Master Planning

State Forests

Brule River State Forest

 Brule border

Brule River State Forest Master Plan Progress Report 9

December 2000

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AT RECENT PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

WDNR recently hosted a series of public meetings to receive public input on the Brule River State Forest Master Plan- Management Alternative Concepts. Meetings were held in Brule on June 16th, in Brule on August 4th, in Madison, August 8th, in Rhinelander August 9th and in Eau Claire August 10th.

At each of these meetings, the Management Concept Maps and written descriptions were displayed for participants’ review and comment. These were the same Management Concepts that were described in Progress Report - Volume 8. However, some minor corrections were made to the maps and the "Results" section between the June 16th and August 4th meetings.

The Management Concepts (or Alternatives) consisted of four possible "Resource Management Concepts," four possible "Recreation Management Concepts" and a discussion of options regarding "Current Property Boundary and Land Areas of Special Interest." The management concepts were developed to represent a range of possible alternative approaches to managing the property.

WDNR staff members were present to explain each of the concepts and answer any questions. Participants were asked to indicate what they liked and disliked about each of the proposed Resource Management Concepts and Recreation Management Concepts, and suggest how these Concepts could be improved. It was explained that elements from one or more of the Management Concepts could be combined provided they are compatible. Participants were also asked to comment on the discussion of possible property boundary modifications.

Comments were recorded on flip charts and maps. Following the meetings numerous letters and cards containing comments on the alternatives were also received. Collectively, WDNR staff received over 300 comments and letters at or following these meetings, regarding various aspects of the master plan alternatives. Comments ranged in length from 2 words to 10 pages of text.

Many of the comments expressed generalized sentiments about environmental issues, political issues or a variety of topics. These comments will become part of the master plan’s public record; however they could not be directly applied to the refinement of the Management Concepts. The public comments also expressed a wide variety of opinions, and suggestions about the proposed Alternative Concepts. However, there emerged three "clusters" of comments:
  1. Those that suggested combining elements from Concepts 1 and 2. This cluster of comments appeared to support a low level of forest products harvesting, preserving and enhancing the scenic quality and restoration of ecological communities. Some comments supported the recommendations made by the "Friends of the Brule River and Forest." Since elements of the "Friends" recommendations were included in Concepts 1 and 2, these comments were also included in this cluster.

    This cluster also appeared to support a combination of elements from Recreation Management Concepts A and B. Under these concepts, the intensity of recreational use would be maintained at the current level or reduced where there is evidence that the recreational activities are degrading the resources.

  2. Those that suggested combining elements from Resource Management Concepts 3 and 4. This cluster of comments appeared to support the harvesting of a sustainable level of forest products and wildlife habitat management for hunting and fishing, while preserving the forest’s scenic quality, protecting the river’s water quality, and protecting threatened and endangered species.

    This cluster also appeared to support a combination of elements from Recreation Management Concepts C and D. Under these concepts, the intensity of recreational use would be increased from the current level, proposing additional trails, campgrounds and increased motorized access.

  3. Those that supported Resource Management Concept 4 and Recreation Concept D. The majority of these comments came by mail following the public meetings in the form of printed post cards.
In response to the comment "clusters," the next step of the developing master plan, the "Refined Alternative," will allow further discussion of the remaining controversial elements. This discussion will explore the differences between the viewpoints and look for areas of common ground. We will work towards a plan that maximizes the breadth of values that the public has identified and is consistent with the capabilities of the property. The following article "What’s the Next Step in the Master Planning Process?" will further explain how we plan to accomplish this.

