United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

July 2010 

Environmental 

Assessment

Northern Research Station 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

Building Disposition

Superior National Forest

Lake County, 

Environmental 

Assessment

Northern Research Station 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

Building Disposition

National Forest

County, Minnesota 

Northern Research Station 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 
For More Information Contact: 

Richard Sindt 

Engineering & Facility Services 

USDA Forest Service – Northern Research Station 

1992 Folwell Ave. 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Phone No. 651-649-5120 

Fax: 651-649-5107 

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

Cover Photo: Oil House, Northern Research Station Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply 

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-

6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Draft Environmental Assessment 

 i 

Summary

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Northern Research Station (NRS) 

has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of 

permanent disposition of its buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, located near Ely, Minnesota. 

The NRS is seeking to dispose of its buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, as NRS itself has not 

had a research interest based out of the laboratory for over twenty years and has no future plans for the 

buildings. Additionally, the buildings are in poor condition and the NRS has no plans to rehabilitate them, 

or to continue supporting the high annual maintenance and utility costs associated with the buildings. The 

current sole tenant of the laboratory is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings are located on the Superior National Forest. Superior National 

Forest will retain ownership of the land, regardless of the building disposition alternative. 

Alternative courses of action analyzed in this EA include the No Action alternative, the increase of funds to 

rehabilitate and maintain the buildings, the transfer of both the ownership and the management of the 

buildings to another entity, transfer of management but retention of ownership of the buildings, relocation 

of the buildings to a site off of National Forest Service land and relinquishment of ownership and 

maintenance, and demolition of the buildings. Demolition of the buildings after complete historic 

documentation of the site is the Forest Service’s Proposed Action. 

There are eleven buildings and one structure (a poured-concrete storage cellar) on site, nine of which 

contribute to the National Historic Register eligibility of the Halfway Ranger Station Historic District. The 

historical significance of the buildings relates to their association with a Federal agency, the Forest Service 

and a Federal program, the Depression Era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), as well as their superior 

craftsmanship and representation of nationally important styles of architecture characteristic of an 

historical era. If the buildings are left to deteriorate on site without adequate maintenance funds or historic 

documentation under the No Action alternative, resulting impacts to cultural resources could be significant. 

The impacts to cultural resources from all other project alternatives can be at least partially mitigated to 

ensure impacts are below the significance threshold. The impacts to the human health and safety of site 

occupants and visitors from the continued deterioration of the buildings under the No Action alternative 

are long-term, adverse and major. 

Additionally, valuable wildlife research, including extensive research on the threatened gray wolf and on 

the endangered Canadian lynx, has been and continues to be conducted out of the Field Laboratory by the 

USGS. If future uses of the buildings change or if the buildings are relocated or demolished, this would 

eliminate the Field Laboratory as a wildlife research station. This would result in major indirect impacts to 

wildlife. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

ii
Environmental Assessment 

 iii

Table of Contents 

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... i

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................................... vi

1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................2

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Action ...................................................................................................5

1.5 Existing Direction and Decision to be Made .................................................................................5

1.6 Scope of the EA .............................................................................................................................5

1.6.1 Public Involvement .............................................................................................................6

1.6.2 Comments Summary ...........................................................................................................7

1.6.3 Key Issues .........................................................................................................................10

1.6.4 Resource Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis ..........................................................10

2 Proposed Action and Alternative Actions ...........................................................................................13

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................13

2.2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .........................................................................................13

2.3 Alternative 2: Increase of Maintenance Funds ...........................................................................21

2.4 Alternative 3: Transfer of Ownership and Management ............................................................21

2.5 Alternative 4: Transfer of Management .....................................................................................23

2.6 Alternative 5: Relocation of Buildings .......................................................................................23

2.7 Alternative 6: Demolition of Buildings (Proposed Action) ........................................................24

2.8 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................24

2.9 Comparison of Alternatives .........................................................................................................26

2.10 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................28

2.11 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed .......................................................................................29

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ..................................................................30

3.1 Introduction and Methodology ....................................................................................................30

3.2 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................31

3.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................31

3.2.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................34

3.2.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................34

3.2.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................34

3.2.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................34

3.2.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................34

3.2.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ......................................................................36

3.3 Water Resources ..........................................................................................................................36

3.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................36

3.3.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................39

3.3.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................39

3.3.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................39

3.3.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................40

3.3.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................40

3.3.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ......................................................................41

3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................41

3.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................41

3.4.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................43

3.4.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................43

3.4.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................44
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition

iv

3.4.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 44

3.4.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 44

3.4.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 45

3.5 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 45

3.5.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 45

3.5.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 46

3.5.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 46

3.5.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ................................................................................................... 47

3.5.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 47

3.5.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 48

3.5.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 48

3.6 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 49

3.6.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 49

3.6.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 51

3.6.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 51

3.6.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ................................................................................................... 51

3.6.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 52

3.6.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 52

3.6.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 52

3.7 Waste and Hazardous Material Management ............................................................................. 53

3.7.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 53

3.7.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 53

3.7.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 53

3.7.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ................................................................................................... 54

3.7.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 54

3.7.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 54

3.7.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 54

3.8 Human Health and Safety ........................................................................................................... 55

3.8.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 55

3.8.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 56

3.8.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 56

3.8.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ................................................................................................... 57

3.8.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 57

3.8.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 57

3.8.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 58

3.9 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................... 58

3.9.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 58

3.9.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 59

3.9.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 59

3.9.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 ................................................................................................... 60

3.9.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 61

3.9.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 61

3.9.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) ..................................................................... 61

4 Glossary .............................................................................................................................................. 63

5 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 66

6 References ........................................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix A: Agency Correspondence ...................................................................................................... 71

Appendix B: Scoping Report .................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix C: Halfway Ranger Station Historic District Delineation ......................................................... 81
Environmental Assessment 

 v

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Comparison of the impacts of the alternatives ..................................................................26

Table 3-1. Resource assessment impact definitions ...........................................................................31

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map.............................................................................................................3

Figure 1-2. Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site map .................................................................................4

Figure 2-1. Roof Damage Example .....................................................................................................13

Figure 2-2. Kawishiwi Field Laboratory layout ...................................................................................14

Figure 2-3. Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge ...........................................................................................15

Figure 2-4. Pump House ......................................................................................................................15

Figure 2-5. Oil House ...........................................................................................................................16

Figure 2-6. Cellar .................................................................................................................................16

Figure 2-7. Outhouse/Sauna .................................................................................................................17

Figure 2-8. District Office/Wolf Cabin ................................................................................................17

Figure 2-9. LSFES Dwelling/Bunkhouse ............................................................................................18

Figure 2-10. Warehouse/Garage ............................................................................................................18

Figure 2-11. Boathouse ..........................................................................................................................19

Figure 2-12. Office .................................................................................................................................19

Figure 3-1. Soil map of project area.....................................................................................................33

Figure 3-2. Aquatic features of project area .........................................................................................38

Figure 3-3. South Kawishiwi River (from project site) .......................................................................39

Figure 3-4. Ranger Dwelling (top 1934, bottom 2006)........................................................................50
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

vi

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ACM Asbestos Containing Material 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BWCAW Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EA Environmental Assessment 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FY Fiscal Year 

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

HALS Historic American Landscapes Survey 

HRSHD Halfway Ranger Station Historic District 

IWC International Wolf Center 

LSFES Lake States Forest Experiment Station 

MCC Minnesota Conservation Corps 

MDH Minnesota Department of Health 

MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFS National Forest Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRS Northern Research Center 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

R&D Research and Development 

SDS State Disposal System 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

UMN University of Minnesota 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Environmental Assessment 

 1 

1 Purpose and Need 

1.1 Introduction 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Northern Research Station 

(NRS) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This 

EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of permanent disposition of its buildings at the 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, located near Ely, Minnesota. 

The NRS is seeking to dispose of its buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, as NRS itself 

has not had a research interest based out of the laboratory for over twenty years and has no future 

plans for the buildings. Additionally, the buildings are in poor condition and the NRS has no plans 

to rehabilitate them, or to continue supporting the high annual maintenance and utility costs 

associated with the buildings. 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is located in Township 62 North, Range 11 West, Section 33, 

4th P.M., Babbit, Minnesota 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map. The site is within the Superior National 

Forest along the eastern bank of the South Kawishiwi River in Lake County, Minnesota, 

approximately 12 miles southeast of Ely, Minnesota (see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is an administrative site on the Superior National Forest, consisting 

of eleven buildings and one structure (a poured-concrete cellar). The NRS manages the 

administrative site (the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings), while the Superior National 

Forest manages the land. 

In addition to analyzing five alternatives for building disposition, this EA also considers the No 

Action alternative. 

1.2 Background 

The NRS is part of United States Forest Service (USFS) Research and Development Division, 

which is a division separate from the National Forest System (NFS). The USFS Research and 

Development Division is responsible for research on the effects of social, biological, and physical 

processes on forests; this research focuses on four major areas: 

• Resource Valuation and Use 

• Science Policy, Planning, Inventory and Information 

• Vegetation Management and Protection 

• Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air 

The site of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory was originally established in 1910 as the Superior 

National Forest Halfway Ranger District. In 1955, management of the administrative site was 

transferred from the Superior National Forest to USFS Research and Development Division, 

which began operation of an adjacent experimental forest and conducted research out of the 

buildings. Research conducted out of the buildings shifted from a focus on forestry to one on 

wildlife research in 1968, with research teams from the University of Minnesota and the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) utilizing the site. By the 1980s, the USFS Research and 

Development Division had discontinued all of its research activity at the site, but retained 

ownership and management of the buildings. The current sole tenant of the Kawishiwi Field 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

2

Laboratory buildings is the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, which continues to 

conduct wildlife research based from the buildings. 

In 2006, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in response to inquiries from 

the NRS, determined that the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site was eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District. At the request of the SHPO, NRS 

contracted with the Heritage Stewardship Group, an enterprise unit of the Forest Service, for 

delineation and analysis of the historic district. The resulting report (Appendix C) determined that 

eight buildings and one structure contribute to the historical significance of the delineated 

Halfway Ranger Station Historic District (HRSHD) (Ferguson 2009). Although the HRSHD has 

been delineated and verified as eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing, the district 

is not officially listed. The historic importance of HRSHD relates to its association with a Federal 

agency, the Forest Service, and a Federal program, the Depression Era Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC), as well as the superior construction craftsmanship of buildings on the district and 

their representation of the nationally significant Rustic or Adirondack architectural styles. Seven 

of the historic buildings (Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge, Pump House, Oil House, 

Outhouse/Sauna, District Office/Wolf Cabin, Warehouse/Garage, and Boathouse) are 

Rustic/Adirondack Style log cabins built in 1934 and 1935 by the CCC. Additionally, there is a 

stand-alone underground concrete cellar poured by the CCC at the site, and a balloon- framed 

residence, built in 1931 with funds from Herbert Hoover’s Public Works Administration. The 

three other buildings onsite include an office and an insectary built in 1957, and an additional 

outhouse of uncertain age. Three additional original buildings have at one time been removed or 

demolished from the site (SNFHRP 2007). 

1.3 Proposed Action 

The NRS is seeking the disposition of its buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, as the 

NRS has no current or future plans for the buildings and the buildings are excess to NRS needs. 

Alternative courses of disposition include transfer of both the ownership and the management of 

the buildings to another entity, transfer of management but retention of ownership of the 

buildings, relocation of the buildings to a site off of Superior National Forest land and 

relinquishment of ownership and maintenance, and demolition of the buildings.
Environm

Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

4

Figure 1-2. Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site map 
Environmental Assessment 

5

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Action 

The purpose of this initiative is for NRS to permanently dispose of the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory buildings, which are under NRS ownership and management. This action is needed, 

because the NRS has not used the buildings for over 20 years and has no future plans for the 

buildings. Due to lack of resources to address the high annual utility and maintenance costs, the 

buildings are currently deteriorating. The buildings are excess to NRS needs and do not help 

fulfill the mission of the USFS Research and Development Division, which is to help sustain the 

natural resources in the Northeast and Midwest through leading-edge science and effective 

information delivery (NRS 2008). 

1.5 Existing Direction and Decision to be Made 

The action proposed by the NRS to meet its purpose and need is to permanently dispose of the 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings. Given the purpose and need, the deciding official will use 

the analysis presented in this EA to determine whether any of the alternatives analyzed would 

meet the agency’s purpose and need while not resulting in significant impacts to the human 

environment. If the deciding official selects an alternative that is likely to result in significant 

impacts to the environment, no Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. In such 

cases, the responsible official may then choose either to proceed with preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); propose mitigation measures that will address the 

significant impacts of the proposed action, in which case a FONSI stipulating the mitigation 

measures would be prepared; or select to implement an alternative not likely to result in 

significant impacts to the environment, for which a FONSI can be prepared. If a FONSI has been 

prepared for the alternative chosen by the deciding official, a decision to proceed with the action 

will be documented in a decision notice. 

1.6 Scope of the EA 

This USFS EA analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from five action alternatives 

and the No Action alternative. This EA was prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations dated November 28, 1978 (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the USDA NEPA Policies and 

Procedures (7 CFR part 1B), and the Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.15. 

Key goals of NEPA are to: 

1. provide Federal agency officials sufficient analysis and information to make wellinformed decisions about agency actions; 

2. ensure that Federal agencies consider the range of reasonable alternatives to proposed 

actions, including taking no action; 

3. ensure that Federal agencies consider the impacts of their proposed actions and 

alternatives upon the human environment; and 

4. provide the general public opportunities to scrutinize and comment upon Federal agency 

analysis of proposed activities. 

This EA identifies, describes, and evaluates potential environmental impacts that would result 

from implementing each of five action alternatives and the no action alternative, taking into 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

6

consideration possible cumulative impacts from other actions. As appropriate, the affected 

environment and environmental consequences of the action will be described in both site-specific 

and regional contexts. In instances where mitigation measures may lessen any potentially adverse 

impacts, this EA identifies such measures that should be implemented to further minimize 

environmental impacts. 

The following resource areas have been identified for study within this EA: geology and soils, 

water resources, biological resources (including threatened and endangered species), land use, 

cultural resources, waste and hazardous materials management, human health and safety, and 

socioeconomics. Resource areas considered but dismissed for further analysis are discussed 

below. 

1.6.1 Public Involvement 

To support the preparation of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition alternatives 

development process, NRS solicited input from interested parties and the general public to help 

identify issues, concerns, and subject matter that should be addressed in the EA. The intent of this 

process was three-fold: 

• Provide interested parties and the general public with information about the laboratory 

buildings and their proposed disposition; 

• Provide interested parties and the general public with the opportunity to provide input 

and voice any relevant issues or concerns regarding various options related to building 

disposition; and, 

• Provide interested parties and the general public with an opportunity to propose

alternative courses of action regarding the disposition of the Kawishiwi laboratory 

buildings. 

As part of the scoping process, the NRS held two public scoping meetings on December 13, 

2006. The meetings were held at the Grand Ely Lodge in Ely, Minnesota, at 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. and 

6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Both sessions began with a one-hour open house, during which the public was 

invited to peruse display boards discussing the historical significance and current condition of the 

buildings, as well as an introduction to the NEPA process. Additionally, attendees were provided 

with a handout covering many of these same issues. The open house was followed by a

presentation including representatives of the USDA-Forest Service (Research & Development: 

NRS and Heritage Resources Program), the USGS-Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

and the Mangi Environmental Group. 

Public notices of the scoping process and opportunities to participate were widely distributed 

prior to the December 13th meetings. Public notices were published in the following local 

newspapers: 

• Duluth News Tribune (published Wednesday, November 29) 

• Mesabi Daily News (published Wednesday, November 29) 

• Ely Echo (published in the weekly edition beginning November 25) 

• Ely Timberjay (published in the weekly edition beginning November 30) 
Environmental Assessment 

7

Public notices were also submitted to the following radio stations for broadcast as public service 

announcements: 

• WELY 94.5FM “End of the Road Radio” Ely, Minnesota 

• WEVE 97.9FM Eveleth, Minnesota 

• WSCN 100.5FM/WSCD 92.9FM “Minnesota Public Radio” Duluth, Minnesota 

These press releases invited all interested members of the general public to participate in the 

December 13th public meetings. Additionally, the NRS mailed 30 letters to Federal and state 

agencies and 318 letters to private groups and citizens, inviting all recipients to participate in the 

public meetings. The press release was also posted on the NRS website. 

The general public and interested parties were invited to submit comments regarding the possible 

future directions of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings disposition during the scoping 

period, which ended January 17, 2007. Opportunities for providing comments included: 

• Verbally or in writing at the December 13th scoping meetings 

• Postal Mail 

• Facsimile Transmission 

• Electronic Mail 

• Phone 

In addition to comments from the general public, comments were also received from the USGS, 

the International Wolf Center (IWC), Vermillion Community College, Superior National Forest, 

NRS, Ely City Council, Ely Chamber of Commerce, and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa. 

1.6.2 Comments Summary 

NRS received comments from the public and from agencies that could be categorized into four 

themes, which NRS then classified as four distinct significant issues. Significant issues are 

defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already 

decided by law, regulation, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 

or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The CEQ NEPA regulations 

require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues 

which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 

1506.3)....” The NRS identified four significant issues during scoping: 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

8

Issue #1: Loss of Laboratory Would Result in Loss of Research 

Opportunities 

Comments Received Related to Issue #1 

Wolf research has been continuously based out of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory since 1968. 

The wolf research based at the laboratory represents one of the longest running continuous 

wildlife studies in the world, and has been instrumental in developing early radio telemetry 

techniques for wildlife research. The laboratory has also been used for research on plant ecology, 

forest fire histories, recreation, and environmental impacts of mining. Also, several non-wolf 

wildlife studies including: beaver, loon, black bear, deer, lynx, and moose were conducted at the 

laboratory. The Fond du Lac band of Lake Superior Chippewa has also collaborated on research 

projects conducted at the laboratory. 

Additionally, several local institutions use the laboratory for learning exercises and hands-on 

experiences for students of all ages. Vermillion Community College educators Lori Schmidt and 

Bill Tefft both discussed the value of the laboratory to their students’ educational experiences. 

Lori Schmidt and Mike Nelson, USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and IWC, 

discussed the partnership that Vermillion Community College has with the wolf research 

conducted at the laboratory; Vermillion students are frequently called upon to help collect field 

data, including such tasks as retrieving carcasses, and measuring and weighing animals. 

