CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction Chapter 1 describes the purpose and need for the proposed recreation enhancements at Whiteface, Cadotte, Pfeiffer, and Birch Lake Campgrounds. 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. Analysis of the project, initiated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), provides the framework for determining the effects of the proposed recreation developments. The analysis in this Environmental Assessment (EA) will consider potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed activities. The campground enhancement projects would occur on two ranger districts of the Superior National Forest, therefore the deciding officials will be the Laurentian and Kawishiwi District Rangers. See Appendix A for a map of the Project Area and maps showing the location of each campground. 1.2 Organization of the Environmental Assessment This Environmental Assessment (EA) is organized into four chapters with appendices and follows the format established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) 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, which are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. This chapter also includes mitigation measures and monitoring procedures that would be used in implementing the action alternative. 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 Environmental Assessment and literature cited. An important consideration in the preparation of this EA was the reduction of paperwork as specified in 40 CFR 1500.4. The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental effects of the alternatives and how any Environmental Assessment 1 Final
adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. Additional supporting information is in the West Zone Campgrounds Project Record and is available at the Kawishiwi Ranger District Office in Ely, Minnesota, or upon request. 1.3 Purpose and Need and Proposed Action The purpose for the project is based on the need to maintain existing facilities, enhance and diversify campgrounds to meet changing public demand for developed recreation sites, and to better manage the facilities by providing strategically located administrative sites for campground managers and hosts. Whiteface Campground Whiteface Campground was constructed in the early 1960 s and is the second most visited campground on the Superior National Forest. Facilities include 52 campsites, one group site, a picnic area, a playground, a swim beach, a boat launch with a dock, and hiking trails. A facility upgrade is needed at Whiteface Campground to halt deterioration of existing facilities and to diversify recreation opportunities for the public on the West Zone of the Superior National Forest. The proposed action for Whiteface Campground would involve enhancement of existing facilities and construction of new facilities including: an improved parking area and boat landing, the addition of two new group sites, installation of 2 accessible latrines, a new dump station for RVs, electrical hook-ups to most campsites, pull-through parking at some sites to accommodate larger RVs, three new shower buildings, an entry station, a re-designed campground host site, an over-flow parking area for the campsite loops, development of a bike/walking path from camping loops to day use and beach area, new boat moorings north of the beach, and re-surfacing of the playground area. Cadotte Lake Campground Cadotte Lake Campground was constructed in the 1960s. Facilities at the campground include: 27 campsites, a picnic area, a swim beach, a boat landing with a dock, and a fishing pier. The campground host site is currently located in an existing campsite. The proposed action for Cadotte Lake campground involves the construction of a new host site that would free up the current host site for public use and be better situated to serve the public and for monitoring day to day campground activities. Pfeiffer Lake Campground Pfeiffer Lake Campground was constructed in the 1930s. Facilities at the campground include: 16 campsites, a fishing deck, a boat landing, a playground, a picnic area, a swim beach and an interpretive trail. The current host site is located in one of the 16 existing campsites; therefore, the proposed action to construct a new site would open the existing host site to public use and be centrally located to better serve campground visitors. Birch Lake Campground Facilities at Birch Lake Campground include: 30 campsites with picnic tables, fire-grates and tent pads. A public boat launch with a dock and parking area is also located within the campground. A group campsite was designed and partially constructed between the two campground loops in the 1960s but never finished. Both the general public and the current campground concessionaire have Environmental Assessment 2 Final
noted demand for a group site. The proposed action for Birch Lake Campground would create a new group site in the same location where construction had begun over 30 years ago. A detailed description of these actions for each campground is also discussed in Chapter 2 under Description of Alternatives. The campground enhancements included in this project would be completed based on available funding and would likely begin as early as 2010. 