Umatilla National Forest Collaborative
Meeting
9-27-12
Attendance: Julia Babcock – Oregon Solutions ( by Phone), Tim Lillebo, Angie Johnson, Carrie Spradlin, John Day,
Mark Stern, John Day, Hans Rudolph , Elaine Eisenbraun, Jean Cassidy , Mark Davidson, Vince Naughton, Ed Pearson,
Rex Storm, Dan Kittany, Brian Kelly, Joani Bosworth, Kathleen Cathey, Mike Rassbach, Dave Powell, Elizabeth
Scheeler, Gary Miller, Lindsay Warness, Mark Stern, Gunter , Rex Storm, Sabine Mellmann-Brown, Scott Aycock, John
Action Items:
Send out Mudd Daubber sale information regarding drip line designation of harvest density.
Could we assign action items to people? – Mike Rassbach
KV funds explanation – Dave Powell
We could have a presentation on Malheur Process relative to the mill closure?
IDT Meetings: Need dates. – Jonathan Day
Identify Short and Long Term Goals
Could Kahler be pushed through in 12 months instead of 24? And, what would be the affects?
Update Draft Declaration Document - Scott
Perhaps - Put together literature review on Thomas Creek.
Remove: “Creation of Thomas Creek P&N” from Draft Declaration Document - Scott
Admin Committee Meeting on Thursday – Scott & Elaine
Agenda Review
Announcements:
A Workshop for all east-side collaboratives working in the dry forest zone will be held the last week of
November (after thanksgiving) from Tuesday noon until Wednesday noon. The goal is to increase the pace of work on
forests in the state.
We will need to reschedule the November meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
Member Presentation:
Lindsay Warness – Boise Cascade Corporation
Map of National forest and the economic situation in eastern. It is about all industry in OR in past 25 years and our
capacity/run levels.
75% Commercial Forest Lands are federally owned producing 20% of harvest. 1.5 mm acres of private land. 4.8 mm
acres of fed. 72m acres of state land.
In 1980, we harvested 4.6 billion in state of Oregon. 90% drop in harvest since 1991 when spotted owl was listed and
timber wars began. Private is now producing at same level as federal. The market drop and housing starts effects the
numbers. Small and large producers are more effected by supply/demand.
Average annual wages: Wood products industry. Average wood products wage is 45,000 dollars plus benefits. Average
all wage is less. Lost 17 mills since 1992 (compares to 106,000 jobs lost in Portland metro.) This is mill job losses . 2005
had 86 companies = 776 employees 2012 = 62 companies and 418 employees. Union county demographics is aging.
Younger people are leaving due to no opportunites here. There are no family wage jobs. Union county lost 25% of
students since 1992. Opportunities: 20 jobs produced – direct – out of every million board feet of lumber and 36
indirect jobs. This is 154,773 people and 42 jobs per million board feet. We need , as a collaborative, to look at the
kinds of wood we cut and the number of jobs produced. We can have a direct local effect on our communities. Data
from Oregon Forest resources (Oregonforest.org).
Induced jobs are related jobs in community service sector.
Milling capacity in Oregon: Only one mill is at 100% capacity (Elgin plywood). Blue Mt. Lumber is at 50% as is Malheur.
Lindsay says need to be at 100% to make money. We are surrounded by 4.8 million acres of forest but bringing logs in
from Idaho. This is not sustainable. Boise is big, but we have shut down mills before. We run Mt. Emily at 13% and just
breaking even just to keep staff educated for future mill come-back. (LaGrande mill rebranded as Mt. Emily). We run
Elgin at 72 million bd ft per year at 100%. Mt Emily capacity is 55 million, we run at 12 million board feet. The particle
board is at 50%. Boise could add 500 jobs and have an effect on the economy in the area. Sourcing circle is 500 miles
from Mt Hood to Boise. We are working to make money. One trip a day is 4,500 board feet from far away. New
Meadows Mill in Boise area is only mill there.
Most supply comes from Hancock 43%. Local national forests provide 4%. We get a lot from Idaho
department of lands. 12% is private local. Hancock ends in 2014. Hancock bought Forest Capital which was once Boise
Cascade lands. Worst case 0, best case less than 40 some %.
Discussion of presentation:
Positive sign for collaboration expressed as multi-stakeholder response to the closing of Malheur Mill.
