the Montana Forester

Summer 2003

A LETTER BY ROGER LUND

Dear Congressman Pombo:

I attended the "Management Challenges on Montana's National Forests" meeting of the Committee on Resources at Seeley Lake, MT on July 2.

Considerable discussion revolved around managing the national forests to reduce risk of fire damage to Private property within the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI), and secondly damage to the forest resource itself (including all the flora and fauna and the soil, air, and water resources) throughout the national forests.

USFS Chief, Dale Bosworth stated his goals succinctly: thin the WUI from below (for some distance into the forest depending on each existing situation) then begin to put the forest outside the WUI under management. Dale favors thinning from below throughout the forest. This would yield both commercially valuable timber and clear out smaller trees and brush both live and dead. Dale has stated that all the large trees should be left, but I don't believe this would be a good plan nor would the fire hazard be greatly reduced.

Tree crowns should be separated 10 to 30 feet to reduce the chance of a spreading crown fire. Opening the crowns in this manner (crown thinning) will yield a small or a high number of large size trees depending on conditions. Of course, the early seral (disturbance-dependent, pioneer) species should be favored to represent the residual stand. Ponderosa pine should be reserved from cutting based on the above spacing criteria but especially on the Keene Classification. The Keene Classification will assure that trees reserved from harvesting should be the phenotypically desirable trees, free of disease and showing the best vigor and form qualities.

I believe it is utterly important from a fuels and fire wise concept to break up the otherwise continuous even-height crown canopies of existing unmanaged stands. Management activities should take place throughout the forest classified as "Suitable for Intensive Management". Where this treatment is appropriate, the initial entry into the unmanaged or partially managed stands should concentrate on a crown thinning and thinning from below as I have just described. However there will always be areas of severe disease incidence or insect infestation where a regeneration harvest is most appropriate. Where those situations seldom exist, regeneration harvests should be scattered throughout the forest. These regeneration harvests will require some clearcuts but also seed tree and shelterwood harvest areas - all of which will result in diversity of tree age classes, vegetation, and wildlife forms as well as breaking up the otherwise even crown canopy of stands and forests. Salvage of diseased, insect infested, and/or high fire hazard trees within unsuitable lands should be a recognized policy.

Where forests are left unmanaged whether in roaded areas or Inventoried Roadless areas, the following outcomes will result:

Shade-tolerant species will become dominant. In the absence of wildfire, or aggressive prescribed fire, forests will become more and more crowded with trees, and the early seral tree species will become crowded and gradually stressed and weakened due to competition for space and soil moisture. Trees will become weakened and more susceptible to insect and disease mortality, thus leaving in their place, sub-climax to climax, shade-tolerant species that are even more susceptible to stem, foliar, and root disease, as well as to windthrow and insect damage. Most shade-tolerant species are less resistant to fire damage than the early seral species. Here in the Rocky Mountain West the seral species are ponderosa pine and western larch in the montane and semi-xeric forests while Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine, and in some areas, Engelman spruce are usually seral on more mesic and higher elevation forests. Forests more populated with the early seral species are mostly more resilient and sustainable in the long term than those forests more heavily stocked with shade-tolerant species.

Widespread, mega-fires will often follow the heavy fuel build-up as the unmanaged stands further develop over the next several and more decades. Fires that ultimately become ignited will often be large, hard to control, widespread, and damaging forest fires. Of course, dry conditions accompanied by a wind event will exacerbate the situation. Witness the Montana fires of 2000 and those in recent years in Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon. Huge sums of money have been spent, and much more will be spent on future blazes, to attempt control of such fires and for post fire erosion control, rehabilitation, and reforestation. Sheet, rill, and streambed erosion has been severe, as has accompanying sedimentation of creeks, streams, rivers and lakes. This type of damage will be repeated on burned over unmanaged areas in the future. Once healthy and productive fisheries have experienced heavy damage, as will be the case following future wildfires burning under the unnaturally heavy fuel loads.

The forest can be thought of as a living organism. Its development cannot be stopped nor frozen in time. Forests cannot be preserved as is, but can only be maintained through active management. In a naturally growing forest, portions will be in early stages: grass, shrub, tree seedling, sapling, and young trees, while other portions are in mature, decadent, and finally a dying condition. Stocking control is important in younger and even mature stands, but the decadent and dying stages of existing forest stands should also be modified and controlled as to timing, place, and area involved. For this, mankind's intervention is far more desirable than uncontrollable wildfire for all the reasons expressed above.

