![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision, General Management Plan/Visitor Use and Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 17447-17455]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ap02-98]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Record of Decision, General Management Plan/Visitor Use and
Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Voyageurs National
Park, Minnesota
AGENCY: NPS, Interior.
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS),
has prepared this record of decision (ROD) on the final environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the general management plan (GMP) and
visitor use and facilities plan (VUFP), Voyageurs National Park in
Koochiching and St. Louis Counties, Minnesota. This ROD is a statement
of the decision made, the background of the project, other alternatives
considered, the environmentally preferred alternative, the basis for
the decision, measures to minimize environmental harm, whether any
actions in the plan constitute an impairment of park resources and
values, and public involvement in the decision making process.
The Regional Director, NPS, Midwest Region approved the ROD on
January 18, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Voyageurs National
Park, 3131 Highway 53, International Falls, Minnesota 56649-8904.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS will implement a slightly modified
version of the proposed action described and analyzed in the draft EIS.
The modifications made to the proposed action will either not result in
any additional or changed environmental impacts from those analyzed in
the draft, or will result in impacts similar to those reported in the
draft EIS for another alternative.
The selected alternative, referred to in the final EIS as the
``modified proposed action'' and in the remainder of this ROD as the
GMP or ``plan,'' contains elements of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the
original proposed action as analyzed in the draft EIS, and presents a
balanced approach to resource protection and visitor use. It is also
responsive to public comments, many of which indicated the park should
not significantly change existing types and levels of recreational use.
Although very few changes to existing uses will occur, the plan
includes additional trails, including one that links the communities of
Kabetogama and Ash River. It will also result in a moderate increase in
the number of overnight sites and new day use and visitor destination
sites. It further anticipates an upper limit for the number of
houseboats that may overnight in the park at one time. Houseboat use
will continue at existing levels, and could increase. The specific
number of houseboats permitted--the park's carrying capacity for
houseboats as directed in 16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)(3)--will be determined in a
subsequent houseboat management plan. That plan will be initiated when
the number of overnight houseboats reaches 60 per basin. No sooner than
the summer of 2002, the park will begin to require a no-fee, self-
registration permit for any overnight use in the park to gather
information to guide future decisions.
The plan includes efforts intended to intensify natural resource
protection through research and management. The NPS will complete an
inventory of natural resources and develop a comprehensive inventory,
monitoring and research program. A revised fire management plan will be
developed to support a broader range of resource management objectives
and to reestablish natural fire regimes without unduly reducing
visitation or visitor enjoyment. The park will continue as it does now,
to identify, evaluate for significance, plan for, protect and share
information about cultural resources, including structures, cultural
landscapes, archeological resources, ethnographic resources and
collections. Historic properties that represent each cultural resource
theme and focus on the park's mission, purpose, significance and
interpretive themes will be retained. A monitoring program to determine
visitor use, need for resource protection and the quality of the
visitor experience will be initiated, and the information gathered from
the program used for future, more site-specific planning.
Specifics of the Selected Alternative
Natural and Cultural Resource Management. The NPS intends to
implement the alternative identified as ``modified proposed action'' in
the final GMP/EIS. This alternative will expand and intensify natural
resource protection efforts through increased inventory and monitoring
programs, partnerships, and research. Resource management plans will be
revised as needed (such as the Wildland Fire Management Plan and the
Lakecountry and Backcountry Site Management
[[Page 17448]]
Plan) or completed. The park's fire management policy will support a
broader range of resource management objectives, including
reestablishing natural fire regimes without unduly reducing visitation
or visitor enjoyment.
The park will continue to identify, evaluate for significance, plan
for, protect, and share information about cultural resources, including
structures, cultural landscapes, archeological resources, ethnographic
resources, and collections. Cultural resource management will be more
proactive with the development and implementation of treatment plans, a
formal monitoring program, and more focused public education efforts.
The park will retain historic properties that represent each cultural
resource theme and focus on the park's mission, purpose, significance,
and interpretive themes.
Visitor Use and Facilities. A no-fee, self-registration permit
system for overnight summer and winter use will be implemented no
sooner than 2002 (use-and-occupancy residents and private landowners
would be exempt). Permits will be easy to obtain and will not direct
visitors to specific overnight sites. The purpose of the system is to
gather information about site use and to educate visitors about park
conditions, activities, and rules. A feasibility study, which will be
conducted with public input, will be completed within three years to
determine if a more formal overnight permit system is warranted.
Also, the feasibility of implementing facility use fees for camping
and parking will be studied. Entrance fees are not proposed. A
monitoring program for visitor experience and resource protection will
be established and be based on information from the no-fee permit
system and the overnight permit feasibility study.
Integrated motorized and nonmotorized uses, including fixed-wing
aircraft (private and one commercial permit) will be allowed to
continue on the four major lakes and the seven designated interior
lakes. As is currently the case, only nonmotorized use will be allowed
on the other interior lakes. No areas for no-wake boating will be
established.
The park will initiate a houseboat management plan when funding and
staffing allow and the no-fee, self registration permit information
shows overnight houseboat use has reached 60 boats per basin. The plan
will address topics such as commercial and private houseboat use,
graywater management, users' needs and desires, and the appropriate
number of houseboats at one time. Upon completion of the plan,
appropriate use limits may be established.
The special use zone near the Kabetogama resort community will be
continued, but special events will require a permit and would have to
be consistent with the purpose and significance of the park.
The park will continue to provide boats on interior lakes; a fee
will be charged beginning in the summer of 2002.
