Brule River State Forest Master Plan Progress Report 14

Brule River State Forest Master Planning Nears the End! After five years of hard work by many people - public participants, agencies, interest groups and department staff - we are coming to a close of the Brule River State Forest (BRSF) master planning process. The following progress report provides information for the final step in the master plan process. The draft master plan, as revised, reflects the uniqueness of the BRSF and the diverse opinions of the many people who have an interest in this special place. We welcome your participation in the final step toward approval of the plan and your continued support during plan implementation.

Natural Resources Board Meeting
When: Wednesday, December 4, 2002, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Where: Department of Natural Resources central office located at 101 South Webster Street in Madison in Room 027 on the Ground Floor of the GEF 2 state office building

To Speak at the Meeting
To speak at the Natural Resources Board meeting, you must register by 3:30 p.m. CST on Friday, November 29, 2002 with Ms. Linda Jahns, Natural Resources Board Assistant, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 or phone: (608) 267-7420

Included in this progress report:
• Introduction
• What's Next?
• Summary of Public Comments
• Questions and Responses
• Summary of Substantive Changes
• Record of Decision on the EIS

INTRODUCTION

Over the last three months, WDNR has offered the public the opportunity to comment on the “Brule River State Forest - Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”. Review and comments by affected and interested members of the public, jurisdictional governing bodies and public agencies is a critical step to the successful conclusion to the master planning process. The Comment Period began on August 6, 2002 and closed on November 4, 2002. During this period approximately 300 comments were received in writing, at the Public Hearings and at the October 19th Informational Meeting / Workshop.


To initiate the Comment Period, the WDNR issued in a statewide news media release, which gave Public Notice of Availability of the “Brule River State Forest - Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”. The press release also gave Legal Notice of the Public Hearings and information on how comments could be submitted.


In early August, the Brule River State Forest Master Plan and EIS document was distributed for review and comment to over 1,100 participants on the BRSF mailing list and posted on WDNR’s Brule River State Forest master planning web site www.dnr.state.wi.us/master_planning/Brule/index.htm.


Additional mailings were sent to elected officials, jurisdictional governing bodies / public agencies, the Governor’s Office, representatives of Tribal Governments, and other interested parties. This mailing also included Progress Report 12, which invited public participants and representatives from governing bodies to review the documents and submit written comments to the WDNR’s public contact official, Steve Petersen. The WDNR asked that comments focus on the management of the property proposed in Chapter Two and the accuracy and adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement contained in Chapters Three and Four.


As a result of two requests, the WDNR agreed to extend the official Comment Period from 45-days to the maximum of 90-days (ending November 4, 2002). The extension of the Comment period was also publicly noticed as a press release and post cards were sent to those on the master plan mailing list.


PUBLIC HEARINGS


Two Public Hearings were held to receive comments on the BRSF Master Plan and the accuracy and adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Hearings were held Tuesday, September 10th from 6 to 9 PM at the Brule Town Hall in the Village of Brule. One hundred-nine people filled out appearance slips at the Brule Hearing. The second public hearing was Thursday, September 12 from 6 to 9 PM at the Fitchburg Community Center, near Madison. Thirty-seven people filled out appearance slips at the Fitchburg Hearing. The Fitchburg Hearing also included a cross-examination of WDNR staff by attorneys representing the “Friends of the Brule River and Forest”. During the two Public Hearings, 49 people gave oral testimony.



OCTOBER 19TH PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING AND WORKSHOP


By the end of September, approximately 145 comments had been received in various forms. The comments received suggested that an additional public workshop should be held to allow further discussion on a number of topics that remained the focus of controversy. Postcards and public notices were sent out to inform participants about the additional Public Workshop for the Draft Master Plan and EIS. The Workshop was publicly noticed in accordance with WDNR policy.


Six topics were selected for additional discussion at the October 19th Workshop based on the public comments received through the end of September (refer to Progress Report 13). The topics were chosen because public opinion remains divided in these areas. In a few cases, comments seem to be based on misunderstandings of the proposed management actions in the BRSF Master Plan. The workshop provided the opportunity for the WDNR to clarify any confusion pertaining to the BRSF Master Plan and to assure that the WDNR had a full understanding of the concerns and desires of public participants.


Public comments recorded during the Workshop were included with the other comments submitted during the Comment Period and taken into equal consideration by the WDNR master planning team in refining the BRSF Master Plan and EIS.


All written and oral comments received at the October 19th Informational Meeting were considered by the WDNR Master Planning Team in the decision to make any changes to the master plan. A “Summary of Substantive Changes to the Brule River State Forest- Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement” is included in this mailing. These changes are being incorporated as part of the BRSF Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”.


Additional copies of the August 2002 – BRSF Master Plan and EIS may be requested by contacting: the Master Plan Program Assistant: Phone: (715) 365-8993 or email: robert.dall@dnr.state.wi.us


<top>

WHAT'S NEXT?

The same literature enclosed in this mailing has been provided to the members of the Natural Resources Board for their consideration at the December 4th Board meeting. At this meeting they will be asked to consider the BRSF Master Plan for approval. The enclosed “Substantive Changes”, the “Summary of Comments”, the “Questions and Responses” and “Record of Decision” will be considered by the Natural Resources Board as part of the “Brule River State Forest- Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”.

To speak at the December 4, 2002 Natural Resources Board meeting, you must register by 3:30 p.m. CST on Friday, November 29, 2002 with Ms. Linda Jahns, Natural Resources Board Assistant, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 or phone: (608) 267-7420

Pending the Board’s approval, the Master Plan and EIS will be revised to incorporate the “Substantive Changes”, any minor edits and typographic corrections, and final copies will be printed. Copies of the approved BRSF Master Plan and EIS will be available upon written request. A Progress Report will send out in late- December to describe the results of the Natural Resources Board meeting. The report will also explain how our planning participants can continue to participate in the future implementation of the BRSF master plan.


The “Summary of Public Comments” describes the general content of the comments received during the 90-day Comment Period on the “Brule River State Forest Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”. It describes the overall number of comments, identifies the major topics of comments and describes the variety of opinions expressed on each.


The “Questions and Responses” is a summary of major questions submitted by the public, jurisdictional governing bodies, public agencies and the Department’s responses to each.


The “Summary of Substantive Changes” explains the changes that are being incorporated as part of the “Brule River State Forest Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement” and will be considered by the Natural Resources Board for approval.


The Revised Boundary Expansion Map reflects the reduction in the proposed expansion boundary from 44,000 ac to 32,000 ac.


The "Record of Decision” becomes part of the final EIS and legally records the decision that the EIS complies with the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. It also includes “Findings of Fact”, “Conclusions of Law” and “Notice of Appeal Rights.”


<top>

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

Summary of Review Period


The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources produced a combined Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Brule River State Forest. The draft plan and statement were developed through a 5 year public involvement process that included 13 public meetings, a newsletter with an active mailing list of 1,100, and a web site.


The formal public comment period began with public distribution of the Master Plan and EIS on August 6th, 2002, for a normal 45-day review and comment period. Based on several requests for more time to evaluate the document an additional 45 days were added to the review period The total review period consisted of 90 days and concluded on November 4th, 2002.


During the 90-day review period, public hearings were held at the Brule Town Hall on September 10th and at Fitchburg Community Center near Madison, Wisconsin on September 12th, 2002. Associated with some of the requests for an extended review period the Department received requests for an additional public meeting. In response to these requests, an additional meeting was held in the Town of Maple, Middle School on October 19th near Brule, Wisconsin.


During the review period, a total of 304 comments were received in the form of e-mails, letters and resolutions and testimonies from many individuals, organizations, clubs, Tribes, and local governments. By far, most comments received seemed to be directed at the Master Plan with far fewer comments addressing the adequacy of the EIS.


The following categories are arranged by subject area and reflect areas of major comment.


• Proposed Boundary Expansion
• Recreation Uses & Proposed Improvements
• Land Management
• Water Quality and Fishery Resources
• Miscellaneous: Suggestions & Opinions

Proposed Boundary Expansion


With the exception of some town and county governments, the public is generally split, with an ample show of support and opposition for the proposed boundary expansion. The Douglas Co. Forestry Committee and the towns of Cloverland, Highland, Brule, and Solon Springs passed resolutions in opposition to the proposed boundary expansions based on perceived impact to local tax base, and in opposition to state ownership of additional lands in the area. There is some support for including part of the Town of Wascott in the expansion. Many individuals and conservation groups expressed support for the boundary expansion to protect large blocks of open space and to facilitate native community restoration efforts.


<top>

Recreation Uses & Proposed Improvements


In general, comments on recreation focused on support of traditional fishing, hunting, hiking, rustic camping, canoeing, and cross-country skiing as appropriate recreational uses of the Brule River State Forest. Many comments expressed concern with crowding on the river and conflict between canoeists and private property owners and between canoeists and anglers. As a possible solution, a few comments suggested that the Department limit river user numbers, but most suggested an educational approach towards better river etiquette and increased law enforcement against illegal activities as a more acceptable solution. Long-term monitoring of recreational river use trends was viewed as important.