It is my hope that the environmental community will become aware of the ecological needs of forests, and come to understand that the vast forests of the west must be managed to maintain the health and overall sustainability of all resources, uses, and values.

Roger C. Lund

A Word from the Chair - Active Forest Management, by Patrick Heffernan

The current debate over forest management seems to get more and more complicated. The issue of the day is forest wildfire and the concern for damage to rural communities, wildlife habitat and watersheds. Interestingly, there seems to be no concern today about the loss of timber resources, when it was the primary reason for fire suppression in the first place!

The Montana and Inland Empire SAF State Societies have completed the joint Active Management Position Statement (see complete text on Page ?). This has been approved by the National Office, but, interestingly, despite the support of the SAF National Policy Committee, SAF Council declined to authorize the Position Statement as a National SAF Position.

Others are getting in to the position game also. We heard about the Sierra Club’s positions on community protection, fuel reduction and thinning at the March Annual Meeting. Other environmental groups are taking similar positions, with emphasis on protecting the communities by creating protection zones, so that wildfires can continue to burn, while communities are protected from direct damage.

Congress, the administration, federal and state land management agencies, the Western Governor’s Association and the National Association of Counties, among others, are weighing in with various legislation, rulemaking, plans and programs. Everyone seems to be busy building their perfect stable and has a favorite horse to ride. What we have is a confusing mixture of propaganda, policy, funding, information and practice. But who is paying attention to real solutions?

Many forestry professionals have researched, experimented and implemented management practices – to illustrate and achieve the possibilities of active forest management. This knowledge and practice can be put to good use in achieving publicly held goals and objectives for our forests – including addressing the wildfire questions.

Of course, this all becomes very complicated when we add in the mix of forest and rangeland ownership and the complicated mixture of individual goals and objectives in small private holdings in the wildland urban interface. Layer this on top of the existing policy map, crippled agency processes, a lack of will to fund and properly staff management programs and add in another wrinkle - our declining wood processing and agricultural infrastructure - and you’ve got a real mess.

In my mind, the wildfire questions fall into three related areas: Where do we desire and need to replicate or continue widlfire? Where do we desire and need to minimize wildfire? Where do we need to take action to achieve these goals?

Obviously, the wildland urban interface is a place where we all would desire to minimize wildfire; this is clear in all positions – it is in the best interest of the public at large. Deciding where we want to have wildfire as a desirable process of forest and rangeland management depends on the ownership’s goals and objectives – perhaps an easy choice for a private landowner; a complex one with public land.

For public lands, we need to agree on goals and objectives and the areas suitable for such purposes. This is what forest planning is meant to be all about – different forest types in different successional stages are suited to meet a variety of goals and objectives. But you can’t fit a square peg in a round hole. Similarly, if plans don’t get implemented, we know the default button in our intermountain forests – serendipitous wildfire - that may, or may not, meet our goals and objectives.

So what to do? As professional foresters, we need to clarify the current confusion between forest restoration - where action is taken to create the balance of vegetation necessary to emulate the historical fire regime and thus accommodate wildfires - and community protection – where action is taken, despite historical fire regime, to create the balance and maintenance of vegetation necessary to minimize wildfire.

If we can do this summer, it will help with public understanding and in the design of policy, law and rulemaking, so that we may have a rational base from which to practice active forest management.

The MTSAF

Executive & Policy Committee members have been extremely busy this spring & early summer. The Joint Position Statement by the IESAF & MTSAF concerning Active Forest Management was completed & distributed at the Western Governors' Association (WGA) meeting held in Missoula June17-19. MTSAF participated in the planning & execution of a very successful WGA meeting. Governor Martz said the field trip conducted at Lubrecht Experimental Forest & on the Seeley Lake Ranger District "exceeded all her expectations". MTSAF members served as tour leaders, moderators & panel participants during the three day event. SAF Executive Vice President Michael Goergen Jr. & National Policy Committee Chair Michael Mortimer also attended the WGA meeting in Missoula.

