Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

1

Table of Contents

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................. 3

1.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Proposed Action.................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Decision Framework............................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Issues..................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Alternatives not analyzed in detail........................................................................................ 6

2.2 Alternative 1-No Action ....................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Alternative 2-Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 6

2.3 Design Features for the Alternative ...................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. 8

3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Recreation Resource ................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Environmental Consequences...................................................................................... 13

3.3 Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................................. 17

3.3.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 17

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences...................................................................................... 18

3.3.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 19

3.4 NNIP ................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 20

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences...................................................................................... 20

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species/ Regional Forester Sensitive Species....................... 21

3.5.1Affected Environment................................................................................................... 21

Species Present or With Potential Habitat .................................................................................... 27

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences...................................................................................... 28

3.6 Other Laws, regulations and the forest plan ................................................................... 29

Chapter 4 PREPARES AND CONSULTATION......................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX A- MAPS.......................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX B- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................................................. 33
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

2

SUMMARY

The Forest Service proposes a non-motorized trail along the Rat River.

This environmental assessment (EA) is tiered to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) for the Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest (CNNF). This EA refers to the CNNF EIS throughout the document, and is

based on direction from that plan.

This EA is not a decision document. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible 

official would decide whether to implement the project, and if so what parts of the project. This 

decision would be made in a Decision Notice/Finding of Significant Impact document after this 

EA is completed. This decision can be made by choosing any of the alternatives or parts of the 

alternatives.

INTRODUCTION

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and 

regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The document is 

organized into six parts: 

• Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, 

the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that 

purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public 

of the proposal and how the public responded. 

• Alternatives including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed 

description of the agency’s proposed action for achieving the stated purpose. This 

discussion also includes possible design features. 

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of 

implementing the proposed action. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within 

each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the 

alternative. 

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. 

• References: References cited in this document.

• Appendices: Appendices are maps for the project.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project and area resources, may 

be found in the project planning record located at the Lakewood Ranger District Office in 

Lakewood, WI.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

3

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1 Background

The Town of Blackwell and interested individuals would like a non-motorized trail which would 

link the existing Nicolet State Trail (NST) to Bear Lake Campground. The Town of Blackwell 

has identified non-motorized trails in their Town of Blackwell Comprehensive Plan as an 

opportunity to attract tourism and promote economic development to the area. Permanent and 

seasonal residents of the area have also expressed an interest in the trail which would provide 

non-motorized trail connection to the NST. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

1.2.1 Current Condition

The current condition is that no trail currently exists in the Blackwell area that is designated for 

non-motorized use and connects to the NST. The NST is open to both non-motorized and 

motorized activities (snowmobiling and ATV’s). Non-motorized users in the Blackwell area 

currently use local town and county roads open to highway legal vehicles to access the NST 

which creates a possible hazardous mixed use situation. 

1.2.2 Desired Condition: Purposes (objectives) 

This section shows the desired conditions from the forest plan, including: project 

purpose/objective, a goal, a guideline, and MA’s prescriptions as well as, other local plans. 

The desired condition is to create a safe recreation trail for non-motorized users from the NST to 

Bear Lake. The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Lakewood-Laona District Ranger has 

identified a benefit to creating a trail from the NST to Bear Lake Campground. The trail would 

provide a new recreation activity for users of the Bear Lake Campground. 

The forests plan sets goals and direction for managing the forest. The current forest plan became 

effective on June 14, 2004. The purpose or objective of this project is to move toward the 

desired conditions in the forest plan. The forest plan provides the following management 

direction for recreation desired conditions:

Goal 2.1 “Maintain or enhance the diversity and quality of recreation experiences within acceptable 

limits of change to ecosystem stability and condition.” p. 1-4.

Guideline “Maximize the placement of horse and mountain bike trails in upland (dry) areas, and 

minimize the number of water crossings by these trails (streams, wetlands, and riparian areas)”, 

p.2-27.

The forest is divided into management areas (MAs), each with specific standards and guidelines 

to attain a desired future condition of the landscape. The MA prescriptions for this project 

include 1C, 2A, and 2C. MA 1C is Early Successional: Aspen and Hardwood; it does not 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

4

address recreation. MA 2A, Uneven Aged Northern Hardwoods, and MA 2C, Uneven Aged 

Northern Hardwoods, state (forest plan p. 3-7) that “a variety of motorized and non-motorized 

trail uses are the primary recreation”. Other local plans also support this project.

This project follows the Forest County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2012-2016 (draft), page 35,

which states “Better trail designation with signs, and trail maintenance or hiking, biking, 

horseback riding, and x-ski trails, will allow more users to enjoy the trails.” It also includes the 

Town of Blackwell recommendation to “Improve Rat River Trail” (page 36). The mission 

statement from Forest County (Forest County Comprehensive Land Use Plan) states “While 

managed for environmental needs including watershed protection, protection of rare plant and animal 

communities, and maintenance of plant and animal diversity, these same resources must also be 

managed and provide for sociological needs, including provisions for recreational opportunities and 

the production of raw materials for wood-using industries.” 

This project is also compatible with the Town of Blackwell Comprehensive Plan objective, page 47, 

states “Explore opportunities to develop integrated multi-use trail systems and recreational facilities.” 

Under polices, page 47, it states “Support snowmobile, ATV, and non-motorized multi-use trails 

within the Town.” Also on page 11, the Comprehensive Plan states “Possible development of a 

non-motorized multi-use rails-to-trails project.”

1.2.3 Need for Action

The gap between the current and desired conditions show a need to develop a non-motorized trail 

during the snow free season that would connect Bear Lake to the Nicolet State Trail and would 

be designated for non-motorized recreation activities such as biking, hiking, cross-country 

skiing, etc. The trail would benefit users of the Bear Lake Campground, residents located on 

Bear Lake, Blackwell Job Corps Center, residents of the Town of Blackwell, as well as the other 

non-motorized use recreationists. It would also provide an alternative use opportunity to nonmotorized users of the NST. 

1.3 Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to authorize the development of a recreation corridor for nonmotorized uses that would extend from the Nicolet State Trail (on the old railroad grade {grade}) 

into Blackwell and continuing on the grade to Bear Lake. This trail proposal would include the 

existing abandoned railroad grade and forest roads. Other roads-such as town and county roads 

may be used to connect the west and east side of the trail on national forest. These roads are 

outside of the proposal. 

1.4 Decision Framework

The District Ranger is the responsible official for making project-level decisions. Based upon 

the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official would decide what level of activity is 

necessary to address the forest plan and concerns associated with this project. This level of 

activity could be one alternative, parts of alternative(s), or no decision at all.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

5

The decision to be made is what management actions would be taken in the project area, if any, 

when these actions would occur, using what design features, management requirements, and 

treatment practices.

1.5 Public Involvement

This project was listed in the schedule of proposed actions on April 2011. The Forest Service 

sent out scoping letters on October 28, 2011, to tribes, other agencies, members of the public 

who, otherwise, have expressed an interest in the project. As a result of the outreaches 

described, the Forest Service received 23 responses from individuals or organizations providing 

comments and suggestions.

Using the comments from the public, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) develops a list of concerns

to address. These suggestions were considered in updating the Proposed Action Alternative. 

One key issue was identified in the scoping.

1.6 Issues

The IDT has identified 1 key issue at this time. The potential for minor impacts to soil productivity,

water quality, recreation, cultural resources, invasive species, motorized access, and Regional 

Forested Sensitive Species and Threatened and Endangered Species habitat are being considered. 

The internal concerns, riparian and right-of-way, are being addressed the Chapter 3. However, our

assessments find such impacts to be well within those anticipated by the forest plan EIS as part of 

achieving desired conditions. The key issue is:

1. One commenter stated that the project area is within a “complex ecosystem that would be 

significantly disrupted by this project and will not pass a thorough environmental impact 

review”. Chapter 3 of this EA will analyze impacts to natural resources from the proposed 

action. Resources have different measurements and thresholds (some have no thresholds) for 

analysis of any impact for project actions (see Chapter 3).

Applicable forest plan standards and guidelines would be applied in the proposed action to minimize 

resource effects. Because impacts of the proposed action are anticipated to be minor, we do not 

anticipate studying additional alternatives in detail. 

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the alternatives considered for this project. It includes a description of the 

alternatives considered, both in detail and not in detail. At this time, there are no key issues 

driving a need for us to study additional alternatives. The action alternative proposes specific 

activities that could be carried out without further NEPA documentation. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

6

2.1 Alternatives not analyzed in detail

Leave Forest Road (FR) 3220 open for fishing

One commenter wanted to leave a portion of FR 3220 open to full size motor vehicles. This 

alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project (creating a non-motorized trail); 

therefore, it was not analyzed as a separate alternative. It would also create a multi use conflict 

between motorized and non-motorized users. This type of mixed use could create a safety 

hazard to the non-motorized user. Access by FR 3220 would still open for fishing and hunting 

by non-motorized means.