Kathleen: Don’t want to be arbitrary about this but because there is a strong collaborative in Grant County, it gave the
government something to stand on. People worked very hard on this. Collaborative listed the assets of the community.
Tim: The different groups brought innovative ideas and discussed all different possibilities.
Rex: All the discussion was focused on the single manufacturer to the detriment of the other manufactures. It was all
about 90 jobs in NE Oregon and that the other jobs in eastern Oregon weren’t considered. Many of our members
weren’t represented.
Mark D: Need another 3.7 dollars annually to keep up that harvest level. It is not just a Malheur forest problem. We
need the ID teams on many forests to address the harvest level. Boise would like more products off the Malheur.
Tim: If we didn’t have the political process nothing would have happened. It centered around the collaborative. It
wasn’t the people off the streets, but the collaborative has local folks. I like the idea of other people. The collaborative
was strong. If others forests get into the same situation, they too, could make things happen. It wouldn’t have
happened 3-4 years ago. It sets a precedent.
Collaboratives could be instrumental.
Mark: This isn’t a criticism. It’s a shame it reached this point before this happened.
No one in the US should be surprised about a mill shutting down. Wallowa cty has no mills. Union has Boise Cascade.
All forests should increase harvest. Why is Boise bringing in logs from 400 miles away. We need to remember that
bigger picture. It is a political issue, because it is a result if dysfunctional government that doesn’t work in the real
world. Our national debt and this country is broke, so there is a time that requires a forest policy that pays for itself.
We can’t have stewardship projects that don’t put money back in coffers. Our roads and schools are dying . The states
make up the difference and if it weren’t for that we’d be sunk. Boise C. could be in the same situation in short time.
Their log agreement with Hancock is ending. That would kill Union County. If we lost BC and those jobs, we’d lose 20%
of population.
Tim: Groups like ours, asked for more planning teams for the Malheur. Might want to start that process sooner. We
hope that the crisis moves us forward.
Mark: More money and teams are not the solution. We have policy issues and need to streamline. NEPA is a process
that is ineffective and unworkable whether intentionally accidentally. It is a disaster.
Scott: NEPA wasn’t designed to guide restoration but top minimize environmental degradation. So it doesn’t always
make sense for restoration.. I’ve heard this in several symposia.
Vince: Why keep saying restoration. USFS has don’t best management over 100 years. It is the lack of management
that causes problems. The foresters hands are tied by rules and regulations.
Angie: I’m with Rex, during all mill closures in Grant county, we were squawking about mills closing and we never did
anything until we were talking about the last dog dying. We are reactive and never proactive though we already saw the
writing on the wall. Keeping some mills even would have been nice. Open mills would be hard pressed with cost of fuel
to make it pencil out.
Scott: Remaining mills: Elgin, Lagrande, Blue Mtn Lumber, Pilot Rock, Malheur Lumber
Hans: From state forestry perspective, we have gotten lots of grants for thinning. With reduced contractors they have
to go over larger geography to work. When funding is available, it is still hard for them to do these grants and they no
longer harvest. If infrastructure is lost they have to go far with wood. Big log mills are few and far between. There is no
market for the logs. As both infrastructure and contractors disappear, there is a void with money but now people to do
the work. If prices go up, there is no one to do it.
Scott: Anecdotally there is a shift from a bunch of small guys to a few big guys getting all the work.
Mark: They are doing more with less. They are more mechanized and use fewer men.
Hans: There are big fish who fight fires in summer and build roads in winter. They used to just log, but now they have to
do everything to survive. There are less of them too.
Rex: Average age of wood products is approaching 50 years old. Historically should be around 40. It is nationwide.
Manufacturing and trade employment is no longer an attractive career choice. The young are going into service jobs
(this is a cultural thing and a myth that the jobs aren’t’ as good). The middle class families leave as an entire family and
the schools suffer.
Jonathan: If supply would be there, would demand exist.
Lindsay: The market is coming back. The numbers are a reflection of supply, not demand.
Ed: The price of lumber at lumber yard is high. If there were other facilities, the price would go down.
Rex: The demand is a tertiary issue, because we compete against producers that are not supply constrained. These
manufactures have to bring logs from far away which reduces profitability.
Dave: Powell Does green wood mill factor?
Rex: that is a hardwood mill supplied by fiber farms, thus not in this equation.
Mark: Particle board plant is not on here because it receives non-green wood.
Brian: Forest Capital harvested heavily (anecdotal) – doesn’t seem sustainable.
