Kawishiwi Field LaboratoryKawishiwi Field LaboratoryBuilding Disposition Building Disposition

Public Scoping MeetingPublic Scoping Meeting

2

AgendaAgenda

IntroductionIntroduction - Northern Research Station (NRS) - Northern Research Station (NRS) Meeting PurposeMeeting Purpose USDA-FS and the Kawishiwi Field LabUSDA-FS and the Kawishiwi Field Lab Buildings on SiteBuildings on Site History of SiteHistory of Site

Historic Importance of Buildings – Historic Importance of Buildings – Superior National Superior National ForestForest

Current Use of Lab – Current Use of Lab – USGSUSGS NEPA Process - NEPA Process - Mangi EnvironmentalMangi Environmental

3

Meeting PurposeMeeting Purpose

Solicit Public Input to Help Determine the Solicit Public Input to Help Determine the Alternative Courses of Action for Disposition of Alternative Courses of Action for Disposition of

the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Buildingsthe Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Buildings

4

USDA-Forest Service OrganizationUSDA-Forest Service Organization

The Forest Service is an The Forest Service is an agency within the agency within the USUS Department of AgricultureDepartment of Agriculture, charged with managing , charged with managing public lands in National Forests and National public lands in National Forests and National Grasslands.Grasslands.

USDA-FS has 4 divisions:USDA-FS has 4 divisions: National Forest System (NFS)National Forest System (NFS) Forest Service Research and Development (R&D)Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) State & Private Forestry (S&PF)State & Private Forestry (S&PF) International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF)International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF)

5

USDA-FS Research & DevelopmentUSDA-FS Research & Development

R&D MissionR&D Mission Responsible for research on the forests’ effects on Responsible for research on the forests’ effects on

social, biological, and physical processessocial, biological, and physical processes

Research Focused in 4 Major AreasResearch Focused in 4 Major Areas Resource Valuation and UseResource Valuation and Use Science Policy, Planning, Inventory and InformationScience Policy, Planning, Inventory and Information Vegetation Management and Protection Vegetation Management and Protection Wildlife, Fish, Water, and AirWildlife, Fish, Water, and Air

6

NRS & the Kawishiwi Field LabNRS & the Kawishiwi Field Lab

USDA-FS manages National Forest lands for public useUSDA-FS manages National Forest lands for public use Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is an administrative site on Superior Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is an administrative site on Superior

National ForestNational Forest Superior NF manages the landSuperior NF manages the land The Northern Research Station (NRS) manages the The Northern Research Station (NRS) manages the

administrative site and the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildingsadministrative site and the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings

7

Kawishiwi Field Lab BuildingsKawishiwi Field Lab Buildings

Currently 12 structures at Kawishiwi siteCurrently 12 structures at Kawishiwi site

9 structures constructed by Civilian Conservation 9 structures constructed by Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930’s currently under consideration for Corps in the 1930’s currently under consideration for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Placesinclusion on the National Register of Historic Places

3 other buildings constructed between 1940’s-1960’s, 3 other buildings constructed between 1940’s-1960’s, include an office, insectary, and an additional include an office, insectary, and an additional outhouseouthouse

8

Early History of the Site Early History of the Site

1909 – Theodore Roosevelt established the Superior 1909 – Theodore Roosevelt established the Superior National Forest and other national forestsNational Forest and other national forests

1910 – Superior National Forest Halfway Ranger District 1910 – Superior National Forest Halfway Ranger District administrative site is establishedadministrative site is established

1924 – Forest Service Research begins to occupy space 1924 – Forest Service Research begins to occupy space in the buildings at the administrative sitein the buildings at the administrative site

1949 – Superior National Forest vacates site1949 – Superior National Forest vacates site

1955 – Management of Kawishiwi administrative site 1955 – Management of Kawishiwi administrative site transferred to FS Research & Development: Northern transferred to FS Research & Development: Northern Research StationResearch Station

9

History of Occupants at the SiteHistory of Occupants at the Site

Since 1968 – lab has been used primarily for wildlife Since 1968 – lab has been used primarily for wildlife research by teams from the U of M, International Wolf research by teams from the U of M, International Wolf Center, and USGSCenter, and USGS

In 1980’s USDA-FS Research discontinued research In 1980’s USDA-FS Research discontinued research activity at site but retained management of the activity at site but retained management of the buildingsbuildings

Current sole tenant of lab is the US Geological Current sole tenant of lab is the US Geological Survey Survey

10

Why Dispose of the Why Dispose of the Kawishiwi Field Lab Buildings?Kawishiwi Field Lab Buildings?