2.2 Alternative 1-No Action

This interpretation of the No Action Alternative is that no new action or activity would take 

place where federal decisions on proposals for projects are involved. However, all current

actions would continue. Regulations require the analysis of the No Action Alternative which 

provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental 

effects of the action alternative (40 CFR 1502.14 (d)). In addition, this alternative constitutes 

and is treated as a viable alternative course of action with regard to the proposed action.

Under Alternative 1, no new activities would take place. Normal ongoing administrative, 

maintenance, protection work, etc., would continue. No actions from this project would occur. 

2.3 Alternative 2-Proposed Action

This alternative is described in the greater detail below, than in the proposed action. The Forest 

Service proposes to authorize the development of a recreation corridor for non-motorized uses 

that would extend from the Nicolet State Trail into Blackwell and continuing to Bear Lake. This 

trail proposal would include the existing abandoned railroad grade and forest roads. 

The trail is located parallel to the Rat River and presents a good opportunity for a non-motorized

trail. The project includes clearing segments of the grade, removing railroad ties, cross drainage 

upgrades, and potentially closing existing open roads to highway legal vehicles. Parking areas 

may also be created/allowed at Bear Lake Campground, FR 3075 (inside the National Forest 

boundary-past private land), and/or at the end of FR 3220 (west side-depending on the legality).

The Forest Service is proposing the following:

1) Clear approximately 1.8 miles of abandoned railroad corridor, beginning at Blackwell 

Junction Road, which is currently overgrown and blocked with down trees. 

2) Brush and remove small trees as needed along the edge of the remainder of the grade. 

This work will be fairly minimal since parts of the corridor are maintained as roads or 

snowmobile trail. 

3) Remove railroad ties as needed along the grade where ties protrude above the grade. 

Removing the ties is necessary to develop an adequate sub-surface for the trail. 

4) Improve cross-drainage. 

5) Gravel surfaces that will provide a uniform tread. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

7

6) Install gates as needed to prevent unauthorized access. 

7) Add signs along the corridor.

8) Place several picnic tables and benches at scenic locations along the Rat River. 

9) Create parking areas.

10) Change the motor vehicle use designation of FR 3075A, FR 3220, and FR 3770B 

from open to highway legal vehicles to closed to highway legal vehicles. 

FRs 3075 (open), 3075A (open seasonally), 3220 (open seasonally), and 3770B (open) are 

currently designated open roads for highway legal vehicles in the 2011 Chequamegon-Nicolet 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The FRs 83035, 830281, and 830241 are closed on the 

MVUM. 

Grant Lane (east segment of FR 3075) is a town road and is to be open to ATV’s upon 

implementation of the Blackwell ATV Connector Project. A segment of the abandoned railroad 

grade east of Blackwell is currently a snowmobile trial. These uses would continue. 

2.3 Design Features for the Alternative

In response to resource analysis on the proposal, the IDT developed these design features to ease 

the potential impacts that the Proposed Action Alternative may cause. 

2.3.1 Design features

Aquatics

• Reduce sedimentation from erosion and grade with a crowned surface to eliminate 

standing water and future rutting.

• Restore cross drainage

• Follow the Best Management Practices.

BE

• The Biological Evaluation will be reviewed upon obtaining any new information or species 

location prior to completion of the project. 

• Observations of any TES species in the project area prior to or during project implementation 

would postpone / halt the project, until a determination of the potential effects has been made and 

design features are identified.

Heritage

• Avoid and protect any sites are in the area.

• Should any site features or artifacts be located during the project, contact the forest 

archaeologist immediately.

• Complete heritage surveys.

NNIP

The four following guidelines are taken from the forest plan:

• Use permissible mechanical, biological, and chemical controls to reduce the spread of 

non-native invasive species (p. 2-25).
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

8

• Plant native or desirable non-native species immediately after trail reconstruction, where 

natural re-vegetation is unlikely, or sedimentation and erosion are concerns (p. 2-35).

• Plant native or desirable non-native plant species where vegetative cover is needed to 

stabilize slopes or decommission a travel-way (p. 2-38).

• Insure, to the extent practicable, that trail fill and gravel sources do not contain nonnative invasive plant species (p. 2-38).

In addition:

• Clean off-road equipment used for trail maintenance prior to use on National Forest 

lands, unless evidence is provided the off-road equipment last operated in a NNIP-free 

area. Clean equipment used in sites already documented as NNIP-infested prior to 

leaving the contaminated sites, unless movement is into another work area already 

infested with the same NNIP. Such equipment should have all mud and plant parts 

removed. To best comply with this, begin operations in un-infested areas before 

operating in NNIP-infested areas.

• Previously unidentified NNIP infestations should be reported to the district plant 

ecologist.

• If NNIP-free fill and gravel sources are not available, scrape the top layer off the 

fill/gravel source and use the fill/gravel underneath. This will reduce the amount of 

NNIP plants and seed transported with the gravel.

Recreation

• Continue the annual 150-200 dual sport motorcyclists event on FR 3220.

• Trail management and accessibility should be compatible with the area recreation 

opportunity spectrum class (forest plan p. 2-27). 

2.3.2 Monitoring

• To ensure plants, specifically NNIP or aquatic invasive specie, are not allowed to take 

hold in this area. Bi-annual monitoring along the grade by someone qualified to identify

and eradicate these plant species is recommended to reduce this possible threat to the 

native forest and aquatic plant community.

CHAPTER 3, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

This section summarizes the physical and biological environments of the affected project area 

and the potential changes to those environments due to the implementation of the proposed 

action. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

9

3.1.1 Impacts to the Environment

Impacts are composed of three parts: direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are 

caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the 

action but occur later in time or further removed in distance. Cumulative effects are a result 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions.

3.2 Recreation Resource

The report analyzes how the proposed Rat River Recreation Trail would affect private land 

access, motorized access, recreation setting, and recreation activities. 

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Analysis Area

The affected area of the proposed Rat River Recreational Trail is the abandoned railroad grade 

from where it merges with the Nicolet State Trail (T35N, R15E, Section 8, SWNW) along the 

Blackwell Junction Road to non-system FR 830281, then non-system FR830241 and system road 

FR 3770B to the intersection with Bear Lake Road (35N, R16E, Section 18, SESE). 

Approximately 6.1 miles of the trail would be on the railroad grade (grade). The grade is a mix 

of forest system and non-system roads. The remaining 0.7 miles segment of the trail would be 

off the grade and on existing forest system and non-system roads. 

For ease of description, the trail is divided into a west segment which goes from the NST to 

Grant Lane and an east segment which starts at the west end of FR 3220 and ends at Bear Lake 

Road. 

Starting at the NST, the west segment is approximately 2.74 miles long. It consists of 1.82 miles 

of grade. The majority of this segment is brushed in and basically un-passable by motorized 

vehicle; 0.38 miles of non-system forest road (FR83035) is closed to motorized use; and 0.54 

miles of FR 3075A that is open to highway legal vehicles. 

Then the trail goes from system road FR 3075A to system road FR 3075 or Grant Lane (Town of 

Blackwell gas tax road); then Forest County Highway H, and to Flanner Lane (Town of 

Blackwell gas tax road). 

The last segment starts at Flanner Lane and goes east for approximately 4.02 miles. It consists of 

system road FR 3220 (2.69 miles) to FR 832081(.63 miles) continues on FR 830241 (.37 miles) 

to FR3770B (0.33 miles) and ends at Bear Lake Road. Approximately 2.5 miles of FR 3220 and 

832081 are part of the snowmobile trail system. 

Private land access

The majority of land adjacent to the proposed trail corridor is national forest system land. There 

are two segments of the trail corridor where the Forest Service owns a 100 foot strip of land that 

was the right-of-way for the railroad grade through private land. The grade divides the private 

property so the private owners have ownership on both sides of the grade. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

10

The first segment starts off Blackwell Junction Road and extends west for approximately 0.75 

miles. One of the landowners has kept 0.27 miles of the grade open and has used it for 

unauthorized access being unaware that they did not own the grade. The remainder of the grade 

is brushed in and not drivable. No one lives on the property. The property is accessible off 

Blackwell Junction Road, but highway legal vehicles (HLV) access to some parts of the property 

will be difficult if the railroad grade is unavailable for HLV use. 

The other segment is the west one-half mile segment off FR 3220. The landowners have other 

access to their property. One primitive wood road off FR 3220 goes into private land. There 

appears to be some HLV use on that road. Closure of FR 3220 will eliminate HLV access on 

this private land woods road.

Closing roads to HLV motorized access may have negative effects on private land access. 