The selected alternative establishes an upper limit for the number
of developed sites. Fewer day and overnight use sites (280-320 total
sites) will be built than called for under existing plans. The effects
of overnight use at undeveloped sites will be studied, and if they are
found to be damaging resources or negatively affecting other visitors,
these sites will be phased out or other strategies implemented to
prevent such damage. Starting in the summer of 2005, fires will be
allowed only in metal fire rings at developed sites.
Visitor destination sites that feature special natural or cultural
features that could be interpreted will be developed to enhance
visitors' appreciation of the park. The park will establish 15 to 20
such visitor destination sites.
In cooperation with partners, a mainland, nonmotorized summer and
winter trail will be developed between the Kabetogama Lake and Ash
River communities, and the feasibility of extending the trail to Crane
Lake studied. Several hiking trails will be built on the Kabetogama
Peninsula, and some will link to visitor destinations. Facility
expansion at visitor centers will be minimized, and the park will use
alternative methods such as outdoor and temporary facilities instead.
Visitor information materials will be expanded. A multi-agency visitor
center will be developed at Crane Lake. Both the Rainy Lake visitor
center and the Crane Lake multi-agency center will operate year-round,
while operational hours at the Ash River and Kabetogama Lake visitor
centers will be based on demand.
Interpretation, Visitor Services, and Education. A more
comprehensive interpretive program will be provided. Visitor services,
resource protection, and emergency response will be expanded and
improved with increased staffing. A proposed educational institute to
provide special programs and to supplement the park's interpretive
program will be formed through partnerships.
Park Operations, Facilities, and Partnerships. Park operational
facilities will be improved through the development of a Namakan
District plan and expanded facilities at Ash River. Ranger and
interpretive operations will be expanded into the Kabetogama Ranger
Station Historic District. The park will actively pursue partnerships
with public, institutional, and private entities to help protect
resources and provide for quality visitor experiences and facilities.
Background of the Project
The Planning Process: The planning team, composed of NPS personnel
and their contractors, began the planning process by first soliciting
comments from the public, agencies and interest groups through
newsletters, meetings and presentations. Most of this initial
``scoping'' was focused on issues facing the park, or visions for the
park's future. These issues and those developed by the planning team
were used in guiding the appropriate range of alternatives. In
addition, the team reviewed NPS policies and guidelines; the mission,
purpose and significance statements for Voyageurs; existing plans
completed for the park; enabling and subsequent legislation for the
park and any other relevant laws and regulations in defining
constraints on the range of alternatives.
Each of the alternatives was developed to respond to public desires
and concerns, to support the park's mission, purpose and significance,
and to avoid unacceptable impacts to resources. Since the majority of
commentors indicated during the scoping phase they like the way the
park is currently managed and do not feel any major changes are needed,
all of the action alternatives reflect this philosophy.
No action, or baseline conditions, is an alternative that the
National Environmental Policy Act requires agencies to develop and
analyze in environmental documents. The team also initially developed
two action alternatives for public review. Alternative 2 (alternative 1
is no action) would focus on resource preservation, partnerships and
balanced use. Alternative 3 would emphasize a wide variety of visitor
experiences and recreational opportunities. This package was released
for public review and comment in May 1999. The input received was used
to craft a draft proposed action and to refine the other two action
alternatives for analysis in the draft EIS. The official release of
this draft GMP/EIS and its required 60-day public review began June 23,
2000 with a notice in the Federal Register. Included in this document
was the draft ``visitor use and facilities plan,'' which includes
proposals identical to the proposed action in the GMP/EIS.
[[Page 17449]]
The interdisciplinary team responded to all substantive comments on
the draft GMP/EIS, and changed the text of the GMP/EIS as necessary. It
also reviewed all elements of the draft proposed action to determine
whether any changes were warranted either as a result of public
comments or additional information. Several small changes were made.
For example, a no-fee, self-registration permit system for overnight
use was added; the 60 houseboat per basin limit in the selected
alternative was changed to allow for the development of a houseboat
management plan when overnight use reaches 60 per basin; no day use
will be allowed at houseboat sites; no entrance fees will be
implemented or studied in the feasibility study; and uses of the park
for special events would necessarily be consistent with the purpose and
significance of the park. The selected alternative would not result in
more than negligible or minor differences in impacts from those
analyzed in the draft EIS.
Responses to substantive comments were organized by issue or topic
and similar or identical comments were combined. These responses were
indexed both by author and by topic and answered in a separate volume
(volume 2) of the final GMP/EIS. These letters were also reprinted in
this same volume. Volume 1 is the corrected and updated version of
information released as the draft GMP/EIS. The full final GMP/EIS was
released to the public for a 30-day waiting period beginning October
12, 2001. Thirty-nine comments were received. No new issues or
questions were raised in public comments on the final GMP/EIS.
Purpose and Need for Action
Park Mission, Legislative Purpose, and Key Mission Goals: As part
of the compliance requirements with the Government Performance and
Results Act (Act) of 1993, the NPS developed a legislative mission
statement for each unit of the national park system. The Act also
requires a purpose statement and mission goals be developed. These were
developed in consultation with the public, the Minnesota State Historic
Preservation Office, the Minnesota Environmental Protection Agency,
other interested agencies and organizations.
The mission statement for Voyageurs National Park is as follows:
Voyageurs National Park preserves the landscapes and scenic
waterways that shaped the route of the North American fur traders and
defined the border between the United States and Canada. The park and
its diverse resources provide outstanding opportunities for outdoor
recreation, scientific study, sportfishing, education, and appreciation
of the northwoods lake country setting.
The purposes of Voyageurs National Park, according to its
legislation, are as follows:
Preserve the scenery, geologic conditions, and interconnected
waterways within the park for the inspiration and enjoyment of people
now and in the future.
