Document douglascountywi_gov_doc_6fae77d754

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II DOUGLAS COUNTY FOREST COMPREHENSIVE LAND-USE PLAN 2006-2020 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS During the course of the development of the Draft Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 2006-2020, the planning team carried out extensive opportunities for public involvement. Information on the Draft Plan was provided to interested individuals and public input was sought at many different steps throughout the planning process. Public involvement was integrated with the overall planning process, and covered all parts of the process: the Draft Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 2006-2020, the Draft Access Management Plan, and the Draft Appendixes. The public involvement process included, public notices, news releases, a comment period, public meetings, regularly scheduled meetings of the Douglas County Forest, Parks, and Recreation Committee (FPRC), information available throughout the County, information posted on the world- wide-web, and informal contacts with staff members and plan developers. A chronological history of all public involvement activities is presented in Appendix M-II and discussed in detail below. During December 2000, the planning process began by reviewing and updating the Douglas County Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 1996-2005 chapter-by-chapter during regularly scheduled meetings of the FPRC. The framework of the 1996-2005 plan was intended to lay the groundwork and provide the template for the 2006-2020 plan. Each meeting was open to the public and provided an opportunity for public involvement and input. Chapters were reviewed, updated, and approved by the FPRC as follows: Dec. 2000 Chapter 100 Jan. 2001 Chapter 200 Feb. 2001 Chapter 300 Mar. 2001 Chapter 400 Apr. 2001 Chapter 500 May 2001 Chapter 500 Jun. 2001 Chapter 600 Jul. 2001 Chapter 700 Aug. 2001 Chapter 800 Sep. 2001 Chapter 900 Oct. 2001 Chapter 1000 Nov. 2001 Chapter 2000 Dec. 2001 Chapter 3000 During February 2004, the development process of the Draft Douglas County Comprehensive Land- Use Plan 2006-2020 began. This development process was discussed in detail at the February, March, and April 2004 meetings of the FPRC. Each meeting was open to the public and provided an opportunity for public involvement and input regarding plan development. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II During September 2004, the chapter review process began by reviewing and approving chapters for the 2006-2020 plan during regularly scheduled meetings of the FPRC. Chapters were reviewed and approved on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Review of some chapters spanned more than one meeting and not all chapters were reviewed in a sequential fashion. Each meeting was open to the public and provided an opportunity for public involvement and input regarding specific chapters. Not all chapters were officially approved. Chapters were reviewed, discussed, and updated by the FPRC as follows: Sep. 2004 Chapter 100, 200, 300 Oct. 2004 Chapter 100, 200, 300 Nov. 2004 Chapter 400 Jan. 2005 Chapter 400 Feb. 2005 Chapter 500 Mar. 2005 Chapter 500 Apr. 2005 Chapter 500 May 2005 Chapter 700 May 2005 Chapter 600 Jun. 2005 Chapter 500 Jul. 2005 Chapter 500, 800 Aug. 2005 Chapter 800 Sep. 2005 Chapter 1000, 2000, 3000 Public meetings on Chapter 700 (The Douglas County Forest Access Management Plan) were held on September 7, 2005 and September 28, 2005. The September 7th meeting was held at the Superior Public Library from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm and the September 28th meeting was held at the Solon Springs Community Center from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Both meetings had a facilitator and involved extensive discussion on the proposed Access Management Plan, the planning process for the Access Management Plan, and the relationship between the Access Management Plan and the Douglas County Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 2006-2020. Both meetings were announced and publicized through public notices, on the Douglas County website, and during meetings of the FPRC. Specific locations and times varied for each meeting to provide the greatest possible opportunity for public involvement. Verbal comments were recorded at the meetings and written comments were also received. During the October 2005 and June 2006 meetings of the FPRC, the development process of the Draft Plan was further discussed after all chapters had been reviewed. Both meetings were open to the public and provided an opportunity for public involvement and input. During the October 2007 meeting of the FPRC, the public release date of the Draft Plan, the public meeting schedule, and the public comment process were discussed. The meeting was open to the public and provided an opportunity for public involvement and input. On November 26, 2007, during the meeting of the FPRC, the Draft Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 2006-2020 with its supporting Draft Access Management Plan and Draft Appendixes was approved for release to the public for review. A press release was issued and ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II published in the Daily Telegram on November 27, 2007 announcing the availability of the Draft Plan, scheduled public meeting dates, and request for comments. Public notices were publicized in the Daily Telegram on November 27, 2007 and December 1, 2007 and the