Brule River State Forest Master Plan Progress Report 2

• Process and Timeline
• Wisconsin Northern State Forest Assessments
• Tribal Consultation
• Openhouse
• DNR Issues
• Opinionnaire Summary
• Public Meeting
• Additional Information

Since the last progress report mailing in April, we've been working on a variety of items and activities. See the sidebar for highlights and summaries included in this progress report.

We will be completing the issues identification phase of the master plan by summer’s end. During the fall of 1998 we will be developing the vision and goals for the BRSF. In the vision and goals phase of the planning process, background information about the property and resource issues is provided and the public is involved in the development of a broad vision statement for the property.

In December of 1998 we plan to begin developing a range of master plan alternatives to address issues and resource capabilities.

More detailed information on the proposed timeline can be found on the Brule River Master Plan Schedule.

In preparation for revision of existing state forest master plans, the Department of Natural Resources initiated a series of assessments designed to analyze issues relevant to the Northern State Forests (NSFs), identifying new opportunities and challenges pertaining to management of these properties. The assessments will contain data that can be used to inform discussions and decisions in the planning processes. The assessments reflect issues that are in greatest need of additional information collection and analysis. The Northern State Forest Assessments address the following topics:

• Biodiversity
• Community Restoration and Old Growth
• Environmental Education and Awareness
• Monitoring
• Recreational Supply/Demand
• Regional Ecology
• Regional Socio-Economics
• Sustainable Forestry

The Biodiversity assessment was completed in December 1997 and is available as publication PUB-FR-133 98. Other assessments will be completed in the following months.

Members of the master planning team of the Brule River State Forest have been meeting with tribal, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), and Voigt Task Force members. Meetings have been held each month along with the planning team from the Northern Highland-American Legion State Forest, Bearskin State Park Trail and Powell Marsh.

Discussions are going well, and have centered around management, maintenance, and enhancement of habitat related to tribal hunting, fishing and gathering. Some of the topics discussed include birch bark, medicinal herbs, ceremonial cedar supply, and maple sap. Ways to improve communications between tribes and department properties have also been considered.

In general, tribal representatives are concerned about all aspects of forest management and recreational activities that may impact the tribes ability to exercise treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather plants.

Consultation with the tribes is conducted on a government to government basis as required under Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 44.04 (7)(c), and will continue throughout the master planning process as the tribes continue to share their issues.

Over 45 people attended the open house to offer their initial views on managing the forest. Those who attended had an opportunity to meet DNR staff and comment on various issues such as land management, recreation, endangered resources and fisheries. In the afternoon, 34 people went on a guided bus tour of the forest. During the two and half hour event, participants looked at and learned about recreation, forestry, and fishery management on the BRSF.

The comments from the open house and tour can be found in the following section.

The June 6th open house contained five stations: land management, fisheries, recreation, endangered resources and the planning process. These stations were staffed by DNR specialists who were available to answer questions and record comments. People were also invited to fill out an opinionnaire or provide other written comments.

• opinionnaire survey - too non-specific
• Internet System - doesn’t work, isn’t up to date, and the website needs improvement
• Comments sheets - have at landings

• Timber harvest as a tool is needed
• Native species and communities are the most important and should predominate
• Aspen should be at pre-settlement levels
• Stop clearcutting on the Brule
• Stop aspen regeneration
• Clearcutting is a sound biological method to mimic natural processes
• Maintain approximately the same aspen acreage
• No clearcutting 300’ from river bank Interested in continuous supply of timber product from the BRSF

• Concern about over development
• (need) access, but like rustic development, i.e. natural rustic campsites
• Limit road construction
• Concern about over use of BRSF and river
• Consider opening an already existing trail to dog sledding in the winter. Possibly a hunter walking trail.
• Increase the landings between Pine Tree and State Hwy. 13. County Hwy. FF and/or Mays Ledges would be good places.
• Increase safety along river
• Decrease use of upper river
• Improve brochures on canoeing to advise of upcoming hazards
• Continue limiting access to motorized vehicles in the BRSF
• Re-establish parking lot on east side of river at County Hwy. FF
• Need more campsites
• Consider upgrading camp facilities to have electric hookups, showers, etc.
• Canoe landing at Clay Road, and also another campground there
• Constructing a canoe landing at Big Lake on the State 40 acres
• More connecting trails to other counties’ snowmobile trails from BRSF trail
• More information. needed on new bottle and can law and ways commercial renter can provide for this law.