1.4 Management Direction, Laws, Policy and Agreements Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), 2004: This projects implements the Forest Plan and the Environmental Assessment tiers to the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). All applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be followed if the action alternative is selected. Whiteface, Pfeiffer, and Cadotte Lake Campgrounds are located in the General Forest Management Area (MA) (Forest Plan, page 3-5), where the desired conditions for Recreation and Access in the General Forest MA include: Developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, picnic sites, boat landings, observation sites, trailheads, and swimming areas may be provided for public use. Facilities may be constructed to protect the environment and provide some comfort for users. Natural or natural-appearing materials give facilities a rustic appearance. Increased site modification that reduces the rustic natural appearance may occur at existing highly developed and heavily used sites. The Birch Lake Campground is located in the Recreation Use in a Scenic Landscape MA (Forest Plan, page 3-13). The desired conditions for Recreation and Access in the Recreation Use in a Scenic Landscape MA include: This management area provides a variety of recreation opportunities. Developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, picnic sites, boat landings, observation sites, trailheads, and swimming areas are provided for public use. Developed sites may have a high degree of modification. Facilities are generally designed for comfort and convenience of users. The campground improvements proposed in this project will build upon existing facilities at developed campgrounds already designed for concentrated public use. The improvements considered by this project will enhance the facilities by making them a better fit within the occurring natural landscape, both environmentally and aesthetically, while providing the variety of high quality recreation experiences outlined in the Forest Plan. 1.5 Decision To Be Made Based on the analysis documented in this Environmental Assessment, the Laurentian and Kawishiwi District Rangers will decide whether to approve the proposed action for enhancement of the four developed campgrounds, or to indicate if modifications to the proposal are needed. 1.6 Public Involvement Identifying issues related to the Proposed Action is accomplished by both internal and external solicitation to comment, also referred to as scoping. Public comments were solicited via legal Environmental Assessment 3 Final
notices in both the Ely Echo and Mesabi Daily News on June 6, 2009. The project proposal was also mailed to 34 adjacent landowners and the Forest-wide mailing list consisting of all individuals who have expressed interest in project proposals on the Forest. The project was also listed in the third and fourth quarters of the 2009 Superior Quarterly. Internal scoping was conducted by assembling an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of Forest Service employees in April of 2009 to identify issues related to the campground enhancements. Five comments were received from the public or other agencies on the project. Two comments were reminders to survey and continue to be aware of potential heritage resource sites during project implementation. One commenter had no opinion on the project as long as it had no effect on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). Two other respondents were supportive of the project but had requests outside the scope of this project, including the suggestion to develop another campground along County State Aid Highway 13 and to lend support for a new State Park on Lake Vermilion. None of the comments led to significant issues, therefore only two alternatives will be analyzed in Chapter 3; the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative. Environmental Assessment 4 Final
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 this alternative, the Forest Service would not construct new facilities at Whiteface, Cadotte, Pfeiffer or Birch Lake Campgrounds. Use and occupancy rates for each campground would likely remain similar to what they are now. Investment and improvements to the campgrounds would be routine in nature, focused on maintenance of existing facilities. Alternative 2, Proposed Action Under this alternative, the Forest Service would install, construct or re-construct facilities at the four campgrounds. Specific actions at each campground are as follows: Whiteface Campground A new gravel surface parking lot at the boat launch/picnic area would be installed by MN DNR. This lot could be paved in the future depending on available funds. Two new group sites would be installed in areas north of the existing campsite loops. The new group sites would include electrical hookups. Two new double vault toilets would be installed at the new group sites. The hiking trailhead will be moved to the overflow parking area across from the new gravel parking lot. A new dump station would be installed at the entrance to the campground. A new spur would be constructed adjacent to the existing entrance road to accommodate this new facility. Electrical hook-ups would be installed at all campsites except specific non-electric tent sites. New pull through RV sites would be constructed in some campground loops. Three new shower buildings with flush toilets would be installed. Two would be located between the existing campsite loops and one would be located at the overflow parking lot. A new entry station would be built along with a new pull-off area adjacent to access road. The campground host site would be re-designed and include a new storage building and the installation of a phone line. Vegetation would be thinned to open the site and decrease shade. An overflow parking area would be constructed adjacent to and between the existing campsite loops. Environmental Assessment 5 Final
