For more information contact:
Lois Norrgard, Sierra Club, 952-881-7282
Betsy Schmiesing, Friends of the BWCA, 612-766-8307
Brad Sagen, NE Minnesotans for Wilderness, 218-365-6461
Forest Service Denies Appeal by Conservationists
Decision Impacts the Echo Trail Forest Management Project Record of Decision
Duluth, Minnesota — Today the supervisor of the Superior National Forest is expected to deny the appeal of proposed 12,701 acre timber sales northeast of Ely that would cut to the border of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and surround the Trout Lake unit.
“We are saddened that the agency succumbed to pressure from the timber industry and is risking clean water, wildlife and other special qualities of wilderness intended for protection by Congress” said Lois Norrgard, Forest Protection Co-Chair of Sierra Club’s Minnesota Chapter, “We will review our options over the next month.”
The appeal was filed by these non-profit conservation groups: Audubon Minnesota, Friends of the Boundary Waters, Defenders of Wildlife, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, The Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club.
Objecting primarily to the timber sale’s impacts on the BWCAW, lynx recovery and surrounding wild forests, the appeal documented the Forest Service’s failure to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the logging on the BWCAW; The Forest Service failed to preserve wilderness character pursuant to section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act of 1964; and the timber sale violates the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule by allowing temporary roads and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs).
The courts have previously addressed the impacts of logging adjacent to wilderness areas. Betsy Schmiesing, Vice Chair of the Board and Policy Chair, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, stated: “The agency is not free to ignore impacts on wilderness areas, even if those impacts flow from actions outside the wilderness.” Schmiesing notes that in the lawsuit against the Forest Service’s Big Grass timber sale in 2005, the court determined that the agency has a duty to take into account impacts such as illegal entry into the BWCAW on logging roads leading right to the wilderness edge, which can also serve as passageways for invasive species. “And the agency also has a duty to take into account the audible and visible effects inside the wilderness caused by activity outside.”
“Preservation of wilderness character is clearly defined in the Wilderness Act,” says Lois Norrgard, Co-Chair, Forest Committee, Sierra Club North Star Chapter. “Section 4(b) charges the Forest Service with preserving wilderness character, and nowhere does the language provide an exception for management activities undertaken just outside a wilderness boundary.”
Wild forest IRAs just outside the wilderness would be logged. “We interpret the 2001 Roadless Rule to protect roadless areas inventoried since 2001,” says Brad Sagen, Board Chair, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness. The Rule defines IRAs as areas identified in a set of IRA maps in the 2001 Roadless Rule Environmental Impact Statement and including ‘any subsequent update or revision of those maps.’ Post 2001 IRAs—Picket Lake, Urho Creek, Agassa Lake and Big Lake—would be impacted by clearcuts, partial cuts, and temporary roads. In the Project’s FEIS, the Forest Service acknowledges these areas are IRAs but concludes they are not protected by the Rule because they are not listed on the 2001 official map.
“That’s like the Forest Service acknowledging your house exists but not protecting it from a forest fire because it is not on an official map! We define protected roadless areas as roadless areas acknowledged by the Forest Service, map or no map,” Sagen says.
The appeal also questioned harmful effects on lynx, the need for additional Management Indicator Species (MIS) to track the impacts of logging on wildlife populations, and the Forest Service’s improper substitution of Management Indicator Habitats for MIS, forest composition objectives, zone and forest-wide spatial objectives and requirements for public involvement in the monitoring program.