Commemorate the voyageurs' routes and fur trade with the Native
peoples of the north, which contributed significantly to the opening of
northwestern North America to European settlement.
Preserve, in an unimpaired condition, the ecological processes,
biological and cultural diversity, and history of the northwoods
lakecountry border we share with Canada.
Provide opportunities for people to experience, understand, and
treasure the lakecountry landscape--its clean air and water, forests,
islands, wetlands, and wildlife--in a manner that is compatible with
the preservation of park values and resources.
The mission goals are desired future conditions for the park. These
statements describe what the park should be like and how it should be
managed over the next 20 years to achieve these conditions. The key
mission goals are:
Voyageurs is restored and protected in a manner that allows natural
processes, functions, cycles, and biota to be maintained in perpetuity.
An adaptive, ecosystem-based approach to resource preservation has been
implemented, with essential data and tools to support a scientifically
based management program.
The park's wilderness resources, values, and characteristics are
unimpaired, and its suitability for wilderness designation remain
undiminished.
Voyageurs' cultural resources, including archeological sites,
historic structures, ethnographic resources, cultural landscapes, and
historic objects that offer evidence of the long-term human
relationship with the environment are preserved.
Visitors continue to find a diversity of quality opportunities in
Voyageurs, allowing each person to enjoy the park in a safe and
respectful manner, with only minimal conflicts between visitors.
Visitors to Voyageurs National Park have many opportunities to
experience solitude and tranquillity, to appreciate the expansive and
undeveloped lakeshore and wetlands, and to see and enjoy the abundance
and diversity of native plants and wildlife.
The park is nationally and internationally recognized for its
unique educational opportunities both at the park and through
communications technologies.
Visitor experiences are enhanced by a unified partnership between
the park, park concessionaires and incidental business permit holders,
and adjacent private and public entities who understand and appreciate
the significance of the park and its surrounding lands and people.
The Need for a New GMP
The park's current Master Plan, which was approved in 1980, is no
longer adequate to address the policy and operational issues now facing
Voyageurs National Park. While the Master Plan guided the NPS's initial
efforts in managing the park, conditions have changed over the last 20
years, and that plan does not provide sufficient direction for
protecting natural and cultural resources or providing for visitor use.
The purpose of this final GMP/EIS and VUFP is to set forth a basic
management philosophy for Voyageurs National Park and to provide a
framework for future decision making for the next 15 to 20 years.
This project is unique because it also includes a VUFP, in addition
to the GMP for Voyageurs National Park. In 1983 Congress passed
legislation directing the park to complete a VUFP, but the directive
was never funded. In 1996-97 a Federal mediation process was conducted
to address numerous issues about visitor use and management of the
park. As a result of this process, the mediation panel recommended the
VUFP could be accomplished through the NPS's GMP process. Therefore,
the VUFP has been developed in conjunction with the final GMP/EIS. The
VUFP addresses the same visitor facilities and uses in the park
outlined in the selected alternative, plus it takes a more
comprehensive look at the Voyageurs region related to tourism,
surrounding visitor use and facilities, and opportunities for working
with others outside the park. Since the VUFP proposes the same actions
as the selected alternative, the environmental consequences, including
cumulative impacts and impairment, are identical.
Other Alternatives Considered
The team analyzed four alternatives, including the no action
alternative, which would continue the implementation of existing plans
and policies. In each alternative, the park was divided into specific
management
[[Page 17450]]
areas. Land management areas include a developed area, a lakecountry
area, a backcountry trail area, and a primitive area. Water management
areas include an integrated use area, a nonmotorized use area, and in
alternative 2, a no-wake water area. Each management area had a
specific set of desired resource conditions and visitor experiences
associated with it. The management areas were applied to the entire
area of the park, but the locations and extent of each management area
depended on the particular emphasis of an alternative. For example, one
alternative emphasized more resource preservation with fewer developed
facilities for visitor use, while another emphasizes the development of
more visitor facilities.
In all management areas and alternatives, motorized uses include
the use of motorboats, electric motors, planes (fixed-wing aircraft),
houseboats, and snowmobiles. Nonmotorized uses include canoeing,
kayaking, paddleboating, rowboating, sailboating, skiing, snowshoeing,
and hiking. In all alternatives, the four major lakes remain open for
motorized uses.
Alternative 1: Present Course of Action (No Action)
Natural and Cultural Resource Management. Under this alternative
the NPS would continue to manage the park to protect natural and
cultural resources in accordance with approved current plans and NPS
policies as allowed by staffing and funding. Some, but not all, of the
park's historic properties would be preserved.
Visitor Use and Facilities. A no-fee permit for all overnight use
would be required. Only limited visitor use monitoring would occur.
The four major lakes would continue to have integrated use
(motorized and nonmotorized); motorized use would continue on seven
interior lakes (Locator, War Club, Quill, Loiten, Shoepack, Little
Trout, and Mukooda). The number of houseboats could increase without
limitations. The special use zone would remain, but snowmobile ``radar
runs'' would continue to be illegal. All other management areas would
be the same as now.
Day and overnight sites would continue to be built to meet the
development criteria outlined in the approved 1988 Lakecountry and
Backcountry Site Management Plan (about 400 sites total). The use of
undeveloped sites would continue. Summer hiking trails would continue
to be built as shown in the final EIS for a Wilderness Recommendation
(1992), with numerous small loops plus linkages to Peninsula
destinations. No changes would be made to the existing winter trail
system.
