use, such as temporary roads, using roads open to OHV use as a jumping off point in Indicator 1 of the Illegal Use section. Nonetheless, the potential for illegal use on temporary roads would be reduced due to the closure and subsequent decommissioning of temporary roads. Indicator 1 compares the alternatives for the amount of road that may be used as a jumping off point to temporary roads, and therefore also to harvested areas associated with those temporary roads. With regard to the indirect and cumulative effects of illegal use of roads near the BWCAW, the revised Supplement does compare the alternatives for miles of road and trail open to OHV near the BWCAW under Indicator 7 in the Illegal Use section, which includes jumping off points to temporary roads and harvested areas associated with temporary roads. Response to Comment 2-26: The Superior NF has received notification from St. Louis County that the Hoyt Lakes to Babbitt Project has been placed on hold (documented in project file). This project is no longer reasonably foreseeable for consideration under cumulative effects. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 19

20 Response to Comment 2-27: The Supplement does state that illegal use would occur under all alternatives and the existing condition. When cumulative effects are considered, as stated in the Supplement in sections and , the action alternatives would have less negative cumulative effect from illegal use than the no action alternative because of the decommissioning of unclassified roads and consolidation of OHV use from short spurs into loop riding on roads where motor vehicles already travel. Response to Comment 2-28: Please see section of the Supplement for discussion on these points. In summary, while OHV use would increase under all alternatives, the implementation of an action alternative would not result in a substantial difference in the number of OHV users or miles traveled as compared to the no action alternative. Response to Comment 2-29: As stated in Response to Comment 2-28, there would be only minor differences in overall OHV ridership on the Forest between all alternatives. We would note that the action alternatives consolidate use away from a number of short spurs by decommissioning them and adding use to loops in more heavily traveled routes on the Forest. We believe that this change is one of the reasons why potential illegal use would be less under the action alternatives than the no action alternative or existing condition. Response to Comment 2-30: The Superior NF had problems with the successful decommissioning of roads in the 1980s and earlier. However, the Forest has made substantial progress in tracking and decommissioning roads and has shown successful decommissioning (see the RMV and Transportation sections of the FY Monitoring Reports). We recognize that there is the potential for illegal use on roads identified for decommissioning, that have not yet been decommissioned. The Supplement states that there is the potential for illegal use on roads closed to OHV travel, including temporary roads, by using roads open to OHV travel as a jumping off point (section ). Indicator 1 in the Supplement compares the alternatives for this potential illegal use, and Alternative 7 compares this specifically for the BWCAW. We wish to make clear that the Travel Management Project does not make decisions to decommission or designate temporary roads; it makes decisions to decommission or designate unclassified roads. The difference between unclassified and temporary roads is defined on p. 2 of Chapter 4 of the Travel Management Project EA. Forest Plan direction states that Decisions will be made on Forest unclassified roads to designate them as a National Forest System road or trail or to decommission them (O-TS-6, p. 2-49). Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 20

