USDA FOREST SERVICE, HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST Alger County, Michigan I. INTRODUCTION Grand Island Primitive Cabins Project DECISION NOTICE and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT This document describes my decision and the rationale for implementing the Grand Island Primitive Cabins Project on the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF). This decision and findings are based on the Grand Island Primitive Cabins Project Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted by an interdisciplinary (ID) team. This decision involves permitting the construction of two primitive cabins that would be available for rental by the general public on the southern part of the Grand Island National Recreation Area (GINRA). The EA describes the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action (p. 4), the Proposed Action (p. 5), the design elements of the Proposed Action (pgs. 7-8), Alternative 1 which was considered in detail (p. 9), alternatives considered but eliminated (pgs. 10-11) and the effects of the two alternatives on various resources (pgs. 14-58). The HNF has been managing GINRA since 1990. Since that time, the Forest has been developing infrastructure designed to accommodate public recreation use, protect resources, and increase accessibility. These projects have included establishing a passenger ferry service and interpretive bus tour, constructing roads, trails, toilets, water systems, beach accesses, day use areas, and campsites including two group sites. Summer recreation use has increased from 1,000 users on the passenger ferry in 1990 to 3,500 in 2008. Recreation opportunities on GINRA are receiving more exposure due to increased marketing, feature articles in travel and tourism publications, word of mouth and events such as the annual Grand Island Trail Marathon and 10K Run. II. DECISION RATIONALE A. Decision Based on the analysis and documentation provided in the Grand Island Primitive Cabins EA and comments received during scoping and the 30-day notice and comment period, it is my decision to select the Proposed Action. The design features and the mitigation measures for the Proposed Action described in the EA will be implemented (p. 7-10). B. Rationale 1
My decision to implement the Proposed Action considered existing conditions, environmental affects, and public comments. I also considered direction provided in the Forest Plan (p. 3-78 to 3-85), National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and related regulations and policy. I made this decision based on the following reasons: 1. The Proposed Action best meets the Purpose and Need as described in the EA 2. The Proposed Action addresses issues brought up during scoping 3. The Proposed Action protects other resource objectives 1. The Proposed Action best meets the Purpose and Need. The Purpose and Need is found on page 4 and 5 of the EA. The legislation for GINRA directed the Management Plan to provide for a range of appropriate recreation opportunities consistent with the rustic natural, and historic character of the island [PL 101-292, Section 7 (b)(i)]. The management planning process that took place between 1990 and 1994 resulted in Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that permitted seven primitive cabins sleeping no more that eight people each (EA, p. 4). No more than two could be located in the summer semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class and none on the Tombolo (EA, p. 4). The Standards and Guidelines did not specify the exact location for the cabins. That task is being accomplished through this sitespecific NEPA analyses. The above-mentioned Standards and Guidelines were incorporated into the 2006 Forest Plan (p. 3-80). In addition, the HNF completed a five year Strategic Plan (2007-2011) for GINRA in which tourism trends, nationally and in the central UP region, were used to identify GINRA s niche in the regional recreation and tourism area. The Strategic Plan identifies Grand Island s niche in the Central UP as offering adventurous special interest activities with easy access to equipment rentals and guide services. Part of the service improvements identified to achieve the strategic vision includes providing primitive cabin and historic cottage overnight opportunities (Grand Island NRA Strategic Plan 2007-2011). I think it is a reasonable approach to build two cabins initially. We are able to meet the need of diversifying the overnight accommodations and supporting regional tourism by providing diverse experiences for visitors; but by doing it in steps. Taking this first step gives the proponents and the Forest Service the opportunity to assess the need for further cabins by monitoring occupancy, visitor satisfaction, financial success, and any effects on recreationists of the first two cabins. I believe Cabin #1 s location is a good choice because the cabin is located along the west rim trail and near a beach location with a view to the west out into the expanse of Lake Superior (EA, p. 48). The site is away from concentrations of motorized use and the 2
