Cultural and historical resources sites.
The GEIS describes the implications of riparian considerations in the base harvesting scenario. Harvesting activities in timberlands in riparian zones along larger streams and lakeshores is becoming more restrained. This was reflected in the model assumptions that limited timber harvesting and forest management activities within 100 feet of water and within 200 feet of major lakes and streams in ecoregions 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Figure 1).
Key
- Glacial Lake Plains
- Border Lakes
- Lake Superior Hylands
- Central-Pine Hardwood Forest
- Western Prairie/Forest Transition Zone
- Eastern Prairie.Forest Transition Zone
- Western Prairie
|
|
|
Figure 1. Ecoregions used in GEIS analysis.
The results of the implementation of these management restraints meant that no riparian bird species were projected to be adversely impacted under the base level of harvesting and that nine out of a total of 20 species were projected to show an increase in populations. Herd populations would also benefit. The GEIS goes on to say that maintaining the integrity of riparian vegetation is an important management objective and a frequent objective of BMPs. However, it notes that current BMPs only require an intact filter strip of ground vegetation and that overstory, understory, and shrub layers can be removed without violating these guidelines. In this regard, impacts to aquatic systems occur almost exclusively when the riparian corridor has been disturbed by either harvesting or roading. Poorly drained and maintained stream crossings can be the main source of sediment pollution of streams and forested catchments. Impacts to aquatic ecosystems from management within the riparian corridor are apparent through changes in material and energy flows between the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Reductions in organic matter inputs, changes and timing of inputs, and changes in the quality of litter inputs are likely to occur on a site-specific basis when harvest occurs within 200 feet of the stream channel.
The GEIS then reports on a random survey of selected tracts of timberlands by using aerial photos and ground examination conducted as part of the GEIS study process. Forest inventory plots were analyzed and what they found was that 29 percent of the locations contained harvesting within 200 feet of water. It’s interesting when you start to look at the specific water bodies that harvesting was close to: 3 percent near streams, 3 percent near lakes, and 23 percent near wetlands. A significant part of that 29 percent was relative to wetlands, and harvesting does occur right within wetlands, so it not surprising to find that to be the case.
In the executive summary, the GEIS discusses mitigation impacts. It describes this strategy in riparian corridors and identifies environmentally sensitive areas near water bodies. Harvesting can be carried out within these buffers; however, uneven aged management or thinning rather than clearcutting are the most appropriate silvicultural systems. Riparian corridors are a special case of a broader strategy referred to as connected landscapes, which are relatively wide corridors of mature or selectively cut forest between core areas such as patches of old growth, research natural areas, and scientific and natural areas. Connected landscapes are considered a potentially important tool. However, more research is needed to determine their effectiveness and approaches for implementation. Keep in mind most of what I am talking about now is quoted from the GEIS itself.
Finally, as the GEIS recommends programmatic response to these impacts and opportunities for mitigation, the forest resource practices program is proposed. It goes on to point out that such a program would serve as an umbrella structure for the implementation of a wide range of specific management prescriptions. These management prescriptions would include guidelines that address the activities associated with timber harvesting and that are recognized in the GEIS as desirable approaches to mitigating adverse impacts (below). Note, the third item is establishment and management of riparian corridors. Thus, the need for us to gather here and discuss the subject.
Activities Associated with Timber Harvesting and Recognized in the GEIS as Desirable Approaches to Mitigate Adverse Impacts
- Timber sale design and layout to incorporate nontimber concerns.
- Methods for the disposal/redistribution of slash and other woody biomass.
- Establishment and management of riparian corridors.
- BMPs for water quality.
- Biomass retention (e.g., inclusion of snags).
- Postharvest reforestation practices
- Style and method of road construction.
- Managing for visual/aesthetic objectives.
- Managing for protection of unique historical/cultural resources.
- Traffic control/site amelioration to minimize compaction.
I mentioned the implementation roundtable that worked for six months to come up ways to implement the GEIS. The roundtable recommended that the guidelines that are developed should address water, soils, air, flora, and fauna recreation and aesthetics. It also mentioned the above categories should serve as the context for creating a prioritized list of specific timber harvesting and forest management activities that will appear in the guidelines. The specific activities that should be addressed appear on the following page. You'll note riparian corridors listed halfway down the page. So, there is a heightened importance in riparian forestry. The GEIS substantiates the important.
