On February 14, 2010, the Cook County ATV Club wrote a letter to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) office in Bountiful, Utah regarding development of a new forest management planning rule. The letter was supported by some of the Cook County commissioners on Tuesday, February 23, 2010. Other groups with local interests also wrote the Forest Service regarding their visions for the new planning rule.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, “A national Forest Service planning rule provides the overarching framework for individual forests and grasslands in the National Forest System to use in developing, amending and revising land management plans.”
The Forest Service proposed a set of principles that could be used in the development of the new planning rule. These include “an emphasis on restoration, conservation, and the improved resilience of ecosystems; watershed health; climate change response; species diversity and wildlife habitat; sustainable National Forest System lands; proactive collaboration; and working across landscapes.”
Cook County ATV Club
The ATV Club’s letter states, “Our county has been negatively impacted numerous times in the past by national rules. We want the Forest Service to implement a planning process that adequately considers the impact on the people who live, work, and play in the forest.
“We believe the biggest threat to forest and grassland health is lack of use. Too much land is locked away as ‘wilderness’ and ‘protected’ so our forests are dying and forest users are unable to use our public lands. In Cook County it is almost impossible to hike in the woods because of all the deadfall. An active logging and replanting program would help restore the health of the Superior National Forest. Logging roads created for harvest should be left open for recreation purposes.”
The Cook County ATV Club letter goes on to say, “We agree that Forest Service plans should foster sustainable NFS [National Forest Service] lands and their contribution to vibrant rural economies. …The Forest Service is correct that our forests ‘oftentimes define the essence of a community.’ For generations, Cook County welcomed all to its borders. However, since 1978 and the creation of the BWCAW, that welcoming attitude has been declining, in part because the Forest Service has not recognized that our community thrives with multiple uses of our public lands – not just canoeing. The essence of our community was, and should continue to be, the welcoming of all forest users.”
The letter talked about drawbacks to previous planning processes in which local residents did not know about proposed changes to forest plans. “The planning process should ensure that all changes to a specific forest should be clearly introduced to the residents of the forest,” it says. The club also recommended shortening comment and appeal periods and limiting the number of appeals.
The club urged the Forest Service to recognize diverse needs among its forests. “Every forest is different,” they wrote, “and should have the freedom to implement its own rules. Theculture and heritage of our region includes mining, logging, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing and traveling in off-highway vehicles. Those historical uses should be honored and allowed in [the] Superior National Forest in a manner appropriate for the region….”
“There are extremely different views on how our public lands should be used, and the Forest Service should look at what is best for the forest,” the letter states.
” Conservationists With Common Sense
Conservationists With Common Sense (CWCS) president Nancy McReady supported “commercial logging where appropriate, which achieves the agency’s mandates for community health and prosperity, and also protects against so-called ‘fatal wildfires’ and insect and disease outbreak. …The ‘hands-off’ approach, especially for designated Wilderness Areas, has resulted in a backlog of unhealthy forests.”
The Sierra Club
The Sierra Club, represented by Jim Bensman, submitted a 24-page letter. Bensman wrote, “Forest planning, management, and the monitoring of activities must be based on sound science, open decision-making, and the full and regular involvement by the public, from the earliest planning function through the complete management process.”
The Sierra Club opposed using woody biomass from federal forests for renewable energy as well as commercial logging. “Old ways of land management,” Bensman wrote, “…will not bring about ‘vibrant’ rural communities but rather will condemn such communities to a failing, declining way of life.” He suggested replacing the logging industry with watershed restoration, recreational development, and ecosystem repair projects.
Bensman went on to say, “Rather than being a neutral process which determines how the national forests can best meet the needs of the American people, forest planning, as practiced by the Forest Service, is a political process replete with opportunities for the intrusion of bias and abuse. Because national forests are located near rural communities, foresters make management decisions to support perceived needs in the communities.”
Regarding the possibility of mining on federal forests, the Sierra Club’s letter stated, “…Planning regulations should require planners to develop standards and guidelines which far exceed basic best management practices (BMPs) and existing regulatory requirements.”
The Sierra Club urged the Forest Service to be more responsive to its input by providing individual responses to comments, even when the comments are several hundred pages, and advocated for two levels of appeal.
The Sierra Club recommended that the new planning rule include strong standards. “Instead of using weasel words like ‘may’ and ‘can,’” Bensman wrote, “words like ‘shall’ and ‘must’ need to be used.”
The Nature Conservancy
Robert Bendick of The Nature Conservancy recommended developing a broad vision that reflected an understanding of the relationship of federal land to all the land around it. “Well-established principles of conservation biology and landscape ecology suggest that the agency needs to place NFS lands within a broader regional context when undertaking its planning efforts.” The organization supported land acquisition and partnerships with other governmental entities and private landowners.
Friends of the Boundary Waters
The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness did not submit a letter at this stage in the process but will weigh in at some point. “We would be advocating that the health of the forest would be given first priority so that we could move forward in a sustainable way,” Executive Director Paul Danicic said in a March 2 phone interview. “We respect that there’s multiple use out there,” he said, adding that the organization believes its goals are good for gateway communities.
National Association of Counties
National Association of Counties Executive Director Larry Naake wrote a letter requesting better coordination between federal land decisions and local planning efforts and asking the Forest Service to invite local government participation. “Experience has taught us that early and regular face-to-face meetings with the governing bodies of the affected counties is the best way to initiate and maintain appropriate local-level collaboration,” Naake wrote.
County commissioners
Commissioner Jan Hall commented on the ATV Club letter. “I thought it was a good letter, a strong letter,” she said. She wondered if the county board was addressing the issue. Commissioner Bob Fenwick, board liaison to the Forest Service, said he is addressing it.
“I think the letter is appropriate,” he said, “for the purposes right now.”
The 60-day comment period ended February 16.
In its own words, “The mission of the
USDA Forest Service is to sustain the
health, diversity, and productivity of the
nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the
needs of present and future generations.
The agency manages the 193 million acres
of National Forest System land, provides
stewardship assistance to non-federal forest
landowners, and maintains the largest forestry
research organization in the world.”
Leave a Reply