Mixed Use of Forest Roads 459 and 457 Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 Mixed Use of Forest Roads 459 and 457 Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service Superior National Forest Kawishiwi Ranger District St. Louis County, Minnesota February, 2014 For additional information, contact: John Pierce 1393 Hwy 169 Ely, MN (218)

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's target center at (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-w, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC or call (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.1 Introduction Organization of the Environmental Assessment Purpose and Need Purposed Action Management Direction, Laws, Policy and Agreements Decision to be Made Public Involvement Issues 4 Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives 2.1 Introduction Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternatives Considered and Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis Comparison of Alternatives 6 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Recreation Wilderness Wildlife, Fisheries and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Soil and Water Heritage Resources Safety Non-Native Invasive Species Air Quality Civil Rights and Environmental Justice 15 Chapter 4: Lists 4.1 Lists 16 Appendices Appendix A: Scoping Comment Disposition Appendix B: Cumulative Actions Appendix C: Vicinity Map Appendix D: Biological Evaluation Figures Figure 1. Sound generated from OHV on FR 459/457 Mixed Use Route... 9 Figure 2. Water bodies near FR 459/457 Mixed Use Route 11 Environmental Assessment i

4 1.1 Introduction CHAPTER 1-PURPOSE AND NEED Chapter 1 describes the purpose and need for the Mixed Use Project which proposes to combine passenger vehicles and OHVs on 5.25 miles of existing Forest roads to enhance long-distance recreational vehicle riding opportunities. Chapter 1 also describes the proposed action, Forest Plan direction for the recreation resource, and an outline of issues related to the project identified through public and internal scoping. The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and State laws and regulations which provides a framework for determining the effects of proposed project. The analysis will consider potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed activities. The Mixed Use Project is located on the U.S. Forest Service Kawishiwi Ranger District; therefore, the deciding official for this project will be the Kawishiwi District Ranger. See Appendix C for a vicinity map of the Project Area. 1.2 Organization of the Environmental Assessment This EA is organized into four chapters with appendices and follows the format established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR ) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The major sections of the EA are as follows: Chapter 1: Purpose and Need. This section provides introductory material that explains the purpose and need for the proposed action, provides background information about the project area, presents the pertinent laws and regulations, and describes the issues to be addressed. Chapter 2: Alternatives. This section describes the no action alternative and the action alternative, both of which are analyzed in Chapter 3. This chapter also includes mitigation measures and monitoring procedures that would be used in implementing the action alternative. A summary comparison of the environmental effects for each alternative is also provided. Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Effects. This section describes the affected environment and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects likely to occur with the implementation of each alternative. Chapter 4: References. This chapter provides names of the preparers and contributors to this EA, a distribution list, references, and literature cited. Appendices: Appendix A-Scoping Comment Disposition Appendix B-Cumulative Actions Appendix C-Vicinity Map Appendix D-Biological Evaluation An important consideration in the preparation of this EA was the reduction of paperwork as specified in 40 CFR The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to Environmental Assessment 1