The bike/walking path from the campsite loops to the picnic area would be upgraded with a hardened, gravel surface. This path would also be connected to the existing hiking trail. A new pedestrian walking/biking trail would be constructed parallel to the access road. New boat moorings would be installed along the shoreline north of the beach area. The playground areas at the beach and at campsite loop 2 would be re-surfaced. All new facilities would be built or re-constructed to maintain uniform construction materials and color to fit with the existing Whiteface campground facilities. Cadotte and Pfeiffer Campgrounds: New host sites would be constructed at Pfeiffer and Cadotte Lake Campgrounds. Solar panels for host site electricity would be installed and telephone lines would be added. Birch Lake Campground: A new group site would be constructed between the two existing campground loops. A pavilion with a large outdoor grill and picnic tables would be constructed in a centrally located common area. In addition, an accessible latrine would be installed. Individual parking spurs, four or five of which already exist, would be spaced along either side of the access road and each spur would include solar panel-powered electrical outlets. A path to the lake from the group site and a cleared area along the shoreline for boat mooring would also be developed. The proposed action at this campsite also would include a new well that would be drilled on the site utilizing a solar powered pump to draw water for one or two group site faucets. This proposed well was identified during the scoping period by Forest Service staff to improve the facility and recreation experience. 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward For Further Analysis Develop another campground along County State Aid Highway 13 and to lend support for a new State Park on Lake Vermilion. This was not carried forward for further analysis because it is outside the scope of the project. The scope of the project is confined to the campgrounds listed in section 1.2 of the EA. However, the Forest Service welcomes suggestions on recreation facilities management and these may be considered in a future project. 2.4 Monitoring Initial monitoring would include oversight of contractors to ensure that all design and environmental specifications were adhered to. Further monitoring would include inspection for non-native invasive plants that may show up in areas of ground disturbance from construction activities. Monitoring of campground occupancy and revenue, particularly at Whiteface and Birch Lake campgrounds where improvements will likely appeal to broader spectrum of campground visitors, will be monitored by assessing the change in both from the existing condition. Environmental Assessment 5 Final
2.5 Design Criteria 1) Construction would generally be scheduled during times that would have the least impact on visitor use of the campgrounds, which would include the fall, winter and spring more than the summer. Some work would likely carry into the summer season but would be avoided wherever possible. 2) Water quality best management practices would be used to manage sediment that might be generated from construction activities. 3) Infestations of non-native invasive plants would be treated by mechanical control methods (i.e. hand pulling or mowing) or herbicides approved by the 2006 Forest-wide Non-native Invasive Plants EA. 4) Vegetation management seeding and planting would be done to re-habilitate construction sites and stabilize soils with public safety and ecological resources in mind. All native species would be used. 5) Construction materials for existing or new facilities would be of materials, design and color to fit in with the natural environment. Environmental Assessment 6 Final
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. 3.1 RECREATION 3.1.1 Introduction This section describes the social environment that would be affected by the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The primary resource to be analyzed is the developed recreation resource available for public use and enjoyment on the West Zone of the Superior National Forest. There are nine developed campgrounds on the West Zone; two on the LaCroix Ranger District, three on the Laurentian District and four on the Kawishiwi District. Of the nine campgrounds, only Fall Lake Campground on the Kawishiwi District offers a fully upgraded facility including electricity and shower buildings to accommodate those visitors who prefer these amenities. By contrasting Alternative 1 (no action) with Alternative 2 (action alternative), an analysis of the existing condition of the developed recreation resource (campgrounds) will be contrasted with the desired future condition which includes enhanced amenities at four of the nine West Zone Campgrounds. 3.1.2 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 opportunity and experience will be compared between alternatives. 3.1.3 Analysis Area The analysis area for direct and indirect effects of this project will focus on the federal land contained within each of the four campgrounds. Cumulative effects of the project will include the entire West Zone of the Superior National Forest, comprised of the Laurentian, Kawishiwi and LaCroix Ranger Districts. The timeframe for the effects analysis is 10 years. The proposed activities would be implemented and used by recreationists within this timeframe and thus effects may be estimated within this timeframe also. Funding for the campground enhancements would affect the timeline of implementation but would likely be appropriated over the next one to ten years. Environmental Assessment 7 Final
3.1.4 Affected Environment A summary of the affected environment serves as a baseline for comparing environmental consequences. The resources that are described include the relevant physical, biological, and social conditions within the area. The setting for each campground as outlined below describes campground locations, how they re operated, visitation based on the average amount of sites occupied, and also the surrounding vegetation and soil type. Setting: Whiteface Campground Whiteface Campground is located about 15 miles south of Hoyt Lakes and is adjacent to the north shore of Whiteface Reservoir. It covers approximately 25 acres of national forest land. A concessionaire under a special use permit operated Whiteface Campground between 1998 and 2008. The Forest Service will operate the campground in the summer of 2009 while a new prospectus is developed and advertised. By the summer of 2010 we expect to award and issue a five year special use permit to a new concessionaire who would operate and maintain the campground. The recreation area contains 52 campsites, a picnic/beach area, boat ramp with dock, a large parking lot, a concessionaire building, a group site and some short hiking trails. 