Existing visitor facilities would be retained; year-round visitor
interpretive services would be offered at the Rainy Lake visitor
center; and seasonal services would be provided at the Ash River and
Kabetogama Lake visitor centers.
Interpretation, Visitor Services, and Education. Visitor contact,
resource protection, monitoring, and emergency services would remain
limited, with heavy dependence on established partnerships.
Park Operations, Facilities, and Partnerships. Park operations
would continue in current areas with a limited preventive maintenance
program and a strong dependence on volunteers. Existing partnerships
would continue; however, only limited partnerships would continue
related to fishery and wildlife management and for cultural resource
preservation involving educational, institutional, or private entities.
Alternative 2: Resource Preservation, Partnerships, Balanced Uses
Natural and Cultural Resource Management. Under alternative 2
natural and cultural resource protection would be similar to the
selected alternative. However, natural fire regimes would be
reestablished to the greatest extent possible, even if it caused
temporary inconveniences to visitors or a temporary reduction in
visitor enjoyment. For cultural resources a greater number of historic
properties would be preserved, and fewer sites would be designated as
visitor destinations.
Visitor Use and Facilities. Entry/user fees and an overnight permit
system with an educational component would be implemented. A visitor
experience and resource monitoring program would be established, the
same as the selected alternative.
A houseboat permit system would be developed, with a total of 50
overnight houseboats allowed per basin (40 commercial and 10 private
houseboats), for a park total of 100. No-wake boating areas would be
designated in bays on the four major lakes. Commercial fixed-wing
aircraft use would be stopped in the park, and private fixed-wing
aircraft use and the use of motors would be prohibited on all interior
lakes except Mukooda Lake. Boat rentals on Mukooda Lake would be
discontinued. The special use zone would be discontinued.
Fewer day and overnight sites would be built (250-275 total sites)
than in any other alternative, and no overnight use at undeveloped
sites would be allowed. Day use at overnight sites would be
discontinued. Fires would be allowed only in metal fire rings at
developed sites. Between 10 and 15 visitor destinations, with
interpretive and day use facilities, would be developed.
The proposed Kabetogama-Ash River trail would be developed as
described for the selected alternative, but no additional trails would
be added to the existing trail system on the Kabetogama Peninsula. A
multi-agency visitor center at Crane Lake and an educational institute
would be developed (the same as the selected alternative). All visitor
centers would operate year-round.
Interpretation, Visitor Services, and Education. Interpretive
programs, visitor contact, resource protection, and emergency response
would be expanded, as described for the selected alternative. Under
alternative 2, however, concession boat rentals would be eliminated at
Mukooda Lake.
Park Operations, Facilities, and Partnerships. Park operation
facilities and partnerships would be the same as described for the
selected alternative.
Alternative 3: Emphasis on Visitor Experience and Opportunities
Natural and Cultural Resource Management. Alternative 3 would build
on and incorporate many of the natural and cultural resource elements
from the selected alternative and most of the visitor use and facility
measures identified in alternative 1. This alternative would be the
most aggressive in developing visitor facilities, yet it would also
enhance resource preservation efforts to ensure a quality visitor
experience. Except for minor changes, natural resource preservation
would be the same as the selected alternative. For example, natural
fire regimes would be reestablished only when it would not reduce
visitor enjoyment or visitor use. Cultural resource actions would be
similar to alternative 1, except that visitor facilities and
interpretation would be provided at more properties.
Visitor Use and Facilities. A study would be completed to determine
the feasibility of an entry/user fee system. The system would only be
implemented if needed to offset park operations costs. An overnight
permit/reservation system with an educational component would be
implemented; however, some sites would be retained for first-come,
first-served use. Houseboaters would not be required to make
reservations, but would need overnight permits.
[[Page 17451]]
A houseboat permit system would be implemented, and a total of 70
overnight houseboats per basin would be allowed (60 commercial and 10
private houseboats), for a park total of 140. The number of houseboats
allowed under this alternative would be greater than under alternative
2 or the selected alternative. The four major lakes and all interior
lakes would be managed the same as alternative 1, except that expanded
commercial fixed-wing aircraft use would be allowed on Kabetogama Lake.
The number of day and overnight sites would be the same as
alternative 1 (about 400 total sites); however, the distribution of
sites would be different. There would be fewer tent sites, more small
campgrounds, more houseboat sites, and more day use destination sites
than under alternative 1. There would be more of all types of sites
than under the selected alternative (day use sites excepted) or
alternative 2. Day use with fires would only be allowed at developed
day use sites; day use without fires could occur at undeveloped sites,
and day use would not be allowed at overnight sites. No tent camping
would be allowed at undeveloped sites; however, houseboaters could moor
at developed or undeveloped sites for the night. From 15 to 20 visitor
destinations would be developed (the same as the selected alternative).
All summer and winter trails outlined in alternative 1 and the
selected alternative would be developed under this alternative. Visitor
center expansion would be the same as the selected alternative, plus an
environmental education facility would be considered at the Ash River
visitor center. At the Kabetogama Lake visitor center the historic
structures would be used for visitor education and interpretation, the
same as the selected alternative; additional space for interpretation
and rangers would also be considered. Year-round operations would be
provided at all visitor centers (the same as alternative 2), plus the
Crane Lake visitor center would be developed.
Interpretation, Visitor Services, and Education. Interpretive
programs, visitor contact, resource protection, and emergency response
would be expanded, as described for the selected alternative.
