minnesota forest resources council - minnesota.gov portal...

* Action item MFRC Minutes DATE

of 13

Minnesota Forest Resources Council

Meeting Minutes

Cloquet Forestry Center

January 24, 2018

Members Present:

Kathleen Preece (Chair), Forrest Boe, Wayne Brandt, Alan Ek, Janet Erdman, John Fryc, Darla

Lenz, Keith Karnes, Tom McCabe, Bob Owens, Dave Parent, Shawn Perich, Deb Theisen.

Members Absent:

Jim Manolis, Susan Solterman Audette

Alternates Present:

Mark Weber (alternate for Greg Bernu)

Staff Present:

DeAnn Stish, Calder Hibbard, Lindberg Ekola, Rob Slesak

Guests:

Connie Cummins from the Superior National Forest, Craig Sterle, retired DNR forester, Ashley

Leonard from the MN Forest Industries, and Dave Zetner from Isaac Walton League

Chair’s Remarks

Kathleen welcomed everyone into the New Year, and said that it seemed like it had been a long

time since the council met last. Kathleen introduced DeAnn Stish, the new executive director of

the council. Kathleen then brought up some housekeeping items, including the following:

mileage rates for 2018 have increased from 0.535 to 0.545 (for those completing

reimbursement forms), the 2018 meeting dates are now scheduled (locations are still to be

determined), corrections to the November 15th meeting minutes, and corrections to the

January 24th agenda.

Ratification of New Executive Director, DeAnn Stish*

Motion was made by Dave Parent, and Janet Erdman seconded the motion to ratify DeAnn

Stish as executive director. Motion passed.


of 13

Approval of Meeting Minutes*

Motion was made by Wayne Brandt and seconded by Alan Ek to amend the meeting minutes.

Wayne Brandt suggested modifying the sentence after the motion to hire Rebecca Barnard to

read “8 yes; 5 no; 1 abstention. The motion failed. The following votes were recorded:”

Wayne also suggested that the second to the last paragraphs be removed from the minutes.

Kathleen agreed. John Fryc motioned for these changes to be amended on the minutes. Janet

Erdman seconded.

Motion to approve amended meeting minutes by Forrest Boe, with Deb Theisen seconding.

Motion passed.

Approval of Agenda*

Motion was made by Deb Theisen, and seconded by Janet Erdman to approve the agenda.

Motion passed.

Executive Director Remarks

DeAnn Stish opened by saying that she was thrilled to be a part of the Minnesota Forest

Resources Council. She commented that it has been a whirl-wind month in terms of learning

her new role and onboarding as a new state employee. She said that this has really been a

unique opportunity to learn more about the council and to start to understand what each

person’s role is within the council as well. She said it has been very eye-opening to see how

much work the staff does on a day-to-day basis to support the council. DeAnn emphasized that

she is extremely excited to be a part of this council and to work with each of the council

members, and the groups that each member represents.

She noted that over the last 20 years, the council has evolved, and now she wants to look

ahead to see what is next for the council. She wants to learn more about the organizations that

each of the council members represents and what interests council members bring to the table.

DeAnn also mentioned that in taking on this new role, she would like to gauge what items

board members feel need to be taken on by the council, and proceed from there.

She also acknowledged the staff and was grateful for their patience with her as she has come to

learn more about her position. She noted that the staff has been more than willing to field her

questions and assist her during her transition. The staff has also helped her to create her own

goals and objectives, so that the work the staff does ties into the council’s strategic plan.

DeAnn then briefly described her goal for communicating with the council. It is her intent to be

open and forward thinking with each member of the council and intends to have fluid

communication during the interim periods between council meetings. She also suggested using


of 13

technological resources, such as weekly email newsletters, to keep all council members

apprised of information that might come up between meetings.

In closing, DeAnn recognized that there are a great number of projects that the council can take

on, and she is excited to start diving into those projects.

Committee Reports

Personnel and Finance

Committee last met on January 18th, 2018. A copy of the meeting minutes was passed out to

council members. The meeting minutes provided a transitional update from the executive

director, as well as a budget update. Kathleen Preece commented that there was a budget

overview that was generated, which shed a lot of light on the council’s budget and was very

informative.

