PDA

View Full Version : Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project



Jarhead
December 15th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Previously, I have made posts in an attempt to help educate and make wheelers aware they can make a huge difference by just giving a few minutes a day or an hour a week to help our sport.

Just one example: http://www.glfwda.org/showthread.php?t=8664&highlight=sopa

If you do nothing else, download the attached PDF and fill out the PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET and it to the Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger Districts Huron-Manistee National Forests address provided.

This scoping project requires our immediate attention as the areas affected are areas we currently use, including our trash cleanup area. We need to act quickly as comments need to be submitted by January 11, 2010. Jeff Traynor is scheduling a meeting regarding the scoping project for Sunday, December 20th at 10:00 a.m. at Forest Hills Foods, 4668 Cascade Rd Se, Grand Rapids Township, 49546, hope to see you there.

Project Name: Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project EA

*NEW LISTING*

Project Purpose
- Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants
- Forest products

Planning Status
Developing Proposal
Est. Scoping Start 11/2009

Decision
Expected: 06/2010

Expected Implementation: 07/2010

Description: Restoration and Creation of savanna by reducing forest canopy to 10-50% canopy closure, burning, seeding of nectar plants, and herbicide treatment of invasive plant species. Treatment area is 3,000 acres.

Location: UNIT - Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District. STATE - Michigan. COUNTY - Muskegon, Oceana. LEGAL - T13N, R17W, Sec 36, T13N, R16W Sec 1-5, 9-16, 19-36, T13N R15W Sec 2-10, 16-18, 19,20,29,30, T11-12N, R 17 W Sec 1,2, T12N, R16W Sec 4-6. Grant , Otto & Greenwood Townships, Oceana County, Montague-White Hall & Blue LakeTwsp, Muskegon Co.

Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Huron-Manistee National Forest
http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110904

sumpter1
December 16th, 2009, 09:00 AM
Will do, thanks.

Jarhead
December 16th, 2009, 12:41 PM
Upon receiving the scoping letter, my first thoughts were of what if any impact does this project have on the recently published MVUM. The Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project Public Scoping Letter states, “…closing of one Forest Road and one spur road (a combined total of 1.4 miles).” Additionally, the Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project Public Scoping Letter states, “Roadside barriers would occur in other locations throughout the area…”

The SOPA description identifies a mere 3,000 acres, yet the Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project Public Scoping Letter, Project Area Description states, “the project Area consists of approximately 26,000 acres”. I would argue that this project in its entirety was predetermined with malicious intent to become reality with little to no opposition. The variance in description is intentionally misleading and defies the rules governing the FOIA.

Further, the Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project Public Scoping Letter states, “Since its establishment, the management of the HMNF has focused on providing the American people with a land base that provides multiple-uses and sustained yields.” I believe this implied “sustained yield” needs to be identified and quantified as this project does nothing more than to further restrict OHV use, thereby further eliminating multiple-uses. If we were to establish a bar graph to represent the alleged multiple-use categories, we would graphically see the misrepresentation and disproportion of sustained yields.

Deforestation presents multiple societal and environmental problems. The immediate and long-term consequences of global deforestation are almost certain to jeopardize life on Earth, as we know it. Some of these consequences include: loss of biodiversity; the destruction of forest-based-societies; and climatic disruption.

The Savanna Ecosystem Restoration Project Public Scoping Letter states, “Savanna creation would occur on 2,950 acres over the next ten years. A combination …to reduce tree/shrub density to an average of 10-25% canopy cover (open) within 70-80% of treated areas and to an average of 25-60% cover (woodland) within 20-30% of treated areas. The canopy is critical to a forest's well-being, and it provides habitat to a wide range of plants and animals. In fact, the canopy is so unique that some organisms spend their entire lives there, never venturing down to the ground. Are we to only consider the needs of the Karner blue butterfly?

Only certain trees reach the height of the canopy. These trees often have suppressed growth as seedlings while they wait in the understory. When a canopy tree falls, a seedling shoots up to take its place, growing rapidly so that it can reach the light. Once the tree reaches the height of the canopy, it tops out, adding girth but not much height. Eventually, it will die or be damaged in a storm, falling to the ground and contributing to the thick layer of decaying organic material on the forest floor while another seedling takes its place.

Epiphytic plants, lichens, and ferns often live in the forest canopy, sometimes in the uppermost layers so that they can take advantage of the light and ample supply of water, and sometimes in lower regions. These plants combine with the trees to create habitat for birds, insects, and mammals large and small.