Walter Medwid, Executive Director of IWC and Cree Bradley, a member of the IWC Board, 

discussed the value of the laboratory as a base for their educational programs for youth and 

adults. The proximity of the laboratory to the city of Ely, where IWC is based, has helped to 

facilitate this partnership. IWC has also supported the research at the laboratory, as it relates to 

their educational programs. 

There were also queries from members of the public regarding why the NRS no longer needs the 

buildings for its own purposes and whether or not NRS could use the buildings at some time in 

the future. 

• “The lab seems like an ideal place to study the effects of global climate change in 

cold climates due to its proximity to the transition zone of the deciduous forest, 

coniferous forest, and prairie ecosystems.” (Chuck Wick, a former ranger in the 

Superior National Forest and former educator at Vermillion Community College) 

• There is a concern that the loss of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory would 

represent a loss of forest research opportunities in the Superior National Forest. 

• There is some question of whether or not the buildings could be maintained by 

NRS for use other than research, namely an interpretive center. 

• There is also a concern that the disposition of the buildings would set a precedent 

for the disposition of other USFS buildings that are no longer used but located at 

the Superior National Forest. 

Response to Issue #1 

The implications of building disposition on the wildlife research conducted out of the Field 

Laboratory are discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. As for any potential future use of 

the buildings by the NRS, the NRS has no plans to use the buildings for future research, and 
Environmental Assessment 

9

developing and maintaining an interpretive center is not consistent with the mission of NRS or 

the USFS Research and Development Division; nor does NRS have funding to consider this 

alternative. The NRS does not believe that this action sets a precedent, as the NRS does not own 

or maintain any other structures within the Superior National Forest. 

Issue #2: Mining Interests May be Hidden Motive 

Comments Received Related to Issue #2 

Some members of the public have expressed concern that the impetus behind the need for 

disposition of the buildings is related to nearby mining interests. During scoping meetings, a 

gentleman in the audience reported that when management of the majority of the Kawishiwi 

Experimental Forest was reverted back to the Superior National Forest, several mining operations 

began in the region at about the same time. 

Response to Issue #2 

Mining is taking place in the surrounding area (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile from the laboratory), but there is no 

known connection between the building disposition at the laboratory and mining interests. A 

discussion of mining as it relates to the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory can be found in Section 3.5, 

Land Use. 

Issue #3: Historical Significance of the Buildings is Important to 

Community 

Comments Received Related to Issue #3 

During the scoping meetings held for the proposed project, public interest in maintaining the 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings for their historical importance to the area and as a marker 

of a point in time in the country’s history was noted several times. There are many local 

connections to the buildings in terms of the men who built them and the construction materials. 

Specific comments related to the buildings and their historical value included comments on 

maintenance requirements, bringing the buildings up to date with current building codes in light 

of their historic significance, what the loss of the location would mean to their historic eligibility 

if the buildings were to be relocated, and, if the buildings were to be relocated, whether or not all 

of the buildings would need to be moved together and reassembled in the current layout. 

Response to Issue #3 

Maintenance requirements of the historic structures have not yet been determined, and would be 

finalized only after comprehensive consultation and coordination with the SHPO. The historic 

value of the buildings is described and analyzed in Section 3.6, Cultural Resources. Additional 

details pertaining to the relocation of the buildings can be found in Section 2.6, under the 

description of Alternative 5: Relocation of Buildings. 

 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

10 

Issue #4: Current Condition of the Buildings May Pose Safety Risk 

Comments Received Related to Issue #4 

There have been some concerns expressed regarding the current state of disrepair of some of the 

buildings (not being up to fire protection codes, the presence of asbestos, and the deteriorating 

structural support of the buildings), and the corresponding potential risks to the safety of building 

visitors, including the USGS researchers who currently use using the buildings. 

Response to Issue #4 

The presence of hazardous or potentially dangerous materials in the buildings at the project site, 

including asbestos and lead, is discussed in Section 3.7, Waste and Hazardous Materials. The 

implications of the current state of disrepair of the buildings on the safety of building visitors and 

occupants are discussed in Section 3.8, Human Health and Safety. 

1.6.3 Key Issues 

Key issues are used to develop alternatives and mitigation measures. Four key issues were 

identified during the scoping process, as described above. Analysis of these key issues in addition 

to a comprehensive evaluation of potential environmental impacts stemming from each of the 

proposed project alternatives necessitated the evaluation of the following resource issues within 

this EA: geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, land use, cultural resources, 

waste and hazardous materials management, human health and safety, and socioeconomics. 

1.6.4 Resource Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is administered by four Federal agencies; the Bureau of 

Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. 

Forest Service. The Act protects selected rivers, and their immediate environments, which possess 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or 

other similar values. In the State of Minnesota, there is only one National Wild and Scenic River, 

the St. Croix River. 

The St. Croix River is a 164-mile-long tributary of the Mississippi River. The river originates 

approximately 20 miles south of Lake Superior in Wisconsin, and the lower 125 miles of the river 

form the state line between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The St. Croix River and its watershed will 

not be affected by the proposed project in any way. Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further 

analysis. 

Air Quality 

The Clean Air Act of 1977 is the primary regulatory authority used by the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA) to protect the state’s air quality. In addition to the Clean Air Act, state 

law grants broad authority to the agency to protect Minnesota’s air. Under the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates seven air pollutants, 

known as criteria pollutants. The seven criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO); lead; 

sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO); ozone (O3); particulate matter with diameters of 10 

micrometers or less (PM10); and particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less 
Environmental Assessment 

11

(PM2.5). Additional hazardous air pollutants and other toxics, including mercury, are regulated 

under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

For each criteria pollutant, the maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human 

health may occur is called a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Attainment means 

that the levels of criteria pollutants in a particular area are less than the NAAQS. Non-attainment 

means that the levels of criteria pollutants in the air are at or above the NAAQS in an area. All of 

Minnesota is currently in attainment for all seven criteria pollutants, although the MPCA is 

concerned about the growing concentrations of ozone in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan 

region (MHR 2002). 

None of the alternatives under consideration for Kawishiwi Field Laboratory building disposition 

involve a stationary source of air emissions. However, two of the alternatives under consideration 

for building disposition (relocation and demolition) would require the use of heavy equipment, 

such as graders, bulldozers, backhoes, dump trucks, cranes and other diesel- and gasoline-fueled 

equipment, which would intermittently emit non-stationary source quantities of five criteria air 

pollutants: CO, NO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, in addition to Volatile Organic Compounds. The 

emission rates of the equipment used on site are considered to be de minimis (of minimal 

importance) rates and would not impact regional air quality. 

In addition to tailpipe emissions from heavy equipment, the temporary disturbance of the ground 

surface during excavation and grading activities could potentially generate fugitive dust. Fugitive 

dust can affect public health, especially if laden with hazardous materials. The type and severity 

of the effects depend in large part on the size and nature of the dust particles as well as the length 

of exposure. The types of effects that can occur include inhalation of fine particles that can 

accumulate in the respiratory system causing various respiratory problems including persistent 

coughs, wheezing, eye irritations, and physical discomfort. Construction personnel would be 

expected to implement reasonable measures, such as applying water to exposed surfaces or 

stockpiles of dirt, when windy and/or dry conditions promote problematic fugitive dust emissions. 

Adhering to reasonable measures would minimize any fugitive dust emissions. Use of mitigation 

measures would further reduce the possibility of adverse impacts from fugitive dust emissions. 

Overall, impacts from fugitive dust emissions would be negligible. Because impacts to air quality 

from the proposed action would not have a measurable impact on air quality, this topic is 

dismissed from further analysis. 

Traffic 

Minnesota Highway 1 provides direct vehicle access to the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site, via a 

short unpaved road which forms a loop off of Highway 1. At 346miles in length, Highway 1 is the 

longest state route in Minnesota and often accommodates slow-moving equipment transports and 

log transportation trucks. Additionally, the site can be accessed from the west via boat on the 

South Kawishiwi River. Though Alternative 5, Relocation of the Buildings, would temporarily 

involve the use of large, slow-moving vehicles, none of the project alternatives would create more 

than a temporary increase in traffic on Highway 1, which would be considered negligible relative 

to background use of the highway. Therefore, this impact topic is dismissed from further analysis. 

Noise 

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise can influence humans or wildlife by 

interfering with normal activities or diminishing the quality of the environment. Noise levels 

heard by humans are dependent on several variables, including distance, ground cover, and 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

12 

objects or barriers between the source and the receiver, as well as atmospheric conditions. Certain 

land uses, facilities, and the people associated with these noise levels are more sensitive to a 

given level of noise than other uses. Such “sensitive receptors” include schools, churches, 

hospitals, retirement homes, campgrounds, wilderness areas, hiking trails, and some species of 

threatened or endangered wildlife. The closest sensitive receptor to the project site is the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), located approximately 4 miles northeast of 

the site. 

Current uses of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site do not generally create noises audible offsite 

or noises that are disruptive to wildlife or humans. If the future land uses of the site were to 

change, the Superior National Forest would be instrumental in approving any such land uses and 

would ensure that they were compatible with the surrounding environment and posed no 

disruption. Noise associated with either disassembling and relocating the buildings on site or 

demolition activities should be minimized by limiting such activities to daylight hours and by 

using properly maintained and muffled equipment. Hearing protection equipment would be 

required for sound levels that exceed Federal workplace standards. Provided the preceding steps 

are taken, no impacts from noise are anticipated from the proposed project, and this topic is 

therefore dismissed from further analysis. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and 

policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities. There are no residential 

areas in the immediate vicinity of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, and the proposed project 

would not result in any measurable level of change to the socioeconomic environment of the area. 

The field laboratory is located within Lake County, and the nearest municipality is Ely, 

Minnesota. Both Lake County and Ely have very low minority populations (less than 3 percent 

and 4 percent, respectively) (USCB 2008, USCB 2000a). No minority or low-income populations 

are anticipated to be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, this topic is 

dismissed from further analysis.
Environmental Assessment 

13

Figure 2-1. Roof Damage Example

2 Proposed Action and Alternative Actions 

2.1 Introduction 

This section discusses several possible alternative courses of action the NRS could take to meet 

the purpose and need discussed in the previous section. The alternative of taking no building 

disposition action and no action to protect the buildings, the No Action alternative (Alternative 1), 

is discussed but does not meet the project’s purpose and need. Alternative 2 involves increasing 

maintenance so that the buildings can be rehabilitated and properly maintained. Four of the five 

action alternatives (alternatives 3 through 6) are forms of disposition of the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory buildings from NRS’ management or from both NRS’ management and ownership. 

For the purpose of the impacts analysis of Alternatives 3 through 6, many possible scenarios of 

potential future management, ownership, and reuse of the buildings are considered under the 

description of the alternatives in this section. These scenarios are based on the best available 

information at this time of what actions could occur under the respective alternatives. These 

scenarios describing potential future use and reuse of the site provide a basis for a full impacts 

analysis of the respective alternatives, but the scenarios are in no way binding or limiting. The 

analysis of Alternatives 3 through 6 is, where possible, based on the maximum predictable 

impacts which could arise from each of the alternatives. 

NRS is considering a wide range of alternatives regarding the future of the buildings; however, 

none of the alternatives will affect the land underlying the buildings. Superior National Forest 

will retain ownership of the land regardless of the alternative. 

2.2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, no disposition of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings 

would occur. NRS would retain ownership and management responsibility for the buildings. NRS 

has no plans to use the buildings in the future and does not plan on rehabilitating any of the 

buildings. The buildings would continue to deteriorate without needed rehabilitation and 

maintenance funding and effort. The current condition of most of the buildings is fair to poor, due 

to several decades of neglect. Ongoing problems include rotting wood (see Figure 2-1), extensive 

powder post beetle infestation resulting in loss of density in the wood, substandard plumbing, 

inadequate heating infrastructure, and 

rodent and bat infestations. The issues of 

rotting wood and loss of density of the 

wood, in particular, can be expected to 

worsen as time continues. These issues 

make the buildings increasingly unsound 

and unsafe, and decrease the possibility of 

successful rehabilitation of the buildings, 

as the funding and effort required to restore 

the buildings increases each year. It can be 

assumed under this alternative that the 

buildings would continue to be used for 

ecological research by the USGS and other 

research institutions, as long as research 

needs warrant.
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

14

Figure 2-2. Kawishiwi Field Laboratory layout
Environm

Figure 2-3. Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge

• Built in 1934 by the CCC • Craftsman Style • Similar to Dwellings at Tofte and Isabella • The interior is largely unchanged over time 

unlike at the Ranger Dwellings at Tofte and Isabella; therefore it retains more historical significance 

• Full basement 

Current Conditions: Fair; routine maintenance largely ignored, but no major repairs are needed. Problems with bats and bat guano are ongoing.

Figure 2-4. Pump House

• Built in 1935 by the CCC • The foundation was reconstructe

a concrete slab in place of the prfoundation of unknown material 

• The original door has been repla• An exhaust stack comes through 

Current Conditions: Generally good; pbeetle infestation prevalent and could cobuilding if untreated.
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

16

Figure 2-5. Oil House 

• Built in 1935 by the CCC • There is a cross-gable roof over the front door, 

covered with asphalt shingles 

• The foundation is a poured concrete slab 

Current Conditions: Poor; largely as a result of insect infestations. 

Figure 2-6. Cellar 

• Built in the early 1930s by the CCC • Constructed into hillside and consi

walls and an earthen floor 

• Originally used for storing food du

construction and later used for storother forestry supplies 

• Has an above ground ventilation an

refrigeration system, which appearelectric, although it is not clear if i

Current Conditions: Generally good. 
Environm

Figure 2-7. Outhouse/Sauna 

• Built in 1935 by the CCC • Originally used as an outhouse; later converted to 

a sauna. This involved removal of the bench and installation of a woodstove. 

Current Conditions: Ongoing insect infestations have caused severe deterioration. It is not useable. 

Figure 2-8. District Office/Wolf Cabin

• Built in 1935 by the CCC • Wood burning stove historically • Currently no usable indoor plum

Current Conditions: Many areas of diplumbing is in poor condition and not uconcrete at the front entry needs replacean active powder post beetle infestation
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

18

Figure 2-9. LSFES Dwelling/Bunkhouse 

• Built in 1931 • Balloon-Frame Structure • Oldest remaining administrative building in the 

Superior National Forest 

• Funding for construction provided by Hoover 

administration’s Public Works Program 

• First admin building in the forest with a 

bathroom 

Current Conditions: Good. Original siding and trimwork are intact, but need some attention. 

Figure 2-10. Warehouse/Garage 

• Built in 1934 by the CCC • Foundation comprised of cemen

with a poured-concrete slab 

• Original doors have been replac• Roof trusses are adjustable to al

tightening of the turnbuckles as settles 

-This prevents the walls from outward as the structure sett-Settling is a universal issue dwellings 

Current Conditions: Generally fair; a beetle infestation is ongoing; and some w
Environm

Figure 2-11. Boathouse 

• Built in 1935 by the CCC • The structure is one story high and a dock is 

present 

• It features a four-panel sliding front door • The dock was replaced in 1979, nothing is 

known of the previous dock 

Current Conditions: Fair; experiencing a powder post beetle infestation. 

Figure 2-12. OfficeBuildings constructed in 1957, and not CCC:  Office 

• Used as office workspace • Generally well maintained, no ma

 Insectary 

• Total disrepair; not used 

 Southern Outhouse 

• Total disrepair; not used • Construction date not known 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

20
Environmental Assessment

21

2.3 Alternative 2: Increase of Maintenance Funds 

Alternative 2 consists of increasing the maintenance funds for the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings, so that the buildings can be adequately rehabilitated and maintained. The current use of 

the buildings for wildlife research by USGS personnel would continue. 

Increased funding for the buildings would have to be drawn from NRS’ overall budget. At a 

higher level, NRS is one of five research stations of the USFS Research and Development 

Division; in addition to the research stations, the Division includes the Forest Products 

Laboratory and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry located in Puerto Rico. The Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2007 budget for the entire USFS Research and Development Division was $283 

million. Of this amount, $52,312,000 was allocated to the NRS (USFS 2007). 

The NRS maintains 610 employees, 24 field locations, 20 experimental forests, 14 research work 

units, and forest inventory and monitoring for 24 states (NRS, 2008). The NRS does not currently 

and will not in the future have funding specifically allocated for the maintenance of buildings 

which are excess to its needs. Increased maintenance funds for the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

would have to come from the funding currently allocated to one of the five research areas which 

the NRS pursues: 

• Forest Disturbance Processes 

• Urban Natural Resources Stewardship 

• Sustaining Forests 

• Providing Clean Air and Water 

• Natural Resources Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment 

(Source: NRS 2008) 

Redirecting funding from research efforts to building maintenance would conflict with the 

mission of the NRS. 

2.4 Alternative 3: Transfer of Ownership and Management 

Alternative 3 would involve the transfer of both the ownership and management of the Kawishiwi 

Field Laboratory buildings to another agency or entity. As previously stated, NRS has no need for 

the laboratory buildings and has not had any active research projects in the facility since the 

1980s. The USGS and other research institutions have been using the facilities since that time. 

Transferring ownership of the buildings would require identifying an agency or entity willing to 

take responsibility for ownership and all management requirements of the buildings. Specific 

maintenance requirements would be coordinated with the SHPO and recorded as part of the deed, 

as the buildings would have to be maintained as historic structures. A cost of the buildings has not 

yet been determined, but the buildings would possibly go to the Superior National Forest or to the 

highest bidder approved by the Superior National Forest. As the land would remain under the 

ownership of the Superior National Forest, a Special Use Permit for access to and use of the land 

would have to be coordinated and issued by the Forest if an outside agency or entity requested 

access to and use of the site. In response to inquiries about disposition of buildings on the 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, the Superior National Forest stated that no Special Use Permits 

would be issued authorizing the buildings to stay, but not be owned or managed by NRS (see

letter, Appendix A). The Superior National Forest’s position on issuing a Special Use Permit for 

the change in ownership and maintenance of the buildings would need to be reversed under this 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

22 

alternative. Issuing a Special Use Permit for transfer of ownership and maintenance of the 

buildings would be consistent with the forestwide goals and objectives of the Superior National 

Forest, which include the following: 

• Provide management direction that enhances social and economic benefits for 

individuals and communities (forestwide Goal #7); 

• Identify and manage heritage resources to maintain and preserve the qualities for 

which they have been deemed significant, and for benefits that may include: research, 

education, historical perspectives in land management, and the general appreciation 

of American heritage (D-HR-1); 

• Attempt to meet demand for special use activities when consistent with the Forest 

Plan direction and when the proposed use cannot be accommodated on non-National 

Forest Service land (O-SU-2); and, 

• Allow presently unused facilities, currently not under permit, to be placed under 

permit for a 5-year term, if there is a demonstrated need. Consider proposals for new 

camps to be constructed where the proposed use would meet a specific public

demand that cannot be met on other ownership (O-SU-5). 