Recreational improvements such as development of a new cross-country ski trail area, two new connecting ski trail bridges over the Brule River, campground modification, and an additional canoe landing at CTH FF, were supported by related recreational user groups. However, some groups were ambivalent and concerned that those new developments would bring additional recreational crowding to the area. The most frequent concerns seem to be focused on the recreational developments along the Brule River and the potential they might have to further increase river use.


<top>

Land Management


The application of the land classification system to the Brule River State Forest per Ch. NR 44, Wis. Admin. Code, i.e. Native Community Management, Forest Production Area, and Scenic Management. etc., and the related management prescriptions sparked many comments. In general, the comments are divided into three groups, although some overlap exists:


One set of comments favored more active management for multiple-use of the forest, forest production, , favoring early successional forest types, (i.e. aspen, white birch, alder, grassland) or for restoring native communities particularly barrens. People in this group favored more forest edge for deer and grouse, hunting opportunities, and sustainable harvest of forest products that provide economic benefits. Some they opposed boreal forest restoration.


Another set of comments favored preservation and restoration of unique native ecosystems or just an older forest (i.e. boreal forest, pine barrens, and older forest types). They preferred a greater level of passive forest management over active forest management, and especially objected to clear-cuts because of perceived adverse impacts.


A third set of comments favored managing the forest with natural forest succession as the principal management tool with little or no active management. They expressed the opinion that this would provide the highest level of protection for water quality and the least visual disturbance in the forest. Some they opposed pine barrens restoration.


All groups generally agreed on the importance of aesthetics in the forest and the need to thin existing pine plantations to create a more natural-appearing forest. Overall land management proposals generated many conflicting comments that reflect opposing visions of how the Brule River State Forest should be managed into the future.


<top>

Water Quality & Fishery Resources


Concern for the Brule River water quality and its fishery raised comments. Many participants voiced the idea that the Brule River is a unique resource and further expressed concern that not enough was being done to protect water quality. Some specific comments focused on the width of the buffer protection provided by the land classification boundaries along the river and proximity of active forest management to the river. Many comments suggested that high recreational river use and general forest management activities are adversely impacting water quality.


The fishery resource was viewed as very important and most comments favored the current management program. A few comments suggested restoration of native coaster brook trout, and some expressed concern that salmon runs are impacting the long established trout and steelhead fishery.


<top>

Miscellaneous: Suggestions & Opinions


Several people expressed the opinion that the Master Plan did not comply with the provisions of the revised State Forest law suggesting that the Plan failed to focus on the unique character of the Forest or consider passive management options. A few comments stated that more economic analysis was needed to evaluate the impacts of changes in forest production and recreational opportunities on the Forest. Several persons complimented the master plan proposal and acknowledged the difficulty of pleasing all parties.


Groups and organizations that contributed comments


• 1000 Friends of Wisconsin DNR
  
• Biewer Lumber, Sawmill Division
  
• Brule River Canoe Rental
  
• Brule River Sportsmen’s Club
  
• Douglas Co. Fish and Game League
  
• Douglas Co. Parks, Recreation and Forestry Committee
  
• Friends of the Brule River and Forest
  
• Governor's Council on Forestry
  
• Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
  
• Isaac Walton League, MN Division
  
• Lake Superior Greens
  
• Land owners
  
• Local and non-resident property owners
  
• Local and visiting silent sport recreators
  
• Local loggers
  
• Local plant ecologist
  
• Local service industry business person
  
• Local construction contractor
  
• Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
  
• Motorized sport enthusiasts
  
• Nat. Wild Turkey Federation-Gitchee Gumme Chap.
  
• National Wildlife Federation
  
• North Country Trail Association
  
• Northland College
  
• Publisher/educator
  
• Ruffed Grouse Society, Chippewa Valley Chapter
  
• Ruffed Grouse Society, NC West Virginia Chapter
  
• Ruffed Grouse Society, regional wildlife biologist
  
• Rutabaga Inc., Paddlesports
  
• Several canoe, hunting, and fishing guides
  
• Several retired foresters
  
• State assembly representative
  
• Superior Wilderness Action Network – SWAN
  
• The Nature Conservancy
  
• The River Alliance of Wisconsin
  
• Town of Brule
  
• Town of Brule representative
  
• Town of Solon Springs
  
• Town of Wascott
  
• Trout Unlimited, Wild Rivers Chapter
  
• UM Applied Economics & Law professor
  
• UW forest ecologist
  
• Voight Representative, Lac du Flambeau council
  
• White Cloud Engineering and Construction
  
• WI Audubon Council
  
• WI Dept. of Transportation
  
• WI Paper Council
  
• WI Professional Logging Association
  
• Winneboujou Club
  
• Wis. Sharp-tailed Grouse Society
  

<top>

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Boundary Expansion



1) Why is the Department seeking a boundary change and what impact will it have on towns or landowners within the boundary?


The public requested that the Department’s master plan for the Brule River State Forest include restoring boreal forest and pine barrens ecosystems and protecting water resources. Department scientific research determined that the BRSF was one of only a few areas of public land where boreal forest could be restored and that pine barrens is a globally rare natural community. However, BRSF has limited acreage to restore barrens, and protecting water resources in this area is of high importance. When an integrated team of Department scientists and land managers evaluated these goals they determined that the land within the proposed boundary expansion areas is important to furthering the boreal forest and pine barrens restoration goals. Most of the land within the revised proposed boundary expansion areas is in large block industrial forest ownership. If these lands remain in large blocks of forested land they could complement the state forest management. However, lands of this type are under increasing pressure to be sold and subdivide. This smaller, fragmented ownership pattern with buildings and other improvements would detract from the forest restoration and water resource protection goals. In addition, this trend toward smaller block ownership reduces public hunting opportunities and makes the maintenance of long trails such as snowmobile trails more difficult. During this comment period the expansion of the state forest project with the goal of maintaining these forests was largely supported by conservation groups.


Properties of interest within the boundary would be purchased only on a willing seller basis. The Department is primarily interested in undeveloped land, not lands with existing homes, commercial buildings or resources such as cemeteries. The State of Wisconsin makes payments to local governments in lieu of taxes. Current calculations indicate that state ownership within the proposed boundary expansion as presented in the August draft master plan would increase, not decrease, annual revenues to local governments by over $500,000. The proposal for the boundary expansion was first made to the public as part of the Brule River State Forest master plan process over 2 years ago (June 2000) and mostly positive feedback was received at that time, as well as during the preferred alternative stage in the fall of 2001. It was never the intention of the Department to seek ownership of all lands within the proposed boundary expansion, only those that would best further the goals of the master plan.


In response to recent concerns voiced by some landowners, townships, as well as Douglas County the boundary expansion has been reduced significantly. The revised boundary expansion has been more narrowly focused on the largest blocks of industrial forest ownership, thus removing most small lots and lands with existing improvements from the boundary expansion. If the landowners within these new boundaries do not wish to sell their land to the Department then the lands will remain in their current ownership/management. However, if these landowners wish to sell land the state will make offers along with other interested parties for acquisition of these lands.


<top>

Water Quality & Fisheries



2) Will the timber harvest, forest restoration or recreation activities in the plan negatively impact the water quality of the Brule River and tributaries?


The master plan will provide positive long term impacts to the water quality of the Brule River and tributaries. Management actions that expose clay soil, such as tree planting, timber harvesting, or prescribed burning, have the potential to temporarily result in increased overland flow on a localized basis. However, the Brule River State Forest has been actively managed for decades without a long term negative impact on the Brule River. The master plan and environmental impact statement were developed with an integrated team of scientists including water resource and fisheries biologists to assure that the plan will be a positive contribution to protection of the Brule River. The Lake Superior Water Quality Management Plan - April 1998, provides two areas of guidance that have been a foundation to this master plan. First, that “forestry activities in the red clay soils will employ Best Management Practices that are even more protective of riparian areas”. Second, that another potential threat to water quality is “the tendency to protect a highly valued resource by insisting on “preservation” or “no-management” which would eliminate management options and potentially result in deterioration of the resource”.


This plan provides the following increased safeguards which recognize the unique values of the Brule River. The zone for no active management near the river has been expanded significantly to provide scenic resources and is based on soil, vegetation and topographic features rather than an arbitrary distance. The old master plan set a distance of 400 ft for passive management along the river, while the new plan has a passive management zone with an average distance of 1,400 ft on each side of the river and a minimum of 400 ft. Only 0.5-1% of the clay plain will experience soil exposure from management actions at any one time and the Department will consider management actions on land outside the state forest but within a sub-watershed to assure overall watershed protection. The guide for this watershed protection that is used by the master plan is watershed research conducted by Sandy Verry (Appendix B of master plan) that indicates a watershed with different aged forest stands and some open areas will spread out spring snowmelt over time, reducing peaks in overland flow. This research indicates that a watershed with some young forest or open areas has the effect of minimizing runoff as long as more than 40% of the watershed is in forests greater than 15 years old. The Department will continue to exceed the requirements of Best Management Practices For Water Quality and improve on water resource protection measures that have protected the excellent water quality of the Brule River for decades.