• Keep up the good job
• Fishing getting too crowded with other non-fishing types
• Would like to see resurgence of the steelhead
• Coasters (lake run brook trout)? Is there a future for them on the Brule?
• Restore parking lot on east side of County Hwy. FF
• Problem with fisherman parking near Hwy. B bridge because signs are confusing and old

• Interest in the aquatic invertebrate diversity of the Brule and it’s tributaries, and what unusual species occur there.
• Impression that inverts in some stretches have come back since problems related to lampricide use in the past.
• With the BRSF making up only a small fraction of 1% of the available forest land base, why are we harvesting timber?
• "Forest" is not spelled P-A-R-K or W-I-L-D-E-R-N-E-S-S
• What rare plants and animals occur on the BRSF? Where can I find out more about them?
• Significance of the BRSF as an important corridor for wolves, moose, others?
• Request for endangered resource inventory report ASAP.
• More scientific studies are needed to guide management
• Results of available studies often do not get to appropriate decision makers, especially in political circles
• Impacts of clearcutting on rare species?
• Impacts of clearcutting, deer yarding and changes in forest cover on rare and other species?
• "We keep having these meetings but nothing changes. It’s just for show"
• Clearcutting and forest fragmentation relationship. Changes in songbird abundance (decline). Increase in raptor populations?

Top of page

• lack of group camping facilities - user conflicts occur when large youth groups occupy regular family campgrounds
• historic designation and protection for the Brule River Civilian Conservation Corps Site (1934-1942)
• classification of Rush Lake
• concern about the water quality, erosion and sedimentation impacts to the Brule River resulting from public and private roads, old agricultural fields, and foot traffic accessing the river and following the shoreline
• state forest acquisition needs
• Bois Brule canoe landing is located in an existing campground setting with heavy canoe traffic pick up. This creates noise and traffic conflicts with campers.
• utility corridor developments

The first master plan for the Brule River State Forest was completed in January, 1979, as a project of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Brule River Task Force. The task force consisted of private citizens and nine separate Natural Resources Board advisory councils who reviewed and critiqued the department’s proposals. Two public information meetings were held, and copies of the proposed concept plan were distributed to about 100 citizens, environmental groups and organizations for their review and comments. An environmental assessment was prepared for the first BRSF master plan and approved in June, 1979. Since that time, the public has continued to provide the DNR with issues related to the BRSF by way of direct written correspondence, personal contacts, and public events such as the Sigurd Olson workshop in 1994 and the recent open house and tour. All of this information has been used as a starting point for identifying issues that will be addressed during the master planning process.

The Brule River State Forest issues opinionnaire was designed to see if the issues previously identified remain important today, to clarify those issues, and to identify any additional issues that may have emerged. New issues may be added at any time in the planning process and recommendations to the plan will be made only after careful study and discussion with the public. The opinionnaire contained 18 broad issue statements which provided an umbrella for all the specific issues we had identified. The respondents to the opinionnaire rated how important the issue was to them and described the aspects of the issue that were important to them. Also included for the respondents was a space to write additional comments or discuss issues not covered under the 18 issue headings. The opinionnaire was mailed to the 670 people on our mailing list and 123 of those people completed and returned the form.

The opinionnaire was not designed to be a quantitative scientifically designed survey or a way to vote for a particular outcome in the master plan - it helps us to forecast which issues are likely to generate the most interest during planning so we can better plan for future discussions. The opinionnaire reflects the views of some of the people interested in the BRSF, and the results cannot be extrapolated to the general public.

It is clear that the respondents believe that the Brule River and the Brule River State Forest are special resources that deserve special management and protection. The results of the opinionnaire confirm that the issues previously identified remain important today, and that there is a wide range of opinions on almost every issue. Reaching consensus on any one issue will require careful thought by all planning participants, a willingness to listen to the views of others, and perhaps the ability to accept a compromise or search for common ground.

All of the issues presented in the opinionnaire were considered important by some respondents. Over 70% of the respondents felt the following issues were "very important":

Many people wrote extensive comments on their opinionnaires. Below are summaries that display the range and flavor of the comments received. Following the written summaries is a bar graph illustrating the importance value that respondents assigned to each issue statement. Following the bar graph is a list of additional comments received on the opinionnaire.