21 Response to Comment 2-31: The ability of the Forest Service to implement projects is dependent on several factors such as funding, which is appropriated by Congress and thus it is not able to be predicted exactly when a given road planned for decommissioning will be decommissioned. Nonetheless, when funding is available, roads approved for decommissioning will be decommissioned. The Superior NF has also made efforts to secure funding for decommissioning through additional channels. For example, requests for funding to decommission unclassified roads identified in the Travel Management Project have been made from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and the Great Lakes Initiative funding sources. Administrative appeals and litigation on projects may also affect timelines for implementation. The transportation section of the 2007 Monitoring Report displays progress in decommissioning roads. In addition, see the Economics section of the EA for discussion on costs for implementation. See also Response to Comment Response to Comment 2-32: While it is the case that the amount of monitoring completed for a given topic is not necessarily the same every year, monitoring for illegal use of OHVs is and continues to be part of the program of work for the monitoring crew on the Superior NF. When a decision may be implemented, Appendix B to the Decision Notice represents a commitment to continue monitoring of illegal use of OHVs. Appendix B does not give details on topics such as specific location or sampling methods since these are adaptively determined on an ongoing basis. However, this monitoring would be disclosed in the annual Superior NF Monitoring Report. With regard to law enforcement capacity, it is the case that the 53 Forest Protection Officers do have additional duties. We do not believe that law enforcement will be able to eliminate illegal use and it is not practically possible for any number of law enforcement officers to be present at all locations and times that illegal use might occur. Indeed, some illegal use is anticipated to occur under all alternatives, including the no action alternative. But for reasons such as decommissioning unclassified roads, the creation of loop riding opportunities, and the reduction of roads open to OHVs near the BWCAW, there would be less illegal use under the action alternatives than under the no action alternative or existing condition. In any case, law enforcement is one of several measures that can help reduce illegal use. Another mitigation measure that is likely more critical than law enforcement is education of OHV riders to encourage voluntary compliance to stay on open roads and trails. Local OHV rider groups have conducted such education and we encourage this to continue in the future. Response to Comment 2-33: Comment noted. Response to Comment 2-34: Thank you for your comments. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 21

22 Response to Comment 3-1: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 3-2: We have updated the Supplement with further information on effects to air quality in the BWCAW from the alternatives of the Travel Management Project which will be published with the decision. The Forest Supervisor will use the information in the Supplement to make a decision on whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or prepare an EIS based on the information in the Supplement, among other sources Response to Comment 3-3: The Forest Plan Final EIS as well as the Travel Management Plan EA disclose effects of motorized use, including OHVs, on wildlife. See especially p through of the Forest Plan Final EIS. The Travel Management Plan EA and Supplement conclude that effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, as well as other wildlife, would be reduced under Alternative 2 Modified due to a reduction in road mileage on the Forest and consolidation of OHV use. Response to Comment 3-4: The prohibition on crosscountry travel by OHVs reduces impacts to natural resources. Please see the Record of Decision to the Forest Plan for the rationale on this decision. Yet, we recognize that the Superior National Forest provides opportunities for multiple types of recreation, even though every type of recreation is not necessarily appropriate in every location. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 22

23 3-5 The purpose and need of the Travel Management Project includes creating loop riding opportunities, and we believe this helps to improve recreational opportunities for OHV riders. At the same time, it shifts OHV use away from some short spurs in more remote areas, thereby improving non-motorized recreation opportunities in those locations. Response to Comment 3-5: This modification will still provide for a loop riding opportunity that includes a portion of FR 152. There are four campsites in a MN DNR campground south of the closure at the Twin Lakes that will not be able to be driven to on OHVs. There is a gravel pit area off FR 152 north of the closure that will be accessible by OHV and will allow for a camping opportunity. We believe that this modification will not result in a substantial change in overall riding opportunities, while better providing for a reasonable mix of recreation opportunities for all members of the public in the Lima Grade area. It is noted that under Alternative 2 Modified, a substantial portion of the Lima Grade would be opened to OHV use where it is currently closed. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 23

24 Response to Comment 4-1: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 4-2: We have updated the Supplement with further discussion on the effects to air quality in the BWCAW which will be released with the decision Response to Comment 4-3: We do not expect a substantial increase in the number of OHVs on the Superior NF if an action alternative is selected; instead we anticipate a change in the location of use. Since there would be less roads adjacent to the BWCAW and use would be consolidated into loops in areas further from the BWCAW, we anticipate that air quality in the BWCAW would be slightly improved under Alternative 2 Modified as compared to the no action alternative. Please see the updated Supplement to be released with the decision for further information. Response to Comment 4-4: The Forest Service recognizes the value of air quality in the BWCAW. The Forest Service does not set emission standards for motor vehicles or OHVs; the United States Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies do so. 4-5 Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 24

