November 21, 2001
Rick Horton and Gary Zimmer
Ruffed Grouse Society Biologists

Minnesota's sportsmen and women need to get involved in the decision-making process for the Chippewa and Superior National Forests soon or we are going to see fewer deer and grouse in our lifetimes. Active forest management is crucial for creating and maintaining young forest habitats for deer, grouse, bears, moose and woodcock. However, fewer and fewer acres are being managed each year on our National Forests, partly due to pressure from groups opposed to logging. We need to provide Forest Service planners with a balance of opinions by letting them know we want to see the woods managed for critters that like young forests.

Sporting men and women understand the role of forest management in sustaining wildlife. Deer hunters don't locate stands in open forests full of big trees, they put them near young trees and clearings that serve as feeding areas or near thickets used as escape or bedding cover. Grouse hunters invariably seek out young aspen stands. Well, it's time for Minnesota's sportsmen and women to get involved in the forest management decision making process before it's too late. If we don't make our voices heard at all levels of national forest management soon, anti-management forces will take away the keys to habitat management and we'll find ourselves reminiscing about the good old days.

Groups opposed to logging are achieving their goals by using the very laws that were intended to ensure proper pro-active management of national forests. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) established that each national forest would have a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) in place and it would be revised every 10-15 years. All management activities conducted on the forest must comply with the LRMP. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1974 (NEPA) dictates that each activity must undergo some form of environmental analysis and public review prior to being enacted. These laws provide numerous opportunities for the public to participate in the process. We need to use the same system to promote wildlife management.

I will use the following fictional account to illustrate how the system works and how the public can get involved. Johnny King lives in Onamia, MN but has a cabin on South Twin Lake in the Chippewa National Forest that he inherited from his father. He loves going to the cabin to escape from his hectic job and has fond memories of all of the deer, bear and grouse hunts he had with his dad years ago. Lately he has been disappointed though by the lack of game animals around the cabin. He used to be able to walk out the back door and get a few grouse for dinner any time, but he sees very few now. It has been years since he has seen a decent buck, let alone bag one. He doesn't even see many songbirds around. The aspen forests around the place have grown old and diseased trees have fallen over in recent high winds.

One day while reading the Cass Lake Times he saw a notice that the Chippewa National Forest was soliciting public comments on the proposed Twin Lakes Vegetation Management Project. The Forest was proposing to harvest mature to overmature aspen, birch and balsam fir and construct temporary roads in the area near the cabin. The ad said he had 30 days to submit comments in writing to the District Ranger, Alice Williams. Johnny called Ms. Williams for more information and was send a copy of the Twin Lakes Project Proposal that provided more detail on proposed activities. The proposal called for clearcutting 220 acres of aspen and balsam fir in the 12,000-acre project area, followed by mechanical site preparation and red pine seedling planting. Johnny wrote Ms. Williams a one-page note saying that he liked to deer hunt and wanted the Forest Service to clearcut the aspen to make feeding areas and create some wildlife openings. He also said he enjoyed grouse hunting and knew grouse like regenerating aspen clearcuts, so he wanted small clearcuts in the project area. He was opposed to converting the aspen stands to red pine, which offer little for wildlife.

About 3 months later Johnny got a big package in the mail from the Forest Service. He opened it to find a 1-inch thick document titled "Twin Lakes Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement". Thumbing through it he saw a lot of tables and charts and thought, "Man, I'm not going to read this. It'll take forever". A cover letter from Ms. Williams explained that the District determined that the project would have significant environmental impacts, so they completed an environmental impact statement rather than the less extensive environmental assessment. The District also indicated that they were considering Alternative 3 as it would have the least impact on the blue hawk fern, a plant on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List, but not confirmed in the area. The letter said Johnny had 45 days to provide comments on the draft.

Since it was winter and Johnny didn't have anything better to do he started trudging through the EIS. He started by looking at the project's proposed alternatives. Alternative 1 was the "no action" alternative, meaning nothing would be done. He thought it was funny that they said this wouldn't impact deer populations because he knew if they didn't create some habitat soon, there would be no deer in the area at all. Alternative 2 was the original proposal calling for converting 220 acres of aspen to red pine trees. Alternative 3 would involve cutting just a few aspens out of each stand to increase the amount of sunlight hitting the forest floor for the ferns. Alternative 4 would have include shelterwood cuts of very small patches of aspen to promote oak regeneration, then burning the patches after two years to reduce aspen competition to oak seedlings. Lastly, Alternative 5 said no trees would be cut, but several would be killed to create standing dead trees for woodpeckers and white pine seedlings would be planted under 70 acres of mature aspen.