The draft master plan also proposed a schedule of water quality monitoring every five years based on recommendations from the Department’s aquatic biologist knowledgeable on the Brule. However, based on public requests, the Department will increase the monitoring frequency to every three years to further assure that any management actions on the Brule River State Forest that may have a negative impact on the water quality of the Brule River and tributaries will be detected and corrected. It will also help detect effects of actions by other landowners in the watershed that may have a detrimental effect on water quality. However, through education and information, the Department encourages all land managers within the watershed, public and private, to proactively use or exceed best management practices at all times, and not to rely on monitoring to detect a problem and then implement better management practices.



<top>

3) What does the Department see as the greatest threat to the water quality of the Brule River system?


The water quality of the Brule River system has been rated as excellent for decades and there are no indications that there is any immediate threat to water quality. Within this landscape the greatest potential impacts to the Brule River system would come from increased runoff or introduction of pollutants. Land ownership in the watershed is divided between private nonindustrial land (residential, agricultural and forested) (43%), state land (29%), county land (17%) and private industrial forests (11%). The watershed includes a wide hilly area of mostly sandy soils with sand or gravel surface deposits around the upper river (75% of the watershed) and a narrow valley of clay soils around the lower river near Lake Superior (25% of the watershed). In the upper watershed of sand soils, runoff is not likely to be a problem and the greatest potential threat is from residential development or activities such as lawn fertilization. In the lower watershed clay plain soils, increased runoff could be a concern. The greatest potential threat on clay soils is from road or construction projects, most of which are managed by local governments or private landowners. State forest management has little potential impact to water quality but the proposed plan contains management strategies such as tracking management intensity at a sub-watershed level on both public and private land, managing to reduce peaks in runoff from spring snowmelt by maintaining a mix of older and some younger forest age classes, continuing to exceed Best Management Practices, and monitoring water quality. Because greater than half of the watershed is outside of the state-managed property, local government and private land managers are encouraged to join the state forest in using or exceeding best management practices for land use and development. Department water resource staff are available to offer help or provide advice on best management practices and forestry staff provide information and education on best management practices specific to forest management.



<top>

4) Will the management in this plan result in a major change in the fishery or fish habitat management?


The revised master plan will not cause any major changes in the fishery or to fish habitat management. One objective of the master plan is to provide a high quality, naturally reproducing and self-sustaining trout and salmon fishery. This is dependent upon maintenance of high water quality and adequate high quality instream habitat for spawning and all other fish life stages. In addition to stocking and harvest regulation, past fishery management actions have included numerous habitat modification techniques. Gravel, rock, and woody debris have been placed into the stream in order to improve and restore cover and spawning habitat. Beaver control and dam removals have also been employed. Slumping riverbanks have been stabilized to reduce sedimentation. As the dynamic stream and fishery change over time, the Department anticipates employing a variety of techniques as needed to protect, maintain, and improve the instream habitat. The fish habitat management activities and fishing regulations are expected to maintain present levels of fish habitat and maintain the high quality fishery.



<top>

Land Management


5) Has the Department considered passive management to reach the management goals for the Brule River State Forest?


Yes. Passive management includes protection and monitoring of an area versus using active tools (timber harvest, planting, burning, etc.) for restoration and management. The Department has considered the competing values and management goals expressed during the master planning process and has developed a multifaceted approach to reach these goals that includes both passive and active management techniques. Overall, about 26% (10,500 ac) of the Brule River State Forest is proposed for long term passive management in the draft master plan and includes river and lake scenic areas, forest reference areas, and State Natural Areas. This represents a significant increase over the 3,500 ac in passive management prescribed by the 1979 master plan. Along the Brule River, the passive management zone extends for an average of 1,400 feet on both sides of the river. This zone is based on ecological and geological indicators and is more than 3 times the 400 foot set back prescribed in the old master plan. In addition, during the life of this plan (15 years) only 4,500 ac (11% of the forest) will experience a timber harvest to facilitate management goals such as barrens or boreal restoration, and another 4,500 ac of red pine plantations will experience thinning.


In areas near the Brule River and Lake Minnesuing, where scenic values were given a higher priority than ecological or specific wildlife habitat values, passive management is planned. Passive management will accomplish scenic goals of older conifers or older hardwoods due to the present ecological conditions within these management units. On the clay plain, the boreal forest restoration plan includes using a variety of adaptive management techniques including passive management areas. All areas will be monitored to see which techniques are most successful in restoring boreal forest. In the Brule Bog and Spillway (Management Area 5), the forested wetlands and river slopes will be monitored and passively managed. An integrated team of scientists have determined that management goals in other areas of the forest cannot be achieved through passive management.



<top>

6) How will a combination of timber harvest and passive management on the clay plain help restore the boreal forest?


The primary goal of Management Area 1 (11,800 ac) and the expansion area on the clay plain (now 7,000 ac) is the restoration of the boreal forest type that was unique to this area. The 1850’s vegetation data suggest that this forest supported primary species of white pine, white spruce and white birch on uplands and white cedar on the lowlands. Common associates were tamarack, aspen and balsam fir. These species represent a range of low to high disturbance adapted natural communities in the presettlement landscape. The clay plain changed significantly following European settlement and has slowly been acquired by the state forest over the last 30-40 years. The primary covertypes today are aspen (50%), grassland (11%) and fir-spruce (8%).


The research conducted in support of the BRSF master plan identified that restoration of the clay plain boreal forest will be difficult and will require multiple strategies. The Community Restoration and Old Growth Assessment on the Brule River State Forest advocated using a variety of management options for clay plain restoration but noted it would be difficult work. The Biotic Inventory states “Actions will be at least somewhat experimental with no outcomes guaranteed. It should not be assumed that leaving things alone will expedite matters, nor that this option should be ignored.”


The Department faces significant challenges to reach the restoration goals outlined in the master plan, including relatively few areas of white pine and white spruce for a seed source, difficulty in planting on clay soil, deer impacts to young conifers, heavy competition to conifer seedlings by understory shrubs and disturbance requirements of white birch regeneration. The approach presented in the master plan was developed with input from an integrated team including forest ecologists, wildlife biologists, endangered resources biologists, water resource staff, foresters, land management specialists and University of Wisconsin staff. The master plan includes a variety of adaptive strategies including passive management, timber harvest, planting, and prescribed burning. The areas being placed in long term passive management represent some of the best examples of the desired forest condition and will be used in research and monitoring. In addition, other areas will remain unmanaged for decades and available for monitoring because less than 1% of the area will experience an active management strategy each year (11% during this 15 year plan). Timber harvest will be used to remove aspen in small irregular cuts to allow white pine/white spruce planting or to favor existing conifers, to increase areas of white birch, and to reduce deer impacts on conifer seedlings. The establishment or increase of the desired species (white spruce, white pine, and balsam fir) in areas of aspen and white birch will create a mixed stand, with a higher proportion of conifers with each rotation. Over 2 rotations (app. 100 years) the desired conifers should be dominant or at least co-dominant species within many stands. A variety of planting techniques for conifers, prescribed fire and ground disturbance for white birch may be used to manage for the desired boreal forest condition. These techniques will be monitored by state forest staff and research with outside partners will be explored to help guide the adaptive management approach.


The combination of active and passive techniques will allow the Department to compare what methods work best to arrive at the desired condition of "boreal" forest. This forest restoration process will take many years to see large scale results. It has been 100 years since the clay plain was badly overharvested and 50 years or less since fires and pasturing were controlled on this landscape. The state forest acquired a heavily disturbed ecosystem that will take a long time to recover, regardless of the management scheme.



<top>

7) Does the master plan prescribe more or less timber harvest than the old master plan?


The new master plan prescribes more plantation thinning and less regeneration harvest than the old plan, and much less harvest than would be prescribed if the forest were managed primarily for timber products.. The primary difference between the current master plan and the proposed planis that the management purpose for timber harvest now focuses on the restoration goals for boreal forest, dry pine and barrens, and maintenance of diversity in other forest types.


The old master plan provided projected figures for red pine thinning, jack pine harvest and aspen clear cuts that would be needed between 1979 and 1989 and it provided for following the Department’s forest reconnaissance computer program but did not specify management needs in types such as scrub oak, fir-spruce or northern hardwoods. Between 1989 and 2002 the forest continued to mature and additional management needs beyond that projected by the 1979 master plan developed, particularly in red pine thinning. In addition, the state forest acquired about 3,300 ac of forest land between 1979 and 2002 which added to the work load on the property. The forest reconnaissance system projects that if the property were managed for on-going timber production and maintenance of current forest types, about 1,400 ac per year of harvest would be needed on the BRSF.