However, The decision to not include this issue in the analysis are: 1) there were no public 

comments concerning access to private land during the scoping period; 2) all the private parcels 

are accessible without using the railroad grade or crossing national forest system land; and 3) 

there are no existing special use permits that authorize access across national forest system. 

Motorized Access

This part includes different aspects of motorized use including: HLVs, ATVs, and snowmobiles. 

HLV

Currently there are 3.56 miles of FRs that are open to HLV along the 6.76 mile proposed trail 

corridor. 

On the west segment of the proposed trail, FR 3075A (0.54 miles) is the only open FR to HLV

along the proposed trail corridor. FR 3075A is accessible by most vehicles. Roadside brush is 

the biggest obstacle to vehicle traffic. This road provides motorized access to several low used 

dispersed campsites, the Rat River, hunting opportunities, and forest management activities such 

as timber harvesting. The remaining 2.2 miles of the west segment of the proposed trail is closed 

to motorized vehicles, but open to non-motorized access. 

On the east segment of the proposed trail, FR 3220 (2.69 miles) is open to HLVs from Flanner 

Lane to its end point. The road would provide motorized access for hunting and fishing in the 

area. FR 3770B (0.33 miles) off Bear Lake Road is also open to HLVs. FR830241 (0.37 miles) 

continues off the end of FR 3770B to the grade. It is not open to HLVs; however, there is 

evidence of illegal use. It is possible the illegal use is associated with gaining access to the Rat 

River in pursuit of activities such as fishing or waterfowl hunting. 

FR 3220 and 3770B are high clearance 4x4 roads with wet and rutted areas. There is evidence of 

use on these roads. Hunting and fishing are likely activities that the roads are being used for 

during snow-free conditions.

There is obvious HLV use on all the open roads along the trail corridor, but discussions with 

local officials and residents indicates that HLV use on the open roads is low. Field survey by the 

IDT showed this road was difficult to drive (western section had to be cut out) on 12-29-2011. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

11

The roads showed little use (difficult to drive with a full size truck) outside of the snowmobile 

trail.

Snowmobiling

Snowmobiling primarily occurs on trails that are groomed and signed that provide long distance 

riding opportunities. Some destination snowmobiling occurs off groomed trails to water bodies 

to participate in other activities such as ice fishing. Ice fishing is not likely to occur on the Rat 

River due to unsafe ice conditions. 

Approximately 2.5 miles of the snowmobile trail is located in the project area. The snowmobile 

trail is located on segments of FR 3220 and FR 830281. Snowmobiling is allowed on un-plowed 

forest roads with a minimum of 4 inches of snow cover. Snowmobiling is also allowed on local 

government jurisdiction roads to access designated snowmobile trails. FR 3220 (the segment not 

designated for snowmobile use), FR 3770B, and FR830241 all have snowmobile use. Use is 

mostly likely to gain access to the snowmobile trail or ice fishing on Bear Lake. 

ATV’s 

ATV’s are not currently allowed on any segment of the proposed trail on national forest. The 

Forest Service has completed an environmental analysis and decision to construct an ATV 

connector trail between the NST and County Highway H. The ATV connector is not located on 

any segment of proposed Rat River Recreational Trail that is Forest Service jurisdiction. The 

ATV connector will merge onto Grant Lane which would also be utilized to connect the east and 

west segments of the Rat River Recreational Trail. 

Non-Motorized Recreation Use

Recreation Setting

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system is a method used by the Forest Service to 

inventory and zone areas. The classifications range from the most remote and undeveloped 

(primitive classification) to the most developed setting (urban classification). The proposed trail 

corridor is located in two ROS land area classifications - roaded natural (west of Blackwell) and 

roaded natural remote (east of Blackwell). 

Both Roaded Natural and Roaded Natural Remote (RNR) are characterized by a predominately 

natural appearing setting. A feeling of isolation is more likely to occur in a RNR setting. The 

RNR classification is unique to the CNNF and is intended to represent a semi-primitive 

motorized type of experience in a smaller setting (CNNF EIS, pg.3-243). 

Recreation Activities

The primary recreational activities in the project area other than snowmobiling include hunting, 

fishing, hiking, and some dispersed camping. The activities occur on the proposed trail or in the 

nearby vicinity which includes the Rat River. If not used for the actual recreational activity, the 

existing Forest System roads, non-system roads, and abandoned railroad grade that make up the 

trail proposal, provide access to destinations such as the Rat River, a favored hunting area or a 

dispersed camping site. 

Hunting
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

12

Big game, small game, and waterfowl hunting occur throughout the forest. Deer and grouse are 

the most popular species hunted. A variety of other species such as bear, turkey, coyote, and 

rabbits are also hunted throughout the forest, but to a lesser extent. 

The presence of game species within an area is generally related to habitat that includes food 

sources, bedding or resting areas and availability of water. The Rat River provides a year-round 

water source and a variety of habitat that is favorable for upland wildlife. 

The areas to hunt waterfowl are more limited across the forest since it generally occurs where 

there are water bodies that provide favorable habitat, such as the Rat River.

Fishing

The Rat River has been stocked with Brown Trout from 1972 through 1997. Since 1997 no fish 

stocking has occurred in the Rat River (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources {WNDR}

Fish Stocking Summary). Some natural reproduction of trout may occur along with migration 

from tributaries such as Spencer Creek. Trout are found in low densities and only in areas where 

there is a coldwater tributary nearby. 

A 2008 WDNR survey conducted on the Rat River at the County Highway H crossing found 

small numbers of other fish such as bluegill, northern pike, and largemouth bass. Overall, the 

Rat River supports a warm water fishery community that is dominated by non-game species with 

low levels of game species.

Hiking

Hiking is sometimes done in conjunction with other interests such as wildlife viewing, bird 

watching or photography. The presence of the Rat River adjacent to the abandoned railroad 

grade provides opportunities that are not present in other locations. The extent to which the 

grade is actually used for hiking and associated interests is unknown. 

Dispersed Camping

Dispersed camping generally occurs near water bodies, hunting areas or areas that offer 

recreational or scenic values. There are several locations off FR 3075A adjacent to the Rat River 

where there is evidence of past camping activity. The frequency of camping at these locations is 

unknown and the sites are not maintained by the Forest Service. 

Special Uses

The Forest Service can issue special use permits (SUP) for the use of National Forest System 

land. The Forest Service has been issuing a SUP to the Wisconsin Dual Sport Riders for spring 

and fall events that involves the use of street legal motorcycles that are also capable of use on 

low maintenance road and trails. The events are authorized to use a portion of FR 3220 from 

Flanner Lane then east for approximately 1.13 miles before leaving this road. 

Measures

Road miles are used to measure loss of motorized access as a result of road closures in the 

project proposal.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

13

A change to the recreation setting is not quantifiable for this project. The forest plan identifies 

the recreation emphasis across the forest. For the analysis a discussion of whether the proposed 

project is within an acceptable level of change to the roaded natural and roaded natural remote 

recreation emphasis of the trail corridor. 

Other than access, this project proposal will not change the recreation activities that can occur on 

trail corridor; therefore, change in recreation activities will not be measured. Trail development 

can have an effect on current recreation activities and that will be discussed. 

Threshold

A threshold has not been identified for open/closed roads for this project. The threshold for 

recreation setting and recreation activities is whether the forest plan recreation emphasis is being 

met by management area. 

3.2.1 Environmental Consequences

The boundaries of the analysis area for determining direct and indirect effects are the trail 

corridor. This is because potential impacts to recreation access would be limited to the area 

where trail management activities would take place; therefore, there is no need to go outside the 

trail corridor.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect effects

Motorized Access

There would be no effects on motorized access by HLV which would include dual sport 

motorcycles, snowmobiles or ATV’s, since this use would not change. 

Recreation Setting and Activities

There would be no effects on the recreation setting or activities. Activities such as hunting, 

fishing, hiking, biking, etc. could occur with no improvements and in the same setting that 

currently exists. 

The forest plan Goal 2.1 “Maintaining or enhance the diversity and quality of recreation 

experiences within acceptable limits of change to ecosystem stability and condition” would not 

be met. The purpose and need of creating a safe recreation trail for non-motorized users from 

NST to Bear Lake road would also not be met. 

Cumulative Effects

Since there would be no direct and indirect effects to motorized access, the recreation setting or 

recreation activities; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

There may be some effect to HLV, see paragraphs below. There is no change and therefore no 

effect to ATV or snowmobile trail system or the Wisconsin Dual Sport Motorcycle events. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

14

Motorized Access

HLVs

The direct effect of Alternative 2 would be the loss of HLV access on 3.56 miles of FRs 

currently open to HLV. If implemented, there would be zero miles of HLV use on the trail 

corridor. The loss of HLV access could result in a loss of recreational opportunities for those 

individuals who prefer to drive to areas that they have been traditionally used for hunting, 

fishing, or camping. The greatest effect would be to individuals with limited mobility. 

