Department of Natural Resources Announces the Reopening of All StateForest Campgrounds

The Department of Natural Resources announced today the reopening ofall temporarily closed state forest campgrounds for the 2008 camping
season. With the recent Legislative approval to restore $500,000 ofGeneral Fund appropriation to the Recreation and Trail Program, DNR
Director Rebecca Humphries has authorized a land use order, effectivetoday (May 12), removing 20 state forest campgrounds from their temporarily closed status.

DNR staff is quickly working to open all state forest campgrounds forthe 2008 camping season. Depending on local weather conditions,
campgrounds typically open by mid-May. Some state forest campgroundswill require maintenance repairs to the water wells during the month of May.
 
The 143 state forest campgrounds with over 3,000 campsites areavailable on a first-come, first- served basis. These rustic campgrounds
have from five to 50 campsites, vault toilets and hand water pumps. Theyare found throughout the 3.5 million acres of state forests and most are
located on a lake or river. State forest campgrounds are not on theDNR*s campground reservation system.

The campgrounds to be reopened are in the counties of Alpena, Antrim,Cheboygan, Chippewa, Crawford, Grand Traverse, Luce, Marquette, Oscoda,
Otsego, Schoolcraft and Wexford. For specific campground availability
and information, please call the nearest Operations Service Center, orrefer to the department Web site at www.michigan.gov/dnr, and click on Recreation and Camping.

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, useand enjoyment of the state*s natural resources for current and future generations.


Department of Natural Resources, Forest, Mineral and Fire Management
State Forest Campgrounds to Be Reopened May 12, 2008

The Concept of Management Plan revisions for the Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) recently presented for approval by the Department of Natural Resources significantly reduced access by equestrians in the PRCSF.  Why did this happen? 

One major problem is that there were no equestrians, as far as the MHC knows, on the Steering Committee appointed by the MDNR to review and suggest modifications to the Concept of Management Plan for the Pigeon River Country State Forest.  In fact, the MHC did not know anything about the changes proposed to the Concept of Managment Plan until November 2007, too late to have meaningful input into the Plan.  When word finally got out, there was a barrage of objections filed, the majority by equestrians.  The MDNR then established a Work Group to provide additional comments related to cycle and equestrian uses. This Work Group consisted of representatives from the equestrian and mountain bike users groups (3 each), the PRC Advisory Council, the PRC Association, hunting, fishing and trapping user groups, Resource Stewards, and the DNR.  It met twice at the Pigeon. 

The problem related to horses appears to be that for about three weeks in the fall, during the elk rutting season in mid-September/early October, there is a major influx of equestrians who ride out and about to view this spectacle.  During the rest of the year, horses are relatively scarce in the Pigeon.

As a result of the Work Group meetings, the plan now includes three new loops for equestrians out of the Elk Hill Campground.  While better than nothing, it's about the only concession that was made to equestrians.  Rejected was the suggestion to keep most service roads open to equestrians, even though no real justification was given for closing them to horses.  Rejected were several less restrictive measures proposed to address the issue.  Rejected was the request to study the problem for a year before taking any action so as to arrive at a less radical solution for handling the glut of riders during that brief time in the fall, as well as to address any other management or environmental concerns that might be identified during that time.  The MDNR also indicated skepticism regarding resently-published peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude the presence of horses on the trails were not responsible for the spread of invasive non-native species, and did not consider that evidence in coming to its decision.

The DNR's new order takes horses off all but a very select few of the Pigeon's service roads (equestrians are allowed only on those service roads needed to complete the three new loops referenced below).  All off-trail riding is strictly prohibited.  Horses are confined to the shore to shore trail, forest roads that are marked for equestrian use and public roads.  In addition, a few select service road sections and 2-track forest roads are combined to create three new loops for horses out of the Elk Hill campground.  The Johnsonʼs Crossing Trail Campground remains open for equestrian use.  The 10 Elk Hill campsites that are in the Equestrian Campground proper have been retained, but the 6 outlying campsites at Elk Hill have been closed. 

Why?  The following excerpt from the minutes of the April 10, 2008, NRC Meeting presents the DNR's position in the best light:

  Mindy Koch, Resource Management Deputy, provided information including maps depicting areas open for mountain biking, shore-to-shore equestrian trail and other areas open for equestrian use.

Ms. Koch provided a history of the PRCSF. In 1919, P. S. Lovejoy, the architect of the DNR, had a vision for the PRCSF and named it "The Big Wild." Today, keeping that in context, the DNR is attempting to maintain this area as "The Big Wild." As of today, 118,000 acres have been dedicated as the PRCSF which was approved in the amended PRCSF Concept of Management.

