This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Case Stlldies in the Application of Aspen
Research
Robert T. Beeson 1
Abstract--This papt~r examines current conditions, issues and conclnns in AocJ<y Mountain aspen management from the lar~d manager's
viewpoint. The application of research Is Identified and suggested areas for
targt~tirig new research identified. The public's concern for aspen treatment is analyzt~d.
There are 3.5 million acres of aspen timberland in Colorado; 850,000 of these ac.res are on State and private. lands.
Prior to installation of the two waferwood plants, the annual
harvest was in the neighborhood of 45,500 tons per year. This
has increased to 250,000 tons. Several issues and concerns have
arisen during the past few years as a result of this increase
which will be discussed in thi.s paper. Current application of
research and silvicultural conflicts also will be identified.
Current Issues
The foresters' concerns are the advanced age of the
majority of this unregulated acre·age and the possible. succession to coniferous species. Given the current market, foresters
have re.sponded to these concerns by attempting to develop
timbe·r sales programs that greatly expand aspen regeneration
programs.
Because of public concern, management programs on
public lands have not proceeded to implementation. It is
estimated that eight to ten thousand acres of predominantly
private lands are being annually harvested which represents
one percent of the total ownership.
Sampson (1919) identified the need to protect young
stands from ove,rgrazing. He recommends moderate grazing
by cattle as a means to maintain land productivity from both
range and timber standpoints. From experience in stands
regenerated in 1984, significant variation occurs between
cutting units in the amount of damage done to sprouts.
Generally at least 3,000 sprouts per acre have reached four
feet heights undamaged.
From the stockman's standpoint, two concerns seem to
prevail. Excessive regeneration is seen to be an impediment to
ac.cess. One of the suggested ways to limit regeneration is to
leave a moderate amount of slash on the ground. This practice
limits access according to many ranchers. They would prefer
no slash at all. The current practice of mecha.nical harvesting,
whole tree skidding with tops piled at landings seems to be a
reasonable compromise to leave enough slash to slightly limit
grazing thereby allowjng adequate undamaged sprouts to
overtop livestock.
Then what do we· do with the. slash piles? The.se are large
and more often than not, not very flammable. Attempts were
made two years in a row to burn piles at Carter Mountain after
adequate snowfall. The piles are still there but another attem pt
Historicall»erspecth'e
The visual values of aspen have long been recognized as
contributing significantly to the State's and Region's economy.
The tree is more well known than blue spruce, Colorado's State
tree or any other species. A major ski area is named after the
tree. It is known by several names. To most ranche.rs it is a
quakie. To people from Mi.nnesota it may be popple. To
several species of wildlife it is known as food or shelter. To
foresters it used to be known as a weed and now is considered
a fast growing public relations problem. The primary silvkultural problem is regeneration--too much of it and in a few cases
not enough. Regulation of quantity and quality of these stems
is of primary concern to ranchers as well.
Significant effort has been made to involve the public in
planning for management of aspen but to date, a large percentage of the production of the two waferwood plants has been
harvested from private and State lands because of conti.nuing
public concern and appeals of timber sales and forest plans.
The management i.mpli.cations of this level of harvest from
relati.vel.y small ownerships is a concern both to industry and
service foresters.
1Area Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, Granby, Colo.
30
will be made this year prior to snowfall. The expense of slash
disposal could exceed the revenue from the sale if this next
attempt is not successful. Research needs here are to identi.fy
the best method of economical slash treatment from a multiple
use standpoint. This treatment should leave enough on the si.te
to impair some grazing but still be acceptable to the stockman
who must herd and gather the cattle. The method should also
leave. the harvest "looking good" to the public and be cost
effective (not more than $20 per acre total cost).
On moist sites, there is a concern that regeneration will not
occur due to the rise in the water table that occurs due to
removal of aspen which is a significant water user. On fuller
saturation in the spring, this could also lead to land stability
problems. V.l e have not experi.~nced this to date, because we
have not harvested on excessively wet sites, but it is very
evident in some unharvested sites.
Significant acreage of mixed aspen conifer stands exist.
The predominant conifer is subalpine fir, which currently has
limited value as timber. In general, prescriptions call for its
removal during aspen regenenftion. This is usually possible if
the volume is not excessive.. One advantage to having conifers
included in the sale is that slash piles that are mixed are more
flammable. In several cutting units installed to date, conifers
which were considered wi.nd firm were left standing. This
practice has produced less visual impact while allowing regeneration of more than 20,000 sprouts per acre.
