Introduction

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for Prairie and Trout Portages, January 1999, documents the analysis of amending the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This document describes my decision and the reasons for Amendment Number 6 to the Forest Plan.

Purpose and Need
Currently, the Forest Plan is not in compliance with the recently amended 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-495).

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, P.L. 105-178 (1998 Transportation Act) was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, on June 9,1998. Section 1212 of Subtitle B of the 1998 Transportation Bill, amended Section 4(g) of the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act and states: "Effective 1999, Section 4 of the Act of October 2], 1978 is amended U) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following: (g) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles to transport boats across the portages between the Moose Lake Chain and Basswood Lake, Minnesota, and between Vermilion Lake and Trout Lake, Minnesota."

Until 1992, motorized portage operations existed at both portages. In 1992, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in interpreting a provision of the 1978 BWCAW Act, issued a ruling that closed the portages to motorized use. The 1998 Transportation Bill amended this provision and gives the Forest Service the discretion to consider both motorized and nonmotorized portage operation proposals at Prairie and Trout Portages.

The Forest Plan currently allows for nonmotorized commercial portage operations in the BWCAW. It does not address the use of motors in providing those portage operations. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Forest Plan so it is in compliance with the 1978 BWCAW Act as amended by the 1998 Transportation Bill.

Since 1993, there has been a nonmotorized operation at Prairie Portage. The permit for this operation expires in April of 1999. There have been nonmotorized operations at Trout Portage but currently there is no operation there.

An interdisciplinary team analyzed the effects of motorized and nonmotorized portage operations at Prairie and Trout Portages in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).

Copies of the EA are available at the Kawishiwi Ranger District Office in Ely, Minnesota.

The Decision
I have decided to implement Alternative 2 as described in the FA. This alternative amends the Forest Plan and adds the option of motorized portage operations at Prairie and Trout Portages.

The Forest Plan amendment changes the wording under Section 2323.13f from Motorized Portages to Mechanized Portages, on page 3-13 of the BWCA Wilderness Implementation Plan and adds the following wording:

"Either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations may be authorized at Prairie and Trout Portages. An operator could be authorized to perform a specific service, as outlined in a permit or contract. If no one is interested in providing the portage operation, no service will be provided. The Forest Service will neither operate nor directly subsidize the operation."

This decision results in the Forest Service being able to authorize either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations, if decisions are made to have portage operations. The decision on whether or not to issue contracts for the portage operations will be made at a later time.

The standards for the level of service would be included in contracts or permits. Following is a list of some of the standards for the acceptable level of service. Additional standards may be included in the contracts.

Provide, as a minimum, portage operation from 7:00 AM until 11:00 AM and from 3:00 PM until 7:00 PM from the Thursday before the opening of fishing season through Labor Day. Length of season could be extended from ice off to ice on and times during the day could be extended to 1/2 hour afier sunrise to 1/2 hour before sunset.

Use the site only during the day.

Transport watercraft and camping gear typically used on motorized wilderness lakes across the portage with or without assistance from their clients.

Transport persons with disabilities across the portage.

Ensure prompt service. Delays greater than thirty minutes would be infrequent.

Comply with all BWCAW rules and regulations.

Respond to any emergencies (medical, facility breakdown, hazardous waste spills, etc.) that might occur in and around the areas covered by the contract.

Take all measures necessary to protect the environment, natural resources, and the health and safety of all persons affected by contract operations.

Provide a nonexelusive service. The public may transport their watercraft across the portage by utilizing their own portage wheels or carrying their own watercraft across the portage. Everyone using the portage would be asked to follow the first-come, first-served rule and to remain on the water out of the flow of traffic until it is their turn.

Mitigation Measures
Specific mitigation measures will be incorporated into contracts or permits that are issued for the operation of the portages. Those mitigations will, as a minimum, include the following:

1. Vegetation
No live timber or other vegetation will be cut or removed without prior authorization. Dead falls or hazard trees leaning over portage trails could be removed without authorization.

2. Signs
Signs or other advertising posted on National Forest System lands shall be subject to prior written approval. Erected signs shall be maintained to standards determined by the Forest Service.

3. Laws and Regulations
All applicable laws and regulations will be followed.

4. Safety
The health and safety of all persons using the portage service will be the responsibility of the contractor.

Measures will be taken to protect the environment, natural resources, and the health and safety of all persons affected by the contracted operations.

Periodic safety inspections will be made of all facilities and equipment and appropriate corrective actions will be taken if hazards are observed.

5. Heritage Resources
Known heritage resources will be protected. No ground disturbing activities will be allowed unless cleared by a heritage resource survey.

6. Hazardous Materials
Use, storage, and cleanup of spills of hazardous materials will follow local, state, and federal laws.

7. Mooring-beaching of boats.
Watercraft which do not meet National Forest regulations for the area will not be authorized under the contract.

Watercraft used for the operation of the portage will be mutually agreed to in writing before the operation begins.

8. No other commercial services.
A contractor will not be authorized to solicit or conduct other commercial operations from the portage other than what will be specifically authorized in a contract.

9. Air Quality
If motorized equipment is used, it will be monitored to assure properly functioning mufflers are in place and that emission control devices are installed and regularly maintained according to manufacturer's specifications.

Motorized equipment will be turned off, rather than allowed to continue to idle during periods of extended non-use.

If animals are used, odors associated with concentration of animal feces/urine will be controlled through proper management of the animals, including physical removal of feces from the portages and immediately adjacent areas.

10. Soil and Water Waterbars, dips, or pitching will be used where needed to divert runoff into the wooded area instead of down the portage to the lakes.

11. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Any dens, nests, or rare habitat of threatened or endangered species; or any sensitive plants found in the area will be protected from disturbance.

Monitoring
Monitoring of a contractor's performance will be ongoing. Forest Service personnel will monitor implementation of contract specifications and additional mitigations throughout the term of a contract.

Reasons for the Decision
Based on the law, as stated in the 1998 Transportation Bill, the effects analysis in the EA, and the comments received on this project, it is my decision to amend the Forest Plan, as described earlier in this document. This results in the Forest Service being able to authorize either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations. My decision is based on the following:

I. This alternative brings the Forest Plan in compliance with the law. The amended 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act (PL 95-495) states that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles..." The Forest Plan now complies with the BWCA Wilderness Act as amended by the 1998 Transportation Bill.

2. This amendment will not significantly impact the users of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Those who wish to use the service will be able to. Those who are opposed to commercial services and especially motorized services, may be impacted because the service is there. Both Basswood and Trout Lakes can be accessed via portages without commercial services based at the portages.

3. This amendment will not significantly impact the character or quality of the BWCAW. The quota system remains unchanged and the level of use, including motorized use, is controlled through the quota. The addition of motorized portage services between motorized lakes will not result in a significant change to the BWCAW.

4. The amendment is not a significant change to the Forest Plan. Prior to 1993, the Forest Plan authorized motorized portage operations at Prairie and Trout Portages.

5. There is controversy concerning the use of motors in the BWCAW. PL 95-495, the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act, authorizes motors on specific lakes and therefore, the use and effects of motors on those lakes in the wilderness are beyond the scope of this FA.

6. There is also controversy concerning commercial uses in the BWCAW. The 1964 Wilderness Act, in Section 4(d)(6) states "Commercial services may be performed within wildernesses designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas." The BWCA Wilderness Plan and Implementation Schedule (BWCAW Plan, page 3-13) addresses and authorizes some types of commercial uses. This type of commercial use (both motorized and nonmotorized portage services) has been authorized for many years and new or additional impacts are not expected to occur.

