Brule River State Forest Master Plan Progress Report 7

• A Summary of the December 2nd Forest Recreation and Wildlife Management Issue Forum.
• A Summary of the December 16th Forest Water Resources Management and Socio-economics Issue Forum.
• A Summary of the public input received to date regarding the BRSF master plan.
• A report on recent tribal consultation meetings.
• Dates of the next public BRSF master plan workshops.
• A list of BRSF master plan support literature and order form.

On December 2, 1999, we held the second in a series of three BRSF issue forums at the Brule Town Hall from 6:00 to 9:00 PM. This Issue Forum focused on the topics of Forest Recreation and Wildlife Management. The Forum was attended by 45 members of the public, 10 DNR staff and facilitated by John Haack of U.W. Extension.

The purpose of the issue forum was to exchange information about the forum topics and to gather public input, which will serve as the basis for developing a range of management alternatives. The meeting was held using an "open house" format, which allowed participants to circulate to a number of topic discussion stations. At each topic discussion station a DNR topic specialist provided information about the topic, and was available to answer questions. For those who were not able to attend the Issue Forum, much of the information presented is included in the Fact Sheets on Recreation, the Fishery, and Wildlife Management. These Fact Sheets were sent out to all of you on our mailing list, prior to the Issue Forum.

Meeting attendees were invited to write their comments on a flip chart. Participants were asked to answer the following questions concerning each of the discussion topics:

• What do you like?
• What don’t you like?
• What would you like to see changed?

There were discussion stations for each of the following topics:

Non- Motorized Land Recreation, including; hiking, nordic skiing, fishing trails, mountain biking, sightseeing, nature / wildlife viewing, and historic / environmental education.

Guests then participated in topic discussion groups, which were facilitated by the Topic Specialist, who recorded the group’s comments on flip charts. This allowed the participants to hear a variety of comments and to share their ideas with others.

The following is a brief summary of the comments received on the recreation and wildlife topics.

Several comments focused on the use of non-motorized trails by ATVs and the need for enforcement of the existing regulations. Other comments supported maintaining portions of the forest exclusively for silent use types of recreation. A number of comments supported additional cross-country ski trails and grooming. Also, a pedestrian boardwalk through the Brule Bog was suggested.

Comments were varied regarding snowmobile trails.

Several opposed any expansion of the existing trails, and others supported expansion. A snowmobile trail connecting Lake Nebagamon to Solon Springs was suggested.

Comments on ATVs and ORVs varied from restricting access for all motorized vehicles, to unrestricted use of the forest by ORVs and ATVs. Reasons given for restricting access were concern over environmental damage, and noise pollution. Reasons given for increased access included allowing motorized users to hunt, enjoy the scenery and for disabled access. Some suggested additional parking areas.

Many of the comments on boating focused on the increasing use of the river by canoeists and kayakers, and perceived problems such as drunkenness, litter, noise and conflicts with anglers. Several comments suggested some means of limiting the number of canoes and kayaks on the river. Inversely others suggested additional landing facilities.

Fishing:

Many of the comments supported the DNR and the work of partnership groups on habitat improvement. Several comments opposed stocking and others supported managing for a natural fishery. Several expressed concerns over the protection of the river’s water quality. Others supported additional enforcement staff. Comments both supported and opposed requiring single, barbless hooks. It was suggested that certain times of the day be set aside for anglers, restricting the use of the river during these periods by canoeists and kayakers.

Many of the comments supported reducing the deer population because of over-browsing, lyme disease and auto safety. Various methods for accomplishing this were suggested. Comments both supported and opposed managing for early succession / aspen wildlife habitat.

Some comments suggested expanding the camping facilities by adding a group campground, a campground at the mouth of the Brule River, adding vault toilets, showers, running water, and a dump station. Other comments supported maintaining the existing facilities. Some suggested additional DNR staff to manage the campgrounds.

If you would like a complete list of the public comments received at this Forum, please contact: Brule River Master Plan, at 715/ 365-8993. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the Issue Forum!

On December 16, 1999, we held the third in a series of three BRSF issue forums at the Brule Town Hall from 6:00 to 9:00 PM. This Issue Forum focused on the topics of Forest Water Resource Management and Socio-Economics. The Forum was attended by 25 members of the public, 10 DNR staff and facilitated by Mike Kroenke of U.W. Extension.

The purpose of the issue forum was to exchange information about the forum topics and to gather public input, which will serve as the basis for developing a range of management alternatives. The meeting format consisted of a combination of short topic presentations and topic discussions. The introductory presentations covered the following topics:

• Introduction to the Brule Watershed, Forest Water Resources and Their Management - by Ted Smith
• Water Quality of the Bois Brule River – by Frank Koshere
• Aquatic Communities in the BRSF – Bob DuBois, who was unable to attend, prepared information. Presentation was made by Frank Koshere
• Management of the BRSF Fishery – by Dennis Pratt
• Forestry Water Quality "Best Management Practices" – by Jim Rau
• Socio-Economics related to the management of the Brule River State Forest – by Kent Van Horn

For those who were not able to attend the Issue Forum, much of the information presented is included in the Fact Sheets on Water Resources, the Fishery and Forest Management. These Fact Sheets were sent out to all of you on our mailing list, prior to the Issue Forum. If you wish to order additional copies, please fill out and send in the enclosed literature order form.