34 campsites have electrical hookups. Water is provided by a well and water hydrants. There is a picnic shelter near the picnic/beach area and 8 vault toilets are located throughout the campground. All 34 campsites, 8 toilets, and 5 water hydrants are designed to meet accessibility standards. Whiteface Campground receives moderate recreational use at 56 percent occupancy throughout the summer months. Forest Service records for the Whiteface Campground indicate use has remained consistent over the past five years. Predominant tree species in the densely forested campground include balsam fir, jack pine, red pine and aspen. Balsam fir is the common under- story with young pine and aspen occurring throughout the area. Soils in the recreation area are deep rock and silt glacial deposits, as well as some deep clay and shallow till sites with a variety of drainages. Setting: Cadotte Campground Cadotte Lake Campground is located about 21 miles southeast of Hoyt Lakes within Section 31 of Township 57 north, Range 12 west. The campground is adjacent to the western shore of Cadotte Lake and covers approximately 16 acres of national forest land. Campground hosts maintain Cadotte Lake Campground between May and September each summer. Campground Hosts are on site to assist visitors, conduct basic maintenance and report any problems to the proper authorities. The recreation area contains 27 campsites, a small picnic area, a beach, a boat ramp with a dock, and a fishing deck. Water is provided by a well and hand pump as well as a solar pump system. There are 3 vault toilets throughout the area. Twenty-four campsites, three toilets, and a water hydrant are designed to meet accessibility standards. Cadotte Lake Campground receives moderate recreational use at 34 percent occupancy throughout Environmental Assessment 8 Final
the summer months. Forest Service records for Cadotte Lake Campground indicate use has remained fairly consistent over the past five years. Cadotte Lake Campground is mostly forested with aspen, birch, spruce and balsam fir. A mixture of young and old pine species also occur throughout the area. Soils in the recreation area are mostly sandy loam and tills with a surface texture ranging from fine sandy loam to silt loam. Setting: Pfeiffer Campground Pfeiffer Lake Campground is located about 20 miles northeast of Virginia, MN and is adjacent to the north shore of Pfeiffer Lake, covering approximately 20 acres of national forest land. Campground hosts maintain Pfeiffer Lake Campground between May and September each summer. Campground hosts are on site to assist visitors, conduct basic maintenance and report any problems to the proper authorities. The recreation area contains 16 campsites, a swim beach with day use picnic area, a boat landing with dock, a playground, and a self-guided hiking trail. Drinking water is provided by a well and there is and one vault toilet. Fourteen of the campsites and one water hydrant are designed to meet accessibility standards. Pfeiffer Lake Campground receives moderate recreational use at about 30 percent occupancy throughout the summer months Forest Service records for the Pfeiffer Lake Campground indicates use has remained fairly consistent over the past five years. The campground is mostly wooded with aspen, birch, balsam fir and red pine. Balsam fir is common in the under-story. Young red pine and aspen also occur throughout the area. Soils in the recreation area are mostly sandy loam and tills with a surface texture ranging from fine sandy loam to silt loam. The recreation area has been inventoried for soils. Setting: Birch Lake Campground Birch Lake Campground is located 13 miles southeast of Ely, Minnesota off of Forest Road 429 within Section 19 of Township 61 north and Range 11 west. Campground facilities cover approximately 25 acres of federal land, all of which is surrounded by National Forest System land. Facilities at the campground include 30 back-in campsites with picnic tables, fire-grates and tent pads. Most of the shoreline sites have direct access to the lake where boats can be tied up for convenient use. A public boat launch with a dock and parking area is also located within the campground. Drinking water is available at a hand pump and a solar powered water station. A campground host is on site with sales of firewood and canoe rentals. Birch Lake Campground is especially popular with people who enjoy fishing. Over the past three years, occupancy rates from May through September have averaged 32 percent, with peak Environmental Assessment 9 Final
occupancy occurring in July at 47 percent. Birch Lake Campground, as well as Fenske Lake and South Kawishiwi Campgrounds are all operated under special use permit by the same concessionaire. The concessionaire is required to have a minimum of one host to conduct maintenance, assist visitors, and offer services between South Kawishiwi Campground and Birch Lake Campground, although for the past three years there has been a summer host at each campground. The concessionaire and their hosts are responsible for posting reserved sites, minor maintenance including road brushing and garbage pick up, and dealing with inconsiderate visitors and vandalism. They are provided with a list of numbers including USFS law enforcement officers and the Lake County Sheriff in case they need law enforcement assistance. Birch Lake Campground is surrounded by forested land. Tree type is dominated by spruce, fir, aspen and birch with smaller components of maple and pine. The soils are pre-dominantly sandy loam with a water table below 5 feet. 3.1.5 Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, the Forest Service would not construct new facilities at Whiteface, Cadotte, Pfeiffer or Birch Lake Campgrounds. Use and occupancy rates for each campground would likely remain similar to what they are now and investment and improvements to the campgrounds would be