Park Operations, Facilities, and Partnerships. At Ash River
facilities for park operations would be expanded the most of any
alternative. Partnership development would be the same as the selected
alternative.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative is defined by the Council
on Environmental Quality as the alternative that best meets the
criteria or objectives set out in section 101 of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The Council on Environmental Quality
interprets these criteria as meaning the alternative that ``* * *
causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and
best protects, preserves and enhances historic, cultural and natural
resources.'' The NPS is not obliged to select the environmentally
preferred alternative, but is required to identify it in the ROD. The
planning team has identified alternative 2 as environmentally
preferred.
Specific actions in this alternative are expected to result in
benefits for resources relative to the other alternatives include the
restriction of overnight tent campers and houseboaters to developed
sites only, build out of the fewest developed sites of any alternative;
and prohibiting motorized use on all interior lakes except Mukooda.
These actions would help vegetation, wildlife, water quality, air
quality, species of special concern, soils, and archeological
resources.
Parkwide natural and cultural resource management policies that are
part of alternative 2 would also result in the greatest benefits of all
alternatives to resources in the park. These include vegetation and
fire management policies geared toward reestablishing natural fire
regimes to the greatest extent possible, maximum preservation of
historic structures, and a focus on completing cultural landscape
descriptions.
Basis for Decision
The selected alternative (or plan) was chosen because it provides
the most desirable combination of resource preservation, visitor
interpretation and experience, and cost effectiveness among the
alternatives considered. It is most responsive to the legislative
mission, purpose, and mission goals of Voyageurs National Park as
stated above under ``Background.'' It also best addresses the issues
identified during public scoping but continues to protect important
park resources and values.
Public comments gathered during scoping and the review of the draft
GMP/EIS were used extensively by the team in defining and revising the
proposed action. The majority of the comments indicated visitors wanted
the park to offer a broad diversity of visitor experiences while at the
same time providing ample opportunities to experience solitude and
tranquility. While most comments indicated visitors wanted to retain
much of the existing visitor experience, they also requested additional
day and overnight sites, trails, visitor destinations and interpretive
and educational facilities and services. Many people indicated a
concern that the park not become overdeveloped, and stated the level of
development in alternative 1 (no action, or implementing existing
plans) was too extreme. At the same time, many public comments
indicated that alternative 2 was too restrictive and did not develop an
adequate number of facilities or provide a broad enough diversity of
visitor experiences. The visitor uses and experiences are greater and
more diverse than in alternative 2, yet less intensive and/or more
restrictive than alternative 1. Where the team was unable to determine
with accuracy whether greater or lesser visitor use was appropriate, it
spelled out additional data gathering and planning efforts the park
would undertake before making these decisions. No actions in the plan
will impair or diminish the park's suitability for wilderness
designation.
Specifically, the plan will result in more day and overnight sites
than had alternative 2 been selected (a maximum of 275 in alternative 2
verses 320 in the plan), but fewer than alternative 1 (~400 sites). It
will also result in 3 more group campsites than alternative 2, but 1
fewer than alternative 1. At-large camping in primitive areas for
groups of up to 6 people would be allowed; no group limit is imposed in
alternative 1, and at-large camping is prohibited in alternative 2.
Overnight use of undeveloped sites will continue to be allowed, but the
park will initiate a monitoring program to determine whether
traditional use has caused unacceptable resource damage, and will
consider closing undeveloped sites if this is the case.
Unless the proposed houseboat management plan shows otherwise, more
houseboats will be permitted in the selected alternative than
alternative 2, but fewer will be allowed than in alternative 1 (100
houseboats per basin in alternative 2, 120 interim permits at one time
in the plan and unlimited use in alternative 1).
Since the plan will result in the vast majority of the lakecountry
area being developed at a moderate to low density, most visitors will
have the opportunity to stay in an area that will feel well separated
from other users. Alternative 1 would have meant many more miles of
moderate to high-density zoning. A reduction in the maximum group party
size from 72 in alternative 1 to 30 will
[[Page 17452]]
also help ensure visitors have a tranquil experience.
Rather than removing the ``Boats on Interior Lakes program'' (BOIL)
as identified in alternative 2, the plan will continue to provide boats
to visitors on several interior lakes, however a fee will be required
to encourage visitor responsibility for the boats. In comparison to
alternative 2, the plan will allow more interior lakes to remain open
to integrated use (same as alternative 1); a few more visitor
destinations to the park's natural and cultural resources will be
provided; several additional trails will be developed; and either bike
lanes or separate bike paths will be provided to park visitor centers.
In the plan, the continued integrated use of seven designated interior
lakes will allow diverse opportunities for visitors to experience
several different backcountry areas and will not be as restrictive as
alternative 2. Trail system expansion, as identified in the plan, will
afford much greater opportunities for summer and winter access to the
backcountry than alternative 2, improve linkages to park destinations
and broader visitor exposure to park amenities. These diverse trails
will provide access from water and land. Rather than removing the
special use zone, as shown in alternative 2, uses in this zone will
continue to be allowed when they have a meaningful association between
the park area and the event, and the event contributes to visitor
understanding of the significance of the park area. In summary, the
plan will provide visitors with diverse opportunities to utilize the
park during the day and overnight while having a tranquil experience in
a natural setting. The plan allows visitors to enjoy the park in a safe
and respectful manner, with only minimal conflicts between users.
Interpretive opportunities will be significantly enhanced. Seasons
and hours of operation at visitor centers will be expanded (as needed)
and a new multi-agency visitor center will be developed at Crane Lake,
which is one of the largest visitor entry areas to the park and
adjacent regional recreational areas. The development of an educational
institute through partnering with other entities will encourage diverse
visitation, research, education, and park programming. The institute
will likely help expand recognition of the park and provide programs
for a wide diversity of people and age groups throughout the nation.