Following each of the presentations, guests were allowed to ask questions to the presenters. These questions were captured on a flip chart by the meeting facilitator. Guests were then invited to circulate to discussion stations for each of the topics indicated above. At each topic discussion station a DNR topic specialist was available to answer questions and record public comments. This allowed the participants to hear a variety of comments and to share their ideas with others.

At the close of the meeting, the topic discussion groups then shared some of their key comments with the large group. Generally, public questions and comments centered upon the extent of the water quality information that was collected, why more research wasn’t being done, and how the monitoring was done. DNR staff explained what information had been collected and how it was collected.

Other questions and comments focused on ways to minimize potential threats to the Brule water quality, resulting from activities such as, over use by canoeists and kayakers, runoff from roads, farmlands and timber harvesting. DNR staff explained that the greatest potential threats were; road construction and shoreline development. Protecting water quality against these threats would require a cooperative approach between DNR, private landowners, and other public agencies.

Comments regarding the management of the fishery supported the current management. In addition, there were also comments that didn’t support stocking the river.

The socio-economic presentation focused on the economic value of forest products and forest based recreation in the region. Information was provided on the compatibility of different types of recreation with different levels of timber harvest on the forest. Questions / comments generally centered on specific revenue generated on the BRSF, concern over conflicts between motor and non-motorized recreation, and the aesthetics of forest management practices. It was explained that timber harvest on the BRSF was an integral part of state forest management in order to meet goals of habitat management, and demonstrate compatibility of ecological and economic management.

If you would like a complete list of the public comments received at this Forum, please contact: Brule River Master Plan, at 715/ 365-8993 or 107 Sutliff Ave., Rhinelander, WI 54501. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the Issue Forum!

For those of you who were not able to attend the Issue Forum, you may wish to provide your comments on the topics discussed at either of the Issue Forums.

Please send your written comments to: Dave Schulz -BRSF Assistant Manager.

Many thanks to everyone who participated in the Issue Forum!

In order to explain the upcoming steps in the master planning process, it might be helpful to briefly review the master planning process as a whole.

Research and Data Gathering

Issues Identification

Vision and Goals

Select a Recommended Alternative

Write Master Plan and EIS

Public Review of Plan and EIS

Natural Resources Board Review and Approval

Implementation of the Master Plan

We are currently involved in developing a range of Alternatives. The public input received at the Issue Forums is being combined with other input received at our previous public involvement meetings and mailings. This input includes; the draft vision statement and property goals, mail-in responses, input received in our tribal consultation meetings, letters and comments submitted from our remote participants. The synthesis of this information along with the scientific data is being used as the basis for developing a range of Alternatives.

What do we mean when we say " Alternatives"? An "Alternative" is a plan that describes one of a number of possible and reasonable, approaches to managing the Brule River State Forest. It is one of several "scenarios" for the management of the property. A proposed Alternative, in order to be considered, must comply with the legal and regulatory requirements for a Wisconsin State Forest.

An Alternative consists of several components; a brief written "concept statement" which describes the alternative’s approach, a list of management

elements, and a map of the property. Each management area indicated on the map is accompanied by a description of the management that is proposed for each of those areas.

The public and tribal input received to date has been analyzed by placing the major statements into categories, such as, comments supporting the reduction of timber harvesting, or comments supporting the continuation of current levels of timber harvesting. These categories were then clustered to form overarching themes. The themes, which developed out of this exercise, suggested four possible approaches to managing the Brule River State Forest. The DNR master planning team is currently involved in developing four "first draft" Alternatives based on these themes.

At the next public workshop, these "first draft" Alternatives, will be presented in preliminary form, for public review, and comment. Our remote participants will also be asked to provide comment. The comments and suggestions received at the public workshop, from mailing responses and from tribal consultation meetings will be taken into consideration when the "first draft" Alternatives are refined by DNR staff.

A second public workshop will be held in Brule to present the Revised Alternatives to the public for comment on which they feel should be selected as the "Recommended Alternative". Participants may either select one of the four Refined Alternatives, or they can make suggestions on how a new Alternative could be created by combining components from two or more of the Alternatives. It should be understood that the selection of a Recommended Alternative will not be made on the basis of a vote. Additional public meetings will be held in Rhinelander, Eau Claire and Madison to receive statewide comment. These meetings will also focus on receiving comments on the revised alternatives. The input received at these public meetings will be considered, along with criteria such as; ecological capability, regional setting, legal and policy contraints in the DNR’s selection of a "Recommended Alternative".

