ASSESSING IMPACTS OF FOREST HARVESTING - THE MINNESOTA EXPERIENCE

In late 1989, because of concerns related to a major expansion of the forest products industry, the state of Minnesota commissioned a Generi c Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) to assess the cumulative impac ts of timber harvesting. Total harvest, primarily for pulpwood, was in creasing from 3.5 million m(3) in 1975 to an estimated 9 million m(3) in 1992. The GEIS examined the direct impacts of forest management at three alternative levels of annual harvest, base (9 million m(3)), med ium (11 million m(3)), and high (16 million m(3)). Ten major issues, r anging from economics to biodiversity and aesthetics, were considered. Using a 1990 Forest inventory of over 13 000 plots, and computer mode ls that optimized management goals and minimized costs, harvesting sce narios were generated by 10-year increments over a 50-year planning pe riod. The results of the scenarios were evaluated in the context of th e major issues of concern. The GEIS, completed in 1994, concluded that harvesting at the base level would be sustainable if recommended miti gation strategies were implemented. The projected impacts at the mediu m and high levels differed in degree rather than in type compared to t hose occurring at the base harvest level. Harvests exceeding about 12. 5 million m(3) were only sustainable if substantial investments were m ade in forest management. Through political consensus arising via the GEIS, the 1995 Minnesota Sustainable Forest Resources Act appropriated $1.74 million over 2 years to address site-level impacts, establish a n information cooperative, establish a research advisory committee, de velop a framework to coordinate landscape planning, encourage certific ation and education for forestry professionals, and provide technical assistance to private landowners. Although the GEIS did not answer all questions dealing with forest management in Minnesota, it clarified t he issues, identified gaps in information, and helped bring interested parties together in setting the course for forest management in the n ext millennia. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.