5 demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental effects on the alternatives and how any adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. Additional supporting information is in the Mixed Use Analysis Project Record and is available at the Kawishiwi Ranger District Office in Ely, Minnesota, or upon request. This EA is tiered to the 2004 Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). Relevant analysis from the Forest Plan Revision Final EIS was incorporated by reference rather than repeating the information. The Mixed Use Project will incorporate by reference the Forest-wide Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment (TMP EA) and its project record. The TMP determined in 2009 which roads and trails on the Superior National Forest would be available for public motorized use, including highway vehicles (licensed cars and trucks), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), offhighway motorcycles (OHMs), and unlicensed off road-vehicles (class 2 ATVs and non-highway legal 4 wheel drive vehicles) for the entire Superior National Forest. The Mixed Use Project analysis is much narrower in scope with a focus only on whether or not Forest Roads 459 and 457 will be open to ATV/OHM. Since the TMP EA thoroughly analyzed the effects of the same type of activity (designating higher standard roads for mixed motorized use on the Superior National Forest), the Mixed Use EA will incorporate this analysis by reference and will not repeat the analysis contained in the TMP EA. The Mixed Use EA will focus on any site-specific issues in the Forest Road 459/457 area. 1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Mixed Use Project is based on the need to provide recreational vehicle riding opportunities in an area of the Forest where only short segments of road are currently open to motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). The roads being considered for mixed use originate off the Echo Trail which runs roughly from Ely to Crane Lake. Wilderness units of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) where motorized vehicles are not authorized are located both north and south of the Echo Trail. This creates a setting where very few and only short segments of road are available for ATV riding along the Echo Trail corridor. Both Forest Road (FR) 459 and FR 457 are well traveled high standard gravel roads that would not be damaged by OHV traffic; therefore, the purpose of this project is to provide a long distance riding opportunity in the Echo Trail corridor area on existing roads that would also connect to three other short gravel roads currently open to ATV travel. The project would help achieve several Desired Conditions in the Forest Plan: D-REC-1: The Forest provides a range of quality motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities to satisfy diverse public interests while maintaining sustainable ecosystems. (Forest Plan, p. 2-40) D-RMV-1: The Forest provides recreation motor vehicle road and trail riding opportunities with experiences in a variety of forest environments, while protecting natural resources. (Forest Plan, p. 2-43) D-RMV 2: Allowed, restricted, and prohibited recreation motor vehicle uses are clearly defined to the public. Where practical, recreation motor vehicle policies are consistent with adjacent public land management agencies. (Forest Plan, p. 2-43) Environmental Assessment 2

6 D-TS-3: The transportation system design considers environmental, social, and health concerns. (Forest Plan, p. 2-47) 1.4 Proposed Action The proposed action is to allow OHV 1 s to mix with vehicle traffic on Forest Roads 459 and 457 (see Appendix C-Vicinity Map for location). The designation would occur on existing roads. The only physical change to the environment would be the implementation of recommendations made in an Engineering Report (see project file) that include wider brushing on corners for better visibility, additional signs indicating mixed use, and the widening of a rock cut on FR 457. The Superior National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map would be updated to show the use on FR 459/ Management Direction, Laws, Policy and Agreements The Mixed Use Project fits within the following goals, desired conditions, and guidelines outlined in the 2004 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan): Goals (Forest Plan p. 2-5) Provide a variety of uses, values, products, and services for present and future generations by managing within the capability of sustainable ecosystems. Provide management direction that enhances social and economic benefits for individuals and communities. Maintain a road and trail system that provides opportunities for people to access the national forest. Contribute to efforts to sustain the American Indian way of life, cultural integrity, social cohesion, and economic well-being. Desired Conditions D-REC-1: The Forest provides a range of quality motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities to satisfy diverse public interests while maintaining sustainable ecosystems. (Forest Plan, p. 2-40) D-RMV-1: The Forest provides recreation motor vehicle road and trail riding opportunities with experiences in a variety of forest environments, while protecting natural resources. (Forest Plan, p. 2-43) D-RMV 2: Allowed, restricted, and prohibited recreation motor vehicle uses are clearly defined to the public. Where practical, recreation motor vehicle policies are consistent with adjacent public land management agencies. (Forest Plan, p. 2-43) D-TS-2: The National Forest road system is the minimum needed to provide adequate access to both national forest system and non-system land. (Forest Plan, p. 2-47) D-TS-3: The transportation system design considers environmental, social, and health concerns. (Forest Plan, p. 2-47) Guidelines 1 Includes Class 1 and 2 ATVs and Off Highway Motorcycles. Environmental Assessment 3

