2004 SNF Management Directions:

The Forest Service developed a new mission statement before the most recent forest plan came out. The mission statement is included in the forest plans: “To sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations” (SNF 2004). The Forest Service mission statement permeates through the forest plans and into policy. In light of this, the Forest Service has developed more management strategies that utilize active management principles and sustainable, multi-use forestry methods. Some of the Forest Service goals for the SNF include: “Provide for sustained forest product uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. Provide a variety of uses, values, products and services for present and future generations by managing within the capability of sustainable ecosystems. Protect, and where appropriate, restore soil, air and water resources” (SNF Forest Plan 2004).

The Forest Service also chose to implement the Minnesota Forest Resources Council's (MFRC) voluntary site-level guidelines. The MFRC management guidelines are described in Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: Voluntary site-level Management Guidelines (http://www.frc.state.mn.us/FMgdline/Guidebook.html). The standards and guidelines presented in the forest plan are intended to provide equal or greater protection to the resources addressed by the MFRC guidebook.

Comparisons of the 2004 Forest Plan with the management problems that were identified in the 1986 Forest Plan:

Recreational opportunities :

The two major issues in the 2004 Forest Plan related to recreation were forest settings and recreational motor vehicle access. A forest setting is the “condition of an area of land and/or water as interpreted by visitors” (SNF Forest Plan 2004). Multiple factors influence the subjective forest setting, including but not limited to: vegetation, access to the area, aesthetics and amount of solitude (SNF Forest Plan 2004). The problem here is that “many people feel the range of recreation-related forest settings are skewed or limited to one form of recreation over another” (SNF Forest Plan 2004). This issue influences forest management because of the degree of public interest in solitude and remoteness versus highly developed facilities and frequent contact with other visitors. The other issue is motorized recreational vehicles. The terminology has changed since 1986 to go along with the increase in types of motorized vehicles that go off-road. There is now distinctions between off-highway motorcycles (OHMs), off-road vehicle (ORV) and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). The topic of access to the forest with recreational motor vehicles (RMVs) is hotly contested. The topic of RMV access to the forest is important because of its relevance to its effects on non-motorized recreation and the management of RMV trail systems and their expansion or development (SNF Forest Plan 2004). Thus, the 2004 Forest Plan has had to adjust to new technologies and is now wrestling with motorized, semi-primitive recreational issues more than simply user access issues.

These issues are not entirely new to the SNF. Ever since motorized vehicles were able to drive off road onto semi-developed trails or roads, the Forest Service has had trouble categorizing them and determining accessibility. Over the last 15 years, the number of hunting licenses, vehicle registrations and camper nights has increased, sometimes significantly (SNF Forest Plan 2004). The only thing that has dropped is the number of fishing licenses. The increases in these permits are expected to continue throughout the next few decades although at a slower rate than population growth.

(SNF Forest Plan 2004)

Therefore, there are some similarities and differences between the two management plans. In 1986, the plan had to deal with increasing numbers and possibly reaching peak visitor levels. In 2004, the plan has to deal with the same thing as well as increasing demand for motorized recreational opportunities.

Habitat for desirable species – moose, deer and grouse:

In 1986, the management plan called for continued habitat conditions where deer, moose and grouse thrive (SNF Forest Plan 1986). However, in the 2004 Forest Plan, there is increased recognition of all wild plants and animals as valuable and the continuance of a great variety of habitats. The 2004 plan required a movement away from commodity or single species management and towards ecosystem health encompassing diverse and productive wildlife, fish and sensitive plant habitats (SNF Forest Plan 2004). Thus, there has been a move towards the valuation of all wildlife and a more balanced wildlife direction. This has led to an emphasis on ecosystem health and not just individual species.

 

Future vision:

The future of the SNF looks bright. Despite increasing pressures from growing numbers of recreational users and encroaching development, the forest is securely protected and is well managed. Additionally, changing management principles to active management and relying more on the multiple-use sustained yield principles, has put the SNF in the right direction. The citizens of Minnesota are also actively engaged in working with the government in protecting this valued resource.

The SNF is being managed with greater consideration to the long-term ecosystem integrity than ever before. The SNF is also being managed with reflection to the repercussions of its actions on the surrounding communities and economies. With a switch to active management and the requirement for revision of forest plans, the SNF is able to monitor, evaluate and respond efficiently to different situations and the newest science findings. This allows the forest to be managed in the best possible way for the current forest plan, which is in accordance with the ovearching legislative ideals.

Currently, the SNF and the MFRC have been interacting to develop the best applicable management strategies possible. While the SNF Forest Plans do not have to be in accordance with the MFRC plans, they typically do agree. This interaction has benefited the SNF in creating a better vision for the future. Some of the major goals for the future as outlined by the MFRC are: enlarging and protecting Minnesota's forest land base; forest ecosystems are healthy, resilient and functioning; forests are sustainably managed; forest-based economic and recreational opportunities are numerous and forest practices are implemented in effective and efficient manners (http://www.frc.state.mn.us/Info/Vision2.html).