7. While there are some differences in the effects between a motorized and a nonmotorized service, the level of effects is minimal and is unlikely to lead to measurable differences.

8. Forest Service policy permits Forest Plan amendments resulting from analysis conducted during Forest Plan implementation (36 CFR 219.10(f) and Forest Service Manual 1922.5). Other Alternatives considered The other alternative considered was no action. The no action alternative would not amend the Forest Plan to allow the Forest Service to consider motorized portage operations. This alternative describes the existing condition and was used as a baseline in measuring the effects of adding motorized operations. This alternative provides an adequate level of portage service, however, it does not bring the Forest Plan into compliance with PL 95495, as amended by the 1998 Transportation Act.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
I have reviewed the significance criteria of both context and intensity, as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA) 40 CFR 1508.27, of environmental consequences of the alternative selected for implementation, the environmental assessment and other referenced documents, and maps of the project. Based on my experience with similar practices and projects, I conclude that this project, either singly or in combination with other projects, does not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The physical effects are limited to the project area. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. This determination is based on the following factors:

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects of having motorized and nonmotorized portage operations have been taken into consideration when making this determination of significance. The beneficial effects have not, however been used to offset or compensate for potential adverse effects.

2. The portage operations, whether motorized and nonmotorized, will protect public health and safety.

3. There will be no significant effects on unique features in the area, such as prime forest lands, wetlands or floodplains, wild and scenic rivers, scientific resources, or ecologically-critical areas.

4. Although there may be controversy over the potential for significant effects, the scientific and professional experts consulted agree that motorized and nonmotorized portage operations can be implemented without significant adverse effects on the wilderness environment.

5. The environmental assessment revealed no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

6. This action does not set precedent for other projects that may be implemented to meet the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. These actions are not foreseen to be connected with future actions that may have significant effects.

7. Implementing motorized or nonmotorized portage operations does not represent potential cumulative adverse impacts when considered in combination with other past or reasonably foreseeable actions.

8. There will be no significant effects to heritage resources.

9. Determination of the impacts on listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants and animals from this action are provided in the Biological Evaluation, completed on October 26, 1998, and referenced in the EA. This action is unlikely to adversely affect federally endangered, threatened, or proposed species. It is unlikely that any adverse impacts would

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

10. This action does not violate any federal, state, or local laws, or requirements for protecting the environment, including the National Forest Management Act and associated regulations which provide for amendments of forest plans.

Robert Jacobs,
Regional Forester
USDA Forest Service
310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500
Milwaukee, WI 53203
James W. Sanders,
Forest Supervisor
Superior National Forest
8901 Grand Avenue Place
Duluth, MN 55808

Purpose and Need

1.0 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (FA) has been prepared following procedures established by Forest Service regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act ~EPA). This chapter will describe the purpose and need for the assessment; provide information on the process; and outline the issues related to the purpose and need.

1.1 Purpose and Need
Background
Currently, the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) is not in compliance with the recently amended 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-495).

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, P.L. 105-178 (1998 Transportation Act) was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, on June 9, 1998. Section 1212 of Subtitle B of the 1998 Transportation Bill, amended Section 4(g) of the 1978 Boundary' Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act and states:

Effective 1999, Section 4 of the Act of October 2], 1978 is amended (1) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following: (g) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles to transport boats across the portages between the Moose Lake Chain and Basswood Lake, Minnesota, and between Vermilion Lake and Trout Lake, Minnesota.,'

Up until 1992, motorized portage operations existed at both portages. In 1992, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in interpreting a provision of the 1978 BWCAW Act, issued a ruling that closed the portages to motorized use. The 1998 Transportation Bill amended this provision and gives the Forest Service the discretion to consider both motorized and nonmotorized portage operation proposals at Prairie and Trout Portages.

The Forest Plan currently allows for commercial operations, including nonmotorized portage operations, in the BWCAW but it does not address the use of motors in providing those portage operations. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Forest Plan so it is in compliance with the 1978 BWCAW Act as amended by the 1998 Transportation Bill.

Since 1993, there has been a nonmotorized operation at Prairie. The permit for this operation expires in April of 1999. There have been nonmotorized operations at Trout but currently there is no operation there.

Proposed Action
The Forest Service is proposing to amend the Forest Plan to add the option of motorized portage operations at Prairie and Trout Portages in the BWCAW. The Forest Plan amendment would state: "Either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations may be authorized at Prairie and Trout Portages. An operator could be authorized to perform a specific service, as outlined in a permit or contract. If no one is interested in providing the portage operation, no service will be provided. The Forest Service will neither operate nor directly subsidize the operation." This amendment would result in the Forest Service being able to authorize either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations.

A portage operation, located at the portage, would transport watercraft, associated motors, and camping gear across Prairie and Trout Portages, either with or without the assistance of the clients. The service would also provide a means of transporting people with disabilities across the portage. This would be a nonexciusive service and those not wishing to use the service could cross the portages on their own.

This EA will analyze and disclose the environmental effects of having motorized as well as nonmotorized operations at both portage 5.

Location
Prairie Portage is approximately 23 miles northeast of Ely and is located between Sucker Lake and Basswood Lake in Section 2, Township 64 North, Range 9 West, Lake County, MN on the Kawishiwi Ranger District and is entirely within the BWCAW. See Appendix A.

Trout Portage is approximately 35 miles west of Ely and is located between Lake Vermilion and Trout Lake, in Sections 24 and 25, Township 63 North, Range 16 West, St. Louis County, MN on the LaCroix Ranger District. Approximately 1/2 of the portage is in the BWCAW. See Appendix A.

1.2 Tiering
This FA is tiered to the Superior National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEJS) and Forest Plan dated May, 1986. The Forest Plan established multiple-use goals and objectives that guide management of the Forest, including the BWCAW. Amendment No.3 to the Forest Plan, dated August 1993, provides direction for management of the BWCAW and incorporates the BWCA Wilderness Management Plan and Implementation Schedule (BWCAW Plan) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the BWCA Wilderness Management Plan and Implementation Schedule (BWCAWFEIS).

The BWCAW Plan established quotas to distribute visitors and use in a manner that protects the natural resources and wilderness values and limits the social encounters to that which is appropriate for each management area. The quotas for both motor and nonmotor use will not be changed in this analysis.

All of Prairie Portage and the part of Trout Portage in the BWCAW is in Management Area (MA) 5.3, as described in the BWCA W Plan. The BWCAW Plan, on page 3-5, states that MA 5.3 will provide visitors with a semi- primitive motorized experience in a slightly modified natural environment. Visitors should expect to see a high number of boats with motors. Visitors will experience considerably less solitude, freedom, and challenge than found in other management areas. Portages will be constructed and maintained to accommodate moderate to heavy use.

The BWCAW Plan also states there may be moderate vegetation loss and soil disturbance at some sites. The impacts would be readily apparent to most visitors. Opportunities for experiencing solitude and isolation are low. Motorized watercraft are permitted and will be noticeable along major routes and portages, and near major entry points. The frequency of encountering others is moderate to high while traveling.

The portion of Trout Portage outside the BWCAW is in management area 1.5. A full description of this management area can be found on pages 4-61 through 4-74 of the Forest Plan. Management for the area can emphasize land and resource conditions that will "...provide recreation~ opportunities in surroundings where natural boundaries and shapes have been modified to conform to ownership boundaries and human-made structures." The recreation opportunity class for the portion outside the BWCAW is also semi-primitive motorized. The BA is tiered to the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Act includes two references to commercial activity in the wilderness. Section 4(c) states "Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise within any wilderness area designated by this Act...." Section 4(d)(6) states "Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas."