 (Source: USFS 2004) 

Provided a Special Use Permit can be issued for the buildings, several entities and interested 

parties have expressed interest in acquiring ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the 

buildings. The Minnesota Conservation Corps (MCC), a direct descendent of the CCC, has 

expressed great interest in preserving the buildings and partnering with Federal, state, and local 

land-managements agencies, and with nonprofits, to offer programs and opportunities at the site 

related to their mission of providing hands-on environmental stewardship and service-learning 

opportunities to youth and young adults while accomplishing priority cost-effective conservation, 

natural resource management projects and emergency response work (Hagberg 2007). 

Other suggestions for potential reuse of the site by other entities have included conversion of the 

site to a designated recreation site or resort, privatization of the site to homesteads, and funding 

assistance to keep the research focus of the site active from entities such as the IWC and the local 

Ely community and government. 

The USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, which currently utilizes the site for 

research, has consistently declined offers to assume ownership and management responsibilities 

for the buildings (see Appendix A). They do wish, however, to be able to continue using the 

buildings for as long as their research needs dictate. The availability of the site to the USGS 

would be at the discretion of the entity assuming new ownership of the buildings. 

Likewise, the Superior National Forest does not want to assume ownership or management 

responsibility of the buildings. Superior National Forest is still attempting to sell off its final 

property located at the Isabella Ranger Station Historic District, known as Trappers Landing Lot 

5 (USFS 2008a). The sale of the buildings at the Isabella Ranger Station Historic District is part 

of a nationwide trend in which national forests are disposing of little-used or abandoned 

properties to reduce the backlog of unfunded repairs and maintenance, which is estimated at 

about $1.2 billion. The Superior National Forest has more than $7 million in backlogged 

maintenance work (DNT 2006). 
Environmental Assessment

23

2.5 Alternative 4: Transfer of Management 

Alternative 4 would involve transferring management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings to another entity. NRS would retain ownership of the buildings under this alternative. 

This would only partially support the purpose of the proposed project, which is for NRS to 

permanently dispose of the buildings. 

Under this alternative, a lease agreement or similar type of property agreement would be signed 

between the NRS and the entity willing and able to assume management responsibility of the 

buildings. The Superior National Forest would be involved in this agreement, and would likely 

have to issue a Special Use Permit for the access to and use of the land. Similar reuses of the 

buildings as mentioned under alternative 3 would be considered likely. The buildings would have 

to be maintained as historic structures, as per coordination with the SHPO. The USGS has 

previously stated that it does not have the required funding available to address the maintenance 

and management issues of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings, and continued use of the 

site by the USGS would be at the discretion of the entity willing to assume maintenance 

responsibility and cost. 

2.6 Alternative 5: Relocation of Buildings 

Alternative 5 would involve the partial dismantling and subsequent relocation of the Kawishiwi 

Field Laboratory buildings from the site. The buildings that are removable would be relocated to 

a yet to be determined location offsite, off of Superior National Forest land. This location would 

be owned by an entity willing and able to assume the relocation costs and willing and able to take 

responsibility for the future maintenance of the buildings as historical structures. This would 

likely require a significant initial investment, which has been projected to range from$200,000 to 

over $1 million. Annual long-term maintenance costs are not currently available. Federal tax 

credits may be available to help assist the entity assuming ownership, if the buildings are 

reassembled and maintained in accordance to stipulations pertaining to their historic significance. 

Buildings that may be able to be moved from the site include the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge, 

Pump House, Oil House, Outhouse/Sauna, District Office/Wolf Cabin, Warehouse/Garage, 

Boathouse, Lake States Forest Experiment Station (LSFES) Dwelling/Bunkhouse, and the Office. 

Some or all of these buildings would be relocated under this alternative. 

Due to its structure (poured concrete located within the hillside), the cellar would not be 

moveable. Additionally, the condition of the insectary and second outhouse prohibit their 

relocation. These three structures would require a combination of demolition and abandonment in 

place. 

Before moving, the original setting and context of the site would be documented. Consultation 

and coordination with the SHPO would determine additional requirements. Removal of the 

buildings would undermine any historical significance of the HRSHD. The buildings would, 

however, retain characteristics that contribute to their historical significance, such as 

craftsmanship and architectural styles. Keeping the buildings together and within the Ely region 

would help to mitigate some, but not all of the historical losses. 

Due to the landscape and road conditions at the project site, it is considered likely that the 

buildings which are removable would be at least partially disassembled prior to moving. 

Disassembling the buildings would be a laborious process. Each wooden log, its position and 

adjoining logs would be marked properly before dismantling so that the pieces would fit back 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

24 

together when reassembled. If rotten and unusable logs are found, all measurements would be 

taken of them, and replacement logs would be crafted in the exact likeness of the original logs. 

Contractors experienced in moving historic buildings would work on the disassembly, relocation, 

and reassembly of the structures. This would require the use of heavy machinery, trucks, and 

trailers. Activities related to demolition of the structures left onsite (at a minimum, the cellar, 

insectary, and second outhouse), would require the use of dump trucks, cranes, excavators and 

other heavy equipment. 

2.7 Alternative 6: Demolition of Buildings (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 6, the action the NRS proposes to implement, would consist of demolishing the 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings on site. The Superior National Forest would retain 

ownership of the land, and would have sole discretion and decision- making authority regarding 

future land reuses. It is anticipated that following building demolition, the land would be at a 

minimum regraded and reseeded with native plant vegetation. 

Prior to any demolition activities, all site details and historically significant structures would be 

photographed and documented to meet Library of Congress standards for the Historic American 

Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and Historic 

American Landscapes Survey (HALS). 

Demolition of the laboratory buildings would require the use of heavy equipment, such as 

elevated work platforms, dump trucks, cranes, excavators, graders, bulldozers and other dieseland gasoline-fueled equipment. It would take several weeks or months to prepare the buildings 

for demolition. All items of value, such as historic objects and copper wiring, would be stripped 

from the buildings. Other materials removed prior to demolition would include all glass and other 

materials which can scatter or form projectiles when demolished. Additionally, any and all 

materials containing dangerous or hazardous materials such as asbestos or lead would be properly 

abated and disposed of prior to demolition, in accordance to Federal and state regulation. 

2.8 Mitigation Measures 

All future actions proposed as part of this project should employ the following mitigation 

measures to ensure that environmental impacts from maintenance, demolition, or structure 

relocation activities are minimized to the greatest extent possible. Adherence to the following 

mitigation measures, in conjunction with adherence to all applicable and appropriate local, state, 

and Federal regulations and permits, should ensure that the environmental impacts resulting from 

building disposition at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory are minimized to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Soil 

• Incorporate and maintain best management practices (BMP) into any disassembly or 

demolition activities that disturb the soil surface or vegetation; BMPs typically consist of 

various erosion and sediment control measures such as silt fences, straw bales, and other 

temporary measures to be placed in low lying areas and along portions of the site 

perimeter to control erosion and trap transported sediments on site during activities which 

could cause soil to be exposed and displaced. These temporary erosion prevention 

measures should be maintained in place until new site vegetation is firmly established 

and soil has stabilized. Erosion and sediment control measures should be inspected on a 

regular schedule, as well as after any storm event. 
Environmental Assessment

25

• Store and maintain all fuels in a designated equipment staging area to reduce the potential 

for soil contamination. Designate a person(s) as being responsible for equipment fueling 

who closely monitors the fueling operation, and have an emergency spill kit containing 

absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup items, readily 

available on site in the event of an accidental spill. 

• Stabilize and revegetate all disturbed areas with native plant vegetation following 

commencement of project implementation activities. Proper seed selection will result in 

native plants with deep root systems, which will stabilize soils, foster greater infiltration, 

and reduce runoff from the site. 

Water Resources 

• Place BMPs along portions of the site perimeter to control erosion during all soil 

exposing and demolition activities. Under all circumstances, sediment runoff from the 

site should be captured and prevented from entering the Kawishiwi River. 

• If a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System 

(NPDES/SDS) permit is not required for the site due to the footprint of the proposed 

disturbance, ensure that BMPs related to storm water runoff components are in place and 

working correctly; loose sediment, fuels, oils, and other potential contaminants have the 

ability to migrate throughout project implementation processes. 

Cultural Resources 

• To minimize the adverse impacts of transferring significant cultural resources out of 

Federal control, relocating cultural resources, or demolishing cultural resources, the NRS 

will coordinate with the SHPO and address all of SHPO’s recommendations to the extent 

possible in order to mitigate impacts to the site. As stated under alternative 6, in the case 

of demolition of buildings, NRS would document all site historic resources to the

HABS/HAER/HALS standard. The NRS will also notify the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation of its actions, so it has the opportunity to participate in the project 

mitigations and advise the NRS of additional recommended courses of action to ensure 

that impacts to cultural resources are minimized as much as possible. 

Air Quality 

• Implement reasonable measures, such as applying water to exposed surfaces or stockpiles 

of dirt, when windy and/or dry conditions promote problematic fugitive dust emissions. 

Adhering to these BMPs would minimize any fugitive dust emissions. 

Waste Management 

• Recycle and/or reuse as many materials as possible during all building upgrade or 

demolition activities to minimize the amount of waste generated by the project.
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

262.9 Comparison of Alternatives This section presents a summary table (table 2-1) of the impacts of the alternatives. The impacts are based on the effect the presented in this chapter would have on the affected environment discussed in Chapter 3. The full analysis of the alternativChapter 3. While it is not known exactly what potential future uses and reuses of the buildings and Kawishiwi Field Laboraunder each alternative, the impacts are the maximum predictable impacts from the most likely scenario of thealternative. Ththe impacts analysis is based are in no way binding or limiting to the future actions of NRS. Table 2-1. Comparison of the impacts of the alternatives 

Topic or Resource 

Area 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Increase 

Funds 

Alternative 3 

Transfer 

Ownership & 

Maintenance 

Alternative 4 

Transfer 

Management 

Alternative 5 

Relocation 

Purpose and Need 

for Project 

Does not meet 

purpose and need 

Does not meet 

purpose and need 

Fully meets purpose 

and need 

Partially meets 

purpose and need 

Fully meets purpo

and need 

Geology and Soils No Impact No Impact Short-term, 

negligible impacts 

from potential site 

upgrades 

Negligible impacts 

Localized, shortterm, adverse min

impacts from soi

disturbing activitie

Water Resources 

Short-term, adverse 

minor impacts to 

Kaw. River possible 

from fragmenting of 

dilapidated buildings 

No Impact Negligible impacts Negligible impacts Temporary, adver

minor impacts fro

work on 

Boathouse/dock 

Biological Resources 

Negligible, direct 

impacts & 

indirect long-term, 

beneficial impacts 

from wildlife 

research 

Direct, longterm, minor 

impacts to 

wildlife from 

maintenance 

activities & 

indirect longterm, beneficial 

Direct, localized, 

negligible to 

moderate impacts 

from reuse & 

possible indirect 

long-term, adverse 

major impacts from 

Short-term, 

localized, negligible 

to minor impacts 

from increased 

maintenance. 

Possible indirect, 

adverse, long-term, 

major impacts from 

Long-term, benefic

impacts from 

revegetation/ 

reclamation of the 

area. Indirect, 

adverse, long-term

major impacts to fro

loss of wildlife 
Environm

impacts from 

wildlife research 

loss of wildlife 

research 

loss of research research 

Land Use Negligible impacts Negligible 

impacts 

Beneficial, localized, 

and minor impacts 

Beneficial, 

localized, and 

minor impacts 

Temporary, localiz

adverse impacts; 

long-term impact

unknown 

Cultural 

Resources 

Long-term, adverse, 

potentially significant 

impacts due to loss 

by neglect 

Long-term, 

major beneficial 

impacts 

Adverse impacts 

which can be at least 

partially mitigated 

Long-term, 

beneficial impacts; 

any adverse 

impacts can be 

mitigated 

Long-term, advers

impacts which can 

somewhat mitigate

impacts still majo

Waste and Hazmat 

Mgmt No impact 

Temporary, 

minor adverse 

impacts 

Temporary, minor 

adverse impacts 

Temporary, minor 

adverse impacts 

Short-term, mino

adverse impacts 

Human Health and 

Safety 

Long-term, adverse, 

localized, and major 

impacts to building 

occupants and 

visitors 

Long-term, 

beneficial, 

localized, and 

moderate 

impacts to 

building 

occupants and 

visitors 

Long-term, 

beneficial, localized, 

and minor to major 

impacts to future 

building occupants 

and visitors 

Long-term, 

beneficial, 

localized, and 

minor to major 

impacts to future 

building occupants 

and visitors 

Temporary, mino

adverse, and 

localized impacts 

from site activitie

long-term, benefic

impacts 

Socioeconomics 

Negligible short-term 

impacts; adverse, 

minor, long-term 

impacts 

Negligible onsite 

impacts; 

unknown NRS 

impacts 

Negligible impacts Negligible impacts 

Negligible onsite 

impacts; unknow

impacts at transferr

location 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

28 

2.10 Cumulative Impacts 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) require an analysis of the cumulative impacts resulting from 

the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of who undertakes these other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions. This cumulative impacts section of 

the EA addresses the cumulative effects arising from considering the Proposed Action in 

combination with other ongoing actions at, or in the vicinity of, the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory. 

The Superior National Forest maintains and implements projects on a continuous basis; these 

projects are generally consistent with forestwide goals as expressed in the Forest Plan. Key goals 

cited in the Forest Plan include promoting ecosystem health and conservation; protecting, and 

where appropriate, restoring soil, air and water resources; and, providing for sustained forest 

product uses in an environmentally acceptable manner (USFS 2004b). The following are some 

examples of routine Superior National Forest activities that have occurred in the past and will 

occur in the future: timber harvest, wildlife habitat improvement projects, prescribed burn 

projects, watershed improvement or restoration projects, and trail or road construction (USFS 

2004b). It is not anticipated that any of the building disposition project alternatives would 

contribute cumulative impacts to routine Superior National Forest activities. 

There has been a renewed interest in mining in the Kawishiwi area for copper, nickel, silver, 

platinum and palladium. There are several mining claims within the vicinity of the field 

laboratory. Some individuals have expressed concern that relocation or demolition of the 

buildings would free up the land underlying the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory to mining interests; 

under either of these alternatives the future reuse of the land is the discretion of the Superior 

National Forest, with appropriate public input. There is no known connection between the 

increased mining interests in the area and the building disposition alternatives. Further, mining is 

not considered a potential future use of the site. It is therefore not considered likely that this 

project would contribute cumulatively to mining impacts in the area. 

Similarly, timber harvesting at the Superior National Forest has increased in recent past. Under 

the previous Forest Plan, the average rate of logging was 75 million board feet per year. 

According to the USFS Final EIS, the new Forest Plan allows for 1.02 billion board feet within a 

950,000-acre area, to be harvested over the next 10 years. This constitutes a harvest increase of 

over 25 million board feet per year. Two major areas proposed for harvesting in the Kawishiwi 

Ranger District include the Big Grass Timber Sale and the Tomahawk Timber Sale; both of these 

sites have caused area controversy. However, because the proposed project alternatives would not 

facilitate timber harvest or provide valuable timber, this project is not considered to contribute 

cumulative impacts to overall timber harvesting at Superior National Forest. 

The National Forest System has management responsibility for approximately 193 million acres 

of public land containing an estimated two million cultural resource sites; while the USFS has 

identified nearly 325,000 cultural resource sites within the System, the agency “lacks the 

statutory guidance and funding to adequately care for these known sites and to identify and 

evaluate the remaining 80 percent of USFS lands that have not been surveyed for cultural 

resources” (NTFHP 2008). Heritage Programs, programs designed to maintain and support 

cultural resources in national forests, account for approximately 0.4 percent of the total USFS 

appropriated budget of $4.4 billion (FY 2008). In addition to insufficient funding, other threats 

facing cultural resources include vandalism, fire, theft, damage caused by some types of 

recreation, oil and gas extraction, mining, and timber harvesting (NTFHP 2008). The proposed 
Environmental Assessment

29

project alternatives that would result in adverse impacts to the cultural resources on site (the No 

Action alternative, relocation of the buildings, and especially, demolition of the buildings), would 

contribute incrementally adverse impacts to the National Forest Service-wide issues of inadequate 

preservation of cultural resources. 

2.11 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 

CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, and briefly discuss the rationale for 

eliminating any alternatives that are not considered in detail. Because all alternatives to the 

proposed action, disposition of the NRS buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, are 

considered in detail within this EA, no alternatives have been rejected at this time. Transfer of 

ownership of the Superior National Forest land underlying the buildings is not within the 

jurisdiction or authority of the NRS, and is therefore not included within the scope of alternatives 

considered by the NRS.
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

30 

3 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the 

affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of 

the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives 

presented in the chart above. 

3.1 Introduction and Methodology 

NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity, and duration of impacts, direct or indirect 

impacts, cumulative impacts, and measures to mitigate for impacts. Overall, the NRS based the 

following impact analyses and conclusions on the review of existing literature, information 

provided by experts within the geographic area, and with other agencies, professional judgments, 

and USFS staff insights. 

Potential impacts are described in terms of type (beneficial or adverse), context, duration, and 

intensity. The following general definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity, duration, 

and cumulative nature of impacts associated with project alternatives. The specific criteria used to 

rate the intensity and duration of potential impacts for each resource topic are presented within 

each resource area impact analysis in this chapter. 

Intensity of Impact 

Impact intensity is the degree to which a resource would be beneficially or adversely affected by 

an action. Impact intensities are quantified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. 

Extent of Impact 

Context is the setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as local, regional (forestwide), or 

resource-wide. Localized impacts are those that affect the resource area only on the project site or 

its immediate surroundings, and would not extend into the region. 

Duration of Impact 

The duration of impact is analyzed independently for each resource because impact duration is 

dependent on the resource being analyzed. Depending on the resource, impacts may last as long 

as construction takes place, or a single year or growing season, or longer. For purposes of 

analysis, impact duration is measured in temporary, short-term, and long-term intervals. 