Buildings managed by NRS, but have not been used by the Buildings managed by NRS, but have not been used by the NRS in over 20 years.NRS in over 20 years.

NRS has no need for the buildings -- No new NRS uses are NRS has no need for the buildings -- No new NRS uses are planned or foreseeable.planned or foreseeable.

Buildings have high annual utility and maintenance costs, are Buildings have high annual utility and maintenance costs, are deteriorating due to lack of adequate maintenance funding, deteriorating due to lack of adequate maintenance funding, and need rehabilitation.and need rehabilitation.

NRS has no current plans to rehabilitate the buildings -- NRS has no current plans to rehabilitate the buildings -- Rehabilitating the buildings would be prohibitively expensive Rehabilitating the buildings would be prohibitively expensive for the NRS considering NRS would not use them.for the NRS considering NRS would not use them.

11

Historic Importance of BuildingsHistoric Importance of Buildings

Superior National ForestSuperior National Forest

12

Halfway Ranger Station Historic District (HRSHD) Historic Context, National Register Eligibility & Architectural Summary.

13

Determining Eligibility for Listing on the National Register of Historic Places• Criteria of Significance

– A historic property must meet one of these to be eligible for listing on the NRHP.

• CRITERION A: The property must be associated with a historic event at a local, state, or national level.

• CRITERION B: The property must be associated with a person of historic significance.

• CRITERION C: The property must be an example of an architectural style, period, a method of construction or the work of a known master craft-person or designer.

• CRITERION D: The property must possess data useful for historic/archaeological research.

• Integrity– A historic property must possess several of the seven aspects of

integrity to be eligible for listing on the NRHP.• Integrity of LOCATION• Integrity of DESIGN• Integrity of SETTING• Integrity of MATERIALS• Integrity of WORKMANSHIP• Integrity of FEELING• Integrity of ASSOCIATION

14

Criterion A: HRSHD is significant under A, at the national level, because it is a associated with two historically significant initiatives of the U.S. Federal Government: 1) Management of public lands, 2) New Deal Era programs.

• U.S. Forest Service– Halfway Ranger Station– Lake States Forest

Experiment Station

• Civilian Conservation Corps– Constructed seven log

buildings and one poured concrete root cellar.

– Conducted numerous forest management and research tasks for the USFS out of Halfway Ranger Station.

CCC crew constructing Lac LaCroix Cabin

FS Garage in Ely, ca. 1940’s

15

Criterion C: HRSHD is significant under C because 7 of it’s buildings are intact examples of the Rustic/Adirondack design used by gov’t land management agencies for the construction of their administrative buildings during the first half of the 20th Century.

• Inspired by log building folk traditions found throughout the U.S. and Europe.

• Also inspired by the rustic resort camps used by the wealthy in the Adirondack region of New York (1880s – 1890s).

• Utilized as a design motif for National and State Park buildings from the 1890s-1910s.

• Adopted by USFS in the 1930s.

• Common attributes:– Round log construction– Saddle-notching

Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone NP, 1905

Club House, Itasca SP, 1911

16

HRSHDHistorical Summary

• 1909: SNF established by presidential proclamation.

• 1909-1910: First guard-station built on SNF

• 1910: Halfway Ranger district awards first SNF timber-sale.

• 1920: Halfway Ranger Station established (?).

• 1931: SNF allocates part of HRS to LSFES to build a station.

• 1931: LSFES builds LSFES Dwelling for a bachelor’s quarters, office and lab to a tune of $2,626.00.

• 1933: CCC camps established on SNF• 1934: CCC builds Kawishiwi Pavilion

and at least 9 buildings at or near HRS• 1949: Halfway RD staff are relocated to

Ely.• 1949-1950: HRS is utilized as a

summer camp.• 1957: Insectory and Lab building built

at HRS.• 1950s-1960s: Robert Beam and Miron

(Bud) Heinselman conduct pioneering fire history and forest ecology studies out of LSFES.

• 1968-1971: David Mech conducts first radio-telemetry studies of wolves out of LSFES.

