Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2012
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2012 1 Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Draft, 2011 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 Acknowledgements This plan is a product of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Some sections of this plan, particularly where it references other plans, borrows language directly from those plans, including other Minnesota DNR documents, the Red Lake Bands’ Wolf Management Plan, and various Watershed District and watershed basin plans. Much of the material presented in Chapter 3 on soils, peatlands, and vegetation communities was contributed and written by Scott Zager of Wildlands Inc., 2009 Maryknoll Avenue North, Maplewood, MN. The section on insect resources was provided by Kyle Johnson, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Materials, guidance and edits were provided by members of the planning Leadership Team (see Appendix E) and other DNR staff including Jana Albers, Wes Bailey, Heidi Cyr, Margaret Dexter, Katie Haws, Steve Heutmaker, Chris Kotter-Weir, Mike Kovacovich, Mike Larson, Cindy Leuth, Mike Magner, Becky Marty, Cynthia Osmundson, Dave Radford,, Chris Scharenbroich, Dave Schiller, Dennis Simon, Phil Talmadge, and Dave Thomas. Pete Takash set up the project website and assisted with production and distribution of news press releases. Lead author: Michael R. North. Cover art work by Ross Hier, copyright 2011. “We and our families have enjoyed the Beltrami Forest area for many years. Its become an important part of our lives. My grandparents took us hunting, fishing, trapping, berrying all our lives, and it continues [for] our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Its not just land – it’s a way of life.” Leon Wilson (age 102) and Grace Sonstegard, February 2011 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 6 Chapter 2. The Planning Process ………………………………………………………………. 35 Chapter 3. The Natural and Human Environment …………………………………………….. 41 Chapter 4. Management Directions …………………………………………………………… 122 Chapter 5. Implementation ……………………………………………………………………. 179 References ……………………………………………………………………………………… 185 Appendix A. Environmental Assessment ……………………………………………………… 199 Appendix B. Current Land Cover and Desired Future Conditions in Hayes Lake State Park … 253 Appendix C. Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for the Agassiz Lowlands Ecological Subsection ……………………………………………………… 254 Appendix D. Management Plan for Cultural Resources on the Land Utilization Project Parcels in the Red Lake WMA and Beltrami Island State Forest …………………….. 256 Appendix E. Leadership Team and Project Staff ……………………………………………… 257 Appendix F. Summary of Public Comments Received During Scoping ……………………… 258 Appendix G. Birds of the Beltrami Island Area ……………………………………………….. 274 Appendix H. Process for Identification of Avian Ecological Keystone Species ………………. 286 Appendix I. Fishes of the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Area ……………………… 287 Appendix J. DNR GIS Analysis of Natural Versus Altered Watercourses in the Roseau River Watershed ………………………………………………………………………… 289 Appendix K. Butterflies and Moths of the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project Area……... 290 Appendix L. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Under Three Broad Adaptation Options … 305 Appendix M. Soil Moisture Monitoring and Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) ………... 306 4 Executive Summary We propose to manage the 84,000 acres that comprise the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project under a landscape type perspective. This draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) identifies and describes a series of goals, objectives, and strategies devised for managing wildlife, wildlife habitat, the human environment, and land assets and is intended to guide the management of LUP lands for at least the next 15 years. We developed three alternatives to accomplish the goals, objectives, and strategies: Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Change/No Action), Alternative B: Manage the Landscape, and Alternative C: Manage by Species. Alternative B (Manage the Landscape) is the Preferred Alternative. The alternatives are fully described in the Environmental Assessment in Appendix A (see especially pages 204-206). The Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project CCMP does not propose any changes to existing public access (including motorized access) or hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. Under Alterntives B and C, artificial water storage would be allowed on LUP lands if storage also provides wildlife benefits (see pages 165-166 [Objective 3.7], 206, and 227 [Strategies for Objective 3.7]). The primary focus of the CCMP is managing habitat to provide a diverse array of habitats for wildlife species. A landscape approach that considers the quality, quantity and interspersion of habitat throughout the entire project area – essentially the statutory boundaries of the Beltrami Island State Forest (see insert) – is deemed the most effective mechanism for assuring the habitat needs of all native wildlife species are met, and that wildlife populations may be maintained within their natural range of variability. An assessment of the habitat needs of key game and nongame species revealed three groups of particular management interest: nongame species and furbearers that require mature forests; openland species that require early successional graminoid-dominated wetlands; and game species that thrive in early successional forest habitats. LUP lands were identified as being particularly important in providing habitat for species requiring mature forests. Therefore, the CCMP envisions managing LUP lands in part to provide more conifers and older forests on the landscape. This vision is complementary with the current Agassiz Lowlands SFRMP. A landscape approach allows management decisions for a particular LUP parcel to be made in a holistic manner with the condition of surrounding state, tribal, or private lands taken into consideration. Alternative C (Manage by Species) is similar to the preferred alternative, except that management decisions would be driven more by conditions on the LUP parcel with less consideration for habitat conditions on adjoining state, tribal or private lands. Vegetation management would be more intensive under Alternative C, and slightly more acres of habitat would be managed for key species. A drawback for Alternative C is that it could lead to unintended consequences for managing adjoining state land under the directions provided by the current Agassiz Lowlands SFRMP. Both Alternatives B and C establish a vision for the desired future condition of LUP lands while still honoring existing management plans. A few strategic land exchanges within the LUP project area are proposed that would benefit both the state and the purpose for which LUP lands were designated by President Franklin Roosevelt by Executive Order in 1942. These include exchanging LUP lands out of 5 Hayes Lake State Park, exchanging some red pine plantations with the state for ecologically sensitive areas, and consolidating LUP ownership of yellow birch stands on the north shore of Upper Red Lake. An area containing 4,477 acres of LUP lands in the Spina area within the Red Lake WMA has been identified as containing wilderness area values and characteristics. Both Alternatives B and C propose to manage the area to retain these wilderness area values and characteristics (see pages 151-152 and 219 {Objective 2.8]). Alternatives B and C do not differ significantly from Alternative A. Alternative A would continue current management under existing plans. It primarily differs from Alternatives B and C in that it lacks a vision for the desired future conditions of LUP lands and does not include a strategy for land exchanges. Alternative A also lacks a timeline for accomplishing some Departmental goals that are given a priority focus under Alternatives B and C. This plan should provide a clear understanding of LUP management directions to the public. It is written to avoid being overly prescriptive, so that it can be adaptive, especially in the face of uncertainty of the impacts climate change will have on the landscape. We invite you to review the CCMP and tell us what you think. Your comments on the draft plan will help us write a final plan that is both visionary and practical. We will host an open house meeting on June 27, 2012 from 4:00 -8:00 pm at the DNR Area Forestry Office, 804 Cherne Drive in Warroad to answer your questions and take your oral comments. Written comments will also be accepted by mail or email through July 25, 2012. Written comments should be sent to Michael North, Minnesota DNR, 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401. Email comments should be addressed to [email protected]. Inset: LUP planning area, outlined in purple. 6 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Introduction This document is a draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) for about 84,000 acres of state-leased federal lands known as the Beltrami Island Land Utilization Project (LUP). These lands, also referred to as the Beltrami Wildlife Management Area (WMA), are located in Roseau, Lake-of-the- Woods, and Beltrami counties in northern Minnesota. The Beltrami Wildlife Management Area was established by Executive Order 9091 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 6, 1942, and “reserved as a refuge and