The Superior National Forest completed the Needs Assessment For Commercial Activities on Prairie Portage, in 1993 and the Needs Assessment For Trout Lake Portage, in 1996. Both of the Needs Assessments considered the 1964 Wilderness Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and Forest Service Policy that relates to wilderness management. The Superior National Forest (SNF) determined there was a need for commercial portage services to be located at both portages and these documents are hereby incorporated by reference.

1.3 Process
On August 24, 1998, the Superior National Forest sent out a scoping letter to 470 people. The scoping letter informed recipients that the SNF was developing prospectuses to solicit for operation of Prairie and Trout Portages. The leuer asked for criteria that might be used in selecting a successful bidder and to identify issues that should be addressed in an environmental analysis.

Over 200 comments were received. Forest personnel reviewed the comments and concerns and identified the issues that are addressed in this BA.

This EA, which analyzes the environmental effects of both motorized and nonmotorized portage operations, is being sent to everyone who commented on the initial scoping letter and will be sent to others who request a copy. There is a 30-day comment period to submit comments on the BA. Comments and concerns will be incorporated into the analysis and addressed prior to a decision.

1.4 Decision to be Made Based on the analysis documented in the BA, the Deciding Officer (Forest Supervisor) will make the following decision: Should the Forest Plan be amended?
The Forest Plan amendment would change the wording under Section 2323.13f from Motorized Portages to Mechanized Portages, on page 3-13 of the BWCA Wilderness Implementation Plan and would add the following wording:
"Either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations may be authorized at Prairie and Trout Portages. An operator could be authorized to perform a specific service, as outlined in a permit or contract. If no one is interested in providing the portage operation, no service will be provided. The Forest Service will neither operate nor directly subsidize the operation.

If the Plan were amended, it would result in the Forest Service being able to authorize either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations.

After this decision has been made, the Forest Service will complete analyses on whether or not to issue contracts for a specific type of portage operation (either nonmotorized if the Forest Plan is not amended or motorized and nonmotorized if the Forest Plan is amended). Once those analyses are done and decisions made, contracts may be issued.

1.5 Issues
The following issues and resources were identified for analysis by the Forest Supervisor from comments received by the public, other land management agencies, and Forest Service specialists. A brief statement that expands the issue is included to clarif~ the issue.

Chapter 3 includes a discussion of~e existing conditions and environmental impacts on each issue. The analysis project file contains a listing of contacts and comments received for the Prairie and Trout project area proposal.

1.5.1 Social Resource
How would people be affected?

1.5.2 Visual Quality
How would visual quality be impacted?
1.5.3 Noise
How would the amount or type of noise impact the type of experiences people are seeking?
1.5.4 Air Quality
How would air quality be affected?
1.5.5 Wildlife
How would wildlife habitat or populations be affected?
1.5.6 Water Quality
How would water quality be affected?
1.5.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
Would any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species be impacted?
1.5.8 Safety How would the safety of the users be ensured?
1.5.9 Accessibility
How would people with disabilities be impacted?
1.5.10 Heritage Resources
Would any heritage resources be impacted?
1.5.11 Soil Resource
How would the soil resource be impacted?
Would erosion occur?
1.5.12 Civil Rights
How would civil rights be affected?
1.5.13 Environmental Justice
How would environmental justice be impacted?

Chapter 2
Description of Alternatives

2.1 Introduction
This chapter contains descriptions of the alternatives analyzed in detail.

2.2 Alternatives considered in detail Two alternatives are considered in detail in this analysis. Alternative 1, which is called the no action alternative, describes the effects of the existing condition. Currently, nonmotorized portage services can be provided at both portages. Alternative 2, which would amend the Forest Plan, describes the effects of having a motorized portage service at the portages. The Forest Plan amendment would state: "Either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations may be authorized at Prairie and Trout Portages. An operator could be authorized to perform a specific service, as outlined in a permit or contract. If no one is interested in providing the portage operation, no service will be provided. The Forest Service will neither operate nor directly subsidize the operation."

The standards for the level of service would be included in contracts or permits and would be the same for both alternatives. Following is a list of some of the standards for the acceptable level of service. Other standards may be included in the contracts.

provide, as a minimum, portage operation from 7:00 AM until 11:00 AM and from 3:00 PM until 7:00 PM from the Thursday before the opening of fishing season through Labor Day.

Use the site only during the day.

Transport watercraft and camping gear typically used on motorized wilderness lakes across the portage with or without assistance from their clients.

Transport persons with disabilities across the portage.

Ensure service delays greater than thirtv minutes would be infrequent.

comply with all BWCAW rules and regulations.

Respond to any emergencies (medical, facility breakdown, hazardous waste spills, etc.) that might occur in and around the areas covered by the contract.

Take all measures necessary to protect the environment, natural resources, and the health and safety of all persons affected by contract operations.

Provide a nonexclusive service, so the public may transport their watercraft across the portage by utilizing their own portage wheels or carrying their own watercraft across the portage. Everyone using the portage would be asked to follow the first-come, first-served rule and to remain on the water out of the flow of traffic until it is their turn.

Alternative 1 (No Action). This alternative describes the existing management direction which authorizes nonmotorized portage operations at both portages. This alternative will provide a baseline to measure the effects of amending the Forest Plan to also authorize motorized portage operations at each portage. Under this alternative, the decision maker could select a nonmotorized operation. If no qualified bids were received, there would be no operation.

A nonmotorized operation is defined as an operation that would use "human power" or animal power" in providing the portage service. Some type of portage wheels or cart would likely be used to haul the watercraft, gear, and occasionally people across the portage. The human or animal power would have to be able to safely pull watercraft, gear and occasionally people.

Alternative 2 (Amend Forest Plan). This alternative would amend the Forest Plan to include the option of selecting a motorized portage operation. The amendment would state: "Either motorized or nonmotorized portage operations may be authorized at Prairie and Trout Portages. An operator could be authorized to perform a specific service, as outlined in a permit or contract. If no one is interested in providing the portage operation, no service will be provided. The Forest Service will neither operate nor directly subsidize the operation." This alternative describes the effects of a motorized portage operation located at both portages. It does not mean the Forest Service would select a motorized operation.

Under this alternative, the decision maker could select motorized operations or nonmotorized operations. If no qualified bids were received, there would be no operation.

A motorized operation is defined as one that would use a motor (internal combustion or electric) in providing the portage service. Motorized means could include vehicles such as trucks, cars, or four and six wheel all terrain vehicles as long as they would be able to safely pull a boat with gear and occasionally people.

2.3 Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures would be incorporated into contracts or permits that would be issued for the operation of the portages. Those mitigations would, as a minimum, include the following.

I. Vegetation
No live timber or other vegetation will be cut or removed without prior authorization. Dead falls or hazard trees leaning over portage trails could be removed without authorization.

2. Signs
Signs or other advertising posted on National Forest System lands shall be subject to prior written approval. Erected signs shall be maintained to standards determined by the Forest Service.

3. Laws and Regulations All applicable laws and regulations would be followed.

4. Safety The health and safety of all persons affected by a portage operation under contract would be the responsibility of the contractor.

Measures would be taken to protect the environment, natural resources, and the health and safety of all persons affected by the contracted operations.

Periodic safety inspections would be made of all facilities and equipment and appropriate corrective actions would be taken if hazards were observed.

5. Heritage Resources Known heritage resources would be protected.

No ground disturbing activities would be allowed unless cleared by a heritage resource survey.