routine in nature, focused on maintenance of existing facilities. Cadotte and Pfeiffer Lake Campground hosts would continue to occupy existing campsites, which would result in fewer campsites open to the public. Without improvement to host camping facilities, the ability to attract and retain reliable, qualified hosts would be less likely. Furthermore, by using an existing campsite instead of a new site chosen for its central location, the ability to serve the public and monitor around-the-clock campground activities is lessened. Without improvements to Whiteface Campground, the West Zone would have only one developed campground (Fall Lake) to attract and accommodate visitors who prefer amenities beyond vault toilets and hand pumps for water. This scenario has the potential to put more pressure on Fall Lake which already has the highest occupancy rates on the Forest. Birch Lake Campground would not accommodate group camping, an often requested experience at Forest Service campgrounds. The unfinished group site camping area at Birch Lake Campground would not be utilized and occupancy at Birch Lake Campground would likely remain the same. Also under Alternative 1, if federal funding for campground improvements were to become available, the forest would not be able to utilize the funds for improvements based on a no action decision as a result of this environmental analysis. Environmental Assessment 10 Final
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The proposed action to implement enhancement projects at the four campgrounds is outlined in detail in section 2.2 of Chapter 2. Upgrading campground facilities to accommodate different types of activities such as a group camping at Birch Lake, or to provide a different set of amenities at Whiteface Campground, would diversify the developed recreation opportunities offered on the West Zone of the Forest. The direct effects of the campground enhancements would include an initial investment in campground infrastructure. Work on the sites would be scheduled to have the least impact on campground visitors. Construction at Whiteface Campground would likely impact some sites temporarily because most of the projects either improve existing facilities or develop new ones within the campground area. Direct environmental effects at each campground would include brushing and tree clearing. At Cadotte and Pfeiffer Lake Campgrounds, the clearings created for the new host sites would likely be between 350 to 400 square feet. The Birch Lake group site development would utilize the same road and parking spurs developed years ago. These would be brushed open, as would a new centrally located clearing for the main gathering/cooking area. Further Birch Lake group site brushing would be needed at a new vault toilet site, a trail from the group site to the lake, and for the placement of a well and a solar powered pump house. At Whiteface Campground, clearing and brushing would occur for the addition of two new group sites, two to three pull through campsites, the overflow parking area, and a new pedestrian walking trail. Excavating would occur for two new vault toilets at the group sites, a new RV dump station, three new shower buildings, and some trenching for electrical lines to the new shower buildings. Indirect effects of the campground enhancements may include higher occupancy at both Birch and Whiteface Campgrounds. Demand for a group site at Birch Lake has been brought up by the campground concessionaire for ten years based on the feedback he has received through visitor inquiries. As mentioned in section 3.3, occupancy at Birch Lake averages 32 percent from May to September, so it s unlikely that the development of a group site would lead to campground crowding or significantly higher use of existing facilities. Higher occupancy at Whiteface Campground as a result of campground enhancements would be accommodated by the development of new facilities. By adding two new group sites, each with new accessible latrines, as well as three new shower buildings and an overflow parking area; the probable increase in occupancy is planned for in the project developments. An increase in campground occupancy once the enhancement projects are completed at both Birch and Whiteface Campgrounds would be expected. This projection is based on the popularity of other State and County developed campgrounds in NE Minnesota, and also from the Forest Service s experience with Fall Lake Campground, where occupancy before the facility upgrade was between 40 percent and 50 percent, and after it now averages 70 percent to 80 percent occupancy. Also, with the potential of increased occupancy and revenue due to campground enhancements, Environmental Assessment 11 Final
there may be more interest and competition among concessionaires interested in operating the campgrounds. 3.1.5.2 Cumulative Effects Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Management Actions At Whiteface Campground, vegetation that blew over in a 2005 wind storm was removed and the area re-planted with pine. This event opened up parts of the campground to nice views that will eventually return to a pine forest. In 2008, the beach area at Whiteface Campground was moved to a protected bay. This action mitigated a safety hazard because the point of land the beach had been located on was adjacent to the public boat access, where loud, fast boats would speed by the public swim area. At Birch Lake Campground, the roadsides were brushed in 2008 to increase site lines for drivers and allow for safer access and egress. For the future, it is likely that a vegetation management plan which includes selective timber harvest and prescribed burning to reduce fuels may be completed for the forest surrounding the campground between the present and 2010. South Kawishiwi Campground is scheduled to have a facility upgrade including the electrification of 11 out of 34 sites in 2010. Also in 2010 this campground is scheduled for a well replacement to provide more conveniently