25 Response to Comment 4-5: The Forest Plan Final EIS as well as the Travel Management Plan EA disclose effects of motorized use, including OHVs, on wildlife. See especially p. p through of the Forest Plan Final EIS. The Travel Management Plan EA and Supplement conclude that effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, as well as other wildlife, would be reduced under Alternative 2 Modified due to a reduction in road mileage on the Forest and consolidation of OHV use. Response to Comment 4-6: We appreciate efforts by OHV rider groups to educate riders to reduce illegal use and we look forward to promoting and facilitating this in the future. Response to Comment 4-7: This modification will still provide for a loop riding opportunity that includes a portion of FR 152. There are four campsites in a MN DNR campground south of the closure at the Twin Lakes that will not be able to be driven to on OHVs. There is a gravel pit area off FR 152 north of the closure that will be accessible by OHV and will allow for a camping opportunity. We believe that this modification will not result in a substantial change in overall riding opportunities, while better providing for a reasonable mix of recreation opportunities for all members of the public in the Lima Grade area. It is noted that under Alternative 2 Modified, a substantial portion of the Lima Grade would be opened to OHV use where it is currently closed. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 25

26 Response to Comment 4-8: We recognize that there are a number of roads and trails that are being closed to OHV use in the Travel Management Project. Yet, a number of roads and trails are also being opened. The no action alternative includes 1138 miles of roads and trails open to OHV, while Alternative 2 Modified includes 1075 miles. This is a net decrease, but a number of loop riding opportunities are being created. In regards to the Twin lakes campground, please see response to Comment 4-7. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 26

27 Dear Mr. Sanders, Please accept my comments in answer to the concerns raised in the Travel Management Project supplement. I enjoy ATVing in the Superior National Forest and I do not think that there is an impact on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from my ATV. Response to Comment 5-1: Thank you for your comments. Your comments are very similar to those in letter 04. Please refer to that letter for responses. Regarding Air Quality: The project supplement research shows off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, and logging equipment all together only contribute 0.005% to regional haze, which could possibly impact the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Since ATVs are a fraction of this small percentage, there is literally no affect on the BWCAW. Air quality is not a reason to wait to implement the Travel Management Plan. Regarding wildlife: As ATVers, we know that our travel does not disturb wildlife. We frequently see all sorts of animals while riding. There is no more disruption to wildlife by an ATV than a vehicle. Since the majority of the forest that is left open to ATVs is roads, there is no impact to wildlife. Regarding Illegal Use: ATVers lost hundreds of miles of riding areas when the Forest Service enacted the ban on cross-country travel in 2004.Despite that, ATVers overall have been respectful of the rules. If the Travel Management Plan is implemented, it will be clearer where ATVs can ride. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 27

28 Regarding modification of Alternative 2: The removal of a section of the Lima Grade Road is very unfair. To fulfill the 1978 Wilderness Act, the US Forest Service should provide more opportunities for motorized recreation outside of the wilderness. The Lima Grade/Twin Lakes campground area is an ideal place to provide ATV camping, which would fulfill this directive. Instead of supporting motorized use of Superior National Forest, this decision allows a tiny minority to change a plan that had been supported by hundreds of people, including myself. I strongly urge the Forest Service to reverse this change, or at least allow the public to again have input on this. This area is for ALL recreation use!!!! Sincerely, Mickey & Dee Brazell President of the Cook County ATV Club Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 28

29 Response to Comment 6-1: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 6-2: We have updated the Supplement to include additional information on effects to the air quality in the BWCAW. The Forest Supervisor will consider the information in the Supplement when making a decision Response to Comment 6-3: US Environmental Protection Agency standards for emissions for non-road motors are being phased in starting with the 2006 model year ( resulting in a reduction in emissions and effects to air quality under all alternatives. The Supplement contains disclosure of effects of the alternatives on air quality in the BWCAW. Response to Comment 6-4: We have updated the Supplement which contains further information on use levels on the Superior NF. There would be little difference in the number of OHVs on the Forest between alternatives, and while there would be some shift in the location of OHV use, this shift would be to areas further away from the BWCAW (onto loop roads), thereby reducing negative effects to air quality in the BWCAW. Response to Comment 6-5: The Forest Plan Final EIS as well as the Travel Management Plan EA disclose effects of motorized use, including OHVs, on wildlife. See especially p through of the Forest Plan Final EIS. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 29