When evaluating the comments, the master planning staff looked for recurring or overarching themes. Once these recurring themes were identified, they were grouped into areas of general agreement and areas that remain . In the following section we identify elements, selected from the various management concepts, which appear to have general support. By doing so, we are attempting to consolidate portions of the developing master plan, and focus the future discussion of the property’s management.
    ELEMENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH APPEARED TO HAVE GENERAL PUBLIC SUPPORT:
A large number of the comments echoed the previously developed Vision Statement and Property Goals. Comments appeared to be in support of the following general management objectives:
  • To maintain the water quality of the Brule River and its tributaries.
  • To preserve the scenic quality in the forest.
  • To maintain or improve the quality and health of the fisheries.
  • To protect rare, threatened or endangered species within the forest.
  • To minimize the threat of wild fire.
  • To control invasive exotic plant species.
  • To practice "sustainable forestry".
  • o protect and preserve historic and cultural resources and sites within the forest.
  • To restore ecological communities indigenous to the forest where possible and economically feasible.
Many of the comments expressed support for particular "management objectives" described in the Resource Management Concepts and Recreation Management Concepts, as well as the Elements Contained in All Concepts. The management elements that appeared to receive general support are as follows:

    Resource Management
The five "ecological zones" such as the Bayfield Sand Plain, Mille Lacs Uplands, etc., are shown with “management objectives” below each. The elements listed for each of the ecological landscapes have been modified slightly to focus on the management objectives for each area and to reflect the general spirit of comments received. They describe a desired future condition, but do not propose a particular management action to achieve that condition. The various methods of achieving those objectives will be described and evaluated in the next step in the master planning process.
    Management Objectives for the
    Brule River and Tributaries:
  • Protect all steep ravines and side slopes of the Brule River and its tributaries from intensive human disturbance and to minimize erosion.
  • Retain the current level of fishery management, including beaver control.
    Management Objectives for the
    Lake Superior Clay Plain:

  • Where possible, restore the native “boreal forest” community, emphasizing the white pine, white spruce, white cedar, and white birch tree species.
  • Minimize soil erosion, slow storm water runoff and increase storm water infiltration.
    Management Objectives for the
    Mille Lacs Uplands:

  • Manage existing pine plantations to create a natural appearance and encourage a more diverse understory.
  • Encourage the development of red pine and white pine.
  • Manage the Sugar Camp Hill area to maintain a large block of mixed boreal and northern hardwood species of older age classes.
  • Where possible, encourage hemlock and pine regeneration in the Lake Minnesuing hemlock / hardwood forest.
    Management Objectives for the
    Bayfield Sand Plain

  • Restore Sand Barrens and dry forest type communities in accordance with the recommendations contained in the “Biotic Inventory.”
  • Manage the areas not identified as barren restoration areas in the “Biotic Inventory” as a dry pine forest community.
  • Manage existing pine plantations to create a natural appearance and encourage a more diverse understory.
    Management Objectives for the
    Brule Bog and Spillway

  • Protect the Brule Bog from human disturbance.
  • Manage the Bog to allow natural processes to occur.
  • Manage existing pine plantations on the terraces adjacent to the Bog to create a natural appearance and encourage a more diverse understory.
  • Allow slope areas adjacent to the bog to follow natural successional pathways.
  • Monitor for and remove, if possible, invasive exotic plant species.
    Recreation Management
The four Recreation Management Concepts also received varying degrees of support. However, Concept B appeared to receive the strongest support. This Concept proposed to “manage the Brule River State Forest by providing recreational activities, which do not change the character of the property.”

The following is a composite of management objectives from Recreation Management Concepts A-D, which appeared to receive general support from the public.
  • Non-motorized trail systems would remain at current levels.
  • Add a group camping area separate from the family camping areas.
  • Generally maintain the current number of family campsites within the campgrounds, but consider adding some additional walk-in sites at the Copper Range campground. Also consider adding some remote campsites along the North Country Trail.
  • The Afterhours Ski Trail system would remain in its current form, with some minor modifications to the trail based upon user group recommendations.
      Current Project Boundary and Land Areas of Special Interest:

    Comments generally supported the idea of expanding the forest boundary with the understanding that the boundary simply identifies adjacent areas which, because of their physiological or ecological relationship to the state forest, should be considered for purchase if they were to become available. There appeared to be support for the expansion of the forest boundaries in areas where the potential of development threatens ecologically sensitive areas and water quality of the river.

