Minnesota Grouse Enthusiasts:  Call To Action!!!
 
The time is upon us to let the Forest Service how YOU want the Chippewa and Superior National Forests to look in the future.  The proposed plans that will guide management for the next 15 years is out for public comment.  You have until August 11 to make your voice heard.  Very few of you have the time to devote to reading and analyzing the 6-inch thick documentation provided by the Forest Service.  The Ruffed Grouse Society has done that for you, and believe us when we say it does not look good for the state's hunters.  Habitat quantity and quality for all of the forest game species will diminish, yet the Service did not acknowledge or analyze the potential social, recreational or economic impact to those of us that dream of the golden leaves of autumn.  They tell us that this is in part because they haven't heard from you.  But they are hearing from those that want the whole forest to be old growth timber!!
 
A summary of the Ruffed Grouse Society's comments is provided below.  PLEASE do not forward them to the Forest Service as they will not  give any credence to duplicate comments.  However, you may use our comments for guidance as you develop your own comments and submit them in your own words.  The Society's full comments are available if you want them, but they are very detailed and run 23 pages in length.  Contact me if you want a copy.
 
Again, the deadline for comments is in less than 2 weeks.  You may mail them to:  Forest Plan Revision, Chippewa National Forest, 200 Ash Avenue NW, Cass Lake, MN  56633,  email them to tstruecker@fs.fed.us or comment on the web at www.fs.fed.us/r9/chippewa.


Minnesota National Forest Plan Revision Comments

Executive Summary

Ruffed Grouse Society

July 2003

The Ruffed Grouse Society appreciates and respects the difficulty the Forest Service faces in trying to meet the needs and expectations of the various forest users. However, we feel that they have fell well short of middle ground with these proposed forest plans. The Society has some very serious concerns about the future management direction proposed for the Chippewa and Superior National Forests in Minnesota. First and foremost the plan deviates from the 1986 plan with regard to game populations and hunting interests. Sportsmen are one of the largest user groups of the National Forests, yet the plan proposes to greatly reduce game habitat quantity and quality in favor of old growth forests, restoration of "historic" landscapes and visual concerns. These changes will have serious impacts to hunters, their social traditions and to the local and regional economy. These impacts are largely ignored, but must be recognized and analyzed. 

Aspen forests, vitally important habitat for ruffed grouse, woodcock and other game species, will be reduced by 17,000 acres on each forest within just 10 years. In most cases these forests will be converted to spruce/fir, sugar maple or pine stands. The long-term goal is to reduce aspen by over 220,000 acres (35%). This will result in 37,000 fewer grouse available to sportsmen each year on national forest land. One conservative estimate of the economic value of these birds is $1.85 million per year. Game habitat quality will suffer as well, as the proposal calls for drastic declines in clearcutting. Clearcutting is silviculturally appropriate in many forest types, helps prevent insects and diseases, mimics the effects of historic wildfires, is economical, creates wildlife habitat, is inexpensive to administer and results in rapid forest growth. Clearcutting aspen creates dense young stands preferred by grouse, woodcock and deer so they can escape their many predators.  Yet these plans call for drastic reductions in clearcutting, particularly on the Chippewa Forest.

There are also many other non-game animals that rely on this type of forest that was once created after wildfires. Over 42% of the breeding population of the highly imperiled golden-winged warbler lives in Minnesota, because it loves to nest in thick, young aspen. The highest breeding densities in the nation are found on the Chippewa Forest. The proposed plan's lack of emphasis on traditional aspen management may very well jeopardize global golden-winged warbler populations and lead to listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Other game animals will suffer under these proposed plans as well. They specify that there will be less emphasis upon creating or maintaining wildlife openings, wood duck boxes and impoundments. This will negatively affect deer, bear, woodcock, and forest ducks. Riparian areas will be managed for old growth, which will diminish habitat for woodcock and beaver. Less aspen in the Superior will mean less food for moose. Hunters will find fewer trails and trail maintenance.

The Forest Service did not analyze the economic value of hunting on northern Minnesota communities, the social value of hunting to the many sportsmen with cabins and hunt camps around the forest, or the recreational hunting importance of the forest to the public. Their own data show that 43% of forest visitors are there primarily to hunt and fish. Public use of national forests for hunting and fishing is increasing as private lands become less accessible. We are asking the service to recognize these issues and provide a greater amount and quality of game habitat in the future than currently proposed.

Much of the reasoning behind these changes stems from a desire to manage the land towards historic forest conditions. Scientists have estimated the approximate type and age of forests that existed just prior to the arrival of European settlers and have surmised that this condition was the only one that could assure the maintenance of biodiversity. This condition, dubbed the "Range of Natural Variability" (RNV) is dominated by older forests with more pine trees. The Society points out that the selected period from 1600 - 1900 only represents one snapshot in time. This was a wet, cold period known as the "Little Ice Age", so there were fewer wildfires, resulting in less young forest and more old growth pine. There have been many other vegetative and ecosystem conditions in northern Minnesota over time. During some periods the climate was much warmer and drier, resulting in northward movement of prairies into Minnesota and boreal forests into Canada. The RNV estimates are also flawed by biased information and application of the data at scales for which it was not intended. 

We, the Forest Service's own Research and Development Team, and many other reputable scientists believe that it is wrong to attempt to manage towards historic conditions and in many ways it is impossible. There are now 5 million people living in Minnesota, all of who have different needs, desires and expectations of the forest. There are innumerable other landowners living within the boundaries of the forest. Many foresters, loggers, mill employees and suppliers rely on timber production for their livelihoods. In short, management for historic conditions is not economically or socially sustainable. Yet the preferred alternative, Alternative E, would have the forest almost completely within RNV in the future. 

The emphasis placed upon the past, despite the contrasting opinion of many, is alarming. The manner in which the Service selected which of the available data to use allows people to reasonably question whether the planning team really produced a true range of alternatives or simply found data to support a predetermined future forest direction. We have asked the Forest Service to develop an alternative that is not judged on how well it re-creates historic conditions, but rather on how well it provides for the current and future needs of the people of Minnesota without endangering species viability.

Old growth forest is important to some species and is currently found at much lower levels than in the past. However, there is no evidence that we need to return to the historic levels of old growth in order to protect biodiversity. If enacted, 39% of the Chippewa forest and 60% of the Superior will be old growth in the future - an 11-fold and 4-fold increase, respectively. 

We are also very concerned that the Forest Service did not consider an alternative that maintained or increased the current amount of aspen type on the Forests. Aspen forest communities continue to decline nationwide, regionally, and on the Forest. Since the mid-1960’s, the total area of aspen in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, which contains 80 percent of the aspen in the Eastern US, has decreased by 21 percent. Many species dependant on aspen and young forests are declining as well. Here in Minnesota we have the opportunity to provide a type of forest that is missing in many other parts of the nation and support a suite of species that require young forest conditions to thrive.

In summary, we are asking the Forest Service to acknowledge the importance of the Forests in providing habitat for game species of immense importance to the citizens of Minnesota and maintain that habitat. This activity will benefit many other species as well. We should be creating vigorously growing healthy forests, not pushing our forests towards large acres of old, dead and dying trees in the name of biodiversity. We believe we can provide for healthy populations of all forest animals without implementing excessive restrictions. We do not believe that recreating yesterday's landscape can serve the needs of today's society, so the emphasis on RNV is unwarranted. We ask that the Service go back to the drawing table and create a new alternative that meets the needs and desires of the public.