Northwood’s Shopper on November 30, 2007 also announcing the availability of the Draft Plan, scheduled public meeting dates, and request for comments. The comment period was opened with a December 14, 2007 closing date. Public meetings on the Draft Plan were held on December 11, 2007 and December 13, 2007. The December 11th meeting was held at the Solon Springs Community Center from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm and the December 13th meeting was held at the Superior Public Library from 10:30 am to 1:00 pm. Both meetings were open house information sessions that allowed each visitor an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the Draft Plan. The meetings were jointly staffed by Douglas County Forestry Department and WDNR resource specialists. Six themes were identified and stations representing each of the six themes were incorporated into the meetings (Access Management, Wildlife Management, Parks and Recreation, Forest Management, WDNR Partnership, General Administration). Verbal comments were recorded at the meetings and written comments were also received. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN Thirty-two comments were received (3 verbal, 10 written, 19 email). Comments came from 11 individuals and represented 4 organizations including, the Town of Wascott Planning Commission, Friends of the Bird Sanctuary, Friends of the St. Croix Headwaters, and the North County Trail Association. All the comments received were from individuals with a Douglas County address, except for one each from Madison, Wisconsin, Duluth, MN, and Hermantown, MN. Each comment was assigned a two-digit comment number (see list of Commenters at the end of this summary) and grouped by issue where applicable. Comments were reviewed by the plan development team and added to the public record. Comments were received regarding a variety of issues and areas covered in the Draft Plan. Of particular concern were motorized and non-motorized recreational access, water resources, and overpopulation of white-tailed deer. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN Comments were first separated into individual comments, grouped by those requiring a response and those that would not, and then classified into issues for response. Each comment is presented in italic- boldface type and is followed by the commenter’s number in parentheses. Some of the comments are direct quotes; some have been grouped together, and some are paraphrased. Every attempt was made to accurately capture and display each comment. The response appears in regular typeface below each comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II Issue – Updates to Outstanding (ORW) and Exceptional (ERW) Resource Waters of Douglas County COMMENT: In an initial look at the Plan, I noticed that the most recent DNR ORW additions to Douglas County have not been included (Section 920 - Tables, Appendix V-I). -01- RESPONSE: The WDNR will be contacted for an updated list of ORW and ERW resource waters that exist in Douglas County and the table will be updated accordingly. Issue – Inclusion of Upper St. Croix - Eau Claire Rivers Watershed Map COMMENT: In an initial look at the Plan, I noticed that the Upper St. Croix - Eau Claire Rivers Watershed has not been included in Section 945 - Maps and Brochures. -02- RESPONSE: A map displaying the that portion of the Upper St. Croix - Eau Claire Rivers Watershed that is located within Douglas County will be included in the Appendixes (Section 945). Issue – Addition of the St. Croix River headwaters segment to the list of examples for areas managed as Aesthetic Management Zone D. COMMENT: I believe the St. Croix River headwaters segment should be added to the list of examples in Chapter 520.4.1. -03- This segment was added to the WDNR ORW list in October 2006 (to correct a historical oversight). This segment is ranked in the Northern Rivers Initiative listing (see attachment) as having the 5th highest rating of 1,494 stream segments evaluated in 20 northern Wisconsin counties. This stream segment is rated the highest in Douglas County, except for the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway starting at the Gordon Dam. RESPONSE: The St. Croix River headwaters segment will be added to 520.4.1. However, this classification does not preclude the area from management activities directed towards optimal timber production. Issue – Drainage of the western portion of the Blueberry Swamp SNA watershed. COMMENT: 530.1.7 (suggested correction) Drainage from the western portion of the natural area is to the Poplar River and then to Lake Superior, not the Namakagon River. -04- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II RESPONSE: The Namakagon River will be changed to the Poplar River. Issue – Route of the North Country National Scenic Walking Trail. COMMENT: The town of Wascott Planning Commission would like to see the North Country National Scenic Walking Trail extend down into Sections 4, 9, 8, 7, and 6 of T43N – R13W in the Town of Wascott. -05- RESPONSE: The North Country National Scenic Walking Trail is administered by the National Park Service (NPS). The North Country Trail Association is a nationwide nonprofit organization that works in partnership with the National Park Service to build, maintain, and promote the trail. The Douglas County Forestry Department works in close conjunction and cooperates with the NPS to meet the needs of the trail. However, we do not administer or manage the trail, including proposed routes. A map showing the current