located hand-pumps in the campground area and to decommission an old well. An old Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp approximately 10 miles SE of Ely on the shore of Birch Lake is being studied for conversion to a group campsite. If analysis of this site led to the eventual development of a new group campsite, it likely would not occur during the next 5 years. All four campgrounds included in this project will likely receive new, accessible toilet buildings in 2009 and 2010 due to recent federal funding specifically targeted for accessible facilities on national forests. Through an agreement with Minnesota Power, funds designated for recreation enhancements along Birch Lake and the Kawishiwi River are received by the Forest Service each year. Accrued annually, these funds would help facilitate development of a new group site at Birch Lake Campground. Campground improvements on the West Zone of the Superior National Forest would be expected to increase visitation, particularly at Whiteface and Birch Lake Campgrounds. Whiteface Campground would provide a higher level of amenities than the rustic camping experience which is more typical on the Superior National Forest, thereby offering a wider range of recreation experiences on the West Zone of the forest. Presently, Whiteface Campground is being operated by Forest Service personnel. The most recent concessionaire s permit expired in 2008 and they chose to not re-new it. The Forest Service is preparing a prospectus that will be available for public review and bidding to solicit a new concessionaire for future operating seasons. Cumulative effects resulting from the campground enhancement projects described in the proposed action would not be expected to have adverse effects to recreation opportunities from initial construction, long term Environmental Assessment 12 Final
maintenance needs or from an increase in public use. The potential increase in use would be accommodated with new facilities or the reconstruction of existing facilities. Improvements to each campground would most likely increase the Forest Service s ability to attract and retain concessionaires invested in well maintained facilities; which would therefore make the improvements last longer through better care. Conclusion of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The campground enhancement projects are not expected to have adverse effects to recreation in the immediate or adjacent areas. The ability to meet the needs of a more diverse public would be met and the increased ability to operate the campgrounds with concessionaires who value the facilities and therefore maintain them to a high standard would be increased. 3.2 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS 3.2.1 Introduction Ground disturbance associated with project activities could create conditions favorable to the introduction or spread of non-native invasive plants (NNIP). This potential effect is analyzed in this section, which describes the NNIP that are currently known to exist in the project area, as well as the effects of the alternatives on NNIP. 3.2.2 Analysis Methods The Superior National Forest non-native invasive plant GIS layer was compared to proposed project locations to determine the likelihood that the project would lead to new weed infestations. 3.2.3 Analysis Area The analysis area for direct and indirect effects for this project includes all federal land contained within each of the four campgrounds. This analysis area was selected because it includes the area where project activities would occur which cause the direct and indirect effects to NNIP. The analysis area for cumulative effects includes all lands within 2 miles of the campgrounds. This analysis area was selected because NNIP infestations close to the project area could spread to ground disturbed by project activities. The timeframe for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is ten years. This time frame was chosen because most project activities should be completed within ten years. 3.2.4 Affected Environment Based on NNIP inventories conducted over the last 5 years, there are known infestations of Canada thistle at Cadotte and Birch Lake Campgrounds. There are no known infestations within either Whiteface or Pfeiffer Lake Campgrounds. The infestation at Cadotte Campground is greatly Environmental Assessment 13 Final
reduced due to herbicide treatments conducted in 2008 and 2009. There are small infestations of tansy within 2 miles of Whiteface and Birch Lake. There are small infestations of tansy and St. Johnswort within 2 miles of Cadotte, and small infestations of tansy and spotted knapweed within 2 miles of Pfeiffer Lake. 3.2.5 Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Although no ground disturbance would occur under this alternative, NNIP could still spread as a result of public use of the campgrounds. The amount of weed spread under Alternative 1 would be very small due to ongoing NNIP management activities on the Superior National Forest. There would be minimal effects of NNIP on other resources. Alternative 2 Ground disturbance caused by project activities at the four campgrounds could lead to new infestations of Canada thistle, tansy, spotted knapweed, or St. Johnswort. However, the amount of weed spread at any of the campgrounds is expected to be very small because the areas will be monitored for NNIP after construction, and any new infestations would be treated as part of ongoing NNIP management activities associated with the 2006 Forest-wide NNIP Management EA. The risk of NNIP spread is higher with Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. There would be minimal effects of NNIP on other resources. 3.2.5.1 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of this project on NNIP would be negligible and would not differ much between Alternatives 1 and 2. Nearby NNIP, such as tansy, spotted knapweed, and St. Johnswort, could be spread to the disturbed ground at the project areas. However, revegetation at the sites after the project is complete, along with ongoing monitoring and future weed treatments, would minimize any potential cumulative effects of this project. Environmental Assessment 14 Final