Many respondents had strong feelings about this issue, but didn’t necessarily limit their comments to this specific issue. There were comments indicating that the forest is not just trees, and a forest site’s ecological potential will ultimately determine composition. Opinions were voiced that the forest should be passively managed to allow natural regeneration of native species and natural disturbance to return the forest to pre-settlement conditions. Still others felt the forest should contain a balanced diversity of forest types to enhance scenery, watershed health or wildlife habitat, but differed in opinions as to how to attain that diversity. There were concerns from some respondents about a potential reduction of timber harvest and the resulting affects on the local economy, forest health, fire hazard and a sustainable supply of wood products. Some people wanted to ensure that the forest was actively managed to maintain or increase early successional forest types such as aspen, jack pine and birch. Some people focused on preservation of specific habitats such as old growth, riparian buffers, pine, cedar, or rare and unique habitats, while others mentioned certain locations such as along the Brule River, roads, meadows, campgrounds and trails where they would like to see specific forest types maintained or increased.

The respondents were divided on the intensity of timber harvest desired for the BRSF. Many people held opinions that active timber management was appropriate when balanced with other resource values and aimed at attaining long term ecological benefits. Concern for protecting the water quality of the Brule River watershed was foremost in many comments, while others mentioned concern about old growth, biodiversity and visuals. Some respondents indicated that timber harvest of any sort was detrimental to aesthetics, water quality and recreation, while others stated that active timber harvest was necessary for economics, game species and forest health. In general, those who voiced opinions in favor of some level of timber harvest were concerned that the harvests be limited in size, intensity and location.

This issue statement was misunderstood by all respondents because it was not worded clearly. We intended the issue to relate to harvest of forest products other than commercial timber such as firewood, Christmas trees, berries, balsam boughs, birch bark, etc. but we did not get any comments concerning those products. The comments provided by respondents on this issue were mostly related to commercial timber harvest and have been combined with questions 1 and 2 when appropriate.

We will need to clarify the issue of "other forest products", and people’s concerns about them, as we continue master plan discussions.

Many people responding to the opinionnaire felt that aesthetics are an important and desirable feature of the BRSF, and for some, aesthetics and beauty should comprise an overriding component in management of the forest. Others felt, however, that aesthetics are over emphasized and should be balanced with other resource values and uses such as forest health and timber production, safety along the river and trails and maintaining vegetative diversity. Education was suggested as a way to change peoples’ view of timber management. Many specific ways were suggested to achieve aesthetic goals through timber management: elimination of large landings in timber operations; eliminating clearcuts or large clearcuts; visual buffers along roads and rivers or near residences, recreational use areas and trails; slowly thinning stands; slash utilization; and removing dead and dying trees where they occur. Others felt that the best way to improve aesthetics is by eliminating timber harvest altogether and let natural processes determine the look of the land. Still others felt that aesthetics could be improved with timber management by retaining old growth, managing for big trees or identifying and preserving unique features.

Although the majority of respondents focused on timber management and it’s effect on recreation and aesthetics, several comments were received about the negative impact of recreational facilities and activities on aesthetics: roads, trails, signs, campgrounds, boat landings, boats, people, noise, littering and pollution.

While most respondents felt that this issue is somewhat to very important, they agreed little on why. In general, respondents that identified themselves as hunters wanted active management to enhance habitats for deer, grouse, and waterfowl. Respondents who identified themselves as associated with the timber industry felt logging was an important tool to create and maintain habitat for the hunted species, especially in early successional forest types such as aspen. Others indicated preferences as "non-consumptive forest users" and would like to see natural processes manage the forest, moving toward pre-settlement conditions of numbers and diversity of native wildlife. Some feel the deer population is too high, with special concern for impacts on cedar trees, while others wanted to see deer numbers maintained or increased. Several respondents felt that managing habitat for rare, endangered or declining species is more important than managing for game species, while others commented on the economic importance of hunting.

Most respondents agreed that protecting an appropriate level of native biodiversity was important on the BRSF, but some cautioned against trying to enhance biodiversity beyond what the land is capable of or did not naturally contain. There was disagreement on the level of management needed to protect biodiversity, ranging from "do nothing" to passive management to active management.

The opinions expressed by respondents ranged from total protection of all old growth, to active management of all mature timber. Most of the people responding wrote about balance between active management and natural succession to old growth. The reasons to manage and harvest old growth included fire hazard, aesthetics, economics, early successional forest types, maintaining certain wildlife habitats, and forest health. Reasons to preserve and encourage old growth included historic preservation, aesthetics, watershed health and river health, biodiversity and maintaining certain wildlife habitats. Several people stated that old growth is difficult or undesirable to manage for because it has not been properly defined.

While some respondents recognized a need to consider management of adjacent lands and resources, some see this as irrelevant to managing the Brule River State Forest. The strongest argument against taking a regional approach was a concern for private property rights while the greatest need expressed for a regional approach would be to protect the entire Brule River watershed. Cooperation with neighboring landowners should be pursued whenever possible, and the BRSF should be a leader in quality land management provided through education and example.