Lindsay: They have said they would reduce harvest. The extra will be reduced.
Vince: Part of reason is real estate investment federal laws. Short term contracts force heavy short term cuts. Real
estate investment trusts are not in line with fully integrated companies.
Lindsay: Value of forest products coming out of woods: Lumber $345 biomass $15/ ton – doesn’t even pay its way out of
the woods. Sawdust $40/ton, Wood Chips 65/ton, shavings $57/ton. This is a relative scale of relative values.
Rex: One useful observation to move wood from stump to mill costs $250 so only saw logs pay for their
harvest/transport.
Ed: The restoration lumber is low grade. It squeezes profit out to the sales.
Tim: In history, prices cycle and perhaps profitability of different products may vary over time.
Rex: Subsidies paid for small logs to Morrow.
Scott: We will continue to have opportunites to talk about realities of forest industry. Put thinking caps on about where
we are right now and what does this mean for the collaborative group along with all the other stuff we talk about such
as wildlife, fuels reduction, etc.. Think about the effect of work on projects. We can’t continue to put fires out. We
need to create sense of urgency. We need mill infrastructure to keep the collaborative work and the communities that
we care about.
Planning:
We have two projects, but don’t know role within those projects. Kahler – draft timeline handout. Timber
implementation is fall of 2014. Could this go out more quickly. Is that an acceptable timeline? Does group want to
shorten time. Does that steal from other projects that would provide fiber.
On Thomas Creek we have several interests: science, ridgetop to ridgetop analysis. Does this effect what we take on and
when. Does it affect the scale of this group? Want to have a discussion on what this means to the group members and
what we want to do in terms of timing, scale, and projects.
Mark D: What does 12 months instead of 24 mean? What else gets pushed aside?
Winter field work could be done on Kahler.
Elaine: If one of objectives is to create jobs, speeding things up and outsourcing work would create jobs.
Have collaborative ever worked with extra help? The RAC in Wallowa county used outside help to produce a
watershed analysis. On Colville, a local collaborative is providing resources for the USFS. Could write grants, contract
scientists. Might help avoid an appeal too. Demonstrates broad base of support in front of a judge.
Scott: Remember, not all potential litigants are at the table.
Elaine: It helps with Collaborative sustainability too.
Vince: Can use maps to say cut pine and x% of fir would speed things up instead of detailed cut plan. Leave marking up
to contractors.
Scott: Focus on goals. The means to achieve them is secondary.
Could we use the new HSRV rule on Kahler?
Discussion on how to word the question to the forest service:
Lindsay: Can the Kahler be done in a 12 month time frame and if not , what is the soonest and what impacts will it have
on other projects and how would a new process hefra impact this?
Scott: and what bottlenecks could the group help with?
Lindsay: and what would be the input of the group?
Mark: Incorporate an open time frame, not just 12 months so it’s not a make or break.
Brian: Cautionary note, tension between move forward and still go through challenging things. Think about low hanging
fruit rather than going up the thorny tree. The thorny question is usually a small percentage of the project. The more
we stay away from those items, we would be well advised to stick to safer ground.
Scott:” I believe the group could take on multiple time frames. There can be various goals. Usually with collaborative, if
you do everything at once it fails. Better to take on small pieces and check them off and not leave the other items
REXX: We’ve defined purpose and needs, but the thorny issues , we haven’t even gone there. I’m not convinced that we
are done with Kahler. We need to revisit some alternative prescription.
BREAK
Scott: Where from here?
What is definition of what has to be done on Kahler? And what about Thomas creek. We have one meeting per
month. To play a meaningful role, how do we do it? What do you want to do? What is realistic? How can we get it
done? We have two staff, we do one meeting a month. Can we take on meaningful roles in each. What can we
deliver? Big picture. I will build a work plan based on the 12 month model. Need to give big picture to Oregon
Solutions and funders.
Proposal: This group look at cool moist issues on two tracks. 1. Plantation stands – formally clear cut p pine stands
that may not need to wait for the deep long term issues. This is an entry point into cool moist. 2. All watersheds
and stands in cool moist become a longer term inquiry around the science review and literature review and more
comprehensive look at cool moist.
Discussion:
Scott: I think Ed said there was different economic viabilities in different operation methods. Maybe the plantations are
less onerous.
Brian: Some studies in cool moist, like Siuslaw could provide information.