7 G-RMV-1: OHV use is generally prohibited on OML 3, 4, and 5 roads. OHV use may be allowed on specific segments of OML 3, 4 and roads to provide connections to other roads and trails open to OHVs, if safety, resource and other requirements can be addressed. (Forest Plan P. 2-44) The analysis in this EA provides information on safety and other resource considerations for the Responsible Official to consider in allowing the specific segments of FR 459/457 for OHV use to provide connections to the other routes off FR 459/457 which are open to OHV. Management Area The project area is in the General Forest-Longer Rotation Management Area, where ATV use is allowed. The area of the BWCAW closest to the project area is designated as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Wilderness. 1.6 Decision to Be Made The Kawishiwi District Ranger will decide whether or not to implement any of the proposed management activities. If the District Ranger decides to conduct management activities, he will then decide on the following: Allow motorized mixed use on FR 457 and 459 Relevant mitigation measures and monitoring actions The District Ranger will also decide if the proposed management activities would have a significant impact that would trigger the need to prepare an environmental impact statement. The Mixed Use Project is an activity implementing a land management plan and not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act; therefore, the decision is subject to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Only individuals or organizations who submit timely and specific written comments as defined at 36 CFR regarding the proposed project during a public comment period established by the Responsible Official are eligible to file an objection to the decision on the Mixed Use Project. 1.7 Public Involvement To learn of internal and external issues or concerns related to this project, review by a Forest Service interdisciplinary team occurred in September of 2012, and an external public comment period initiated by a project proposal letter mailed to interested parties and adjacent landowners occurred from March 18 through April 18, Public comments received during scoping ranged from support for the project due to expanded ATV riding opportunities, concerns about the potential increase in noise generated by ATVs, to public safety concerns from people who enjoy walking the road. The disposition of scoping comments is located at Appendix A to the EA. 1.8 Issues Scoping comments indicated concerns about safety, noise, wilderness, water resources, wildlife, and invasive species impacts that could occur from mixed use designation. These issues were addressed in the TMP EA and that analysis is incorporated by reference in this document. The interdisciplinary team considered the potential for any site-specific effects in the FR 459/457 Environmental Assessment 4

8 area for these resources in the analysis. No issues that required additional management alternatives were identified. See Appendix A for the disposition of scoping comments. CHAPTER 2-DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes a no action alternative and an action alternative. Both alternatives will comply with policy, regulation, laws, and ordinances of the federal, State, county, and municipalities that are applicable to the area or operations covered by this proposal. 2.2 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternative 1-No Action Under the No-action Alternative, motorized use designations would not change in the FR 459/457 area. FR 459/457 would continue to allow highway legal vehicles and prohibit OHVs. Three spur roads off FR 459/457 would allow OHV and would not be connected to other OHV legal routes. Alternative 2-Proposed Action Alternative 2 would designate a 5.25 mile portion of FR 459/457 shown in Appendix C as open to both highway legal vehicles and OHV. In addition, the following design features and mitigation measures would be implemented per the Engineering Report (in project file): wider brushing on corners for better visibility, additional signs indicating mixed use, widening of a rock cut on FR 457, and notification to local road users (i.e. outfitters and livery services). The Superior National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map would also be updated to show mixed use on FR 459/457. The area would be monitored for the same criteria identified in the Travel Management Project Decision Notice (in project file). This includes safety, noise, unauthorized routes, soil and water, and non-native invasive species. 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward For Further Analysis Do Not Designate Mixed Use in this Area Several commenters suggested that this area of the Forest is inappropriate to designate for mixed use. This is already considered in the No-action Alternative and does not require an additional alternative. Environmental Assessment 5

9 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives Resource Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Recreation Wilderness No change in long-distance OHV riding opportunities; no changes to non-motorized recreation opportunities affected by existing motorized noise Existing motorized noise sources continue A 5.25 mile increase in longdistance riding opportunity and connections to existing routes; limited adverse impacts to nonmotorized recreation Increase in adverse impacts to wilderness character; small in scope Wildlife Similar to existing condition Not likely to adversely affect threatened and sensitive species NNIP Weeds confined to roadside Weeds confined to roadside; little incremental spread Watershed Water quality is high Very small impact; water quality is high Air Quality Air quality is high Very small impact; air quality is high Safety Similar to existing condition; FR 459/457 is low traffic Heritage No effect No effect Risk is low with mitigation measures Environmental Assessment 6