feeling of privacy is high (EA, p. 42). It feels like you are in a remote part of the island when in fact you are only 0.8 mile from Williams Landing. It is accessible for hikers, bicyclists, and kayakers (EA, pgs. 41-43). As for Cabin #2 s location, my rationale for selecting it in the Proposed Action is much the same as for Cabin #1. Cabin #2 is located on a busier part of the island s rim than Cabin #1 even though both sites are in a Roaded Natural ROS (EA, p. 42). The desirable attribute of Cabin #2 is that it is located near the turnaround for the island bus and will afford ready access by bus for those who do not prefer to hike, bike, or kayak to the cabin (EA, p. 42). Yet, access is easy for hikers, bicyclists, and kayakers as well. Cabin #2 is also a desirable location because it is readily accessible to the rim trail and to views of the islands to the west and spectacular sunsets (EA, p. 48). In summary, I believe construction of these two cabins meets the Purpose and Need by moving the GINRA in the direction of the Desired Condition described in the Forest Plan (p. 3-89) by diversifying overnight accommodations. The cabins respond to a demonstrated need and help a greater number of people enjoy the hiking, biking, and kayaking opportunities on the island. 2. The Proposed Action addresses issues brought up during scoping. Issue 1 captured concerns that trails users may experience less remoteness or feel the area is less pristine than expected. Some commenter s expressed strong feeling that Cabin #1 s location would detract from the feeling of remoteness in this part of the island; that there would be adverse effects on other recreationists such as hikers and bicyclists. I believe section 3.6.5.1 of the EA does an accurate job of disclosing the effects on other users. By employing the design elements and mitigation measures (EA, p. 7-10), the construction and occupancy of Cabin #1 would be fully in harmony with the Roaded Natural ROS class. Section 3.6.5.1 of the EA accurately describes the effect of Cabin #2 on recreationists. Some commenters also had serious concerns that Cabin #1 would create a negative effect on visual quality. I believe the design elements and mitigation measures (EA, p. 7-10) maintain the visual quality objective (VQO) of Partial Retention. The size, design, and color of the cabin will blend in with the surrounding environment. It will be a priority to design a pathway and to locate the cabin site so as to make this site minimally visible from the trail. We will also minimize the number of large diameter trees removed during development of the site. Cabins have been present on the island for at least 170 years, scattered around the island s rim; they are a part of the history, scenery, and experience on the island (EA, pgs. 52-53). Issue 2 reflects concerns that construction and routine operation and maintenance of Cabin #1 would cause the trail to have the look and feel of a road as opposed to a trail. This would diminish the hike-in feel to the trail and would reduce the quality of the recreation experience. I believe by employing the design elements and mitigation 3
measures (EA, p. 7-10) we will be able to maintain the trail tread and current width. These measures include limiting the size of the construction equipment used to develop the site; limiting the size of vehicle and number of trips it makes to perform routine maintenance on the cabin; and limiting the size of the septic pump truck used to pump the toilet. 3. The Proposed Action protects other resource objectives Both cabin locations adhere to the requirement in the Grand Island legislation that directs facilities to be compatible with the rustic, natural, and historic character of the island and that their location would not impair the view from Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. Scenic quality will be protected and the Partial Retention VQO will be maintained by employing the design elements and mitigation measures (EA, pgs. 7-10). Plant and wildlife resources would also be protected by following design elements and mitigation measures (EA, pgs. 7-10). Limited effects to Regional Forester sensitive species and no effects to threatened and endangered plant species would be anticipated as a result of implementing this decision (EA, p. 27). There would also be no effects to threatened or endangered or sensitive wildlife species as a result of implementing this decision (EA, p. 24). Heritage sites would be protected by implementing design elements and mitigation measures (EA, p. 56). III. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED During scoping, a number of commenters disagreed with our site selection. These comments led to identification of issues, which, in turn, led to development of Alternative 1. The EA discloses the environmental effects of the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action alternative. I believe the range of alternatives addresses the Purpose and Need for the project and addresses the issues identified during the public involvement process. I considered three other locations for Cabin #1, but the EA did not evaluate them in detail (EA, pgs. 10-11). a. Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, Cabin #2 s location would remain the same. Cabin #1 s location would be located 0.4 mile (2,000 feet) closer to William s Landing than Cabin #1 in the Proposed Action. It was developed in response to scoping comments that urged seeking a cabin location closer to Williams Landing. I did not select this location for two reasons: (1) the higher development costs associated with soils and water issues and (2) the desirability of the location from the recreationists experience standpoint. 4