certified and non-certified segements of the trail can be found in Appendix W-III. Please contact the National Park Service, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 100, Madison, WI 53711 or The North Country Trail Association, 229 East Main Street, Lowell, MI 49331 for additional information. Issue – The North Country National Scenic Walking Trail. COMMENT: I would have preferred to see more definitive prescriptive mitigation measures that would be employed when timber sales surround the trail, but I also see that you do not specify such measures along other highly sensitive areas. Perhaps such prescriptions are beyond the scope of your plan? -06- RESPONSE: Timber sales adjacent to or in close proximity to the trail that require additional protection measures to maintain or enhance scenic and/or recreational quality of the trail will be included in Section IX of the Timber Sale Contract (Appendix T-I). These contractual conditions will be sale specific and molded to meets the unique needs on a per sale basis. Issue – Recreational Uses of the Forest COMMENT: 130.2.1 - Within the second sentence, various forest uses are listed. I recommend adding hiking to the list. -07- RESPONSE: Hiking trails will be added to the list of uses. Issue – Recreational Uses of the Forest COMMENT: 735.1(7) - This paragraph states that various uses including biking, horseback riding, etc are allowed on all roads/trails unless posted and/or closed. For the North Country Trail, we try to not post a series of “no” stickers until a problem is encountered. Please include a special ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II sentence stating something like: “with the exception of the North Country Trail, which is closed to all uses except foot travel.” -08- RESPONSE: The Access Management Plan working group will discuss adding the following condition to 735.1(7), “…with the exception being the North Country National Scenic Trail, which is closed to all uses other than foot travel.” This condition is not included in Douglas County Land Recreation Ordinance 7.2 and therefore raises questions on enforcement authority, especially on those segments of the trail located on County lands. Issue – Motorized HV and OHV recreation on the Forest. COMMENT: I would like to comment on the motorized recreation aspect of your Draft. I think your plan needs to be more restrictive with regards to OHV and HV use. I feel these vehicles should only be used on trails clearly marked as open to motorized use, and prohibited on any trail not marked for such use. -09- RESPONSE: One of the most challenging issues we faced in preparing the Draft Plan was the issue of public access to the Forest. There are many different users of the Forest with very different needs. Unfortunately, at times these needs conflict with each other (e.g. motorized vs. non-motorized). We looked very closely at current use patterns, road density, resource needs, soil and other resource limitations, and historical use patterns when examining the issue of use and access. Our goal was to strike a balance between those who want more access by motorized means, and those who were more interested in a quiet recreational experience. We developed three distinct types of areas ranging from high- to low-motorized use opportunities. Some trails will be open to specific designated motorized uses and others closed to all motorized uses. We have developed road and trail construction guidelines with the intention that routes which will be available for motorized use will be capable of sustained use. A more intensive signing scheme for roads and trails has been developed along with plans for more public education and better enforcement efforts. There will be areas of the Forest where all users should be able to find the recreational experience that suits their interests best. Issue – Damage caused by motorized recreational vehicle use. COMMENT: I feel your plan needs to include details as to the responsibility of repairs or the damage of OHV and HV use on the permitted trails. As you might intuit, I favor less motorized recreation and more accountability regarding the damage this type of recreation does to our forests. -10- RESPONSE: Maintenance or repair of routes designated for motorized recreational use is the responsibility of the Douglas County Forestry Department. County forest roads receive the most frequent maintenance activities. General forest roads are maintained on a case-by-case basis as needed by the Department or through contracted forest management operations. Maintenance and repair work on trail segments that are part of the Summer ATV Trail Network and/or the Winter Snowmobile and ATV Trail Network is contracted to local recreational trail clubs. If certain roads or trails are continually damaged by illegal motorized use, use will be further restricted (see Section 735.1.4(7)). ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II Cross-county travel by motorized means is illegal throughout the Forest (see Section 735.1 Legal motorized travel is restricted to roads and trails designated for such use. We hope that the increased enforcement efforts and revised Ordinance 7.2 both contribute to less illegal activities and make users more accountable for their actions. Issue – Cross-country motorized recreational vehicle travel. COMMENT: Cross-country travel with an all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile should be permitted for the purpose of game retrieval. -11- RESPONSE: The question of motorized cross-country travel was a challenging issue through the development of the plan. There was interest expressed by a variety of user groups, many of which were hunters and trappers, and also those with disabilities. We understand that many motorized users would use good judgment in deciding where and when to travel cross-country. However, with the issues of fragile and sensitive resources, the amount of endangered and threatened resources scattered across the Forest, the concern for the spread of exotic invasive plants, no efficient way to enforce or monitor this type of use, and no clear way to justify one user group having this opportunity and denying others the same opportunity, it was decided that the most efficient and equitable way to handle this issue was to prohibit all motorized cross-country travel, including for the purpose of game retrieval (see Section 735.1 Issue – Lack of tree regeneration due to over/browsing of white-tailed deer. COMMENT: 505.4 - This chapter recognizes the serious problem of the high deer population on the regeneration of several desirable forest tree species. This will have a very serious impact on the sustainability of the Forest. I suggest the County Forestry Department, County Forestry Committee, and the County Board start some type of an action plan to correct the problem. Tied to this problem is the slow movement of CWD and the problem of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in our adjoining states that we should do every effort to prevent them from entering Northern Wisconsin. -12- RESPONSE: Managing the State’s wildlife, including the deer herd, is under the authority of the WDNR’s Bureau of Wildlife Management. In 2007, the deer population in all 6 Douglas County deer management units exceeded population goals. We agree that if this overpopulation trend continues, it will result in reduced sustainability of the Forest, both in vegetative species composition and structure. Our artificial planning program for jack, red, and white pine currently experiences extensive failures due to deer over/browsing (See 830.1.6, 830.1.7, and 830.1.8). This has led to increased costs, substantial at times, in the annual reforestation budget. In 2006, we completed a trial bud-capping project where the terminal leader of planted seedlings was capped in an effort to deter deer browse. Initial observations are that the project only had marginal success. Over the course of the next fifteen years, we will continue to investigate and evaluate new methods and approaches directed towards reducing over/browse by deer. Although we support a healthy and productive herd, we also are very concerned about the long-term implications of overpopulation on the Forest. However, since deer management is under the authority of the State, we at the County level have very limited abilities to ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II implement population control measures. Overall, we would like to see a herd that is well balanced with the forest ecosystem. Issue – Managing for the Early Successional Aspen Type COMMENT: In presettlement times, the amount of aspen (and birch) on the landscape was a small fraction of what it is today. We have known for decades that early-successional aspen provides good habitat for deer and ruffed grouse, which is why we have traditionally called aspen management good for “wildlife”. However, overwintering deer populations eclipse WDNR population goals in Douglas County on almost an annual basis. Overly large deer populations have profound implications, ranging from increased automobile collisions to virtually wiping out forest understory diversity. The WDNR can respond to large deer populations by modifying hunting regulations and permit numbers, but Douglas County may have even more power to control deer overpopulation by managing habitat, for example, by creating and maintaining less early-successional aspen. It seems that the mutual working arrangement between WDNR and Douglas County, highlighted in several places in the Plan, would benefit by having both a bottom-up and top-down approach to deer management. -13- RESPONSE: The plan attempts to balance many varied and sometimes opposing natural resource values and human needs and desires. For every management action taken, or not taken, a variety of plant and animal species will benefit while others will be negatively impacted. No land management practice, either active or passive, benefits all plant and animal species. The plan will maintain all forest types and all age-classes within each forest type somewhere on the Forest. Hence a large number and variety of wildlife species will benefit at some and different places and times on the Forest over the lifespan of the Plan. We acknowledge that aspen forests, as well as other early successional forest types, provides favorable habitat for deer and contributes to a higher deer carrying capacity on the Forest. Management for aspen forests provides many benefits to humans and for many, but certainly not all, wildlife species. Aspen is also a very important commercial timber type that the County relies heavily upon for commercial sale. Much of the County’s aspen acreage occurs on sites that are best suited for production of the aspen type. Furthermore, because of its aggressive regeneration and growth potential, converting stands of aspen to other species can be very difficult. We agree that our management of early successional forest types does not have a positive effect on reducing deer numbers. We are also very concerned about the long-term effects the overpopulation tread in the herd will have on sustainability of the Forest. However, providing attractive and suitable habitat is only one piece in a very complicate puzzle involving deer population management. An effective reduction in the amount of early successional acreage that would result in lowering deer numbers across the Forest would raise concerns of practicality and feasibility (i.g. how much less acreage would be needed to bring deer numbers closer to goals?). ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II Issue – Non-Game Wildlife and Early Successional Aspen Type COMMENT: The Plan equates managing for aspen to managing for “wildlife”. The view that deer, grouse, and other game species are the primary components of “wildlife” is quite simply outdated. I would appreciate more consideration of how the diversity of non-game wildlife and plant species that require mature forest interior will be maintained. It is no longer sufficient to say that creating and maintaining early-successional aspen is good for wildlife. For example, songbird reproduction is dramatically reduced in forest interior adjacent to clearcuts due to increased nest predation. I understand that aspen provides a valuable source of income for the Forest. Thus, there are clearly tradeoffs between managing for more aspen and the potential benefits to the full range of wildlife. I think the Plan could do a better job at discussing these tradeoffs and providing a rationale for the proposed amounts of aspen based on current scientific understanding. -14- RESPONSE: Our intent was not to equate aspen management as managing for wildlife. Clearly, many species, both game and non-game species, benefit from managing for the aspen forest type. While many other species, both game and non-game, will not benefit nor be adversely impacted by aspen forest management. However, many of the species that are negatively impacted by aspen forest management will benefit by our management of other forest types, age-classes for these types, areas such as the State Natural Areas and Exceptional Resource Areas, and management of non-forest types elsewhere on the Forest. Forest habitat type and age-class fragmentation has less of an impact on forest wildlife species than does permanent forest habitat loss that results when forests are converted to non-forest types for agriculture and other human uses. As you mention in your comment, there are ecological, social, and economic tradeoffs in any management decision with regard to the aspen type. We take many factors into account when developing our management plans. We strive to achieve a balance between the commodity and non-commodity based values and benefits that the Forest can provide. The proposed annual harvest level of aspen (Chapter 1000 - Table 1105.1) has been carefully calculated to move the entire aspen resource more towards a regulated, sustainable condition over time. The abundance of younger stands of aspen, especially in the last 10-20 years can be directly attributed to an over abundance of over-mature stands that required management. As the aspen resource progresses more towards a fully regulated condition, more equitable acreage amounts should be distributed between the age-classes. Issue – Forest Inventory Data and Sustainable Harvest Information. COMMENT: 335 - I agree with the critical need for forest inventory as a basis for managing the Forest in a sustainable manner. However, I was not able to find information regarding species quantity (acreage) or species age-class (size) in the document. Previous 10-year plans have informed stakeholders on harvest acreage plans and some specific volumes of remaining marketable timber. I am unconvinced that harvesting 4,000 acres/year in a forest less than 200,000 acres is sustainable (see 5005.1 - non-forest 56,722 acres) (see 5010.1 - 152,449 acres harvested since the 1940’s). I feel some management should be for old growth/saw logs for the future value-added wood product industry rather than only for fiber/pulpwood which appears to be the current goal. -15- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II RESPONSE: Forest inventory data is included in Chapter 800. Species acreage and age-class date for aspen, northern hardwood, paper birch, northern red oak, scrub oak, red pine, jack pine, white pine, fir- spruce, tamarack, cedar, swamp hardwood, swamp conifer, black spruce, hemlock hardwood, and red maple is presented. However, size-class data was not included in this plan as it was in previous plans. Although not a direct relationship, correlating the age-class data in the plan with size-class would give you a relative idea of size-classes for each species on the Forest. For the annual harvest plan (acreage) by species, please see Chapter 1000 - Table 1105.1. The proposed 4,057 acres per year for harvest was calculated with many complex variables (please see Table 1105.1) that are subject to change. Calculating the sustainable harvest for the Forest as a whole is a complex process that involves many separate calculations for each species based on treatments methods and rotation ages. For example, a red pine plantation will under go 6 intermediate thinning treatments before the regeneration harvest at approximately 90 years of age whereas a stand of aspen will only undergo the regeneration harvest at approximately 55 years of age. The type of timber quality and product management is dependent on many variables as well. We manage all of the species on the Forest for the highest quality