Following that was a lot of analysis on the potential impacts of each alternative to a host of plant and wildlife species, cumulative effects of this project on the forest as a whole and sections on biodiversity, water quality, economics and visual buffers.

Johnny was upset because none of the alternatives provided involved his desires to see aspen regenerated for deer and grouse. He went to the District office and got a copy of the LRMP for the area and poured over it. It said the Twin Lakes area was all in Management Area 1.2 and should be managed primarily for aspen for the timber industry and wildlife emphasis would be put on high deer and ruffed grouse populations. He wrote another letter to the District Ranger saying he didn't agree with their plan to implement Alternative 3 because it would not regenerate aspen and would not provide habitat for deer and grouse. He suggested they come up with a new alternative that proposed to cut a lot more than 220 acres and would move the forest towards the condition suggested in the LRMP.

Two months later Johnny got another big package from the Forest Service, this time with a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and a Decision Notice. The District had decided to use Alternative 3, but modified it to include harvesting 50 acres of aspen using traditional methods. However, the aspen cuts would then be planted with pine trees. Johnny was livid. He didn't want a pine plantation around the cabin. He wanted to be able to hunt again. The Decision Notice said he had 45 days to file an appeal with the Appeals Deciding Officer at the Forest Service Regional Office in Milwaukee. He wrote to the Appeals Deciding Officer stating that the District had never developed an alternative that addressed his desire to see significant aspen management in the area. He pointed out that the proposed actions seemed to violate the intent for Management Area 1.2 by selecting against aspen regeneration and moved the project area away from the desired future conditions outlined in the LRMP.

A few months later the Forest Service informed Johnny that the Appeal Deciding Officer had upheld his appeal based on the argument that the District had not provided the public with a full range of alternatives and the project was put on hold. He had won, but it was a hollow victory. No aspen was being regenerated in the Twin Lakes area and hunting opportunities were going to continue to decline. He met several times with District staff and the District Ranger and finally got them to understand the importance of aspen to wildlife. They went through the process again and after almost 3 years of effort, the Twin Lakes Project was approved that would regenerate 180 acres of aspen in the area. The following winter the first load of logs rumbled down the road.

The point of this story is that forest management decision-making is difficult and time-consuming, but public input is a critical part of the equation. If just a few sportsmen or women participate in the process they can greatly benefit all of us. This is true for all public land management agencies, not just the national forests. Minnesota has 16.7 million acres of forestland, 60% of which is publicly owned and managed. The DNR is currently going through Subsection Forest Management Planning and is taking public comments on their plans. County boards will also accept public comments on management of tax forfeited lands. If sportsmen and women don't take the time to get involved, dozens of anti-logging groups will. If that happens we can count on spending our golden years reflecting on the bountiful hunting we had back at the turn of the century and lamenting its loss.

The Forest Service is in the process of developing new Land and Resource Management Plans for both the Chippewa and Superior National Forests. The plans will set the management direction for these forests for the next 10-15 years. Public scoping is completed and a draft Environmental Impact Statement is due this year. If you want to help decide the fate of our National Forests, contact them and ask to be put on the plan revision mailing list.
Sidebar:

Chippewa National Forest: 200 Ash Avenue NW, Cass Lake, MN 56633, 218-335-8600

The Chippewa was the first National Forest established east of the Mississippi. The Forest boundary encompasses 1.6 million acres, of which over 666,325 acres are managed by the USDA Forest Service. Aspen, birch, pines, balsam fir and maples blanket the uplands. Water is abundant, with over 1300 lakes, 923 miles of rivers and streams, and 400,000 acres of wetlands.
Forest Supervisor: Logan Lee

Superior National Forest: 8901 Grand Avenue Place, Duluth, MN 55808 (218) 626-4300

The Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota spans 150 miles along the United States-Canadian border. Established as a National Forest in 1909 by proclamation of Teddy Roosevelt, this three million-acre forest is a rich and varied resource, including the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Over 445,000 acres or 695 square miles of the forest is surface water. In addition, more than 1,300 miles of cold water streams and 950 miles of warm water streams flow within the boundaries of the Superior.
Forest Supervisor: Jim Sanders