    There was some support for alternative approaches to managing the identified areas outside the existing forest boundary. The discussion of possible approaches included voluntary cooperative management agreements with private landowners, and / or the purchase of easements, development rights or management rights.

      ELEMENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH REMAIN CONTROVERSIAL:
    The following questions represent aspects of the developing master plan that remain particularly controversial and will require further examination and discussion:

    Timber Harvest:
    • What constitutes a “sustainable” level of timber product harvesting in the BRSF?
    • What areas of the forest should be considered “off-limits” to timber harvesting and in what areas should harvest occur to achieve ecological or wildlife habitat goals?
    • Is the harvesting of timber products in the BRSF cost effective?
    • What economic impacts does timber harvest have on tourism, recreation and the supply of forest products?
      Water Quality:
    • What type of protection is needed to prevent soil erosion and maintain the water quality of the Brule River and its tributaries?
    Endangered Resources:
    • What is needed to protect the existing rare, threatened and endangered species?
    • Should management for rare species and communities be a priority on the BRSF and if so what land base and management practices will be needed?
    Recreation:
    • Should the number of river users be limited during periods of peak use, in order to protect the river, and avoid user conflicts?
    • What should be the level of motorized public access on internal forest roads?
    • What should be the level of motorized trail recreation on the BRSF?
    Wildlife:
    • What level of game management should occur in forest, grasslands and wetlands habitats?
    These are the hard issues that we will need to focus on in the next step in developing a master plan, which will be explained in the following article.

    If you would like a complete list of the public comments received (19 pages) during the development of the Master Plan Alternatives, please contact Steve Petersen.

    Many thanks to everyone who participated in the public meetings or took the time to write in!

    Top of page

    WHAT’S NEXT IN THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS?

    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

    Develop a Range of Alternatives

    Develop a “Refined Alternative”

    Develop a Preferred Alternative

    Write Master Plan and EIS

    Public Review of Plan and EIS

    Natural Resources Board Review and Approval

    Implementation of the Master Plan



    Comments received during the course of developing the Management Alternatives indicated that in some areas we had reached a broad base of support, while other areas remained quite controversial. Because opinions on certain topics remained divided, it was decided that the master planning team would develop a “Refined Alternative.”

    The purpose of developing this “half step” to the development of a “Preferred Alternative” is to allow for additional discussion and evaluation of the elements that remain controversial. It also allows for careful consideration of the technical data and professional opinions. The “Refined Alternative” will allow for a more detailed examination and discussion of management options in key areas of the forest where a variety of opinions have been expressed about future management.

    Elements from the previously developed Management Concepts that have met the established criteria and received general support will be used as building blocks for the “Refined Alternative.”

    The master planning team is currently involved in the preparation of a “Regional Analysis.” A Regional Analysis is a document required by NR 44 which addresses the “economic, ecological and social conditions, opportunities and constraints associated with the property on a local and regional scale.” It describes the characteristics of the Brule River State Forest that are deserving of special consideration in its management. It attempts to answer the question; what does the BRSF do best? The Regional Analysis will serve to guide the development of the “Refined Alternative” and subsequently its refinement into a “Preferred Alternative.”

    WDNR staff are also in the process of developing a map of the forest property that identifies specific management areas at a more detailed level than in the previous Management Concepts. The “Refined Alternative” will describe one or more proposed management objectives for each of these management areas and apply one of the Land Management Classifications described in Chapter NR 44, Master Planning for Department Properties. The management objectives for each management area will be presented with the pros and cons of each, to serve as the basis for further discussion.

    NR 44.05 describes the various types of Land Management Classifications and how they should be applied. A Land Management Classification is used in the master plan and on management maps to describe the general management objective for each management area within the property. Copies of NR 44 can be requested using the literature order form included in this Progress Report.

    Copies of the “Refined Alternative” will be distributed for public and tribal review. This mailing will also include a written analysis of the more controversial topics along with supporting scientific data. We expect to hold a public meeting in May or June to receive public input on the “Refined Alternative”. Our next mailing, containing the “Refined Alternative,” will include a notice indicating the date, time and location of this meeting. In addition to the public meeting, we will also take written comments from our remote participants.