The forest is quite a unique ecosystem, with a number of microclimates within a mature and healthy forest. These microclimates sustain some very diverse creatures in all shapes, colors, and sizes, making a visit to any forest an interesting expedition, for those who have the patience to wait and observe. Even in a very small area of a forest, it is possible to count numerous organisms, from tiny fungi on the ground to towering canopy trees.

As to additional comments we need to make, I feel it is absolutely imperative that we provide a complete GPS listing with maps of all desired routes/trails in the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Whilst the input period for the MVUM is not until March, I believe we would be missing a unique opportunity to get the information entered as a part of the public record in that the NFS already intend to make change to the MVUM based of this project.

phittie1100
December 16th, 2009, 07:57 PM
Not to sound like the village idiot, but someone explain to me how road closures improve the chances of survival for KBB? Unless the lupine grows in the middle of the trail, or perhaps within a couple of feet of the trail, how is my recreational use of the forest road system impacting the KBB? This sounds like it is more about creating wilderness areas than protecting butterflies.

2TrakR
December 16th, 2009, 11:06 PM
USFS has forced our Club to not use certain roads for part of our permitted events due to KBB (or detected/estimated presence of same); also was seasonal, if event was earlier/later in the year, the road probably could have been used.

Reason for this.... as I understand, is that the KBB likes to have "corridors" in the woods that it uses to travel/fly/get groceries, especially during [mating/hatching] season. Since the buggers fly down roads (love ORV trails too) they are susceptible to vehicular impact, as in "we'll run into them". The Feds have moved/closed ORV trail (Little O, for example) due to presence of KBB...

Think of a windshield full of blue butterflies... Needless to say, all of us who've been riding in these areas for years have never had a major "butterfly disaster".

Well duh, if the dang things need "roads" to exist; if they have been expanding into other areas with "roads" and those "roads" are otherwise open to motorized travel, then clearly they _can_ coincide with vehicles and there really isn't an issue, right?

Got to love the Endangered Species Act.

phittie1100
December 17th, 2009, 01:17 AM
I can't remember the last time I was travling through the MNF fast enough to impact a butterfly and do it harm.

Well, except every time I was following Pat somewhere :D

timbercruiser
December 17th, 2009, 10:04 AM
I have downloaded the comment sheet.
How should we express our concerns? Where are the trails?

Overall, they are trying to restore a fire dominated ecosystem.

Trail_Fanatic
December 17th, 2009, 08:57 PM
I would imagine more details and bullets might be available following the meeting.

Greenway
December 19th, 2009, 12:02 PM
Looking at the maps provided by the USFS, they intend to close around 10 miles of prime scenic roads along the White river.

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt285/tomjefferson/Jeep/Land%20Use/Map1.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt285/tomjefferson/Jeep/Land%20Use/Map2.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt285/tomjefferson/Jeep/Land%20Use/Map3.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt285/tomjefferson/Jeep/Land%20Use/Map4.jpg

Here's a few of my thoughts:

The proposed forest roads designated to be closed do not significantly impact the KBB because of the following reasons.

There are numerous county roads within the area with relatively high speed traffic that the KBB will also use as corridors which will put them at much greater risk than with the slow traffic on the roads proposed to be closed. Are maps going to be posted throughout the metapopulation area by the USFS to show the KBB where THEY'RE allowed to go?

Vehicular counts on the proposed closed roads are likely lower than on the county roads.

Closing the scenic roads will shift some of the traffic to the higher speed county roads causing more risk to the KBB.

The land area of the roads proposed to be closed is insignificant compared to the overall metapopulation area.

The detrimental impact to recreation in the area is huge if the roads are allowed to be closed. Those of us who are not hikers or equestrians are essentially barred from using this public land.

Closing roads will not reduce illegal ATV use because they can go around or over all barriers. In fact, it will increase illegal use due to more public roads being deemed illegal by one government agency, while the general population still desire to use those roads.

There are better areas to use for non-motorized primitive use than an area littered with county roads.

Greenway
December 19th, 2009, 01:00 PM
I will not be able to make it to Sunday's meeting so please take these ideas with you. Also please inquire about these things when you meet with Les and Chris.

phittie1100
December 20th, 2009, 08:09 PM
We had a good meeting today in Grand Rapids. We have a lot of work to do - we are going to get started on a list of specific issues to include in your comments and some sample letters to use. The Two Trackers are coordinating a ride-along this week to get some of the USFS staff out to see firsthand the potential loss of closing these trails, more to come in the next couple of days.