stands possible given the potential of the sites they are located on. Some sites are capable of producing higher quality sawlog type material, while other sites cannot grow anything more than lower quality material. Some species have little to no sawlog market while others have a very healthy market. The vast majority of the timber sales harvested on the Forest are sold using cords as the volume of product measure. However, many times a diverse assortment of products are sorted when the actual harvesting takes place, including sawlogs, bolts, mini-bolts, ties, poles, etc. The overall goal of product management on the Forest is to take full advantage of the potential for any given site and grow as healthy a stand of timber as possible. Issue – Classification of “Other” Timber Types. COMMENT: Nearly 50 percent of forest cover type was classified as “other”, more specific information would be helpful. -16- RESPONSE: Please see Appendix W-II where “other” timber types are classified as cedar, fir-spruce, black spruce, hemlock, red maple, swamp conifer, swamp hardwood, and tamarack. (see Section 820 for definitions of each). Issue – Military Maneuvers on the Forest. COMMENT: 515.5 Special Uses - Please don’t ever allow our County to be subject to the military industrial/congressional complex – no matter what they’re willing to give us. -17- RESPONSE: Military maneuvers are an approved use by the WDNR on lands that have been entered into County Forest Law. However, any request for this purpose would involve an extensive review and approval process by both the County and the WDNR, including opportunities for input from the public. Any such use would require a legal agreement that would be open to the public that would identify a military chain of commend and describe the planned maneuvers in detail. Public comment would play a significant role throughout the entire process in any and all military maneuver requests. -10- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II Issue – Alternative Energy Sources. COMMENT: I would like to see an independent study on alternative energy sources (e.g. wind power, solar power, bio-mass) performed on the County Forest. Such study should include analysis on energy security, economics, employment, and impacts on the environment. -18- RESPONSE: Alternative energy sources are not within the scope of the plan. If lands that were entered into County Forest Law were ever evaluated for an energy facility such as wind power, solar power, or bio-mass, such lands would be required to be withdrawn from the County Forest Law since the use would not be consistent with what the law provides for. Any such withdrawal would involve approval at both the County and at the State level with opportunity for public comment. A request for an independent study on alternative energy sources would have to be made to County through an avenue other than the Forestry Department. Issue – Timber Sales Adjacent to Other Ownership. COMMENT: Timber sales adjacent to private property should be set back 50 feet from the property line to prevent blow downs after clear cuts and trespass on private property. -19- RESPONSE: Establishing a 50-foot reserve from common boundary lines with other ownerships on the Forest would exclude those areas from sustainable Forest management and would be inconsistent with the purpose those lands were entered into Wisconsin County Forest Law. Reducing the amount of managed lands within the Forest is not in the best interest of the County. Managing stands of timber up to the common boundary line with other ownerships benefits the overall health of the Forest and provides operational advantages. In some circumstances additional aesthetic protection measures may be implemented along common boundary lines to minimize any negative visual impacts harvesting may have. Since we do not have any management authority on lands not under County ownership, we cannot be responsible for management of those lands. The responsibility for management, including that of timber and access (e.g. wind damaged and trespass), resides with the respective owner. Issue – Prescribed burns in the Douglas County Wildlife Management Area (Bird Sanctuary). COMMENT: Being a long time resident and also a member of the Friends of the Bird Sanctuary, I would urge the agencies involved to continue prescribed burns in the bird sanctuary. Although it sometimes hurts to see specific stands of pine, oak, aspen, poppler cut, if it benefits the sanctuary in the long run and preserves this globally rare habitat, I’m supportive. -20- RESPONSE: The County forest land within the Douglas County Wildlife Management Area (DCWMA) is currently leased to the State under an agreement that gives management authority to the WDNR. All prescribed burning is planned for and performed by the WDNR with assistance from the Douglas County Forestry Department. Over the course of the next 15 years, fire will continue to be relied upon as the most critical tool needed to maintain and promote the declining pine barrens habitat. -11- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II Issue – Annual General Fund Revenue Contributions. COMMENT: County taxpayers should benefit from the sale of its forest resources (i.e. lower property taxes, modern county highways, and more high quality recreation facilities at Gordon Dam Campground, Lucius Wood Campground and concert facilities, etc.). -21- Revenue of nearly $3 million should allow for county highway repair and upgrades due to logging truck damage (i.e. Hwy A, Hwy M, and