TALKING POINTS FOR SUPERIOR & CHIPPEWA NATIONAL FOREST PLAN COMMENTS

MRR recommends Alternative D which emphasizes more semi-primitive non-motorized forms of recreation. Since a vast majority of Minnesotans and Americans in general participate in non-motorized forms of recreation, this makes the most sense (see published Recreation Use in Minnesota study, and 2001 Outdoor Recreation in America study, American Recreation Coalition, 2001, http://www.funoutdoors.com/research.html). While MRR sincerely appreciates the fact that in all alternatives except Alternative A, year-round RMV and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) cross-country travel would be eliminated on the Superior and Chippewa National Forests, we are disturbed by the fact that the preferred alternative, Alternative E, allows ATV cross-country travel for big game retrieval and furbearer trapping access

Cross-country travel must not be allowed at all times in all places on the Superior and Chippewa National Forest. All other trails not clearly marked and signed for RMV or ATV travel should be off-limits to motorized travel.

The negative impacts of RMV and ATV use on the forest are not being address in the plans.

*The preferred alternative provides the largest number of miles of new designated RMV trails. MRR believes that no new trail miles be targeted until each individual project is addressed and the environmental impacts of that project are carefully considered. Setting a target implies that it must be met, and it is possible that thorough environmental review of these trails may not make meeting such a target likely.

*Designating a maximum of 100 miles of new snowmobile trails in the preferred alternative when the negative impact of these trails on threatened species like the Lynx may be significant is a mistake. This provision should be taken out of the preferred alternative. MRR believes that the over 18,000 miles of snowmobile trails already present in the State should be more than enough to provide access to nearly every nook and cranny of the State for snowmobile use.

*The Forest Service must recognize and address the effect of RMV use on wildlife habitat, particularly the impacts from RMV and ATV routes making safe and secure areas for species much smaller, increasing the ease for poachers to access game species, and the fragmentation of habitats from RMV and ATV designated and user created informal routes. Nowhere in the forest plan is the significant negative impact of RMV use on wildlife addressed.

When addressing Scenic Quality in the plan, the Forest Service does not address the very dramatic and significant negative effects of RMVs and ATVs on the forests’ scenic qualities. Eroded hillsides, torn up wetlands, mudholes and braided and rutted trails are all significant detractors to scenic quality on the forests.

When addressing the regions social and economic impacts, the Forest Service fails to look at the potential negative impact of RMV and ATV use on the regions social and economic sustainability in the spring, summer and fall seasons, particularly along Minnesota North Shore.