No real effort has been made to relate densities of sprouts
surviving grazing to this size of cutting units. V\Tayne Shepperd,
working closely with field foresters, feels there is a size of
cutting unit that is too small. The results, if very small units are
installed in areas grazed by livestock or wi.ldlife, could be
destruction of regeneration. Current practice usually is to
design sales with ten acre and greater cutting units. Some
unregulated private. land sale.s have very large cutting units
depending on the landowners objective. I feel we should pay
close attention to cutting unit siz.e in sale design and direct
research towards identifying the lower unit size threshold
where regeneration becomes uncertain.
All of these concerns are irrelevant if we cannot satisfy the
public concern and major issue. This issue is whether aspen
will receive any silvicultural treatment at all. Thi.s public
concern is root~d in the belief that harvest of a renewable
resource best be left to natural agents.
Support is garnered for this belief from factual and emotional reasoning. Some facts cited are:
stands in Wayne's study are two- or more
storied is evidence that most aspen will regenerate without logging.
An emotional concern is that harvesting of aspen is actually
ki.lling a stand rather than regenerating a new one. This
concern arises from a belief that forest conditions are more
static in nature tha.n they actually are and a basic mistrust of
the knowledge of foresters in predicting future conditions.
Foresters have. responded to public concerns with detailed
public involvement processes that more often do not influence
basic beliefs that unde.rlie. the voiced concern. Usually the
great majority of the so called public could care less until they
are directly influenced. Harvesting is okay until the. particular
stand or tree that I am interested in is affected. This public
does not participate in the decision making process but
responds negatively when they feel threatened. I personally
have no answers to this situation but have found that one on
one show me trips of both succ.esses and failures are the most
effective public involvement.
Case Histories
Carter Mountain
This 5,OOO-acre block of state land was inventoried in 1982.
Three thousand acres are forested with aspen and aspen-fir
mixtures. It is located twenty miles from Kremmling. The
management plan calls for ha~'est of 115 acres per year. Three
grazing leases exist at one A.V. per 5 acres. Four hundred
acres were sold in 1983 to Louisiana Pacific. The average unit
size i.s 42 acres with a range from 12 to 60 acres. Logging was
me.chanical (sheare.d and whole tree skidded). As of 1987, all
units are stocked with a minimum of 18,000 aspen per acre.
Grazing has left enough undamaged stems to fully stock the
area. Continuing problems are the rancher's conce·rn about
access bec.ause of high sprout density and the difficulty of slash
disposal. Also, one cutting unit has a high rate of infection with
a disease that looks like Shepherd's crook.
AMAX
In 1984 and 1985, 140 acres of aspen were harvested under
a ma.nagement program. Unit size varies from 10 to 40 acres.
The two small units are wi.thin 0.25 mile from meadm·v or sage;
t he larger units are 200 feet higher in elevation. G razing has not
been excluded. Approximately 200 yearlings use the 1,500acre a.llotment from June to October. The smaller, lower units
produced 8,000 or more first-year sprouts; but most were
damaged or killed by grazing. The larger, higher units are
successfully stoc.ked with undamaged stems.
1. It costs more to harvest aspe.n than is returned
to the treasury. This can be true. when costs are
driven up by' over planning. The current regional average cost of timber sales is over half
planning before a single piece of flagging is tied
to a tree.
Summary
2. The age class structure is predominantly mature
and over mature but nature will take care of
itself. Aspen will not disappear and succeed to
conifers if left alone. The fact that 20% of the
The forester is attempting to "speak for the trees" when he
or she sees large acreages of over-mature stands and designs
31
ent on producing this wealth equal one, then those who
indirectly benefit but whose livelihood depends on its continued production equals 10. This secondary group has 10 times
the influence in decisions, but is the most difficult to communicate with. They are too busy to participate or feel higher
priority needs.
a schedule for replacing these forests with younger, more
diverse stands. The landowners, either private or the tax
paying public, fed threatened by this planned change and
questions why'! If there is doubt in the forester, it may be
expressed by an inadequate response, anger or an attempt to
hide the work that is progressing. We must be sure as foresters,
that we really operate from knowledge of the facts before we
"speak for the trees." We must also realiz.e that most people
do not understand the connection between the natural re··
sources they use abundantly, their own livelihood, and the
economy of the communi.ty in which they live. The only new
wealth i.s either grown from or mined from the ground. If we
let the number of people whose livelihood is directly depend-
Literature Cited
Sampson, Arthur V,.T. 1919. Effect of grazing on aspen reproduction. U.S. DeRartment of Agriculture, Bulletin 741,29
p. Washington, D.C.
32