    A “Preferred Alternative” will then be developed which adds the final level of detail, a description of specific management activities for each of the land management areas that accomplish the management objectives. It will also apply road and trail classifications to existing and proposed roads and trails. The “Preferred Alternative” will again be developed in a written and graphic format and sent to our planning participants for review.

    Once finalized, the “Preferred Alternative” will be used to guide the development of the first draft of a master plan and environmental impact statement for the Brule River State Forest.

    Top of page


    Tribal Consultations

    Recent discussions with Tribal Representatives have focused on evaluating the potential impacts of proposed management alternatives on resources included under the Chippewa off-reservation treaty rights.

    WDNR staff experts have been consulting with representatives from Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) for the purpose of evaluating potential impacts of the proposed BRSF master plan Alternatives on resources included under the Chippewa off-reservation treaty rights.

    Tribal representatives also suggested the following changes or additions to be incorporated in the next step in the master plan’s development:
    • To more clearly define what is meant by “community restoration”.
    • To fully describe the use of herbicides as tool in managing the forest.
    • Use of prescribed fire, instead of timber harvesting, as a “low impact” tool in managing the Bayfield Sand Plain.
    • Provide additional information regarding the techniques used to manage the fisheries for particular species and describe the predicted results of each.
    WDNR staff will continue to work with representatives from the tribes, having hunting, fishing and gathering rights in the ceded territory, to incorporate these and other comments into the developing BRSF master plan and address any concerns.

    Top of page


    Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):

    1. What is meant when it is said that an ecological community, such as northern boreal forest, will be “restored”?
    1. A “Community” means an assemblage of species living together in a particular time and habitat. It consists of layers of flora and fauna extending down to the level of micro-organisms. Human efforts to restore a natural community, in all its layers, is in practice quite difficult. It is important to recognize that community restorations are not always successful due to varying environmental and biological conditions. They are also extremely expensive when undertaken on a large scale.

      Therefore when we speak of community “restoration” in the master plan, we are referring primarily to the attempt to establish or encourage tree species, which are indicative of the desired community. If economically and biologically feasible, a few select shrubs and understory plants would be introduced to provide a seed source for community species, which are not present in the area to be restored. Beyond these human efforts, restoration of fauna and the various layers of the desired community would be left to natural processes and would require a long period of time.
    1. Why doesn’t WDNR adopt, or include as one of the Alternatives, the recommendations made by the organization, “The Friends of the Brule River and Forest”?
    1. The recommendations from the “Friends of the Brule” have been taken into consideration, along with other public and tribal input, when the Alternative Concepts were developed. Concepts 1 and 2 contain many of the elements recommended by the “Friends.” It is WDNR’s policy that plans prepared by organizations will be considered as input to the master plan. However, a plan submitted by an organization can not and should not be adopted by WDNR because it has not been developed within the context of the public master planning process. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the collaborative planning process, which is to meld the ideas of many into a master plan, and reflect the collective interests of “present and future generations”.
    1. How will the decision on what is included in the Preferred Alternative be made?
    1. The Department will consider the public input received, along with other considerations in the development of a “Preferred Management Alternative.” Other considerations will include the regulatory requirements for the property, tribal input, scientific / ecological inventories, the Northern Forest Assessments, the ecological capability of the property and the Regional Analysis.
    Top of page


    August 14 Hail Storm Damage

    On August 14th, a strong storm swept through the southern portion of the BRSF. Very large hail (larger than golf balls) and strong winds were produced by this storm, causing extensive damage to trees over a 5,000 acre area. Foliage and fine branches were stripped from the trees, and bark was actually knocked off the trees from the impacts of the hail. The full extent of the damage will not be known until next year’s growing season. Major disease and insect problems as well as tree mortality are expected to occur as a result of this storm.

    Currently, BRSF staff is assessing the damage and some salvage sales of affected areas are now being planned. All proposed activities will be discussed with the public at the annual property meeting in early winter.

    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
    Top of page
    Last Revised: Wednesday November 01 2006
    		•