30 Response to Comment 6-5, cont.: The Travel Management Plan EA and Supplement conclude that effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, as well as other wildlife, would be reduced under Alternative 2 Modified due to a reduction in road mileage on the Forest and consolidation of OHV use. Response to Comment 6-6: We appreciate efforts by OHV rider groups to educate riders to reduce illegal use and we look forward to promoting and facilitating this in the future. The Supplement contains information on effects of potential illegal use for the purpose of consideration by the public and the Forest Supervisor. Response to Comment 6-7: This modification will still provide for a loop riding opportunity that includes a portion of FR 152. There are four campsites in a MN DNR campground south of the closure at the Twin Lakes that will not be able to be driven to on OHVs. There is a gravel pit area off FR 152 north of the closure that will be accessible by OHV and will allow for a camping opportunity. We believe that this modification will not result in a substantial change in overall riding opportunities, while better providing for a reasonable mix of recreation opportunities for all members of the public in the Lima Grade area. It is noted that under Alternative 2 Modified, a substantial portion of the Lima Grade would be opened to OHV use where it is currently closed. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 30

31 Response to Comment 6-7, cont.: We acknowledge that you disagree with the modification of Alternative 2 and appreciate that you have commented on it during the comment period on the Supplement. However, this modification does not constrain any future decision on OHV use or the road and trail system. After the Travel Management Project is implemented, future adjustments to OHV use and the road and trail system may be made depending on what issues and needs arise. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 31

32 Response to Comment 7-1: Thank you for your comments Response to Comment 7-2: We do not believe that the situation or conditions in the Lima Grade/West Twin area have changed appreciably from the original analysis or our discussions with you to warrant a change in the decision on this matter. The environmental effects of the selected alternative have been analyzed in the EA and its Supplement, and the specifics of your proposal have been discussed with the West Twin/Trestle Pine property owners on more than one occasion. Listed below are responses addressing the additional points raised in your letter: 1. Safety: The Mixed Use analysis completed by our engineering staff shows that adding OHV use to the roads identified in the Travel Management Project would be a safe mixed use. However, the situation would be monitored and the Forest Supervisor may issue a closure order if safety issues arise. 2. Impact of OHVs close to BWCA entry points: The Supplement to the EA shows that motorized routes open to OHVs within 1 mile of the BWCAW would decrease under Alternative 2 Modified. Thus, potential effects to the BWCAW from OHV use would decrease under Alternative 2 Modified. With regard to the 2 entry points mentioned, we think it is unlikely that OHV users would have reason to travel to these entry points. We do not believe that it is unacceptable for OHV users and individuals traveling to a BWCAW entry point in a motor vehicle to travel on the same road for a portion of their journey. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 32

33 Reducing conflicts among users: We believe that the modification to Alternative 2 referenced in comment 7-1 accomplishes the goal of better separating recreational uses. We note that the Twin Lakes area is outside the BWCAW and is not wilderness. 4. Air Quality: The Supplement to the EA shows that motorized routes open to OHVs within 1 mile of the BWCAW would decrease under Alternative 2 Modified. Thus, potential effects to the BWCAW from OHV use would decrease under Alternative 2 Modified. While OHV use is being added on the Lima Grade, this is a minor effect due to the limited traffic anticipated on the road (as per the mixed use analysis and assessment by recreation specialists), and the total amount of air pollution to the BWCAW would be less under Alternative 2 Modified than Alternative 1 (no action) as discussed in the Supplement. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 33