MTSAF members also paricipated in a Congressional Field hearing hosted by the House Committee on Resources. The Field Hearing focussed on Management Challenges on Montana's National Forests. Witnesses included Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Dale Bosworth, Doug Mood, Sherm Anderson, Bob Harrington, Gordy Sanders, Anne Dahl, Kim Liles & Steve Kelly. Congressional members also toured Pyramid Mountain Lumber Inc. prior to the field hearing.

It was gratifying to see so many MTSAF members involved with such important events.

SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT REQUIRES ACTIVE MANAGEMENT

A joint position statement of the Inland Empire and Montana Societies,

Society of American Foresters

(Note: The document in its entirety is available by request, it includes definitions and references)

Adopted by the Executive Committee of the Inland Empire Society of American Foresters (IESAF) on May 5, 2003, and by the Executive Committee of the Montana Society of American Foresters (MTSAF) on April 15, 2003, and approved by the Director, Forest Policy, Society of American Foresters. This position statement will expire in five years unless revised or extended by the Executive Committees.

Position

To provide the range of values people seek from forests, the IESAF and MTSAF advocate an active approach to forest management (see bold terms in the Definitions section below). The overall health and condition of forests in eastern Washington, northern Idaho, and Montana could be improved using a sustainable forest management strategy using a variety of cultural operations focused on attaining ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially desirable management objectives. We advocate active management of forest resources instead of passive management to attain the goal of sustainability. In addition to active management, as defined below, we support an adaptive management approach to forest ecosystem management.

Issue

The range of different strategies to meet forest management goals can be narrowed to two approaches: active or passive management. Some people seem to prefer passive approaches that allow forests to evolve with minimal human intervention. Active approaches involve the application of various cultural operations and forest management practices for a variety of purposes. For meeting many objectives, active management can be more effective, efficient and more timely than passive management. For example, assessment of federal forest resources in this region provides evidence that conditions could be improved, and federal scientists believe active management will provide what people want from federal forests and protect the long-term ecological integrity of federal forests more effectively than a passive management strategy (Quigley et al. 1998). Nevertheless, some people seem to prefer passive management, as reflected in their use of tactics to eliminate active management projects involving timber harvesting on federal lands.

Background

Much of the debate about sustainable forest management arises from the lack of agreement on appropriate forest land and resource management objectives. (Each italicized phrase is briefly discussed below.) Once objectives are set, the operations and practices for attaining them are selected. Debate about forest management practices often focuses on timber harvesting, and especially clearcutting (SAF 2002a), but may also involve the use of chemicals (SAF 2001a) and fire control and use (SAF 2002b). (See the SAF position statements supporting these practices.) To attain resource management objectives, passive management is simply not an option. From the professional forester’s perspective, active management can be more effective than passive management, and the issue becomes selecting appropriate cultural operations and forest management practices to attain objectives.

Management Objectives Vary by Ownership Category. The key to effective forest management is setting objectives. On private forests, owners determine the management objectives within the constraints set by state laws and policies regarding reforestation, slash disposal, and water quality protection. On state forests, the same laws and policies must be met and objectives also must be consistent with the goal of sustainably providing revenue for public schools. On federal forests, especially the national forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the goal defined in public policy is sustained yield of multiple goods and services determined by comprehensive planning involving the public and in light of environmental impact analysis; specific objectives and activities must be consistent with such plans and also involve the public and analyze environmental impacts (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, National Forest Management Act of 1976, and National Environmental Policy Act of 1970).

Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands. The Society of American Foresters supports commercial and non-commercial timber harvesting on federal lands allocated for such use through land and

resource management planning (SAF 2001b). The SAF position states that current harvest levels on federal lands are insufficient to maintain forest health, to meet the goals for hazardous fuel reduction to reduce wildfire risk in the nation's forests and provide economic and community benefits. Furthermore, current laws offer more than enough protection to sustain the full range of forest values on public lands, and timber harvesting is a legitimate use of national forests and BLM public lands, as the multiple-use mandates make clear (SAF 2001b).

Active Management can be More Effective than Passive Management. Forest Service scientists concluded in their integrated assessment of resources in the interior Columbia River basin region that when compared with traditional approaches, “active management appears to have the greatest chance of producing the mix of goods and services that people want from ecosystems, as well as maintaining or enhancing long-term ecological integrity” (Quigley et al. 1996). A reserve-based passive management strategy was one alternative approach evaluated by these scientists. Passive management simply would not be as effective as active management in restoring desired conditions on federal lands in the region.

