Groups sue Forest Service... again

[Lee Borgersen]

Groups sue Forest Service... again

Ely Echo Editorial

The lack of publicity surrounding another lawsuit filed by groups including the Sierra Club, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Northeast Minnesotans for Wilderness is not surprising. These groups continue to use the courts to find ways to promote an agenda.

This agenda is recycled from numerous other lawsuits: stop any motorized use and expand the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

The target this time is the Forest-wide Travel Management project for the Superior National Forest. This Forest Service initiative was developed to provide riding opportunities for off-highway vehicle use which includes all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles and four-wheel drive vehicles.

The impact on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area from the Travel Management project: zero. There are no new roads or trails in the BWCA.

But instead we find these groups seek to make their own rules by saying in their lawsuit, "The decision to authorize the Project violates the Wilderness Act because sound and noise, water quality, air quality, and non-native invasive species impacts will harm the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters."

Some may agree with that sentence. But be careful what you ask for. Because if this is true, and these trails will impact the BWCAW, what does this say for the Lake One landing? How about Moose Lake as a whole? Snowbank? Fall Lake? Burntside? Lake Vermilion? The Echo Trail? Should we keep going?

If an OHV on a trail a mile or several miles from the BWCAW line impacts and harms the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters, what about every parking area at many if not most of the entry points?

According to the USFS, this project seeks to "determine where and when different types of motorized vehicle use may occur on national forest roads and trails."

So there must be a ton of new trails being built, right? Nope. A total of 2.5 miles of new trail will be constructed. The project does provide for designated loop routes totalling 285 miles and long distance routes by more than 300 miles. However, it also gets rid of 154 miles of roads.

All of this in 4,000,000 acres of the Superior National Forest. Not in the Boundary Waters, but in areas where motorized use is allowed.

"There will be very little overall change in the total miles currently available (1,600 miles) on the Forest for off-highway vehicle use. This is because existing roads and trails are being utilized to designate loop and long distance routes where riding opportunities previously were fragmented and not coordinated with other land managers. Consolidating OHV use is expected to, over the long run, result in lower road maintenance costs, cleaner water, improved wildlife and fish habitat, and fewer conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreationists," according to the USFS.

To have the feds put together a plan for motorized users was impressive in itself. To have these groups sue is disappointing and shows that instead of finding ways to accommodate different uses, a single lane one-way approach is being used.

The lawsuit alleges the Forest Service violated five federal Acts, one Executive Order and seeks to "award plaintiffs their costs of suit and attorneys fees."

That, actually, does not surprise us at all.