Section 3.3.7.1 of the EA points out that Cabin #1 is located in an area of hydric soils and is mapped as a wetland. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at the surface during half of the year. These factors would result in restrictions on development of the site and would complicate use and maintenance (EA, p. 19). Second, the cabin location would be oriented to the south across the west channel over to the mainland. Developments such as the Munising Tourist Park campground and the village of Christmas are visible from the shoreline in front of this cabin location. Traffic noise from M-28 is clearly audible from the site (EA, p. 41). I believe this attribute alone makes this site a poor choice from the standpoint of providing a quality experience for the cabin renter. The proximity to the Channel Marker site is another reason I do not prefer this location (EA, p. 50). While this alternative meets the Purpose and Need, it would not provide the quality recreation experience provided with the Proposed Action. b. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Cabin Location #1 Alternative Location A Several of the scoping comments suggested Cabin #1 should be located closer to Williams Landing where other existing developments are located. Proceeding west from the Center Road, soils are wet and unsuitable for construction all the way to about the 1,000 foot (0.2 miles) point west of the gate on the West Rim Trail. A site was identified at the 1,000 foot point and was subsequently reviewed by an ID team. Upon closer review, this site was rejected because of a low landscape position, wet soils, and high development costs (EA, p.10). There was no ready access to Lake Superior. This location did not meet the Purpose and Need because the location did not provide an opportunity for a high quality recreation experience; therefore, it was eliminated from detailed study (EA, p.10). Cabin Location #1 Alternative Location B A second site was identified as an alternative site for Cabin #1 approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) from the gate on the West Rim Trail. The soils between Alternative Location A and Alternative Location B were also wet. The flagged location was visited by an ID team in 2008 and, as in Alternative Location A, the soils were found to be too wet, leading to either difficult construction options or high development costs (EA, pgs. 9-10). This site was similarly rejected because it did not meet the Purpose and Need. Cabin Location #1 Alternative Location C at Williams Landing Some of the scoping comments suggested Cabin #1 should be located at Williams Landing near the other existing developments so as to not infringe on the primitive nature of the southwest part of the island. This alternative was rejected because the location would not provide a pleasurable recreation experience for the cabin renter due to the amount of vehicle traffic and number of recreationists traveling to and from Williams Landing. The concept mapping for the Williams Landing Area already accommodates a 5
rustic lodge, store, garage/maintenance facility, and the existing Visitor Contact Station. Williams Landing will be a bustling start-off area, not a place for a quiet recreation experience (EA, p.11). Since this location did not meet the Purpose and Need, it was eliminated from detailed study. IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Grand Island Primitive Cabins Project was listed in the October 2008 Schedule of Proposed Actions and in all subsequent issues. The proposal was mailed to 41 people and organizations for comment. The scoping period occurred from March 31 to April 21, 2008. The proposal was listed on the Forest s website and published in the legal section of the Marquette Mining Journal. Comments from seven individuals were received. One follow-up conversation was held with a commenter to clarify his written comments. Correspondence was also exchanged with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the project proposal. Lastly, an open house was held with Grand Island residents in the summer of 2008 at which the proposal was discussed. Using comments from the public, the ID team developed a list of issues to address. On July 2, 2009, the EA was sent out for review to the people and groups who commented during the scoping period. A legal notice was published in the July 2, 2009 edition of the Marquette Mining Journal and on the HNF website notifying the public of the availability of the EA. Comments were received from two individuals. These comments were considered and placed in the project file. V. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS Consistency with Forest Plan Direction This action is consistent with the HNF Forest Plan and related Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Regional Forester Randy Moore signed the Record of Decision on the FEIS on March 20, 2006. Specifically, this decision is consistent with Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 8.5. VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In reaching my determination under 40 CFR 1508.27 that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not needed, I considered the following factors and information developed during the analysis of the proposal disclosed in the Grand Island Primitive Cabins EA: A. Context The analysis of the proposal is in a localized area with implications only for the immediate area. The total acreage involved in the construction of both cabins is less than one acre. The acreage of GINRA is 13,500 acres. The cumulative effects of past 6