6. Hazardous Materials
Use, storage, or cleanup of spills of hazardous materials would follow local, state and federal laws.

7. Mooring/beaching of boats. Watercraft, which do not meet National Forest regulations for the area (such as length or horsepower limits) would not be authorized under the contract.

Watercraft used for the operation of the portage would be mutually agreed to in writing before the operation begins.

8. No other commercial services. A contractor would not be authorized to solicit or conduct other commercial operations from the portage other than what would be specifically authorized in a contract.

9. Air Quality
If motorized equipment were used, it would be monitored to assure properly functioning mufflers are in place and that emission control devices are installed and regularly maintained according to manufacturers specifications.

Motorized equipment would be turned off, rather than allowed to continue to idle during periods of extended non-use. This would reduce the emissions, because emissions tend to be highest when motors are operated at idle speeds.

If animals were used, odors associated with concentration of animal feces/urine would be controlled through proper management of the animals, including physical removal of feces from the portages and immediately adjacent areas.

10. Soil and Water
Waterbars, dips, or pitching would be used where needed to divert runoff into the wooded area instead of down the portage to the lakes.

11. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
Any dens, nests, or rare habitat of threatened or endangered species; or any sensitive plants found in the area would be protected from disturbance.

2.4 Monitoring
Monitoring of a contractor's performance would be ongoing. Forest Service personnel would monitor implementation of contract specifications and additional mitigations throughout the term of a contract.

2.5 Financial Efficiency
An economic analysis was not completed since there are no Forest Service funds directly involved in operating the portage. The U.S. Treasury, however, does receive a minimum of three percent of gross revenue from a portage service operator. The Forest Service may offset the fees paid in exchange for maintenance or reconditioning of government-owned improvements at the site.

Introduction

The Forest Service received over 200 comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Prairie and Trout Portages in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The Interdisciplinary Team reviewed and organized all of the comments by the following issues. A.) Laws, Regulations, and Policy; B.) Commercial Services; C.) Motorized Portage Service; D.) Wilderness Values and Social and Resource Impacts; E.) Accessibility; and F.) Miscellaneous. Due to the volume of comments, complete letters are not included in this appendix. Similar comments are represented by actual or paraphrased statements listed below. Brief responses follow the comments as organized by issue.

Synopsis of Prevalent Comments
Three common issues were identified in nearly all of the comments. These issues were whether or not to I.) amend the Plan, 2.) allow motors, 3.) and allow commercial services at Prairie and Trout Portages. Our responses to these primary areas of concern are summarized in this section.

The 1998 Transportation Act gives the agency the discretion to allow motorized portage services. Currently, the Forest Plan is not in compliance with the amended 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act as it does not address the use of motors on these portage S. Therefore the Forest Plan needs to be amended. The National Environmental Policy Act ~EPA) requires the Forest Service to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of amending the Forest Plan. The Prairie and Trout Portage EA analyzed the effects of returning motors to the portages, if the Forest Plan were amended. The BWCAW is managed according to the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act, which provides exceptions to the 1964 Wilderness Act; the 1978 Act was amended by the 1998 Transportation Act. We understand that for many people, motors and wilderness do not mix. However, the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act identifies lakes that motors can be used on and provides direction on how the wilderness is to be managed. The Transportation Act amended the 1978 Act to again allow motors to be used in providing a portage service. The BWCA Wilderness Plan established quotas to ensure use would not degrade the wilderness resource. The EA analyzes the effects of adding motorized transport at two portages, located between lakes where motors are allowed. Adding motorized transport on the portages will not result in changing the level of the quota. The addition of motors on two portages between motorized lakes would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall quality of the wilderness.

The purpose of the EA was to address the 1998 Transportation Act that amended Section 4(g) of the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act to state that "Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles...." The motorized and nonmotorized portage operations have been operated as a commercial service under a special use permit. The only way a portage service would be offered would be under a contract or permit. The Forest Service will neither operate nor subsidize the operation of portages. Section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act (see page 2, Section 1.2 of the EA) states "Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas." Therefore, because the amenclllnent to the 1978 Wilderness Act allows motors, it would be as a commercial service. Also, the EA incorporates the findings of the Needs Assessment for Commercial Activity at Prairie Portage and the Needs Assessment For Trout Lake Portage. See pages 2 and 3 of the EA.

The 1998 Transportation Act does not state the Forest Service must first indicate there is a need for motorized transport. The EA analyzed the effects of motorized and nonmotorized operations. It not analyze the need for portage services.

Comments Received

A. Laws~ Re~uIations. and Policy
Al. The amendment passed by Congress does not require or mandate motorized portages and so consider it and then say no.

A2. It was my understanding the legislation that was finally passed was to once again provide for motorized portages. It seems to me, however, the only option the Forest Service has is to follow the law and establish guidelines on how to manage these motorized portages.

A3. The sneaky rider attached to ISTEA that is the source of this development was ill-conceived, high]y controversial, and solely the conception of anti-wilderness extremists in Congress. I hope you will have the courage and stamina to stand tip to the development cabals and protect this precious heritage site.

A4. Your department is responsible for implementation of policy, regulations, etc. You are NOT empowered to question or interpret. I find it totally out of line that you expend my tax dollars on your so called Environmental Assessment. It is one of the most unprofessional and biased approaches I have seen. Stop the nonsense and get on with letting the bids.

A5. The language of the 1998 Transportation Bill, Section (2)(v) Boundary Waters Canoe Area arnending Section 4(g) of the 1978 BWCAW Act unambiguously states that motorized portaging is to take place: 'Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles...." The word "nothing" should not be difficult for objective and honest people to understand. An objective, honest, legally accurate rendering of the word "nothing" necessarily indicates that even things like significant environmental impacts, public opposition, or USFS discretion for any reason would not prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles.

A6. The JSTBA language does not require the Forest Service to amend the Forest Plan to allow motors on Prairie and Trout Portages. Indeed, by releasing an EA and opening it for public comment, the Service acknowledges that it has the authority to exercise discretion in this matter. The Service should exercise that authority to protect wilderness values in the BWCAW.

A7. While I appreciate the effort the Forest Service has undertaken to address alternatives to the portaging question, I expect the Service to fully exercise their discretion to developing alternatives that fulfill the requirements of the ISTEA provisions with the least impact on the wilderness environment.

A8. ~ are we re-opening this debate?

Response to Al - A8: The 1998 Transportation Act gives the agency the discretion to allow motorized portage services. Currently, the Forest Plan does not address the use of motors on these portages and therefore needs to be amended. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of amending the Forest Plan. The Prairie and Trout Portage EA analyzed the effects of returning motors to the portages, if the Forest Plan were amended.

A9. The genesis of public support for the law itself was preceded by the decision to terminate motorized portaging and the resulting law was in direct response to the desire of the public for the return of motorized portaging. Arriple evidence can be found in the record of events surrounding the previous 3 years of public debate to support this claim.

AlO. The record of congressional hearing, relevant congressional committee reports and other communications from legislators make clear the intent of the law is to return motorized vehicles to the portages, not simply to allow the USFS to authorize it if they so choose. All. The joint public statement of Congressmen Oberstar and Vento in their joint press release of May 18, 1998 makes clear the nature and intent of the legislation which was a compromise involving the return of motorized portaging for increased motor restrictions on two lakes. It can be characterized in their words as an agreement "...to open for motorized transport two portages in the BWCAW.. (and) also eliminates the use of motorboats on Canoe and Alder Lakes." There is no ambiguity here in the nature or intent of the law in the minds of the two principal authors of the language of the bill - authors who bitterly opposed each throughout the process but agreed in the end.

