L7617(ACAD)

Finding of No Significant Impact
Echo Lake Beach Facilities Rehabilitation

Introduction

The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to rehabilitate visitor facilities at Echo Lake Beach at Acadia National Park (ANP). This work includes rehabilitating the comfort station and the lift station and septic tank, replacing the former changing rooms and storage building, improving drainage and mass transit service, restoring a small wetland area, and providing universal accessibility. Rehabilitation will be planned to minimize the adverse effects on local businesses, park facilities, and park visitors.

The purpose of the proposed rehabilitation includes:
1. maintaining the site’s recreational opportunities, character, and resources;
2. improving visitor experiences;
3. meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and,
4. improving park operations.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) was released for a 30-day public comment period on January 13, 2004, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NPS Director’s Order 12 (DO-12). The EA described the goals and objectives of the rehabilitation project, analyzed the effects of three alternatives on natural resources (i.e. wetlands and the lakeshore, water quality, soils, natural communities, wildlife habitat, and wildlife) visitor and staff safety, and visitor use and experience, and solicited public comment. The following provides the required Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the EA, and briefly summarizes the findings of the EA into the appropriate regulatory context consistent with NEPA and DO-12.

Three impact topics relating to potential impacts from the project were analyzed through the EA. Natural resource topics included wetlands and the lakeshore, water quality, soils, natural communities, wildlife habitat, and wildlife. Two topics analyzed relating to visitor use included visitor and staff safety and visitor use and experience.

Decision

Using guidance from the NPS Management Policies (2000), the Acadia National Park General Management Plan (1992), natural resources information, and professional judgment and considering public comments, the NPS will fully rehabilitate visitor facilities at Echo Lake Beach, as described in Alternative B of the Echo LakeBeach Facilities Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment.

Alternatives Considered

The three alternatives proposed and analyzed in the EA included:
• Alternative A – No Action.
• Alternative B – Fully rehabilitating Echo Lake Beach facilities while maintaining the current level of services (NPS preferred alternative).
• Alternative C – Partial rehabilitation of the facilities and beach, maintaining the current level of services.

Alternative A
The “No Action” alternative was analyzed to provide a baseline for assessing the effects of the proposed rehabilitation. This alternative would retain the Echo Lake Beach facilities in their current condition and would not proceed with any rehabilitation measures or policy changes. Some facilities, such as the comfort station that provides restroom facilities, could be rehabilitated if and when funds were to become available. In the meantime, all of the activities and processes that are contributing to the deterioration of the facilities would continue until repairs could be made. The building housing changing rooms was previously removed because of its unsafe condition; this building would not be replaced, and the entry path would not be graded to provide universal access. The comfort station is in danger of imminent collapse. The wetland area would not be restored, floodplain storage capacity of the watershed would not be increased, and the bus stop building would not be constructed. The comfort station would continue to block the view of the lake and cliffs from the path.

Alternative B
The NPS Preferred Alternative “Full Rehabilitation” would include rehabilitating the comfort station and the utilities, rebuilding the changing rooms building, providing universal access, restoring a wetland area, increasing the flood storage capacity of the watershed, adding a bus stop building, improving drainage, and improving maintenance staff and emergency vehicle access. Rehabilitating the facilities and re-designing the site layout would create an open vista of the lake and cliffs and would improve visitor’s experiences.

Alternative C
The third alternative includes some of the elements of the preferred alternative, but would be done over a longer period of time, if at all. The wetland restoration area would be moved to a different location along the large forested wetland. The vista would not be improved as the buildings would be in the same location. All other actions would be the same. The same construction schedule will be followed and Best Management Practices implemented as for Alternative B.

Mitigation and Minimization
A number of mitigation and minimization activities will be incorporated into the project to help avoid and reduce the impacts to the human environment. Mitigation measures focus on two central issues: protecting natural resources and compensating for disturbances, and minimizing adverse impacts and inconvenience to visitors. Best management practices as outlined in Director’s Order 77-1 Wetland Protection will be used to avoid and minimize erosion and other impacts to adjacent wetlands and water quality. These devices and practices include silt fences, sedimentation basins, spraying water to reduce air-born dust, demarcating the limits of construction, covering soil piles and keeping stockpiles outside of vegetated areas and away from wetlands and streams. The fill material will be inspected for weed seeds prior to installation. Re-graded areas will be inspected for the presence of invasive species for three years following construction. Any invasive non-native species will be managed to prevent adverse effects on adjacent plant and animal communities.

