I I I I I I I I I I I I I

This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an OFFlCIAL· l ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOW . MIN . LANDS I DIVIDED I HD I 266 • M\S D C86 DE N F NSE I DI ISi N L NOS D RES JUNE - I MINNESOTA STAT~ LIBRARY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IN I NORTHERN MINNESOTA I Pilot Study Progress Report in Aitkin, Beltrami and Itasca Counties I I Consultants: I' R. N. Cunningham Paul J. StAmant I Supervisor of Classification: I Donald M. Carlson I I I I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF LANDS AND FORESTRY June, 1969 ~14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page INTRODUCTION • Purpose of Report_______________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Cooperation Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Organization and Financing ______________________________________________________________________ 2 • Sample Operations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS Popt1lation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 I Transportation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 Agriculture -----------------------------------------------------~---------------------------------------- 3 Recreation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Wildlife ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 I Forest Products ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Mining -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 I Water ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 AITKIN COUNTY CLASSIFICATION I Preparations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Examples of Field Work___________________________________________________________________________ 6 Shovel Lake Township ______________________________________________________________________ 7 White Elk Township__________________________________________________________________________ 7 I Wagner Township ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Kimberly Township -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Next Steps in Aitkin County ____________________________________________________________________ 9 I Completion and Review of Classification ________________________________________ 9 Putting Results to W ork ___________________________________________________________________ lO I BELTRAMI AND ITASCA COUNTY SAMPLES General Situation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 I Fire Protection ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Recreation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Wildlife Management ------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Timber Sales ------··-------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 I Land Disposal Policies ________________________________________________________________________ 13 Public Relations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Sample Blocks --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 I Third River Area ________________________________________________________________________________ l4 Hines-Summit Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Sugar Bush Area _________________________________________________________________________________ l6 Chippewa ·Border Area ______________________________________________________________________ l 7 I Next Steps in Beltrami and Itasca Counties __________________________________________ l8 LAND CLASSIFICATION CODE __________________________________________________________________ 20 I - FORM L & F 214 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 21 I :1 ~ INTRODUCTION Purpose of Report 2. County officials in counties having sizable acreage of tax-forfeited land to manage ap The first major recommendation of the Land pear to be willing to work with the State. I Exchange Study Report issued by the Depart They feel that classification will help them ment of Conservation in January, 1969 was: arrive at a sound policy of land disposal and "The Department of Conservation, jointly land management. I with the northern counties should, within the 3. The classification program will be most ef next couple of years, classify their lands fective when citizens of the counties in broadly into two categories: (1) MANAGE volved take part in the decisions on land use. MENT UNITS. State and tax-forfeited lands Their participation creates a greater local suitable for management as parks, game understanding of the program, and the management units, multiple-use forests, or knowledge they possess of past and present special-use tracts, (2) OTHER LANDS. use is important. Thus, technical advisory committees will be useful in most counties. I "They should proce~d with the first group to prepare plans covering jurisdiction and man 4. Cooperation should be sought with other agement. They should classify the 'Other public agencies, notably the U. S. Fish and I Lands' in detail to reach conclusions on Wildlife Service in Aitkin County; and the property disposition; i.e., permanent or tem U. S. Forest Service in Beltrami, Itasca, and porary retention, sale, or exchange." other counties where it has land. The Soil In line with this recommendation, the Director Conservation Service can be very helpful. I of the Division of Lands and Forestry appointed These agencies can be represented on ad Donald Carlson as Land Classification Supervisor visory committees and in many cases may and authorized him to arrange one or more pilot want to participate in classification of inter I classification operations during the spring of mingled lands. 1969. This, he thought, would test the feasibility 5. The Division of Lands and Forestry will of the method, illustrate the problems to be en have operational charge of the work for the countered, and more or less set a pattern for other State. The viewpoint of other divisions of I Department of Conservation and county person the Department of Conservation will be nel who will be engaged in the classification field sought constantly through formal and in work. formal conferences. I The word "classification" can be construed in 6 .. Classification is certain to encounter some many different ways. As used here, it signifies the sharp differences of opinion and interest. sorting out of the public lands into major use Many people have expressed a desire to categories; i.e., primarily useful for private resi transfer a great deal of public land to pri dential, commercial, or industrial development; vate ownership and advocate changes in agricultural use; forestry, wildlife management, state laws to liberalize sales. Other people public recreational use. Some lands will be found have shown more concern for future needs to have no apparent immediate use and will be of pure water, scenic landscapes, good hunt kept simply in custodial status. Classification of ing and fishing grounds, adequate timber this kind must be based upon a blend of physical supplies, sufficient recreational opportuni characteristics of the land, its location, and the ties. It is to be hoped that, through full existing economic environment. public discussion and with help of best avail • able technical advice, these different views Cooperation Sought can be reconciled on the basis of the best I long-run interests of the public. Certain conclusions have been reached from pre liminary trials of land classification: 7. Present classification is not to last for all time. Changes in economic conditions, com 1. There is need for considerable uniformity in pletion of county zoning, etc., will doubtless premises, procedures, and forms used over justify thorough review at about ten-year in the entire region to be covered. Since state tervals. However, to be effective, the classi land is scattered among the counties, the fication should be maintained as a basis for State s-hould take a leading role in guiding policy during the interval and should not be the operation. frequently altered to meet local situations. 1 II In other words, it is crucial that the state effective, the work requires full time services of a county classification should be able to with few land appraisers and some clerical and draft stand the demands of outside interests to ing help and minimal amounts for travel and use land for purposes other than those for expense. In the pilot operation, this was financed which it is considered properly suited. by some $10,000 remaining in the Land Exchange Study appropriation.

Load more