In the joint statement, Congressman Vento stated, "This positive step resolves local concerns and enhances wilderness protection for two pristine lakes, Canoe and Alder." Once again we see the nature of the agreement (a compromise involving the return of motorized portaging for increased motor restrictions on two lakes). We also have the principal opponent of motorized portaging stating that this compromise "resolves local concerns"; these "local concerns" are specifically the return of motorized portaging.

A12. Even though we believe the historical record, language and intent of the legislation, and the public statements of the legislation's authors require the USFS to implement motorized portaging, because the USFS has decided to interpret the legislation as giving it discretion over the question of whether to allow motorized portaging or not, we are compelled to respond to the EA by giving our qualified support to the only alternative that allows motorized portaging, Alternative 2. We want to go on record opposing the presumption contained in Alternative 2 that the agency has the option of selecting motorized portaging; rather, we believe the agency must select motorized portaging if a qualified vendor exists.

Response toA9 -A12: See Response to Comments Al - A8.

A13. My first concern is for consistency in policy throughout the USDA Forest Service. In light of recent decisions by the USFS with regard to climbing hardware in wilderness areas, I agree with limiting the use of permanent fixtures and thus, logically must urge the USFS to restrict and/or eliminate motorized portages in the BWCAW

Response to A13: The BWCA Wilderness Act specifically authorized motors on certain lakes. The Transportation Act amended the BWCA Wilderness Act, giving the Forest Service the discretion to consider motorized portage services. Congress has not passed laws specific to the use of climbing fixtures in wildernesses.

A14. Continuation of motorized portages is a revocation of the original intentions in the BWCAW Plan negotiated and accepted in 1978. The intentions of the decision makers in 1978 was to create a true wilderness as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act.

A15. The Forest Service is required to protect and manage for wilderness values in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The 1964 Wilderness Act, the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act, the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Forest Service Manual all direct the agency to protect wilderness values. The Forest Service Manual, for example, directs that: 1. Where there are alternatives among management decisions, wilderness values shall dominate over all other considerations except where limited by the Wilderness Act, subsequent legislation, or regulations. (emphasis added) FSM 2320.3, paragraph 1. (41)

A16. The wilderness purpose of the area is to provide a canoe wilderness for the benefit of the American public. This was the purpose for including the BWCAW in the National Wilderness Preservation System when it was first established in 1964. In further recognition of the objective to preserve and protect a canoe wilderness, the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act provided for far reaching modifications to the area's protections and significantly expanded motor-free wilderness areas by immediate ban and phase outs of motorized use in the wilderness, limits on motor horsepower and motorboat quotas. To the extent that motorized use was allowed to continue, the law encouraged use of smaller, lighter, and less intrusive, motorized vehicles, such as smaller motorboats and square stern canoes. The elimination of motorized operations at Fourmile Portage, Trout Portage and Prairie Portage was also intended to achieve this objective. (62)

A17. The overall intention of the act would suggest a desire to move towards more primitive, rather than less primitive conditions.

Response to A14 - Al7: The Transportation Act, which amends the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act is subsequent legislation that gives the Forest Service the discretion to allow motorized portage operations.

A18. I question the Forest Service's decision to close the bidding for portage operation before deciding whether or not to amend the Forest Plan. It seems that this decision should have been made before a Request for Proposal listing the requirements for a portage concession bid was closed. (12)

A19. if the Forest Service insists on continuing or starting commercial concessions at the portages, the agency should re-open the bidding process now for only non-motorized bids. Though we believe that no commercial concessions should operate within designated wilderness, if the agency insists on this incompatible use, the Forest Service should now re-open the bidding process and solicit only non-motorized bids.

As stated above, we believe that a non-motorized option is well within the confines of the law and brings the least number of impacts on the wilderness. Unfortunately the agency received only bids for motorized uses in the first bidding process. Should the agency uphold its responsibilities to protect wilderness values and solicit for only non-motorized bids, the agency would undoubtedly receive such a bid at least for Prairie Portage, given that such a non-motorized service has operated there for the past five years.

A20. The agency has really conducted this operation backwards; first soliciting for bids, and then preparing an EA to determine the impacts on the resource. It's as backwards as if the agency would try to solicit bids for a road project, without Ichowing first if the road would be a simple timber access road or a four-lane freeway. For the portages, the Forest Service should have first determined what options within the confines of the law bring the least number of impacts on the wilderness resource, and then solicited bids.

Response to A18 - A20: The 1998 Transportation Act amended the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act. This resulted in the Forest Service proposing to amend the Forest Plan so it would comply with the amended BWCA Wilderness Act. The Forest Service August 24, 1998 scoping letter requested public input to help identify criteria that might be used to select the successful bidder for the operation of the portages and to identify issues that should be addressed in an environmental analysis related to the portage service. These are concurrent processes. The information received was utilized to develop the evaluation criteria and contract solicitation package and address issues and concerns pertaining to the EA. With public input the contract package set parameters of operation and lefi it up to applicants to present a specific proposal for operation. The contract solicitation did not direct a motorized or nonmotorized preference. The bids closed on November 4,1998. No nonmotorized bids were received. The contract decision will not occur until the Forest Plan amendment decision is made (EA decision). In addition, the contracting process is administered in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and is dependent on the EA decision.

B. Commercial Services
B1 No need exists for commercial concessionaires. Commercial concessions are inconsistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act. No concessionaire has operated at Trout Portage in recent years and hundreds of parties still successfully cross the portage each year. The same would happen at Prairie. The EA also fails to analyze the need or lack of need for commercial concessionaires.

B2. The EA inadequately addresses the need for any commercial concession at the portages. Similar to the need for motorized uses, we believe that there is no need for commercial concessions at the portages. The EA fails to analyze this point at all. The 1964 Wilderness Act contains a general prohibition against such commercial operations. Commercial concessions within wilderness areas diminish and degrade wilderness values. The Forest Service should seek to eliminate such commercial operations within the BWCA Wilderness, not seek to establish new ones. At Trout Portage, there has been no commercial concession operating there since the 1995 season when a dog team pulled boats over. Yet hundreds of motorboat parties have successfully crossed Trout Portage every year since then without any motorized assistance and without any commercial concession. In I 997. there were 380 day-use motorboat parties that successfully crossed the portage, and another 522 overnight motorboat parties that also crossed the portage without any commercial concession. More than 900 total motorboat parties crossed the portage entirely on their own! And, as you know, each party can contain up to four motorboats. Boaters use a variety of styles of portage wheels to push their boats across the portages. Many, especially those who use Trout Portage, have invested in the newer style of portage wheels that flip down and lock into place underneath the boat. These wilderness visitors have successfully adapted to the lack of a commercial concession at Trout Portage. Should the Forest Service decide to not continue a concessionaire under Special Use Permit at Prairie Portage, wilderness visitors would successfully transport themselves there just as they have done at Trout Portage. The FA must be revised, or a full Lnvironmental Jmpact Statement should be conducted to adequately address this lack of need for commercial concessionaires at the portages.

B3. Motorboat and canoe users are currently accessing Trout Lake and the western portion of Basswood Lake (Fall, Newton, Pipestone Portages) without assistance of a commercial operator at Trout Lake Portage and Four Mile Portage. Prairie Portage, with a new road only one quarter mile in length is an easier portage than the Trout Lake Portage and the Fall, Newton, Pipestone Portages, thus rendering commercial transport unnecessary there as well.