others). What amount of money from timber sales goes back into the General Fund via the forestry fund? RESPONSE: The Forestry Department contributes revenue to the County’s General Fund annually that reduces the County Tax Levy. The current annual appropriated amount is $670,000 dollars. The Forestry Department is the only Douglas County Department that operates as an Enterprise Fund, meaning that finances are operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises for profit. In addition to the levy offset contribution, the Department transferred $1.2 million to the General Fund for Capital Improvement Projects in 2006. How these dollars get spent is not within the scope of the plan and beyond the authority of the Department. Department requests for capital improvement projects require a multi-step approval process, concluding with approval by the full Douglas County Board of Supervisors. COMMENT: This draft plan is the most intensive and comprehensive plan that has ever been developed for the Douglas County Forest. The County Forestry Department, Douglas County Forestry Committee, DNR Personnel, and others who were involved in the development of this draft plan should be commended for this document. I have reviewed several of the chapters and appendixes and feel extremely positive about them. -22- COMMENT: In general, the Douglas County Forest Plan is a very impressive document. A lot of thought has gone into its direction and preparation. I am happy with it. -23- COMMENT: Though I have not read the entire plan, what I did skim through was encouraging. The cooperation between State, County and Local Agencies is evident – resulting in what seems to be a set of short- to long-term goals that will benefit our environment and the people who live, work, and recreate in our area. I’m encouraged to see more plans for eco-friendly recreational and environmental educational opportunities. -24- COMMENT: The Plan is an impressively thorough document that rightfully details a move toward a more ecosystem approach to forest management. I particularly liked the mention of managing for more than just timber sales, including consideration of forest breeding songbirds and the management plan for the Douglas County Wildlife Management Area. -25- -12- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II COMMENT: Cooperation between agencies and willingness to work towards a common goal of sustaining a renewable forest while providing species habitat is heartening. -26- COMMENT: An organization whose mission is to protect and preserve the Douglas County Wildlife Management Area, the Friends of the Bird Sanctuary Board of Directors with to express our support of the Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, specifically as it relates to the Douglas County Wildlife Management Area. We believe this plan supports our mission to protect and preserve the unique ecosystem of the area commonly called “The Bird Sanctuary.” We commend you for the comprehensive and detailed work in developing this plan. -27- COMMENT: Support for the Access Management Plan. -28- 705.7 discussion about eliminating duplication of travel routes, minimizing conflicts, etc. 715.3 The North Country Trail (NCT) is mentioned as the premium footpath and provides references to the North Country Trail Association (NCTA) and National Park Service (NPS) for additional information. 730.1.2(9) and 730.2.2(12) talk about continued cooperation with NCTA /NPS on the development of the NCT. 730.3 I am happy to see that the Douglas County Wildlife Management Area is a low vehicle use area. In general, I am happy with the decision to break the forest into blocks of vehicle use intensity; talk about blocking roads with berms/gates and making those areas off limits to vehicles; that no cross-country travel is allowed, and the overall intent to regulate OHV and ATV use. 730.3.1(b) I like the mention of managing low motorized blocks as “quiet areas” even though some vehicle use will be present. 730.3.4 It is good that you mention the fact that the NCT traverses the entire block. I am happy to see that you always refer to the trail as “North Country National Scenic Trail - a footpath”. COMMENT: I feel very positive about the access management plan and support the direction taken. It is well planned to allow for high use of the forest, yet at the some time protects the forest and allows for sustainable management. One important principle; the public and taxpayers will support the county forest when they are allowed to use the county forest. This must never be forgotten. -29- COMMENT: As a forester, I support the discussion of the various vegetative types and their silvicultural treatments. -30- -13- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY APPENDIX L-II -14- COMMENT: I was glad to read Appendix I-II (Snag and Leave Tree Management for Douglas County Timber Sales). The importance for bio-diversity health and forest health had not been recognized in prior management documents. -31- COMMENT: I have reviewed Chapter 500 more intensely and feel very positive about the planned direction of the land management and public use. The planned management incorporates sustainable forestry that considers wildlife habitat, public use and provides for the protection and management of those valuable natural areas. More specifically, the planned management for the aspen species is very encouraging and positive as a very important component of biodiversity and an extremely important part of the wildlife habitat of the forest landscape. -32-