The direct effect of the loss of motorized access by HLVs would be less on the west segment of 

the proposed trail than the east segment. On the west segment 0.54 miles of FR 3075A would be 

closed to HLV. While the one-half mile distance is not a long hike, there still could be a loss of 

recreational opportunities for those individuals who prefer to drive to areas that they have been 

traditionally used. 

Also, on the west segment, direct effects would be that the railroad grade and surrounding areas 

could continue to be accessed by HLV off FR 2640. This road currently merges with FR 3220 

approximately one mile east of Flanner Lane. This road is less traveled as use by a 4x4 vehicle 

would likely be required. The road is closed to HLV after November 30th as it is part of the 

snowmobile trail system. 

The east segment combined with the 1.0 mile of abandoned grade currently closed to HLVs, a 

total of 4.02 miles would be closed to HLVs. It is more likely that there would be a greater loss 

of recreational opportunities than the west segment. 

The mid-point of the east segment of the proposed trail can also be accessed by FRs 2363A and 

2363AA. These roads are open to HLVs to a distance of approximately 0.25 miles of the grade. 

The final 0.25 miles would be walk-in access on hunter-hiking trails. Motorized access on FR 

2363AA could be difficult in wet conditions. 

An indirect effect of road closures to HLVs may be displacing individuals who prefer motorized 

access to areas where roads are open. Other individuals may choose to continue to use 

traditional areas along or accessed by the grade but would have to adapt to non-motorized access 

into these areas. 

ATV’s 

ATV use is only allowed on the proposed Rat River Recreational Trail corridor where it 

overlaps the existing Blackwell ATV Trail. The Town of Blackwell ATV connector will utilize 

Grant Lane (part of FR 3075) as an ATV route as a part of the ATV corridor. The proposed Rat 

River Recreational trail also will utilize Grant Lane to connect the east and west segments of the 

trail. 

Snowmobile 

There would be no change in the location or use of the existing snowmobile trail so there would 

be no direct effects to motorized access by snowmobile. An indirect effect of closing FR 3220 

would be loss of snowmobile access to trails by local residents under the state snowmobile 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

15

access law. It is unknown whether FR3220 gets used for that purpose. Snowmobiles were not 

raised as a concern by the public and have not been identified as an issue. 

SUP

The Wisconsin Dual Sport Riders are concerned about the closing of FR 3220 to HLVs. The 

road has been under a special use permit for use during their dual sport motorcycle events. They 

would like to continue to use the 1.13 mile segment of FR 3220 that they have always used for 

the events. This use will likely continue.

Recreation Setting 

Recreation activities take place on the trail corridor and in the vicinity adjacent to the trail 

corridor. The effects on recreation activities will be similar whether on the trail corridor or 

adjacent vicinity; therefore, only the trail corridor will be analyzed. 

ROS

Motorized and non-motorized trail development are acceptable management practices for the 

both classifications of the ROS. Trail development can alter the recreation setting by making it 

feel less remote, but if the trail is properly designed so that the natural appearing setting is 

retained there would be minimal direct effect on the recreation setting. There is no “wilderness” 

ROS setting in the project area; nor is this area declared “wilderness”.

Loss of “wilderness”

The public has raised a concern that developing a non-motorized trail would affect the 

“wilderness” setting that they feel currently exists in the area east of Blackwell. They prefer to 

engage in recreation activities such as hiking, bird watching, wildlife photography, and hunting 

in this “wilderness” setting. They feel developing a non-motorized trail will change the setting 

and affect the recreation activities that they currently engage in along the proposed trail corridor. 

Road closures would have the direct effect of enhancing the recreation setting and feeling of 

remoteness by eliminating the probability of interaction with motorized vehicles. 

Recreational Activities

There would be no direct effect of implementing Alternative 2 on current recreation activities. 

The most common recreation activities in the area such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and dispersed 

camping could continue. 

Trail development could have an indirect effect on certain activities if there is an increase in the 

interaction between humans. A higher presence of humans on the trail may result in fewer game 

observations which would have a negative effect on the hunting experience. The increased use 

by humans would likely mean fewer wildlife observations thereby decreasing the opportunities 

to take a game animal. The effects could be the same for activities such as wildlife viewing and 

bird watching. 

An indirect effect of developing the trail may be the displacing of individuals who prefer to 

pursue recreational activities in a more remote setting. Trail development will alter the 

recreation setting and increase use by non-motorized activities. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

16

Hunting

The majority of trail use for non-motorized use is likely to occur from May through August 

which is outside the hunting time periods for grouse and deer. Fall use (September and October) 

of the trail would likely be low but would be within the same time period for grouse hunting and 

archery hunting for deer. The trail would be closed for hiking and biking during the deer gun 

season. Interaction between users may increase which will increase safety concerns. State and 

Federal laws and regulations for hunting in proximity to other people would apply as they do 

now. 

Cumulative Effects

The area for cumulative effects analysis is the proposed trail corridor. The time span that is 

analyzed is from the time of Forest Service acquisition of the grade through implementation of 

the Honey Creek-Padus (HCP) Vegetation Management EIS (approximately 2017). 

Past Activities

The abandoned railroad grade was acquired by the Forest Service in 1947. Other than the west 

end of the grade that passes through private property, the majority of the grade has likely been 

used by motorized vehicle and foot travel since acquisition. Old railroad grades that have 

remained open have often received frequent motorized vehicle use and have perpetuated their 

use as roads whether authorized or not. 

Snowmobile travel was added to segments of the grade as part of the snowmobile trail system in 

the 1960’s or 1970’s. The only improvement to the grade is a bridge that crosses the Rat River. 

A gate was installed on the west side of the Rat River bridge site and another gate was installed 

at the Bear Creek bridge site to protect the bridges and grade from unauthorized vehicle traffic. 

Past and project actions would have no cumulative effects on snowmobile access.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule and the resulting Motor Vehicle Use Map can 

either reduce or increase public motorized access across the CNNF including the Rat River Trail 

corridor. These activities would occur in past, present, and future.

Past actions such as installing gates to protect the bridges and the grade would have similar direct 

and indirect effects on HLV access as implementation of the Rat River Recreation Trail. The 

effects of past actions combined with direct effects of the Rat River Recreation Trail would have 

the cumulative effect of having a railroad corridor that was previously used by HLV to one that 

is closed. Past actions combined with the indirect effects of the proposed action would have the 

cumulative effect of displacing individuals who prefer HLV access. 

ATV use is currently not allowed on the grade and not part of the project proposal. There would 

be no cumulative effects on ATV access. 

No past activities have altered the recreation setting or activity. The proposal will alter the 

recreation setting and activity, but in combination with no past activities there will be no 

cumulative effect. 

Present Activities
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

17

The west segment of the proposed trail corridor was analyzed in the HCP; including open road 

densities, which were reduced. However, there was no reduction along the trail corridor. 

ATV and snowmobile trails are present, but not effected by this project. There are no other 

present activities in the project area. As a result, there would be no cumulative effects on 

motorized access, recreation setting or activities with this proposal. 

Future Activities

The HCP identified stands where timber sales are likely to occur along the west segment of the 

proposed trail. If timber sales were to occur it is likely that segments of the proposed trail such 

as FR 3075A would need to be utilized as haul routes. It is not expected that new roads would 

need to be constructed near the trail. Upon completion of the sale, FR3075A would be closed 

and restored as a trail. Using design features should minimize any effects to the recreation 

setting and on recreation activities. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that combined with the proposed project would 

have cumulative effects on motorized access, recreation setting or recreation activities. 

3.3 Aquatic Resources

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The Rat River starting at the NST, extending downstream for 15.4 miles is classified as a Class 3 

trout stream according to the 2002 Wisconsin Trout Stream manual published by the WDNR. A 

Class 3 trout stream is defined as: “These waters are marginal trout habitat with no natural 

reproduction occurring. They require annual stocking of trout to provide trout fishing.

Generally, there is no carryover of trout from one year to the next. Class 3 streams comprise 

15% of the total trout stream miles in Wisconsin” (WDNR, 2002 and 2003). All trout streams in 

Wisconsin are designated as Areas of Special Natural Resource Interest according to Chapter NR 

1.05, Wisconsin Administrative Code (WDNR, 2011). The paragraphs that follow explain

current conditions of the aquatic resource from west to east. Spencer Creek is a Class I trout 

stream and is a critical tributary stream to the Rat River which trout migrate up into during the 

summer and fall months for their needs of cold water and spawning habitat. 

