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