Anderson: Minnesota forest management dispute hinges on age of aspen when it’s cut

Minnesota Forest Industries executive vice president Rick Horton argues in this second installment of my interview with him that loggers don’t determine the age of aspen that is cut on state lands, the Department of Natural Resources does.

The conflict is one of a handful of flashpoints that arose after the federal government withheld more than $20 million from the DNR for failing to document wildlife benefits of logging on state wildlife management areas — a controversy about which the Legislative Auditor also issued a critical report.

In my Nov. 14 column, I quoted a retired DNR forest wildlife planner and a retired DNR forester who said the state’s timber industry’s influence over the DNR threatens forest wildlife.

Headquartered in Duluth, Minnesota Forest Industries represents the state’s approximately 69,000 Minnesotans who cut timber and manufacture lumber, siding and other wood and paper products. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: The controversy over logging on state wildlife management areas has highlighted the conflict between DNR leadership and wildlife advocates about the minimum age aspen should be cut —not only on WMAs, but throughout state forests. The DNR says 40 years is the “minimum rotation age” for aspen, while wildlife advocates say that’s too young to provide the understory and cavities necessary for deer, grouse, woodpeckers, martens, fishers and other wildlife.

A: The timber industry doesn’t make decisions regarding aspen cutting ages. The DNR does.

Q: But about in 2012, the timber industry sought the earlier rotation age.

Q: That program also was intended to benefit loggers, because times were tough.

A: My point is that there have always been changes to Minnesota forests. Some were brought on by fires, some by management. The 2012 change that lowered the minimum aspen rotation age was intended to help timber producers, but also to provide logging opportunities that benefited the state and, in some instances, wildlife. That said, 40-year aspen is not a particular economic target point for us. It has some advantages, with fewer cavities. Its disadvantage is that loggers have to handle a lot of small diameter timber. But 40-50-60 years — it doesn’t really matter to us, as long as it doesn’t get older than that.

Q: But the effect of lowering the aspen rotation age has been significant. In 2012, about 30% of aspen on state forests was estimated to be 50 years and older. Today, it’s in the 6% range. That’s a far cry from what forest wildlife advocates say would benefit deer and other species, while also accommodating the timber industry. They argue an aspen rotation age of 60 or 65, with 30% of aspen over that age, would be best for wildlife. You’re a wildlife professional. Do you agree?

A: What wildlife are we talking about? Moose like large patches of browse that resemble the types of openings that 10,000-acre fires once produced in northern Minnesota. Other wildlife, including some songbirds, also benefit from large clearcuts. If you’re talking deer and grouse, yes, an interspersion of different age classes and types of timber benefit them. But Minnesota forest ownership provides important context to this discussion. State timber lands represent only 23% of Minnesota forests, while large stands of older aspen and other trees exist in forests under different owners.

Q: State forests might represent only 23% of Minnesota timber lands, but they provide 29% of timber that’s cut. Wouldn’t it be “fairer” if state forests provided 23% of the state’s timber, rather than 29%?

Q: Why the disparities?

A: On state forests one reason is the presence of School Trust lands. Their mandate is to maximize income for schools, and they’re managed very aggressively. On private lands, stumpage prices are relatively low, so fewer landowners are willing to sell timber. Counties, which have some 2.8 million acres of forest, manage their timber sustainably, but also to provide income. Money they make from timber sales supports their parks, school districts, townships and forest maintenance. And federal forest management is beset by environmental groups that don’t think any tree should ever be horizontal on the back of a truck. Federal forest managers are also short of money and manpower. The Trump administration feels strongly that timber management is important. But the loss of so many employees recently has been a big brain drain.

Q: Granted, there’s a patchwork of forest land ownership. But shouldn’t timber cutting on state lands nevertheless be spatially planned — meaning a mixing of young and old forests to provide important wildlife benefits within the home ranges of various species?

A: A lot of factors affect where and when timber is cut. On the North Shore, for example, we have only a few producers and distance to mills is a cost consideration. Also, we have two types of aspen in Minnesota, quaking and bigtooth, which oftentimes grow at different rates in different soils. This can affect where and when stands are cut. Also, in parts of the northeast, there’s a lot of dead balsam fir due to spruce budworm. Sometimes the DNR wants the dead trees cut and stacked, other times it wants them hauled. Loggers might bid on one contract and not another.

Q: The DNR has begun development of a new 10-year forest management plan to take effect in a couple of years. Hoping to bring timber cutting on state forests more in line with the federal government’s relatively stringent harvest requirements on state wildlife management areas, wildlife advocates hope to have more say this time about how the new plan is written.