10 CHAPTER 3- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the environmental effects to the resource if the Action Alternative is implemented. It provides the basis for the comparison of the proposal with the No-action Alternative. Chapter 3 also considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project proposal to adjacent and surrounding resources. Actions considered for cumulative effects are in Appendix B-Cumulative Actions. 3.1 RECREATION Analysis Methods The analysis methods used to measure the effects of this project on the recreation resource will emphasize the difference between the No-action and Action Alternatives. The degree and nature of recreation opportunities and experience will be compared between alternatives. The indictor used to evaluate effects is the miles of longer-distance OHV riding opportunity Analysis Area The analysis area includes the project area map shown in Appendix C. This analysis area is chosen because the purpose and need for the project is to provide longer-distance riding opportunities in the area off the Echo Trail shown on the map. The analysis timeframe is 20 years since the proposed OHV designation in Alternative 2 would be long term Affected Environment The analysis area includes multiple-use National Forest System lands between two units of the BWCAW. On these NFS lands outside the BWCAW, OHV use is allowed in the Forest Plan along with non-motorized recreation such as hiking, bird watching, and canoeing. Currently, there are few long-distance OHV riding opportunities in the project area Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would continue to be a lack of long-distance OHV riding opportunities in the project area. The non-motorized recreation experience would continue to be available in a similar fashion to the existing condition. Alternative 2 A long-distance OHV riding opportunity would be provided as discussed in Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, by connecting FR 459/457 to three spur trails. This opportunity would likely be used in most cases by local riders during hunting season. Dispersed non-motorized recreation opportunities outside the BWCAW may be affected by noise from OHV (see Figure 1). Based on a field review of the project area and discussions with users, OHV traffic levels on FR 459/457 are anticipated to be low for most of the year except for a relative increase during the hunting Environmental Assessment 7

11 season, limiting the duration and frequency of impact. See the TMP EA, Section 3.7 for further discussion on impacts to recreation from OHV designation. Cumulative Effects There are no known additional proposals in the area to open routes to OHV; however, ongoing highway legal motor vehicle use, logging traffic, and aircraft patrols could contribute additional motorized sounds to this area of the Forest. Approximately 63 acres of timber harvest units from the Echo Trail Project near the proposed mixed use route could contribute temporary, small scope cumulative noise effects. It is unknown at this time whether or not these units will be harvested. 3.2 WILDERNESS Analysis Methods The TMP EA Section 3.9 describes analysis methods for impacts to the BWCAW from OHV route designation. This EA uses the analysis methods described in Section 3.9 of the TMP EA and evaluates areas of the BWCAW within one mile of routes designated by the proposal Analysis Area The area of the BWCAW within one mile of the FR 459/457 mixed use proposal is evaluated for noise impacts. Motorized sound may be heard for a greater distance; however, as discussed in the TMP EA Section 3.9, this area includes an area (within one mile), where the sound may be most noticeable. The analysis timeframe is 20 years since the proposed mixed use designation may be long term Affected Environment The BWCAW is a 1.1 million acre wilderness with multiple canoeing, hiking, and camping opportunities. See the TMP EA Section 3.9 for more information Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Sound from highway legal vehicles on FR 459/457 would continue to be heard in the BWCAW, particularly as they approach the Mudro Lake entry point. The noise from highway legal vehicles would cause an adverse impact to opportunities for solitude in the area, along with other humanmade sounds such as aircraft patrols and logging operations. Alternative 2 In addition to highway legal vehicles, OHV could be heard in the BWCAW if the OHV travels north towards the Mudro Lake entry point on FR 457 (see Figure 1). This would cause an adverse impact to opportunities for solitude in the area. Based on a field review of the project area and discussions with users, OHV traffic levels on FR 459/457 are anticipated to be low for Environmental Assessment 8

12 most of the year except for a relative increase during hunting season, limiting the duration and frequency of impact. Cumulative Effects There are no known additional proposals in the area to open routes to OHV; however, ongoing highway legal motor vehicle use, logging, and aircraft patrols could contribute additional motorized sounds to this area of the BWCAW. This includes about 63 acres of timber harvest from the Echo Trail Project near the proposed mixed use route that could contribute temporary and small scope cumulative noise effects if the units are harvested. Figure 1. Sound generated from OHV on FR 459/457 Mixed Use Route Mudro Lake Entry Point Portage to Louis Lake Mudro Lake Environmental Assessment 9