The original Concept of Management was approved in December of 1973 and was the beginning of the DNRʼs formal adoption of a policy to protect and maintain the natural beauty of its forests and waters and to sustain a healthy elk herd and wildlife population. In 2005, a review and update of the Concept of Management was requested by the NRC since there had not been a thorough review and modifications to the Concept since 1973. Issues occurring in the PRCSF pressed the need for review, such as increasing and changing recreational uses; private development around the forest; and increase in size of the PRCSF by 15,000 acres since 1973 but this increase was not taken into consideration; and increase in knowledge and technology. In 2005, the NRC appointed a 10 person Steering Committee to create a process to update the Concept of Management. Seven subcommittees were created under the Steering Committee each representing a chapter of the Concept of Management and were represented by diverse interest groups and were charged with providing recommendations to the Steering Committee to modify the Concept of Management, of which they did do. The Steering Committee then created a draft Concept of Management and held two public hearings in northern Michigan.

Several versions of the Concept of Management revision have been done, all of which have been posted on the DNR web site for public review and comment. The final draft of the Concept of Management was provided to the NRC in October of 2007 and approved by Director Humphries in November of 2007. Since the Concept of Management was approved, Land Use Orders of the Director to address the issues, especially recreational issues, have been posted on the NRC agenda for Directorʼs action. The first Order was approved in December of 2007 limiting snowmobile use in the PRCSF to forest roads and county road right-of-ways.

Before the Director currently is an Order opening up seven research lakes that had been closed to use to conduct research. A Work Group had been established to provide additional comments to the DNR related to cycle and equestrian uses. This Work Group consisted of representatives from the equestrian and mountain bike users groups, the PRC Advisory Council, the PRC Association, hunting, fishing and trapping user groups, Resource Stewards, and the DNR. The revisions to the PRCSF Concept of Management were not unanimous.

Ms. Koch said there appears to be a lack of understanding amongst the users of the PRCSF. It is fairly unique in that it is a very large block of public ownership in the Lower Peninsula. Other items that make the PRCSF unique is oil and gas development has been very restrictive; unlike other state forests, a significant amount of Game and Fish Fund monies were used for acquisitions meaning the goal of the area was to encourage fishing and hunting and to preserve that activity in perpetuity; and a core of the elk herd in Michigan is located in the PRCSF and the DNR believes the herd is moving out of the PRCSF.

Currently, Land Use Orders of the Director exist that have requirements for the PRCSF, as well as other State forests, wildlife areas, and State parks. One of the orders prohibits equestrian use on 17 sections within the PRCSF. This is not a new development. These prohibited areas surround the Elk Hill Equestrian Campground and the Johnsonʼs Crossing Trail Campground. The Land Use Order being reviewed and discussed today limits equestrian camping to Elk Hill Campground and the Johnsonʼs Crossing Campground. It also limits equestrian use to State forest roads, country right-of-ways, the shore-to-short equestrian trail and a limited amount of closed two-track roads (management roads that do no allow motorized use). That totals 280 miles in the PRCSF available to equestrian use. Bicyclers have about 300 miles of available use in the PRCSF. No campgrounds will be closed by the proposed orders. Closures are due to budget cuts and the DNR hopes to reopen them once funding becomes available.

The next step if for the DNR to review 2500 acres of property recently acquired north of the PRCSF (Le Grande Ranch) where the possibility of additional equestrian use may be developed.

Commissioner Madigan asked if equestrians users pay as do ORV riders. The answer was no.

Ms. Koch said one of the major biological concerns with equestrian use in the PRCSF is the disturbance of wildlife habitat or disturbance of threatened and endangered species in sensitive areas. User conflict concerns also exist.

(NRC Minutes, Pages 4 - 6 )

To say the revisions to the PRCSF Concept of Management were not unanimous is an understatement.  Moreover, the MDNR's position that there is an apparent lack of understanding amongst the users of the PRCSF is debatable at best.  Rather, equestrian users' challenges to the Plan are based on disagreement regarding the validity of the basis for removing equestrains from the trails they have historically ridden.  These MDNR decisions adverse to equestrians may be the result of reliance on "bad science" or of yielding to the wishes of competing user groups who, unlike equestrians, were "at the table" when the changes were being written and proposed.  Or they may be the result of an improper procedure, or no procedure at all, for making these kinds of specific determinations for modification of the Plan.

 Michigan citizens, as well as equestrians, would benefit from passage of a state law that requires the MDNR to have a procedure similar to that in the National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA), which includes an environmental impact analysis, before it can close recreational trails on state lands to equestrians (or any other user group, for that matter).  It is the Michigan Horse Council's position that any state administrative rules that make it the general rule to exclude equestrians on state-owned lands on which there are recreational trails should be regarded as unduly restrictive, unless such an exclusion is supported by a NEPA-like review that includes an environmental impact analysis.  For example, scientific evidence does not support the position of the DNR that horses spread invasive non-native plant species. Nor is the use of horses on Michigan trails -- even remote, back-country trails -- necessarily incompatible with the protection of fish and wildlife.  The MHC believes the general rule should be that horses, like hikers, shall be permitted on all Michigan trails unless there is some cognizable reason for their exclusion.  The Michigan Horse Council also believes the state legislature should mandate the MDNR institute a required procedure similar to NEPA's in making that determination.