Brule River State Forest Master Plan Progress Report 11

In October of 2001, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) sent out approximately 1000 copies of the BRSF Master Plan - Preferred Alternative and Options for review and comment from public participants, tribal representatives, other governing bodies and elected officials. The mailing also included Progress Report, Volume 10 with an article announcing a public meeting in Brule on November 30^th. The Preferred Alternatives Review and public meeting was also noticed by statewide press release, and the documents were posted on the DNR Internet web site.

Public reviewers were asked to submit comments either in person at the public meeting or in writing by December 10^th. Reviewers were encouraged to specifically focus their comments on the proposed management and uses for all of the Management Areas. They were also asked to indicate which of the Options they preferred for Management Areas 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 15, and to comment on the proposed property boundary modifications.

Forty-four people participated in the November 30^th meeting and provided a wide variety of comments on the Preferred Alternative. DNR staff were on hand at six "discussion stations" to receive comments, encourage a constructive dialogue between participants with differing opinions, and answer questions.

More than 40 comments were collected on flip charts during the meeting. DNR also received 65 additional comments in the form of letters, emails, and faxes, ranging in length from 1 to 13 pages. Each of the comments received by DNR on the Preferred Alternative has been recorded in the public comment database and qualitatively evaluated to identify overarching or recurrent themes. These comments were reviewed and will be carefully considered in the next step in the master plan’s development, the Draft Master Plan.

In general, participants responding to the Preferred Alternative displayed a high degree of interest and knowledge about the Brule River State Forest. While some differences exist among their thoughts and suggestions, it is clear that master plan participants care a great deal about the Brule River State Forest and its natural resources.

The Department’s analysis and summary of comments is intended to be qualitative rather than quantitative. That is, it does not try to tally the number of comments concerning a particular issue and arrive at decisions by vote. The Summary of Comments simply attempts to describe what we heard from you collectively about the Preferred Alternative and report that information back to all of our public participants.

Responses ranged from general comments, to thoughts about specific management practices, to specific comments on each of the Management Area Options. Participants seemed to agree on the desired future condition of the forest when expressed in general terms, with many of the comments echoing the previously developed Draft Vision Statement and Property Goals (see Progress Report 10).

Most participants appeared to generally agree that the entire forest resource should be managed in a sustainable manner to provide for present users and future generations. They also generally agreed that the unique rustic and historic character of the Brule River State Forest should be preserved, including its scenic quality, water quality and productive fishery.

While participants seemed to agree on these general goals, clear differences became apparent when comments described specific desired future conditions in the forest and methods of achieving them. Comments received from public participants were widely varied, however many concentrated around three different approaches to forest management.

The three sets of comments concentrated around the following approaches to managing the Brule River State Forest:

Comments Supporting Passive Management for scenic values and restoration of "old growth" native communities / forest types, using primarily passive management activities.

Comments Supporting Active and Passive Management for restoration and maintenance of "old growth" native communities / forest types and wildlife habitat, using a variety of active and passive management techniques.

Comments Supporting Active Management for sustainable forest production, wildlife / game habitat and recreational use using primarily active forest management activities to achieve a mixed forest composition of early successional and late successional forest types.

Other recurrent comments expressed concern that the increased pressure on the river resource for a variety of uses is reaching the point that it is degrading the resource. Other comments expressed the opinion that the Preferred Alternative included too many management areas, and consequently would further fragment the forest.

The following summary is provided to give the reader a general idea of the recurrent themes in the comments. The summary below does not represent all of the comments we received, just recurrent comments that focused on a common idea or topic. Because they are a composite of several comments, they have been paraphrased and listed by topic below. If you would like a complete list of the "verbatim" public comments received regarding the Preferred Alternative (approximately 70 pages), please contact our master plan coordinator at 715/ 365-8993.

WATER QUALITY

• Supports watershed protection beyond the boundary of the state forest to preserve water quality.
• Supports the DNR’s establishment of partnerships and education programs to bring together agencies, landowners, and local government to preserve water quality in the Brule watershed.

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

• Supports maintaining and preserving the uniqueness of the BRSF ecosystem.
• Supports restoring and managing the Pine Barrens habitat as a valuable local and regional resource.
• Supports passive management to restore native forests with pre-settlement community composition and old growth characteristics.
• Supports active and passive management to restore native forests with pre-settlement community composition and old growth characteristics.
• Supports active management to provide a sustainable supply of forest products, wildlife / game habitat and recreational opportunities.
• Supports management that enhances the biodiversity of species, habitat structure and natural communities.

WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

• Supports the reduction of the whitetail deer population to reduce the impacts of over-browsing on native plant communities.
• Supports management for early successional forest type to provide beneficial habitat for migratory birds as well as game species.

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

• Supports the protection and maintenance of the traditional Brule fishery including fish populations and habitat.
• Comments that the plan needs to more fully address fisheries management.

• Concerned over the use of small clearcut management techniques
• Opposes any type of clearcutting.
• Supports limited clearcutting to create habitat for species like grouse, migratory woodcock and songbirds.
• Opposes chemical applications /herbicides on the forest.
• Supports a sustainable level of timber harvesting to provide a continuous supply of renewable forest products.
• Supports the use of both active and passive management techniques.
• Supports the use of passive management to protect the watershed and restore native communities.

• Comments that there are too many management areas designated in the plan resulting in the fragmentation of a narrow and unique property.
• Supports the application of larger "landscape scale" management prescriptions.
• Supports the designation and management of the river corridor as a single aesthetic and ecological unit.
• Comments that the width of the scenic river corridor /visual buffer is not large enough.
• Comments that there is too much active management.

• Opposes increased motorized uses but supports maintaining current levels of use.
• Supports the development of additional trails and facilities to interpret and educate visitors about the Brule River State Forest’s unique ecosystem and historic past.
• Supports maintaining the existing level of forest roads, trails and recreational facilities.
• Supports maintaining silent sport opportunities and traditional recreational uses of the forest.
• Comments that the Copper Range Campground negatively impacts adjacent property owners.
• Supports management for grouse and woodcock habitat for hunting.
• Comments that people highly value the Brule for its fishing opportunities and experiences.
• Supports the proposed addition of footbridges and looping trails in the area between the Forest Headquarters and the After Hours Ski Trail.
• Concerned about allowing too much access to the forest.
• Supports providing increased access for fishing, trail use, hunting and wildlife viewing.
• Supports maintaining the rustic character of campgrounds and not increasing the number of sites or providing more "modern" facilities.

• Concerned that river users are increasing at an alarming rate and threaten to degrade the ecological and scenic quality of the resource.
• Comments that river crowding occurs at peak times and may be partly related to commercial uses.
• Comments that watercraft users display disrespectful behavior to residents and other users of the resource.
• Supports the education of river users on responsible and respectful use of the river.
• Suggests the monitoring of river users’ behavior, as well as the levels and periods of use, and if necessary suggests setting limits on use.

• Supports the boundary expansion.
• Concerned that forest boundary expansion would result in higher local taxes, and that too much land is already in government ownership.

• Supports the protection of the scenic resources /aesthetics particularly in the river corridor.
• Supports the use of management techniques that are compatible with aesthetics.
• Supports the addition of scenic vistas at key locations in the forest.
• Supports preserving the rustic /historic nature and character of the BRSF.

Respondents were asked to comment on all of the management areas and the management proposed for each. They were also asked indicate their preference for the Options presented for management areas 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 15 and to explain the reason behind their preferences. The following is a listing and brief description of each of the management area Options, with a general indication of which Option was favored. For a complete description of the management proposed for each of the Options, please refer to the "Preferred Alternative" pages 21-65.

Option 1A (Preferred) proposes to restore clay plain boreal forest with old-growth characteristics through an adaptive approach to management that uses both active and passive techniques.

Option 1B proposes to restore clay plain boreal forest with old-growth characteristics through an adaptive approach to management but using only passive management, supplemented with some planting and seeding.

Option 3A – Habitat Management Area proposes to maintain the existing communities and wildlife habitat of aspen dominated upland forest, open grassland, brushlands and man-made wetlands primarily through active management, including periodic mowing, and prescribed burning. The proposed recreation management would close primitive roads in the area to motorized use but would allow for mowing to provide hunter walking trails.

Option 3B- Native Community Management Area proposes to restore clay plain boreal forest with old-growth characteristics through an adaptive approach to management that uses both active and passive techniques.

Recreation management for Option 3B is the same as in Option 3A.

Option 5A – Habitat Management Area proposes to optimize early successional wildlife habitat, maintaining aspen as the dominant forest cover type as well as, increasing the diversity in tree species and age classes through active and passive management.

Option 5B – Native Community Management Area proposes to restore clay plain boreal forest with old-growth characteristics through an adaptive approach to management that uses both active and passive techniques.