13 3.3 WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES A Biological Evaluation for threatened species (Canada Lynx and its critical habitat and the northern long-eared bat) and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) was prepared and is available on the Superior National Forest Project page at under Mixed Use Motorized Use Project or available by request. The Biological Evaluation found that the proposal may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Canada Lynx and its critical habitat and the same finding for the northern long-eared bat. Additionally, it found that the proposal is not likely to cause a trend towards federal list of RFSS.Sou 3.4 SOIL AND WATER Analysis Methods Relevant methods from the TMP EA (Section 3.10) were used. Designation of OHV on an existing high standard road, and evaluation of water bodies within 100 feet of the designated area and stream crossings are evaluated Analysis Area The analysis area is FR 459/457 and the soil and water resources within 100 feet of the proposed mixed use segment of these roads. This area is chosen based on indicators used in the TMP EA (Section , Indicator 2) and that measureable watershed-scale effects from a designation that does not include new land-clearing disturbance is very unlikely (TMP EA Section ). The analysis timeframe is 20 years since the proposed OHV designation in Alternative 2 would be long term Affected Environment Watershed quality on the Superior NF is generally high (Forest Plan FEIS Watershed section), including in the area of FR459/457. There are two stream crossings and one water body (Picket Lake) within 100 feet of the mixed use proposal on FR 459/457 (see Figure 2). Environmental Assessment 10

14 Figure 2. Water bodies near FR 459/457 Mixed Use Route Picket Lake Environmental Assessment 11

15 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no change to soil or water resources from activity on FR 459/457 since the designation would not change. Water quality and productivity in the analysis area would remain high as referenced in Affected Environment. Alternative 2 There would be minimal adverse impacts to soil or water resources from designating FR 459/457 as open to mixed use. These high standard roads already accept truck traffic and are designed to accept motorized traffic such as OHV. Adding OHV use would result in minimal change to soil or water (TMP EA Section ). There is one open water body within 100 feet of the mixed use route (Picket Lake) and two stream crossings. These are potential locations of sedimentation (TMP EA Section 3.10); however, the high standard roads are designed to minimize such impacts. Currently, there are no observed sedimentation problems in these areas, and adding OHV is not anticipated to create new problems since their effects are similar to trucks (which are already allowed). Cumulative Effects Traffic from logging trucks or increased recreation use could increase sedimentation at the stream and lake crossings; however, the high standard roads are designed to minimize such impacts. The mixed use designation is not designating any low standard routes that could be jumping-off points for illegal cross country use that could create cumulative impacts. 3.5 HERITAGE RESOURCES The Federal Government is mandated by section 106 (36 CFR 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 to protect heritage resource sites. When there is an undertaking, such as this Mixed Use Project with a defined boundary, which has the potential to effect historic properties, a review is undertaken to determine if heritage sites may be present. Review is a two-step process; the first step is a review of records to see what has already been surveyed, the second step involves on-site surveys in areas of high probability. If the survey yields a new heritage site, the area is flagged and mapped, and as with all Forest Service projects (per national policy), the site is avoided during project implementation. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No known sites would be affected because no activity to designate the routes for motorized mixed use would occur. Environmental Assessment 12

16 Alternative 2 No known sites would be affected and discovery of new sites would require that the project be modified to have no effect on the new site. Cumulative Effects Since direct and indirect effects would be avoided, there would not be cumulative effects to heritage resources. 3.6 SAFETY Analysis Methods A mixed use analysis was done by a Qualified Engineer. This analysis evaluated the safety of designating FR 459/457 for mixed use and any mitigation measures recommended Analysis Area The portion of FR 459/457 proposed for mixed use is the analysis area. The analysis timeframe is 20 years since the proposed OHV designation in Alternative 2 would be long term Affected Environment Forest Roads 459 and 457 are high standard roads open to motor vehicles (cars and trucks). Unless active timber sales are being harvested, most traffic consists of BWCAW visitors and canoe trip outfitter employees using cars and light trucks. Commercial traffic includes logging trucks during active timber sales. Vehicle counts generally peak during summer and hunting seasons in fall. Mechanical count data from indicate an average daily traffic range between 55 and 62 with 82 percent of traffic consisting of light cars and trucks. See the mixed use analysis in the project file for further information about road conditions and use Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no change in use designations in the area; therefore, there would be no change in a risk of accident. Alternative 2 The mixed use analysis indicates that if mixed use were to be allowed on FR 457 and 459 as the road exists today, the crash probability would be low according to the Engineering Report for Mixed Use Designation. However, due to the faster speeds possible on these two roads because of the straight alignment and smoother surface, the risk of a severe crash is elevated to medium. Through mixed use, mitigation measures to reduce the crash risk include brushing of vegetation on corners, adequate signing to instruct drivers that mixed use is authorized, and that local canoe trip outfitters would be contacted and cautioned that their drivers need to be aware of ATV traffic and instructed to slow down (Mixed Use Analysis, p. 3). Environmental Assessment 13