Since the current master plan was developed in 1979, the red pine plantations have matured significantly, crowding beyond natural or prescribed densities. The 1979 master plan recommended 150 ac/year of red pine plantation thinning while the new plan calls for 300 ac per year of plantation thinning. This increase is a result of several changes. The overall acreage of red pine plantations on the BRSF has increased since 1979 and they are older, thus requiring thinning. Since the last master plan, 850 ac of red pine have been planted and will need thinning during the life of this plan. There are now 3,400 ac of red pine between 24 and 45 years old which would not have been considered for thinning during the 10 years that the previous plan covered. Therefore, the new master plan provides for 300 ac/yr of red pine thinning which accounts for the overall increase in projected timber harvest acreage.


The 1979 master plan recommended 219 ac/yr of aspen clear cuts to maintain aspen while the new plan decreases the aspen harvest to 150 ac/yr of aspen/white birch. This will also occur in smaller cuts and thinning designed to reduce aspen and facilitate conifer planting for restoration, increase white birch and, in selected locations, maintain aspen as a reduced component in this landscape. The 1979 master plan recommended 117 ac/yr of jack pine clearcuts to regenerate this forest type, whereas, the new master plan calls for 75 ac/yr.


The 1979master plan did not provide specifics on scrub oak, fir-spruce and northern hardwood management. Based on the more extensive research that went into preparing the new master plan, 25 ac/yr of scrub oak management is required as part of the barrens landscape management, 15 ac/yr in fir-spruce to experiment with increasing the relative abundance of white pine and white spruce, and 20 ac per year to maintain diversity in the northern hardwood areas.


The restoration and management goals in the master plan require an integrated forest management plan that includes both active and passive management techniques. The harvesting that occurs on the property will be designed and implemented by an integrated team of department staff from forestry, wildlife management, endangered resources and water resources.



<top>

8) How does the high deer population affect this plan and will the plan increase or decrease the deer numbers in the Brule River area?


The population of white-tailed deer is well above the management goal for the Deer Management Unit in which the Brule River State Forest is located. A variety of factors contribute to this population level including; mild winters, feeding and baiting, hunter desires for more deer and habitat conditions throughout the area. High conifer density and the protective Brule River valley within the Brule River State Forest further concentrate deer during winter months as they seek cover and protection from winter conditions. This winter concentration has been compounded in the past by recreational feeding on private lands within the forest boundary but recent bans on feeding may reduce this effect. The high concentration of wintering deer attracted to the conifer cover results in increased feeding on young conifer seedlings and reduced conifer survival. Boreal forest restoration strategies such as 2-10 aspen cuts with conifer planting on the clay plain can aid in increasing conifer survival by providing good growing conditions and helping protect seedlings from heavy deer browse because of deeper snow in open areas.


The factors contributing to the high deer numbers in this area go well beyond the boundaries of the state forest. Therefore, state forest management is not likely to have a significant impact on the deer population within the larger deer management unit. This plan calls for a gradual reduction in aspen forest which is favored by deer for part of the year while increasing conifer forests which are favored by deer during the winter months. The long term habitat changes within the state forest may be expected to decrease density of deer during summer and fall on the state forest while increasing densities during the winter months. However, overall deer numbers will likely be impacted more by changes in winter severity, available food and hunting. Wide fluctuations in wildlife populations over time occurred historically and a natural process.



<top>

9) Does the state forest schedule timber sales to generate revenue or meet production quotas?


No, the state forest does not schedule timber sales to generate revenue or meet production quotas. Timber harvest is part of an integrated forest management program designed to manage a forest to achieve a desired forest condition or wildlife habitat. Scientists from other Department programs, including endangered resources and wildlife, review state forest timber harvest plans annually. The best strategy to reach a desired forest management goal determines the method, frequency and volume of timber harvest. For example, thinning of red pine plantations may be conducted to develop large red pines of natural forest density or aspen may be harvested to create optimal conditions for planting white spruce or white pine. The trees that are harvested as part of the forest management program have an economic value to the State and benefit local economies. Once the harvest is planned based on forest management goals, the timber harvest is advertised through a competitive bid process. The highest bidder that can carry out the prescribed management is awarded the sale. A state forester then supervises the logging contractor while they conduct the harvest to assure that they follow all prescribed management and protection measures. The revenue from these sales is deposited in the state segregated forestry account; it is not returned directly to the state forest and has no direct relationship to the budget with which the forest is operated.



<top>

Endangered Resources



10) How will any endangered or threatened species be impacted by this plan?


Endangered and threatened species documented on the Brule River State Forest will experience either no impact or a positive impact from the master plan. The following species are documented on the property. Three of these species (Common Tern, Caspian Tern and Dwarf Milkweed) did not occur in the draft EIS because of new information from the Bureau of Endangered Resources but are being incorporated in the final master plan. These species will all benefit from the prescribed management and it was determined that no changes to the master plan are need to accommodate the terns or the milkweed. The complete list of threatened or endangered species is listed below


1. Lapland Buttercup (State Endangered) – This plant inhabits wet wooded habitats at 2 sites in the Brule Bog within the proposed Brule Glacial Spillway State Natural Area. This SNA is within Management Area 5 which provides a buffer area around the SNA. The conclusion of ecologists, endangered resource specialists and water resource specialists is that the high water quality, current hydrology and filtered shade of forested wetlands will continue to provide suitable habitat under the master plan.



2. Caspian and Common Terns (Both State Endangered) - These 2 bird species have recently been documented using the Lake Superior beach within the state forest as resting areas and near where they forage over Lake Superior and in the marsh at the mouth of the Brule River. The tern also occur along Lake Superior during spring and fall migration periods. The master plan will maintain this beach habitat and benefit these species as part of the proposed Bear Beach SNA.


3. Osprey (State Threatened) and Bald Eagle (Federally Threatened) – Both of these species feed primarily on fish and nest in older red or white pines. The development of older red and white pines and the protection of water resources as described in the master plan should continue to provide habitat for these species. Standard operational guidelines assure no disturbance to nest trees as well.


4. Timber Wolf (State Threatened, Federally Endangered) - Two to four packs use parts of the BRSF and are found property wide in a variety of habitats including aspen, fir-spruce and open pine areas. The mix of habitats types and proposed management of the BRSF should benefit this species. Maintaining additional forested and undeveloped lands in the boundary expansion areas is also important to the wolves.


5. Wood Turtle (Wisconsin Threatened) – A semi-terrestrial turtle found in forests next to fast moving streams. Exposed areas of sand or gravel are needed for nesting and would be provided by natural bank erosion along the lower Brule River and tributaries. The greatest threats to this species are from human collection and road mortality. The master plan includes maintenance of the turtle’s preferred habitat and increased law enforcement, both of which will benefit this species.


6. Cerulean Warbler (State Threatened) - While this species has shown declines across the country, it has been extending its range northward in Wisconsin primarily in bottomland hardwoods and older hardwood forests. While there are limited ecological opportunities for hardwood forest on the BRSF, there is available habitat for this bird in the Sugar Camp Hill area (Management Area 2). Under the master plan, habitat for this species is expected to remain stable.


7. Arrow-leaved sweet-coltsfoot (Wisconsin Threatened) - This plant inhabits open and often disturbed herbaceous/grass wetlands. On the BRSF it was found in 2 wet areas along roads. The master plan should benefit this species by providing additional suitable habitat within managed wetlands.


8. Calypso Orchid (State Threatened) - This species inhabits wet coniferous forests. On the BRSF it is found primarily in the Brule Glacial Spillway State Natural Area (Management Area 5) where its habitat will be maintained under the master plan. This species should continue to experience favorable habitat conditions.


9. Dwarf Milkweed (State Threatened) – One small population was documented at the edge of a pine plantation in Gordon Unit of the BRSF, Management Area 11. The presence of this species does not require any changes to the proposed management prescriptions for Area 11. It is a plant that favors open barrens type habitat. Prescriptions in the master plan may improve available habitat in Management Areas 8,9, and 10.


Other rare species which are not listed as endangered or threatened were documented on the BRSF have been considered in the master plan so that these species will continue to have suitable habitat at present or increased levels.


<top>

11) Does the master plan recognize the unique qualities of the Brule Bog and Spillway and provide protection for these resources?


Yes. The Department conducted extensive background research in support of the Brule River State Forest Master Plan. The significance of the Brule Bog and Spillway was recognized in the Community Restoration and Old Growth Assessment, the Regional Ecology Assessment, the Biotic Inventory, the Biodiversity Assessment and the Regional Analysis. The work presented in these reports provided much of the scientific foundation for the master plan’s recognition of and management for the unique and rare resources of the Brule Bog and Spillway.


The Biotic Inventory recommended that the two small existing State Natural Areas (SNA) (300 ac) within the Brule Bog as described in the old master plan be reevaluated and that a new SNA boundary be developed along ecological lines in the new plan. This master plan proposes a new 2,510 ac SNA that encompasses the ecological boundary of the forested wetlands and aquatic communities in this area. In addition, Management Area 5 has been established to provide an additional 2,800 ac buffer area around the Brule Bog. The boundary of Management Area 5 was developed along topographic lines to encompass the land from within the Brule Bog valley bluff top to bluff top. The only management proposed in this management area is to thin about 100 ac of existing red pine plantations to a natural density, maintain existing public recreation opportunities, maintain existing fishery management, conduct research and control exotic plants. Some concern has been expressed that without active management in the forested wetlands we may lose species such as black spruce, however, given the sensitivity of the bog and aquatic resources, the Department has decided only to monitor this area to measure any changes. This SNA boundary and management strategy has been endorsed by the Natural Areas Preservation Council, the official SNA advisory body to the Department. The council consists of representatives such as biologists from the U of Wisconsin System, the WI Academy of Sciences and the Milwaukee Public Museum.