34 Response to Comment 7-3: The Environmental Assessment includes sections on effects for recreation and access. These effects address use and access of the Forest by recreationists and other users (including seasonal property owners and permanent residents). A mixed use analysis completed by Engineering staff evaluated compatibility of adding OHV use to the Lima Grade and found that it would be a safe mixed use. The project record includes notes of meetings between Forest Service staff and property owners in your area where concerns were considered. Finally, as stated in the EA in several sections, we note that adding OHV use on an existing higher standard road would have only minor impacts. Adding OHV use on higher standard roads (including the Lima Grade) would produce very minor or negligible additional impacts to soil and water resources (see Watershed Section of EA). The Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment considered effects from OHV use on roads designated in each alternative, including the Lima Grade. It was found that effects to wildlife would not cause a trend towards listing of Regional Forester Sensitive Species, and would not likely adversely affect Threatened and Endangered Species. All of these factors along with the rest of the EA, Supplement and project record and will be considered by the Forest Supervisor in issuing a new decision. Response to Comment 7-4: Please see response to comment 7-2. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 34

35 Response to Comment 8-1: Thank you for your comments. Your letter is very similar to letter #4. Please see response to comments for letter # Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 35

36 8-1 Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 36

37 Response to Comment 9-1: Thank you for your comments. It is noted that the Lima Grade has been closed to OHV use, and would remain closed under the no action alternative. Under Alternative 2 Modified, much of the Lima Grade would be opened to OHV use. We believe that the closure south of 152C would maintain a reasonable mix of uses in the area, and would still allow for a loop riding opportunity and camping at a gravel pit north of 152C. Not every use can be accommodated everywhere on the national forest, but we have attempted to strike a reasonable balance that both provides for resource protection and improved loop riding opportunities in the Travel Management Project. 9-1 Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 37

38 Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 38

39 Response to Comment 10-1: Thank you for your comments. Your letter is very similar to letter #4. Please see response to comments for letter # Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 39

40 July 19, 2009 Supplement to the Forest-wide Travel Management Project c/o James W Sanders Superior National Forest 8901 Grand Ave Place Duluth MN Response to Comment 11-1: Thank you for your comments. We believe that Alternative 2 Modified would reduce negative effects to natural resources while providing loop riding opportunities for OHVs. Re: Request for Comments Dear Mr. Sanders: I am writing in response to the Supplement to the Forest-wide Travel management Plan for the Superior National Forest. I believe that the Supplement adequately address the air quality, wild-life, and illegal use effects and concerns while maintaining reasonable multiple-use. I believe that the increased interest in off-road opportunities is reflected by the opening of the off-road park outside of Gilbert, MN and the one planned for Grand Rapids, MN. I believe that the development of such areas in conjunction with the Travel- Management plan as a whole will reduce the occurrence of illegal off-road activities I believe that the proposed plan is appropriate and environmentally sound. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dr. Dr. Joseph B. Caulfield, LP Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 40

41 Response to Comment 12-1: Thank you for your comments. We acknowledge that the Supplement states that direct and indirect effects to visibility would be less than 0.005%, that decreasing road mileage decreases impacts on wildlife, and that there would be less potential effects from illegal use under the action alternatives In regards to setting a precedent, a decision on the Travel Management Project does not determine or obligate any future project decisions. It is noted that the Lima Grade has been closed to OHV use, and would remain closed under the no action alternative. Under Alternative 2 Modified, much of the Lima Grade would be opened to OHV use. We believe that the closure south of 152C would maintain a reasonable mix of uses in the area, and would still allow for a loop riding opportunity and camping at a gravel pit north of 152C. Not every use can be accommodated everywhere on the national forest, but we have attempted to strike a reasonable balance that both provides for resource protection and improved loop riding opportunities in the Travel Management Project. Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 41

42 Response to Comment 13-1: Thank you for your comments. Your letter is very similar to letter #9. Please see letter #9 for response Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 42

43 Response to Comment 14-1: Thank you for your comments. Your letter is very similar to letter #4. Please see letter #4 for response Appendix C: Response to Comments November 2009 Decision Notice 43