17 Cumulative Effects If traffic on FR 459/457 substantially increased, there could be an increased safety risk. This would be identified through monitoring and addressed if the situation arises. This is considered unlikely since added OHV traffic on FR 459/457 would largely consist of local users. 3.7 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES Analysis Methods The TMP EA, Section 3.12, evaluated the potential for invasive plant spread and used the indicator of mileage of unclassified road open to motorized use. The FR 459/457 mixed use proposal does not open any mileage of unclassified road and instead adds OHV to a higher standard road that already allows motor vehicles Analysis Area The analysis area is the FR 459/457 route and the area within 0.5 miles of the route. This includes the area where weeds from use of the road might spread (TMP EA Section 3.12). The analysis timeframe is 10 years (TMP EA, Section 3.12) Affected Environment See the TMP EA, Section 3.12 for discussion on weed spread in environments on the SNF. The FR 459/457 road corridor includes the potential for weed spread along the roadside from motorized (and non-motorized) travel Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no additional weed spread from OHV use; however, existing motor vehicle traffic could spread weeds. Alternative 2 The TMP EA, Section 3.12 notes that weed spread on existing corridors such as FR 459/457 began when the route was constructed, and weeds would occur on the roadside where it could be managed. There would be a minimal additional weed spread on the FR 459/457 corridor by adding OHV traffic. The TMP EA also evaluated that additional weed spread into the BWCAW due to adding a mixed use is unlikely. Cumulative Effects Treatments authorized under the 2006 NNIP Management Project would reduce any weed spread, while traffic from any logging operations on the route could result in a small cumulative addition to weed spread. Environmental Assessment 14

18 3.8 AIR QUALITY As discussed in the TMP EA (Section 3.16), all of the OHV use, snowmobile use, and logging equipment use in the four northeastern counties of Minnesota contribute less than percent of the visibility impacts to the BWCAW. The OHV use allowed under Alternative 2 is a small fraction of this percent. Also, 90 percent of any fugitive dust produced by OHV would settle within 50 meters of the roadway (TMP EA Section 3.16). Alternative 2 would not result in noticeable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the Class I Air Shed or other air quality factors evaluated in the TMP EA. Alternative 1 would have similar effects to Alternative 2 since overall OHV use levels on the Forest would show almost no change between alternatives. 3.9 CIVIL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Alternatives 1 and 2. Forest Service activities must be conducted in a discrimination-free atmosphere. This would apply to construction activities that may occur upon implementation of campground improvement projects. Executive Order of February 11, 1994, Environmental Justice as part of environmental policy, calls for consideration of the environmental, health, and economic effects on minority and low-income areas including the consumption patterns of fish and wildlife. Neither the No-action Alternative nor the Action Alternative are expected to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on minorities and low-income populations. Environmental Assessment 15

19 CHAPTER 4-LISTS 4.1 Lists Analysis Team Members John Pierce, Team Leader and Recreation Specialist Peter Taylor, Integrated Resource Analyst and NEPA specialist Kari Kirschbaum, Wildlife Biologist Heather Hoffman, Archaeologist USFS Specialists Consulted Emily Creighton, Hydrologist Carl Skustad, Wilderness Specialist Governments and Agencies Consulted Fond du Lac Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Boise Forte Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Grand Portage Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MN Department of Natural Resources St. Louis County Forestry Commenters from Scoping The individuals and organizations that received the scoping package are listed in the Mixed Use EA project record. Those who commented on the project include: Mike Levig Daniel H. Mundt John Chelesnik Mike Loe Pat Loe Kevin Niskala Dick Olson Dave Soular Dave Spenser Robert Barkdoll Stephen B. Erickson Chris Fink Leonard Groom III Jan Harrington Scott Hagans Jeff and Cindy Holker Jamie Pucel Joe Pucel Tim Kerntz Mike Meier Carolyn Meier Annah Gardner, Sierra Club Lois Norrgard, Sierra Club Don Zupec Environmental Assessment 16

20 4.2: References 2009 Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment and project record, USDA Forest Service 2004 Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, USDA Forest Service 2004 Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, USDA Forest Service Environmental Assessment 17

21 This page is intentionally blank. Environmental Assessment 18