<top>

Recreation


12) What is the Department going to do about conflict and increasing numbers of users on the Brule River?


The Department’s strategy for managing use on the river focuses on managing the behavior of the river users rather than their numbers. The state forest does not currently have statutory authority to regulate the number of people using the river. Providing this authority would require an act of the legislature and a major shift in Wisconsin’s provision for access to waters of the state. Increased state forest staffing and new cooperative efforts with landowners related to law enforcement on the river are already resulting in positive impacts on the behavior of river users. The Department recognizes that landowners, paddlers and anglers all value the natural beauty and resources of the Brule River but sometimes their use of the river brings these groups into conflict. The popularity of the Brule River has existed for decades and continues to grow. While the Department has documented conflicts among users, we have not documented any significant resource damage as a result of river use.
The management proposed in the draft master plan includes:


• Increased state forest recreational law enforcement on the river
  
• Working in cooperation with landowners and local businesses on information and management strategies to reduce conflicts and better distribute users.
  
• Continuing to improve the Department’s recreational data collection and information on user desires and problems
  
• Increased educational efforts on river recreation and etiquette
  
• Provide more toilet and drinking water facilities at landings to reduce trespass and litter problems
  
• Implement a recreation monitoring strategy to assess the success of these strategies and identify the need for any additional changes (see response #19 for more detail)
  

<top>

13) Will new recreational facilities such as a new cross country ski trail, group campsite, canoe landing at CTH FF and well/toilets at existing canoe landings increase use and degrade environmental or scenic resources?


The Department believes that the proposed recreational facilities will not degrade environmental or scenic resources.



The Brule River State Forest is a very popular place to recreate for anglers, hunters, paddlers and cross country skiers along with a variety of other users. It has been highlighted in national magazines, newsletters of various groups and recreational websites. Department information suggests that interest in the Brule River State Forest as a place to recreate will continue to increase with or without the proposed recreational improvements. The goal of the Department is to provide for a safe, quality recreational experience for a variety of users while protecting the natural resources and unique qualities of the Brule River State Forest. Balancing the demands of these specific user groups is a goal of the master plan. The proposed recreational facilities are intended to support these goals. A variety of ideas were proposed and they have received mixed support. Based on the public feedback we have received, the following elements and changes will be presented to the Natural Resources Board in December for approval.


• The proposal to connect the Afterhours Ski Trail to the office and campgrounds by two footbridges has been deleted from the plan because of aesthetic concerns.
  
• The new canoe landing at CTH FF intended to spread out paddlers on the river will be deleted from the plan because of the public perception that it would increase river use.
  
• Showers and flush toilets will continue to be prohibited in campgrounds and public use areas.
  
• The new cross-country ski trail located in sandy hills, well removed from the Brule River, will remain in the plan. The parking lot size will be reduced from a 200 car capacity to a 100 car capacity and use levels will be monitored to see if expansion is necessary in the future. The parking area will have a natural surface of grass or other suitable natural material. No specific accommodations or operations will be made to support mountain bikes.
  
• The addition of drinking water wells and pit toilets at several canoe landings will remain in the plan in order to reduce environmental concerns and reduce trespass on private land from river users.
  
• The new group campground is designed to move large groups from the existing family campgrounds to reduce conflict and support a more quiet setting. The additional group camp and reduction in the number of sites at the family campgrounds will remain in the plan.
  
  

<top>

14) How will citizens be involved in solving issues such as conflict between user groups or the impacts of use on the resources of the state forest?


The Department recognizes the importance of citizen involvement in developing solutions to these issues and will involve the public in both identifying issues and developing solutions.


State forest staff have held an annual public meeting for several years to talk with local citizens about the annual management plan. State forest staff plan to increase the frequency of these meetings. One option we will be exploring is to host public meetings each spring and fall to address ongoing river recreation themes like behavior, staffing priorities, emerging problems, etc. Information from new surveys on river use will be shared at these meetings. The spring meeting would consider trends in recreational activities and propose areas of emphasis for the coming summer. The fall meeting would assess the past season and recommend areas for improvement. The Department and interested public can explore options such as cooperative projects, increased resources or if necessary, follow master plan variance, amendment, or revision procedures as described in Chapter NR 44, Wis. Admin. Code in order to address needs that arise from these meetings. As we continue to work with local citizens on user group conflicts we will adapt our techniques of public involvement to best solve the problems at the time.


The state forest will continue to work with citizens on special projects. For example, an initiative in the summer of 2002 funded a landing host and the production of a video with a donation from an association of landowners. The landing host was used to orient paddlers and introduce them to the rules and expected behavior that apply to using the river. The video is part of a greater effort to educate the groups that paddle the river about these same topics. In addition, the Department is working with private landowners along the river to identify law enforcement issues and provide access for enforcement actions.


Forest staff have worked with the operator of the canoe rental company in Brule to help educate their customers how to appropriately use the river. The business shows their customers the video and displays signs in their business and vehicles to reinforce the message in the video. The business has expressed a desire to continue to assist with sharing this message and to promote improved user ethics.



<top>

15) Will this plan result in a decrease in ruffed grouse habitat and hunting opportunities?


Ruffed grouse habitat requirements in this region include primarily early successional forests of aspen/white birch in different age classes. The overall theme represented in the master plan is to increase conifers (white pine, white cedar, white spruce, balsam fir on the clay plain, red, white, and jack pine on the sands) and increase the age of these forests. However, most areas propose to maintain a secondary component of aspen and/or white birch. On the clay plain the goal is to make increases in white birch a priority along with white pine and white spruce. The EIS predicts a slow decline in early successional forest over the next 50 years. The decline will continue with the full impacts likely not realized for 100 years or more. Ruffed grouse populations are expected to show a similar trend with a slow decline in response to declining coverage of aspen and an increase in older forests overall.


Ruffed grouse hunting opportunities will remain on the BRSF, however, they will likely change. Hunter access will decrease slightly as a result of a few road closures. In the short term (next 20 years), the normal population cycles for ruffed grouse will likely impact grouse hunting opportunities more than habitat change. In the long term (50-100 years), hunters will likely see fewer ruffed grouse on the BRSF as a result of habitat change.



<top>

State Forest Statute



16) How did the 1996 change in the state law governing state forests (Wis Stats s. 28.04) impact the development of the master plan for the Brule River State Forest?


The 1996 revisions to Wis Stats. s. 28.04 have been the foundation and driving force for the development of this master plan. Prior to 1996, Wis Stats. s. 28.04 recognized various benefits of state forests but gave primacy to growing forest products and considered scenic values, outdoor recreation, hunting and water resource protection as extra benefits. The law now emphasizes the following;


• Assure sustainable forestry including economic, social, cultural and ecological benefits.
  
• Manage within the ecological capabilities of the land.
  
• The multiple benefits of a state forest are to be considered without primacy. Benefits listed include “soil protection, public hunting, protection of water quality, production of recurring forest products, outdoor recreation, native biological diversity, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, and aesthetics.”
  
• Management may use active and passive management techniques.
  
• The range of benefits provided on each state forest should reflect its unique character and position in the landscape.
  
• Involve the public in the development of state forest master plans.
  

These principles have guided the master plan development. The Department conducted eight northern forest assessments, a biotic inventory and a regional analysis to evaluate and describe the benefits, unique character and ecological capability of the Brule River State Forest. Administrative Rule NR 44 laid out a framework for the master planning process and plan development that started for the BRSF in 1997. Numerous public meetings and extensive public involvement have been part of the planning process. The plan recognizes and incorporates the BRSF’s unique opportunities for boreal and pine barrens restoration, its popular land and water based recreation, protection of the Brule River and protection of unique and rare resources. The BRSF provides the full range of benefits listed above. These benefits have been discussed and debated throughout the public involvement process and the master plan strives to provide a balance among these benefits within the ecological capability of the land. The management to provide these benefits includes both passive and active management techniques with the areas dedicated to passive management increasing three-fold over the current master plan.


<top>

17) Has the master plan complied with the current requirements of Wis Stats. 28.04?


Yes. Wis Stat s. 28.04 provided the sideboards and direction for the development of the Brule River State Forest Master Plan (See response #16 for a description of the law). Some of the elements of this state law that people asked about during this review period include


Unique character of the BRSF – The plan emphasizes the protection of the Brule River and Brule Bog, the potential for boreal forest restoration on the clay plain and pine barrens on the sand plain, the primary recreational pursuits of fishing, hunting, paddling and cross country skiing, and the historical and social setting. (See response #18 for more on this topic).


