Representative Sheltrown, Chairman,
House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation & Natural Resources
Re: May 13, 2008, Committee Hearing re Pigeon River Country State Forest Concept of Management Plan
I am writing as Chairman of the Legislative, Land Use & Environmental Committee of the Michigan Horse Council (MHC) regarding the recent reduction of equestrian access to the Pigeon River Country State Forest (PRCSF) lands. I was a member of the PRCSF Work Group representing equestrians who were concerned with provisions in the Concept of Management Plan for the PRCSF approved by the Department of Natural Resources. That Plan significantly reduced access by equestrians in the PRCSF.
By way of background: 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. 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. They were represented by diverse interest groups and were charged with providing recommendations to the Steering Committee to modify the Concept of Management.
Unfortunately, one major and fast-growing user group was not represented on either the 10-person Steering Committee appointed by the MDNR or on any of the 7 subcommittees. There were no equestrians. None at all. Equestrian interests were, therefore, not seriously considered in the review and modifications to the Concept of Management Plan for the Pigeon River Country State Forest.
The MHC did not know anything about the changes proposed to the Concept of Management 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, and the DNR decided to establish 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. My understanding of the problem related to horses is 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, the number of equestrians riding in the Pigeon is not a problem.
As a result of the Work Group meetings, the Plan now includes three new loops for equestrians out of the Elk Hill Campground, and, 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 DNR also rejected out-of-hand recently-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.
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 Johnson*s 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 15 outlying campsites at Elk Hill have been closed
To say the revisions to the PRCSF Concept of Management were not unanimous is an understatement. The DNR's position that there is an apparent lack of understanding amongst the users of the PRCSF is debatable. As the Work Group MHC representative, I view it not as a lack of understanding, but as a disagreement regarding the validity of the basis for removing equestrians from the trails they have historically ridden. It appears to me these DNR decisions are the result of reliance on "bad science" and either an improper procedure, or no procedure at all, for making these kinds of specific determinations in modifying the Plan.
One issue for consideration is whether the National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA) is applicable to the state's management of lands acquired with Pittman Robertson Act funds and, if applicable, the legality of closing trails to equestrians on lands purchased with these federal funds without compliance with NEPA's requirements, which include an environmental impact analysis.
Even if NEPA is held not to be applicable, I believe Michigan citizens (and ultimately Michigan's tourism economy) would benefit from a state law that requires the MDNR to have a procedure similar to that in NEPA, including conducting an environmental impact analysis, before it can close recreational trails on state lands to equestrians (or any other user group, for that matter).
As I understand it, it is the DNR's position that the general rule is that lands purchased all or partially with Pittman Robertson Act funds are not open to equestrians (or any other user group except perhaps hikers) unless as a designated special exception, and that such special exception designation can be removed at any time. I find no such broad hard-and-fast restriction in the Pittman Robertson Act, nor does the Act require lands contiguous, but not purchased with Pittman Robertson Act funds, to be managed as if they had been. My understanding of DNR policy is that it requires both Pittman Robertson and all contiguous public lands to be managed as if they were all purchased by Pittman Robertson funds, or so I was told in the Pigeon River Country Work Group meeting.
It is the Michigan Horse Council's position that any state administrative rules that make it the general rule to exclude equestrians on Pittman Robertson Act lands should be regarded as unnecessarily restrictive, unless such an exclusion is supported by a NEPA or other 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 -- incompatible with the protection of fish and wildlife. The general rule should be that horses, just as hikers, shall be permitted on all Michigan trailways unless there is some cognizable reason for their exclusion. And there should be a procedure similar to NEPA's with which the state is required to comply in making that determination.
The results of the 2007 Equine Survey recently completed clearly demonstrates how very economically important this industry is to the state, both as a part of agriculture and in the tourism industry. Pigeon River Country State Forest is a vacation destination for trail riders both from inside and outside of Michigan. The recent restrictions placed on equestrians by the MDNR is not supportable under any reasonable impact analysis and will likely have a discernible negative impact on the PRCSF as a travel destination for equestrians. If the DNR applies such unfounded discrimination against equestrians to other state recreational lands, whether by ignorance or by influence of competing user groups, the considerable tourism dollars equestrians spend in Michigan will increasingly go elsewhere.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Jean Ligon,
Chair, Legislative, Land Use & Environmental Committee
Michigan Horse Council