Creative Fab
December 20th, 2009, 09:28 PM
Thanks for the update Paul, and for taking a sunday out of your busy schedule to go. And you as well Bob:thumb:

Western Rider
December 20th, 2009, 09:40 PM
There are better areas to use for non-motorized primitive use than an area littered with county roads.[/QUOTE]

The White River Semi-primative area was designated as part of a past Forest Plan Decision nearly 20 years ago. The Decision was upheald in the March 2006 update to the plan. A decision to change the designation would be outside the scope of the the savannah project EA. It will not get addressed in this document even if the question comes up during the scoping process.

Greenway
December 21st, 2009, 09:38 AM
I'm not going to get hung up on it's designation. The road closures that bar me from public land are part of this project, and that's what I'm concerned with.

By the way, welcome to the forum. :wave:

timbercruiser
December 21st, 2009, 10:32 AM
Here's a few of my thoughts:

The proposed forest roads designated to be closed do not significantly impact the KBB because of the following reasons.

There are numerous county roads within the area with relatively high speed traffic that the KBB will also use as corridors which will put them at much greater risk than with the slow traffic on the roads proposed to be closed. Are maps going to be posted throughout the metapopulation area by the USFS to show the KBB where THEY'RE allowed to go?

Vehicular counts on the proposed closed roads are likely lower than on the county roads.

Closing the scenic roads will shift some of the traffic to the higher speed county roads causing more risk to the KBB.

The land area of the roads proposed to be closed is insignificant compared to the overall metapopulation area.




Very good points. I'll include these on the Public Comment Sheet!!


Thanks to those who are taking action!!!

The detrimental impact to recreation in the area is huge if the roads are allowed to be closed. Those of us who are not hikers or equestrians are essentially barred from using this public land.

Closing roads will not reduce illegal ATV use because they can go around or over all barriers. In fact, it will increase illegal use due to more public roads being deemed illegal by one government agency, while the general population still desire to use those roads.

There are better areas to use for non-motorized primitive use than an area littered with county roads.[/QUOTE]

phittie1100
December 21st, 2009, 11:13 AM
Great points Dave, I'll add them to the list!

Greenway
December 21st, 2009, 12:23 PM
Great points Dave, I'll add them to the list!

:laughing2:

timbercruiser
December 23rd, 2009, 10:14 AM
:laughing2:

:rolleyes:
The quotation marks are missing

phittie1100
December 23rd, 2009, 11:30 AM
OK I missed it - did you copy from someone else in class Mr. timbercruiser?

I got it on the list no matter who said it first......LOL

By the way, for anyone else that was thinking it but was afraid to ask...

Metapopulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A metapopulation consists of a group of spatially separated populations of the same species which interact at some level. The term metapopulation was coined by Richard Levins in 1970 to describe a model of population dynamics of insect pests in agricultural fields, but the idea has been most broadly applied to species in naturally or artificially fragmented habitats. In Levins' own words, it consists of "a population of populations".[1]

A metapopulation is generally considered to consist of several distinct populations together with areas of suitable habitat which are currently unoccupied. In classical metapopulation theory, each population cycles in relative independence of the other populations and eventually goes extinct as a consequence of demographic stochasticity (fluctuations in population size due to random demographic events); the smaller the population, the more prone it is to extinction.

Although individual populations have finite life-spans, the metapopulation as a whole is often stable because immigrants from one population (which may, for example, be experiencing a population boom) are likely to re-colonize habitat which has been left open by the extinction of another population. They may also emigrate to a small population and rescue that population from extinction (called the rescue effect).

The development of metapopulation theory, in conjunction with the development of source-sink dynamics, emphasised the importance of connectivity between seemingly isolated populations. Although no single population may be able to guarantee the long-term survival of a given species, the combined effect of many populations may be able to do this.

Metapopulation theory was first developed for terrestrial ecosystems, and subsequently applied to the marine realm.[2] In fisheries science, the term "sub-population" is equivalent to the metapopulation science term "local population". Most marine examples are provided by relatively sedentary species occupying discrete patches of habitat, with both local recruitment and recruitment from other local populations in the larger metapopulation. Kritzer & Sale have argued against strict application of the metapopulation definitional criteria that extinction risks to local populations must be non-negligible.[2]:32

An important contributor to metapopulation theory is the Finnish biologist, Ilkka Hanski [1], of the University of Helsinki.