Dave Parent asked Kathleen if the budget report broke down how money was allocated, and

wondering if on the report there were line items to see where money from grants, for example,

went as opposed to money allocated to the DNR, etc. Wayne Brandt said that this recent report

on budgetary information is the best he has seen since being on the council. He clarified that

the grant information was on a separate report, which does break down how each grant is

being spent.

DeAnn said that as part of her transition, it was important for her to try to understand where

the money is being allocated to and was interested in seeing how the budget was broken down.

She also said that moving forward, the council would be looking at the report during the

beginning, middle and ending of each biennium, as well as a fiscal year-end review.

Kathleen commented on the fourth bullet point, which talked about the Personnel and Finance

Committee’s meeting schedule. The committee is committed to meeting four times a year, so

they will have three more meetings in the future. DeAnn followed-up saying that if there are

council members who are interested in being on the Personnel and Finance Committee, to

contact her.

The last bullet point on the meeting minutes discussed the process and procedures taken in the

recent hire of the executive director position. There was consensus at the recent meeting that

the hiring process needs to be more formalized and be defined more clearly. The Personnel and

Finance Committee will work to develop this standardized process and present it to the council

at a later date.

Tom McCabe asked for clarification on who was on the Personnel and Finance Committee.

Kathleen listed off the current members of the committee, and DeAnn followed by saying that

through her new role, she’s learned that historically there have been five members on that

specific committee.


of 13

Site-Level

Dave Parent said that there has not been a meeting since the last council meeting. Rob and

Dave are currently working on putting the next meeting together, which they anticipate to be

fairly soon. Dave also mentioned an interest in a future meeting with the landscape committee

to talk more about watersheds and water quality.

A one-page summary from the Site-level Committee was passed out to council members. It

highlighted recommendations related to water quality and forests. Three main objectives that

were outlined, including: actively supporting and enhancing the DNR’s guideline monitoring at

the watershed scale, evaluating and promoting the effectiveness of guidelines related to water

quality, and the need to assess for development of new or revision of the existing guidelines

related to water quality.

Additionally, the summary included two new efforts that the committee is interested in

pursuing, which includes: evaluating the effect of permanent forest roads at local and

watershed scales, and the promotion / marketing linkages between forest and water quality

and efforts of the forestry communities to limit potential impacts.

Kathleen asked Dave to clarify how these recommendations came to be, since there had not

been a recent meeting. Dave said that these recommendations came from an August 2017

meeting.

Gene Merriam wanted to know what the Site-level Committee was envisioning, when talking

about the different watershed scales. Dave replied that the committee is envisioning the

version that the MPCA is using for its monitoring program. Rob Slesak clarified that it was the

Hoc 8 scale.

Guest Craig Fryc, said that in the past, he was on a committee in the North Shore, and this same

topic came up with the residents of the North Shore and their concerns about watersheds and

tree harvesting. At the time, there wasn’t a resolution, but that they knew that in the future

this topic would need to be looked at again. He encouraged the council to grapple with this

topic as much as the council can, to come to a resolution on how to look at the landscape level

overall timber harvest and the impact on coldwater fisheries

Shawn Perich asked if someone could explain how the council would evaluate permanent

roads. From his perspective, he believed that permanent roads would lead all the way to the

state highway system.

Dave Parent thought that the monitoring would be on state forest and hauling roads. But, that

if there were other roads that seemed to be problematic, those roads could be monitored as

well.


of 13

Rob Slesak said that the monitoring program would only monitor the access roads that are

generally temporary roads used for hauling, for example. These roads are created for a project,

and then abandoned when the project is over. The program staff acknowledge that roads are a

huge source of sediment to water quality impairments. The monitoring program is trying to

make the connection between water quality and forests. The team is trying to assess if there

are any pieces of data that they are not picking up on that might bridge the gap between water

quality and forest management.

Lindberg Ekola commented that the landscape stewardship plans that are supported by the

federal grant, are working to address the water quality and forestry connections. The council

has had several presentations on this topic, but that Lindberg would be more than happy to

gather that data for a future presentation to the council. He said that the impacts from forestry

are much different than other land uses.

