Editor's Column

Guest Columns

Woods Wisdom

Notes From All Over

By: Jim Petersen

Editor’s Note: Gerald A. Rose has been Minnesota State Forester since 1987. He is a 1963 graduate of Michigan State University, and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry. Before his appointment as state forester he held several positions within the Michigan Department of Natural Resources: manager of the Michigamme State Forest, Forest Resource Planning Section Leader and Assistant State Forester. In 1986, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of American Foresters.

Mr. Rose, as state forester, what are your responsibilities?

Minnesota’s State Forestry Agency is responsible for the management of 4.3 million acres of forestland, and we monitor forest health and provide wildland fire protection on non-federal lands. We also provide technical assistance to private landowners and communities, and we work cooperatively with other public and private agencies that are similarly engaged.

When you put your finger on the public pulse what do you learn about Minnesota attitudes toward forests and forestry?

Minnesotans care very much about forests in their state and generally speaking they are well informed where forestry issues are concerned. I attribute this to the fact that many in our state rely on forests for recreation and employment.

Would you agree that the public has within its power the ability to confer on an industry an intangible “license” to do business?

I don’t know that I would call it a ‘license’, but public social concerns can and do play a significant role in how forestlands are managed. The environmentalist sponsored drive toward third party certification of the sustainability of forest management is an example.

Increasingly, Minnesota timberland owners, including counties, are embracing certification, most notably the American Forest and Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative, but also the certification program offered by the Forest Stewardship Council.

How has the industry responded to public pressure, and are its actions sufficient to merit public trust?

According to State Forester Jerry Rose, the Minnesota Logger Education Program has done much to improve the quality of loggers as well as the quality of their work. Thousands of loggers have completed the program, which is designed to help assure compliance with federal environmental regulations and state harvest guidelines.

I’ve been quite pleased by the industry’s proactive response, but public trust seems to be fleeting. Some trust the industry and some don’t. They’ve earned my trust.

Since 1980, Minnesota’s forest product manufacturers have invested more than $3 billion in new plants and environmental technology. In your view, have these investments been positive in terms of the way Minnesotans perceive the industry?

Yes, I think so. But beyond the public’s positive perception of the industry, modernization has driven up the price of wood, which has, in turn, stimulated landowner interest in doing what is necessary to increase forest productivity. So apart from increasing demand for wood fiber—an economic benefit—modernization has also stimulated interest in better forest management practices—an environmental benefit. Increased fiber demand has also forced us to address biological diversity in managed forests, also a plus.

How is the state addressing increased public interest in forestry and forest regulation?

The 1995 Minnesota Sustainable Forest Resources Act has been the centerpiece of our response to increased public interest in forest regulation. However, we chose to make the Act’s guidelines voluntary, rather than write them into law, because we felt a collaborative approach would help us make further progress in our quest for quality management of all forest resources.

Has the voluntary approach worked to your satisfaction?

It certainly has. The level of cooperation between landowners and our department is far higher than it is in states that observe a strict regulatory approach. Most of our landowners have adopted a real ‘can-do’ attitude. It is human nature to want to get public credit for doing good work. Of course the key to our program is monitoring, and compliance is quite high, especially among industrial landowners.

What are you monitoring for?

The after harvest quality of water, wetlands, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, cultural and historic resources and visual conditions. Our comprehensive forest management guidelines set the standard. We monitor for compliance with guidelines and the effectiveness of the guidelines.

Harvest levels on public lands in Minnesota—including state lands—are declining. Is this in response to public concern for overharvesting?

To some degree it is, but mainly it is part of the state’s planned response to a one-age forest. We have lots of old aspen in Minnesota. To capture as much value as we could before it died, we increased the aspen harvest in the 1970s knowing we would later have to reduce it. Our long-term objective is to balance our age classes—meaning that we will have good representation in all age classes: young, middle age and old. Timber production will be emphasized in some areas, but in others we will let forests age to provide habitat for plant and animal species that occupy niches in older forests.

How much of Minnesota’s total harvest comes from state lands, and is the state harvest still significant in economic terms?

State timberlands account for about 16% of the total harvest and generate about $15 million in annual stumpage revenue, so I would say the state harvest is very significant.