The section of the proposed trail from the Nicolet State Trail to Blackwell includes about 1.5 

miles that is not drivable by vehicle. East of this section is about a 1 mile section that is 

currently being driven by motor vehicles where there are several ground water seeps and the 

grade is collapsing, cutting off ground water drainage to the Rat River.

There are many dips in the grade, these are impounding some water flow and may to a small 

extent be artificially increasing the temperature of the Rat River. At least one cross drains 

appears to be made out of cedar logs that the earth has settled on top of; therefore, causing a 

physical dip in the grade. The Spencer Creek culvert on Flanner Lane is pitched too steep 

downstream creating extremely high water velocities that are stopping fish and other aquatic 

organisms from migrating upstream. 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

18

Currently there is a lot of soil rutting on this proposed trail. The rutting is causing a small 

amount of sedimentation into the adjacent areas of the grade, including some wetlands.

Although the sedimentation doesn’t appear to be having a big negative impact on the adjacent 

uplands, wetlands or the Rat River, the rutting should be corrected to stop any further rutting and 

future sedimentation.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

The affected area for analysis of direct and indirect effects to the water resource of the proposed 

Rat River Recreational Trail is from the Nicolet State Trail to the middle of Section 19 that is 

located about 3⁄4 of a mile southwest of Bear Lake. There are numerous springs and seepage 

streams that are or could be affected by inadequate drainage under the proposed trail. 

Direct and Indirect Effects- Water Quality/Sedimentation 

Direct impacts are associated with activities within stream channels and/or riparian areas. 

Indirect impacts are associated with activities outside of riparian and downstream that effect the 

riparian areas. Water quality, in particular sediment levels, is affected by soil disturbance, 

vegetative cover changes, and stream channel alteration. 

Cumulative Effects on Water Quality

Cumulative effects area includes the area around the proposed trail. Almost the entire length of 

this 6.7 mile proposed trail has been in place since the old R.R. Grade was built in the 

early1900’s and much of it is currently used by highway legal vehicles and snowmobiles. In 

fact, almost the entire length of the trail east of Blackwell is listed as open to motor vehicles 

according to the Forest Service’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) as FR 3220. Currently 

portions of the grade are open to snowmobile use and this activity would not change.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and indirect effects

The direct effects of no action to the water resources are that the possible cross drainage under 

this grade will continue to rot and cause impounding upstream which could stop the existing cold 

ground water seeps from reaching and cooling the Rat River, which is temperature challenged 

already. Indirect effects – the water temperature change would be detrimental to the existing 

trout population and other cool water organisms.

The existing rutting on this grade is causing a small amount of sedimentation into the adjacent 

areas of the grade including some wetlands. Although the sedimentation doesn’t appear to be 

having a big negative impact on the adjacent uplands or wetlands it should be corrected to 

eliminate the rutting and sedimentation. It might be advisable to either close the grade to motor 

vehicles if it’s not fixed up or leave it open, but bring it up to acceptable standards for motor 

vehicle use. 

Cumulative Effects

If the existing dips under the grade east of Blackwell are not replaced they will continue to 

deteriorate and eventually the grade will continue to collapse over them and stop water draining 

from the upland into the Rat River. If this cold groundwater flow is cut off from reaching the 

Rat River, it likely would not receive the cooling effects of this water that is critical to keeping 

the river cool for trout and other cool water aquatic species, including water insects. Continued 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

19

use by motorized vehicles would cause the grade to deteriorate further from compacting the soil 

at these crossings, causing deeper dips and further plug and seal them off from passing water 

runoff.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and indirect effects

The proposed action would designate the existing grade as a non-motorized trail and improve the 

physical condition of the grade. These activities would include removing some existing 

vegetation off the grade, fixing cross drainage, and surfacing the grade with gravel to ensure a 

smooth surface with adequate water drainage off the grade to eliminate surface puddles and 

rutting.

Activities associated with motorized and non-motorized use along this grade likely would not 

negatively impact the aquatic plants adjacent to the grade. If adequate cross drainage is provided

the existing wet areas upstream of the grade might be drained enough compared to their existing 

condition to impact some wetland plants. But, restoration of cross drainage would ensure natural 

water flow, which could benefit some aquatic plants downstream. In addition, the cold 

groundwater flow will be allowed to reach the Rat River to ensure the maximum cooling effects 

of this water, which is important to keeping the river cool during critical times of the year (MaySept) for trout and other cool water aquatic species, including water insects.

Cumulative effects

Past Actions

Numerous historic natural and human caused ground disturbing events, such as, logging and 

associated fires, stream log drives, road and railroad building have taken place in and around the 

project area. While these events have influenced the existing condition of the river channel, it is 

hard to determine if they are having any adverse impacts to water quality as a whole.

Present and Future Actions

The HCP identifies several timber stands intended for harvesting in the near future that are 

adjacent to the Rat River between Blackwell Junction and the Town of Blackwell. Since these 

timber harvesting operations were discussed in detail and will be carried out using the 

Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality (WDNR 2010) there should 

be no impacts to water quality from these future activities.

The Blackwell Junction ATV trail connector runs along a 1⁄4 mile segment of the grade and is no 

threat to water quality from this activity as long as the ATV’s stay on the established trail. If 

ATV’s leave the trail and enter wetland areas then there would be concerns from a water quality 

stand point. Snowmobile use is on frozen ground conditions and therefore causes no impact.

3.3.3 Conclusions

The effects of implementing Alternative 1 or 2, when added to the effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions, would not be expected to result in appreciable adverse 

cumulative effects to water quality when project design features are properly implemented. 

Future actions outside of those listed above are unknown at this time. The proposed actions 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

20

would minimize potential erosion impacts and improve stabilization of the trail thereby reducing 

rutting and sedimentation. Restricting motor vehicles on the current open areas of the grade 

would lessen soil disturbance and thus less sedimentation.

3.4 NNIP

Summary

This report analyzes how the proposed Rat River Recreation Trail would affect the spread of 

NNIP (Non-Native Invasive Plants). The proposed trail activities have a moderate risk of NNIP

introduction and spread. However, the implementation of design features during construction 

phase would reduce the risk of spread and introduction to a low risk. The proposed nonmotorized trail use has a low risk of NNIP introduction and spread.

Measures

All soil disturbing activities provide some level of risk for NNIP spread and establishment. Any 

habitat has a low risk of NNIP invasion, regardless of activities occurring. Since this low risk is 

always present, this report only analyzes those areas that are at risk of spread or introduction of 

NNIP through project-related activities.

Threshold

Any increase in the total number of sites of non-native plants is undesirable. The forest plan 

suggests a goal of reducing NNIP spread over time. The standard for NNIP requires the use of 

permissible measures to reduce spread of NNIP (forest plan). An effect would be acceptable if 

no long-term increase in NNIP establishment and spread resulted from the chosen action.

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Currently there are 1,723 separately recorded invasive species infestation sites (3,598 acres) on 

the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District. The majority of these NNIP sites are in road corridors, 

gravel pits, and log landings. The main vector for spread are vehicles, (road maintenance 

equipment, logging vehicles, and passenger cars and trucks), although the seeds of many species 

are also wind or animal dispersed.

There are five known NNIP infestations consisting of four species in the project area: marsh 

thistle, honeysuckle, Canada thistle, and glossy buckthorn. All of these infestations are along 

FR3075A west County H in Blackwell. Most of these infestations are small, or plants are widely 

scattered along the road edge.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

The analysis area for cumulative effects in regards to NNIP is the Lakewood-Laona District.

Alternative 1 - No Action

There would be no activities and therefore no direct or indirect effects that would change the 

existing condition. Non-native invasive plants would continue to persist at their current rates or 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

21

may increase through natural means of spread (animals, wind, water) or by humans (vehicles, 

ATVs, road maintenance), but not as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative.

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects from Forest Service actions that could 

contribute to NNIP spread or introduction, there would be no cumulative effects. Ongoing 

actions such as annual road maintenance (mowing, grading, etc.), vegetation management within 

the project area from previous decisions (such as Honey Creek-Padus), vehicle use of roads

(such as the ATV’s on the Blackwell ATV Trail, recreational vehicles on the grade, etc.), wind, 

and animal movement would still have the potential to have an effect on NNIP. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Closing the trail to motorized traffic for non-motorized use would require some reconstruction 

and/or maintenance to bring the corridor up to standards for non-motorized use. The entire 

corridor would need reconstruction or maintenance activity, which means that nearly 100% of 

the existing corridor would be disturbed to some degree. Not only could the maintenance 

(blading, resurfacing, brushing, etc.) spread NNIP from existing sites to clean sites, it may bring 

in seed from other parts of the trail or from a previous job site.