management, combined with the current proposal, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are displayed in Chapter 3 of the EA. As a result of the analysis of those effects, I feel the context of this decision, both from a biological and social standpoint, is localized. Based on the environmental effects analysis, I conclude there will be no significant effects. B. Intensity 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse My finding of no significant environmental effects considers both beneficial and adverse effects. Beneficial effects have not been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects. Impacts associated with my decision are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. The overall positive effect is to move the GINRA towards a future condition that provides a greater variety of overnight accommodations that allow hikers, bicyclists, and kayakers to enjoy the island to a greater degree. I conclude that implementing the Proposed Action will not have any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. 2. The degree to which the Proposed Action affects public health and safety The cabins will be constructed so as to meet all Forest Service Health and Safety Code requirements (EA, p. 7). I conclude that there will be no significant effects to public health and safety. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. All heritage sites determined to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or whose NRHP status remains undetermined, will be removed from the area of potential effects through the establishment of a protection zone around the sites wherein no vegetation management or earth disturbing activities will be permitted. There will be no adverse effects to heritage resources (EA, p. 56). I conclude that there will be no significant effects to heritage resources. There are no park lands or prime farmlands in or adjacent to the project area. 7
The national Wetland Inventory maps do identify wetlands within 100 feet of Cabin # 1 s location, but no significant impacts to wetlands are expected (EA, pgs. 17-18). There are no wild and scenic rivers located on GINRA. Ecologically critical areas are those areas which exhibit unique ecological characteristics or, if altered, may affect the viability of threatened or endangered plant or animal species. Botanical and wildlife surveys were conducted throughout the project area (EA, section 3.4 and 3.5). An evaluation of the affected environment for the Proposed Action (EA, Chapter 3) determined there were no ecologically critical areas where management activities would occur. I conclude that there would be no significant impacts to ecologically critical areas. Based on these considerations, I conclude that there will be no significant effects on unique characteristics within the geographic area. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Controversy as described above, is a dispute within the scientific community. I do not believe the effects of the associated management actions represent a scientifically controversial impact upon the quality of the human environment. The activities in the Proposed Action will contribute toward reaching the desired condition and meeting the goals and objectives outlined in the HNF Forest Plan. This EA is tiered to the Forest Plan EIS. Forest-wide effects of Forest Plan standards were disclosed in that EIS. All actions are of a similar type and intensity to activities that have occurred in the past throughout the HNF and in this area. Based on these considerations, I conclude that there would be no significant effects on the quality of the human environment that are likely to be controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The HNF has some experience with introducing human elements into the natural landscape on GINRA. Over the past 19 years, a number of recreation facilities have been constructed. These include 19 campsites, 5 toilet buildings, 3 day use areas, 4 overlooks, a boneyard/parking area, bulletin boards, 2 beach accesses, 17 miles of road, 30 miles of trails, and dozens of signs and You are Here maps at road and trail intersections. We have constructed these facilities and amenities in a sensitive and appropriate way so as to be functional, yet to blend in with the natural environment. Over these years of implementing these changes on GINRA, we have gathered visitors reactions to the changes to the landscape. The consensus is that visitors have supported the changes as being necessary to accommodate recreation use and to protect resources. From the experience of the past 19 years, I would conclude that visitor s reaction to the cabins 8
would be much the same largely supportive of constructing cabins that will tastefully add to the island s landscape and recreation experience. In addition, we have almost 20 years experience managing two rental cabins on the HNF McKeever Cabin and Tom s Cabin. Our experience with these has been very positive. Occupancy and visitor satisfaction with both has been very high (comments from cabin log books). Based on the above information, I conclude there is not a high level of uncertainty or unique or unknown risks that have not been previously encountered. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This action is not a precedent setting decision. Effects of this project are minimal (EA, p. 18, 24, 33, 45-48, 54). As discussed above, there have been cabins on Grand Island for 170 years and we have experience with cabin construction and effects on the mainland. I reviewed the effects of the actions and find this project also fosters movement toward the desired condition in the Forest Plan. I conclude that this action does not establish precedence for future actions with unknown or significant risks to the environment. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulative significant impacts. Chapter 3 of the EA discusses the combined effects of this project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (EA, p. 19, 25, 35, 48, 54, 56). The analysis convinces me there will not be a significant cumulative impact from this action individually or in concert with other related past or present actions, or those anticipated in the foreseeable future beyond what has already been disclosed in the HNF Forest Plan FEIS. Based on the discussion in the EA, I conclude there are no significant cumulative impacts. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss, or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. No significant impacts are foreseen on any proposed or listed NRHPs, nor any loss or destruction of any scientific, cultural, or historic places (EA, p. 55-57). Based on the review of the proposed activities, design criteria and mitigation measures (EA, p.9), there is minimal risk that implementation of the Proposed Action would result in damage to heritage resources. 9
9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. No significant effects to any endangered or threatened species or their habitats are foreseen. The wildlife effects section 3.4.5 of the EA concluded that there were no effects on gray wolf. Based upon the conclusions documented in the EA, my decision will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species, critical habitat or proposed critical habitat applicable to the Endangered Species Act. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. This project does not violate federal, state, or local laws, regulations, and requirements designed for the protection of the environment, including the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and associated implementation regulations which provide for amendments and revisions of forest plans. FINDING Based on the analysis disclosed in the Grand Island Primitive Cabins EA and my evaluation of the factors described in 40 CFR 1508.27, this is not a major federal action, either individually or cumulatively, which will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an EIS is not needed. VII. FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY This decision is consistent with both the Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 8.5. All of the expected impacts from this project are consistent with the impacts disclosed in the FEIS. VIII. IMPLEMENTATION DATE If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before 5 business days from the close of the appeal-filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appeal disposition. IX. APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. An appeal may be filed by individuals and organizations that provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in the Proposed Action during the 30-day notice and comment period for this project. It is the appellant s responsibility to provide sufficient project-specific or activity-specific 10
evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the responsible official s decision should be reversed. The appeal must have an identifiable name attached or verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature may serve as verification on electronic appeals. To appeal this decision, a written Notice of Appeal must be postmarked or received within 45 calendar days after the Legal Notice is published in the Mining Journal (Marquette, Michigan). However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, then filing time is extended to the end of the next federal working day. The date of the publication of the Legal Notice is the only means for calculating the date by which appeals must be submitted. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. At a minimum, an appeal must include information as specified in 36 CFR 215.14(b). The Notice of Appeal should contain a subject line Grand Island Primitive Cabins Project. Written Notice of Appeal must be sent to: Tom Schmidt, Appeal Deciding Officer Attn: Appeals & Litigation USDA-Forest Service, Eastern Region 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 The Notice of Appeal may alternatively be faxed to 414-944-3963, Attn: Appeals Deciding Officer, USDA Forest Service, Eastern Regional Office. Those wishing to submit appeals by email may do so to: appeals-eastern-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Acceptable formats for electronic comments are text or html email, Adobe portable document format, and formats viewable in Microsoft Office applications. Receipt of electronic appeals to this inbox will be automatically acknowledged. X. CONTACT PERSON The project record is available upon request at USDA Forest Service, 400 E. Munising Avenue, Munising, MI 49862. For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Dick Anderson, Grand Island Primitive Cabins Project leader, 906-387-2512 ext. 30 or at raanderson@fs.fed.us. XI. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL S SIGNATURE AND DATE /s/ Teresa A. Chase 12/02/09 Teresa A. Chase Date of Decision District Ranger 11
Discrimination Notice: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sec, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 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 (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider. 12