Developing a comprehensive interpretive plan focusing on the park's
mission, purpose, and significance to a greater depth will help ensure
interpretive programs foster in visitors a greater appreciation of park
resources. Visitor experiences will be enhanced through opportunities
to navigate and understand historic trade routes and to participate in
programs that focus on the history of the voyageurs. This will help
focus park recreation on one of the most important reasons for the
establishment of Voyageurs as a national park. The expansion of
educational and outreach programs and the development of new curricula
and new communication technologies will help increase visitor
participation.
An increased focus on strengthening partnerships will improve
communication between the NPS and others for the protection of
resources and the development of visitor services. Closer cooperation
with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources and the development of a joint fisheries
management plan will facilitate unified management actions and enhance
the park's natural fisheries. The pursuit of additional partnerships
for cultural resources will increase the means and number of people
available to conduct treatment and maintenance actions, as well as
develop sites for visitor use. Support of cooperative agencies and
partnerships for visitor safety will reduce emergency response times,
provide increased patrol for everyday activities, help increase a sense
of safety for park visitors, and protect resources. Active NPS
participation in and support of other agencies' and organizations'
planning, zoning, and land use activities will help protect park
viewsheds and other values that affect visitor experiences.
The plan will also improve resource preservation and protection,
and many of these preservation actions are the same as those spelled
out in alternative 2. However, the plan adopts a more cautious approach
to decision-making until reliable data clearly justify it, and focuses
instead on providing more diversified visitor use without harmful
resource consequences. As examples, the plan identifies the need for
more intensive study and monitoring before final management decisions
are made related to overnight use at undeveloped sites, houseboat
management, and facility and overnight fees and reservation systems.
These issues are of significant interest to the public with strong
representation on both sides of each topic, and the park requires
additional visitor use and related resource impact data to make the
most appropriate decisions in these areas.
Needed data will be collected via a no-fee overnight permit system
to determine visitor use patterns and related resource impacts. Park
staff will also be able to educate visitors about park conditions,
activities, and rules when permits are issued. In addition, a visitor
monitoring system will be implemented to better understand the resource
impacts of day and overnight use, restoration needs and visitor use
patterns and needs. Indicators and standards for monitoring park
resource conditions and visitor experiences in both summer and winter
will be established based on findings. The information from these
studies will be used in establishing the most appropriate management
procedures for natural and cultural resource preservation related to
visitor use, carrying capacities, visitor needs and desires, and
facility development. The results of these studies will provide much
needed information to make justifiable and defensible decisions related
to resource preservation and visitor management.
Implementing the plan will also have net benefits for resources in
many areas of the park relative to no action. Parkwide actions or
policies (see ``Measures to Minimize Environmental Harm'' below)
particularly will help natural and cultural resources. Some of the
specific actions in the plan, such as less dense zoning, fewer
overnight sites, limiting party sizes, requiring permits for overnight
use, and the possibility that undeveloped sites may be closed to
prevent resource damage, will also offer benefits for soils,
vegetation, water quality, wildlife and archeological resources.
Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm (Mitigation)
Many of the actions described in the final GMP/EIS for the modified
proposed action (e.g. the selected alternative, or plan) are geared
toward minimizing harm to the park's environmental resources or values.
These are listed below:
Parkwide or Policy Measures
Additional inventories of natural resources in the park would be
completed to provide accurate baseline data.
A comprehensive inventory, monitoring and research program,
including a monitoring program to track resource impacts related to
park use, would be implemented.
Nonhistoric cabins that are vacated would be removed so the sites
could be restored to natural conditions, although evidence of
habitation in the form of chimneys, foundations or similar
[[Page 17453]]
remnants would remain to preserve the cultural resource.
Resource management plans for fisheries, water resources,
vegetation, primitive area management, disturbed land restoration,
trails, developed site management, inventory and monitoring, fire
management, houseboat management and land protection would be completed
or revised and updated as needed to more effectively manage and protect
resources and preserve the existing visitor experience.
The park would act to shorten the time for forest communities to
retain their natural ecological characteristics and processes and would
aggressively combine prescribed fire and planting or seeding of native
pine and mixed wood forests to promote these species and improve
conditions in park wetlands.
The management of cultural resources would be more proactive than
it is currently, particularly through the development and
implementation of treatment plans. The most significant resources would
be protected through formal monitoring and public education.
Information about overnight visitor use would be collected via a
free required permit. This information would help park managers
determine how best to accommodate demand without damaging resources.
The requirement to have a permit for overnight use of the park
would be used to educate visitors on the practices of low-impact
camping and park rules and regulations regarding fire use and
campsites. This would help minimize disturbance to vegetation,
wildlife, and water quality.
The existing special use zone would be continued. However, a permit
would only be issued for activities that contribute to visitor
understanding of the significance of the park area and have a
meaningful association between the park area and the event would be
allowed. Even these activities would be denied if they would impair
park resources, create an unsafe or unhealthful environment or
unreasonably interfere with the peace or natural soundscape or other
park values. Snowmobile ``radar runs'' would be prohibited.
Pre-park campsites would be examined to ensure they meet the
criteria to provide a particular visitor experience and avoid damage to
critical resources. Sites that do not meet these criteria would be
restored to reverse resource damage, rehabilitated with proper visitor
facilities, or closed if needed.
Wetlands
Wetlands would be identified and delineated. Adverse impacts would
be avoided or mitigated, as required by law and NPS policy. Restoration
for damaged or degraded wetlands would be considered.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Expansion of visitor centers and parking lots would be minimized to
reduce impacts to vegetation, wildlife, the visitor experience of a
natural area and other resources.