Nearly 80 cubic yards of fill will be removed from the wetland, and wetlands near the pump station will be restored to natural conditions. This restoration will compensate for permanent wetland impacts to two small, shrub dominated wetlands.

The rehabilitation effort will involve measures eliminate or minimize impacts to visitor experience, and visitor and staff safety. Construction will be limited to the off-season periods (September through June) to allow for continued recreational use of the beach area. Information about the rehabilitation and area closures will be made available to visitors so that they may plan accordingly.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as, the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act [Section 101 (b)]. This section states that the Environmentally Preferred Alternative should:

1. “Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.
2. Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.”

In this case, the NPS Preferred Alternative (Alternative B) is also the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Implementing the Preferred Alternative will make the Echo Lake Beach facilities fully usable and improve visitor experience, provide universal access, and prevent future degradation that could lead to site closure and/or more extensive rehabilitation. Completing the rehabilitation allows for wetlands to be restored, and is the least damaging alternative to natural resources. Short-term, minor and negligible impacts would occur to natural resources, visitor and staff safety, and visitor use, while long-term, minor to moderate beneficial effects would occur.

Alternative A, No Action, would not fulfill the basic project purpose, would lead to the continued deterioration of the facilities and beach. Structural damage could result and lead to the eventual closure and removal of the comfort station. Possible failure of the septic system could lead to water quality problems. Visitor and staff safety and visitor experience would be compromised.

Alternative C, Partial rehabilitation would repair and rehabilitate facilities, but would not resolve some long-term problems such as moving and replacing the utilities. Furthermore, repairs to the comfort station may not serve the long-term goals of the NPS. Overall, this option would meet the basic project purpose, but would likely result in future maintenance issues and not provide as many beneficial effects.

Why the Selected Alternative will not have a Significant Effect on the Human Environment

Consideration of effects described in the EA and a finding that they are not significant is a necessary and critical part of this FONSI as required by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) (40 CFR 1508.13). Significance criteria are defined (40 CFR 1508.27) to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and the context and intensity of impacts. Minimization measures described in the EA and incorporated into the preferred alternative, including construction monitoring and sediment and erosion control are generally required by laws, regulations, or NPS policies and are adopted by this decision.

Context

This measure of significance considers the setting within which an impact was analyzed in the EA, such as the affected region, society as a whole, affect interests, and locality. In the EA, the intensity of the impacts was evaluated within a local or project area context, while the intensity of the effects of cumulative impacts was evaluated in a more regional context. This decision and the preferred alternative adversely affect only the immediate local area in terms of natural and cultural resources, visitor use and experience, employees, local residents, and the economy. These adverse effects are negligible to minor, temporary, and short-term.

Intensity

This measure of significance refers to the severity of impacts, which may be both beneficial and adverse, and considers the measures that will be applied to minimize or avoid impacts, as discussed above. Impact thresholds used in the EA are defined for each topic. The thresholds are briefly summarized in general terms below:

Negligible: The impact is barely measurable, with no perceptible effects.
Minor: The impact is slight, but detectible and localized.
Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and measurable.
Major: The impact is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial.

Significance Criteria

As defined in 40 CFR 1508.27, significance is determined by examining the following criteria:

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse
Closing the Echo Lake Beach facilities would create some minor, temporary adverse impacts to visitors using the site during the closure periods, but would minimize potential impacts to visitor and staff safety. Although this closure will be short-term and minimal it could have a minor adverse effect on visitor use and experience. Negligible erosion impacts and impacts to adjacent vegetation could result from construction work, but minimization efforts should help to avoid these potential impacts.

Long-term, moderate beneficial effects include improving the structural integrity of the comfort station, replacing the changing rooms building, providing universal access to the facilities and beach. Minor beneficial effects to wildlife habitat are expected by restoring a high value wetland area. Flood storage capacity of the watershed will be increased slightly. Rehabilitation should have beneficial effects on visitor use and experience at Echo Lake Beach.