Guest Connie Cummins wondered if there were a statewide monitoring strategy that would

include a breakdown of each watershed and the status of it based on monitoring efforts. She

wasn’t sure if there were some sort of report that could highlight watershed areas of concern

or watershed that are improving based on monitoring efforts.

Rob Slesak replied to Connie’s question by saying that the MPCA puts out a report for each

watershed and those reports try to identify what common impairments might be. MCPA has

realized that the process used for forestry watersheds are somewhat flawed and are working

on ways to improve that. Rob also said that MPCA had a meeting on this topic in December

2017 to help look more in depth at forestry watersheds. The participants of this December

meeting quickly realized that the participants didn’t have the technical expertise required to

really tackle this issue. They are now in the process of gathering a more technical group to

address these issues.

Rob did reiterate that there are assessments available, but that the forestry community doesn’t

believe that the assessment matches what is on the ground. There is an effort to try to get the

assessments to more closely match. There is certainly a push to improve the assessments.

Wayne Brandt said that from his understanding of this assessment from afar, it seemed like the

contractor entered the study with a low level of knowledge of understanding, but to their

credit, they are listening to people like Rob, who have a bit more expertise. Rob said that it was

notable that the contractors are engaging and trying to understand that there is enough of a

push-back that their models aren’t adding up to what is seen on the ground. Rob does believe

that the contractor’s expertise is agriculturally focused, instead of forestry focused, and said

that a lot of their models and setting work best in agriculture setting, so it is trying to use what

they have to have it work for forestry settings.


of 13

Landscape Planning /Coordination

Darla Lenz said that the committee has not met since the last council meeting, and there were

no written reports. She then said that last fall, the committee talked about having an

assessment of the landscape committee work to see how it aligns with the council’s strategic

plan and the goals of the resource council. She felt it was important that the executive director

should be on board to move forward with the assessment. The committee will be meeting next

in late February.

Bob Owens commented that there is a lot of good work being done by the regional committees,

which are primarily non-council members. Darla added that the regional committees are a

large group of stakeholders, and she doesn’t think that the council is doing as much as they

could to engage with the regional committees. Kathleen then suggested that any council

member who has not yet attended a regional landscape committee meeting should attend one.

She said those meeting are pretty impressive. Bob echoed Kathleen’s suggestion for board

members to try to attend a regional meeting. He said that phenomenal work is being done.

Information Management Committee

John Fryc passed out two documents. The first document outlined the last meeting the

committee had in December 2017. Some of the topics outlined in this document include:

Interagency Information Cooperative, Blue Ribbon Commission on Forest and Forest Products

research and development in the U.S. in the 21st century, water quality and forests, and private

forest management panel. The second document broke down several potential

recommendations the Information Management Committee had on water quality and forest

issues.

John said that the last meeting the committee had was a very productive meeting. The

committee spent a lot of time talking about water quality in order to get the council

information about this topic. The committee talked in length on what can be done on this topic

and ended up having a poll created for committee members to better assess what issues and

concerns should be brought to the council’s attention.

Calder Hibbard compiled the poll taken and will present the results from the poll during the

afternoon portion of today’s council meeting. John also said that the committee will defer

talking about the private forest management panel until the March council meeting. John

concluded that at the December committee meeting, Dave Zumeta attended the meeting and

was kind enough to take the meeting minutes. At the end of that meeting, the committee took

a moment to thank Dave for all his hard work as the interim executive director.


of 13

Staff Reports

Lindberg Ekola: Five of six regional committees have met since November 2017. There are two

major items that the committees have been working on – the first being the state timber

harvest analysis, which Jon Drimel presented on at the last council meeting. The second topic of

interest for the regional committees is RAC survey, which is currently in the process of

developing the research directions.

Additionally, the committee typically has three written reports a year, the first of those reports

will be forthcoming.

Rob Slesak: All the research projects are moving along, including: erosion control effectiveness,

leave tree effectiveness, and soil operability. Many of the projects were presented at the SAFC

Research Review, which took place several weeks prior to today’s council meeting.