Ecological capabilities – The plan uses the three regional ecological landscapes identified as part of the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units and the Brule River system to frame the ecological capabilities of different parts of the state forest. Extensive ecological background was developed through the northern forest assessments, the biotic inventory and the regional analysis. The ecological capabilities and management options for these landscapes were described in the regional analysis for the Brule River State Forest. This analysis provides a framework for the capability of the BRSF as well as how it is unique within the landscape. The resulting master plan proposes to manage for benefits that are within the long-term sustainable ecological capability of the BRSF.


Assure the practice of sustainable forestry - The master plan provides for management goals and practices that are sustainable, and for monitoring to provide for future adjustments in order to remain sustainable. The primary management on the clay plain is to develop and maintain a boreal forest landscape dominated by white spruce, white pine and white birch with associated species of aspen, balsam fir, white cedar and tamarack. The development of dominance by species such as white spruce and white pine on this landscape will be difficult and long-term. Ecological and land management experts involved in the development of the master plan have pointed out that there is no time-tested way in which to restore the boreal forest type in Wisconsin. As a result, the plan provides for the use of both active and passive approaches to restore boreal forest, with a commitment to adapt management based on the results of monitoring change resulting from the various techniques applied. The Mille Lacs Uplands and transition areas into the Mille Lacs will be managed for older mixed forests of hardwoods and pine. Sustaining the ecological goals in this area over the long term will require the least active management, however, in order to maintain species elements such as pine and oak some active management to create necessary site conditions for regeneration will be required. The ecological goals of the Bayfield Sand Plains include pine barrens and dry pine forests. These goals require the highest levels of disturbance within the BRSF to develop and maintain these ecological communities.


The long term protection of the Brule River and the fishery it supports is a priority for the Department. Implementation of the Department’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Forestry has been shown to protect water resources. However, this master plan proposes measures that will go significantly beyond the Department’s Forestry BMPs to further ensure protection of water quality, including a passive management zone along the river that averages 1,400 feet in width and limiting the percentage of a sub-watershed in young forest or open areas (see responses #2 and 4 for more detail).


In order to manage for the various ecological and recreational goals in the master plan, approximately 600 acres each year will be harvested (thinning, selection, clear cut etc.). Half the acres harvested will involve thinning pine plantations. The majority of the remaining harvest will be done to regenerate the forest type currently established on the site. Timber sales in areas being restored to boreal forest and pine barrens will be established in a manner that facilitates the conversion to the desired ecological condition. On an annual basis, less than 1% of land within the state forest will be regenerated as a new stand of trees. This is well below the overall growth rate for the forest and well within sustainable levels. This level of management will result in larger and older trees over most of the forest while maintaining the variety of communities which require disturbance to be maintained.


The sustainability of the recreational and scenic resource is more difficult to determine because it depends upon the perspectives and experiences of a wide range of people. The projected level of recreation on the forest under this plan is sustainable for the natural resources. Because the expectations of each user are different, the sustainability of a particular recreational experience is varied but the master plan calls for additional staffing, monitoring, education and adaptation to improve the quality of the recreational experience for the full range of users.


The economic contribution of the Brule River State Forest through local tourism and forest product generation is relative to the small size of the forest and the local community in relation to a regional economic picture in which tourism and forest products are significant factors. The master plan considers the impact of land and recreation management on the local economy. The master plan will provide for levels of local economic benefit that are sustainable for the property and serves as an example for how ecological, economic and social benefits can be realized compatibly.


Management may consist of both active and passive techniques


The master plan proposes an adaptive management strategy that involves both active and passive management techniques. Passive techniques will be used on over 10,000 ac of the forest to meet scenic, recreational, water resource protection and ecological goals. The remainder of the forest will have a wide range of active management techniques from low level harvesting in northern hardwood areas to intensive management in barrens areas. During the life of the master plan, less than 25% of the forest will undergo any timber harvest.


Using best available data, the impact of a master plan on local economies shall be considered


Sustainable forestry involves consideration of ecological, social, cultural and economic benefits. As a result, the Department did consider economic issues during the planning process. The Department contracted background research through the University of Wisconsin into the economic contributions of forests through the generation of forest products and tourism. In addition, the Department completed a Northern Forest Assessment on Socio-economics in Northwest Wisconsin which summarized the best available data related to the economics of forest products and forest based recreation in the 12 county region surrounding the BRSF. This research explains that forest products and tourism related sectors are important to the regional economy and that these two economic sectors are compatible. This seems to be borne out in that the Brule River State Forest has had a long-standing active timber sale program while at the same time experiencing growing recreational use, to the point that some users express concern about over-crowding. Several local businesses benefit from the harvest of forest products on the BRSF and several others benefit from the attraction of recreationists to the area.


<top>

18) How does the master plan recognize and provide for the unique resources of the Brule River State Forest?


The Brule River State Forest has a number of unique characteristics from an ecological, recreational and historical basis. These unique resources have been studied, summarized and analyzed in numerous


Department publications including eight northern forest assessments, the biotic inventory and the regional analysis. The master plan emphasizes the unique ecological opportunities and recreational resources and protects or highlights historical resources, as appropriate.


The ecological values of the Brule River system are widely recognized and had a significant impact on the development of the master plan. The Brule River and tributaries have excellent water quality and there is no indication of any immediate threats to this condition. The plan recognizes this unique water resource by going well beyond both standard water resource protection measures and beyond the measures in the current plan (see response # 2), and committing to a comprehensive and effective water quality monitoring program every 3 years in the main river and tributaries. The plan recognizes the uniqueness of the Brule Bog, the associated springs and its high number of rare species by designating the 2,150 ac Brule Bog and Spillway as a State Natural Area and providing an additional 2,800 ac buffer area of upland slopes in Management Area 5 around this important wetland system.


The fishery resource and angling recreation of the Brule River are well known and are emphasized in this master plan. The water resource protection measures will protect the existing habitat upon which this fishery resource depends. In addition, fisheries staff will continue active fishery management including in-stream habitat improvement, salmonid population monitoring, sea lamprey control and beaver control. State forest staff will continue to maintain angler parking lots and control erosion impacts from angler access.


The Brule River is also widely popular among canoeists and kayakers. The popularity of the river among paddlers and anglers sometimes brings them into conflict with each other and/or adjacent landowners. The master plan provides for continued canoe access sites, additional drinking water and toilets to reduce illegal trespass, increased law enforcement and education to improve behavior on the river, and improved monitoring of river-based recreation.


The unique scenic resources of the BRSF, primarily the Brule River and Lake Minnesuing, have been highlighted in the plan through the designation of nearly 5,000 acres of scenic management areas represented by areas 4 and 13. In addition, Management Area 5 (5,300 ac) provides for scenic resources in the upper Brule River as a native community management area. Furthermore, all management activities in other parts of the forest will be implemented in a manner that considers scenic resources.


The Lake Superior Clay Plain of the BRSF provides a unique opportunity for restoration of the historic “boreal” forest dominated by white spruce, white pine and white birch with aspen, balsam fir, tamarack and white cedar as associates in the landscape. Taking advantage of this unique restoration opportunity is a major thrust of the master plan encompassing approximately 13,000 ac in areas 1 and 4. The strategy will involve an adaptive management approach including both passive and active management techniques. The ability to provide ecosystem level processes on the clay plain will require additional land beyond present forest boundaries as proposed in the master plan. The Department’s integrated team of scientists has developed this multifaceted approach that will include about 30 ac per year of timber harvest to facilitate increasing the conifer component in this area. This will involve only about 11% of Management Area 1 experiencing a timber harvest as part of the restoration over the next 50 years, and only 3% experiencing a harvest during the life of this plan. We will be increasing the frequency of forest reconnaissance monitoring and developing additional research for more detailed information on the various techniques. This information will contribute to the adaptation of our techniques as provided for in the master plan.


The Bayfield Sand Plains provide a unique opportunity to restore a complex of pine barrens and dry pine forest. This opportunity is represented in the dry pine and barrens management goals for areas 8,9, 10 and the southern expansion area. Managing for pine barrens and dry pine forest represents the most active management within the BRSF and encompasses about 14,000 ac. Overall, this landscape will see an increase in open barrens, jack pine and white pine habitat with declines in red pine and aspen acreage.


Hunting on the BRSF is very popular with ruffed grouse being one of the primary attractions. Many hunters and anglers consider the opportunity to fish the Brule River and grouse hunt on the state forest in one visit a unique and highly valued experience. While the master plan proposes a reduction in the available ruffed grouse habitat, it acknowledges that this reduction will take decades so suitable habitat will be available for some time. In addition, the plan provides for long-term maintenance of some aspen as grouse habitat and to provide for ample hunter access.


The BRSF has become very popular for cross country skiing and provides a unique resource as one of the most reliable locations for snow with good grooming and a scenic setting. The plan recognizes this unique opportunity and has provided for the increasing demand for this silent sport by increasing the skiing opportunities.


The BRSF area has a rich history as an historic portage and recreational location. The master plan provides for continued enjoyment and recognition of this history through a cooperative effort with the National Park Service for the North Country National Scenic Trail and by maintaining the historic portage trail between the Brule River and St. Croix Lake. In addition, the plan proposes facility construction with a CCC-era look and the addition of interpretive signs along the river.