B4. The EA fails to examine the need for commercial portage operators at each of the portages, including a review of past practices, the large numbers of canoes and motorboats transported across Prairie Portage and Trout Lake Portage using nonmotorized means, and the current "high-tech" equipment available in the marketplace that obviates any need for commercial assistance andior motorized transport.

Response to BJ - B4: The EA incorporates the findings of the Needs Assessment for Commercial Activity at Prairie Portage and the Needs Assessment For Trout Lake Portage. See pages 2 and 3 of the EA. The purpose of the EA was to address the 1998 Transportation Bill that amended Section 4(g) of the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act to state that "Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the operation of motorized portage vehicles...." The motorized and nonmotorized portage operations have been operated as a commercial service under a special use permit. The only way a portage service would be offered would be under a contract or permit The Forest Service will neither operate nor subsidize the operation of portages. Section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act (see page 2, Section 1.2 of the BA) states "Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas." Therefore, because the amendment to the 1978 Wilderness Act allows motors, it would be as a commercial service.

B5. Because it is unlikely that a commercial operation will be put in place at Trout Portage absent remotorization, the amendment to the plan will serve to increase commercial uses in the wilderness.

B6. The analysis in the BA seems premised on the assumption that regardless of whether or not the portages are remotorized, there will be a concession in place at Trout Lake. This ignores the fact that there has been no concession at this portage for years. If the portage is not remotorized, therefore, it is safe to assume that there will be no concession in place at Trout Lake. This means that the difference in noise and visual quality will be much greater, because it will mean the difference between a commercial concession and no concession.

Response to B5 and B6: The BWCA Wilderness Act makes specific allowances for motorized use at Trout Lake. The effects of motorized and nonmotorized portage services are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the BA. See also the Response to Comments B I - B4. The BA does not state there will be a portage service. If the Forest Plan is amended, then there may be a rnotorized service.

B7. When the Prairie Portage is re-opened to motorized assistance I believe permit holders should be allowed to carry their canoes or kayaks across the portage. It would seem reasonable that a small fee could be paid for each water craft of this type. However, I would not favor the idea that permit holders with boats should have the option of using their own means of assistance. That road connecting the two points will be narrow and the hand powered effort could cause slowdowns and bottlenecks, especially if a breakdown should occur. Also, the contractor should have the assurance that he/she can protect their revenue in order to maintain the service.

Response to B7: The Forest Service would not require a portage user to use a portage service. The contractor assumes the risk of the economic aspect of the operation.

C. Motorized Portage Service
Cl. There is no need for motorized portage services. Hundreds of motorboat parties cross the portages each year now without trticks or jeeps. At Prairie, there has been a norimotorized concession in place for a number of years that has successfully assisted boaters in crossing the portages. It appears the legal quota at this site is already being exceeded. At Trout, despite the lack of a concession portage operator, the portage is being traversed and wilderness users have not been denied access to Trout Lake. These boats will continue to cross the portages without motor vehicles. The BA fails to analyze the need or lack of need.

C2. The EA inadequately addresses the need for motorized uses. In fact there is no need for motorized uses at the portages. The attached Fact Sheet, entitled "The Need for Truck Portages", utilizes the Forest Service data to make this point. As the Fact Sheet demonstrates, in 1997 there were 1,503 day-use motorboat parties that successfully crossed Prairie Portage without any motorized conveyance or assistance. This high level of use in fact exceeded the legal quota limit of 1,358 parties. For overnight motorboat parties at the Moose Lake entry point (which would include all such parties that crossed Prairie Portage to camp on Basswood Lake), 99% of the quota was used by visitors knowing that no motorized assistance was available at the portage to transport boats.

There is absolutely no need to degrade wilderness values in the BWCA Wilderness to allow motorized uses on the portages. The EA must be revised, or a full Environmental Impact Statement should be conducted, to adequately address this lack of need for motorized uses.

C3. The EA inadequately addresses each of these issues by failing to analyze the relative need for any change. Any fair analysis of USFS data on usage of these portages will indicate that there is no reasonable justification for allowing the use of motors on wilderness portages.

C4. The EA does not provide any information documenting the need for motorized vehicles on the portages. The FA, instead clearly documents that since 1993, successful non-motorized portage operations have existed. If people can portage now without the motors, why a]low motors to be put back in the wilderness?

C5. Reasons motorized use on portages should continue to be banned include: visitor surveys show that many believe motors are an intrusion into the wilderness experience; thousands of motorboat parties have crossed the portages without such motorized assistance, rendering them obviously unnecessary; and commercial concessions conflict with the 1964 Wilderness Act.

Response to CI - C5: The purpose of the EA was to amend the Forest Plan so it is in compliance with the 1998 Transportation Bill that amended Section 4(g) of the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, which now states 'Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the operaiion of motorized portage vehicles to transport boats across Prairie and Trout Portages." Since the act was passed and is now in effect, it is not necessary to analyze the need for motorized portage services. The Transportation Bill does not state the Forest Service must first indicate there is a need for motorized transport. The FA analyzed the effects of a motorized and nonmotorized portage operations. The FA did not analyze the need for portage services.

C6. There should be no motors anywhere in the wilderness.

Response to C6: See Section 4(c)( 1) of the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act for the list of lakes where motors are allowed. This issue is beyond the scope of the EA.

C7. Allowing motorized portages would degrade the wilderness and wilderness experience. To allow such would be an affront to the spirit of the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Forest Service should not unnecessarily degrade the wilderness by allowing motorized uses on the portages.

Response to C7: The BWCAW is managed according to the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act , which provides exceptions to the 1964 Wilderness Act; the 1978 Act was amended by the 1998 Transportation Act. We understand that for many people, motors and wilderness do not mix. However, the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act identifies lakes that motors can be used on and provides direction on how the wilderness is to be managed. The 1998 Transportation Act amended the 1978 Act to again allow motors to be used in providing a portage service. The BWCA Wilderness Plan established quotas to ensure use would not degrade the wilderness resource. The FA analyzes the effects of adding motorized transport at two portages, located between lakes where motors are allowed. The addition of motors on two portages between motorized lakes would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall quality of the wilderness.

C8. Motorized access to the BWCAW has a direct correlation to the condition of the campsites. Easier access means heavier use by parties who cause greater negative impact on site conditions.

C9. The FA also fails to adequately analyze another impact of motorized use at the portages. This impact concerns the type and amount of gear that boaters will bring if they know a truck orjeep will haul their boat and gear across the portages. Many boaters will bring much more gear, and generally heavier gear, and at times inappropriate gear for a wilderness, if they know a truck will haul it all for them. This can significantly diminish the wilderness values and the wilderness experience on Trout and Basswood Lakes. This impact, too, must be adequately analyzed in the EA. The EA must be revised, or a full Environmental Impact Statement should be conducted, to adequately address and analyze the impacts of motorized uses on wilderness values and wilderness experiences, both those values and experiences identified by the Forest Service in its 1993 Plan and EJS, as well as others such as the existence value and the impact on paddle visitation trends especially at Trout Lake.

Cl0. Motorized portages would make it easier to transport more motor boats and larger boats in the BWCAW. While total use could be controlled through the permit system, the mix of use between motorized and nonmotorized parties surely would shifi toward the former with consequent environmental disruption.