How would you characterize the state of forests in Minnesota? For example, is reforestation adequate and are landowners in the aggregate providing a full range of wildlife habitat?

Potlatch Corporation engineering and construction vice president Mike Mangan is dwarfed by the sheer size of this soon to be installed drum de-barker, part of the company’s soon to be completed $525 million  Cloquet modernization. The tumbling action of the revolving drum can de-bark 100 cords of wood per hour.

Minnesota forests are in pretty good shape, and landowner interest in improving stewardship is quite high. Reforestation is more than adequate among planted tree species, such as red pine, and natural regeneration in aspen is prolific. Most if not all of our timberland owners choose to harvest periodically to recover their investments in the land and to finance projects and products of their interests. Still, most landowners are clearly very interested in improving habitat quality. Private timberland owners are the major providers of early succession plant and animal habitat, while federal lands provide most of our late succession habitat. Between our various state and private ownerships we are providing a full range of habitat.

Minnesota’s forest inventory system is widely regarded. Can you describe it to us and tell us why it enjoys such positive notoriety.

Inventory systems are designed to account for growth, harvest and mortality in forests. Most report every ten years. Because we place such a high value on ourforests—and their owners—we developed an annually updated forest inventory system that is based on re-measuring all of our sample plots every four years.

In 1994, Minnesota completed its so-called “Generic Environmental Impact Statement.” What was its impetus and would you characterize the document as your state’s forest roadmap to the future?

The GEIS was done in response to public concern over increased harvesting brought on by the industry’s billion-dollar investment in new manufacturing technologies. You could say it is a roadmap to the future, but like all roadmaps, it will need to be updated whenever significant new information is available.

A year later, in 1995, Minnesota enacted its Sustainable Forest Resources Act. If the GEIS is the roadmap to the future how would you characterize the Act?

If the GEIS is a roadmap, then the Act is the compass. It provides a framework for going forward.

Who is regulated under the Act and for what purpose?

All forest landowners are involved, though I want to say again that no one is regulated. The Act stresses voluntary compliance. We would only adopt a regulatory approach if it became necessary, and it has not. We’re making good progress through voluntary compliance and monitoring at the site level. Where we find problems we seek the most efficient and effective remedy. It may be education, technical assistance, a costsharing program or, as a last resort, a carefully developed and focused regulation. The system is working just as we intended.

In its approach, how does the Minnesota Act differ from, say, the Oregon Forest Practices Act which places strict, legally enforceable restrictions on the activities of private timberland owners.

Our program is voluntary. Theirs is not. They have an army of regulators. We don’t. Our program costs taxpayers a lot less than theirs and I believe we get the same or better result. On the other hand, they face some challenges we don’t face in Minnesota. I cannot over-emphasize the fact that Minnesota timberland owners have given us far more in the way of cooperation and investment than we ever could have hoped to attain had we opted to write our voluntary guidelines into law.

The Minnesota Act gives the governor the authority to appoint a Forest Resources Council. How are council members selected and what is their role?

Council members represent industrial landowners, small timberland owners, environmental organizations, labor, tourism, local government and the academic community. Individuals who desire membership apply to the Secretary of State and are appointed by the Governor. As Council members, they advise on matters of policy. For example—the recently implemented site-level harvesting guidelines.

What has been the industry response to the Act, the Council and the GEIS?

A red pine forest along the “Avenue of the Pines” in the Chippewa National Forest. Scientists believe such stands provide ideal growing conditions for white pine seedlings, which are capable of tolerating modest shade. But introducing white pine to red pine forests requires periodic harvesting. Brush must also be controlled to give seedlings the opportunity to grow. Minus active management white pine seedlings will not survive.

The industry has been very responsive from the beginning.

And how have Minnesota’s loggers responded?

Quite well, I think. The Minnesota Logger Education Program, which provides continuing education for loggers, has done much to improve logger quality as well as the quality of their work.

And how have environmental groups responded to the Act, formation of the Council and the GEIS?

It’s hard to characterize environmental groups. Some have played a significant role and have been very supportive of the Act, while others continue to believe
we are moving too slow or in the wrong direction.

How have federal agencies responded to the Act?