The Rat River Recreation Trail project has about 6.8 miles of grade to reconstruct. These project

activities are common in many vegetation management projects across the district as well as 

routine maintenance on the district. Utilizing design features during the construction phase 

should keep a low risk of NNIP introduction and spread, thus eliminating any potential for 

cumulative effects at the district level.

Determination

The proposed project reconstruction activities have a moderate risk of NNIP introduction and 

spread. However, the implementation of design features during construction phase would reduce 

the risk of spread and introduction to a low risk. The proposed non-motorized trail use has a low 

risk of NNIP introduction and spread. NNIP could potentially be spread during use of the trail 

by non-motorized use, but risk would be lower than that posed by the current motorized use of 

the proposed trail.

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species/ Regional Forester Sensitive 

Species

3.5.1Affected Environment

Species Considered

The Forest Service (FS) is responsible for disclosing the effects of its actions on Threatened, 

Endangered, Sensitive (TES, Table 1), and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS, Table 2) where 

they occur within National Forest boundaries. This evaluation considers both these lists and the recent 

updated RFSS list that was approved December 14, 2011. Table 2 provides the list of all species 

considered in this evaluation and includes their global ranking or “status” and “occurrence or habitat 

potential”. Species identified in Table 3 are species currently listed as “likely to occur”, and are known 

to occur in Region 9, but have not been documented in the CNNF. Considering range and habitat, these 

species could potentially be found in the CNNF.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

22

The species-by-species determination of expected impacts for each alternative is shown in Table 4. 

Species listed in Table 2 and Table 3 are currently on the RFSS per the December 14, 2011 revision. 

These species could potentially occur within or near the CNNF proclamation boundaries. Information 

about these plant and animals was obtained through the consultation with FS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), and WDNR.

Neotropical migratory birds are considered only if they have status as a TES or RFSS. The forest plan 

was prepared with Neo-tropical Migrant bird species as a focus. The desired future condition within the 

forest plan provide for habitat throughout implementation. Therefore, implementation of this project as 

it pertains to neo-tropical migrants is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and memorandum of 

understanding between FS and USFWS. As it pertains to species analyzed in this document, the 

Kirtland’s warbler is the only federally listed Neo-tropical bird identified for analysis by the USFWS 

beyond the anticipated outcomes from implementation of the forest plan. 

Information regarding TES or Proposed wildlife and plant species is obtained through the cooperation of 

the USFWS, WDNR, the state Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, FS- Eastern Region 

TES staff, and other species experts outside the agency.

Table 1: Threatened and Endangered Species

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or 

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in 

Detail (Y)

TES

Charadrius melodus Piping plover G3, S1, SE, FE N N

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler G1, SNA, SC, FE N N

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx G5, SNA, SC N N

Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner blue butterfly G5, S2S3, SC, FE N N

Oxytropis campestris var. 

chartacea Fassett’s locoweed G5T1T2, S1S2, SE N N

Because there are no known occurrences of Federally-listed species (Table 1) or their potential habitat 

will not be affected, no detailed analysis of effects for these species is warranted.

Status of the Canada Lynx on the CNNF 

The USFWS listed the Canada Lynx in 2000 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (as amended). During this period, the CNNF initiated an analysis of potentially suitable habitat 

and field surveys using the National Lynx Conservation Assessment protocols (Weiland 2000). These 

field surveys were conducted in an attempt to encounter the species on Forest lands (Weiland 2000). 

The results of this analysis and field survey concluded that lynx were not present and that suitable habitat 

for the species did not exist. Since that analysis, lynx have been documented as present and breeding on 

the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota (Ed Lindquist, Forest Biologist, personal 

communication 2004) and another lynx was captured near Marquette Michigan during the winter of 

2003-04 in the northeastern portion Michigan’s upper peninsula (these areas contain much larger 

amounts of boreal or boreal like forest than exists on the CNNF). Additionally, based on review of 

harvest records of lynx in the province of Ontario Canada, it appears that lynx populations in the Great 

Lakes are at the highest levels in over a decade an likely explain the recent appearance of lynx in upper 

Michigan and northern Minnesota (USFWS 2004). Based on this, the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

indicated in a Consultation letter to the Forest in March 2004 for the revised forest plan, that any lynx in 

Wisconsin and on the CNNF:

• Are likely to be animals dispersing from source populations in Minnesota and Canada;
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

23

• They do not anticipate that any would become residents in any particular area of the Forest or 

State;

• These animals would benefit from the forest plan emphasis on increasing interior forest habitats, 

increasing patch sizes, and increased emphasis on roadless and non-motorized areas;

• The habitats most suitable for lynx are lowland conifer types that are not proposed for 

vegetative management actions under the forest plan.

This indicates that any lynx found in Wisconsin is likely a transient animal that is unlikely to establish 

itself in the State and on the Forest. This is further supported by the fact that since completion of the 

Forest’s 2000 analysis, additional snow tracking efforts by the WDNR with assistance from CNNF 

biologists, in areas with possible lynx sightings reported during the 1990’s on the Eagle River District of 

the Forest which border the upper peninsula of Michigan, failed to locate any additional information that 

lynx were present on the CNNF and in the proposed action area. Also, the Forest working with the 

WDNR has followed up multiple reports of lynx on the Forest in other areas with no positive 

identification of lynx presence. Therefore, this proposed action is anticipated to have “no effect” to the 

species or its habitat, because the proposed action is in compliance with the forest plan and does not 

impact any lowland conifer gauged to be the most suitable type for lynx.

Table 2: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or 

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in 

Detail (Y)

TES

Charadrius melodus Piping plover G3, S1, SE, FE N N

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler G1, SNA, SC, FE N N

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx G5, SNA, SC N N

Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner blue butterfly G5, S2S3, SC, FE N N

Oxytropis campestris var. 

chartacea Fassett’s locoweed G5T1T2, S1S2, SE N N

RFSS - Animals 

Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon G3G4, S3, SC N N

Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow G4, S2B, SC N N

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper G5, S2B, SC N N

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk G5, S3S4B, ST Y Y

Callophrys henrici Henry's Elfin G5, S2, SC N N

Canis lupis Gray (Timber) Wolf G4, S2, ST N N

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler G4, S2S3B, ST N N

Falcipennis canadensis Spruce Grouse G5, S1S2B, ST Y Y

Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle G4, S3, ST N N

Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced Clubtail G3, S3, SC N N

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G4, S3B, SC N N

Martes americana American Marten G5, S3, SE Y Y

Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater Redhorse G4, S2S3, ST N N

Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis G5, S2S4, ST Y Y

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis G4, S1S3, ST Y Y

Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner G3, S2S3, ST N N

Oeneis chryxus Chryxus Arctic G5, S2, SC N N

Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-striped Snaketail G3, S1, SE N N

Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail G3, S3, ST N N

Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler G4, S3B, SC Y Y

Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat G5, S1S3, ST Y Y
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

24

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or 

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in 

Detail (Y)

Picoides arcticus Black-backed 

Woodpecker G5, S2B, SC Y Y

Pieris virginiensis West Virginia White G3G4, S2, SC Y Y

Plebejus idas nabokovi Northern (Nabokov's) 

Blue G5, S1, SE N N

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse G4, S2B, SC N N

Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse G3G4, S2, ST N N

NON-VASCULAR PLANTS

Amerorchis rotundifolia Roundleaf Orchid G5, S2, ST N N

Arabis missouriensis v. 

deamii Green Rockcress G5?Q, S2, SC N N

Asplenium trichomanesramosum Green Spleenwort G4, S1, SE N N

Astragalus alpinus Alpine Milkvetch G5, S1, SE N N

Botrychium minganense Mingan Moonwort G4, S2, SC P N

Botrychium mormo Little Goblin Moonwort G3, S3, SE P N

Botrychium oneidense Bluntlobe Grapefern G4Q, S2, SC P N

Botrychium pallidum Pale Moonwort G3,S1,SC N N

Botrychium rugulosum 

(=ternatum) Ternate Grapefern G3, S2, SC N N

Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal Water-starwort G5, S2, SC N N

Callitriche heterophylla Twoheaded Waterstarwort G5,S1,ST N N

Caloplaca parvula a lichen G1 N N

Calypso bulbosa Fairy Slipper G5, S3, ST N N

Carex backii Rocky Mountain Sedge G4, S1, SC N N

Carex crawei Crawe's Sedge G5, S3, SC N N

Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge G5, S3, SC N N

Carex livida var radicaulis Livid Sedge G5T5, S2, SC N N

Carex michauxiana Michaux's Sedge G5, S2, ST N N

Carex sychnocephala Many-headed Sedge G4, S2, SC N N

Ceratophyllum echinatum Prickly Hornwort G4?, S2, SC N N

Cypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Lady'sslipper G3, S2, ST N N