FLATHEAD CHAPTER NEWS

The Flathead Chapter has been busy this Spring with a number of meetings and one tour. We did our April meeting on non-traditional forest products and featured 3 speakers who did a great job telling us about the latest in decorative rock contracts, house log sales and selection, and small diameter forest product development.

In May, we participated in Family Forestry Expo in Columbia Falls. For anyone who hasn't attended Expo, it is a great opportunity to show the public all of the aspects of natural resource management and there are displays on fisheries, raptors, forest management, native plants, back country horsemen, archaeology, competitive logging sports and logging demonstrations, etc. Our SAF chapter also donated $500 to Expo this year. Come join us on the second weekend in May where Expo is free and open to the public.

We held a joint tour in June with the Libby Chapter to visit the Houghton Creek Fire area. The tour was and educational review of an almost 20 year old burn to see what we have learned and un-learned about big fires and rehabilitation of them. The fire burned 12,000 acres in a very short time and crossed several ownerships so the residual forests today are each a little bit different depending upon how they were managed following the old burn. This tour was attended by 41 people and ended with a catered BBQ.

We are hoping to kick off our Fall with a tour of the Northfork River area to view the 2001 Moose Fire and look at salvage logging and regeneration/rehabilitation efforts.....although with 2 new fires burning there, we may have more recent burns to look at.

The Flathead Chapter is also co-hosting next years Annual State Meeting with the Libby Chapter. The meeting will be held on during the last weekend of March 2004 in Whitefish, Montana at the Grouse Mountain Lodge. Please mark your calendars as this is an excellent location and Whitefish offers many other activities and dining options for folks who may wish to bring their families along for an extended weekend vacation. We are still in the process of creating an agenda for the meeting so please send ideas for topics and speakers to Patrick Heffernan.

Society of American Foresters

Joint Field Trip-Libby and Flathead Chapters

Houghton Creek Fire

On June 3, 2003 the Libby Chapter of SAF hosted a joint meeting with their associates from the neighboring Flathead Chapter. The focus of the gathering was to share information and insights on the Houghton Creek Fire, a lightning caused wildfire that started on August 15^th 1984 and burned over 12,000 acres of State, Forest Service, and St. Regis Corporation lands (now owned by Plum Creek).

The group met at the Historic Raven Ranger Station and enjoyed an area overview and slide presentation by tour organizer Gene Yahvah. The former ranger station is not only an architectural jewel of Forest Service history but happens to be located in the heart of the Houghton Creek Fire. Due to the valiant efforts of firefighters and good fortune, no structures were damaged in that event. The slide presentation focused primarily on the land management activities that took place in this area before the fire, the fire suppression efforts, the timely and extensive timber salvage, and the very successful reforestation effort that followed. Gene Yahvah is a retired forester who, from 1961 through 1988, was the area manager for the corporate lands that were affected by the fire.

Tour participants learned that the fire wiped out $300,000 in forest management investments made in the three decades preceding the fire, including 670 acres of established plantations, 1,728 acres of managed sapling-size stands, and 35 MMBF of timber. Gene noted that salvage of fire-killed timber began on company lands while the fire was still burning, resulting in the salvage of over 30 MMBF. Clear objectives and prompt action resulted in the planting of over 3,000 acres (over 2.5 million trees) and aerial seeding of about 1,400 acres. Scattered surviving overstory trees provided a supplemental seed source for natural regeneration of some areas. Retired company forest manager Russ Hudson explained the efforts required to secure appropriate seed and seedlings to reforest the company lands and applauded the financial backing of top corporate management that enabled the local foresters to do so. Gene noted that despite the significant losses to managed stands, the fire behavior was slowed on many fronts in conditions where stand manipulation had occurred and/or where the fuels had been treated during silvicultural activities.

Following numerous stops to view and discuss fire salvage and restoration efforts on State and Forest Service lands the group returned to Raven to enjoy a catered BBQ and Mitch Richael’s home brew. After dinner the group heard a presentation by Kootenai National Forest Archaeologist Becky Timmons on the history of the Ranger Station, its cultural significance, and the ‘adoption’ of the long neglected site by Communities for a Great Northwest, a non-profit organization dedicated to providing education and information on forest management issues. CGNW president Bruce Vincent gave a Power Point presentation on the Provider Pals program, a local _ educational exchange program which is based out of the Outdoor Education Learning Center at Raven. This program aims to build an understanding between the culture of urban youth and rural resource providers (ie: miners, loggers, ranchers, farmers) and students.