Rob then commented on the monitoring program. DNR’s Dick Rossman is diligently working to

get the monitoring report completed. With the absence of Jennifer Corcoran, there are less

resources available to assist in this report, and there had been some pushback on getting the

report delayed. However, Rob said that the project will be done by the deadline, which is

February 15th, 2018.

Rob went on to say that a lot of his effort has been focused on the Research Advisory

Committee, which is seeking input for research priorities. The survey that was sent out closed

on January 12th, with a pretty good turn-out of about 350 stakeholders. He is now going to

focus his efforts into compiling that data.

Wayne Brandt wondered if a presentation of the above mentioned results would be presented

to the council at the March meeting. Wayne’s question generated discussion on who might be

presenting the study findings in March. It was agreed that it would be good if Dick Rossman

could present those findings.

Rob lastly noted that there was a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Forestry about the

monitoring program. Rob received notice on January 23rd, 2018 that the manuscript has been

accepted.

Calder Hibbard: Defer to next two agenda items.

Written Communication to the MFRC

None.

Sustainable Timber Harvest Analysis

DeAnn Stish opened by breaking this topic into two sections: the first section is that Calder

would provide an update as a stakeholder for the council and the second section would be


of 13

DeAnn opening a discussion on the role the council wants to play, and determining what the

council’s role would be in relation to the analysis.

Calder Hibbard opened by saying that his role in the analysis is to help encourage cooperation

and collaboration in the process, engage a broad range of interests and achieve economic,

environmental and social goals. The message he carried to the group was that MFRC would help

implement the results of the analysis, whatever those results might be.

He said when talking to the analysis group, he and Wayne Brandt brought up the issue of

addressing other ownerships, not only DNR forest lands. They suggested addressing other

ownerships such as other federal, other state, local and private lands. He said that it is

important to understand what is going on with those lands as well.

Calder then commented on the public comment piece of the harvest analysis. He said that 121

individuals and organizations responded during the public comment period. There were 17

emails, and three letters from individuals and 18 letters from organizations submitted. Some of

these organizations included: Audubon Minnesota, Blandin, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwa, Division of

Resource Management, Minnesota Forest Industries, Minnesota Chapter of Wildlife Society,

Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, Minnesota Power, Minnesota Sharp-Tailed Grouse

Society, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, Mississippi Headwaters, Packaging Corporation of

America, Potlatch, Ruffed Grouse Society, American Woodcock Society, SAPPI, and The Nature

Conservancy. There was a vast array of organizations that commented, so the next steps would

be trying to incorporate those suggestions into the analysis. Forrest Boe said that the final

decision is due to the governor and the legislature by March 1st, 2018.

DeAnn Stish said that during the first few days in her position, she and the staff attempted to

send something out to the public about the councils’ existence and structure. She now wants to

look at what role the council should play and how the council would proceed post decision.

Dave Parent said that when he first read the analysis, he thought the first few paragraphs were

a bit strange. He said that from his mindset, he knew that the DNR knows that the MFRC is

around and what the MFRC is about, but perhaps the average person does not. He suspects

that there are several government organizations that are around that the average person

knows nothing about. He went on to say that after reading the analysis a few times, his

impression of it changed.

Alan Ek said that he looked at the analysis from the standpoint of providing information that

the council might be interested in. He said that it was helpful to understand that people have

been running these types of analyses since the 1970’s. He believed that the group that

shepherded this project might not have had the technical expertise needed to complete the

analysis. He went on to say that the answers from the report fell in-line with what he thought


of 13

they would be, but he felt like it was a torturous way to get the end results. The next time this

analysis is developed, he hopes that it will be a lot less torturous and a lot more constructive.

He thought the results were a bit too broad, and would like the next analysis to reflect more

solid and constructive answers.

Alan also said that he hopes that during the next analysis, information is more fluid and there is

more communication. It is his belief that the process tended to be focused on the end result,

and not enough of the technology. He also hopes that during future analyses, the council can be

more involved earlier in the project, instead of getting involved toward the end of the project.

Mark Weber commented that the process identified some future research needs and this might

be able to be addressed for the report.