• 1974: SNF consolidation reverts management of HRS to LSFES/NorthCentral.

• 1974-Present: USGS conducts large mammal research out of HRS. Halfway District Ranger, Frank Jacobs in 1937

HRS bunkhouse, removed

17

Ranger Dwelling• Built ca. 1934 by the

CCC• Original purpose:

dwelling for district ranger and family

• Design: Rustic/Craftsman

• Construction: chinkless round log w/ saddle notching

• Current Condition: Excellent; needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work.

18

Ranger Dwelling design detail: Craftsman-style bungalow

19

Warehouse• Built ca. 1934 by the CCC• Original purpose:

warehouse garage• Design: Rustic• Construction: chinkless

round log w/ saddle notching

• Current condition: Fair, needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work, doors need to be replaced with historically sympathetic materials; powder-post beetle infestation needs addressing.

20

Common design detail at HRS: geometric pattern on all or

most of the doors

21

Halfway District Office Building

• Built ca. 1934 by the CCC

• Original purpose: Office space for Halfway RD

• Design: Rustic• Construction:

chinkless round log w/ saddle notching

• Current condition: Fair; needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work; powder-post beetle infestation needs addressing.

22

Oil House• Built ca. 1934 by the

CCC• Original purpose: fuel

storage• Design: Rustic/USFS

standardized• Construction:

chinkless round log w/ saddle notching

• Current condition: Fair; needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work; powder-post beetle infestation needs addressing.

23

Boathouse• Built ca. 1934 by the

CCC• Original purpose:

watercraft storage• Design: Rustic• Construction:

chinkless round log w/ saddle notching

• Current condition: Fair; needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work; powder-post beetle infestation needs addressing.

24

Pump House• Built ca. 1934 by the

CCC• Original purpose: to

house water pumping equipment

• Design: Rustic• Construction:

chinkless round log w/ saddle notching

• Current condition: Fair; needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work; powder-post beetle infestation needs addressing.

25

LSFES Dwelling

• Built for $2,626 in 1931.

• Original purpose: bachelor’s quarters, office and lab space.

• Design: National style, gable front type

• Construction: framing• Current condition:

Good; needs routine maintenance and some rehabilitation work.

Historic Context

26

Outhouse• Built ca. 1934 by the

CCC• Original purpose: RS

les lieux d’ainsances• Design: Rustic• Construction:

chinkless round log w/ saddle notching

• Current condition: Poor; needs routine maintenance and serious rehabilitation work; powder-post beetle infestation needs addressing.

27

Root Cellar

• Built ca. 1934 by the CCC

• Original purpose: unknown, possible food storage or seedling storage

• Construction: poured concrete

• Current condition: Fair; needs major clean-up and some rehabilitation work

28

Thank You…

29

Current Use of SiteCurrent Use of SiteUSGSUSGS

30

History ofU.S. Department of the Interior Use

of Kawishiwi Lab

• Began in 1968 for wolf research.

• Has continued uninterrupted since.

31

Background

• Wolf was placed on federal Endangered Species List in 1967.

• • Federal agencies are obligated to contribute to

wolf recovery.

• USDI began wolf study in cooperation with Superior National Forest (SNF) and USDA North Central Forest Experiment Station, now Northern Research Station (NRS), in 1968.

32

Background (continued)

• SNF contributed flight time, and NRS contributed funding and Kawishiwi Lab use, through late 1980s.

• SNF still contributes flight time and NRS contributes Kawishiwi Lab use.

• USDI must monitor wolf recovery at least through 2011.

33

Value of Kawishiwi Lab for Wildlife Research

• Only suitable field research HQ north of Duluth and east of Grand Rapids.

• Close to Ely and BWCAW.

• Close to airport and seaplane base.

34

Past and Present Field Research Use of Kawishiwi Lab

• Plant ecology studies – Ohmann et al.• Forest fire history studies – Heinselman et al.• Social science and human dimension studies of

wilderness use – Lime et al.• Moose studies – Peek et al.; Lenarz et al.• Black bear studies – Rogers• Beaver – Buech• Loon studies – Cuthbert et al.• Environmental impact of mining studies – Huemphner

et al.• Wolf deer, lynx – Mech, Nelson et al.