We’ve had marvelous support from the U.S. Forest Service. A good deal of the research underway in Minnesota forests would not be possible without their cooperation and financial support.

Your state legislature also enacted a White Pine Initiative in 1996. What is its objective and is there a connection between the Initiative and environmentalist-sponsored efforts to ban harvesting of white pine?

Yes, the attempt to ban white pine harvesting contributed to enactment of the White Pine Initiative, but the dominant factor was statewide public interest in doing what could be done to increase its presence, bringing it closer to historic levels within our forests. The objective of the Initiative is to bring white pine back into prominence in our forests. Deer browsing, blister rust, historic logging practices and a lack of natural regeneration have all contributed to the species’ plight, but we’re confident that planned public and private sector investments in reforestation, thinning, blister rust and deer browse control, and vegetation management will eventually pay off.

Forest scientists we interviewed say white pine cannot be restored by simply placing timber stands in reserves where no harvesting is permitted. Do you think Minnesotans understand that management, including periodic harvesting, is essential to white pine restoration?

Many Minnesotans are not far removed from family heritages in farming and logging, so I suspect most of them realize that periodic timber harvesting is essential to white pine restoration. Of course urban Minnesotans will want some white pine to be managed for its old-growth characteristics. Our job will be to help them understand that thinning is an essential step in aging a forest.

State harvesting records indicate the white pine harvest is miniscule compared to aspen or red pine. In your view is there a future for Minnesota’s once dominant white pine industry or will it eventually fade away?

There will be more white pine available for harvesting in the future as a result of the Initiative, but the industry that uses it will fill a small niche in a manufacturing complex dominated by paper, oriented strand board and composite materials producers. Aspen, red pine, balsam and spruce will play the dominant role that white pine played a century ago.

These events—the GEIS, the Act, formation of the Council, the White Pine Initiative and industry’s responses to them— would seem to be bode well for your leadership as state forester. Would you rate one or perhaps all of these as your most significant accomplishment?

Potlatch forester Greg Bernu surrounded by 4-month- old aspen sprouts near Cloquet. Though these stands look pure, they often hold 14 or more species of hardwoods and softwoods. Scientists credit soil types, which can vary widely in no more than 40 acres. This helps explain why so many tree species returned to forests that were logged in the early 1900s. Regeneration surveys confirm that where multiple species are present they usually return after harvest.

Oh my, I think it would be more appropriate for me to leave it to others to judge my accomplishments. But speaking personally, I’ve worked hard to engage people of varying points of view in the common cause of improving forests and forestry. Other state foresters around the country would probably say the same thing, though I do believe my job has been made easier by the fact that Minnesotans are very supportive of collaborative approaches to resolving conflict and developing consensus. We aren’t perfect here, but because so many Minnesotans share similar goals where forests are concerned, we are on the cutting edge in dealing with many of forestry’s most contentious problems.

What is the most significant task still facing your department and how are you approaching it?

We still need to get our landscape level guidelines up and running.

Progress was slow initially because landscape level management requires a convergence of many, often competing, scientific disciplines. For example, silviculturists—those who manage timber stands—have not historically had a lot of interaction with wildlife biologists. The GEIS and the Act have forced them to sit at the same table and work toward common goals.

Do you believe Minnesota can avert the legal and political entanglements now so prevalent in other forested regions, particularly western states? If so, how?

I hope so. The credibility of our collaborative process rests on keeping all stakeholders, particularly local stakeholders, at the same table working together for the common good. I emphasize “local shareholders” to underscore my belief that government leaders, in both the executive and legislative branches, need to address the conflict industry’s repeated attempts to disrupt the public will. Special interest groups working at the national level should not have undue power over decision making at the state or community level in Minnesota or any other state.

Draw us a picture of Minnesota forests and forestry in the year 2025?

We will see more natural forests protected and managed at low intensity. These forests will be allowed to grow older to satisfy the public’s desire for older forests. We will also see more Minnesota forests managed more intensively to meet the fiber needs of consumers who are served by our robust and growing forest industry. Hybrid poplar and cottonwoods will become an important new source of wood fiber. Plantations harvested every 10–12 years will occupy now idle farmlands, providing farmers with new economic opportunities. A bright future, I’d say.