Forest plans lack vision for Minnesota's National Forests
U.S. Forest Service fails to preserve cherished wild forests
June 16, 2003
Duluth, Minnesota--Today Minnesotans gathered at the Inn on the Lake in Duluth to show their support for restoring and protecting the wild heritage of the Superior National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service was presenting management plans for Superior National Forest. The Sierra Club contends that the proposed plan would fail to protect northern Minnesota's diverse and growing recreation base and neglects forest restoration.
"We can do better" is the theme of lawn signs the Sierra Club is distributing around Duluth and the North Shore. "Now is the time to raise our sights for clean air, water and land protections," said Clyde Hanson, a Sierra Club volunteer. "With new science we know how to do better, but we need our elected officials to catch up with the public in making the environment a priority."
The new plans come after six years of development and controversy over the future of forest management. The Forest Service developed alternative plans after discussion with conservationists and the timber industry. The agency then chose a plan to use for managing the forests for the next 15 years.
The Sierra Club is disappointed that the draft plan neglects wildlife habitat restoration and misses the opportunity to safeguard roadless areas. "Why is the Forest Service proposing a plan that favors multinational paper and timber companies, when our local economy needs attention?" asked Joshua Davis, forestry organizer at the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, "We can do better."
"Scientists tell us that nature's design for the forest is the most dependable, nurturing and productive. The proposed forest plan shows a good understanding of nature's plan, but it continues heavy industrial logging for the next decade and only promises restoration long after the current managers retire," observed Hanson.
Under the proposed plan, logging of trees in wetlands is increased by 9 times over historical levels even though scientists say this type of forest cannot be regenerated after logging. Logging is resumed in rare white pine and old growth stands that are needed for survival of rare wildlife like goshawks and treasured plants like orchids. "The Forest Service says this plan is about diversity. But diversity without nature's design is just chaos," said Hanson.
The shear volume of proposed clear-cuts (115,369 acres in the first decade alone - 89% of all logging) threaten neo-tropical birds that summer here and draw tourists to the local birding festivals. Over 12,000 acres of clear-cuts are proposed in the next decade in scenic recreation areas along Highway 61 and the Superior Hiking Trail, even though tourist brochures don't feature views of clear-cuts.
And the proposed plan misses what may be the last opportunity to expand the BWCAW at 30 sites totaling only 60,534 acres across the whole forest. No wilderness expansions are in the proposed plan. "With the popularity of the BWCAW and its stable and positive impact on the local economy, the proposed plan with its theme of diverse economic opportunities for local communities, should be advocating wilderness," said Hanson.
Research and Natural Areas (RNAs) is another protected zone that the draft plan under-delivers. Only 5% of suitable high quality natural habitats would be protected from logging, roading and motorized use in the proposed plan (18,217 of 369,041 acres). "Minnesota's national forests are far below other national forests in setting aside Research and Natural Areas." said Hanson, "As patches of high quality native forests they are key to measuring the impacts of logging elsewhere and for people to experience a full menu of wild forests without the permits and physical demands of a wilderness trip."
"We are greatly concerned that draft standards and guidelines for District Rangers are not measurable and accountable. Clear, numerical objectives are missing for wildlife protection and native forest restoration but logging objectives are quantified to several decimal points, observed Hanson, "There are lots of weasel words in the standards. Bad local decisions could destroy a special place that took centuries to develop because citizens and Forest Service executives would not be able to hold foresters accountable to clear standards.
Sierra Club members are pleased that the economic analysis shows that our preferred alternative (D) with it's restore then protect strategy produced a present value of future benefits net of cost that is essentially the same as the preferred alternative (E). Their values differ by only 2%, which is well within the range of error for such estimates of economic impacts. So considering economic values of only timber sales and recreational visitor days, a true restoration alternative is still good deal for society. If the value of benefits many people feel from the existence of wild forests were also added to the analysis, alternative D would have the greatest positive economic impact of any of the alternatives. The Sierra Club drafted the concept behind alternative D and supports it as the preferred alternative.
The issue of ATVs, Dirt Bikes and Mudder Trucks
The Sierra Club promotes all kinds of responsible recreation on Chippewa and Superior National Forests. But the proposed plans need to provide balance by allowing areas for quiet recreation.
The Sierra Club proposal pioneered the idea of zoning to separate motorized and non-motorized users in the forest. However, the proposed alternative (E) only has ¼ of one percent of the SNF outside the BWCAW that would be guaranteed non-motorized (3,493 acres out of 1,393,988). (Even RNA's may be motorized in the draft plan). "People shouldn't have to get a wilderness permit to take a hike not disturbed by ATV noise and exhaust," said Hanson.
The Sierra Club is pleased that the proposed plan keeps ATVs on trails or roads, but the "posted closed" policy for logging roads only rewards vandals who remove signs. The proposed plan needs standards for the location and design of ATV trails and a commitment to protect existing hiking trails users from motor impacts. The Club supports the decision not to develop "scramble" and 4 x 4 truck areas on national forests, leaving that to the private sector.