Scott: Some want more information that could take a period of time and some want to move ahead.
Carry: I think the T Creek project has something to do there. So the next question is what it is and what it looks like.
What do we want the cool moist to look like? We will be asking those questions through the process any way. What
species do we want what heterogeneity do we want?
Scott: We went from clear cut to mature stand. Folks liked the look of the mature and wondered what could be done
there.
Rex: It makes sense to use our time wisely to look at the package of issues that is in the Then we could if doing NEPA
and the other efforts, so we could look a t the whole area.
Vince: What is the reluctance to log in cool moist. It is simpler to take the old clear cuts first. We are only taking 25% of
the forest is useable and the HRV directs us to get it back into the HRV. The forest service already has the science and
information in hand. We could do something with the 70,0000 acres. There is twice woody debris we need and excess
snags, why are we worrying about a small acreage of the forest if there is overstocked snags and wood.
Scott: I don’t think there is consensus in the room around that statement. I sense more disagreement in whole area
than in clear cuts.
Ed: In ten years we will have a worse situation in the clear cuts than now. We should do something about it, but I don’t
know if it is economic. That would be a good use of my time here in the group.
Tim: I agree. We have altered that landscape quite a bit and it is an opportunity for a restoration project so I’d like to
have the broader look too. Maybe we can deal with it sooner than the 10 years.
John: I am wearing my Science hat and this is an interesting conversation. I encourage us to continue to think about
whole watershed because you want to know what it will look like. I think we should think about the Future range of
variability as well as the HRV. And when you get to broader cool moist, it is difficult to look at this from a single
perspective, so in a very large area you could put out a variety of treatments and look over it for a long time. Moving a
large block of land into adaptive situation. Some blocks might have a heavy cut and some might be do nothing. In
places they try to use different prescriptions to obtain a single goal. Interesting study in Tongass in Alaska for deer
habitat.
Brian: Great opportunity to have you here with your contacts in the forest research community. Is there an opportunity
to get involvement with the research community?
John: Absolutely. On operational scale studies, you don’t want to do a finite science, you want to do bushel basket tests.
You want to know on an operational scale if you are having the effect that you want. There are stand level questions to
answer. You seem to be interested in a broader scale: Stewardship of the Blue Mountains.
Brian: Sometimes we get into trouble by thinking we now expected outcomes, but if we take the approach of wondering
what the results will be, it would be exciting.
John: Coastal landscape analysis and modeling project looked at 3,000 years of disturbance including the human impacts
and looked at biophysical and social impacts. Useful in understanding the HRV. Range varied from 30-70% old growth in
coast range and fire was main impact. A half million acre forest, changed the seral species acreage.
Declaration Document Discussion:
Draft Declaration Document: This is the document we produce at end of project to capture what you did and
why you did it. Scott read through it page by page.
Scott: Need to update from the notes. Scott will update. Need a declaration for the signing ceremony next meeting.
We will pull the additional guidelines out of the declaration and we’ll make it a separate statement.
Kahler Time Frame:
Scott: What level of involvement do you want with Kahler?
Angie: We had committee to deal with a project and got a report at a full group meeting in BMFP.
Tim: I recommend ongoing engagement in that fashion to speed up the process.
Angie: and in Harney County, we actually reviewed the NEPA stuff along the way so that later we didn’t have to react
after the fact. That would be a meeting for those who want to go and then get progress report at full group meeting.
The committee didn’t make decisions, just reported.
Brian, My optimism always exceeds my available time. How much time is involved for an ID team.
Scott: They currently meet every two months. It takes all day.
Angie: IF only a few people show, they know who would go for certain things. Also, I won’t participate in Thomas Creek
due to our range.
Gary: I don’t see how this large group could participate in a positive way with an ID team. I think the approach should be
to bring things back to the full group.
Tim: We had some joint field trips too.
Kathleen: Was that useful. Did you pick up problems?
Tim and Angie: Yes. We solved problems for the USFS.
Kathleen: Soda Bear – collaborative helped them to be more aggressive.
Tim: We had a subcommittee that did the field trips and made suggestions.
Scott: So full group will not participate in full day ID team meetings. Full group will receive feedback.
Angie: Suggestion is the best work happens at field trips, so emphasize those.
Scott: Do we want to suggest subcommittees for projects.
Lindsay: I think Kahler is new and so full group is interested in purpose and need. And so we should form that later in the
picture.