Jarhead
December 23rd, 2009, 11:58 AM
OK I missed it - did you copy from someone else in class Mr. timbercruiser?

I got it on the list no matter who said it first......LOL

By the way, for anyone else that was thinking it but was afraid to ask...

Metapopulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A metapopulation consists of a group of spatially separated populations of the same species which interact at some level. The term metapopulation was coined by Richard Levins in 1970 to describe a model of population dynamics of insect pests in agricultural fields, but the idea has been most broadly applied to species in naturally or artificially fragmented habitats. In Levins' own words, it consists of "a population of populations".[1]

A metapopulation is generally considered to consist of several distinct populations together with areas of suitable habitat which are currently unoccupied. In classical metapopulation theory, each population cycles in relative independence of the other populations and eventually goes extinct as a consequence of demographic stochasticity (fluctuations in population size due to random demographic events); the smaller the population, the more prone it is to extinction.

Although individual populations have finite life-spans, the metapopulation as a whole is often stable because immigrants from one population (which may, for example, be experiencing a population boom) are likely to re-colonize habitat which has been left open by the extinction of another population. They may also emigrate to a small population and rescue that population from extinction (called the rescue effect).

The development of metapopulation theory, in conjunction with the development of source-sink dynamics, emphasised the importance of connectivity between seemingly isolated populations. Although no single population may be able to guarantee the long-term survival of a given species, the combined effect of many populations may be able to do this.

Metapopulation theory was first developed for terrestrial ecosystems, and subsequently applied to the marine realm.[2] In fisheries science, the term "sub-population" is equivalent to the metapopulation science term "local population". Most marine examples are provided by relatively sedentary species occupying discrete patches of habitat, with both local recruitment and recruitment from other local populations in the larger metapopulation. Kritzer & Sale have argued against strict application of the metapopulation definitional criteria that extinction risks to local populations must be non-negligible.[2]:32

An important contributor to metapopulation theory is the Finnish biologist, Ilkka Hanski [1], of the University of Helsinki.

WHOA! I gonna have to work to be more educated in this crowd :ahhh:

phittie1100
December 23rd, 2009, 01:23 PM
I saw that term in both the scoping letter and some of the comments above, but I had never seen the word "metapopulation" before.

It creates a bigger problem in my mind though - 1) metapopulations are dynamic, and shift based based on changes in the ecosystem and 2) the proposed savannah project is intended to protect the travel corridors of the local populations of KBB to maintain the regional viability of the species by connecting local populations into a larger metapopulation then 3) how do we know the USFS won't be back next year asking for more semi-primitive areas to protect the travel corridors of a changing dispersal of the local KBB populations? Will they give us back sections of the forest that no longer sustain KBB populations?

Western Rider
December 23rd, 2009, 04:12 PM
The Semi-Primative Non-Motorized Area discussed in this savannah proposal has nothing to do with the KBB. The KBB just happens to have some habitat areas which fall into the White River SPNMA. The Forest Service would be closing the roads in this area regardless, KBB or no KBB. Non Motorized Areas in this state are a rare thing. Eliminating the final roads in this area completes the desired condition outline in the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan.

Jarhead
December 23rd, 2009, 06:37 PM
...Eliminating the final roads in this area completes the desired condition outline in the Huron-Manistee Forest Plan.
This is really the whole point. We need to work together to cohabitate in order to fully enjoy the natural resources that Michigan has to offer. simply elimination has proven to very unsuccessful because the unmonitored areas often become the areas of illegally off-road usage. We want to eradicate the illegal off-road usage by developing acceptable alternatives.

The statement as to illegal off-road usage, isn't simply the guy in a Jeep or some other vehicle often accused of the illegal spurs that develop. More often than not, it is the local guy that has played in the area for as many years as he/she is old as their mothers and fathers have used the areas as well.

mytacoma
December 25th, 2009, 10:58 AM
There are better areas to use for non-motorized primitive use than an area littered with county roads.

The White River Semi-primative area was designated as part of a past Forest Plan Decision nearly 20 years ago. The Decision was upheald in the March 2006 update to the plan. A decision to change the designation would be outside the scope of the the savannah project EA. It will not get addressed in this document even if the question comes up during the scoping process.[/QUOTE]



That is consistant with what they said to us duing our trip Tuesday. We should still include our comments about this designation in a response just to keep the subject current.