Direct versus Indirect Impacts 

Direct effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) at the same time and in the same location as 

the action. Indirect effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) that occur later in time or 

farther in distance than the action, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
Environmental Assessment

31

Table 3-1. Resource assessment impact definitions 

Impact 

Level 

Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Intensity Little or no 

impact to the 

resource would 

occur. Any 

change that 

might occur 

may be 

perceptible but 

difficult to 

measure. 

Change in a 

resource would 

occur, but no 

substantial resource 

impact would result. 

The change in the 

resource would be 

perceptible, but 

would not alter the 

condition of the 

resource. 

Noticeable change 

in a resource 

would occur and 

this change would 

alter the condition 

or appearance of 

the resource, but 

the integrity of the 

resource would 

remain. 

Substantial impact 

or change in a 

resource area 

would occur, 

which is easily 

defined and 

highly noticeable, 

and that 

measurably alters 

the condition or 

appearance of the 

resource. 

Extent None Localized – Impact 

would occur only at 

the project site or its 

immediate 

surroundings, and 

would not extend 

into the region. 

Regional – Impact 

would affect the 

resource on a 

regional level, 

extending well 

beyond the 

immediate project 

site. 

Resource wide – 

Impact would 

affect the resource 

at an ecosystem, 

physiographic 

area, or other 

large-scale 

connected system 

scale. 

Duration None Temporary – 

Impact would occur 

only during the 

project 

implementation 

actions. Afterwards, 

the resource 

conditions would 

return to pre-action 

levels. 

Short-term – 

Impact would 

extend beyond the 

time of project 

implementation 

actions, but would 

not last more than 

two years. 

Long-term – 

Impact would 

likely last more 

than two years 

and may continue 

beyond the 

lifetime of the 

project 

implementation. 

3.2 Geology and Soils 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

The bedrock underlying the Superior National Forest was deposited during the Early, Middle, and 

Late Precambrian ages (approximately 4,500 to 542 million years ago). Bedrock within the 

vicinity of the project site belongs to the Duluth Complex, which consists of predominantly 

igneous rocks such as gabbro, troctolitic anorthosites, and mafic and felsic intrusive rocks. The 

mineral composition of the bedrock is rich with iron oxide minerals (USGS 2000). Early 

Precambrian rocks have been a valuable source of iron ore and have yielded small quantities of 

gold. The present day Mesabi Range has been producing high-quality iron ore from Middle 

Precambrian sedimentary rocks for over 100 years. The most important mineral deposits of the 

Late Precambrian age are the copper-nickel deposits that occur along the base (northwest margin) 

of the Duluth complex (USFS 2004a). Iron ore was discovered in Minnesota when miners were 

searching for gold deposits. Iron was originally mined from three deposits: the Vermilion Range, 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

32 

the Cuyuna Range, and the Mesabi Range; parts of the Vermilion and Mesabi Ranges are found 

within the boundaries of Superior National Forest. 

One of the main iron ore mines in the Vermilion Range is located near Ely. The Chandler Mine 

was the first in the Ely area to begin shipping ore; it began sending cargo in August of 1888. 

Because ore was discovered near the surface, an open pit operation was incorporated. As the ore 

body dipped deeper, mines had to be operated by shafts. Eventually, due to the high cost of

mining ore underground, the last of the operating mines in the Ely area and the Vermilion Range 

was closed in 1967 (ARDC 2002). 

The project site is located in an area whose geography was heavily influenced by the most recent 

glaciation; moraines, outwash plains, kettle lakes, eskers, and drumlins all resulted from the 

deposition of sediment and ice by glaciers as they retreated from this area approximately 15,000 

years ago (USFS 2004a). 

Portions of the project area are covered with unsorted glacial till deposits, which resulted in the 

formation of ground moraines and drumlins. Other formations include those formed as a result of 

water deposition such as outwash plains and eskers. These tend to be more stratified and occur 

less frequently throughout the project area. The formation of this topography resulted in the 

accumulation of organic debris and the creation of wet lowlands, lakes, and peat deposits (same 

citation as above). The general trend of area topographic features is northeast – southwest, 

reflecting both the bedrock structures and the general direction of glacial retreat (USGS 2000). 

As illustrated in figure 3-1, all of the soils surrounding the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory are of the 

Mesaba-Barto Series. These gravelly, sandy loam soils are typically moderately deep, welldrained soils that form in loamy till found over the igneous bedrock that was deposited during the 

Precambrian. The retreat of the glaciers left poorly sorted glacial till covering the area, which 

became the source for these soils. The composition of the till included gravel, clay, cobbles, 

pebbles, and sand. Many portions of this soil series have a peat layer at the surface; beneath that, 

depth to bedrock ranges from 51 to 102 cm. Both the Mesaba and Barto soils are well-drained 

with medium to rapid surface runoff (NRCS 2007). 
Environmental Assessment

33

Figure 3-1. Soil map of project area 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

34 

3.2.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, no demolition, construction, or site upgrade activities would 

occur that would impact geologic resources or soils. Thus, no impacts to geologic resources or 

soils would be expected to occur from this alternative. 

3.2.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would involve the increase of maintenance funds to the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory. However, no impacts to geologic resources or soils would be expected to occur under 

this alternative either, as rehabilitating the structures and increasing their maintenance would not 

involve any earth-moving activities. 

3.2.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3, the transfer of both ownership and management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings, would potentially involve a limited amount of ground disturbance if the buildings are 

upgraded to accommodate new reuses. However, no reuses of the buildings under this alternative 

would involve subsurface drilling or exploration of geologic resources. The land underlying the 

site does not have potential for geologic instability or subsidence. Geological resources are not 

expected to be impacted under this alternative. 

A limited amount of soils can be expected to be disturbed during the upgrade of site buildings. A 

minimal amount of additional storm water runoff can be expected to occur during these activities. 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for administering the state’s 

storm water management program. The MPCA program is unique in that it incorporates the 

requirements of both the Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits and the Minnesota State Disposal System (SDS) permit into a single permit referred to as 

NPDES/SDS permit. This permit must be obtained if the footprint of disturbance is greater that 

one acre. The footprint of disturbance anticipated under this alternative would be much smaller 

than one acre, and the site would therefore be exempt from obtaining the permit. However, all site 

runoff should be managed according to BMPs specified under the 2005 Minnesota Stormwater 

Manual Standard construction BMPs, such as installing perimeter silt fences, spreading straw and 

mulch to protect exposed ground, covering stockpiles of earth or soils, and so forth, will help 

minimize any runoff, erosion and impacts to on-site and off-site soils during construction 

activities. Overall impacts to soils from this alternative are considered to be short-term and 

negligible. 

3.2.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Under alternative 4, transfer of management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings would 

occur. The NRS would retain ownership of the buildings and the Superior National Forest would 

retain ownership of the land. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those discussed 

under alternative 3. No impacts are anticipated to geologic resources, and only short-term 

negligible impacts during building upgrades are anticipated from increased runoff from disturbed 

soils. 

3.2.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 would involve the disassembly and relocation of all or some of the buildings on site. 

Those buildings not able to be relocated would likely be demolished, or in the case of the cellar, 

abandoned in place. 
Environmental Assessment

35

The disassembly, relocation, and reassembly of the structures would require the use of heavy 

machinery, trucks, and trailers. Activities related to demolition of the structures left onsite (at a 

minimum, the cellar, insectary, and second outhouse), would require the use of dump trucks, 

cranes, excavators and other heavy equipment. As with almost any construction project involving 

the use of heavy equipment, there is some risk of an accidental fuel or chemical spill, and the 

potential contamination of soils. Fuel products (petroleum, oils, lubricant) would be needed to 

operate and fuel the equipment. To reduce the potential for soil contamination, fuels would be 

stored and maintained in a designated equipment staging area. A person(s) designated as being 

responsible for equipment fueling would closely monitor the fueling operation, and an emergency 

spill kit containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup items, 

would readily be available on site in the event of an accidental spill. Following these precautions, 

the potential for an accidental chemical or fuel spill occurring and resulting in adverse impacts 

on soils would be negligible. 

Soil disturbance is defined as anything that causes the impairment of physical, chemical and 

biological properties and processes, such as erosion, compaction, displacement, rutting, burning, 

loss of organic matter and mass movement of soil (USDA 2005). Construction equipment also 

has the potential to compact soil, reducing the porosity and conductivity of the soil. Such 

compaction is likely to slightly increase the amount of surface runoff in the immediate area. Soil 

stabilization will be required to prevent sediment runoff impacts to water sources, possibly 

degrading water quality. 

The NPDES under the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant, including 

sediments, to waters of the United States. Because the total, combined footprint of disturbance of 

this alternative is likely to be greater than one acre, an NPDES/SDS permit would need to be 

obtained from the MPCA in order to regulate discharge of storm water runoff from the site during 

relocation activities. Typically, sediment erosion rates from construction sites are 10 to 20 times 

greater than those from agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest 

lands. The main requirements of the NPDES/SDS permit are a $400 application fee and 

development of a site specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). SWPPPs contain 

measures to reduce soil erosion and prevent pollution from petroleum, oil, and lubricants and 

other chemicals or hazardous/toxic materials at construction sites. Specifically, SWPPP plans 

assess the characteristics of the site such as nearby surface waters, topography, and storm water 

runoff patterns; identify potential sources of pollutants such as sediment from disturbed areas, and 

stored wastes or fuels; and identify BMPs which will be used to minimize or eliminate the 

potential for these pollutants to reach surface waters through storm water runoff. Standard 

construction BMPs, such as installing perimeter silt fences, spreading straw and mulch to protect 

exposed ground, covering stockpiles of earth or soils, and so forth, will minimize runoff, erosion 

and impacts to on-site and off-site soils during all building removal and demolition activities. 

As described in section 3.2,1, soils within the proposed project site are generally well drained and 

have rapid surface runoff. However, it is also likely that a large area of these soils have been 

previously disturbed by site activities. The majority of soil compaction occurs upon initial 

development and traversal by heavy machinery. Because of this, it is very likely that all of the 

portions of the proposed project site that hold buildings have experienced some degree of soil 

compaction. It can also be expected that additional impacts will occur during the building 

relocation process. Earth-moving activities, compaction, erosion, and loss of vegetative cover, 

can all impact soil quantity and quality. Overall impacts to soils at the proposed project site from 

building relocation and demolition under alternative 5 are expected to be adverse, localized 

(limited to where project activities will be occurring), short-term, and minor. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

36 

Once building relocation activities are complete, the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site will be recontoured and re-vegetated. These activities will limit loose soils, encourage nutrient growth and 

assist biological productivity of area soils. It is not known what future land reuses the Superior 

National Forest would propose at the site. It is likely, however, that the site will be managed as 

part of the forest ecosystem in a manner that minimizes any future impacts to soils. 

3.2.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 6 would consist of the demolition of all of the buildings on site. The cellar would be 

abandoned in place. The Superior National Forest would retain ownership of the land, and would 

have sole discretion and decision-making authority regarding future land reuses. It is anticipated 

that following building demolition, the land would be, at a minimum, regraded and reseeded with 

native plant vegetation. 

Demolition of the laboratory buildings would require the use of heavy equipment, such as 

elevated work platforms, dump trucks, cranes, excavators, graders, bulldozers and other dieseland gasoline-fueled equipment. It would take several weeks or months to prepare the buildings 

for demolition. Impacts to soils from this alternative would be very similar to those described 

under alternative 5. Fuel products brought onsite would be stored and handled in the same 

manner. Because the total, combined footprint of disturbance of this alternative is likely to be 

greater than one acre, an NPDES/SDS permit would also need to be obtained from the MPCA to 

regulate discharge of storm water runoff from the site during demolition activities. The SWPPP 

and BMPs developed for the site would be adhered to in order to minimize soil impacts. 

Overall impacts to geology and soils at the proposed project site from building demolition under 

alternative 6 are expected to be adverse, localized (limited to where project activities will be 

occurring), short-term, and minor. 

Once building demolition activities are complete, the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site will be recontoured and re-vegetated. It is not known what future land reuses the Superior National Forest 

would propose at the site. It is likely, however, that the site will be managed as part of the forest 

ecosystem in a manner that minimizes any future impacts to soils. 

3.3 Water Resources 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings are located on the southeastern bank of the South 

Kawishiwi River, less than 2 miles from where the river empties into Birch Lake. This region of 

Minnesota is well known for numerous lakes, rivers, wetlands, and generally wet, marshy 

topography. Predominant surface water bodies in the area include White Iron Lake to the 

northwest of the project site, and Birch Lake which is immediately south of the project site 

(Figure 3-2). Although portions of Lake County are located within the Minnesota Coastal Zone, 

the project area is not and does not impact the state’s Coastal Zone Management Area, which 

protects Lake Superior. 

The main channel of the Kawishiwi River is perennial, with seasonal discharge that ranges from 

1.6 cubic meters per second under ice cover to 18.6 cubic meters per second during spring melt 

(USGS 1999). The Kawishiwi River Basin drains parts of Lake and Cook Counties in Minnesota, 

and is partially located within the boundaries of the BWCAW, which is part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System and is administered by the Superior National Forest (USGS 
Environmental Assessment

37

2000). The BWCAW boundary is located approximately 4 miles north of the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory. 

Water quality data for the Kawishiwi River near Ely were recorded from 1963 to 1995; a variety 

of sampling techniques were used and some were later determined to be flawed, leaving a more 

limited, but accurate, data set. This data set indicates that the river water is moderately acidic with 

a strong presence of ammonium, hydrogen, calcium, sulfate, and nitrate ions. The presence of the 

strongly acidic (sulfate and nitrate) anions is indicative of this location being influenced by 

anthropogenic emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds, which cause acid rain (USGS 2000). 

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) established Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as a 

calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet 

water quality standards for its designated use. These water quality standards and designated uses 

are interpreted from the CWA and enforced by each state. When a state deems a water body 

impaired, it is placed on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. It would remain on this list until 

TMDL water quality standards are met. The reach of the Kawishiwi River near the project site is 

not included on the 303(d) List. However, portions of the Kawishiwi River within 2 miles of the 

project site, including both Birch Lake and White Iron Lake, are listed on the 303(d) List of 

Impaired Waters by the USEPA for elevated levels of mercury; these portions of the river have 

been listed as impaired since 2002. The EPA lists mercury in fish tissue as the reason for 

impairment, but the source of the mercury is unknown (USEPA 2008). 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

38 

Figure 3-2. Aquatic features of project area 
Environmental Assessment

39

Figure 3-3. South Kawishiwi River (from project site) 

(from project site)

In addition to the 303(d) impaired 

water designation, the goals of the 

CWA are also assessed through 

Section 305(b) of the act which 

designates whether or not a water 

body is supporting of recreational 

uses. The portion of the South 

Kawishiwi River directly adjacent 

to the proposed project site 

(Figure 3-3) is designated as fully 

supporting aquatic recreation. 

This, in combination with the fact 

that the portion of the South 

Kawishiwi River directly adjacent 

to the proposed project site is not 

currently listed on the 303(d) list, 

indicates that overall water quality 

is good (USEPA 2004, MPCA 2008). 

There are no wetlands on the project site. Wetlands within the vicinity of the project site include 

forested wetlands within one-half mile of the site, both to the southeast and across the South 

Kawishiwi River, northwest of the site. Forested wetlands are also referred to as wooded swamps. 

Scrub/shrub wetlands are located within one half-mile both east and north of the project site. 

These wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall; they often represent 

a successional stage in transition to a forested wetland. See section 3.4.1 for a description of area 

vegetation. The swamps found near the project area are characteristic of the generally wet 

environment, dominated by rivers, lakes, and wetlands that is found in this Boundary Waters 

Region. No floodplain data are currently available for Lake County. 

3.3.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

If the No Action alternative were to be implemented, current site uses would continue and no 

activities related to the rehabilitation, maintenance, relocation, or demolition of the site buildings 

would occur. The buildings would continue to deteriorate. The Boathouse and its associated dock 

could experience structural failure and splinter off into the South Kawishiwi River. This would 

result in short-term, adverse, minor impacts to the waterway. No additional impacts to 

groundwater or wetlands and floodplains can be expected from implementation of this alternative. 

3.3.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, maintenance funds would increase for the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings. The increase in maintenance funds would go toward rehabilitating the buildings and 

increasing their maintenance. The risk posed by the Boathouse and its dock deteriorating into the 

South Kawishiwi River would be substantially reduced under this alternative. No impacts to 

water resources are anticipated to occur as a result of this alternative. 

3.3.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 involves the transfer of both ownership and management of the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory. A limited amount of ground disturbance may occur from project activities if the 

buildings are upgraded to accommodate new reuses. However, no site upgrades or new structures 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

40 

would be permitted to be placed on site without prior approval from the Superior National Forest. 

Regardless of future reuse, it is anticipated that the Superior National Forest would not permit 

new structures to be located on the site and that ground-disturbing activities would be restricted to 

be minimal. As a result, impacts to water resources from this alternative are anticipated to be 

negligible. 

3.3.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Under alternative 4, transfer of management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings would 

occur and the NRS would retain ownership of the buildings. Impacts under this alternative would 

be similar to those discussed under alternative 3. Negligible impacts to water resources are 

anticipated as a result of this alternative. 

3.3.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 would consist of the relocation of all or some of the buildings on site. Those 

buildings not able to be relocated would likely be demolished or abandoned in place. Impacts 

associated with the building disassembly and relocation activities could affect water resources by 

storm water runoff from the site coming into contact with exposed soils and carrying sediment 

and contamination loads into surface water during times of heavy rain, and by contamination 

from relocation activities infiltrating area soils and percolating down into the groundwater. As 

discussed under the geology and soils section, a NPDES/SDS permit would need to be obtained 

from the MPCA in order to regulate discharge of storm water runoff from the site during 

relocation activities. The incorporation of the BMPs and mitigation measures specified in the 

SWPPP into the design phase of the project would reduce any potential impacts to water quality 

in the area to a negligible level. 

Due to the distance of the nearest wetlands to project activities, no wetlands would be impacted 

by relocating the structures. Although there are no floodplain data available for Lake County, no 

impacts to the floodplain are anticipated to occur from the project activities. Additionally, no 

impacts to Minnesota’s Coastal Zone are anticipated to occur, as the project site is located far 

from the Coastal Zone boundary. Due to the distance of the project area from the Coastal Zone, a 

Federal consistency determination, as per the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 

is not required. 