Mike Rass: Resource stories will be presented at ID teams. Then we develop a proposed action. ID team goes out
together, because we are better at resolving issues on the ground too. Then come up with proposed action. The larger
group could look at the proposed action before it goes to public for scoping.
Scott: We get information at key points to give feedback. We may reserve the right to create a subcommittee because
we don’t know the scale.
Mike: Anyone who wants to participated can.
Scott: We need to communicate when things are happening. Otherwise, in full group meetings we will get updates.
Thomas Creek Road Map:
The Thomas Creek Road Map. Scott read through it. There is still an opportunity to request a literature review.
Confirmed today to look at whole watershed in analysis. We will continue to get info on HRV. We will hear about
modeling and analysis of plantations. There was discussion of another tour before T. Creek gets socked in. That would
be the October meeting. We’d do the signing ceremony on another day before or after.
Vince: We’ve done so much work on the Umatilla logging by various methods. There are so many different varieties of
cuts that we could look at on the ground in a tour. The standards evolved and we could look at the changes.
Mike R: We could talk about what we want to look at. We would be happy to host a field trip.
Scott: Vote to get back on the ground in October.
Lindsay: We can do other work during the field trip.
Brian; We saw limited area on last field trip. Is there more landscape to see?
Jean: Maybe Vince could put together a list of sites with different treatments.
Mike: We could look at what t\types of prescriptions were in T creek and what they look like now.
Brian: I’d like to see some more plantations to see variability.
Scott: The admin committee meeting could discuss this and suggest the types of sites to see on the tour. If we do
signing ceremony either the night before or the evening after.
Scott: There was an interest in working on a purpose and need for Thomas? Is that consensus within the group.
Elaine: I don’t think it was consensus.
Lindsay: It was a long term idea.
Scott: I’m going to drop it out of the Declaration as a formal item. People seem tentative right now regarding the
timeline.
Gary: Wait until after the tour.
Scott: We’ll report that the aspiration is to develop a P&N but there are some needs for information first. And, we will
do some work in the mean time.
Vince: If a guy could go out with camera and create a slide show of historic prescriptions and current setting. We could
get more done in the building rather than kicking dirt.
Mike: We are doing stand exams, so we’ll get additional information. So we won’t have photos, but we’ll have modeling
information as to what it looks like now and what it will look like after certain prescriptions.
Scott: Is it fair to say that the group is considering the plantation stands in the context of the whole area?
Mike: there is still the question of viability. I’d like not to invest a lot of interest in time for something that might not
come to fruition.
Scott: Make that decision after we have more information on economic viability.
Admin committee will be Thursday.
Cool Moist Forest Synthesis Workshop Review:
Cool/Moist Science
John: Peter Stein and Mark Kramer are heading up the group. It is about the principles of how cool moist forests
function and how that leads to means for management. It will not provide prescriptions. It will suggest outcomes from
actions. It will be along the lines of what are the important processes that drive the forest. The team is looking at the
entire east side of Oregon.
Brian: It is region wide. At some points the discussion was mixed conifer, not just cool moist.
John: There is some discussion. Mixed conifer is a cool moist.
Sabine: There was concern about the relativeness of the word “moist”. They chose to take that word out of the
discussion.
Dave: I felt that there is uncertainty of how to classify cool/moist. That is one of their first charges. We have the
publication with a protocol for classification here in the Blues. That is not universal on the east side, so that each area
can say definitively what is cool moist or mixed conifer.
Tim: They also said they’d do a lit search and synthesize that. What was the timeline.
John: It should provide a draft this fall and final in spring. They are on a fast track.
Elaine: There was an office meeting with round robin opportunity for everyone to state their own concerns or interests.
John: I don’t know how they will address the east side screens. Paul Hessburg was there who wrote the east side screen
which was supposed to be a short term plan. Between Tom Spies and Paul, there is a lot of forest structure
development knowledge.
Tim: There was too little old growth that lead to the east side screens and we are still old.
John: That is age vs. size. And the screens are 20 years old, so we have learned some things.
Sabine: East side screens were written for dry sites and they don’t necessarily apply to the cool moist productive stands.
John: Same issue as 80 year old issue on the west side. They really want a structure based approach ultimately.
Presentations:
Mike: Light on time, so start with big picture and work down. Dave has worked up HRV and now we are interested in
watershed scale, so the numbers were rerun.
Dave Powell: Handout. Compare to handout from field trip. You will see some differences.