A monitoring study of undeveloped sites to determine whether use
was causing unacceptable resource damage to vegetation, soils, wildlife
habitat or other resources would be conducted for three years. If the
study finds use causes unacceptable adverse impacts, the use of
undeveloped sites for overnight stays would be phased out or other
strategies implemented.
No open fires in the primitive area of the park would be allowed
starting in 2002, and all primitive campers would be required to obtain
a permit where they would be educated on leave-no-trace practices.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Sanitation system compliance certificates for blackwater
containment would be required for all houseboats in park waters.
The NPS will continue to collect water quality data, and will use
adaptive management practices to assure continued ecosystem integrity
in park waters.
The park will study the effects of graywater discharge from
houseboats in a houseboat management plan.
Fisheries
The park would work more closely with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR), the U.S. Forest Service, the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources and other agencies to develop cooperative
approaches to both fisheries and wildlife management.
The park would partner with the MDNR to develop a fisheries
management plan emphasizing the maintenance and reestablishment of
native, self-sustaining fish populations.
Threatened or Endangered Species
The selected alternative is not likely to adversely affect listed,
candidate, or proposed threatened or endangered species as the
``adversely affect'' is defined in the regulations implementing the
Endangered Species Act. The NPS has received concurrence on this
determination from the Twin Cities Field Office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). However, implementation of the plan may involve
specific projects or additional plans requiring consultation with the
FWS and the MDNR. Any action anticipated or conducted by the park that
has the potential to adversely affect any listed, proposed or candidate
threatened or endangered species would require such consultation and
impacts avoided, minimized or otherwise mitigated.
The park intends to continue to use its authorities to protect
wildlife of special concern when needed.
Measures to protect wildlife of special concern will continue to be
implemented as needed.
Surveys to determine the presence of any federally listed, proposed
or candidate plant species or state rare or sensitive species would be
conducted for projects implemented as a result of adopting the plan.
Any such plants discovered in project areas would be avoided and
protected from human disturbance if possible. If not, consultation with
the FWS to mitigate impacts would be initiated.
Scenic Quality
When the number of overnight houseboats reaches 60 per basin, a
houseboat management plan will be developed to minimize the visual
impact to those not occupying houseboats.
Visitor Experience of Solitude
Fewer developed sites than called for in existing plans would be
built to provide a less crowded and more secluded lakeshore camping
experience. All new sites must meet criteria in existing plans designed
to provide this kind of experience and minimize impacts to critical
resources.
The park would require groups to keep the party size at tent sites
to between 9 and 18, depending on the individual site. The party size
of houseboat groups would also be restricted.
The number of shoreline miles zoned to accommodate a high density
of campsite development would be reduced from 270 miles to 130 miles.
Camping in the park's primitive areas would be restricted to groups
no larger than six people per party.
Cultural Resources
Voyageurs National Park has consulted with the Minnesota State
Historic Preservation Office as required and has completed compliance
for this stage of the process. Individual actions referred to in the
GMP/EIS/VUFP will require additional section 106 compliance.
[[Page 17454]]
The park staff would seek greater involvement with Native Americans
in planning, resource management and interpretation, and cultural
resources associated with the history of tribes in the park would be
protected.
All eligible cultural landscapes in the park would be documented.
Recommendations in the Historic Waterway Study would be implemented
to protect and interpret significant features along the fur trade
route.
Cultural ruins would be actively managed through vegetation control
to slow their decline.
Impacts to archeological resources would be prevented by avoiding
the area or hardening the surface if possible.
An estimated 16-20 (53% to 67%) of the park's historic properties
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places would be actively
preserved.
Items representative of the park's natural, cultural and
administrative history would be collected, recorded and safely housed.
Visitor Safety
Brochures and other outreach programs to educate visitors on
boating etiquette would be created to minimize conflicts between
motorized and nonmotorized uses.
Open fires would be allowed only in metal fire rings beginning in
the summer of 2005. Staffing would be added to expand visitor contact,
resource protection and emergency response capabilities. Safety
enforcement activities would be increased.
Trail segments on the Mukooda Lake and Moose Bay portages would be
re-routed and consolidated to provide safer snowmobile access.
Impairment
The NPS manages land under its care according to provisions of the
1916 Organic Act (and amendments, including the NPS General Authorities
Act of 1970). The key provision of the Organic Act is considered to be
the statement that the NPS will manage its lands to ``conform to the
fundamental purpose'' of them. That purpose is defined as ``to conserve
the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life
therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and
by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' (16 USC 1) It is considered fundamental to management of
the park then, that resources and values be conserved, and that they
remain unimpaired throughout time for future generations to enjoy.
A resource or value may experience an impact without being
impaired, as impairing a resource means its integrity would be harmed.
Although there may be limited exceptions, generally an impairment would
only occur in cases where a resource or value is expected to also
experience a significant adverse impact.
The NPS Management Policies (2001, section 1.4.5) provide guidance
on which resources and values are more likely to be considered impaired
by actions with adverse impacts. These include those resources or
values whose conservation is necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation of the park or key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for
enjoying the park.
The act establishing Voyageurs National Park indicates the
``outstanding scenery, geological conditions and waterway system which
constituted a part of the historic route of the Voyageurs who
contributed significantly to the opening of the Northwestern United
States, are to be preserved for all generations to enjoy. The actions
included in the selected alternative, or ``plan,'' would not compromise
the integrity of the scenery, geological conditions or the route of the
Voyageurs, and so would not result in an impairment of these resources.