3.3 WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 3.3.1 Introduction The proposed project activities could negatively affect threatened, endangered, or Regional Forester Sensitive Species (flora and fauna) (RFSS). This potential effect, as well as the effects of alternatives, to threatened, endangered, or RFSS known to occur in the project area is analyzed in this section. 3.3.2 Analysis Methods The Superior National Forest (SNF) wildlife inventory and MN-DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) GIS layer was compared to proposed project locations to determine the likelihood that the project would have negative effects on threatened, endangered, or RFSS. 3.3.3 Analysis Area The analysis area for direct and indirect effects for this project includes all federal land contained within each of the four campgrounds. This analysis area was selected because it includes the area where project activities will occur which causes the direct and indirect effects to threatened, endangered, or RFSS. The analysis area for cumulative effects includes all lands within Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) SNF10 (Birch Lake), SNF13 (Whiteface), SNF15 (Cadotte Lake), and SNF47 (Pfeiffer Lake). This analysis area was selected because of the small scale extent of the project areas. The timeframe for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is ten years. This time frame was chosen because most project activities should be completed within ten years. 3.3.4 Affected Environment Currently, the primary habitat types within the project campgrounds are a mixture of aspen, birch, balsam fir with some red and jack pine. Wildlife such as small mammals and songbirds are found to utilize those available habitats as well as a host of plant species at the Whiteface, Cadotte Lake, Pfeiffer Lake, and Birch Lake campgrounds. Based on the SNF inventories and the NHIS, there are no known threatened, endangered, or RFSS found in any of the project campgrounds. Whiteface Campground is densely forested with the forest type including balsam fir, jack pine, red pine and aspen. Balsam fir is common in the understory with young pine and aspen occurring throughout the area. Whiteface Reservoir is 4567 acres with a maximum depth of 35 feet. Fishing is typically during the spring, summer and fall. The reservoir provides a great walleye fishery, but also includes black crappie, northern pike, and bluegill. Cadotte Lake Campground s primary habitat type is a mixture of aspen, birch, balsam fir and spruce. The understory contains both young and older pine species. Cadotte Lake is 325 acres with a Environmental Assessment 15 Final
maximum depth of 18 feet. Fishing typically happens during the summer, spring and fall with little to no fishing in the winter. The fishery mostly includes walleye and yellow perch. The primary habitat type within Pfeiffer Lake Campground is a mixture of aspen, birch, balsam fir and red pine. The understory is dominated by balsam fir, but there are areas of younger red pine and aspen in or near the campground. Pfeiffer Lake is 58 acres with a maximum depth of 26 feet. Fishing during the summer months is typically lower then the spring and late fall. The fishery is semi-regularly stocked with perch and walleye, but it also includes black crappie, bluegill, and largemouth bass. The primary habitat type within Birch Lake Campground is dominated by spruce, fir, aspen, and birch. However, some maple and pine are found scattered throughout the campground. Birch Lake is 5628 acres with a maximum depth of 25 feet. Fishing occurs more frequently in the summer months compared to other times of the year. The fishery primarily includes walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, and bluegill. 3.3.5 Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 No threatened, endangered, or RFSS are known to occur within the proposed project area campgrounds. Habitat for these species is not likely to change as a result of this alternative. Fishing pressure is expected to remain at the moderate level. Alternative 2 The Biological Evaluation (available for review in the project record) determined that this project would not negatively affect threatened, endangered, or RFSS. The reasons for this determination are: habitat for wolf and lynx and their prey species would not be impacted by the project and potential changes in available habitat would be negligible, no bald eagle nests are located in close proximity to the recreation areas (nearest nest site is located 600 m from the Birch Lake Campground on an undisturbed island), and changes in available habitat for additional RFSS would be negligible because of the small scale and extent of the project. Management Indicator Habitats (MIH) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) form the basis to monitor wildlife. Changes in the amount and distribution of habitats and population levels as compared with composition guides provide reference to check the effects of management. Proposed improvements will have minimal effects on current vegetation. No substantial impacts are expected to change the amount and distribution of habitats and population levels for MIH and MIS due to the relatively small scale focus of this project. Most of the recreation areas, especially Whiteface Reservoir, are known for their walleye fishing. Whiteface Reservoir, Cadotte Lake, and Birch Lake are not stocked because of sufficient natural fish reproduction. The minimal amount of increased fishing pressure anticipated, because of this alternative, is not likely to negatively affect the fish population in the recreation areas. Environmental Assessment 16 Final