We already understand the HRV concept, so assume everyone understands that. Notice that it is dated as of now and
field trip one was from Feb. The planning area is smaller at 15,781 acres. This is not based on field verification since
they are currently doing stand exams. So, some of this might change. Moist forest is still the dominant biophysical type.
Non-forest is the next most common and then dry forest. If a biophysical area is less than 1,000, we don’t do a HRV
analysis and that is the case with the dry forest here. Primary cover type is p. pine. Specifically for species composition,
p.pine and grand fir are above RV. We are slightly below ford. fir and well below for larch and lodgepole.
The difference in the paragraph and chart is the 500 acres of dry forest.
Structure: Planning triangle: Three legs are NEPA, Feedback, Plan to Project (left hand side of project = not into NEPA
yet). The vegetation specialists on the ID team use this data to help determine desired condition. So we’d like to have
5-15% p. pine in cool moist and now we have 38%. So what activities would we look at to move p.pine back to where
we want to be. There are three vegetation components: structure (pertains directly to the east side screens), cover, and
density.
Structure: We are below RV on stand initiation, old forest multi and old forest single stratum. We are above on stem
exclusion and understory re-initiation.
Single stratum in cool moist would likely be larch or fir. And it could be fire maintained.
Density: We are within range for low density, below RV for moderate, and well above RV for High density (thin).
18% of planning area is non-forest compared with 13% on whole forest.
Thomas Creek has 55% of acres suitable for treatment with a chainsaw. It is different if the tool is a drip torch.
Mark: Do we know within each of 5 subtypes which are available for treatment.
Dave: That is the next step. Synthesis group said we might do different things to prioritize the HRV results. How do we
select stands from the pool of representative needs.
Chris Johnson: Landscape Wildfire Strategy and Regime Condition Class
Objective is to prepare landscape for future wildfires. Put veg treatments where suppression operations are likely to
occur.
Power point hand out.
Focus areas: Communities/Residences, Landscape Containers with fuel breaks, Community Wildfire Plans, Other sites
incompatible with fire. Current effort is on communities.
The 31, Summit Road is a good fire break on Thomas Creek.
Rex: Classifying high values of neighboring properties is controversial. The forest has different values than the neighbors
do. I would urge the forest to reconsider their definition of values on neighboring area. When private lands burn, the
impact on society is higher. It effects economically, culturally, etc. We prioritize: Life, property, _________. ODF does it
in different order. This is a strategic look and at project level, the band of focus expands. Strategic is ¼ mile and then 1
1/2 mile band at project level.
Brian: If there are certain breaks, we could identify wildlife corridors and such, but maintain the breaks. Connectivity
can be maintained in key areas.
Chris: That is lower priority than residence, but this is considerations.
Jean: If you focus on residences first and road is part of compartmentalization strategy, so are you suggesting that there
is an option to think about fire priorities for purpose and need?
Chris: No, but there is an opportunity to set up the best situation for the future of wildfire planning. It is not a driver of
purpose and need.
Fire regime condition class measures the departure from reference conditions by frequency, severity, and vegetation.
Fire regimes are I through IV. 76% of Thomas Creek is III, then 18% is II. Every area is touched by fire. Project area has
not been touched by large fire. Fire frequency is 71 years. Fire frequency departure is 70% or greater. Fire severity
departure is 35% reference which means that 35% of fires will get away. Vegetation departure were overrepresented in
early seral and mid seral open. We have trace amounts of late seral.
Take home the composition, structure, and density of fuels is off.
Mike Rassbach: Viability of Project.
Dan Catille is T.M.A. on forest. Off site pine is pulp. Young p.pine is low value. Higher value d. fir, larch and white fir,
and would need to exist in harvest. Would need at least 5,000 board feet/acre.
Carry: Economic analysis of Thomas Creek. Based on 10 year old stand exam data and then run through a computer
model to bring it up to current. See power point hand out. Remember that this is a model, but it is pretty
representative. All evaluations run with no trees over 21” cut.
Ed: It would be cool to visit these in October.
Gary: The Round Mountain 21 that we visited, based on less than 5,000 bd ft/acre, it may not be economically viable
which corresponds to what the industry folks said when we were out on the
ground.
Mark Davidson: If it’s not the natural species, maybe we clearcut again and replant to proper species.
Mike Rass: So we would weigh all the factors.
Close: 3:05 PM