<top>

19) How has the Department complied with the needs for monitoring, evaluation and potential plan changes in the future?


The master plan provides for monitoring and evaluation in three areas: forest restoration, water quality and recreation.


Restoring and managing forest communities is a long-term commitment. As a result, forest monitoring is also a long-term commitment, with evidence of desired change sometimes emerging over decades rather than years. The Department has a computerized monitoring system for forests called forest reconnaissance. This system is based on field surveys conducted by foresters in which they record habitat types, current forest type, age and density of each area, and the management direction for areas within the forest. The computer program alerts the forester each year to check certain areas (stands) that may need a management action to achieve the stated objective. In this master plan, the Department has proposed to visit specific restoration areas for reconnaissance surveys every 10 years, which is more frequent than the program normally prescribes. This will ensure large scale monitoring of forest growth and change in response to both active and passive management. In addition, the Department plans to conduct, likely through contract or university involvement, more intensive monitoring of forest vegetation in order to gather more specific data on forest changes. This information will be used to adapt the restoration and management plans as described in the master plan.


The Department’s water resource staff, as part of the master planning team, have discussed the best methods for monitoring the Brule River system to detect any changes in water quality. It was determined that the best method for monitoring water quality in this system is the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index for Water Quality which monitors aquatic invertebrates to determine the condition of water quality and aquatic habitat. Biological monitoring such as this is most effective because it effectively uses these invertebrates, several of which are very sensitive to water quality changes, to monitor the water quality on an ongoing basis. Changes in presence of these species would alert the Department to changes in water quality. This monitoring method was first planned to be conducted every five years by the Department’s aquatic biologist. However, after discussions with local anglers, the Department’s aquatic biologist has recommended that this monitoring be conducted every three years. Any significant changes in water quality within the Brule River system will trigger additional investigations to determine the cause and source of the problem. Corrective measures will be taken if the source is on the state forest, and other landowners notified if the source is not on state land or caused by state action. If warranted, a plan amendment or variance will be initiated as described in NR 44.


The state forest also regularly monitors some user levels on the property. The master plan commits to increasing these monitoring efforts particularly for river based recreation where questions of compatibility and sustainability have been raised by the public. Research to measure the qualitative and quantitative use of the river will be conducted. Data will be collected regarding the distribution of participants by location and time along the river, the size and nature of their groups, whether they use commercial services to facilitate their trip, their motivations and expectations, and the nature of conflicts perceived by the user groups and adjacent landowners. The state forest program is currently conducting a review of recreation data collection and will be completing an analysis with recommended changes in the next few months. New strategies developed through this review will be presented at the BRSF annual public meeting in late winter 2003. Information collected through these efforts will be used to direct education efforts, management decisions and if necessary future master plan changes as described in NR 44.



<top>

Master Planning Process



20) Why weren’t the management suggestions offered by organizations such as the Friends of the Brule River or Ruffed Grouse Society considered as alternatives in the master plan process?


The elements of the Friends of the Brule River (FOB) document and other public input were contained within the range of management alternatives presented in 2000. All public comments including the management suggestions offered by various organizations have been considered during the planning process. It would be inappropriate to give special emphasis to comments coming from a particular group by presenting them in the public meetings. Early in the planning process the Friends of the Brule River submitted a detailed document outlining a management strategy. As a result, other organizations with goals different than the FOB asked if they should submit detailed management documents with opposing strategies. While the Department consistently encouraged public involvement, we discouraged submission of “competing management plans” because they do not facilitate dialogue among various stakeholders with different interests.


Review of a wide range of reasonable alternatives was conducted by Department staff and the public through our planning process. Widely divergent views on how the Brule River State Forest should be managed are held by different stakeholders. Public input and the scientific information developed through multiple sources including eight Northern Forest Assessments and the Biotic Inventory were used as a foundation to produce and evaluate the Alternatives, and subsequently the development of the Preferred Alternative and the proposed Master Plan and EIS.


<top>

SUMMARY AND SUBSTANITIVE CHANGES

The Response to Comments and Questions document, which is attached, details those comments submitted to the Department during the 90-day comment period and the Department’s response to them. This is a summary of what are considered to be substantive changes or corrections to the master plan and EIS, which were made in consideration of the Comments received during the 90-day Comment Period, and determined by the Department to warrant revision. You may refer to the “Response to Comments and Questions” document for further information on these changes and clarification of information in the “Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”.



These changes are being incorporated as part of the “Brule River State Forest- Master Plan, August 2002 being considered by the Board for approval. The correction of typographic errors contained in the “Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002”, and very minor editorial changes will be incorporated into the final printing of the document following NRB approval.



1) Modify the Northern Boundary Expansion Area described on page 32-33, and all cross-references in the Master Plan and EIS. Refer to the attached BRSF Boundary Adjustment Map. The Northern Area has been reduced from 17,000 acres to approximately 7,000 acres.


Environmental Impacts described in Chapter 3, regarding the Northern Boundary Expansion Area will be reduced as the result of a significantly smaller area of land proposed to be included in the boundary expansion area. State “Payment In Lieu of Taxes” to local governments and school districts will be reduced in this area by well over 50%.



2) Delete the Western Boundary Expansion Area described on page 33, and all cross-references in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”. Refer to the attached BRSF Boundary Adjustment Map. The Western Boundary Expansion Area of approximately 1,000 acres has been eliminated. This eliminates approximately 100 acres of undeveloped industrial forest land, and 900 acres of mostly undeveloped and some developed wooded residential parcels.


Environmental Impacts described in Chapter 3, regarding the Western Boundary Expansion Area will be eliminated.



3) Modify the Southern Boundary Expansion Area described on page 33, and all cross-references in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”. Refer to the attached BRSF Boundary Adjustment Map. The Southern Area has been reduced from 26,600 acres to approximately 25,000 acres. This eliminates approximately 1,600 acres of mostly undeveloped and some developed wooded residential parcels.


Environmental Impacts described in Chapter 3, regarding the Southern Boundary Expansion Area will be reduced as the result of a smaller area of land proposed to be included in the boundary expansion area.



<top>

4) Delete the proposed construction of a new canoe landing at CTH FF - delete the second bullet item and all cross-references to the proposed Highway FF Canoe Landing on page 55, under “Area 4 - River Recreation – Management Prescriptions”, and all cross-references in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”. This will reduce the Total Estimated Facility Improvement Costs indicated on page 115 by $9,000.


Any environmental impacts described in Chapter 3, related to the construction of the canoe landing at CTH FF, will be eliminated.



5) Delete the two proposed footbridges from the Master Plan. - Delete the sixth bullet item and all cross-references to the proposed footbridges on page 65, under “Area 6 - Afterhours Recreation Area” – “Recreation Management Prescriptions” in the Master Plan and EIS. This will reduce the Estimated Facility Improvement Costs indicated on page 115 by $500,000.



Any environmental impacts described in Chapter 3, related to the construction of the two footbridges, will be substantially reduced or eliminated.



6) Reduce the size of the proposed Devil’s Hole Ski - Parking Area. The parking area size will be reduced from a 200-car capacity to a 100-car capacity and use levels will be monitored to see if expansion is necessary in the future. The parking area will have a natural surface of grass or other suitable natural material. No specific accommodations or operations will be made to support mountain bikes. This will reduce the Estimated Facility Improvement Cost Total on page 115 by $20,000.


Any environmental impacts described in Chapter 3, related to the construction of the parking area, will be substantially reduced by approximately one-half.

<top>

7) Modify the Area 4 - Scenic River Corridor as described on page 52, with the following additional wording; “or a minimum of 400 feet from the river’s edge, which ever is greater.”


The average width of the corridor in the new plan was established based on topography. The establishment of a minimum width will ensure that in those few locations in which topography established a width less than 400’, the corridor will be extended to 400’. The average width of the corridor remains in excess of 1,400’ in the plan. This change will not alter the description of environmental impacts in Chapter 3.




8) Modify the species listed in Chapter 3- Environmental Impact Statement-Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species, on page 95:


Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea): Change to “threatened” instead of “special concern” status. Refer to the description of habitat at the bottom of page 97. The management actions proposed in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”, will maintain existing habitat levels for this species.


Timber Wolf (Canis lupus): is a Federally endangered species, and a State threatened species. Refer to page 95 for additional information about this species and a description of positive impacts on this species resulting from management actions proposed in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002".


<top>

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo): The Common Tern is a state endangered species and is distributed throughout the Northern hemisphere. Its habitat is remote beaches, sparsely vegetated islands, and occasionally marshes. In Wisconsin, there are records of breeding colonies in the Lower Green Bay of Lake Michigan, Ashland, and Duluth-Superior. Although the Common Tern does not nest on the BRSF, it uses BRSF Lake Superior beaches as resting areas and forages over Lake Superior and in the marsh at the mouth of the Brule River. The closest breeding colonies are near Ashland and Duluth-Superior, and are a possible source of the birds occasionally found during the summer. The Common Tern also occurs along Lake Superior during spring and fall migration periods. Conservation concerns include disruption of breeding colonies, predation, loss of foraging habitat, and pollutants. The presence of this species does not require any change to the proposed management prescriptions for Area 1. The management actions proposed in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”, will protect the beach and marsh habitats used by this species.


Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia): The Caspian Tern is a state endangered species. It has a widespread distribution in the northern hemisphere, and is a very localized breeder. Its habitat consists of coastlines, large lakes and rivers. In the state of Wisconsin, records show that very limited breeding occurs on islands in Lower Green Bay of Lake Michigan. Caspian Terns do not nest on the BRSF but use Lake Superior beaches as resting areas and forage over Lake Superior. Their closest breeding colonies are in Minnesota. Conservation concerns include disruption of breeding colonies, predation, loss of foraging habitat, and pollutants. The presence of this species does not require any change to the proposed management prescriptions for Area 1. The management actions proposed in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”, will protect the beach habitats for this species.


Dwarf Milkweed (Asclepias ovalifolia): The Dwarf Milkweed is a state threatened species found in Area 11- the Gordon Unit. Dwarf Milkweed is distributed from Saskatchewan through the northern Great Plains east to Wisconsin and northern Illinois. They rely on open pine and oak barrens and sand prairies for habitat. State records show populations mostly in sandy areas of central and northwestern Wisconsin. On the BRSF, one small population was documented at the edge of a pine plantation in former pine barrens habitat in the Gordon Annex. Conservation concerns include excessive shading and encroachment by invasive plants. The presence of this species does not require any changes to the proposed management prescriptions for Area 11.The management actions proposed in the “Master Plan and EIS, August 2002”, will have no adverse impact on this species.



9) Adjust the estimated land acquisition costs on page 118 of the “Master Plan and EIS, August, 2002”, Chapter 3- Environmental Impact Statement- Land Acquisition Cost for the Proposed Boundary Expansion, and all cross references, as follows:


• Change the estimated total acquisition cost of all lands included in the adjusted forest boundary (30,400 acres) based on latest estimate of acquisition cost per acre. This will reduce the estimated total acquisition cost of all lands included in the adjusted forest boundary from $66 million to $24.8 million.
  
  
• Change the estimated acquisition cost per acre of land in the current real estate market in Northwestern Douglas County indicated from $1,500./acre to $800./acre. The revised cost is based on recent appraisals of undeveloped forest land in Douglas County.
  
  
• Change the total number of acres included in the proposed forest boundary expansion from 44,000 acres to 30,400 acres. It is estimated that less than 25% of this area will become available through donation or from willing sellers in the next 15-20 years.
  

<top>

Approximately 9,000 acres of land within the existing forest boundary are in private ownership. Only a small percentage of this land is expected to become available through donation or from willing sellers in the next 15-20 years.



• Change the estimated total acquisition cost of all lands included in the adjusted forest boundary (30,400 acres) based on latest estimate of acquisition cost per acre. This will reduce the estimated total acquisition cost of all lands included in the adjusted forest boundary from $66 million to $24.8 million.
  
  

It is important to note that, based on ongoing trends, it is likely that less than 25% of this amount will be required for land acquisition over the next 15-20 years. It is impossible to predict the amount of land that would become available either by donation, purchase of development rights, or acquisition under a willing seller/willing buy arrangement, over a given period of time.


<top>

RECORD OF DECISION ON THE EIS

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) requires state agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major state actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulations for implementing WEPA (Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code) classify master plans and property boundary adjustments of over 160 acres as Type II actions that require the issue identification, environmental assessment (EA) and decision procedures of the EIS process under ss. NR 150.21, 150.22, and 150.24. The Department conducted the full EIS process in order to ensure complete analysis and disclosure of master plan impacts.


The Brule River State Forest is designated as a state forest under s. 28.03 Wis. Stats. The revised master plan for the state forest provides for the protection and management of the forest, the Brule River, and its tributaries. The master plan provides for landscape scale ecological restoration, protection of soil and water quality, public recreation and hunting, protection of threatened and endangered species, aesthetic qualities, and production of recurring forest products, among other benefits. The proposed project boundary includes approximately 82,000 acres of land in Douglas County, which is an expansion of 32,000 acres from the current project boundary of 50,000 acres. The boundary expansion is proposed to maintain public recreational access, link regional biological corridors, provide for ecological restoration, and help protect the watershed and lakeshore. The Department will continue to pursue cooperative land management with private landowners within the boundary. Land within the project boundary would only be acquired from willing sellers. The state would make payments in lieu of taxes in an amount equivalent to property taxes for any purchased land.


This master plan revision was the subject of an environmental review process that culminated in the release of a Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The Department’s authority to revise the master plan is found in Ch. NR 44, Wis. Adm. Code. The Department’s authority to undertake the acquisition of new land is found in s. 23.09(2)(d), Wis. Stats. In order to implement the proposed project, the Department must obtain approval of the Natural Resources Board (NRB). This proposal will be presented for approval at a meeting of the NRB in December 2002.



<top>

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Department of Natural Resources finds that:


1.) The new Master Plan and EIS document for the Brule River State Forest was released for a public review period commencing on August 6, 2002 and ending November 4, 2002. During the 90-day review period, 304 public comments were received from individuals, organizations, and agencies.


2.) A public hearing on the proposed Master Plan and EIS for the Brule River State Forest was held on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 in Brule, Wisconsin. This hearing session was held from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at the Brule Town Hall. A second public hearing along with a cross examination on the EIS in accordance with NR 2.085 (4), Wis. Admin. Code was held on Thursday, September 12, 2002 at Fitchburg Community Center in Fitchburg, Wisconsin from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. One hundred nine people filled out appearance slips at the September 10th hearing in Brule; 37 people filled out appearance slips and/or signed the log-in sheet at the September 12th hearing in Fitchburg. In addition, a public informational meeting was held on October 19th from 8:00 a.m.-12:00 noon at the Town of Maple Middle School near Brule, Wisconsin, an estimated 33 people attended. Some additional people attended both hearings and the informational meeting but preferred not to sign appearance slips or the log-in sheet.


3.) During the public hearing sessions 49 people gave oral testimony or asked questions for the hearing record.


4.) Issues to be discussed in the EIS and Master Plan were identified through a series of Department staff meetings,10 public meetings before the EIS hearing, and numerous meetings with local and county governments, tribal representatives, cooperating agencies, interested organizations, and individuals. The Department engaged the public in the process of developing the master plan through the stages of issue identification, vision and goals, alternative concepts, the preferred alternative, and the Master Plan and EIS.


5.) A summary of the issues raised in public comments about the EIS and Master Plan and Department responses to those issues has been prepared and is being distributed with this Record of Decision.


6.) The Department has considered the EIS and comments received on it.


7.) Consistent with ecological, social, economic, and other essential considerations, the Department, in developing this proposal, has adopted all practical means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts.


8.) Department staff will include the EIS and Master Plan document, list of substantive changes, and the summary of public comments and Department responses, in their presentation of the proposal to the Natural Resources Board.



<top>

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department of Natural Resources concludes that:


1.) The Department, under s. 1.11, Wis. Stats., and Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code , has the responsibility to comply with WEPA, and the authority to determine its compliance with that Act.


2.) The Department, under s. 28.04 Wis. Stats., has the authority to plan and manage state forests.


3.) The Department, under ss. 23.27 and 23.28, Wis. Stats., has the authority to acquire, designate and protect State Natural Areas.



<top>

DECISION


1) The Department of Natural Resources has complied with the requirements of WEPA; s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.; and Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code in studying the feasibility of implementing the proposed Brule River State Forest Master Plan. This compliance applies to all subsequent individual actions consistent with the EIS.



<top>

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS


If you believe you have a right to challenge this decision, you should know that Wisconsin statutes and administrative rules establish time periods within which requests to review Department decisions must be filed.


For judicial review of a decision pursuant to ss. 227.52 and 227.53, Wis. Stats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed or otherwise served by the Department to file your


petition with the appropriate circuit court and serve the petition on the Department. Such a petition for judicial review shall name the Department of Natural Resources as the respondent.


To request a contested case hearing pursuant to section 227.42, Wis. Stats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed or otherwise served by the Department to serve a petition for hearing on the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. The filing of a request for a contested case hearing is not a prerequisite for judicial review and does not extend the 30 day period for filing a petition for judicial review.


This notice is provided pursuant to s. 227.48(2), Wis. Stats.


Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, the 12th day of November, 2002
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Department of Natural Resources
For the Secretary


By George Albright
Environmental Analysis & Review Program



<top>

---

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Contact Person for the BRSF Master Plan: Steve Petersen Brule River State Forest Forest Superintendent Brule River State Forest 6250 S. Ranger Rd. Brule, WI 54820-0125 Phone: (715) 372-5678 FAX: (715) 372-4836 e-mail: Petersp@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us

BRSF Master Plan Literature Order Form

Top of page
Last Revised: Wednesday November 01 2006