Degree of effect on public health or safety
Alternative B will not have adverse effects on public health and short-term, negligible effects on safety. The presence of construction equipment poses only a short-term, negligible safety hazard, because construction areas will be closed to the general public. Alternative B provides minor, long-term benefits to the public safety by maintaining visitor facilities, including restrooms.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas
There are not any structures or features at the site that are listed on the Register of National Historic Places. There are no adverse effects expected to other parklands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, and ecologically critical areas. Impacts to wetlands would be minor and compensated by restoring a valuable wetland area.

Consultation with the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (State Historic Preservation Office) in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has been completed, and the project will have no adverse effect on cultural resources adjacent to or within the project site see attached letter).

Degree to which effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial
Throughout the planning process, there has been no controversy associated with this project.

Degree to which the possible effects on the quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks
The selected alternative does not appear to have any highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks. The planning process for this work has been significant and involved numerous professionals, both park staff and private consultants.

Degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration
The selected alternative will not set any precedents for future actions with significant effects. Future actions or considerations will include necessary maintenance as needed.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts
Rehabilitating Echo Lake Beach facilities is one individual component of the overall plan for rehabilitating and improving facilities throughout the park. The rehabilitation does not create any significant cumulative impacts when considering ongoing and proposed projects in the park or local vicinity.

Degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources
The “Full Rehabilitation” alternative will not have any adverse effects on cultural or historic resources as there are no such resources onsite.

Degree to which the action may adversely affect any endangered or threaten species or its critical habitat
The “Full Rehabilitation” will not have any affect on any endangered or threaten species or their critical habitat. The NPS has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Acadia National Park biologists in regard to listed species on-site and determined that only the state listed peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) occurs in the vicinity. Based on discussions with agency and park staff it was concluded that the rehabilitation would not result in any adverse effects on this species (see agency correspondence in the EA).

Whether the action, threatens a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection law
Rehabilitating visitor facilities at Echo Lake Beach will not threaten or violate any environmental protection laws. All necessary permits have been obtained (see attached). The rehabilitation work will comply with all federal, state and local laws and is an activity that is fully within and allowed by such laws.

Impairment
In addition to reviewing the list of significance criteria, the NPS has determined that implementing the preferred alternative will not constitute an impairment of ANP resources and values. This determination is based on a through analysis of the impacts described in the EA, consideration of public comments received (see attached), and the professional judgment of the ANP Superintendent and Northeast Regional Director in accordance with the NPS Management Policies (December 27, 2000). Implementing the selected alternative will not result in major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of ANP; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of ANP; or (3) identified as a goal in ANP General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents.

Public Involvement

The EA was made available in local libraries and on the ANP internet site for public review and comment during a 30-day period beginning January 13, 2004. In addition approximately 50 copies of the document were mailed directly to interested persons, American Indian tribes, and regulatory agencies.

Three comments were received from the public. All comments are attached hereto.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The implementation of the selected alternative, “Alternative B Full Rehabilitation,” will not constitute an action that normally requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The preferred alternative will have beneficial effects and protect natural resources. The preferred alternative will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural and cultural resources, or human environment. Negative environmental impacts that could occur are negligible or minor in intensity, and short-term in duration, and generally localized. There are no significant impacts on public health, public safety, threatened or endangered species, historic properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or unique characteristics of the region. No highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects, or elements of precedence were identified. Implementation of the full restoration will not violate any federal, state, or local environmental protection law.

Based on the foregoing, it has been determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for this project and thus will not be prepared.

Recommended: /s/ Len Bobinchock 9/20/2004
for Sheridan Steele, Superintendent, Acadia National Park

Approved: /s/ Chrysandra Walter 10/1/2004
for Marie Rust, Director, Northeast Region

Enclosures:
Environmental Assessment, including agency correspondence (see Appendix B)
Clean Water Act General Programmatic Permit
Maine NRPA Permit
Letter of Consistency, Maine Coastal Program
Public Comments (3)