35

Institutional Collaborators with Research at Kawishiwi Field Lab

• University of Minnesota• International Wolf Center• Natural Resources Research Institute• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources• Vermilion Community College• USDA Wildlife Services• Superior National Forest• North Central Forest Experiment Station• Macalester College

36

Students whose Master’s Research was Headquartered out

of Kawishiwi Lab• Irwin• Van Ballenberghe• Hoskinson• Nelson• Kunkel• Rothman• Demma• Hertel• Groebner

37

Students whose Ph.D. Research was Headquartered out

of Kawishiwi Lab• Peek• Rogers• Bruggers• Nelson• Peters• Harrington• DelGiudice• Buech

38

Countries Which Have Sent Trainees to Kawishiwi Lab

• Italy Austria• Israel Spain• Norway Mexico • Poland Portugal• Sweden Canada• India Croatia• Russia Great Britain• Australia Netherlands• Turkey Argentina• South Africa Denmark

39

Hundreds of Scientific Publications from field work in the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness based out of Kawishiwi Lab have resulted on wolves, deer, bears, moose, Canadian lynx, martens, beavers, ravens, wildfire, plant ecology, soils, and recreation.

40

Thus the value of Kawishiwi Lab to research on wildlife and wilderness and to numerous local and regional research and educational institutions is clear.

41

USDI Thanks the USDA Northern Research Station for

its long and valuable use of Kawishiwi Lab

ANDhopes to continue using the facility through at least 2007.

42

National Environmental Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act ProcessProcess

Mangi EnvironmentalMangi Environmental

43

NEPA and USDA-FS NEPA and USDA-FS

NEPA requires Federal AgenciesNEPA requires Federal Agencies to consider the impacts of to consider the impacts of their actions on the human environment before taking such their actions on the human environment before taking such actions– focus is on major Federal actions significantly affecting actions– focus is on major Federal actions significantly affecting the human environment the human environment

NEPA requires Federal AgenciesNEPA requires Federal Agencies, to the fullest extent possible, , to the fullest extent possible, to encourage and facilitate public participation in agency to encourage and facilitate public participation in agency decisions that affect the quality of the human environmentdecisions that affect the quality of the human environment

The The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing implementing regulations on NEPA are in the Code of Federal Regulations at regulations on NEPA are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508.40 CFR 1500-1508.

44

NEPA requiresNEPA requires evaluation of the effects of a project on evaluation of the effects of a project on the human environment and “the the human environment and “the degree to which the action degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources” (CEQ 40 CFR scientific, cultural, or historical resources” (CEQ 40 CFR 1508.27,8).1508.27,8).

NEPA also requiresNEPA also requires evaluation of the effects of a project evaluation of the effects of a project on “on “The degree to which the action may adversely affect an The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.1973. ” (CEQ 40 CFR 1508.27,9).” (CEQ 40 CFR 1508.27,9).

National Historic Preservation Act,National Historic Preservation Act,Endangered Species Act & NEPAEndangered Species Act & NEPA

45

NHPA & Kawishiwi Field Lab BuildingsNHPA & Kawishiwi Field Lab Buildings

Nine buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Lab are under Nine buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Lab are under consideration for inclusion on the National Register of consideration for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; these buildings are considered Historic Places; these buildings are considered contributing resources to a historic districtcontributing resources to a historic district

Potential Impacts recognized by NHPA & NEPAPotential Impacts recognized by NHPA & NEPA Changes to buildings, structures, or landscapesChanges to buildings, structures, or landscapes Ground disturbance of buried artifactsGround disturbance of buried artifacts Change in noise levels or visual impactsChange in noise levels or visual impacts Changes in traffic patterns or land useChanges in traffic patterns or land use

46

Environmental Assessment Process Environmental Assessment Process

The purposes of an EA are to:The purposes of an EA are to: Assist federal agencies in planning and decision-makingAssist federal agencies in planning and decision-making Determine whether or not significant impacts to the Determine whether or not significant impacts to the

environment could be caused by an alternativeenvironment could be caused by an alternative Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

47

Purpose and Need Established

Project Proposed

Public Public Involvement Involvement

SolicitedSolicited

Alternatives Development

Agency Agency ConsultationsConsultations

Analysis of Alternatives

FONSI EIS

Public Public Involvement Involvement

SolicitedSolicited

Significant Impacts?

