December 1, 2003

Mr. Jim Sanders
Supervisor
Superior National Forest
8901 Grand Avenue Place
Duluth, MN 55808-1102

Dear Mr. Sanders:

I am writing on behalf of the board and staff members of Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (“Friends”) to express concern about the proposed Decision Memo for the environmental remediation at Trout Lake Portage. While restoration of the damaged portage is crucial, it should not come at the expense of the environmental effects analysis and public comment period afforded under an Environmental Assessment (EA).

If the Forest Service forgoes an EA, it is uncertain that the Trout Lake portage restoration would be compliant with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The law has several purposes, one of which is to disclose environmental effects from a proposed project. This component is especially important for wilderness management projects where greater care and planning is needed to minimize noise from tools and machines, and to limit the human imprint so as to be “substantially unnoticeable.” Without elaborating on the proposed procedures for restoring the portage, wilderness values could be compromised once work begins.

As you know, the Forest Service solicited public comments in 2001 regarding proposed environmental repair to the portage connecting Trout Lake and Lake Vermilion; the Friends and 30 other organizations and individuals participated in this process. The Friends supported the proposed project because it would have minimized the land needed for the portage and landings, restored natural vegetation, and significantly reduced runoff into the adjoining lakes. All of the public comments received by the Forest Service, however, were for ‘scoping’ or preliminary purposes. These comments only provide an idea of the issues of public concern. Scoping comments do not provide input on a specific proposal, as comments would in an EA.

It is crucial that a public comment period be held before the restoration commences. The scoping comments gathered more than two years ago may be satisfactory if the project’s new scope does not differ from the one unveiled in 2001. However, several interested parties may not be aware that the project’s scope is, or has, changed because the new project was not made public.

Moreover, should the Forest Service proceed with a Decision Memo rather than an EA for this project, it risks setting a precedent. The Friends does not want a Decision Memo used in this situation to justify such a practice for future road-building, logging, and other projects that typically require an EA. To do so, would curtail the public right granted under NEPA that provides people the opportunity to review and comment on Forest Service projects and decisions.

I hope that these comments prove helpful and that you will re-consider authorizing a Decision Memo for the repair of the Trout Lake portage. I look forward to receiving your response.

Sincerely,
Sean Wherley
Policy and Education Coordinator