Pursuant to 1982 Session Laws, ch 511, Section 8, subd 3 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp I (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) STATE FOREST BOUNDARY PLAN Prepared Pursuant to the Forest Resource Act of 1982 •• 1982 Minnesota Laws, 511~ Section 8 I ·~ By the I State Forest Task Force •• I December 31 1983 11 I I Minnesota of Natural Resources Division of I St. Paul, Minnesota I I I Table of Contents I I Introduction ..................... ·................... • ............ I Study Procedures and Findings: ..•••••••••••••••••.....••••••••••••• 2 I Criteria and Procedure for Establishing State Forest Boundaries ............................................ ·.... 4 I Criteria ..................................................... 4 Procedure ...................................................· .. 5 I Proposed Boundary Changes ••••..••••••••••••••••..•••••.••••••••••• 8 Fond du Lac State Forest 8 I Koochiching State Forest 9 Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest ••.•••••••••••• 9 I Lost River State Forest .•.•••••••.••••••••••••••.••••••••••••• 9 I References ..•••••....•••••••.•.••••••..•••••.•••.•.•• ~ • • . • . • • • • • • 11 I Appendices A. Excerpts from the Forest Resource Management Act of 1982 (1982 Minn. Laws, Chapter 5 ll) • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 I B. State Forest Boundary Task Force Members •••••••••••••••••• 14 C. Excerpts from "A History of Forestry in Minnesota" I (Bachman, 1965) . 1 5 D. Proposed Legislation to Change Selected State I Forest ·Boundaries •••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• ~ • • • • • • • • • i 9 I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION Recognizing the importance of the state 1 s forest resources, the 1899 II legislature authorized the establishment of public forest reserves to be managed for forestry purposes (1899 Minn. Laws, Chapter 214). The Pillsbury, I Burntsideu and Itasca were among the first forest reserves to be established. The title forest reserve was changed to state forest in 1913. A constitutional amendment passed in 1914 allowed state trust fund lands to be II set aside as state forests. The legislature has clearly stated that state forests are to be managed to provide several forest resources on a sustained I basis. I In 1982 the legislature further defined the role of state forests by adopting a forest resource management policy and clearly defining the ·terms "forest resources,n umultiple use" and 11 sustained yield" (see Appendix A). • The Forest Resource Management Act of 1982 also called for an assessment of I state forest boundaries to determine if lands currently in state forests were suited for long-term forest management or if there were additional lands that might be given state forest status. Section 8 of the Forest Resource • Management Act of 1982 (1982 Minne Laws, Chapter 511) directed the Commissioner of Natural Resources to propose a realignment of the boundaries of state forests including consolidation or creation of state forests and • adjustments of boundaries of existing state forests, based on the long-term suitability of lands for use and management for forestry purposes. The State • Forest Boundary Task Force was appointed to study and recommend changes in • state forest boundaries (see Appendix B) I The Forest Resource Management Act further required the task force to consider the results of the Land Suitability Study in proposing boundary changes • Since the Land Suitability Study was not scheduled to be completed in time to allow the task force to meet its December 1983.report deadline, it was decided • that the task force should not attempt a comprehensive reevaluation of state I forest boundaries. Instead the task force was charged with developing a process and criteria to be used in identifying lands suitable for state forest I purposes The Land Suitability results and the task force's recommended I I process will be used to recommend changes in state forest boundaries when the I unit management plans required by the Forest Resource Management Act are prepared. In addition it ·was decided that the task force report should I propose a limited number of obvious boundary changes that had been previously suggested. I I STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS The task force reviewed historic records to determine the reasons why existing I state forests were established and the process used in establishing their boundaries. The objective was to develop a list of characteristics common to I all state forests. I The task force found that the reasons for establishing state forests varied considerably as the state forest system e.volved over the past eighty years I (see Appendix C). The earliest forest reserves were established during the conservation era around the turn of the century. In the late 1920 's and .early 1930's state forests were established on consolidated conservation lands that I the state acquired in return for assuming the counties' debts relating to ditching projects. In the 1930's forests were established to qualify for I public works projects. Other state forests were established to commemorate persons or events (e.g., George Washington, D.A.R., Golden Anniversary) or to I promote wise land use. Currently, there are 3 million acres of state lands in Minnesota's 55 state forests; they range in size from the 66 acre Lake I Isabella State Forest to the 641,000 acre Pine Island State Forest. Another 6,500 acres are designated as administrative and scattered state forest lands. About 1.5 million acres managed by the Department for forestry purposes remain I outside state forest boundaries. I There were no enduring criteria as to the minimum or maximum size of state forests, the minimum percentage of state land within the boundary, or the relationship between state forest boundaries and Division of Forestry administrative boundaries. The task force found that state forests could be ~ . I separated into the following classes based on ownership patterns: I I I I I L State forests comprised of large, contiguous blocks of state land (e.g., Beltrami Pine Island). I 2. State forests comprised of tracts of state land intermingled with other I public or industrial lands (e.g., Bear Island, Cloquet Valley). 3. ·State forests comprised of scattered tracts of state land in areas of primarily land (e.g. , Birch Lakes, ·Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood) While this classification was useful for descriptive purposes, it. did not • assist in the long-term suitability of the land for fore st I purposes. Each type of forest presented opportunities for multiple-use I management In the end the valid distinction between the different types of state I forests was that between the 55 state forests and those lands designated as Administrative and Scattered State Forest lands. The former were designed to I be recognizable management units while the latter is used to provide state forest status and protection to smaller forest tracts and administrative I sitese Failing to find any existing criteria that could be used to determine .if a I given of land should be in a state forest, the task force developed a draft list of criteria for state forests. These guidelines were presented and at in each of the Division of Forestry's administrative • arease The revised list of criteria are presented in the next section of this and should be viewed as general guidelines to be applied during the • unit forest resource planning process. I The task force then turned its attention to developing measurements of "long-term suitability for forestry purposes" in cooperation with the Land Suitability staff. Finally a procedure for applying the suitability • £actors the unit planning process was proposed. I• I 3 I CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING STATE FOREST BOUNDARIES Criteria I The following criteria apply to all individual, named state forests: I l. A state forest must be capable of being managed for the production of two ~ / or more forest resources. This is to fulfill the requirement to manage state forest lands under multiple use principles (M.S. 89.002 - Subd. 1). I 2. The boundary of an individual state forest with its own name (as opposed to administrative and scattered parcels) should lie within one of the I Department of Natural Resources Forestry .Division's administrative areas. Presently there are a number of state forests where management I responsibilities are shared by two or more administrative areas making it difficult to coordinate management activities on a state forest basis. I Dividing these state forests along area administrative boundaries would improve management efficiency. I 3.. All "forest lands under the au~hority of the commissioner" (M.S. 89.001 - Subd. 13) may be considered for state forest status. I 4. Wherever possible, state forest boundaries should not overlap the I boundaries of other statutory authorized DNR management units. This would help the public to recognize the differences between · the various I management units and their purposes. It would also clarify which rules apply to the management units and aid in their enforcement. I 5. All state forest lands should be accessible to the public over adjacent public lands, water, or roads or by legal access that has been acquired. I 6. At a minimum, state land ownership within the boundary o.f a state forest I with its own name should be 25,000 to 50,000 acres of commercial forest land. The actual minimum will be determined during the unit forest resource planning process at a level that will provide for the establishment of a regulated forest to produce sustained timber yields. I I 4 I I 7. Wherever possible, a state forest, with its own name, should be I recognizable to the public as a distinct management unit. Signs or maps I should be used to promote public recognition. 8. All state forest acquisition units identified in land acquisition plans I approved by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources shall be in state forest status.