Activities That Impact or Involve the Following Should Be Addressed
- Biomass retention
- Dispensed forest recreation
- Fisheries habitat
- Harvest and management practices
- Pest management
- Regeneration activities
- Riparian corridors
- Road construction
- Site compaction
- Slash and woody biomass disposal and redistribution
- Unique historical/cultural resources
- Visual quality
- Water quality
- Wildlife habitat
At the same time, there is an increasing recognition of the importance of forest resources in general in our state. The reason for GEIS in the first place was the relatively rapid increase in timber harvesting. So, what has happened is we have a forest products industry that is a major part of our state economy. It employs 60,000 workers, provides a $2.2. billion payroll, results in $7.3 billion in sales, and when you look at taxes that come out of that economic activity, it is very significant to our state general fund (income taxes, sales taxes, and other business taxes in our state). So, we do have a heightened interest in the forest because of its importance to our economy. We are meeting material needs with renewable resources. We also have a heightened interest because of the importance of providing habitat and quality of life, providing community stability—communities in rural America are really struggling and we see what happens to health care systems and school systems when communities go below a certain threshold level of population and an ability to support a social infrastructure. So it is within that context that we see this heightened interest in riparian forestry.
It is really important that we look at the challenge that is before us in terms of economy and environment and community as a whole. In the past, we have had a tendency either to focus on economy or to focus on environment. Very seldom have we focused on community, and this creates conflict and polarization and lack of solution for our people and the environment. What we need to do is look at the three (environment, economy, and community) as a system and recognize that in order to support and sustain an economy long term, we have to maintain a quality environment. In order to sustain a quality environment long term, we have to maintain a healthy economy. I think we saw in the last general election what happens when things get out of sync in the community and major disruptions occur. To the extent we can maintain a balance in our approach, we’ll make a major contribution to society in not having these major swings in the pendulum. The pendulum is always going to swing, but I think with good information and people committed to working together we can keep the pendulum from swinging quite so far.
We can only achieve that balance by working together. We’re talking about management by collaboration. Major stakeholders must be at the table. We are talking about management that is ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially acceptable. That can happen only if the stakeholders are at the table helping make decisions that are going to be sustainable—both from a political standpoint—and an economical standpoint and decisions that protect our environment. Finally, we are talking about management that empowers local communities. I think we have done a good job over time in protecting the national interest and the state interest. But as national and state leaders, we have fallen short in working with local communities in making sure the local community’s interest is respected and taken into consideration when we make our policy and develop management programs. It doesn’t mean that the local communities know what is best. But the local community needs to be at the table, needs to understand. We will likely learn a lot from them. Then the program and policy that we ultimately implement will be a much better policy and will be sustainable.
My final point, and this came through in the roundtable report on implementation, refers to all guidelines, but it refers to riparian forest guidelines as well. Guidelines should be based on the best available scientific information. They should reflect the range of practical and scientifically sound practices. And finally, they should incorporate current levels of understanding regarding management and resource interactions and relationships. That is what this conference is all about—At the Waters' Edge: the Science of Riparian Forestry. We are looking here at developing a common understanding among the stakeholders, the community that is present at this conference. We are looking at an agenda for priority research, because I’m sure as the speakers make their presentations throughout this conference, we’ll come up with a list of things that need to be addressed. And, we are looking at a basis for management guidelines that we need to be prudent about getting developed. The forest resources council, recommended by the roundtable, is in the legislation passed by the last legislature. The legislation becomes effective in August, and there are already efforts underway to make that council active. We expect that riparian forest management will be quite high on the priority list for the council when they begin their activities later in the year.
This is an important conference, and we are looking to you folks for a lot of things. I hope you have a good time, as well as a learning time, and are available to help down the road as part of stakeholder roundtables to help in the implementation process that ultimately comes out of this.
Thank you very much.
1Director, Division of Forestry, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Box 44, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN.
Presented for At the Waters' Edge: The Science of Riparian Forestry Conference, Duluth, MN, June 19-20, 1995.
