Brule River State Forest Master Plan Progress Report 6

• Forest Ecology & Management Issue Forum
• Management Options Table
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Next Issue Forum

On June 12, 1999, we held the first BRSF issue forum on Forest Ecology and Management. The Forum was attended by 33 members of the public and 12 DNR staff. The purpose of the issue forum was to explore issues and information about the BRSF related to forest ecology and management. DNR experts presented results of their research and analysis of the BRSF resources. Presentations by DNR scientists/experts included the following topics:

The Regional Ecology and Ecological Units of the BRSF.
Presented by Mike Beaufeaux, Forest Ecologist

Opportunities for Community Old growth Restoration in the BRSF.
Presented by Ron Eckstein, Wildlife Ecologist

Threatened and Endangered Resources in the BRSF.
Presented by Eric Epstein, Community Ecologist

History and Forestry Practices of the BRSF.
Presented by Dave Schulz, Forester for the BRSF

The format of the meeting combined the presentations by DNR experts, with small work sessions and large group "call outs". Participants listened to the four presentations and then in small groups, discussed what they had heard, learned or wanted to add to the presentations. These small group discussions were led by a facilitator, who, recorded the group's comments on flip charts. The small groups then shared some of their key comments with the large group. This allowed the participants to hear a variety of comments and to share their ideas with others. If you would like a full listing of the comments recorded in the small groups, please contact us, and we will send you a copy.

The information shared in these discussion sessions was then put to use in a planning exercise. The small groups were asked to develop a list of "management options" for one or more of the four ecological units that occur within the Brule River State Forest. The term 'ecological unit' is being used to describe a distinct set of natural communities and site characteristics. In the BRSF these are: the Lake Superior Clay Plain, the Mille Lacs Uplands, the Bois Brule Spillway and Bog, and the Bayfield Sand Plains.

For a complete description of the ecological units, please refer to the Fact Sheet on Landscape Ecology, which was included in our previous mailing.

A "management option", for the purpose of this exercise, is defined as one of many possible ways of managing the resources within an ecological unit. A "management option" describes the desired result of management, but does not describe the specific techniques to be used. It was suggested that the "management options" be based on the ecological capabilities and natural characteristics of that specific area of the site.

Following the listing of "management options", the small groups then discussed the impacts of each of those management options. Results of these tables can be viewed in the attached "Management Options Tables".

The following file is in the Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF). To view the file, you will need a copy of the Adobe Acrobat Reader which is available for free on Adobe's web site. PDF version of the management options tables developed at the BRSF Forest Management & Ecology Issue Forum.

The purpose of this exercise was to develop the building blocks for the Master Plan Alternatives. A range of alternatives will be developed in the upcoming Alternatives Workshops. These workshops will ask participants to develop and map a range of management alternatives, by selecting management options, and applying them to specific areas of the forest. If necessary, additional "management options" may be added or modified at that time.

As the final activity of the day, we asked the participants to fill out an evaluation form. This provides us with valuable feedback, and helps us improve our public planning process for the Brule River State Forest. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the Issue Forum! And, an additional thank you to those who took the time to fill-out the evaluations and send them in.

In discussions with members of the public at our meetings, phone calls, and correspondences several questions have been raised repeatedly. We thought it would be helpful to list these questions and provide the appropriate answers.

Q: Has the DNR already developed it's own preferred master plan or master plan alternatives, independent of the public master planning process?

A: No.

Q: How does the work done at the last issue forum relate to the development of alternatives?

A: At each issue forum, the public and DNR staff together create a list of management options for the property, related to the topic of that issue forum (forest ecology and management, water resources and management, or recreation). For each option, the meeting participants also describe what they feel the impacts of that choice would be.

After all the issue forums are over, we will hold design workshops. It is at these workshops that the alternatives for the property will be developed and mapped. People working on each alternative at the design workshop will select options from the lists developed at the issue forums. They use their selected options to build and map their alternative.

Thus, the work done at each issue forum becomes the building blocks or components of the alternatives.

Q: Why should I come to the public meetings?

A: Our public involvement and master plan design process provides multiple ways people can make comments and add ideas, regardless of whether they can make meetings. However, the public meetings provide several opportunities and advantages over other forms of input.

First, the meetings provide the only real forum for you to hear and discuss ideas with other people who care about the property. This exchange is critical if the plan is to meet people's multiple needs.

Second, at the meetings you can interact directly with the DNR staff who have expertise on the ecology and resources of the property, who will be writing the plan, and who work on the property and will be implementing the plan.

And, finally, at the meetings we actually create the components of the master plan, first laying the skeleton and foundation and subsequently adding more meat and detail. Therefore, those who come to the meetings are likely to affect the master plan more than those who send in comments by mail, reacting to what was created at the meetings.

Q: Why do we have to consider and talk about a range of options for the property, including options I don't think are appropriate?

A: So that final decisions best serve a variety of public needs, the laws and rules regulating planning for public properties mandate that we consider and evaluate a range of options. By the open exchange of different ideas, our final decisions will be based on creative thinking and a diversity view points.

In addition, working on options you don't agree with provides you with a couple opportunities. First, you may learn more about a viewpoint other than your own, thereby giving you a more balanced understanding of the issues related to the master plan. Second, you can identify what you think the impacts of that option are and why you do not think it is appropriate for the property. This will affect whether any elements from that option would appear in the final preferred alternative. And third, it allows you to affect how elements of that option, would be constrained or limited, should they appear in the final plan.

Q: Why isn't WDNR discussing the forest management plans which have been submitted by various groups?

A: WDNR has a responsibility to consider all of the public's comments equally. We cannot give special emphasis to comments coming from a particular group by discussing them in the public meetings. All of the members of the public will have an opportunity to provide their input by participating in the public meetings and workshops, as well as submitting written information. Groups, which have developed a plan or proposal that they collectively endorse, are encouraged to continue to participate in the master planning forums and workshops. By doing so, they can be assured that the management actions that they advocate will be developed as one or several of the alternatives and will be evaluated by the public and DNR.

Q: When will we have a chance to revisit the Vision Statement and Property Goals if we feel they need additional work?

A: The draft vision and goals will be revisited and finalized following the development of a preferred alternative. At that time, the Draft Vision and Goals can be fine-tuned to make them consistent with the range of alternatives, which have been developed. This would be a time when you and others could propose edits to the Vision and Goals, which you feel are necessary. A proposed edit would be adopted into the final Vision and Goals, if there is a consensus among our planning partners that this is a necessary change, and it is consistent with the regulatory sideboards for the State Forest.

It is expected that the next Issue Forum for the BRSF Master plan will be held in early fall. The pubic, including those on our mailing list, will be notified as soon as a date can be confirmed.