Last week, the Special Committee to Review the MFL [link broken] voted on all seven proposed changes. The outcomes were (if memory serves me right–IT DIDN’T) as follows. Please note that specific language was changed for some proposals, but there general intent remained.
- [PASSED] Allow leasing of MFL land for recreational activities
- [PASSED] Allow for easier additions to existing MFL orders
- [PASSED] Closed acreage fee to be calculated on local actual assessed value for new entries/re-enrollments, not statewide average; closed fee mostly given back to counties and municipalities with some strings related to public access; open acreage fee same as before–i.e., statewide average
- [PASSED] Request the DNR to create rules to allow “MFL groups” of many MFL participants; Intent is to allow greater flexibility and economies of scale; Administratively, MFL groups would be more to industrial MFL enrollees
- [PASSED] Allows for the creation of “forest enterprise zones” to foster local forest-based economic development; Local units of government to receive small payments for participation; Initial pilot phase proposed
FAILEDPASSED] Requests DNR to create rules for determining annual allowable harvest levels for those MFL orders not required to have written management plans
- [PASSED] Requests DNR to create a “managed forest land board of review” in order to settle disputes among landowners and the DNR
An additional motion to change the wording of the MFl purpose statement FAILED. Also, the Committee will also consider a change that will require the DNR to provide flexibility to landowners with upcoming mandatory practices.
Updated Feb 9, 2011