3.3.5.1 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects for Alternative 1 of this project on threatened, endangered, or RFSS would be negligible. Alternative 1 would involve a continuation of the current uses and facilities in the campgrounds which would have negligible effects to wildlife. When activities in the relevant LAUs are added for the considered Tracks project-2010, the cumulative effect would be negligible. Cumulative effects for Alternative 2 of this project on threatened, endangered, or RFSS are expected to be negligible as a result of planned recreational developments. There are no known planned recreational projects in the LAU of any proposed campground projects. However, there are planned vegetation management projects on federal land in the Cadotte Lake campground area (Tracks midlevel project 2010. This Forest Service vegetation management project will be analyzed for effects to MIH, MIS and fisheries and appropriate mitigation measures and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be applied. Vegetation management on State and County lands will continue throughout the forest also in accordance with their management plans and objectives, yet due to the small scale proposals included in the campground enhancement projects, cumulative effects from these projects would not add additional adverse effects on threatened, endangered or RFSS (see the Biological Evaluation for further information). For these reasons as well, negligible cumulative effects are anticipated for MIH, MIS and fisheries. 3.4 WATER QUALITY 3.4.1 Introduction Ground disturbance associated with project activities could create conditions that would cause erosion and impact the water quality of the adjacent lakes. This section analyzes the potential effect to water quality. 3.4.2 Analysis Methods The analysis methods used to determine the effects of the campground projects on water quality were to assess the area of impact for new construction at each campground, both adjacent to or removed from the nearest water resource. 3.4.3 Analysis Area The analysis area for direct and indirect effects for this project includes the area of disturbance at each campground to the subject lakes. This analysis area was selected because it includes the area where project activities would occur which could cause direct and indirect effects to the water quality of the lakes. The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the direct watershed of the subject lakes (Whiteface, Birch, Cadotte, and Pfeiffer). This analysis area was selected because water quality within the lakes is a function of activity within the direct watershed. The timeframe for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is ten years. This time frame was chosen Environmental Assessment 17 Final
because most project activities would be completed within ten years. Ground disturbance from construction for all sites within the campgrounds would be stabilized before, during after project activities to mitigate the effects of erosion. 3.4.4 Affected Environment None of the subject lakes (Whiteface, Birch, Cadotte, or Pfeiffer) are listed as impaired water bodies by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for constituents other than a mercury advisory for fish consumption. The main source of mercury is from atmospheric deposition. Erosion of surface soil particles can introduce additional mercury. However, mercury concentrations are part of a larger management effort that entails source control and other management activities. These are part of the statewide mercury total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan to control point sources at power plants, which would not apply to this campground construction project. 3.4.5 Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Normal maintenance activity is assumed to continue at the existing campsites. No effect to water quality is assumed to occur because there is no ground disturbance activity associated with this alternative. Alternative 2 Ground disturbance caused by project activities at the four campgrounds could lead to erosion at the project sites. However, best management practices including the use of silt fences, erosion control blankets, and re-vegetation greatly reduce the erosion potential of the sites. In addition, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act permits would be obtained for the project as needed. The implementation of these best management practices and permit conditions will adequately protect the water quality of the subject lakes. The project would not impact the lakes toward listing of impairment for mercury or other constituents. 3.4.6 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of this project on water quality would be negligible and would not differ substantially between Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 1 would have no effect to water quality, and Alternative 2 will protect the water quality of the subject lakes. Given the small scale and mitigation measures applied to Alternative 2, activities in the local watersheds would result in negligible cumulative impacts. Environmental Assessment 18 Final
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 the West Zone Campground Enhancement 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. Heritage Resources-Alternative 1 No known sites would be affected because no activity towards the development of new recreation facilities would occur. Heritage Resources-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 There would not be cumulative effects to heritage resources. 3.6 CIVIL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 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 12898 of February 11, 1994, Environmental Justice as part of environmental policy, calls for consideration of the environmental, health, and economic effects on minority and lowincome areas including the consumption patterns of fish and wildlife. The no action as well as the proposed action are not expected to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on minorities and low-income populations. Environmental Assessment 19 Final