Most respondents felt that the level of facilities is adequate for most user groups and would like to see the facilities remain as rustic and natural as possible. Quality is more important than quantity with preference given to maintaining a minimal number of facilities while protecting the natural resources. Many respondents are concerned that an increase in facilities will lead to an increase in use, and ultimately, a degradation of the experience. Other respondents feel the need for additional facilities for one purpose or another such as riverside camping and toilets, group camp sites, horse camps or backcountry camping.

There was a great range of opinions expressed on this issue. Some respondents felt that while access is currently adequate and there is little immediate problem with crowding, conflicts may grow in the future and some method of regulation may be needed. Others felt that access or crowding is currently a problem and had concerns about noise, rowdiness, littering, the "aesthetic experience", and negative effects on the fishery. Still others felt that crowding is not a problem and that additional quality access and facilities are needed at strategic locations such as Big Lake and below Mays Ledges. Suggested methods to regulate crowding included limiting "easy " access, restricting boating hours, restricting numbers through reservations and/or fees, or total elimination of boats. Many opinions were expressed regarding the need for additional regulation of commercial boat rental and use.

Similar to canoe/kayak access and crowding, a wide range of opinions were expressed on this issue, but most respondents felt that there was less of a problem with angling than with boating. Several people indicated that their perception of crowding is related to the number of canoes and kayaks rather than the number of anglers. Very few people felt that additional angler access is needed or desired, or that additional regulation should be imposed on anglers at the present time. While several people indicated that anglers are respectful of the river, of other anglers and of private property, some concern arose over trespass and crowding, particularly during the steelhead season. There was concern that some additional access is needed for the elderly or disabled angler. Suggested means to control crowding were: more special angling regulations, reduction in the number of "easy" access points, limiting angler parking areas, permits, user fees and angler ethics education.

The quality of the Brule recreational experience is generally high, but the quality for many tends to decrease as the level of development increases. Many respondents seem willing to endure some hardship to maintain a natural, unimproved environment with a sense of wildness. While many people mentioned the importance of all types of recreation to the local economy, they emphasized that the BRSF can’t be all things to all people and cautioned against marketing and over commercialization.

As with water quality, most respondents felt that the Brule River is a unique and precious cornerstone of the BRSF, and the Brule River’s reputation as a quality fishery makes it special. Special regulations to manage the size and numbers of fish and methods of angling were seen as positive by many respondents and negative by some. Several people would like to see even more restrictive regulations including spawning season closures, flyfishing only, and "catch and release" stream segments. Habitat improvements to stabilize banks, control erosion, increase spawning areas and improve the food base were viewed as positive. Some recognized the economic importance of fishing on the Brule River. Maintaining diversity of sport fishes was important to some respondents while managing for only native species and natural reproduction was important to others. Still others expressed interest in one species or another, such as steelhead or coaster brook trout. Concerns were raised about impacts from the number of canoes on the river, as well as past and future control of sea lamprey.

This issue received the lowest number of "Very Important" ratings and the highest number of "Not Important" ratings of all the issue statements. For the most part, respondents felt that the one designated ski trail on the BRSF was a positive aspect and adequate for the demand. The reasons expressed in favor of ski trails included little negative environmental and social impact, being a healthy and quiet sport, and economic benefits to the local communities. Some people expressed the opinion that they prefer the quality of a ski trail over the number of ski trails and even discouraged the development of more ski trails. Others encouraged the development of more ski trails and more variety in location and level of maintenance. Several comments indicated that if more ski trails were developed, they should be built and maintained by minimizing impacts to the natural environment, including fragmenting wildlife habitat. Maintaining quality ski trails was a concern for some respondents who suggested that access be limited and/or user fees applied.

Many respondents felt that the current number and miles of non-motorized trails is adequate, while others expressed that there were already too many and still others wanted more, or specific types, of non-motorized trails. Most people responded that they would rather have quality trails than a quantity of miles, while others emphasized that although quality is important, they would like to see more trails with a variety of types and locations provided. Concerns included adequate parking and signs, erosion, compaction, trampling of vegetation, fragmentation of wildlife habitat and aesthetics.

Specific types or locations of trails mentioned were: self-guided educational nature trails, shoreline (along river) trails, overnight backpacking trails, dogsledding trails, horseback trails, the North Country National Scenic Trail, connecting/loop trails, footbridges across the Brule River and mountain bike trails. To some, trails were not important, preferring to go cross country or using trails that were rustic, remote and not maintained. Local economics were mentioned as an important reason to encourage developed non-motorized trails as part of the multiple use of the BRSF, and user fees were suggested as a way to accommodate the increased demand for certain types of trails.