Under this alternative, the Boathouse and its dock which extend into the South Kawishiwi River, 

would either be disassembled and relocated or disassembled and demolished. Depending on the 

specific relocation plan, a Section 404 of the CWA permit application may be required to be 

submitted to the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates discharge 

of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters. Additionally, as the Kawishiwi River at the 

project site is a navigable waterway, a Section 10 permit of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation 

Act of 1899, may be required. These permits and their stipulations would ensure that any impacts 

resulting from relocation or demolition activities of the Boathouse and dock would be mitigated. 

No additional permits from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) are 

anticipated to be required. 

Overall impacts to water quality and water resources from potential building relocation and 

demolition activities from alternative 5 are anticipated to be adverse, temporary, and minor. 
Environmental Assessment

41

3.3.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 6 would consist of the demolition of all of the buildings on site. The cellar would be 

abandoned in place. It is anticipated that following building demolition, the land would at a 

minimum be regraded and reseeded with native plant vegetation. The Superior National Forest 

would retain ownership of the land. 

The impacts to water resources from demolition of the laboratory buildings would be very similar 

to the impacts discussed under alternative 5. Overall impacts to water resources at the proposed 

project site from building demolition are expected to be adverse, minor, temporary, and localized, 

limited to where project activities will be occurring. 

3.4 Biological Resources 

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

The project site is located within a southern boreal forest ecosystem. Dominant upland tree 

species include jack pine, quaking aspen, birch, northern red oak, black spruce, and fir. 

Understory vegetation is typically juneberry, beaked hazel, mountain maple, willow, and 

American green alder. Lowland and marsh vegetation includes black spruce, northern white 

cedar, tamarack, and speckled alder. Both red and white pines were once extensive in this region 

but are now located in isolated, scattered stands due to the effects of logging and fire (USGS, 

1999). 

Wildlife found within the vicinity of the project site is typical of that found along the border of 

boreal forest ecosystems. Black bears, Canada lynx, grey wolves, white-tailed deer, moose, 

beavers, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, other rodents, and bats are dominant mammal species. 

Common bird species include jays, starlings, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, pileated and redheaded woodpeckers, and waterfowl such as Canada geese, mallards, wood ducks, heron, and 

loons. Birds of prey include bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, ospreys, and great horned and snowy 

owls (Runesson 2007). 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

In March 1967, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) as threatened within the State of Minnesota on the Federal Endangered Species List. 

The gray wolf (also referred to as the timber wolf) is native to northern Minnesota and the 

surrounding region. The gray wolf was delisted and its status changed to recovered on March 12, 

2007, in the Western Great Lakes region, which includes all of Minnesota (USFWS, 2008), 

however it was relisted as threatened in Minnesota in a Federal Court settlement on September 

16, 2009 (USFWS 2009). The gray wolf is widespread throughout northern Minnesota. It is an 

opportunistic predator and is mostly limited by availability of its primary prey species, whitetailed deer and moose. Aggressive past trapping, hunting, and poisoning campaigns reduced the 

U.S. wolf population to near extinction by the middle of the 20th century. 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), listed as threatened in 2000, is known to occur on the Superior 

National Forest (USFS 2004a). The distribution of the Canada lynx closely follows the 

distribution of its main food, the snowshoe hare, which inhabits boreal forests. Thus, lynx 

formerly lived in most forested areas of north-central and northeastern North America, and 

extended south along the Rocky Mountains to central Colorado. Human actions, mainly 

overtrapping, have reduced lynx populations throughout much of the species' former range. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

42 

In 1978, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was listed under the Endangered Species Act 

as threatened in Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington, and endangered in 

the remainder of the conterminous United States (USFS 2004a). Although the species was 

officially removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species in 2007, it 

continues to be protected under the Migratory Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. 

Regional Forester Sensitive Species on the Superior National Forest include 29 animals and 49 

plants (USFS 2004, USFS 2008b). Regional Forester Sensitive Species are those species of 

highest viability concern on a national forest. It is possible that some of these species occur at or 

near the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory complex. 

On May 6, 2008, the NRS sent the USFWS a consultation letter, per Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. The letter requested information regarding any current federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, species of concern, or any other special status species that might occur in the 

project area, and, any designated critical habitats that may be present for these species. 

Additionally, the letter requested any information, issues, or concerns the USFWS may have 

regarding the proposed project. On October 7, 2008, Nick Rowse, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 

USFWS, replied that there no federally listed or proposed species in the project area (Appendix 

A). 

Wildlife Research 

Wildlife research, and in particular research on gray wolves, has been occurring at the Kawishiwi 

Field Laboratory since 1968, and is one of longest running continuous wildlife studies in the 

world. The research has been spearheaded by Dr. L. David Mech (originally under the purview of 

the USFWS and now under the USGS), and is rivaled in length only by another of Dr. Mech’s 

wolf research initiatives in Isle Royale, Michigan. The predecessor of the NRS, the North Central 

Forest Experiment Station, originally conducted its own research out of the laboratory in concert 

with other agencies, including the USFWS and University of Minnesota. 

Research at the site has focused on the gray wolf and on the wolf’s main prey, the white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Incidental research on the American marten (Martes Americana) 

and the Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) has also been conducted. Over the past 40 years, 

University of Minnesota research conducted in the Superior National Forest on moose (Alces 

alces), white-tailed deer, black bear (Ursus americanus), raven (Corvus coyax) and loon (Gavia 

immer) has been headquartered out of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, with several graduate 

students receiving master’s and doctoral degrees based on this research. Additional research 

collaborators who have conducted field research at the laboratory include Vermillion Community 

College (Ely, Minnesota), Macalester College (St. Paul, Minnesota), MDNR, IWC, USDA 

Wildlife Services, and the Superior National Forest. Field research based out of the Kawishiwi 

Field Laboratory has contributed to hundreds of published scientific articles, books, and 

monographs (Mech 2007). 

The research based out of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory was instrumental in developing early 

radio telemetry techniques for wildlife research. Radio telemetry continues to be a valuable 

contribution of the laboratory to regional and global wildlife conservation; scientists and wildlife 

managers from around the country and the world have been coming to the laboratory over the 

years to learn radio telemetry techniques. 
Environmental Assessment

43

Several attributes make the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory an ideal location as a staging area for 

research: (1) extensive accommodations in the form of sleeping, eating, and office facilities, 

storage areas, garage, and shop; (2) proximity to the central Superior National Forest and the 

BWCAW; (3) proximity to the community of Ely, (4) proximity to airport and seaplane bases, and 

(5) its status as the only suitable field research headquarters in Minnesota north of Duluth, east of 

Grand Rapids, and west of Grand Marais (Mech 2007). 

The USGS and the IWC have attributed the ongoing recovery of the gray wolf population, and 

the subsequent return of the wolves to Yellowstone National Park, to the research based at the 

laboratory. In addition, a separate wolf delisting proposal is proceeding in the West, and a 

controversial wolf reintroduction is underway in the Southwest. Information and trained 

personnel resulting from the wolf studies conducted out of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory are 

considered valuable to the Federal wolf programs currently being proposed or underway. The 

USGS and researchers currently at the Field Laboratory feel that the site remains the only suitable 

headquarters for staging the 5-year monitoring work and additional wolf research (Mech 2007). 

3.4.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

As there would be no new actions under alternative 1, there would be no new impacts on 

biological resources. Disposition of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings would not occur. It 

is likely that the current level of outdoor maintenance, for example, mowing the lawn around 

structures, would continue along with existing impacts on surrounding vegetation, such as 

trampling due to foot traffic. Animals inhabiting buildings, such as bats, rodents, and powder post 

beetles would continue to remain mostly undisturbed. Otherwise, wildlife would not be affected 

beyond current disturbance from human presence, and there would be no new effects on wildlife 

habitat. 

There would be negligible direct impacts to biological resources as a result of alternative 1, due to 

continued use of the laboratory buildings and grounds. Conversely, there would be indirect longterm, beneficial impacts to wildlife, especially to the gray wolf and Canada lynx, from the 

continued research pursuits which are headquartered from the laboratory. 

3.4.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Increased maintenance funds to upgrade building facilities in alternative 2 would primarily focus 

on the structures themselves, but it is likely that there would also be increased maintenance of the 

grounds surrounding the buildings. It is possible that vegetation would be trimmed or removed to 

prevent encroachment on structures, and lawns would continue to be mowed. Repeated 

disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during maintenance would 

cause damage to plants; however, the areas surrounding the buildings are considered disturbed, 

and any additional impacts would be minimal. 

Maintenance that would occur inside the buildings would impact only animals that inhabit the 

structures. It is likely that actions would take place to exclude bats and rodents and eliminate 

powder post beetles. Maintenance that would occur on the outside of the buildings may disturb or 

displace wildlife in the vicinity due to noise associated with work taking place and increased 

presence of humans and vehicles during renovation or other activities. However, maintenance 

activities would be temporary, albeit on a recurring basis over the long term. Wildlife habitat 

would not likely be altered or disturbed. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

44 

There would be long-term, minor, localized, adverse impacts to biological resources as a result of 

alternative 2 due to increased maintenance of buildings and grounds. Conversely, as under 

alternative 1, there would be indirect long-term, beneficial impacts to wildlife from the continued 

research pursuits which are headquartered from the laboratory. 

3.4.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

Impacts to biological resources from the transfer of ownership and management of the laboratory 

complex in alternative 3 are difficult to assess, as it is unknown who would purchase the property, 

what use they would make of it, or at what level they would maintain it. If the facility would be 

used in a manner similar to current use, and upgrades or renovations are made, then impacts may 

be similar to those described for alternative 2. If substantial renovations are made, then the 

impacts would also be similar to alternative 2, or greater as described in alternative 4. If the 

function of the facility would change, then impacts on wildlife and vegetation would differ, 

depending on type and extent of use. 

Impacts on biological resources as a result of alternative 3 could range from negligible to 

moderate, and would likely be long-term, localized and adverse, depending on types and levels of 

use with transfer of ownership and management. If research out of the site is discontinued, 

indirect, adverse, long-term, major impacts to wildlife could occur. 

3.4.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Under alternative 4, management of the laboratory facility would be transferred to another entity. 

It is likely that use would remain the same and that maintenance would increase from current 

levels, thus impacts would be similar to those described in alternative 2. However, it is also 

possible that substantial renovations could occur under new management. In this case, repeated 

disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during maintenance could 

cause damage to plants over a larger area. Work on the inside of the buildings would still have 

similar impacts on biological resources as alternative 2; however, work on the outside of the 

buildings could be more extensive, with longer periods of noise, human presence, and more 

vehicles or power tools. Such activity would disturb or displace wildlife in the vicinity for longer 

periods of time, but disturbance would still be temporary and wildlife would be expected to return 

after renovations or maintenance activities are completed. Disturbance of wildlife habitat would 

likely be negligible even with the possibility of grounds maintenance over a larger area than at 

present. 

Overall, there would be short-term, localized, negligible to minor, adverse impacts to biological 

resources as a result of the alternative 4 due to increased maintenance and possible substantial 

renovation of buildings and grounds. If research out of the site is discontinued, indirect, adverse, 

long-term, major impacts to wildlife could occur. 

3.4.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Relocation of the laboratory buildings under alternative 5 would entail the use of heavy 

machinery, trucks, and trailers to haul the buildings away. Dismantling and relocating the 

buildings would necessitate removal of plants surrounding the buildings, primarily lawn grasses 

but also trees or shrubs that occur very close to the structures. Repeated disturbance of vegetation 

from vehicle passes during this process in areas where plants are not cleared would cause damage 

to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat. However, the majority of disturbance would occur 

in previously disturbed areas, thus adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon 
Environmental Assessment

45

removal of buildings, all disturbed areas would be reseeded or revegetated and erosion control 

BMPs would be maintained until the vegetation is fully reestablished. 

The activity and noise generated during dismantling and relocating the buildings would cause 

temporary displacement and disturbance of resident wildlife for the duration of the project. 

Species are expected to return to the area after relocation is completed. The disturbed nature of 

the area surrounding the buildings does not currently provide quality wildlife habitat; however, 

relocation activities may disturb or destroy any habitat that is being used. Furthermore, areas 

surrounding the project site could provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily 

lost. Revegetation or natural reclamation of the laboratory complex upon removal of the 

structures would be beneficial as it would provide new wildlife habitat. Animals that currently 

live inside the structures would be displaced or killed. 

There would be temporary, localized, adverse impacts to biological resources as a result of 

alternative 5, due to habitat disturbance during the location activities, and beneficial long-term 

impacts due to revegetation or reclamation of the area. Under this alternative, wildlife research 

headquartered out of the laboratory would be discontinued. As a result, indirect, adverse, longterm, major impacts to wildlife could occur. 

3.4.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Demolition of the laboratory buildings on-site would have effects similar to those described in 

alternative 5, with adverse effects from demolition activities and beneficial effects from possible 

revegetation or natural reclamation of the site. Additionally, there would be impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife from fugitive dust generated by demolition of buildings. Dust could cover, choke out, 

or kill surrounding vegetation. It could also have detrimental health effects on resident wildlife. 

However, fugitive dust would only be generated temporarily during demolition, and it is likely 

that animals would flee the area while there is increased human activity and noise and possibly 

avoid the majority of the dust. 

There would be temporary, localized, negligible to minor, adverse impacts to biological resources 

as a result of alternative 6 due to disturbance and destruction during structure demolition, and 

long-term, beneficial impacts due to revegetation or reclamation of the area. Similar to alternative 

5, wildlife research headquartered out of the laboratory would be discontinued under this 

alternative. As a result, indirect, adverse, long-term, major impacts to wildlife could occur. 

3.5 Land Use 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is located in Lake County, approximately twelve miles southeast 

of Ely, on the eastern bank of the South Kawishiwi River. The field laboratory is located on 

Superior National Forest land. The Superior National Forest manages approximately two-thirds of 

the 3.9 million acres within its boundaries. Thus, forested land comprises most of this area. 

Wetlands, lakes, and rivers also are present. Roads, utility corridors, residences, resorts, and 

pastures account for one percent of land uses in the Superior National Forest area (USFS 2004a). 

The Superior National Forest owns 58 percent of land in Lake County. Other Lake County 

ownership is private (16 percent), county (14 percent), and state (12 percent). Thirty-seven 

percent of the Federal land at the Superior National Forest is classified as wilderness (USFS 

2004a). Recreation and natural resource extraction are major activities in the forest. In the 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

46 

southwestern part of Superior National Forest, iron mining is major employer. Timber is the lead 

industry in the southeastern part of the Superior National Forest. The lead industry in the northern 

and eastern parts of Superior National Forest is recreation. Recreational opportunities include 

water recreation, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing. Hiking, hunting, fishing, biking, and nature 

studying are other activities enjoyed at Superior National Forest (USFS 2004a). In 2000, Superior 

National Forest received 4 million visits (USFS 2004b). The BWCAW (part of the Superior 

National Forest) is approximately one million acres in extent, and hosts almost 300,000 visits 

annually (USFS 2004a). The BWCAW is 4 miles to the north of the field laboratory. 

While the Superior National Forest owns the land of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site, NRS 

owns and manages the buildings. For the past 40 years, the field laboratory has been used for 

research by various groups. NRS discontinued conducting research out of the field laboratory in 

the 1980s. Currently, USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is the sole tenant at the 

field laboratory. 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is an active research laboratory. Many features of its location 

make the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory desirable for research. One is its extensive 

accommodations (sleeping, eating, office facilities, storage areas, garage, and shop). Additional 

research-conducive characteristics of the field laboratory are its proximity to the central part of 

Superior National Forest and BWCAW, the community of Ely, and the airport and seaplane bases; 

and its status as the only suitable field research headquarters in northern Minnesota north of 

Duluth, east of Grand Rapids, and west of Grand Marais (Mech 2007). Ely is also the 

headquarters for the IWC, which participates in research at the field laboratory. A description of 

research conducted at the field laboratory can be found in Section 3.4.1. 

3.5.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, the field laboratory buildings would continue to deteriorate from 

lack of maintenance and rehabilitation. This would represent no change from the current use and 

maintenance schedule. Until the buildings become unusable or research needs stop, the buildings 

would continue to be used for research, which is compatible with the land uses at the Superior 

National Forest that surrounds the field laboratory. Eventually, research use of the field laboratory 

may be limited by the lack of maintenance and repair. 

After the buildings deteriorate beyond use, NRS would be faced with structural disposition 

responsibilities and the Superior National Forest would determine the use of the land. Based on 

current activities in the forest, the future use could be anything from recreation to logging. The 

future use would be compatible with the forest management plan, other regulations/laws, and 

special use permits. Until building deterioration has occurred, alternative 1 would have no impact 

on land use. Following building deterioration or abandonment of research interests at the site, the 

long-term impacts would be negligible. 

3.5.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

The increase of maintenance funds under alternative 2 would result in the rehabilitation and 

maintenance of the buildings. This would represent an improvement in the quality of the field 

laboratory buildings. Under this alternative, the site would continue to be used for research. This 

represents no change from the current land use, which is compatible with the surrounding land 

uses at the Superior National Forest. Research at the field laboratory would be able to continue 

without being restricted by buildings becoming unusable. The reallocation of funds from other 

NRS program(s) and site(s) in order to increase the funds available to the Kawishiwi Field 
Environmental Assessment

47

Laboratory buildings could lead to a change in land use at that (those) location(s). Until the 

determination of how the funds would be reallocated, the impacts to the site(s) and program(s) 

receiving reduced funds are unknown. The impacts to land use at the field laboratory under 

alternative 2 are expected to be negligible for both the short and long term. 

3.5.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

The transfer of ownership and management of the buildings, alternative 3, could represent a 

change in land use depending on the entity that assumes the ownership and management of the 

field laboratory, and its plans for the buildings. The use of the field laboratory by the MCC for 

hands-on environmental stewardship, service-learning opportunities to youth and young adults, 

cost-effective conservation, natural resource management projects, and emergency response work 

would be compatible with the surrounding land uses as it is similar to the current uses of the 

project area and compatible with the Forest Service direction. Continuing the field laboratory as a 

research facility is continuing the current land use but under different ownership/management, 

which would be compatible with the surrounding land uses of Superior National Forest. 