Response to C8 - ClO: The Forest Plan recognizes that in Management Area 5.3, people do use more equipment and have larger tents, which tends to result in greater irnpacts on sites (Final Environmental Impact Statement for the BWCA Wilderness Plan p.4-10). There has been a portage service at Prairie Portage for a long time. There was a portage service at Trout Portage until 1995. Table 3-1 in the BWCA Wilderness Plan identifies the desired future conditions and limits of acceptable change indicators and standards. This table shows that additional impacts are acceptable in MA 5.3. The 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act sets motor size limits but it does not set boat size limits. The motor size limits generally result in boats 14 to 16 feet in length, which is the typical size that has been in use in the BWCAW.

The BWCA Wilderness Plan established quotas for the amount of use, party size, and number of watercrafi per party. There is a quota for the lev~ of motorized use, which is included in the overall quota. The level of motorized use is capped by law. The issue of motorized use and the overall impacts of motorized uses on wilderness values in the BWCAW is outside the scope of this EA. The purpose of this EA is to bnng the Forest Plan in line with current law.

The EA analyzed the effects of returning motors to two portage S. No significant effects were found. The Decision Notice includes a Finding of No Significant Impact and that means an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed.

Cl1. The remotorization of the portages will obviously lead to increased motor use in the BWCAW. While limited motor use is allowed within the wilderness, the provisions of the BWCAW Act permitting this use are exceptions to the Wilderness Act's prohibition on such use and therefore should be construed narrowly. Where motor use is not mandated by the BWCAW Act, the Forest Service should not establish use. As stated in the Forest Service's Wilderness Management Handbook at Ch. 40, "Very few activities and situations within wilderness justiiy or require use of motorized equipment and/or mechanical transportation."

Response to Cl1: Adding motorized transport on the portages will not result in motor use beyond the level of the quota. PL 95-495 was amended by the 1998 Transportation Bill. This law supersedes the Forest Service Wilderness Management Handbook.

C12. Statistical data does not exist to suggest that these portages are "unlikely to lead to additional impacts." Evidence by conservation biologists, landscape ecologists and proponents of ecosystem management (including USFS) indicate that large pieces of relatively undisturbed ecosystems are declining in the US. Motors (and the demonstrated increase in motorized boat traffic) disrupt the wildness of the BWCAW, an area intended to contrast with the general land use patterns in northern Minnesota.

Response to C12: The BWCA Wilderness Plan and FEIS include analyses on the effects of human use of the wilderness. Quotas were set at levels of use that would allow natural processes to operate freely and that do not impair the values for which wilderness areas were created. There is a quota on motor use. The effects disclosed in the BWCA Wilderness Plan is based on use at the upper level of the quota. This action does not affect the level of habitat disturbance. The Biological Evaluation, dated October 26, 1998, finds that the use of motorized vehicles on the portages is unlikely to jeopardize any listed, proposed, or sensitive species in the area.

C13. The remotorization of the portage will result in the construction of a permanent or temporary road. While the portage trails are already in place, the use of the existing portage trails for motorized vehicles will render the trails ~roads" within the meaning of the Wilderness Act. This should be discouraged.

Response to C13: The portage trails previously accommodated motorized transport. They are currently maintained for the use of portage wheels, which are similar in size to boat trailers. Minimal work would be needed to again accommodate motorized transport.

C14. If the Forest Service determines that it will amend the Forest Plan in order to allow motorized concessions on the portages, it should employ the cleanest and least intrusive technology available. For example, any motorized use of the portages should be limited to electric motors. This is a wilderness--this is where our cleanest and best technology should be used.

Response to C14: Any contract would require meeting existing standards for air quality and emissions. Electric motors would be considered if someone included electric motors in their bid.

C15. It is our position that if one cannot access wilderness using muscle power to portage, then one should not access wilderness. Portages are an important part of the experience.

Response to C15: Comment noted. The BWCAW Act allows boats with motors and the 1998 Transportation Act allows for motorized portage service.

C16. Motors should be returned to the portages.

Response to C16: Comment noted.

C17. It is very clear that there is no significant impact on any of these areas with any operation of these portages. Without delay, you should follow the conclusion of this data and return the portages to motorized use. The portage is operated in a much more safe, effective way with the use of motorized vehicles. These services may not continue to be successful if forced to continue under the circumstances of the past few years. Without this decision, it would be evident to me that the USFS would not be acting in the best interest of those that use these areas of the Boundary Waters.

C18. The public and the people that use this portage have made it well known to the USFS that a successful portage operation is important. In order to ensure successful operation of these portages, you must choose to return to the motorized services. Failure to do this only invites failure of the operations, and would imply that a successful portage operation is not important to the USFS.

Response to Cl7 and C18: Records of previous portage operations indicate it is possible to offer safe and effective nonmotorized portage operations. Measures would be taken to protect the environment, natural resources, and the health and safety of all persons affected by the contracted operations (see Mitigation Measure Four on page 6 of the EA).

C19. I fail to see how the return to motorized portages will increase the traffic on either these lakes (Moose, Newfound, and Sucker) or Basswood.

D3. People visit the BWCAW for the wilderness experience. It offers one of the very few true wilderness experiences to be found in the Midwest.

D4. The large majority of BWCAW users are nonmotorized and I would find it quite inappropriate to degrade the experience of the majority to enhance the experience of the minority.

D5. It is up to the Forest Service to prove that it is serious in its attempt to protect and preserve the sanctity of this wilderness. It will take a bold move that time will eventually heal. Let's not pass up this opportunity to ban trucks from this precious wilderness now and forever.

D6. What is the significance of wilderness status if the definition itself ("an area essentially undisturbed by human activity maintained in its natural state and protected against the introduction of intrusive artifacts such as roads...) does not apply?

D7. Additional wilderness values include the desire to explore, or "discover" a wilderness and spiritual significance and feeling associated with wildlands. The EA fails to adequately examine the potential impacts on intangible values of wilderness, including spiritual values, the wilderness experience desired by users, and related qualities such as quietude and solitude.

Response to Dl - D7: The 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act authorizes motorized use on specific lakes. This would not change as a result of allowing motor or nonmotor portage operations; Motors are m use on lakes on both sides of the portages and were used on the portages until 1992. There are also alternate portages that can be used if people choose to travel these routes and do not wish to be near the motorized portage operations. The BWCA Wilderness Plan established four different management areas, each with different physical and social aspects. MA 5,3 states that the opportunities for experiencing solitude and isolation are low. The frequency of encountering others is moderate to high while traveling. The challenge and risk associated with recreational opportunities is moderate to low. Visitors will experience considerably less solitude, freedom, and challenge than found in other management areas. The effect of adding motors to two portages in an area with motorized use on both sides of the portages, would not lessen the solitude, freedom, or challenge of the area.

When people plan wilderness trips, they can choose the kind of experiences they wish to have and can choose to travel or stay in MA 5.3 or seek MAs 5.2 or 5.1 for a more remote wilderness experience. The EA, on page 11, discusses the social effects of putting motorized transport at the portages. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, it is recognized that people who are seeking a wilderness experience where they can escape from the elements of modern society and do not want to see portage operations, especially motorized operations, may be adversely impacted and may choose other locations for their wilderness experience.

The increase in paddle use at Trout portage could also be attributed to a variety of other circumstances including weather, fire, public information and general increase in use over all of the BWCAW. Other BWCAW entry point quotas have been filling for more and more of each season causing paddlers to seek areas they have not historically visited.

