Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Land and Resource
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest National Forest Land and Service January 2012 Resource Management Plan Monitoring and Midterm Evaluation Report: 2009 - 2010 For More Information Contact: Forest Monitoring Coordinator 500 Hanson Lake Road Rhinelander, WI 54501 715-362-1300 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ApPROVAL AND DECLARA nON OF INTENT I have reviewed the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Monitoring and Mid-term Evaluation Report: 2009-2010 which was prepared by an interdisciplinary team during 2011. I am satisfied with its findings and intend to consider recommendations made therein to maintain the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This monitoring and mid term evaluation report meets the intent of the Land and Resource Management Plan as well as the regulations contained in 36 CFR 219. This report is approved by: PAUL l.V. STRONG Date Forest Supervisor Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest FOREWORD Hi. I’m Paul Strong, Forest Supervisor of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. I’d like to introduce you to our midterm report on the 2004 Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (also called the “Forest Plan”). In the late 1990s, I was part of the Forest Plan revision team. My career took me away from the CNNF before the revision was completed. Now I’m back, but in a different role at a time when we are reflecting on and assessing what has transpired during the first half of the plan’s lifespan, as well as looking forward to what may lie ahead during the second half. The Forest Plan we created in 2004 was based on predictions of the future that anticipated a dynamic environment and change, but did not and could not anticipate how change would be manifested. In looking back over the first half of the plan’s lifespan, I am impressed by the rapidity and magnitude of change that has occurred. During Forest Plan revision, northern Wisconsin was a few years into what turned out to be a prolonged drought that ended in the summer of 2010. Lake and stream levels, soil moisture, and groundwater changes affected tree growth and vigor, and fish and wildlife habitat. From the 1990s to the present, episodic weather events occurred including some of the heaviest rainfall in recent decades, severe windstorms, cold temperatures that lasted well into traditional spring months in some years, and exceptionally early warm and dry springs in others. Against this backdrop of weather variability, unpredictable changes in our administrative environment affected how we manage the CNNF. The mission of the Forest Service is still the same, but changes in policies and regulations at levels beyond the Chequamegon- Nicolet National Forest affect how we plan and carry out our work. The Travel Management Rule of 2005 steered us to evaluate and make decisions about motorized access at a pace faster than we anticipated during Forest Plan revision. In the future, we can expect to further address roads and trails under another part of the Travel Management Rule, which focuses on establishing the minimum road system needed for management of the National Forest. Other recent national Forest Service initiatives are focused on adapting to climate change and on improving watershed conditions; these initiatives have already shifted the way we prioritize, plan, implement, and report results of land management activities. An “all lands conservation” approach nudges us toward broader and more inclusive efforts across ownership and administrative boundaries, as we seek greater and more meaningful outcomes from natural resources management projects we accomplish with federal, tribal, state, and county land management partners. Year 2009/2010 Monitoring and Midterm Evaluation Report i Foreword Nationally, the changing economic conditions have had far-reaching effects on communities and businesses, many of which revolve around use and enjoyment of natural resources and undeveloped land. As with the rest of the country, the social and economic fabric of the Northwoods has experienced change and variability beyond predictions. From my perspective, it appears that land and natural resources management agencies like the Forest Service are likely to operate in environments of greater variability and change than we are experiencing today. Management approaches and paradigms we have built on assumptions of stability and predictable change will have to be modified to address pressing resource management issues. Episodic events of weather, insect and disease outbreaks, rapid expansion of invasive species, and changing socioeconomic conditions will likely be the norm instead of the exception. What we predict for future conditions and effects of management in long-range planning documents will need to be regarded less as guarantees and more as our best read of a multi-factored environment. The report that follows provides substantial detail on the statutory requirements of National Forest management as well as the numerous objectives described in the current Forest Plan. Depending on your interests, some sections may be more valuable to you than others. Hopefully, you find enough information to satisfy your interest in how your National Forest is being managed. As I look back at what has been accomplished on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and look forward to future opportunities and challenges, I feel fortunate to be surrounded by dedicated Forest Service employees and the many organizations with which we partner. I hope you find this midterm report informative, valuable, and something that helps inspire future conversations about National Forest management. Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Paul I.V. Strong Forest Supervisor Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest ii Year 2009/2010 Monitoring and Midterm Evaluation Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Forest Management Act requires periodic monitoring and evaluation of Forest Plan implementation to determine compliance with identified standards and guidelines. The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest’s monitoring and evaluation protocols were established to evaluate appropriate and sustainable management of Forest resources and subsequent impacts on communities. There are eleven Forest Plan-required monitoring and evaluation items with varying frequency requirements. Ninety-seven monitoring questions aligned to Forest Plan objectives have been identified. Highlights from the monitoring and evaluation activities since 2004 include: Goal 1 – Ensure Healthy and Sustainable Ecosystems • Lands are being adequately restocked following timber management activities. • Spruce budworm, gypsy moth, leaf minor, leaf roller, and oak wilt continue to impact forest health. The CNNF is responsive to these insect and disease issues. • Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are being managed in accordance with federal and state law and comply with existing conservation and recovery plans. • Northern goshawk numbers are stable and well distributed across suitable habitat. • Brook trout populations are responsive to stream water temperature. In- stream habitat restoration projects have been effective. • The regenerating aspen community type is declining in representation (acres) across the forest. • Mature northern hardwoods and red and white pine forest community types are increasing in representation (acres) across the forest. • The Forest is moving toward desired future conditions of vegetation composition structure and age class. • Water, air, and soil quality standards have been met or exceeded. • Treatments of non-native invasive species sites have been effective where implemented. Goal 2 – Provide Multiple Benefits for People within the Capability of Sustainable Ecosystems • A sample of National Forest acreage identified as suitable for timber production in the forest Plan was reevaluated; over 90% of those lands were judged to be suitable. Year 2009/2010 Monitoring and Midterm Evaluation Report iii Summary • An intensive-use ATV area in Bayfield County has been closed and rehabilitation is in progress. • Active vegetation management and natural events are changing forest composition and age class structure. • Twenty Research Natural Areas have been added to the existing eleven. • Non-motorized recreation opportunities in SPNMs are improving. • Additional miles of ATV routes and trails have been created. • Collection levels of special forest products appear to be sustainable. Goal 3 – Ensure Effective Public Service through Organizational Effectiveness • Approximately three million dollars are paid