Connie Cummins suggested that once a decision is made, that the council helps the

implementation of that decision.

Shawn Perich wondered where the state is going in regards to land management. He said that

part of the analysis brings that concern forward. He also wants to know what role the council

plays and he wanted to emphasis that there are some very strong concerns that people have

about wildlife that should be noted.

Wayne Brandt noted that the council has been through a lot of transition over the last few

years, but that it would have been his preference that the DNR utilized the council as a

stakeholder committee. He thought the DNR mirrored a stakeholder committee for this

analysis, instead of using an already existing committee that could have been utilized.

Wayne addressed the timing of the letter that went out for the analysis, and said that

unfortunately, the timing didn’t line up with the council, so there wasn’t enough time for the

council to go over the material and provide pertinent comments. He went on to say that for

their part, Mason, Bruce and Gerard did a good job on the report, but he thought the document

itself was too technical and way too dense. He does believe that there are a number of things

that can be learned from the report, such as the fact that funding has not been kind to the DNR

for stand-level inventory.

Shawn Perich asked if this analysis going to be used to guide decisions about harvest levels on

state lands. Forrest Boe replied that yes, this analysis would be used to make decisions.

Forrest Boe said that this is the best and most thorough analysis that has ever been done. He

believes that this is the most cutting-edge analysis the DNR has done. He noted the fact that

the DNR went outside of their resources and consulted with a third party to provide more

expertise. He said he believed a lot of good information came from this analysis, but that this

analysis should really be done every 10 years. This isn’t a one-and-done report, by any means.


of 13

Forrest thanked the council for weighing in and providing comments throughout the process.

There has been a lot of really good feedback, but did acknowledge that a few things could be

improved upon - such as inventory.

Alan Ek commented that he thought the models from the analysis were too simple. Modeling

systems have improved over the years, so he would have liked to see more detailed models. He

also thought that ground investment assumptions were missing from the report.

He went on to say that Minnesota’s forests are not intensively managed. He also questioned

the comprehensiveness of the report. He said that collectively people are interested in all of

Minnesota’s forests, not just those that are reserved. However, the study took about 1/3 of all

the forests out of the study. The report was focused more on possible harvest locations than

anything else and didn’t address unproductive acres or reserved acres.

Committee of the Whole: Status of the MFRC Strategic Plan Implementation

Calder Hibbard referenced the MFRC strategic plan. He reviewed the four main goals, which

are: water quality, invasive species, private forest management and health of the forest

products industry. He went on to say that the strategic plan is good through 2020, but that it

would be a good idea to assess how the council is addressing these goals.

DeAnn said that the council will talk more in-depth about the issues of water quality during this

afternoon session, and then she would like to focus on a different goal for each of the

upcoming meetings. She then brought up the current structure of discussing a topic at one

meeting, and then the council would vote on that topic at the next meeting. She highlighted the

fact that there could be improved communication between meetings, especially if additional

information became available between meetings. She said that she would like to see a more

engaged dialogue during these meetings. She also wondered if it were possible to get a

document drafted on each of the four goals that the council could then approve.

Calder clarified that, historically, the council had identified the four main priorities, but really

had a chance to scratch the surface on one or two of the priorities. He said that there had been

a suggestion made that the council try to address all four priorities at the same time.

Darla Lenz noted that it seems that DeAnn has identified a weakness in the council’s process

and protocol, but she believes that these types of discussions will help the council find a

solution to these weaknesses.

Forrest Boe commented that the council is not as organized as it could be, and because of that,

the council is not well-versed on how to respond to certain issues. However, the council is really

good at responding to long-term issues, since it is easier to continue to meet and discuss those

issues. Short-term issues, though, are a problem area. The council needs to figure out where


of 13

they stand on issues, depending on the timeframe to make a decision. He also commented that

it is entirely possible that the council may not be able to come to a general consensus.

DeAnn also expressed an interest in modernizing the council website, and maybe consider

utilizing other communication platforms in the future. She also said that Susan Solterman

Audette was interested in exploring what communications opportunities where available to the

council.

Kathleen proposed a break for lunch. She asked council members to reconvene by 1:00 p.m.

for the effects of moose habitat presentation by Mike Schrage.