The additional resources and values considered by the team in
deciding whether the potential for impairment exists are defined in the
NPS management policies (1.4.6) and include natural and cultural
resources, as well as elements of the visitor experience such as
solitude, peace and quiet and visual quality.
Many other resources evaluated as part of the GMP/EIS planning
process, such as park operations, socioeconomics and aspects of the
visitor experience not mentioned above are not included in the
impairment finding (see NPS 2001, section 1.4.6 for more information).
Only those actions taken by the NPS or under its control are included
in findings of impairment.
After careful consideration of all major impacts to these resources
that might result from actions taken by the park in implementing the
selected alternative, the team found that no impairment of park
resources or values would occur. Very few resources would be expected
to experience major or significant environmental effects (see Table 7
and chapter 4 of volume 1 of the final GMP/EIS for more information)
from implementing the selected alternative (named ``modified proposed
action'' in the GMP/EIS). Where major impacts are expected, they are
nearly always either localized or the result of cumulative actions
outside the park's authority to control. The ``integrity'' of the
resource or value is therefore not at stake.
Examples of localized impacts include impacts to aquatic vegetation
at the Daley Bay crossing to build the Kabetogama-Ash River trail, or
to soils or terrestrial vegetation at some undeveloped sites. Examples
of major impacts resulting from actions partially or completely outside
NPS control include artificial regulation of water levels in the park's
four large lakes and its impacts on park hydrology, aquatic vegetation
and fisheries; cumulative degradation of air quality in the region of
the park and in particular visibility; changes in park area vegetation
and wildlife as a result of pre-park actions (such as logging and fire
suppression); and possibly the management of fisheries populations,
which is jointly conducted by the park, the MDNR. To date, no major
impacts to the park's sport fishery have been observed, and it is
expected that through the return of more natural lake levels and the
use of closures, slot limits and creation of spawning habitat to manage
fisheries, no impairment of this resource is expected. The change in
policies regarding lake level management will also benefit park
hydrology, aquatic vegetation and wildlife. The selected alternative
also includes measures aimed at reestablishing fire as a natural
ecosystem process to the extent possible given visitor experience and
safety constraints.
Cumulative impacts to water quality from motorized use of some of
the park's lakes may have moderate to major parkwide impacts from
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (ecological toxins or human
carcinogens at low concentrations) released as a result of internal
combustion in two stroke engines.
Although testing for the presence and/or impacts of PAHs on water
quality and aquatic wildlife is needed to determine precise impacts,
neither the park's water quality nor its fisheries resources appear to
be in danger of impairment at this time. As noted in the final EIS (see
Chapter 4, Impacts of Alternative 1--Fisheries, Conclusion): ``The
combination of these factors (PAH concentrations and other toxins,
fishing pressure, global climate change and lake level changes) could
have major adverse effects on the sport fishery. However, creel surveys
indicate sport harvest remain relatively high, perhaps indicating the
cumulative impact is not a major one, or that impacts are
[[Page 17455]]
mitigated somewhat through closures, slot limits, creation of spawning
habitat, and changes in water levels.''
In addition, the final EIS (see chapter 4, Impacts of Alternative
1--Water Quality) indicates while no data on PAH levels in the park's
lakes is available, studies of other lakes have indicated
concentrations are directly correlated with the level of motorboat
activities. Motorboat use comparable to that in the park has produced
concentrations above EPA criteria for the protection of human health
for some PAHs. Despite the possibility of larger-scale impacts from the
toxic effects of PAHs, water quality generally remains high in the
park, and is identified by the state of Minnesota as class A--that is,
an outstanding resource exhibiting exceptional recreational and
ecological values. The integrity of the water quality resource in the
park is therefore intact and no impairment has occurred or is expected
to occur in the future at the \1/2\% per year increase predicted to
occur over the life of the plan. In addition, improvements in engine
technology are likely to reduce PAH concentrations over this same time
period.
Public Involvement
More information on the public involvement process is available by
reading chapter 5 of volume 1 of the final GMP/EIS (consultation and
coordination), and in response to issue 1 of the topic titled
``Planning Process'' in volume 2 of the final GMP/EIS.
In summary, the NPS initially invited the public to help scope the
GMP/EIS in August 1998 through an announcement in the Federal Register
and through a newsletter distributed by mail and in park visitor
centers. Scoping input sessions were also held during August in
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Duluth, Orr and International Falls. Comments
made during the input sessions and written comments were summarized
through a press release in December 1998.
The suggestions made by the public were used with information
gathered by the NPS to develop three management approaches. These
alternatives were sent out for public comment in May 1999 and public
open houses held in June. The comments on these alternatives were used
by the planning team to develop a fourth alternative, the draft
proposed action.
The impacts of each of the four alternatives were analyzed by
specialists and packaged as the draft GMP/EIS. The draft EIS was
released in June 2000 and mailed to all that had returned a postcard
indicating they wished to receive the document. The team conducted
public open houses in International Falls, Orr, Duluth, and
Minneapolis/St. Paul in July, 2000. Although the comment period was
scheduled to close in August, it was extended twice and closed October
23, 2000.
The team responded to all comments that questioned facts or
information that were substantive. Those that expressed an opinion for
or against an alternative or action in an alternative were noted.
Duplicate comments were combined. Similar comments were also combined
for readability into ``issues'' under particular topics. The first 130
pages of volume 2 of the final GMP/EIS are two indexes to the team's
responses to substantive comments. One is organized by topic and the
other by author. These substantive letters are also reprinted in volume
2.
Notification of the availability of the final GMP/EIS was published
on October 12, 2001, in the Federal Register.
Dated: February 14, 2002.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 02-8633 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P