Converting the field laboratory buildings to a rustic ecoresort where the cabins could be rented, or 

made into private homesteads, would represent a change in land use from research, but would still 

be compatible with the land uses in the vicinity of the area, which includes both homesteads and 

recreational activities. Since the Superior National Forest would continue to own the land where 

the field laboratory is located, access to and use of the buildings by a new owner would require a 

Special Use Permit. This would enable Superior National Forest to ensure that the uses of the 

buildings would be compatible with the surrounding land uses of the forest. Regardless of who 

obtains ownership and maintenance of the buildings, many different types of landowners exist in 

the project area (state, Federal, and private); thus, the transfer of ownership and maintenance of 

the buildings away from a Federal agency would not represent an incompatible change in 

ownership with the area surrounding the field laboratory. Any reuse plans for the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory buildings would require approval by the Superior National Forest. If any Superior 

National Forest-approved site upgrades were to occur in the future, the Lake County Planning and 

Zoning Office, located in Two Harbors, Minnesota, should be contacted regarding the 

requirements relating to building setbacks, removal, construction, etc. The overall temporary and 

long-term impacts to land use from implementing this alternative are beneficial, localized, and 

minor. 

3.5.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Transferring management of the buildings would be similar to alternative 3 in that possible future 

land uses would be the same under both alternatives. The difference in this alternative would be 

that NRS would retain ownership of the buildings. Regardless of who obtains management of the 

buildings, many different types of activities occur in the project area (state, Federal, and private); 

thus, transfer of the management of the buildings away from a Federal agency would not conflict 

with surrounding land uses. A Special Use Permit from the Superior National Forest may also be 

required for use of the buildings under this alternative, as in alternative 3. Since ownership of the 

buildings would not substantially alter the activities that are being proposed under this alternative 

compared to those being proposed under alternative 3, the impacts under alternative 4 are the 

same as alternative 3, described above. Therefore, the temporary and long-term impacts to land 

use from implementing this alternative would be beneficial, localized, and minor. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

48 

3.5.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Relocation of the buildings would represent a change in land use where the field laboratory is 

currently located. The exception would be if research would continue once the field laboratory 

buildings are removed, which is unlikely to occur to the same degree without the benefit of 

support structures being located onsite. The relocated buildings could also represent a change in 

land use at their new location. The type of land use impacts, and the resultant natural resource 

impacts, would depend on the current land use of the final destination of the buildings, which is 

unknown at this time. 

Once the buildings are removed, uses of the land currently occupied by the field laboratory would 

depend on the Superior National Forest. The future use would be compatible with the forest 

management plan, other regulations and laws, and Special Use Permits. Future use of the land 

where the field laboratory is currently located would be expected to be compatible with the 

current land uses surrounding the project area, and. could be anything from timber harvesting to 

recreation based on current Superior National Forest activities. 

There has been a renewed interest in mining in the Kawishiwi area for gold, copper, nickel, silver, 

platinum, and palladium. Several mining claims lie within the vicinity (1⁄2 to 1⁄4 mile) of the field 

laboratory. Three relatively large mines (NorthMet, Birch Lake, and Mesaba) either just opened 

or are currently proposed to open in the project vicinity. The mines are situated near the town of 

Babbitt, along a northeast-to-southwest running line from Birch Lake, a widening of the South 

Kawishiwi River, to the north, and the town of Hoyt Lakes to the south. There has been some 

concern that relocation of the buildings would free up the land underlying the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory to mining interests. Under this alternative, the future reuse of the land is the discretion 

of the Superior National Forest, with appropriate public input. There is no known connection 

between mining interests and the project site. 

Impacts from the change in land use where the field laboratory buildings are currently located are 

likely to be minimal relative to the over two million acres of land the Superior National Forest 

manages. Temporary impacts to land use from implementing this alternative would be adverse, 

minor, and localized. Long-term impacts are not known, as the Superior National Forest has not 

indicated what the future land use may be. 

3.5.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Demolition of the buildings would represent a change in land use, as the research currently 

conducted from the site would most likely not continue to the same degree without the buildings. 

Once the buildings are removed, the uses of the land currently occupied by the field laboratory 

would be at the discretion of the Superior National Forest, with appropriate public input. Future 

use of the land on which the field laboratory is currently located would be expected to be 

compatible with the current land uses surrounding the project area, and could be anything from 

timber harvesting to recreation based on current Superior National Forest activities. There is no 

known connection between mining interests and the project site, so mining does not appear to be 

a likely future use of the site at this time. 

Overall impacts from this alternative would be the same as described under alternative 5; 

temporary impacts to land use from implementing this alternative would be adverse, minor, and 

localized. The long-term impacts are not known, as the Superior National Forest has not indicated 

what the future land use may be. 
Environmental Assessment

49

3.6 Cultural Resources 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

The Kawishiwi River area was inhabited by the Sioux and then the Chippewa Indians, and later, 

by the French Canadian voyageurs, or canoeists employed by fur companies. By the time the first 

of the fur traders (during the 18th century) entered the region, the Chippewa Indians had moved 

into the region from the east, moving the Sioux Indians farther west to the Plains. The tribal 

reservation nearest the project area is the Bois Forte Indian Reservation, formed for the Bois 

Forte Band of Chippewa, which is located more than 60 miles to the west. 

Cultural and historic resources are protected by a variety of laws and regulations, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations (36 CFR 

800) outline the procedures to be followed in the documentation, evaluation, and mitigation of 

impacts on cultural resources. The Section 106 process applies to any Federal undertaking that 

has the potential to affect cultural resources. 

The Minnesota Historical Society is the state agency charged with safeguarding Minnesota’s 

historic buildings and sites. Minnesota’s State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) administers 

over 7,000 historic properties included on the National Register of Historic Places, with 95 of 

these located within Lake County. The historical properties in Lake County are primarily located 

at the Gooseberry Falls State Park (which has 31 contributing historical log and stone 

buildings/structures built by CCC workers, featuring designs executed by Italian stonemasons in 

locally quarried granite); at Tettegouche Camp Historic District (which has 11 contributing 

historic rustic-style log and half-log buildings remaining from a private sport and recreation club 

established circa 1910 by group of Duluth businessmen); and, at the Isabella Ranger Station 

(which has 13 contributing historic rustic-style log residences and outbuildings built in 1934–35 

by CCC workers for the USFS) (MHS 2008). 

The CCC, created in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt to help reduce unemployment during the Great 

Depression, was very active in Minnesota. The CCC hired men ages 18–25 and provided training 

and employment opportunities. CCC enrollees at the Superior National Forest were involved with 

reforestation; fighting fires; reversing soil erosion; and construction of fire towers, recreational 

buildings, administrative centers, and ranger dwellings. Included in these construction projects 

were the log buildings constructed at Tofte Ranger Station, Isabella Ranger Station, Halfway 

Ranger Station, and the South Kawishiwi River Community Building. It is thought that some or 

all of CCC companies 701, 704, 711, 1720, 1721, and 3703 may have participated in constructing 

the original buildings at the Halfway Ranger Station, which is now the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory (SNFHRP 2007). 

The CCC constructed seven log buildings and one poured-concrete cellar at the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory. Locally experienced men, local craftsmen hired by the CCC to provide expertise in 

various building trades, guided the CCC enrollees in constructing these structures. Emil Neimi, 

Ed Salo, and Urho Charles Salimen were locally experienced men thought to be hired to work on 

the project site structures. They directed the project and were responsible for fitting the logs. All 

of the materials for the log buildings were from the local area; the logs (from both softwood pines 

and hardwood quaking aspen) were harvested from within the Superior National Forest, and the 

granite for the fireplaces and chimneys was quarried just outside of Ely, in a now defunct quarry. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

50 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory log buildings were constructed of horizontally laid wood logs. 

The logs were left round and unhewn, except for the groove incised on the bottom of each log to 

fir over the log below. As a result, no chinking mortar was required between logs. Only oakum 

caulking was used between the logs to produce a weather-tight joint. The logs are saddle-notched 

at the corners and extend beyond the wall planes, terminating in chiseled points. All windows are 

sliding sash and the doors were constructed from wood boards. All of the woodwork was stained 

a reddish-brown color (SNFHRP 2007). 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory log buildings are an example of Rustic/Adirondack Style 

architecture; buildings which blend in with the natural environment. The seven 

Rustic/Adirondack Style log cabins onsite were built by the CCC in 1934 and 1935. Each of these 

log structures (Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge, Pump House, Oil House, Outhouse/Sauna, District 

Office/Wolf Cabin, Warehouse/Garage, and Boathouse) is considered to contribute to the historic 

fabric of the HRSHD (Ferguson 2009). 

For the most part, no major renovations have been made to the log buildings (see Figure 3-4). Of 

particular note, the former Ranger’s Dwelling (now referred to as the Ranger Dwelling/Main 

Lodge) is identical to the Rangers’Dwellings at the Tofte and Isabella Ranger Stations. In contrast 

to the Rangers’ Dwellings at the Tofte and Isabella Ranger Stations, however, the Ranger 

Dwelling/Main Lodge on the project site has many original intact interior fixtures and finishes, 

including the original bead board 

ceilings, original light fixtures, and 

original plumbing fixtures (SNFHRP 

2007). 

In addition to the seven log buildings 

on site, there is a stand-alone 

underground concrete cellar poured by 

the CCC at the site, and a balloonframed residence. The concrete cellar 

was constructed around 1934, and may 

have been used for food or seedling 

storage. The balloon-framed residence, 

referred to as the LSFES

Dwelling/Bunkhouse, was built in 1931 

with funds from Herbert Hoover’s 

Public Works Administration. The 

balloon-framed structure is the oldest 

remaining administrative building in 

the Superior National Forest, and the 

first to have an indoor bathroom. The 

bathroom reportedly attracted a lot of 

attention from the surrounding 

community, as Ely gets quite cold 

during the winter and it was a novelty 

to not have to go to the outhouse. 

Another important feature is the 

building style which was typical of the 

era in which it was built; it was an early 

light-framed structure. 

Figure 3-4. Ranger Dwelling (top 1934, bottom 2006)
Environmental Assessment

51

Staff of the Superior National Forest’s Heritage Resources Program has completed an evaluation 

of each of the nine original buildings on site and considers the buildings eligible for inclusion on 

the National Register of Historic Places under criteria A and C. Criterion A states that a property 

must be associated with a historic event at a local, state, or national level. Criterion C states that a 

property must be an example of an architectural style, period, method of construction, or the 

work of a known master craft-person or designer. Specifically, Superior National Forest staff 

believes that the site meets criterion A at the national level, because it is associated with two 

historically significant initiatives of the Federal Government: 1) Management of public lands, 

and 2) New Deal Era programs. The staff also believes that the site meets criterion C because 

seven of its buildings are intact examples of the Rustic/Adirondack design used by government 

land management agencies for constructing their administrative buildings during the first half of 

the 20th century (SNFHRP 2007). 

As per National Historic Preservation Act requirements, consultation with the Minnesota SHPO 

has been initiated. This formal consultation process, called the Section 106 Review process, takes 

its name from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which set up a 

review process through the states to assure state-level review of Federal projects that may 

adversely impact historic properties. Minnesota’s SHPO has responded to consultation letters, and 

has indicated that the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory site meets the criteria of the National Register 

of Historic Places as a historic district. The SHPO requested a delineation of the boundaries of the 

historic district. This delineation was completed in 2009. 

3.6.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, the No Action alternative, the buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

would likely continue to deteriorate in condition without adequate restoration or maintenance 

funds, as discussed under section 2.2. The long-term effects of this deterioration would be 

structural failure and eventual degradation and loss beyond repair of the buildings. 

The site buildings that contribute to the site’s eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places are unique in several ways. Although similar log buildings can be found at the 

Tofte and Isabella Ranger Stations, the former Ranger’s Dwelling at Kawishiwi has many original 

intact interior fixtures and finishes, as previously noted. Additionally, the LSFES 

Dwelling/Bunkhouse building is unique to the Kawishiwi site, and is believed to be the oldest 

remaining administrative building on the Superior National Forest (Ferguson 2009). The loss of 

this historic district through neglect would constitute a long-term, adverse, potentially significant 

impact on cultural resources. 

3.6.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, maintenance funds of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory buildings would be 

increased in order to adequately rehabilitate and maintain the buildings. Current use of the 

buildings would continue. This would result in a marked long-term, major beneficial impact to 

the historic properties located on site. Impacts would be even more beneficial if the historic 

district is officially nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places so that 

maintenance specific to the historic requirements of the site can be agreed upon with the SHPO. 

3.6.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, transfer of ownership and management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings, the NRS would be transferring historic properties eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places, out of NRS and possibly out of Federal control. This transfer of 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

52 

control in and of itself may constitute an adverse effect on cultural and historic resources of 

significance, as per 36 CFR Part 800.5. However, with proper coordination with SHPO, these 

impacts could be partially mitigated and the resultant adverse impacts would be less than 

significant. 

Any deed agreement between NRS and the entity willing and able to assume ownership and 

management of the buildings would include stipulations regarding the maintenance and 

preservation of the buildings as historic structures and maintenance of the site as a historic 

district. Coordination involving SHPO would form the backbone of developing these stipulations. 

The NRS would notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of its actions, so it has an 

opportunity to participate in developing maintenance and preservation stipulations and advise the 

NRS of additional recommended courses of action to ensure that impacts to cultural resources are 

mitigated to the extent possible. 

3.6.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would involve only a transfer of management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings to another entity. Any lease agreement between NRS and the entity willing and able to 

assume management of the buildings would include stipulations regarding the maintenance and 

preservation of the buildings as historic structures and maintenance of the site as a historic 

district. Coordination involving SHPO would form the backbone of developing these stipulations. 

SHPO has previously indicated its support for an alternative similar to this (see Appendix A). 

Impacts of this alternative to cultural resources would be long-term and beneficial. 

3.6.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Under alternative 5, some or all of the buildings that are able to be disassembled and moved 

would be relocated. Before disassembly, the original setting and context of the site would be 

documented. Consultation and coordination with the SHPO would determine additional

requirements. In terms of historical significance, the fact that the buildings were built on the site 

is significant, as well as how the buildings relate to the use of the site. Relocation of the buildings 

would irreversibly damage their historical significance. However, the location of the buildings is 

not the only criterion that was used to establish their historical significance; moving the buildings 

offsite would not detract from the historical significance of the craftsmanship of the individual 

buildings, although it would still be recognized as a loss by the historical preservation 

community. Keeping the buildings together and within the Ely region would help to mitigate 

some, but not all of the historical losses. Overall impacts to cultural resources from the relocation 

of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory structures would be long-term, adverse, and major. 

Disassembly of the buildings under alternative 5 would require excavation to remove the building 

foundations and basements. Should any item of potential archaeological significance be 

discovered during these ground-disturbing activities, the SHPO would be notified immediately. If 

any historically or culturally significant materials or artifacts were unearthed, activities would 

halt immediately and not resume until consultation with the SHPO was complete, in accordance 

with 36 CFR 800.13. 

3.6.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 6 would involve the demolition or abandonment in place of all of the buildings at the 

Kawishiwi Field Laboratory. Prior to any demolition activities, all site details and historically 
Environmental Assessment

53

significant structures would be extensively documented in accordance with Library of Congress 

HABS/HAER/HALS standards. 

The permanent loss of the structures at the laboratory cannot be fully mitigated. Their demolition 

would represent a long-term, adverse impact on cultural resources. The significance of this 

impact, however, would be mitigated by extensive documentation of the site’s buildings and 

landscape. 

3.7 Waste and Hazardous Material Management 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory utilize septic fields for wastewater treatment. 

Municipal solid waste and any hazardous waste that is generated at the site is collected and 

disposed of in accordance with regulations promulgated by the MPCA. 

Chemicals used in the routine research activities at the laboratory likely include fixatives and 

preservatives, solvents, lubricants, fuels, cleaners, and degreasers. Additionally, some of the site 

buildings likely have construction materials, particularly insulation, which contain asbestos 

containing material (ACM) and lead. The attic of the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge also suffers 

from a bat infestation. Bat guano is a biohazardous material, and is particularly dangerous when it 

becomes dried and airborne (Dunn 1997). 

The Lake County Solid Waste Department is responsible for all solid waste activities within Lake 

County, and owns and operates a demolition landfill near the Castle Danger area in Silver Creek 

Township. This landfill is an unlined landfill, and there is a specific list of materials accepted at 

the facility, including a very restricted list of industrial waste and asbestos (as well as ACM). 

Lake County also owns and operates a full service recycling facility located within the City of 

Two Harbors on Recycle Center Drive, in addition to providing a program for disposing of 

hazardous waste. 

The Superior National Forest is responsible for management of wastes on its lands. The forest has 

a “Green Team,” which is a group of employees who work to promote sustainability in the forest, 

while reducing waste and increasing recycling opportunities. 

3.7.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, waste generation, collection, and disposal would continue 

according to current practices. No increase in waste generated at the site is predicted, and 

hazardous materials present at the site would remain at the site. There would be no impact to 

either waste management or hazardous materials management from this alternative. 

3.7.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Alternative 2, the increase of building maintenance funds, would not cause any change in the 

amount of municipal solid waste generated at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory, or the manner in 

which the waste is collected. However, the increased building funds would be used to ensure that 

the bat and rodent infestation in the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge is eradicated and that the bat 

guano in the dwelling is abated according to state and Federal regulations. In addition, any lead, 

or friable or exposed ACM, would be abated from the site. Although these actions would result in 

an increase in items to be disposed of in the area’s landfill and hazardous waste facility, this 

would only constitute a temporary, minor, adverse impact to localized waste management. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

54 

3.7.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would involve the transfer of both ownership and management of the Kawishiwi 

Field Laboratory buildings to another entity. It is likely that the new entity assuming 

responsibility for the buildings would eradicate the bat and rodent infestation in the Ranger 

Dwelling/Main Lodge and abate the bat guano in the dwelling, according to state and Federal 

regulations. In addition, the entity may choose to abate any lead, or friable or exposed ACM, from 

the site. As under alternative 2, these actions would result in an increase in items to be disposed of 

in the area’s landfill and hazardous waste facility. However, this increase is only anticipated to 

constitute a temporary, minor, adverse impact to localized waste management. 

3.7.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Under alternative 4, the same impacts can be anticipated as discussed under alternative 3. 