The field trip and associated presentations were very interesting and an effective means of bringing together land management professionals, retired foresters, and local elected officials to discuss and view the effects of wildfire and to demonstrate the appropriateness and effectiveness of prompt recovery and restoration efforts.

Russ Gautreaux

Libby Chapter Membership Chair

Arbor Day

Despite cold temperatures and gusty winds, nine Missoula Chapter, Montana

SAF members and friends gathered to plant trees. One to celebrate Arbor

Day and two, to establish a Memorial to SAF members that served in the

Korean Conflict. Members planted two aspen seedlings, two aspen saplings,

one autumn maple and on burr oak.

Forestry Organization to Honor Nation’s Best Field Foresters

The Society of American Foresters (SAF) has recognized 11 foresters with its Presidential Field Forester Awards. Initiated by SAF past-president Fred Ebel, the awards recognize foresters who have displayed uncommon talent and innovative methods to achieve a record of excellence in the application of forest management. “Forester practitioners are the true foundation of our profession,” says Ebel. “They often operate in complete anonymity, yet their actions are the single most important contribution to the viability and understanding of our profession. This is where forestry truly happens and it is important that we recognize those who perform the art and science of forestry each and every day.” Given the regional differences in forestry, the award recipients are selected from each of the 11 SAF voting districts. The following are this year’s award winners.

Michael P. Anderson of Perryville, Missouri, forestry district supervisor with the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Gary Blanchard, chief forester for Starker Forests in Corvallis, Oregon.

John M. Dunn of Alexandria, Louisiana, district forester with Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, LP.

Anthony Filauro, area forester with Great Northern Paper, Inc., in Millinocket, Maine.

Keith D. Horn, president of Keith Horn, Inc., in Kane, Pennsylvania.

L. Keville Larson, vice-president and part owner of Larson & McGowin in Mobile, Alabama.

William F. Milliken, founder of the Milliken Forestry Company, Inc., of Columbia, South Carolina.

Joseph F. Murray of Clallam Bay, Washington, forester for Merrill and Ring, Inc., in Port Angeles, Washington.

Doug Nickles, urban fire forester for the Glendale (California) Fire Department.

Stephen E. Patterson of McCall, Idaho, forest silviculturist for the Payette National Forest.

Ronald W. Severs, forest manager at the University of Minnesota’s Cloquet Forestry Center.

The awards will be presented at the 2003 SAF National Convention, which will be held October 25-29 in Buffalo, New York. For more information about the award winners, visit the SAF website at http://www.safnet.org/who/nationalawards.cfm. The Society of American Foresters is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 17,000 professional foresters and natural resource professionals. It is the scientific and educational association representing the profession of forestry in the United States. The Society’s primary objective is to advance the science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of society.

Policy Committee

by Tim Love

Policy Committee Chair

The MTSAF Executive & Policy Committee members have been extremely busy this spring & early summer. The Joint Position Statement by the IESAF & MTSAF concerning Active Forest Management was completed & distributed at the Western Governors' Association (WGA) meeting held in Missoula June 17-19. MTSAF participated in the planning & execution of a very successful WGA meeting. Governor Martz said the field trip conducted at

Lubrecht Experimental Forest & on the Seeley Lake Ranger District "exceeded all her expectations". MTSAF members served as tour leaders, moderators & panel participants during the three day event. SAF Executive Vice President Michael Goergen Jr. & National Policy Committee Chair Michael Mortimer also attended the WGA meeting in Missoula.

MTSAF members also participated in a Congressional Field hearing hosted by the House Committee on Resources. The Field Hearing focused on Management Challenges on Montana's National Forests. Witnesses included Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Dale Bosworth, Doug Mood, Sherm Anderson, Bob Harrington, Gordy Sanders, Anne Dahl, Kim Liles & Steve Kelly. Congressional members also toured Pyramid Mountain Lumber Inc. prior to the field hearing.

It was gratifying to see so many MTSAF members involved with such important events.

SAF National Convention

October 25-29

Buffalo, New York

Forest Science in Practice

“...you’ll witness the marriage of science and practice though case studies and success stories.”