Area 7 – Bois Brule River-Recreation Management Area includes the entire length of the Bois Brule River extending to the ordinary high water mark, as well as the canoe landings and parking areas.

Option 7A ( Preferred) proposes to preserve the scenic quality and ecological systems of the river from degradation resulting from over-use and to provide opportunities for and reduce conflicts between anglers, canoeists and kayakers, through a program of monitoring, user education and ongoing public participation.

Option 7B proposes the same management described in Option 7A, with the addition of limiting the number of watercraft and possibly anglers allowed to enter the river through state owned lands.

Option 13A – Forest Production Area proposes to provide a sustainable supply of renewable forest products, wildlife habitat and compatible recreational opportunities while maintaining the characteristics of a dry (jack and red pine) pine forest with scattered patches of mixed hardwoods through primarily active management with some passive management in ecologically sensitive areas.

The proposed recreation management would maintain the existing snowmobile and winter ATV trail, the existing North Country Scenic Trail, develop a cross-county skiing / off-road bicycling trail with an parking lot toilet and warming shelter, and existing primitive roads / hunter-walking trails.

Option 13B -Native Community Management Area proposes to restore the forest communities to a pre-settlement composition and appearance consisting of dry pine forest and mixed hardwoods through the use of both active and passive management techniques, including extended rotation timber harvesting, thinning of existing pine plantations, prescribed burns and natural regeneration techniques to encourage a native mix of jack pine, red pine, white pine, and various hardwoods.

The proposed recreation management is the same as described for Option 13A.

The proposed recreation management would maintain roads that are currently open to vehicle traffic, and maintain the existing non-motorized use of primitive roads / hunter-walking trails.

Option 14 B- Scenic Resources Management Area proposes to preserve and enhance the natural scenic quality in this area, particularly in any areas seen from the Brule River to a mature forest of large diameter northern hardwoods, oaks and long-lived conifer species such as, red pine, white pine, and white spruce primarily through passive management.

Active management in the forest visible from the Brule River, its tributaries, the bog, lakes, and designated public use areas would be prohibited. The only cutting that would occur along the river would be done to provide a safe experience to users of the forest and river.

Recreation Management for Option 14B would be the same as indicated for Option 14A.

Option 15A – Native Community Management Area proposes to restore the pre-settlement forest communities of dry pine forest and mixed hardwoods and manage some areas to an old growth appearance, promoting a diverse mixture of size and age classes while maintaining areas for game and non-game wildlife habitat. The proposed recreation management would maintain any roads that are currently open to vehicle traffic, except those that are temporarily open for management activities, and maintain the existing non-motorized use of primitive roads / hunter-walking trails.

It should be emphasized that the decisions on which Options will be included in the Draft Master Plan will carefully consider input from the public, tribal representatives and other governing bodies; however other criteria will be taken into consideration as well. Decision criteria include the input of the DNR’s interdisciplinary team of scientists, the statutory purpose of the property, the Draft Vision Statement and Property Goals, information contained in the Northern Forest Assessments, the Biotic Inventory, the Regional Analysis and other available data.

The period for public comment the on the Preferred Alternative and Options closed on December 10th, 2001. However, the public will have an additional opportunity to comment on the Draft Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) either in writing or by attending the public hearings that will be held before the Draft Master Plan and EIS is presented to the Natural Resources Board. In the mean time, any general questions or comments regarding the BRSF Master Plan may be directed Steve Petersen at 715/ 372-5678.

WHAT'S NEXT IN THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS?

It might be helpful to briefly review the master planning process as a whole.

Conduct Research and Gather Data on the Property

Identify Key Issues

Draft Vision Statement and Property Goals

Develop and Evaluate a Range of Reasonable Alternatives

Develop and Evaluate a Preferred Alternative

Develop the Draft Master Plan and EIS

Distribute the Draft Master Plan and EIS for Public and Governing Body Review and Comment

Submit the Draft Master Plan, EIS and Comments to the Natural Resources Board for Review, Public Hearing and Decision

Implementation of the Master Plan

DNR staff has begun the process of refining the Preferred Alternative into the Draft Master Plan and EIS. Input received from the public participants and governing bodies on the "Preferred Alternative" will be carefully considered as the Draft Master Plan is developed. Once completed in a written and graphic format, the Draft Master Plan and EIS will again be distributed to our public participants and governing bodies for review and comment.

We expect our next mailing, containing the Draft Master Plan and EIS to go out in late summer or early fall.

Tribal Consultations

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):

Q- Why aren’t State Natural Areas indicated on the Preferred Alternative map