No

The EA Process

Where we currently are in the

process

Yes

48

The Range of AlternativesThe Range of Alternatives

EAsEAs must fully describe must fully describe the proposal, no action, and a range the proposal, no action, and a range of reasonable alternativesof reasonable alternatives that meet project purpose and that that meet project purpose and that reduce or eliminate impacts to environmental resources. reduce or eliminate impacts to environmental resources.

An EA should clearly state which alternative has the least An EA should clearly state which alternative has the least adverse impacts on the environment.adverse impacts on the environment.

The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that accurate environmental The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that accurate environmental studies are performed, that they are done with public studies are performed, that they are done with public involvement, and that decisions are based on an understanding involvement, and that decisions are based on an understanding of environmental consequences. of environmental consequences.

49

Reasonable AlternativesReasonable Alternatives

are technically and economically feasible are technically and economically feasible meet project objectivesmeet project objectives resolve needresolve need alleviate potentially significant impacts to important alleviate potentially significant impacts to important

resources resources

50

No Action AlternativeNo Action Alternative

This alternative must be fully analyzed in all EAs, This alternative must be fully analyzed in all EAs, even if another law prohibits the adoption of the No even if another law prohibits the adoption of the No Action alternative or the forest is under legislative or Action alternative or the forest is under legislative or other command to act.other command to act.

No Action is usually a viable alternative, but when No Action is usually a viable alternative, but when not, it sets a baseline for comparing the impacts of not, it sets a baseline for comparing the impacts of existing actions with those proposed.existing actions with those proposed.

For ongoing actions or programs it usually connotes For ongoing actions or programs it usually connotes continuing to manage as is currently being donecontinuing to manage as is currently being done

51

Alternatives Eliminated from Further StudyAlternatives Eliminated from Further Study

Alternatives initially thought to be viable or suggested by Alternatives initially thought to be viable or suggested by agencies or the public, but dismissed because they: agencies or the public, but dismissed because they:

are determined after consideration to be unreasonableare determined after consideration to be unreasonable duplicative of less damaging or less expensive alternativesduplicative of less damaging or less expensive alternatives conflict with an up-to-date and valid agency plan or policyconflict with an up-to-date and valid agency plan or policy cause an environmental impact that would be difficult to cause an environmental impact that would be difficult to

adequately mitigateadequately mitigate

Note:Note: In this case, Superior NF will retain management of the In this case, Superior NF will retain management of the land and the experimental forestland and the experimental forest regardless of what alternatives regardless of what alternatives for building disposition are considered. Land disposal is not an for building disposition are considered. Land disposal is not an alternative.alternative.

52

NEPA Steps Taken to DateNEPA Steps Taken to Date

March 2006 –March 2006 –Superior NF agrees to conduct a formal historic Superior NF agrees to conduct a formal historic evaluation of the siteevaluation of the site

May 2006 –May 2006 – Representatives of the Northern Research Station Representatives of the Northern Research Station and Superior NF meet with the State Historic Preservation and Superior NF meet with the State Historic Preservation OfficerOfficer

Identified the NEPA process as the tool to use to evaluate Identified the NEPA process as the tool to use to evaluate future alternatives for the buildings at the sitefuture alternatives for the buildings at the site

September 2006 –September 2006 –Mangi Environmental Group contracted to Mangi Environmental Group contracted to assist NRS in conducting the NEPA processassist NRS in conducting the NEPA process

Nov 29, 2006 –Nov 29, 2006 –public scoping beginspublic scoping begins

53

Public participation in the Public participation in the Kawishiwi Project ScopingKawishiwi Project Scoping

Gives the public an opportunity to learn about the project Gives the public an opportunity to learn about the project and share issues and concernsand share issues and concerns

People who wish to submit additional comments, or People who wish to submit additional comments, or request to receive a copy of the scoping plan, may request to receive a copy of the scoping plan, may contact: contact:

Mailing Address:Mailing Address:Rick SindtRick SindtEngineering & Facility ServicesEngineering & Facility ServicesUSDA Forest Service - Northern Research StationUSDA Forest Service - Northern Research Station1992 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN 551081992 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108

Phone: 651-649-5120Phone: 651-649-5120

E-mail comments to: rsindt@fs.fed.usE-mail comments to: rsindt@fs.fed.us

Questions and CommentsQuestions and Comments