Diplazium pycnocarpon Glade Fern G5, S2, SC N N

Dryopteris expansa Spreading Woodfern G5, S2, SC N N

Dryopteris filix-mas Male Fern G5, S1, SC N N

Dryopteris fragrans var

remotiuscula Fragrant Fern G5T3T5, S3, SC N N

Eleocharis olivacea Bright Green Spikerush G5, S2, SC N N

Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered Spikerush G5, S2, SC N N

Epilobium palustre Marsh Willow-herb G5, S3, SC N N

Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail G5, S2, SC N N

Eriophorum chamissonis Russet Cotton-grass G5, S2, SC N N

Huperzia selago Fir Clubmoss G5, S2, SC N N

Juglans cinerea Butternut G3G4, S3?, SC P N
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

25

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or 

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in 

Detail (Y)

Juncus stygius Moor Rush G5, S1, SE N N

Leucophysalis grandiflora Large-flowered Groundcherry G4?, S1, SC N N

Littorella uniflora 

(=Plantago americana) American Shoregrass G5, S2, SC N N

Melica smithii Smith's Melicgrass G4, S1, SE N N

Moehringia macrophylla Largeleaf Sandwort G4, S1, SE N N

Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell's Water-milfoil G5, S3, SC N N

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng G3G4, S4, SC P N

Parnassia palustris Marsh Grass-ofParnassus G5, S2, ST N N

RFSS – Plants continued Common Name Status Occurrence or 

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in 

Detail (Y)

Piptatherum canadensis Canada Mountain 

Ricegrass G5, S1, SC N N

Poa paludigena Bog Bluegrass G3, S3, ST N N

Polemonium occidentale ssp 

lacustre Western Jacob's Ladder G5?T1Q, S1, SE N N

Polystichum braunii Braun's Holly-fern G5, S3, ST N N

Potamogeton confervoides Algae-like Pondweed G4, S2, ST N N

Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed G3, S1, SC N N

Pyrola minor Snowline Wintergreen G5, S1, SE N N

Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's Buttercup G5, S2, SE N N

Rhynchospora fusca Brown Beakrush G4G5, S2, SC N N

Sparganium glomeratum Northern Bur-read G4?, S2, ST N N

Streptopus amplexifolius Clasping Twisted-stalk G5, S3, SC N N

Tiarella cordifolia Heartleaf Foamflower G5, S1, SE N N

Usnea longissima Beard Lichen G4, S1 N N

Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf Huckleberry G5, S2, SE N N

Valeriana uliginosa Marsh Valerian G4Q, S2, ST N N
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

26

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or 

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in 

Detail (Y)

S1 – Critically imperiled

S2 – Imperiled

S3 – Rare or uncommon

S#B – Long-distance migrant, breeding 

status

S#N – Long-distance migrant, non-breeding 

status

State Element Rank: 

SE – State endangered

ST – State threatened

SC – State special concern

State Status:

G3 – Very rare and local throughout range

Global Element Rank: 

G4 – Apparently globally secure, rare in parts 

G5 – Demonstrably secure globally, rare local

T# - Infraspecific Taxon

1. Confirmed: Species has been observed within or near (within 0.25 

miles) the project/proposed project area; a documented occurrence is 

on file for uncommon or rare species. 

2. Probable: Habitat is suitable; species has been documented on the 

Forest but not necessarily within project/proposed project area. 

Likelihood of occurrence is high. (Consideration is given to transient 

species.) 

Occurrence or Habitat Potential of Occurrence:

3. Minimal: Some habitat exists; species may or may not have been 

documented on Forest. Likelihood of occurrence within the project 

area or proposed project area is low. 

4. None: No suitable habitat exists; species has not been documented 

in project area.

Table 3: Likely-to-occur Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

Species Common Name Status**

Occurrence or 

Habitat 

Potential 2

Evaluated 

in Detail

Animals

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrelle G5, S3S4, SC N N

Plethobasus cyphyus Bullhead mussel G3, S1, SE N N

Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate emerald G5, S2S3, SC N N

Plants

Cardamine maxima Large toothwort G5, S1, SC N N

Carex lenticularis Shore sedge G5, S2, ST N N

Disporum hookeri Fairy bells, Hooker’s mandarin G5 N N

Eleocharis engelmannii Engelmann’s spike-rush G4G5Q, S1, SC N N

Listera auriculata Auricled twayblade G3G4, S1, SE N N

Listera convallarioides Broad-leaved twayblade G5, S1, ST N N

Petasites sagittatus Arrow-leaved sweet colt’s-foot G5, S3, ST N N

Platanthera flava var 

herbiola Pale-green orchid G4T4Q, S2, ST N N

Potamogeton pulcher Spotted pondweed G5, S1, SE N N

Pterospora andromeda Giant pinedrops G5, S1, SE N N

Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup G5, S1, SE N N

Categories:

1. Confirmed: Species has been observed within or near (within 0.25 miles) the project/proposed project 

area; a documented occurrence is on file for uncommon or rare species.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

27

2. Probable: Habitat is suitable; species has been documented on the Forest but not necessarily within 

project/proposed project area. Likelihood of occurrence is high. 

3. Minimal: Some habitat exists; species may or may not have been documented on Forest. Likelihood 

of occurrence within the project area or proposed project area is low.

4. None: No suitable habitat exists; species has not been documented in project area.

Species Present or With Potential Habitat

Animals

The RFSS animals listed in Tables 4 and 5 have potential occupancy within suitable habitat that is 

adjacent to the proposed trail system and are analyzed. The amount of suitable habitat possibly effected 

by this project was determined by placing a 330 foot buffer around the proposed trail. This distance was 

used within the forest plan standard and guidelines for design features in protection of goshawks and red 

shouldered hawk nests and is applicable for the protection of the other RFSS and their habitat in this 

analysis. The buffer distance of 0.5 miles was used to show the amount of available habitat adjacent to 

the trail at a larger scale which would be a sufficient amount to allow occupancy by these species.

There are no other species occurring in the project area or any of their suitable habitats.

Table 4: Acres of suitable habitat for RFSS within 330 ft and 0.5 miles of current open trail system on FS 

lands.

RFSS Suitable Habitat 

within 330 ft

Suitable Habitat 

within 0.5 miles

Red shouldered hawk 149 1,448

Spruce grouse 28 194

American marten 230 1,737

Little Brown Bat 149 1,448

Northern Myotis 149 1,448

Connecticut Warbler 35 267

Tri-colored bat 149 1,448

Black backed Woodpecker 16 235

West Virginia White Butterfly 190 1,459

Table 5: Acres of suitable habitat for RFSS within 330 ft and 0.5 miles of current unusable trail system 

within FS and non-FS lands.

RFSS 

Suitable 

Habitat 

FS - 330 ft

Suitable 

Habitat 

Private - 330 

ft

Total

Suitable 

Habitat

FS - 0.5 

miles

Suitable 

Habitat 

Private - 0.5 

miles

Total

Red shouldered 

hawk 30 15 45 287 254 541

Spruce grouse 0 9 9 0 68 68

American marten 30 23 53 331 326 657

Little Brown Bat 30 47 77 287 286 573

Northern Myotis 30 47 77 287 286 573

Connecticut Warbler 0 4 4 22 77 99
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

28

RFSS 

Suitable 

Habitat 

FS - 330 ft

Suitable 

Habitat 

Private - 330 

ft

Total

Suitable 

Habitat

FS - 0.5 

miles

Suitable 

Habitat 

Private - 0.5 

miles

Total

Tri-colored bat 30 47 77 287 286 573

Black backed 

Woodpecker 0 2 2 19 55 74

West Virginia White 

Butterfly 30 20 50 310 305 615

Plants

The proposed recreation trail passes adjacent to northern hardwood stands that are considered suitable 

habitat for several RFSS plant species. The proposed trail itself is not suitable habitat for any RFSS 

species. Non-motorized use on the trail would reasonably be expected to be confined to the trail corridor 

and would not have any impacts on plant habitat adjacent to the trail. Given the lack of impacts beyond 

the trail corridor, there are no effects anticipated to RFSS plants or their habitat and no further analysis is 

needed.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

The proposed recreational activities will not have any effect to the current and/or future habitat 

conditions of the above identified RFSS along all sections of roads. The project activities would 

not change any current available habitat from suitable to unsuitable. In the area surrounding the 

current open road section, the level of vehicle disturbance will be eliminated due to change in 

road status from open to closed. Snowmobile activity will remain the same so no change in 

current conditions during the winter season. The area that is currently closed and not useable by 

vehicles will have an increase in recreational activity but these types of activities will have a 

minimal amount of disturbance that would not make the area unsuitable. Also, directly adjacent 

to the currently closed road there is little suitable habitat for listed RFSS and large amounts of 

available habitat within a 0.5 mile buffer of the trail for their use if needed (Table 5).

