A Resource Analyst’s View of Minnesota’s Forest Resources — Past, Present and Future.

1. A Resource Analyst’s View of Minnesota’s Forest Resources—Past, Present and Future. Alan R. Ek Professor and Head, Department of Forest ResourcesandDirector, Interagency Information Cooperation University of Minnesota aek@umn.edu February 11, 2009 Presentation for MFI Forestry Affairs Group

2. Abstract Resource analysts typically work as consultants to address issues of resource supply, availability, condition, management, environmental constraints, etc., for short to potentially long term investment periods.  Investments may come from government or industry.  As a participant in this work, the author reviews Minnesota resources in ways typical of such analysis.  This review covers the rise and decline ongoing for the major forest types and presents issues for maintaining habitat, economic development, and the challenges of land use change.

3. Background • Forest based development often involves very large $ investments • Countries and states are increasingly in competition for such investments • These investments have a major bearing on the economy and the resource over long time periods • The primary investment considerations are (1) resource supply, (2) transportation and (3) environmental review, etc.

4. More Background • Investment analysis often involves intense effort to address the primary considerations in investment • Aspects of the analyses often involve the description of resource condition (past, present and future) in diverse ways that many often miss, e.g., short- to long-term modeling, linkages, practical realities.

5. Key Aspects of Analysis for a Woodshed Analysis • Covertype acreage by age class trends • Senario development (growth, harvest, regeneration, etc.) • Silvicultural treatment potentials • Availability of resource supply & costs • Environmental impacts and mitigations

6. Some History • Minnesota’s forests and development • Pre 1865 • 1865-1929 Exploitation and early restoration • 1930-1940 Restoration and jobs • 1940-1945 The war effort • 1945-1970 Satisfying an expanding society • 1970-2000 Conservation vs development • 2000+… Local to global confusion

7. Evolving issues for MN • Rapidly changing forest conditions (aging, health, fire, exotics, productivity) • Global competition in the forest products industry • Changing land use (parcelization, fragmentation, competing and uncontrolled recreational use) • Emerging interests in forest based energy • Climate change • Slow synthesis and communication of complex natural resource issues and opportunities.

8. Reality…

9. More Reality…

10. The changing forest age class structure What does it mean?

11. Forest Type Acreage

12. All species

13. Jack Pine

14. Jack Pine

15. Red Pine

16. White Pine

17. Tamarack

18. Balsam Fir

19. White Spruce

20. Black Spruce

21. N. White Cedar

22. Aspen

23. Aspen volume per acre(Growing stock)

24. Aspen

25. Paper Birch

26. Oak/hickory Group

27. Northern Hardwoods Group

28. Conclusions by the Analyst • Minnesota’s forest area is increasing (and decreasing in Southwest MN) • Minnesota’s forests are growing older • Pioneer cover types are declining in extent • Tree quality is declining; CWD accumulating • Fire potentials increasing • Management potentials high but underutilized • Light on disturbance is not working

29. Biomass Harvesting

30. More Conclusions • Cut some trees down-rejuvenate pioneer cover types before they are lost! • Move to shorter rotations-increase forest diversity, health and productivity • Disturb the forest more-improve diverstiy, habitat, the forest based economy…and sustainability! • Questions?

31. Further Thoughts… • Changes in forests and forest land use, health and productivity plus increasing global economic competition have become major technical and policy concerns in states. • These issues are driving investment and policy in forest and related natural resources. • Given this situation, there is a need to rethink direction at the local, state, national and agency levels.

32. References Brown, R.A., A.R. Ek, and M.A. Kilgore. 2007. An assessment of dead wood standards and practices in Minnesota. Staff Paper Series No. 189. St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources. University of Minnesota. Dahlman, R. and M.J. Phillips. 2004. Baseline monitoring for implementation of the timber harvesting and forest management guidelines on public and private forest land in Minnesota: combined report for 2000, 2001, and 2002. DNR Document MP-0904. Submitted to the Minnesota Forest Resources Council. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.   Domke, G. M., A. R. Ek, D. R. Becker, J. F. Espeleta, A.W. D’Amato, P.B. Reich, S. Suh, M.A. Kilgore, D.A. Current, H. M. Hoganson, T. E. Burk, and C. R. Blinn. 2008. Assessment of Carbon Flows Associated with Forest Management and Biomass Procurement for the Laskin Biomass Facility. Staff Paper Series 198, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. 31p.   Domke, G. M., A. R. Ek, M. A. Kilgore and A. J. David. 2008. Aspen in the Lake States: A research review. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 955. http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3104  Ek, A.R. 2007. Strategies for improving forest productivity in Minnesota. Interagency Information Cooperative (IIC). http://iic.gis.umn.edu/documents/forestproductivity.pdf Grigal, D.F. 2004. An Update of Forest soils. A Technical Paper for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Timber Harvesting and Forest Management in Minnesota. David F. Grigal Forestry/Soils Consulting, Roseville, MN 55113. Hanowski, J. 2005. Projected impacts of slash removal and harvest or upland and lowland brush on breeding birds in northern Minnesota. University of Minnesota, IREE report: Research Assessment for the Development of Principles for the Removal of Woody Biomass from Forests and Brushland, LG- BG-2005.   Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, Inc. 1992. Maintaining productivity and the forest resource base. A technical paper for a generic environmental impact statement on timber harvesting and forest management in Minnesota. Prepared for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.   Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, Inc. 1994. Final generic environmental impact statement on timber harvesting and forest management in Minnesota. Prepared for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Kilgore, M., A. Ek, K. Buhr, L. Frelich, H. Hanowski, C. Hibbard, A. Finley, L. Rathbun, N. Danz, J. Lind, and G. Niemi. 2005. Minnesota timber harvesting GEIS: An assessment of the first 10 years.  Staff Paper Series No. 182.  St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.   Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006c. UPM/Blandin Paper Thunderhawk ProjectGrand Rapids, MN. Final Environmental Impact Statement. St. Paul, MN. April 2006. Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 2007. Sustaining Minnesota forest resources: Voluntary site-level forest management guidelines for landowners, loggers and resource managers. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Forest Resources Council. Revised. http://www.frc.state.mn.us/FMgdline/2005guidelinesbook/Complete%20FMG%20Book.pdf Robertson, A.M., M.A. Kilgore, and A.R. Ek. 2008. Tools to minimize the impacts of energy wood harvesting on the environment and soil productivity in Minnesota. Staff Paper Series No. 200.  St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. Sorensen, L. 2006. Minnesota Logged Area Residue Analysis. Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, Forestry Division Utilization and Marketing Program. St. Paul, MN.