The respondents who indicated this issue was not important still expressed views of concern, perhaps meaning this type of vehicle use was inappropriate rather than the issue was unimportant. Reasons provided against off-road vehicle (ORV) use were noise, pollution, erosion, sedimentation, wildlife disturbance, aesthetics, safety and availability of other trails elsewhere. Some opponents of ORV use felt that the sport did not contribute to the local economy. A few people responded that increased ORV trails and use was desired or needed and wanted more miles of trails and connections to other trails and loops. Many of the respondents who wanted more use also stated that the trails should be limited, designated and designed to reduce resource damage and conflicts with other users of the forest. Proponents of ORV use mentioned the multiple use concept of the BRSF, a positive local economic impact, a need for the elderly or disabled, and reduction of trespass on private lands as reasons to provide for the designated use.

The majority of respondents agreed that snowmobiles should be restricted to designated trails, designed for safe snowmobile use while minimizing potential resource damage and conflict with other forest users. Specific suggestions to improve snowmobile trails centered around providing loops and/or links with county trails system. Some people responded that snowmobile use was not appropriate on the BRSF and cited concerns over noise, pollution, resource damage, wildlife disturbance, conflicts with other users, and availability of other trails elsewhere. Most respondents recognized a positive effect on the local economy from the sport, while others suggested user fees or restrictions on the number of non-residents to limit numbers.

This issue was rated as the most important identified issue with 96% expressing it as somewhat or very important. Many respondents characterized the Brule River as a unique "centerpiece" of the BRSF and water quality should be maintained, or when possible, improved. The reasons provided for maintaining high water quality included fisheries, aquatic life, aesthetics and watershed health. While most people felt that there is currently not a major problem with water quality, they are concerned about runoff and sediment from roads, trails, logging, urban encroachment, pipelines/power lines, overuse, and ORV use. People suggested managing the forest resources and facilities to protect water quality through habitat improvement projects, erosion control projects, runoff control projects, riprap, paving trails, and elimination or reduction of timber harvest, trails and roads. Several people commented that some erosion is natural and important to the river, while others indicated research is needed in understanding and controlling erosion, particularly in the red clay area of the lower river. Several people commented water quality must extend beyond the Brule River proper to consider the springs, seeps and tributaries on a watershed basis.

ADDITIONAL OPINIONNAIRE COMMENTS
Respondents also identified issues not specifically included on the opinionnaire, and these comments are summarized here.

• the safe harbor proposal and associated developments
• elimination/control of shoreline development of the Brule River and Lake Superior
• acquisition of lands within the BRSF, boundaries of the BRSF and the BRSF "taking over" land from locals
• trespass and other conflicts with private land owners

• perceived changing priorities of management on state lands to less timber production and more preservation. The movement to turn the BRSF into park-like wilderness, setting it aside from timber production and harvest.
• use of "Mil Tax" to fund snow trails and the use of other funds (trout stamps, logging revenue, reforestation tax). Questions about how the money is used.
• proliferation of law/regulations and the need for additional law enforcement

• extent of state’s commitment to citizen participation
• how people like to receive information from the DNR
• how it can be made easy for citizens to get involved
• use of a different planning concept that is continuously flexible and responsive
• concern over using NHAL planning documents as boiler plates, concern about involvement of Madison in preparing and mailing documents
• increased involvement of people and institutions who have the most knowledge about the BRSF - develop forums for sharing that knowledge
• whose forest is it - local, regional, state, DNR?
• priority for putting DNR information, such as forest inventories by the Bureau of Endangered Resources, in a format that can be, and is, shared with the public
• design and intent of opinionnaire - missing larger part of forest management plan and decisions: jobs, economy, costs, timber sustainability

• need for environmental education opportunities and facilities, and interpretation of forest management
• a request to treat management of the North Country National Scenic Trail as a separate trails issue
• preservation of local history and historic sites

Top of page

Help us write the Vision and Goals for the Brule River State Forest. Please attend a day long public working meeting on Saturday, October 17th, 1998 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. in the Brule River State Forest vicinity.

For more information contact: Dave Schulz, Property Manager
Brule River State Forest
6250 S. Ranger Rd.
Brule, WI 54820-0125

Phone: (715) 372-5678
FAX: (715) 372-4836
e-mail: schuldn@DNR.state.wi.us