Following the transfer of management of the field laboratory buildings to another entity, that 

entity would assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the buildings. It is likely that the 

new entity assuming management responsibility for the buildings would eradicate the bat and 

rodent infestation in the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge and abate the bat guano in the dwelling, 

according to state and Federal regulations. In addition, the entity may choose to abate any lead, or 

friable or exposed ACM, from the site. As under alternatives 2 and 3, these actions would result in 

an increase in items to be disposed of in the area’s landfill and hazardous waste facility. However, 

this increase is only anticipated to constitute a temporary, localized, minor, adverse impact to 

waste management. 

3.7.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Relocation of the field laboratory buildings under alternative 5 would include disassembly of the 

structures to be relocated, and demolition or abandonment in place of the remaining structures. 

Prior to disassembly or demolition of all buildings at the field laboratory, a survey would be 

conducted by the NRS and the entity assuming ownership of the buildings. Each building would 

be characterized with respect to the presence, location, and condition of all asbestos materials, 

ACM, lead materials, and any and all hazardous and biohazardous materials. These materials 

would all be abated and disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and Federal regulations 

and law, prior to the commencement of relocation or demolition activities. 

If rotten and unusable logs are found during disassembly of the structures to be relocated, these 

logs would be disposed of for recycling, in addition to any and all materials not desired by the 

entity assuming ownership of the buildings at their new location. Any demolition activities would 

also generate considerable amounts of demolition debris. 

Recycling and/or reuse of all discarded materials would be encouraged whenever possible. Any 

non-hazardous construction debris or other solid waste that cannot be reused or recycled is 

anticipated to be disposed of by a contractor at the Lake County landfill. Provided all personnel 

follow applicable guidelines, impacts from the management of waste and hazardous materials 

would be short-term, adverse, and minor. 

3.7.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Demolition of all site structures under alternative 6 would generate a considerable amount of 

demolition debris. As under alternative 5, NRS would conduct a survey prior to demolition of the 

buildings at the field laboratory. Each building would be characterized with respect to the 

presence, location, and condition of all asbestos materials, ACM, lead materials, and any and all 
Environmental Assessment

55

hazardous and biohazardous materials. These materials would all be abated and disposed of in 

accordance with all local, state, and Federal regulations and law, prior to the commencement of 

demolition activities. 

Demolition is anticipated to be carried out in a step-by-step fashion, so that all materials can be 

separated and classified according to their reuse, recycling, or waste disposal potential and 

categorization. Recycling and/or reuse of all discarded materials would be encouraged whenever 

possible. Any non-hazardous construction debris or other solid waste that cannot be reused or 

recycled is anticipated to be disposed of by a contractor at the Lake County landfill. Overall 

impacts from the management of waste and hazardous materials would be short-term, adverse, 

and minor. 

3.8 Human Health and Safety 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

The primary human health and safety concern at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is the exposure 

of visitors and long-term researchers to the current building conditions. Structural conditions of 

the existing buildings were rated from good to poor in a building survey conducted over 10 years 

ago (Dunn 1997), and some of the buildings have insect, bat, and rat infestations. Additionally, 

the buildings are not up to current fire protection codes and some of the buildings likely have 

construction materials, particularly insulation, which contain ACM. 

During the building survey, the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge was listed in generally fair 

structural condition (Dunn 1997). The majority of the researches who utilize the Kawishiwi Field 

Laboratory site reside in this building during research periods. Many components of the structure 

are worn and require repair, however none of these components is considered likely to lead to 

structural failure in the near future. Bat infestation has occurred in the attic of the building, and as 

a result poses a great risk to the health of inhabitants. Bat guano is a biohazardous material, and is 

particularly dangerous when it becomes dried and airborne. Bat-cave disease is a possibility if the 

infestation is not addressed in a timely and effective manner, which would include removing the 

bats, disposing of contaminated building materials, and sealing potential points of entry (Dunn 

1997). In addition to bats, the building has a history of rat infestation. 

The District Office/Wolf Cabin was listed in fair structural condition. However, there is no usable 

indoor plumbing or heat. This facility is infrequently used by the staff, but when in use, space 

heaters are often placed in the building to provide heat. In addition to an active powder post 

beetle infestation, a number of structural repairs are needed, including new roof shingles, 

plumbing repairs, and a new front entry porch (Dunn 1997). Powder post beetles are dry-woodeating insects. Damage is caused by the beetles tunneling in the wood. Professional extermination 

of the beetles and their larvae is recommended (Dunn 1997). 

The LSFES Dwelling/Bunkhouse was listed in good structural condition during the building 

survey, and had not been impacted by a powder post beetle infestation. It is a residential building 

in year-round use by the USGS lead researcher at the laboratory. 

The Pump House was also considered to be in generally good structural condition. However, the 

structure suffers from a powder post beetle infestation. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

56 

The Warehouse/Garage was listed to be in generally fair to good structural condition. The 

building suffers from an active powder post beetle infestation, and the front side logs need to be 

replaced (Dunn 1997). 

The Cellar appeared to be in good structural condition. During the building survey, a great deal of 

interior condensation was observed on the walls. 

The Outhouse was listed as badly deteriorated, and repairs would include either partial or 

complete restoration of the structure. Building surveys showed signs of advanced insect 

infestation. 

The Oil House was listed in poor structural condition. The building has suffered extensive insect 

infestation, and large piles of frass, or insect fecal pellets, were observed on the inside of the 

structure during the building survey. Additionally, the roof shingles and flashing need to be 

replaced (Dunn 1997). 

The Boathouse was listed in fair structural condition. The building suffers from an active powder 

post beetle infestation. 

The three buildings at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory not considered historically significant: the 

office, insectary, and second outhouse, were not part of the building survey conducted in 1997. 

The office appears to be in good overall condition, and is actively used as both an office and a 

laboratory. The insectary and second outhouse are both in very poor condition and are structurally 

unsound; these buildings are not used. 

3.8.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, current uses of the field laboratory buildings would continue and the 

buildings would continue to deteriorate without adequate rehabilitation and maintenance funds. 

Any and all structurally unsound buildings pose a substantial safety risk to building occupants. 

Additionally, the lack of a fire warning system and fire extinguishing system in the site buildings 

presents another substantial safety risk, as the buildings are generally constructed of old wood, 

which is readily combustible. This is particularly worrisome for the researchers, students, and site 

visitors who utilize the District Office/Wolf Cabin and other buildings where space heaters are 

used. 

In addition to structural integrity and fire risk issues, researchers, students, and site visitors who 

utilize the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge could potentially be exposed to asbestos, ACM, lead, bat 

guano, and rodents. It is probable that some or all of these materials are present in other site 

buildings as well, although possibly not to the extent found at the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge. 

The overall human health and safety impacts arising from the No Action alternative to building 

occupants and visitors at the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory would be long-term, adverse, localized, 

and major. 

3.8.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, increased maintenance funds for the rehabilitation and needed maintenance 

of the field laboratory buildings would address many of the issues of concern to human health and 

safety: the structural integrity of the buildings, fire risk issues, and the presence of asbestos, 

ACM, lead, bat guano, and rodents. Although all of these issues would not be able to be 
Environmental Assessment

57

addressed immediately or completely, it is anticipated that impacts to the human health and safety 

of building occupants and visitors would be long-term, beneficial, localized, and moderate. 

3.8.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

Alternative 3, the transfer of both ownership and management of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

buildings to another entity, is likely to result in impacts similar to those discussed under 

alternative 2. It is likely that the new entity assuming responsibility for the buildings would 

choose to install fire warning systems and protection measures in the buildings, eradicate the bat 

and rodent infestation in the Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge and abate the bat guano in the 

dwelling, and abate any lead or friable or exposed ACM from the site. Human health and safety 

impacts from this alternative on future building occupants would be long-term, beneficial, 

localized, and minor to major, depending on the extent of building upgrades. 

3.8.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

Under alternative 4, the same impacts can be anticipated as discussed under alternative 3. 

Following transfer of management of the field laboratory buildings to another entity, that entity 

would assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the buildings. It is likely that the new 

entity assuming management responsibility for the buildings would choose to install fire warning 

systems and protection measures in the buildings, eradicate the bat and rodent infestation in the 

Ranger Dwelling/Main Lodge and abate the bat guano in the dwelling, and abate any lead or 

friable or exposed ACM from the site. Human health and safety impacts from this alternative on 

future building occupants would be long-term, beneficial, localized, and minor to major, 

depending on the extent of building upgrades. 

3.8.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Relocation of the field laboratory buildings under alternative 5 would include disassembly of the 

structures to be relocated, and demolition or abandonment in place of the remaining structures. 

Prior to disassembly or demolition of all buildings at the field laboratory, a survey would be 

conducted by the NRS and the entity assuming ownership of the buildings. Each building would 

be characterized with respect to the presence, location, and condition of all asbestos materials, 

ACM, lead materials, and any and all hazardous and biohazardous materials. All these materials 

would be abated and disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and Federal regulations and 

law, prior to the commencement of relocation or demolition activities. If rotten and unusable logs 

are found during disassembly of the structures to be relocated, these logs would be replaced with 

new, structurally sound logs. 

The worker safety program requirements applicable at the project site during project relocation 

and demolition activities would include the “construction” and “general industry” standards of the 

Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910 and 1926. These 

standards include hazardous materials management and handling, walking-working surfaces, 

operation of power equipment, adequate ventilation, noise exposure controls, fire protection, and 

electrical equipment safeguards. Because of the level and duration of project activities, the 

impacts to human health of both site workers and the public can be expected to be temporary, 

minor, adverse, and localized. Following applicable mitigation measures and BMPs will reduce 

the adverse impacts to human health even further. The long-term impacts of alternative 5 on 

human health and safety following completion of site activities would be beneficial and moderate. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

58 

3.8.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

The demolition of all field laboratory buildings under alternative 6 would have similar impacts to 

human health and safety as discussed under alternative 5. Prior to demolition of all buildings at 

the field laboratory, NRS would conduct a survey to characterize each building with respect to the 

presence, location, and condition of all asbestos materials, ACM, lead materials, and any and all 

hazardous and biohazardous materials. These materials would be abated and disposed of in 

accordance with all local, state, and Federal regulations and law, prior to the commencement of 

demolition activities. 

The worker safety program requirements applicable at the project site during project demolition 

activities would include OSHA’s “construction” and “general industry” standards. Because of the 

level and duration of project activities, impacts to human health of both site workers and the 

public can be expected to be temporary, minor, adverse, and localized. Following the mitigation 

measures and BMPs will reduce the adverse impacts to human health even further. The long-term 

impacts of alternative 6 on human health and safety following completion of site activities would 

be beneficial and moderate. 

3.9 Socioeconomics 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The Kawishiwi Field Laboratory is located in Lake County, completely within the boundaries of 

the Superior National Forest. The city of Ely, Minnesota, is the closest municipality to the field 

laboratory. The area is located in the Vermillion Iron Range, which was historically home to 

several iron ore mines. Today, Ely and its immediate environs are better known as the gateway to 

the BWCAW and home to the IWC, and rely heavily on income related to recreation and tourism. 

The 2006 population estimate for Lake County, Minnesota, was 10,966 people, which is a 5.29 

percent increase from the 1990 levels (USCB 2008, USCB 1990a). Ely, which is located in 

adjacent St. Louis County, had 3,724 people in 2000, which is a 6.15 percent decrease from the 

1990 levels (USCB 1990b, USCB 2000a). The percent of residents below poverty was 7.7 in 

Lake County in 2004 (USCB 2008, USCB 2000a). 

In 2006, Lake County had 7,411 housing units, and the median value of owner-occupied housing 

units was $71,300 (USCB 2008). In 2000, approximately 68 percent of the housing units were 

occupied in Lake County (USCB 2000b). In 2000, Ely, Minnesota, had 1,912 housing units with 

88.6 percent being occupied, and the median value of owner-occupied units was $56,900 (USCB

2000a). 

For Lake County in 2000, the top three occupation categories were management, professional, 

and related (29.7 percent); service (19.7 percent); and, sales and office (19.4 percent). Farming, 

fishing, and forestry occupations comprised 1.7 percent of the employment force, and 

construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations comprised 13.2 percent. The top three 

industry categories which provided employment were educational, health, and social service (23.1 

percent); arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (13.7 percent); and 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (10.6 percent). The total labor force was 

8,873 in 2000 (USCB 2000c). 

For the city of Ely in 2000, the top three occupation categories were management, professional, 

and related (30.0 percent); sales and office (23.8 percent); and service (21.4 percent). Farming, 
Environmental Assessment

59

fishing, and forestry occupations comprised 0.4 percent, and construction, extraction, and 

maintenance occupations comprised 14.6 percent. The top three industry categories which 

provided employment were educational, health, and social service (25.9 percent); retail (13.6 

percent); and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (12.5 percent). 

The total labor force was 1,806 (USCB 2000a). 

In 2006, Lake County’s total personal income was $371,088,000 (BEA 2008). Median household 

income was $45,400 for Lake County in 2004, and $27,615 for Ely in 2000. Per capita money 

income was $19,761 in 1999 for Lake County, and $16,855 in 2000 for Ely (USCB 2008, USCB 

2000a). The 2000 unemployment rate was 3.3 percent for Lake County and 4.4 percent for Ely

(USCB 2000c, USCB 2000a). 

The Superior National Forest received 4 million visits in 2001. Forest visitors spend 

approximately $1,400 per person on all outdoor recreation activities (equipment, recreation trips, 

memberships, and licenses). Approximately $115.00 per person of this expenditure occurs within 

a 50-mile radius of the recreation site. In 2002, the cumulative economic impact from the 

Superior National Forest was $561,000,000 and 24,720 jobs (USFS 2004a). 

The threshold level of significance for socioeconomic resources is the potential of the project to 

result in a substantial population or employment increase or decrease in the region of influence. 

3.9.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, alternative 1, the buildings would continue to deteriorate from 

lack of maintenance and rehabilitation. The typical expenditures by the researchers (travel, 

supplies, food, etc.) would probably continue until the buildings become unusable. This spending 

represents some beneficial economic benefit to the community. Since this economic benefit 

currently occurs, it represents no change to the current condition. If the buildings become 

unusable, the research presumably would continue on some level, but on a smaller scale, such as 

graduate students in tents. This would constitute smaller expenditures, as fewer people would be 

conducting the research. The loss of expenditures and people from research is likely to be 

minimal in comparison with the cumulative economic impact of $561,000,000 and 24,720 jobs 

from the Superior National Forest. Therefore, while the buildings are useable, the beneficial 

socioeconomic impact will be short-term and negligible with expenditures continuing, but once 

the buildings are no longer operational, the impact would be adverse, long-term, regional, and 

minor. 

3.9.3 Impacts of Alternative 2 

Increasing the maintenance funds, alternative 2, could potentially represent an increase in jobs in 

the area for rehabilitating and maintaining the field laboratory. The length of time required to 

rehabilitate the buildings would depend on the number of people employed. However, the need 

for maintenance would require jobs regularly for a longer period of time than the rehabilitation. 

At a maximum, it is estimated that approximately 15 people would be required for the 

rehabilitating the field laboratory buildings. This represents less than one percent of the Ely labor 

force. Between one and five people would be required for the continued maintenance, 

representing an even smaller potential socioeconomic benefit to the region. 

Given the amount of unoccupied housing and unemployment, the maximum estimates of 15 

people for rehabilitation and up to 5 for maintenance would likely be accommodated by the 

existing community labor pool and housing stocks or would represent only a minimal increase in 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

60 

population for the temporary employment. This would be expected to be only a minimal impact 

to housing and expenditures. Any increase in employment and population from these jobs created 

would be minimal compared to the 8,873 people already in Lake County. 

Increases in funding to rehabilitate and maintain the field laboratory would come from a finite 

NRS budget. Other NRS site(s) or program(s) would thus be likely to see reductions in jobs and 

funding. The impacts of this reallocation of funding would depend on change in funding at the 

sites and programs receiving less funding, which is currently unknown. If the reallocation were 

done in a manner which minimized impacts to the other NRS sites and programs, these impacts 

would be partially mitigated. 

The expenditures from alternative 2 in the region would probably be small compared to Lake 

County’s $371,088,000 total personal income. Thus, implementation of alternative 2 would not 

likely cause any indirect jobs to be created. Therefore, the known impacts from alternative 2 to 

the field laboratory area would be negligible. 

3.9.4 Impacts of Alternative 3 

The impacts of alternative 3 (Transfer of Ownership and Management) on socioeconomics would 

depend on the final use of the buildings. Restoring and maintaining the buildings would have the 

same impacts as alternative 2. There could possibly be additional jobs created for operating the 

buildings, such as a site manager, if the buildings are converted into an ecoresort. Similar to 

alternative 2, these jobs would mostly likely be a minimal component of the larger Ely and Lake 

County area economy. 

As long as the buildings are used for continuing research and education, expenditures and 

population should not be substantially different from current expenditures and population. With 

no substantial change in expenditures, the number of jobs should not be substantially changed. If 

the new ownership and management of the field buildings would not allow USGS to use the 

buildings for research, the USGS researchers currently at the field laboratory would most likely 

be transferred to another place, and their jobs and positions would not be lost. Thus, relocation of 

the researchers currently onsite would not represent a loss in employment. The exception would 

be any reduction in research load by students and visiting scientists. Loss of expenditures from no 

longer conducting research at the field laboratory is likely be small compared to the Lake 

County’s total personal income of $371,088,000. 

Since no new buildings would be permitted at the site, regardless of the potential reuses of the 

project area, the possibilities for increased population and employment related to reuses of the 

buildings are limited. The visitation and expenditures from using the field laboratory buildings as 

a resort could be an increase from the current expenditures in recreation and lodging. However, 

due to the restriction from constructing additional buildings, any increase in revenue (which could 

translate in new population and jobs) would be small compared to the cumulative economic 

impact of $561,000,000 and 24,720 jobs from Superior National Forest as well as the Lake

County’s total personal income of $371,088,000. Similarly, since no new buildings would be 

allowed for the privatization of the site to homesteads, any increase in taxes or money from 

transferring the field laboratory to houses would be minimal compared to the economic impact of 

Superior National Forest and the project area. Therefore, the impacts of alternative 3 to 

socioeconomics would likely be negligible. 
Environmental Assessment

61

3.9.5 Impacts of Alternative 4 

The same rehabilitation and maintenance requirements of the site which would be undertaken in 

alternative 2 would likely occur under alternative 4. The difference would be that the NRS would 

not be funding these tasks. The estimate of jobs created would be the same as alternative 2. If the 

entity assuming management of the buildings decides to not allow USGS to continue to use it, the 

USGS employees currently at the field laboratory would most likely be transferred to another 

place and not lose their jobs. The same is likely for the researchers currently utilizing the field 

laboratory. Thus, these researchers not continuing to research at the current location of the field 

laboratory would not represent a loss in employment, but relocation. The exception would be any 

reduction in research by students and visiting scientists. They might continue to conduct research 

on a smaller scale or not use the Superior National Forest. Regardless, their expenditures and 

population would likely be minimal compared to the 4 million visits to Superior National Forest 

annually. The possible uses of the buildings under alternative 4 are similar to those discussed in 

alternative 3. Therefore, the potential impacts would be the same under alternative 4 as alternative 

3, negligible. 