Surveys Needed or Conducted

No surveys are needed due to no effect to RFSS or their habitat from the proposed project.

Alternative 1- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the RFSS or their habitats because no actions would occur. 

Stands classified as suitable habitat within the project area would remain suitable in the absence of any 

treatment.

Cumulative Effects

No direct or indirect effects to RFSS are expected; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. 

Determination: No impact.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

1. There are no effects to RFSS because proposed activities would have minimal disturbance to 

these species.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

29

2. There are no effects to RFSS habitat because proposed activities would not cause changes to 

current and/or future conditions of suitable habitat.

3. Large amounts of suitable habitat near the trail system are available for RFSS to easily move into 

and occupy (Table 4) if there are individuals that are affected by the recreational activity.

4. Motor vehicle disturbance in the area will be eliminated along the currently open road section 

which would improve the habitat conditions. Snowmobile activity would remain unchanged.

Cumulative Effects: No direct or indirect effects to RFSS are expected; therefore, no cumulative effects 

are expected. 

Determination: No impact.

American marten suitable habitat was determined by placing a 330 foot buffer around the trail. The 

species has a very low probability of occurrence and this is due to the following reasons:

1. The area the project is located was identified as lacking large blocks of habitat with high 

potential of suitability for incorporation in a marten’s home range (Zoller, Unpublished 

Data).

2. Marten have displayed only limited dispersal since their reintroduction on the Eagle 

River RD and the maximum distance a marten has been recorded to disperse from its 

home range is approximately 15 miles (Wright, 1999) (Wright and J. Gilbert 

unpublished). This project area is approximately 25 miles from the nearest established 

pine marten population.

3. Marten are generally considered a disturbance-sensitive animal that avoids areas of 

intensive use. This area’s road system status is currently “open” and receives use by 

ATVs and trucks which would cause noise and activity disturbance that would detour 

animals from the area.

3.6 Other Laws, regulations and the forest plan

Forest Plan Consistency

Implementation of Alternative 2 would be consistent with resource direction for standards in the 

forest plan. Alternative 1 would not be consistent with the forest plan’s goal and guideline. The 

forest plan standards and guidelines, design features, and monitoring described above are 

included in the analysis.

Consistency with Direction for RFSS, plants of local concern and with other R9 Sensitive 

Plant Species

The analysis did not identify inconsistencies with any of the above directions when including 

design features.

Consistency with other Laws and Regulations

Chapter 30 (Wisconsin State Statute) and Trans 20 (Wisconsin Administrative Code) Permits

Portions of the Clean Water Act were delegated to the states for implementation. Federal 

agencies are required to obtain State permits when they relate to water quality protection. In 

Wisconsin, Chapter 30 and Trans 207 permits are required for the construction of a ford or 

installation of a culvert or bridge across a State navigable (perennial or intermittent) stream. 

These permits also include provisions to protect water quality from sedimentation or other types 

of non-point sources of water pollution. A Section 30 or Trans 207 permit for replacement of 

culverts would be obtained before implementing any in stream work.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

30

The Endangered Species Act of 1973.

This act shows Forest Service direction about how to address federally-listed proposed (P), 

candidate (C), threatened (T), or endangered (E) – Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.3). The 

biological evaluation (BE) is a process for sensitive species (FSM 2672.43). See BE.

Executive Order 11988.

This Executive order concerning floodplain management, directs agencies to avoid to the extent 

possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification 

of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there 

is a practicable alternative. The proposed action does not pose the risk of flood loss, impacting 

human safety, health and welfare, and impacts to the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains.

Executive Order 11990. 

This Executive order concerning protection of wetlands, directs agencies to avoid to the extent 

possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification 

of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever 

there is a practicable alternative. The known major wetland areas have been protected or 

managed specifically for the protection of wetland resources in past management strategies and 

in the proposed action.

Executive Order 12898

Environmental Justice directs agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations. The proposed action does not effect any 

of the populations mentioned above.

National Historic Preservation Act.

This project is consistent with Wisconsin State Historical Preservation Officer in accordance 

with the National Historic Preservation Act (Executive Order 11593) for ground disturbing 

actions in historical places. There are no cultural resources present in the project area.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976.

Design features shall be specified in the project NEPA. Standards, guidelines, and management 

directives set forth in the forest plan follow the act. This project follows direction in Forest 

Service policy for habitat maintenance for all existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, 

and wildlife species (FSM 2601.2).

Section 319 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977 (33 Untied States Code 1344)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, is commonly referred to as the 

Clean Water Act. This was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nations waters. Section 319 for the 1977 amendments requires each 

State to develop and implement a program to control silviculture-related and other non-point 

sources of water pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Non-point sources of water 

pollution are controlled by the use of “best management practices”. Wisconsin developed 

Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality in 2010 (WDNR 2010). These practices 
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

31

are used as design features to prevent non-point sources of water pollution from forest 

management activities. 

Under Section 404, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been given responsibility to regulate 

the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands (33 

CFR 323.3). Normal silvicultural activities, including harvesting for the production of forest 

products or upland soil and water conservation practices, are exempt from Section 404 permits 

(33 CFR 323.4). Construction and maintenance of forest roads for normal silviculture are also 

exempt provided best management practices are applied (33 CFR 323.4; WDNR 2010). Where a 

Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 water quality certification from the State of 

Wisconsin may be required (33 CFR 325.2; NR 103 Water Quality Standards for Wetlands). 

Appropriate Federal and State permits are obtained prior to implementation of projects involving 

wetlands.

All alternatives are consistent with the Clean Water Act, meet water quality criteria, and 

maintain beneficial uses of waters in and downstream of the analysis area. 

Chapter 4 PREPARES AND CONSULTATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

4.1 List of Preparers:

Steve Janke- Botany/NNIP

Scott Anderson-Wildlife Biologist

Tom Moris-Water Resources

Marilee Houtler-NEPA

Joyce McKay - Archeology

Darrell Richards-Recreation

4.2 Consultation and Coordination

Nature Conservancy

Town of Blackwell

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin State Historical Society

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

General

Forest County. 2006. Forest County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2006-2020. Forest 

County. Crandon, WI. Page 2.

Forest County. 2011. Forest County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2012-2016 (draft). Forest 

County. Crandon, WI. Page 35, and 36.
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

32

Town of Blackwell. 2010. Town of Blackwell Comprehensive Plan. Printer unknown.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. R9-CN-FEIS-0404. USDA Forest Service, Rhinelander, WI 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Land and Resource 

Management Plan. R9-CN-FP-0404. USDA Forest Service, Rhinelander, WI

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Honey Creek-Padus Project ROD. Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, Lakewood, WI. Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service, Annual, Motorized Visitor Use Map, Published by MJVC, Arnold, 

MO.

Aquatics

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2002. Wisconsin Trout Streams. WDNR, 

Bureau of Fisheries, PUB-FH-806 2002. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2003. Wisconsin Trout Streams.

WDNR, Bureau of Fisheries, PUB-FH-806 2003. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010 Bureau of Forestry, Best 

Management Practices Field Manual. Pub FB-093 2010. 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/forestry/Usesof/bmp/pdf/BMP_cover.pdf

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2011. Natural Resources Board Policies. 

Chapter NR 1. Section NR 1.05 Identification of areas of special natural resource interest 

(ASNRI). http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/1

BE

Lindquist. 2004. Personal communication. Forest Biologist. Unpublished.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Correspondence from Janet Smith, Field 

Supervisor, Ecological Services to Anne Archie, Forest Supervisor, CNNF regarding the effects 

of the revised CNNF-Land Resource Management Plan on Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species. 3 pp.

Weiland, N. 2000. Lynx habitat suitability assessment for the Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest. Unpubl. Rpt. USDA Forest Service, Park Falls, WI. 22 pp.

Wright. 1999. Winter Home Range and Habitat use by sympatric Fishers (Martes 

pennanthi and American Martins (Martes Americana) In Northern Wisconsin. Thesis. 

Unpublished.

White and Gilbert. Unpublished. 

Zollner, P.A., Gilbert, J.H., Dumyahn, J., Woodford, J.E., White, T.S.. Russell, K.R. and 

Wright, J.L. (In Prep). Modeling landscape potential for home range establishment by American 

marten in Ecological Province 212J. To be submitted to Journal of Mammalogy.

NNIP
Rat River Recreational Trail Project Environmental Assessment

33

USDA-FS. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plant Control 

Project. Environmental Assessment. Park Falls; 2005.

Recreation

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Fish 

Stocking Summary 1972-2010

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/wdnr_biology/Public_Stocking/StateMapHotspotsAllYears.htm

USDA Forest Service. 1986 ROS Book. Department of Agriculture. Pg. II-31-33. 

Publish location is unknown.

APPENDIX A- MAPS

APPENDIX B- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES