INTERMEDIATE TREATMENTS ACTION TEAM

                                      

Team Recommendation: 

Use intermediate harvest across all ownerships to advance forest productivity, whether it’s for timber, wildlife, recreation, biodiversity and/or biomass.

                                        

Here is the summary of the Itasca Community College Boiler project that was distributed at the Jan. 16 informational meeting.

                                        

Click here for the intermediate treatments survey

As you recall, based on our learning and experiences in Minnesota, Ontario, Finland, and Sweden, an action agenda was developed. One of the major agenda items was the following recommendation, which was developed by you - the Intermediate Harvest Team:

 

"Use intermediate treatments across all ownerships, to advance forest productivity, whether for timber, wildlife, recreation, biodiversity, and/or biomass."

 

The first action step to that recommendation was to "Evaluate each ownership's infrastructure, policies, and organization to determine if changes need to be made to accomplish intermediate treatments."

 

To initiate that first step, Cheryl Adams, Jim Sanders, and I have drafted a short summary, which we will ask the Minnesota Forest Resources Partnership to respond to. The MFRP seemed the logical organization to query, as its members represent nearly all land ownerships and management in Minnesota.

 

YOU ARE BEING ASKED to review this survey and provide feedback on the content of the survey to Cheryl, Jim and I via an email or phone call back to me. I will incorporate the respective changes and then distribute the survey to the MFRP for its review and consideration.

 

Please have your comments back to me by next Wednesday, Dec. 10th. If you do not have any changes, your acknowledgment of receipt of the attachment and opportunity to have looked it over, will be appreciated.

 

Wishing you a grand weekend! Skating is good in my part of the woods.

 

best-

Kathleen Preece

                                        

Draft Action Plan 

Click here to view the action plan, as revised by Cheryl Adams based on feedback from the first draft.  See Cheryl's remarks about the revision in tehe "Comments" section below, dated 11/6.  

Please feel free to add your additional input by hitting "comment" button below.  Please provide input before November 10, which is the date that this will be ciruclated to all project participants for their review. 

 

Comments

[Matt Rezac]

Comment from Dave Schad on 11/4/08:

All: Sorry I was not able to make yesterday's call. I have one additional suggestion for an action--to organize a research project to investigate the ecological and economic issues associated with thinning/intermediate harvests in early-successional forests.

Some background: Due to the abundance of aspen on Minnesota's landscape, much of the opportunity for intermediate harvests will be in these stands. There is concern from ruffed grouse interests that early entries into aspen stands will diminish their value as grouse habitat. There may be impacts to other wildlife species associated with early successional forests. Based on discussions with a few others (Dave Zumeta, Mike Kilgore, and Dave Epperly), other research needs include assessing the economics associated with intermediate harvests in these stands, and studying the response of different aspen clones to thinning.

Thanks for considering this idea. I would be willing to take the lead and convene a meeting of folks to further flesh this out and start to pull together funding...Dave Schad

[Matt Rezac]

Comment from Mark Jacobs on 11/04/08:

Cheryl & all:

Looks good... I just have a few observations that will likely highlight my lack of first-hand experience on the Nordic tour.

We list release and pre-commercial thinning as well as commercial thinning.
Are we focused on intermediate harvests or intermediate treatments (or both)? I view both as silvicultural activities that promote future forest benefits (with harvest providing some near-term commercial benefits).
Promoting intermediate harvests (commercial) will likely involve education and encouragement; while intermediate treatments (pre-commercial) may also require some additional funding.

Release can run the gamut from aerial chemical treatments to a crop tree release. Where do you see our primary focus?

Soapbox time: In Ontario Jim Sanders made a statement that in many ways framed the reason for my involvement in VF/VC projects over the years. I can't repeat it as eloquently as Jim (correct me if I misinterpreted your
meaning) but my spin is... a forest management activity, including timber harvest, is a silvicultural treatment with an objective to create a forest condition (short and long-term); forest products, wildlife habitat, etc., are potential benefits of the activity. I don't know that this is the view of many or perhaps most forest/land managers in MN, as the agriculture model of "timber harvest is a project to produce a crop" appears to be the more prevalent view. We focus more on the product than the process. If we can start changing the MN forester mindset from being timber sellers to forest managers we will have accomplished a great thing that will potentially provide more wood fiber and other benefits than the current situation. I've always viewed forestry as an art as well as a science; and that implies a creative aspect. I don't think that the overall "climate" in the forestry community rewards creativity and we will need creative solutions to increase forest productivity in MN. It seems that a lot of folks spend a lot of time and effort trying to find excuses not to do something that is outside the norm. * End of rant.