3.9.6 Impacts of Alternative 5 

Under alternative 5, the time required to disassemble, relocate, and reassemble the buildings 

would depend on the number of workers. It is not likely to require more than 30 people at any 

given time, or approximately 1.7 percent of the Ely workforce, which would be minimal impact 

to population. Because the jobs would be temporary, the impact to unemployment from these jobs 

would not be expected to be substantial, even if all of the jobs utilized local people. The 

economic impacts of this alternative would depend on the final location of the buildings and their 

use at the new location, which is currently unknown. 

The initial investment needed to relocate and rehabilitate the buildings has been quoted to be 

$200,000 to over $1 million. Not all of this is likely to be spent in the project area. Even if it 

were, the $1 million would represent approximately 0.3 percent of the total personal income of 

Lake County. This would not likely contribute to the creation of many new jobs, especially as the 

activity would be temporary. 

The USGS employees currently working at the field laboratory would most likely be transferred 

to another place and not lose their jobs. The same is likely for the researchers currently at the 

field laboratory. Thus, these researchers not continuing to research at the current location of the 

field laboratory would not represent a loss in employment, but relocation. 

Once the buildings have been moved, the uses of the land currently occupied by the field 

laboratory would depend on Superior National Forest. It could used for anything from timber 

harvesting to recreation, based on current Forest activities. The economic impacts from the 

additional land are minimal compared to the over two million acres of Superior National Forest 

and the cumulative economic impact of $561,000,000 and 24,720 jobs from the Forest (see 

Section 3.5). Therefore, the impacts to socioeconomics from this alternative are expected to be 

negligible. However, the true scale of the impacts would be based on the final location and reuse 

of the buildings. 

3.9.7 Impacts of Alternative 6 (Proposed Action) 

Demolition of the buildings would represent a loss of possible income and jobs from the 

rehabilitation, research/recreation, and maintenance opportunities which are a part of the other 

alternatives under consideration. The time to remove the buildings would depend on the number 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

62 

of workers. It is not likely to require more than 30 people at any given time at the site, which 

would be minimal impact to population. Because the jobs would be temporary, the impact to 

unemployment from these jobs would not be expected to be substantial. 

Once the buildings have been demolished, the uses of the land currently occupied by the field 

laboratory buildings would depend on the Superior National Forest. Impacts would be similar as 

those described under alternative 5, above. Overall, the socioeconomic impacts from the 

employment of demolition crews would be beneficial, but negligible in the regional context. 
Environmental Assessment 

63

4 Glossary 

APE (Area of Potential Effects): The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking 

may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE is 

influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking and may be different for different kinds of 

effects caused by the undertaking. 

Archaeological resource: Any material remains or physical evidence of past human life or 

activities, which are of archaeological interest, including the record of the effects of human 

activities on the environment. An archaeological resource is capable of revealing scientific or 

humanistic information through archaeological research. 

Attainment area: A zone within which the level of a pollutant is considered to meet United 

States National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Best management practice (BMP): A practice or combination of practices chosen as the most 

effective, economical, and practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution 

generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with State and local water quality goals. 

Selection of appropriate BMPs depends largely upon the conditions of the site, such as land use, 

topography, slope, water table elevation, and geology. 

Cultural resource: An aspect of a cultural system that is valued by or significantly 

representative of a culture, or that contains significant information about a culture. A cultural 

resource may be a tangible entity or a cultural practice. Tangible cultural resources are 

categorized as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects for the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Cumulative impacts: Impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless 

of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions; effects 

resulting from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period 

of time. 

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species 

within the area covered by a land and resource management plan. 

EA (Environmental Assessment): A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

EIS (Environmental Impact Statement): A detailed written statement required by Section 

102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

Proposed Action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Endangered Species: A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

64 

FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact): A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for 

which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Floodplain: The lowland that borders a stream or river and is found outside of the floodway. It is 

usually dry, but subject to flooding. 

Historic District: A geographically definable area, urban or rural, possessing a significant 

concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united by past 

events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual 

elements separated geographically but linked by association or history (NPS 1998). 

Historic Property: A district, site, structure, or landscape significant in American history, 

architecture, engineering, archaeology, or culture; an umbrella term for all entries in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NPS 1998). 

Historic Site: The site of a significant event, prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or 

structure or landscape whether extant or vanished, where the site itself possesses historical, 

cultural, or archaeological value apart from the value of any existing structure or landscape (NPS, 

1998). 

Historic Structure: A constructed work, usually immovable by nature or design, consciously 

created to serve some human activity that is significant in American history, architecture, 

engineering, or culture (NPS 1998). 

Invasive Species: An alien (nonnative to the ecosystem) species whose introduction does or is 

likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

Mitigation: A method or action to reduce or eliminate adverse program impacts. 

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969): Requires all Federal agencies to examine 

the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Established requirement for EAs 

and EISs. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). 

Non-attainment Area: An area that has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and the appropriate state air quality agency as exceeding one or more National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. 

Perennial Stream: A stream that flows throughout the year. 

Runoff: Non-infiltrating water entering a stream or other conveyance channel shortly after a 

rainfall. 

Sediment: Any finely divided organic and/or mineral matter derived from rocks or biological 

sources that has been transported and deposited by water or air. 

Sedimentation: The process of depositing sediment from suspension in water. 
Environmental Assessment 

65

Silt: Unconsolidated mineral sediment of finer grain size than sand. Due to fine grain, easily 

suspended in stagnant water or carried by moving water, and often accumulates on the bottom of 

rivers. 

Silt Fence: A temporary barrier, consisting of a filter fabric stretched between supporting posts 

with the bottom entrenched in the soil, used to trap sediment being borne by runoff. Typically 

used as a BMP during ground disturbing activities to avoid displacement of sediments off of the 

disturbed site. 

Soil erosion: The removal and loss of soil by the action of water, ice, gravity, or wind. 

Soil permeability: The quality that enables the soil to transmit water or air. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): The official within each state, authorized by the 

state at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, to act as a liaison for purposes of implementing 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Structure (in terms of cultural resources): A constructed work, usually immovable by nature 

or design, consciously created to serve some human activity (e.g., buildings, monuments, dams, 

roads, railroad tracks, canals, millraces, bridges, tunnels, locomotives, forts and associated 

earthworks, Indian mounds, ruins, fences, and outdoor sculpture). In the National Register 

program, “structure” is limited to functional constructions other than buildings (NPS 1998). 

Threatened Species: A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated with surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil, including swamps, marshes, bogs, and other similar areas.
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

66 

5 List of Preparers 

This EA was initially prepared in 2008 by: 

Mangi Environmental Group 

 7915 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 2300 

 McLean, VA 22102 

 703-760-4801 

The following Mangi Environmental Group personnel were principal contributors to this EA: 

Name and Document Contribution Associated Professional Expertise

Phil Sczerzenie, 

Ph.D., Wildlife Biology

Project Management 

30 years experience: project-level, landscape-level, and 

programmatic EISs; human health and ecological risk 

assessments; watershed assessments, statistical analyses 

Anna Lundin, 

MS Environmental Engineering 

Soils, Water, Waste, Human Health, 

Cultural Resources 

10 years experience: watershed analyses, Phase I/II 

environmental site assessments, Environmental Baseline 

Surveys, EAs/EISs 

Meghan Morse, 

B.A., Environmental Studies 

Land Use, Socioeconomics 

2 years experience: analysis of public comments; 

public outreach; resource sections of CCPs, EISs, and 

EAs 

Mark Blevins, MS Geography 

Mapping, GIS-based data & analysis 

5 years experience: GIS specialist: ArcGIS 8.3 – 9.1, 

ArcVIEW 3.2, GPS: Trimble GeoExplorer, Garmin 

GPS III – V Plus, Pathfinder Office software 

Jim Mangi, Ph.D., Ecology 

Project Oversight 

30 years experience: recognized as a NEPA expert; has 

assisted the U.S. Army and five other Federal and state 

agencies in developing their NEPA regulations and 

guidance 

The 2010 update and revision of this EA was completed by the Forest Service Enterprise 

Technical Services Team, Principal NEPA Planner John R. Slown, AICP.
Environmental Assessment 

67

6 References 

(ARDC 2002). Arrowhead Regional Development Commission. Superior National Forest, ForestWide Roads Analysis. June 2002. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/projects/roads_analysis/cover_page.pdf 

(BEA 2008). Bureau of Economic Analysis 2008. BEARFACTS 1996–-2006: Lake County, 

Minnesota (27075). Accessed August 1, 2008 at: 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/action.cfm?fips=27075&areatype=27075&yea

rin=2006. 

(Davis and Cornwell 1998). Davis, Mackenzie and David Cornwell, 1998. Introduction to 

Environmental Engineering, Third Edition. Boston, MA; McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. 

(DNT 2006). Duluth News-Tribune, Minnesota. Superior Forest Puts Cabins Back Up for Sale. 

May 10, 2006. Accessed July 2008 at: 

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/498059/superior_forest_puts_cabins_back_up_for

_sale/index.html 

(Dunn 1997). Dunn, Edith A. An Evaluation of Selected Log Structures at Superior National 

Forest; North Central Research Station. December 1997. Prepared for USDA Forest 

Service, Superior National Forest. Purchase Order: 43-63A9-73143. 

(Ferguson 2009). Ferguson, John. 2009. Halfway Ranger Station Historic District, Section 106 

Resource and Boundary Delineation Report. Heritage Services Group, USDA Forest 

Service. 

(Hagberg 2007). Hagberg, Rolf. Special Projects Coordinator, Minnesota Conservation Corps. 

Letter to Rick Sindt, NRS Environmental Engineer, December 14,2007. 

Headquarters for Research. January 17, 2007. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, 8711 – 37th St. SE, Jamestown, ND 58401-7317. 

(MHR 2002). Minnesota House of Representatives. Air Quality Regulation in Minnesota. October 

2002. Accessed June 2008 at: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/ssairqual.htm 

(MHS 2008). Minnesota Historical Society. 2008. Minnesota’s National Register Properties; Lake 

County. Accessed June 2008 at: http://nrhp.mnhs.org/NRSearch.cfm 

(MPCA 2008). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 305b Assessments of Lake Conditions in 

Minnesota’s Major River Basins. May 12, 2008. Accessed at: 

http://proteus.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/305blake.html 

(NIOSH 2004). National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health -– U.S. Center for Disease 

Control. December 2004. NIOSH Publication No. 2005-109: Histoplasmosis - Protecting 

Workers At Risk. Accessed July 2008 at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-109/2005-

109e.html 

(NRCS 2007). Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Official Soil Series Description: 

Mesaba-Barto Series. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/M/MESABA.html 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

68 

(NRS 2008). Northern Research Station. Science for a Sustainable Future. February 2008. NRSINF-04-08. Accessed July 2008 at: http://nrs.fs.fed.us/localresources/downloads/NRSOverview2008.pdf 

(NPS 1998). National Park Service. NPS DO#28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. 

Effective Date: June 11, 1998. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.html 

(NTFHP 2008). National Trust for Historic Preservation. The National Forest System: Cultural 

Resources at Risk: An Assessment and Needs Analysis. May, 2008. Accessed at: 

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/public-lands/additional-resources/NTHPForest-Service-Report-2008-web.pdf 

(OSHA No date). Occupational Safety & Health Administration – U.S. Department of Labor. No 

date provided. Occupational Noise Exposure: 29 CFR 1910.95. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9735&p_table=STAN

DARDS 

(Runesson 2007). Runesson, Ulf T. World’s Boreal Forests: Animal and Plant Species. September 

20, 2007. Faculty of Forestry and the Forest Environment, Lakehead University. 

Accessed June 2008 at: http://www.borealforest.org/world/world_species.htm. 

(SNFHRP 2007). Superior National Forest Heritage Resources Program. 2007. National Register 

of Historic Places Registration Form (NPS Form 10-900); Halfway Ranger Station. Bill 

Clayton, Archaeologist. 

(USCB 2008). U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. State & County QuickFacts: Lake County, Minnesota. 

Accessed August 1, 2008 at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/27075.html. 

(USCB 2000a). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2000: Ely City, Minnesota. Accessed August 1, 2008 at: 

http://censtats.census.gov/data/MN/1602719142.pdf. 

(USCB 2000b). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP-4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 

2000: Lake County, Minnesota. Accessed August 1, 2008 at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-

_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US27075. 

(USCB 2000c). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 

2000: Lake County, Minnesota. Accessed August 1, 2008 at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-

_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US27075. 

(USCB 1990a). U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. General Population and Housing Characteristics: 

Lake County. Accessed August 1, 2008 at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_1990_S

TF1_DP1&ds_name=DEC_1990_STF1_&geo_id=05000US27075. 
Environmental Assessment 

69

(USCB 1990b). U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 Summary Tape File 1 (STF 1) - 100 Percent 

Data: Ely City, Minnesota. Accessed August 1, 2008 at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_tabId=D

EC2&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=235667149049. 

(USDA 2005). United States Department of Agriculture: Soil Resource Management. 2005. 

National Program 202: Soil Resource Management Assessment Team Meeting. USDAARS. Accessed 2008 at: 

http://ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Program/202/202Assessment2004/202AssessmentRepor

tFinal.pdf. 

(USEPA 2008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. TMDLs; Listed Water Information. 

South Kawishiwi River to Farm Lake. Accessed: June 13, 2008 at 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/enviro.control?p_list_id=MN09030001-

512&p_cycle=2006 

(USEPA 2006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wetland Types. Accessed June 

2008 at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/types/. 

(USEPA 2004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. South Kawishiwi River. 205(b) 

Lists/Assessment Unit Information Year 2004. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro_V4.wcontrol?p_id305b=MN09030001-536 

(USFS 2008a). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Fact Sheet; Trappers Landing – 

Lot 5. Superior National Forest, Tofte Ranger District, Isabella, Minnesota. April 23, 

2008. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/FACTSHEETISABELLA_002.htm 

(USFS 2008b). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Region 9 Threatened, 

Endangered and Sensitive Species Lists. Accessed July 2008 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/tes_lists.htm 

(USFS 2007). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Fiscal Year 2008 President’s 

Budget; Budget Justification. February 23, 2007. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/budget-2008/fy2008-forest-service-budgetjustification.pdf. 

(USFS 2004a). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Forest Plan Revision on Chippewa and Superior National Forests. July, 

2004. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/projects/forest_plan/2004Plan/feis/Final_EIS/Fin

al_EIS_Contents_Abstract_Preface.pdf. 

(USFS 2004b). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land and Resource Plan; 

Superior National Forest. July, 2004. Accessed June 2008 at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/projects/forest_plan/2004Plan/snf/index.shtml 

(USFWS 2009). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Reinstatement of Protections for the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes in 

Compliance With Settlement Agreement and Court Order. Federal Register, v74,178: 

47483-47488. 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

70 

(USFWS 2008). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species Report: Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). 2008. 

Accessed July 2008 at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=A00D 

(USGS 2006). United States Geological Survey. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States; Scrub-Shrub Wetland. August 3, 2006. Accessed June 2008 

at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/scrbshrb.htm 

(USGS 2000). United States Geological Survey. Kawishiwi River near Ely, Minnesota (Station 

05124480). July 17, 2000. Hydrologic Benchmark Network (HBN) USGS Circular 1173-

B. Accessed June 2008 at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1173/circ1173b/chapter07.htm 
71

Appendix A 

Agency Correspondence
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

72 

File Code:

7300/6440 Date: May 6, 2009 

Route To: 

Subject: Disposition of the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory 

To: Thomas L. Schmidt, Assistant Director, Northern Research Station 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

the Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition, which was dated October 2008, 

and included with your memo of February 10, 2009. 

As you know the Superior National Forest (SNF) has been and continues to be supportive 

of the research activities provided through this facility. However, the SNF faces 

challenges, including declining budgets, which are similar to those presented by the

Northern Research Station (NRS) as justification for disposing of the buildings. Because 

of these challenges, the SNF has consistently stated, throughout the NRS evaluation 

process, that it will not accept responsibility for maintenance or management of the 

buildings. As noted on page 1-2 of the EA, lack of care over the years has led to building 

deterioration. 

Nonetheless, your memo indicates NRS’s preferences are alternative three “Transfer of 

Ownership and Management” and alternative four “Transfer Management.” As stated on 

pages 2-9 and 2-10 of the EA, the SNF has no interest in assuming ownership or 

management responsibility of the buildings or issuing a Special Use Permit for third party 

use. Alternatives three and four are not acceptable to the SNF and I recommend they be 

dismissed from further consideration. 

I agree with the building-related health and safety concerns disclosed in the EA and also 

recognize the impacts to cultural resources related to all proposed alternatives. I urge 

NRS to begin consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office to identify specific 

mitigation requirements. 

If you have any questions, please contact Elizabeth Roat at (218) 626-4373. 

 

/s/ Mary L. Shedd (for) 

JAMES W. SANDERS 

Forest Supervisor 

cc: Mark VanEvery 

Roseann M Hess 

Elizabeth Roat 

 Forest 

Service

 Superior 

National 

Forest 

8901 Grand Avenue Place 

Duluth, Minnesota 55808-1122 

(218) 626-4300 

Fax: (218) 626-4398
Environmental Assessment 

73
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

74 
Environmental Assessment 

75
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

76 
Environmental Assessment 

77
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

78 
Environmental Assessment 

79

Appendix B 

Scoping Report 

 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

80 

Due to the size of the scoping report, it is attached to this document as a stand-alone 

document. 
Environmental Assessment 

81

Appendix C 

Halfway Ranger Station Historic District 

Section 106 Resource and Boundary Delineation Report 

 
Kawishiwi Field Laboratory Building Disposition 

82 

Due to the size of the Section 106 Resource and Boundary Delineation report, it is attached 

to this document as a stand-alone document.