D8. It is my opinion there is no difference in the impact a motorized portage will have on the environment versus non-motorized portage. With proper management, there will not be a more significant impact on social resources, visual quality, noise, air quality, wildlife, water quality, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, safety, accessibility, heritage resources, civil rights, and environmental justices with the operation of a motorized portage. Amending the Plan will allow the Superior National Forest the flexibility in deciding which type of operation (motorized versus nonmotorized) is the most practical for the portage operations as to allow people the ability to utilize the MA 5.3 areas. The fact the Trout Portage has not received a bid in the last several years for nonmotorized operations itself states the nonmotorized operations may not be physically or economically feasible in some situations. Since the Superior National Forest has determined there is a need for commercial portage services at both portages, this seems like the only solution.

Response to D8: Comment noted.

D9. Noise pollution is out of control. Anything you can do to stop the noise in the Boundary Waters is great.

D1O. The noise, exhaust fumes, and visual pollution of motor vehicles assisting in a portage will ruin this beautiful area.

Response to D9 and D1O: Noise, air quality, and visual quality were addressed in the EA (see pages 11 - 13). No measurable effects were identified for noise, air quality, or visual quality. Noise levels would be unlikely to change as a result of adding motorized transport at two portages.

Dl1. The vegetation statement listed in the EA does not appear to allow the removal of dead-falls and/or windfalls and the likes of them. It should be changed to allow that. Response to D11: The Mitigation Measure on Vegetation will be changed to read "No live timber or other live vegetation would be cut or removed without prior authorization. Dead-fall and windfalls could be removed without prior authorization.

D12. In the statement on Heritage Resources about "no ground disturbing activities would be allowed unless cleared by a heritage resource survey." The portage service operation would more than likely be operating in the same area as it previously did prior to 1992 and should not be a problem.

Response to D12: The portages would remain in the existing locations. The Mitigation Measure about Heritage Resources is a standard mitigation included in all contracts.

D13. About Soil and Water, if crosion occurs, dirt should be allowed to be moved or hauled in to maintain a moderately smooth surface on the portage lanes.

Response to D13: Gravel has been and would continue to be brought in to maintain the portages.

D14. The EA does not document whether the use of motors on the portages will conflict with the current non-motor users ability to continue non-motorized portaging. Motorized vehicles have the potential to groove or otherwise alter the portage surface. Many BWCAW motor users have made significant investment in attached portage wheels which depend upon an even grade to operate optimally. Paddle visitors that also choose to use portage wheels benefit from portages that have not been degraded by motor use. Additionally, if portage maintenance results in additional impacts to wilderness values, these effects should be fully described in the EA.

Response to D14: The use of motors on the portages would not conflict with the current nonmotor users ability to continue nonmotorized portaging. If a contract were issued, it would require portage maintenance. The portages would likely remain smoother if there is a contractor for a portage operation than if there is no operation. The portage contract would be a non-exclusive use of the area. Portage maintenance is not expected to result in additional impacts to wilderness values.

D15. My experience would have been lessened by the sound of motorized vehicles and the sight of tire tracks across the portages.

Response to D15: Comment noted.

D16. I have reviewed the study that you have done on each aspect that could have impact on the area. With this study in mind, it is very clear that there is no significant impact on any of these areas with any operation of these portages. Without delay, I believe you should follow the conclusion of this data and return the portages to motorized use. The portage is operated in a much more safe, effective way with the use of motorized vehicles. It is very important to me, as a visitor to the area, to have a successful transportation operation at these portages.

Response to D16: Comment noted.

D17. I know of no campsite where the noise from a jeep pulling a trailer with a boat on it will be heard or seen. Overhead airplanes, however, do make noise and may impact the environment, but I doubt the Forest Service can do much about it.

Response to Dl 7: Comment noted.

D18. I'm very concerned about the safety of myself and others providing the labor when a fully loaded boat of a camper is sent down the hill afier beginning the portage from Sucker or up the hill on the return. One misstep or stumble on a rock coud easily cause a body to be crushed as 1,000 lbs or more of boat comes down upon the victim. This would be senseless and in itself is enough to justily the use of 20th century technology.

Response to D18: The BWCA Wilderness Plan on p.3-18 states that when traveling and staying in the wilderness, the visitor accepts the risks associated with wilderness travel.

E. Accessibility
El. There is no need for any accommodations for persons with disabilities. Please contact Wilderness Inquiry in Minneapolis for further questions.

Response to El: Wilderness Inquiry provided comments on the scoping letter for this project. No changes would be made to the portages to improve access for people with disabilities. If an operator were selected to provide a portage service, the operator would be required to transport people with disabilities if they request this service. œ2. With regard to the issue of transporting people across the portages as raised in Chapter 2.2 bullet 3 of the EA, we want to reiterate our belief that the record clearly supports our position that the portage operation be required to transport people across the portages in conjunction with their watercrafi and gear, if so desired by the customers of the portage service. The issue is also alluded to in Chapter 2.2, Alternative 2 ~. 6) of the EA. The word ~ should be struck to simply and correctly reflect the fact that any portage service will be responsible for transporting people as well as watercrafi, at the discretion of the customer.

Response to E2: The comments received from the public scoping (8/24/98) were analyzed in part to help determine the level of service the public would like to see at the two portage 5. That information along with the knowledge and experienced judgement gained from the administration of the past portage operations is the basis for determining the level of service advertised in the solicitation for bids for the two portages. There is no requirement for transporting every party across as part of the service. Section C. 1 of the contract solicitation requires 'tthe contractor to provide assistance to people transporting their watercrafi and gear across the portage during approved operating hours for a reasonable fee for the type of service being offered. They must have the capabilities for transporting watercrafi typically used and must have the capabilities of transporting persons with disabilities."

F. Miscellaneous
Fl. Crowding and equal access considerations. In addition to the useful and successful permitting system, the USFS could disseminate information on lakes in Minnesota where there are no restrictions on motorboats and/or the use of motorized portages. This action would reduce the demand on the portages and preserve or improve the unique conditions of BWCAW lakes.

Response to Fl: This has been done. There is still a demand for access to Basswood and Trout Lakes by motorboats for fishing. We do not see this demand decreasing.

F2. I wish to receive a copy of all comments received in response to the Portage EA.

Response to F2: This document, Appendix B, paraphrases the comments received on the EA and includes a brief response to those comments. Over 230 letters were received. These letters are available for review at the Kawishiwi Ranger District Office in Ely, MN.

F3. It would be my hope that the Forest Service could be a more visible factor within the park itself. You seem to have created the typical government bureaucracy which has definitely reduced the time and resources which allows you to be physically in the park, monitoring violations, maintaining the campsites, and providing needed improvements.

Response to F3: Comment noted.

F4. I would consider prior to its implementation, the following in consideration of the "non- or anti-motor" BWCAW users: a) Excluding national holiday and fishing season opening dates, one weekend (including F - M) each month or two mid-week day, e.g. T-W or W-Th, in the 2nd and 4th weeks of each month, motorized use of these portages would not occur; b) Otherwise, motorized use on these portages is to be only 7:00 - 11:00 AM and 3:00 - 7:00 PM daily.

Response to F4: Alternating between motorized and nonmotorized times would likely be very confusing to the public. People who do not wish to use the portage if there is a portage service have the option of using other portages that do not offer a service.

F5. The operator(s) and/or employees of the motorized portage service should be allowed to maintain an overnight facility at the portage as was done previously before the operations were forced to shut down. This will facilitate a more responsive service for transporting of watererafi and/or persons especially in an emergency situation.

Response to F5: The Forest Service decided the operator would be authorized to be on the site only during the day to provide the portage service. There is no need for night-time presence and living at the site would produce additional impacts. If people wish to use the portage service, they need to plan to arrive at the portage during operating hours. The purpose of the portage service is not to be there in case of emergencies. People are expected to assume the risk of being in the wilderness.