MFRC members reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

Effects of Moose Habitat Improvement Efforts on Northeastern Minnesota Moose Population

Shawn Perich introduced Mike Schrage, who is the wildlife biologist from the Fond du Lac Band

of Lake Superior Chippewa.

Mike opened by thanking the council for the opportunity to come speak about the moose

population. He said that the moose are a bit of an iconic species to northern Minnesota. There

are more moose in the Superior National Forest, than in any other national forest in the

Midwest, and Minnesota has the best moose numbers regionally. That being said, there has

been a population decline from 2005-2017. The moose numbers are half of what they there 20

years ago.

Mike unpacked a few reasons for this decline, including: heath issues, predation, climate

change, and possible habitat decline. Moose are very tolerant of extreme cold, but are far less

tolerant of extreme heat. An additional challenge that the moose face, is the decline of their

habitat. Mike spoke about several fires over the last 20 years that have really destroyed the

moose habitat and food source (Pagami Creek fire, Trout Lake fire, etc). It has been noted,

though, that after the vegetation has had a chance to regenerate, the moose have slowly been

coming back to some of those fire-ravaged areas.

Despite the fires that have caused habitat issues, Mike does believe that certain types of fire

are good for the moose, because they creates abundant forage. Fires also reduces or eliminates

parasites. Brain worms and winter ticks – which cause health issues in moose – can be

destroyed by fire, which would then help the moose population.

Mike concluded by explaining how there have been aerial surveys being done. These surveys

can observe the vegetation cover and identify three treatment types for these areas. The three

focus types are: wildfire, prescribed burn, and timber management. The surveys really try to

identify the moose population and how adjustments to their habitats can help increase the

moose numbers.


of 13

Water Quality and Forests

John Fryc and Calder Hibbard passed out a one-page handout outlining a few recommendations

to the council about water quality and forest issues. Calder said that the IMC compiled 22

action items, and the committee was able to condense that down to six action items. The six

action items are:

Continue and increase watershed monitoring / maintain and enhance program and

staffing

Integrate with other efforts

Explore role of guidelines in enhancing water quality

Note changes in forest ownership/conversion/ no net loss

Determining thresholds/what are they (climate)

Marketing efforts regarding forests and water

Rob Slesak commented that the council was already achieving the first action item, but said

that the DNR has the capacity to continue to support the watershed program.

Darla Lenz said that she thought the third action item is really broad. Rob replied that there can

always be more done to enhance water quality. He also asked how the implementation of the

program could be improved.

Shawn Perich said that a water quality issue moving forward could be the water temperature.

He said that the trout streams of the north shore are some of the most vulnerable streams in

the Great Lakes. There has been a change is the species of trout that have been inhabiting

those northern streams. There has been a shift from mostly brook trout to mostly rainbow

trout in those streams. The brook trout cannot sustain the summer temperatures. He also

noted that as these lakes and streams warm up, there will be a change in which fish species can

sustain those changing water temperatures.

Bob Owens said the more the council learns about water quality issues, the more of a priority it

is becoming.

Guest Dave Zetner said that there is a conversation being had, by various divisions and NRRI,

about doing a major North Shore watershed climate adaptation pilot study. One of the

challenges is learning what different agencies are doing to address this water quality issue.

Public Communications to the MFRC

None.


of 13

MFRC Member Comments

Kathleen Preece said that the Twin Cities would be a good place for the March meeting. It was

agreed upon that St. Paul would be a good place for the next meeting.

DeAnn said that for the next council meeting, she thought it was a good idea to have an update

and possible action item on the timber harvest analysis. She also wants to have a further

discussion on water quality to formulate a general consensus. Forrest Boe suggested that Dick

Rossman come and give a presentation at the March meeting. Lindberg added that he can pull

some data together for the next meeting.

In closing, Kathleen thanked the council and staff for their patience and extra support as DeAnn

steps into her new role. With that, she opened it up for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Dave Parent moved, and Wayne Brandt seconded, adjourning the meeting. The meeting was

adjourned at 2:25 p.m.

minnesota forest resources council - minnesota.gov portal...

Documents