Greenway
January 4th, 2010, 05:13 PM
After looking into this project further, we came to the following conclusion. This project is actually 2 separate projects disguised as one.

The first one, which fits the title, is the Savanna Restoration for the butterflies. I personally have no problem with the restoration of savanna. What I do object to is the closure of FR 9310 which is about 3/4 of a mile long because it bisects the proposed area. This on map 3.

The second is approximately 10 miles of road closure on map 4. This consists of FRs 5315, 5306, 9353, 5295, and 9045. While this is adjacent to KBB areas, the primary focus here is closing roads to create a semiprimitive nonmotorized area where none should exist.

If you want to compare these intentionally vague maps with the PDF version of the Motor Vehicle Use Map, click here. (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hmnf/pages/Recreation/pdf_files/MVUM_Baldwin_AnsiE_size_2009.pdf)

Jarhead
January 11th, 2010, 05:58 PM
Here are Gary Greenway's comments on behalf of GLFWDA:

Jarhead
January 11th, 2010, 06:04 PM
Here are Pat Browers comments on behalf of UFWDA:

Greenway
April 18th, 2010, 09:38 PM
Sunday 4-11-10
Front page of the Grand Rapids Press

Here's the link to the whole article and its text in case the article disappears.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/04/manistee_national_forest_users.html

HESPERIA -- Alan Deater grew up hunting and fishing near his house in the splendid acres of deep forest that border the White River in a part of the Manistee National Forest that has become like home.

But the 52-year-old Hesperia hobby shop owner is questioning the wisdom of a U.S. Forest Service proposal to close 10 miles of two-track in a special part of the forest to protect butterflies.

The closure is one of several changes forest staffers are recommending over the next 10 years to create additional habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly and to finally take care of road closures that were called for in 1986 to ensure a public area for quiet, non-motorized recreation.

Both are parts of a management plan put in place in 2007.

“It’s kind of a bummer that (the road) is going away,” said Deater, one of more than 100 Michigan residents who have commented on the proposal that affects nearly 5,000 acres of national forest in Muskegon and Oceana counties. The forest is a total of 540,187 acres.

“The area pulls people from Whitehall, Montague and Muskegon,” Deater said. “If they close off the extra 10-mile loop, it will totally eliminate access to the river on our side of it with a motorized vehicle. You will have to walk in or out to hunt or fish.”

Deater was referring to the 7,000-acre White River Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized Area that was so designated in 1986. It is a popular part of the forest on the river, where hunters, anglers, hikers and horseback riders regularly come to play.

The proposed changes will disrupt the way things have been. There will be fewer places to car or truck camp and limits on where horses can go. A long-popular access road will be closed.

Federal officials say changes also are needed to restore Karner blue populations where they once were abundant. The butterfly is found at 72 sites in the Manistee forest, totaling 432 acres, forest officials said.

Forest biologists plan to create more suitable acreage. To get there will require cutting, burning and thinning timber to create more savanna landscapes, they say.


The Endangered Species Act calls for the creation of critical habitat as part of species recovery plans. The White River area and an adjacent Otto Township parcel historically contained a mosaic of savannas barrens where wild lupine grew. The flower is essential for Karner blue survival.

But those savannas eventually filled in with trees, pushing out the lupine and butterflies. Recreating those landscapes, forest officials say, also will benefit a variety of flower, bird, plant and animal species, such as Henslow’s sparrow, a state species of special concern; violet wood-sorrel, a state-threatened species; and the eastern box turtle, also a species of special concern.

“What we are doing for the butterfly is hitting the areas where they have the best chance to recover,” said Heather Keough, wildlife biologist for the Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger district, including the White River and Otto populations.

The Karner Blue, placed on the federal endangered list in 1992, is most populous in Michigan and Wisconsin. It also is found in five other states: New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Indiana and Minnesota.

Its recovery is directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the endangered species law and works closely with land managing agencies such as the Forest Service to develop that habitat.

BUTTERFLY PLAN
Food: The Karner blue butterfly depends on wild lupines, the necessary food for its caterpillars. Female butterflies lay their eggs only on lupine.

Creating habitat: Lupines grow best in savannas and sand prairies. Converting forest land to that habitat will involve cutting, burning, thinning and clearing trees.

Reducing impact:
• Limiting horseback riding to a 16-mile trail shared with hikers and bicyclists.

• Closing 10 miles of two-track to motorized traffic in accord with the 1986 forest plan and non-motorized designation.

• Limiting car or truck camping to 11 designated campsites along county roads.

• Hiking, backpacking, mountain biking and walk-in hunting and fishing will be allowed anywhere.
Added habitat in the White River and Otto areas will be created by thinning, burning and clearing timber on 3,200 acres, said Chris Frederick, forest planner for the Baldwin Ranger District.

“The most contentious comments we’ve heard are about the semi-primitive nonmotorized area,” Frederick said. “But the reactions overall run from extremely happy to extremely angry.

“We’ve proposed 4,500 acres of massive treatment for the Karner Blue butterfly, but most comments have nothing to do with it. It’s all about access.”

Frederick said the plan is far from finalized. An environmental assessment with alternative approaches will be released for public comment later this year. Implementation is expected in 2011.

Most of the roads in the White River area already are closed as part of the 1986 non-motorized designation, chosen to provide more of the quiet types of forest recreation. Closing the last 10 miles of two-track is consistent with the plan. It’s just late in coming and people are used to having the road.

That’s how it is for Pat Brower, too, a member of the Great Lakes Four-Wheel Drive Association. His group regularly works with the forest service and helps to clean up trash. But on their off time, they like to cruise the two-tracks.

“Our members worry that this will finalize it and shut us out,” Brower said.

His group also is concerned the road closure will prevent access to popular spots for fishing, picnicking and sightseeing.

Equestrians also have their grievances. Some are unhappy about restrictions in the butterfly zones, and some dislike being limited to a proposed 16-mile perimeter trail rather than choosing a route.

Others complain that having to share the trail with hikers and mountain bikers “is an accident waiting to happen,” said Kyle Johnson of Fremont.

“If a mountain biker comes flying up over a hill and finds a group of horses, someone will get hurt,” Johnson said.

Margot Slater, a 53-year-old equestrian from Holton who rides there a couple times a week, wants more campsites. Public use, she said, should come first on public lands.

“I respect nature and trying to bring back the butterfly,” Slater said. “I am of Native American descent, so I respect the land.

“It’s breathtakingly beautiful out there and you can’t very often find that close to home, but I am not pleased with the idea that the butterfly is pushing so many people out.”

Les Russell, the Baldwin district ranger, said there is no intent to keep people out. Backpacking and walk-in camping still will be allowed in the non-motorized area. Horse riding and motorized camping still will be allowed on the other side of the river and at 11 sites along the county road.

“This is a designated semi-primitive nonmotorized area, a rare feature on the forest,” Russell said, “and a place where people can find a relatively large block of property where they can camp and not see someone a quarter-mile away.”

Russell said keeping equestrians on a designated trail assures they are not out trampling butterfly habitat.

Not everyone is displeased.

Leonard Weber, a retired University of Detroit professor, avid bird watcher and member of Detroit Audubon Society, said “closing the roads up there makes it more attractive.” Being nonmotorized makes it more like wilderness, he said, a favored characteristic with bird-watchers.

Even Deater said a non-motorized area has its benefits.

“The quads and motorcycles destroy the ground,” Deater said. “Now, you’ll be able to walk a half mile and get away from everyone. My hunting has picked up.”

Some, inclusing David Wambold, an avid hunter and angler from Grand Rapids, have offered to help create butterfly habitat. He owns 38 acres within the recovery area.

“I’d just like to establish habitat up there,” Wambold said. “I bought two pounds of lupine seed and will plant it along the edges of my food plots.”

Trail_Fanatic
April 19th, 2010, 10:47 PM
Even more important than this project is to closely monitor where ALL of the future KBB habitat will be created. The best way to affect those locations is to be a part of the volunteer group conducting the KBB population surveys for the NFS. GLFWDA is currently seeking 4x4 oriented volunteers for the KBB count to ensure that we are represented and have the maximum amount of input possible. If you would be willing to assist with this project please call GLFWDA Land Use Committee member Jeff Traynor at (616) 318-6754.

Trail_Fanatic
September 26th, 2010, 10:30 PM
The Environmental Assessment came in the mail this weekend.

350+ pages! OUCH!

We have to read it, dissect it, glean useful information to support our position and write a return comment in less than 30 days!?!?

I guess I know what I'm doing for the next MONTH!

sumpter1
September 27th, 2010, 07:26 AM
Oh my, I bet that is some very exciting reading!

timbercruiser
September 27th, 2010, 02:38 PM
I received a copy, too. I though it was a phone book!

Greenway
September 27th, 2010, 08:13 PM
Never got mine yet.