Following these meetings, DNR staff experts will evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of the four Alternatives. This information along with other data will be used to evaluate the Alternatives and select a Recommended Alternative. This information will be written up as the Draft Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. This document will be made available for members of the public, organizations, governing bodies, elected officials and other public agencies for review and comment. Following the public comment period, the Draft Master Plan will be presented to the Natural Resources Board for review and approval or other direction.

In compliance with stipulations arising from the Chippewa treaty rights litigation and the Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 44, the DNR consults with tribal governments during the development of master plans for state lands in the Ceded territory. These "government to government" consultations between tribal representatives and DNR master planning team members have been conducted since 1998. Properties in the Ceded territory, which are currently involved in master planning include; the Brule River State Forest, the Northern Highland / American Legion State Forest, the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area, the Bearskin Trail and the Willow Flowage.

• Coming to agreement on the master plan goal statement regarding Chippewa Treaty rights.
• Evaluating the potential impacts of proposed management alternatives on resources harvested by the Chippewa during their off-reservation treaty seasons.

Agreement has been reached on the content of the master plan goal statement as related to Chippewa treaty rights.

Tribal representatives had expressed that, they were not satisfied with the initial Draft Property Goal regarding tribal hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights in the Ceded Territory. The Draft Property Goal was as follows:

In order to proceed with the master plans, it was agreed that the Draft Goal Statement regarding Chippewa Treaty rights would remain in it’s current form, only until DNR and tribal representatives could reach agreement on a revised goal statement. Once agreement was reached, the new goal statement would become effective in each of the master plans.

In September of 1999, WDNR staff and the tribal representatives agreed to the following Property Goal for the Brule River State Forest, the Northern Highland / American Legion State Forest, the Powell Marsh Wildlife Area, the Willow Flowage and the Bearskin Trail Master Plans.

DNR master planning team members agreed to announce the revision in the next Progress Report to be produced for each master plan.

The Willow Flowage and Powell Marsh Wildlife Area have reached the point where a range of alternatives has been developed. A meeting was held on October 8, 1999, for the purpose of evaluating potential impacts of the resources included under the Chippewa off-reservation treaty rights.

The meeting included Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) staff including; a wildlife biologist and a forest ecologist / botanist and WDNR staff including; a wildlife biologist, forest ecologist, fishery biologist, and master plan team leaders. A matrix was collectively developed which listed potential positive and negative impacts from proposed management actions for each alternative on resources important to the tribes.

It is planned that similar meetings will be held when, the Brule River State Forest, and the Northern Highland / American Legion State Forest master planning teams complete a range of Management Alternatives. The DNR believes that these consultations with the Chippewa Tribes will result in a more comprehensive set of plans, which strengthens our ability to manage these properties for the benefit of all users.

The next public meeting for the BRSF Master plan will be held Friday June 16^th, 2000 from 3:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Brule Town Hall. The purpose of this meeting will be to allow the public to review the first draft of the master plan Alternatives.

The meeting will be an "open house" type of format, where the four draft Alternatives will be displayed at discussion stations. At each station, guests will have the opportunity to review each of the Alternatives, ask questions, write comments on a flip chart or write directly on the map. Comments received at this and other workshops will be taken into consideration in the selection of a Recommended Alternative.

Since there will be no presentations or group discussions, guests may visit the "open house" meeting at any time between 3:00 PM and 8:00 PM.

• Community Old Growth Restoration Fact Sheet
• Endangered Resources Fact Sheet
• Socio-Economics of the BRSF Fact Sheet
• Biodiversity Fact Sheet
• Water Resources Fact Sheet
• Water Quality Best Management

Practices Fact Sheet

• Aesthetic Management Fact Sheet
• Recreational Use and Facilities Fact Sheet
• Wildlife Fact Sheet
• Fisheries Fact Sheet
• Forestry Fact Sheet
• Forestry Resources Fact Sheet
• Master Planning Rule Fact Sheet
• Glossary of Master Planning Terms
• Landscape Ecology Fact Sheet

Executive Summaries of all assessments are available at no charge.

• Biodiversity Assessment …$1.00
• Biodiversity Assessment Executive Summary
• Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment …$1.00
• Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment Executive Summary
• Regional Ecology Assessment ….$10.00
• Regional Ecology Assessment Executive Summary
• Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Brule River State Forest ….$10.00
• Biotic Inventory and Analysis of the Brule River

• Socio-Economics in Northwest WI Assessment. $1.00
• Socio-Economics in Northwest WI Assessment Executive Summary
• Sustainable Forestry Assessment …$1.00
• Sustainable Forestry Assessment Executive Summary
• Environmental Education and Awareness Assessment $1.00
• Environmental Education and Awareness Assessment Executive Summary

Enclosed is a check for the $__________

Name:____________________________________

Address:__________________________________

City:_____________________________________

State:_______ Zip:________