The US Forest Service Superior National Forest has an Internet “blog” and Gunflint Ranger Dennis Neitzke updated it on Friday, February 18, apparently just before he was taking a week’s leave. Neitzke brought several issues—and questions—to the public’s attention. In his absence, Acting Ranger Becky Bartol provided the Cook County News-Herald with some answers.
Monitoring moose
In Neitzke’s blog entitled Planning Season, he said that the Gunflint District is working on the “Lima Green project set.” He said he had met with the Grand Portage and Fond du Lac Bands and the 1854 Authority to get advice on how best to manage the forest for moose habitat. Neitzke was pleased to report that three moose had been collared in the Superior National Forest area to assist the Forest Service in determining how well its habitat management project work is working.
Acting Ranger Bartol said, “There is a hope that if we provide good habitat, it would do the moose some good in light of the stressors the species is facing.”
Various vegetation management options
A project that has caused conflict between the Forest Service and some Gunflint Trail residents and business owners in the past is back on the Forest Service agenda—vegetation management along the Gunflint Trail. Neitzke said he met with the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway Committee to discuss how best to “conserve and promote the scenic quality of the Trail.”
However, that meeting with the scenic byways committee has already caused a bit of consternation as the Gunflint Trail community considers the Forest Service’s proposal. The “Lima Green” project lies between the Lima Grade and Greenwood Lake. Maps of the stands proposed for management along the Gunflint Trail can be seen at: gunflint-trail.com/ gtsb/.
Some residents and business owners who heard about this proposed project from Neitzke’s blog and/ or the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byways Committee are asking why this project has not been advertised. Acting Ranger Bartol said that is because the Forest Service is in the very early stages of planning. “There has been no scoping period. We are still in the process of developing the proposal. We’ve talked to the Grand Portage Band and we’re asking for input from the scenic byways folks. We’ve worked with them in the past on a vegetative management plan for the Gunflint corridor,” said Bartol.
A report entitled Vegetation Management Plan: A resource and management guide for the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway was completed in March 2010 by the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway Committee and James Raml, independent consultant. The purpose of that report, according to its authors, is to “serve as a stakeholderdeveloped framework for the preserva- tion and enhancement of the natural and historic vegetation of the scenic byway.”
“We want to now start implementing the plan, so we want to talk to them about what it would take to do so,” explained Bartol. “Once we have our proposal put together, there will be a scoping period and the usual public comment process will take place.
“We want to work with them to ensure the best harvest and to get long-life species back,” said Bartol.
In a statement to its members and other Gunflint Trail stakeholders, the Scenic Byways Committee wrote, “We are obviously concerned with the visual impact, environmental impact, invasive species spread and the replanting efforts after the cuts.”
The byways committee listed “some positive outcomes” as “better moose habitat, more longlived species for the next generation, some views of the North and South Brule Rivers, jobs for local loggers and mill workers.”
However, the byways committee also cited concern about “negative long term outcomes” such as “further spread of invasive species, uncompleted or ineffective replanting efforts and the fragmentation of a larger forest ecosystem.” The byways committee also noted that “Short term, of course, nobody likes the look of a recently cut stand.”
Notice of national planning
In February 2010, the US Forest Service published notice of a new planning rule, intended to guide the Forest Service in its management of the national forest system which consists of 155 national forests, 29 grasslands, and one prairie. Superior National Forest in Cook County is one of the federal holdings that would be affected by the rule. Throughout 2010, forums and roundtables were held around the country—none in Minnesota. In February 2010, Neitzke explained that Superior National Forest falls in the US Forest Service Region 9 – Eastern Region, which spans from New Hampshire to West Virginia, and to Missouri. The closest planning rule public meeting was in Chicago, Illinois.
In his blog, Neitzke announced that a public meeting via video-teleconference is planned for Region 9 on Wednesday, March 23 in Duluth. Bartol said the teleconference will be broadcast from Washington, D.C. She cautioned that the Duluth meeting was not for collecting comments from the public. “It’s to help people understand what is proposed,” she said, “and to explain the planning rule process.”
Michael Jimenez of the Forest Service’s Duluth office confirmed the purpose of the meeting was not to accept comments, but encouraged anyone interested to attend. The Duluth office will be linked by video with a meeting in Milwaukee. The Forest Service in Duluth is located at 8901 Grand Avenue Place. Two video-teleconference sessions are planned at 1:00 – 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
More information on the Forest Service National Planning Rule can be found at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. Comments from the public must be received in writing by May 16, 2011.
Suggested Scenic Byway Forest Management Principles
Older mature forest character should be maintained where it still exists and is viable.
Within-stand age-class and species diversity should be maintained or enhanced wherever possible when conducting forest management within the byway corridor. Creation of evenaged aspen monocultures should be avoided.
Clear-cutting adjacent to the byway should be avoided when possible.
In its place should be partial or species-specific cuts, leaving behind a variety of varying aged conifers scattered throughout the stand.
When timber harvest is deemed necessary for forest health, such as in over-mature aspen and jack pine stands, or in disease, insect, wind or fire-damaged stands, the above-mentioned principles should be applied.
Longer-lived native tree species such as red and white pine, white cedar, white spruce, tamarack and maple should be planted where appropriate.
Leave a Reply