See what you all missed! Aren't you glad I didn't show up in Scandinavia!

MJ

[Matt Rezac]

Posted by Cheryl Adams on 11/6:

Hi All,

I made some changes per people's comments.

First, after reading Mark's comments, I looked up the correct terminology in a couple of silviculture books for what we are talking about. Anything that is done to a stand prior to a regeneration harvest (clearcut, seed tree, shelterwood, selection) can be called either an intermediate treatment or entry. This does not include salvage cuts or sanitation harvests. I, therefore, changed "harvest" to "treatments" in our work.
Also, at this stage, I don't think we want to get too prescriptive (chemical vs. brushsaw release).

Second, I agree with Mark's comments about attitudes.

Third, I incorporated Dave Schad's comments but took editorial liberties.
I made it more generic than wildlife because I have concerns about the biomass guidelines not addressing multiple entries in the same stand over time. I believe that there are some plant communities that would benefit from multiple removals (fire dependent) whereas others (northern hardwoods) it would be a detriment. In Finland, they only allow one biomass removal per rotation (80-100 years). Also, let's think out of the box and long term because intermediate entries can be used to enhance stand structure and the initial entry viewed by itself may actual be a detriment to wildlife but down the road may improve it. I would hope we would not get hung up about single species management but develop the landscape with multiple successional stages that would benefit a range of organisms which would include pure and mixed stands according to the plant communities.

Enough rambling.... if you could get any additional comments/ corrections back to me by Friday so I can get them together for Matt by Monday, would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!
Cheryl

[Matt Rezac]

Posted by Dave Schad on 11/6:

Thanks, Cheryl. I agree with the more generic approach to the research issue. I also concur with your observations related to wildlife impacts (the need to look long-term, multiple benefits of more structurally diverse stands, etc.). I do believe that we will need to address ruffed grouse questions specifically, as I have already heard from some of those folks since we returned from Scandinavia and they are an active and vocal bunch. However, we can do this in the context of a broader wildlife or ecological assessment. Thanks for your work on this...Dave

[Kathleen Preece]

Fellow Blandin "tour" group (just what DO we call ourselves?)

In keeping with my traditional attempt to establish, and keep, a new year's resolution or two, I am following up on our commitment to the Blandin Foundation to carry through with some of our ideas and thoughts on moving forestry along in Minnesota, post tours of 2008.

As part of our Private Landowner learning log, I have two questions/requests of you:

Background: The office of BetterFORESTS magazine is sending out a survey to as many outdoor/natural resource enthusiasts it can reach to gauge interest in outdoors/resources, what's working and what is not. As you recall, one of our group's recommendations was to increase/improve incentives to private landowners to interest them in better management (or at least 'some') management! of their respective woodlands and land ownerships.

The question/request of you: From your perspective, what are two- to three questions that would be important to ask? For instance, we have already included some basics: What prevents you from managing your woodlands, and/or from engaging in outdoor activities? (time, money, interest, fear . . etc.) How do you like to obtain your information? (personal contact, newsletter, internet, etc.)
If you would give me your two-cents worth, in other words, suggest one to three questions you feel appropriate for such a survey, it will be both helpful to the survey- and maybe even relieve you of one new year's commitment.

The other request of you: If you have an email or hard copy mailing list you feel appropriate to send the survey to, please forward that to me and we will send the survey to that list. The list is useful only for this survey and for no other business. On the survey, respondents have the opportunity to leave their mailing address if they wish to receive a copy of survey results. But this is optional. Thus, again, no record of this list will be kept.

After all of that, i do wish you hopeful steps into this new year. We begin them quite coldly in my part of the woods, with the outside temps hovering at minus 26 and even the birds choosing NOT to come out and visit the feeders yet.

best-
Kathleen

[Jim Marshall]

Hi Kathleen,
Reviewing your mail below, I see the outdoor temperature is apparently what keyed me to respond today--ours was about 26 or 27 below, just what you reported 8 days ago.

Possible questions for survey, if I am not too late:

a) What is your favorite thing about owning forest land?
b) If you don't already have and follow a management plan, would you like to?
c) Does timber harvesting seem appropriate for your land? Would you be interested in harvesting if there were more assurance the logger would do a good job?
d) If you want to pursue this, do you know where to find advice or assistance?

Jim Marshall