On December 19, 1996, the White Pine Regeneration Strategies Work Group presented recommendations to the Forest Resources Council for managing Minnesota's last two percent (67,000 acres) of white pine forest. The recommendations focused on long-needed actions to improve survival of white pine seedlings and included recommendations for research and for providing educational material to foresters and landowners. The recommendations for improving regeneration are strong and well considered although preliminary in some respects. Environmental groups and industry should unite in seeking public and private support for the work group's regeneration recommendations.

However, despite Minnesota's 98 percent loss of white pines, the group's recommendations for limiting cutting are weak and nebulous and not based on principles of conservation biology or on regional differences in sustainable harvest levels. The group did not recommend studies to determine sustainable harvest levels by region or to determine how their cutting recommendations will affect regeneration efforts, forest ecology, and long-term forest value. The weakness of the recommendations limiting cutting was predictable given the fact that the group worked under a rule whereby all recommendations had to have the support of timber industry representatives. The recommendations for limiting harvest take small steps in the right direction, but it is unknown how far they will take us toward sustainable yield management and maintaining forest biodiversity. All parties should work toward the critically important goal of developing sustainable harvest policies that are founded on research, ecosystem management, and principles of conservation biology. An alternative, The White Pine Society's proposal for managing white pines on state-administered land, is available.
back

Acreages listed for 1962 and 1990 include 3,800 acres of white pine forest on reserved forest land (includes BWCAW and Itasca State Park) as listed in tables 41 and 42 of USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin NC-158, Minnesota Forest Statistics, 1990 revised.

Minnesota has never had a sustainable yield plan for its dwindling acreage of white pines. White pine acreage has declined more in Minnesota than anywhere else in the white pine range. For example, Minnesota once had twice as much white pine acreage as New Hampshire; we now have only a twentieth as much. Minnesota has declined from first to last in white pine lumber production among the large white pine states. Minnesota now produces only one percent of the nation's white pine lumber.

The situation in Minnesota is critical. We are now down to our last two percent of white pine forest, most of it second growth forest less than 120 years old. Nearly all fully grown white pines 300-400 years old have been cut. Old-growth stands over 120 years are rare, and we are cutting our future old growth stands (60-120 years old). There are too few pole-sized trees (20-60 years old) to replace our future old growth stands, and millions of Minnesota acres no longer have any native white pine seed source. For most of the last half century, white pines were cut without replanting and with little or no monitoring of natural regeneration as a step toward determining sustainable harvest rates.

Professional foresters should have been the first to recognize the problem, but they went on eliminating white pines from our public lands like they did our yellow birches, which are now too scarce to support industry. Half-grown white pines were being cut because the money from cutting them grows faster in the bank than the trees could increase in value if left to grow. On February 11, 1992, a USFS planner said that we must continue cutting the high-value white pines to increase revenue and avoid below-cost timber sales; otherwise the whole timber program could go down the drain and a lot of government jobs with it. Government employees who didn't help get timber to market saw their careers stagnate or dissolve. Administrators who cut legal corners to get white pines to market were promoted. In meetings between environmentalists and state or federal forestry officials, the officials ignored their own data and denied any problem with white pine management.
back

On May 5, 1995, the Sierra Club announced introduction to the Minnesota legislature of a bill called the Restore the White Pine Act, which called for a two-year moratorium on cutting white pines on state and county land and called for a sustainable yield plan to be developed for managing white pines on state-administered lands.

DNR Forestry Director Jerry Rose formed the work group in response to the Restore the White Pine Act, which Rose publicly opposed at the legislature. No one who supported the legislation was appointed to the work group, which was comprised of a timber industry CEO, 9 forestry specialists, 3 other state or university employees, and 1 environmental group representative. The group included an individual who actively opposed the legislation and some forestry officials who have consistently denied there is a problem with white pine management. Consequently, the view that cutting must be curtailed in order to preserve remaining white pines was underrepresented in the work group. The work group's recommendations reflect that imbalance. Further, the group worked under a rule that all recommendations had to be unanimously supported. The group unanimously supported excellent recommendations for improving regeneration. However, when it came to limiting harvest, industry representatives supported only the weakest recommendations. In fact, the group did not seriously consider any limitations on cutting until after a citizens input meeting October 23, 1996, when citizens asked the group to determine the effects of continued harvest on forest biodiversity, long-term forest economics, and our ability to maintain or increase white pines in each of the ecological subsections of Minnesota. The citizens expected the forestry professionals to give the questions professional consideration and make recommendations based on forest statistics, ecological data, and principles of conservation biology. The group made the recommendations critiqued above.
back

Harvests of white pine in the pine cover types on state-administered lands should be restricted to thinnings, selective harvests, or shelterwood harvests. When harvesting white pines in the other forest cover types, the best seed producing white pine will be retained and treatments carried out so as to increase white pine regeneration. These restrictions shall govern planning and timber sale design by managers on state-administered lands until new inventory indicates that the number of white pine trees has doubled from 25.9 million trees on all ownerships. An exception to these restrictions would allow harvest if a tree poses a hazard to the public or has been severely damaged by natural causes.
back

The first sentence of the group's recommendation is an improvement over past management because it recommends against clearcutting white pines in new sales on state-administered land (although clearcutting will continue under previous contracts on public land for years to come). However, despite the extreme decline that has already occurred, the recommendation allows extensive harvest of white pines to continue before sustainable harvest levels are determined for each ecological subsection. Management must be done by ecological subsection because problems differ accordingly. Further, the recommendation allows thinning of the State's white pine timberland, which is primarly quarter-grown white pines 60-120 years old, and allows no white pine stand to reach more than 180 years old (see recommendation 3 that covers "all" white pines on state-administered lands). Considering that white pines can grow for 400 years or more (record 634 years), this means that white pine forests will be cut when they reach approximately half their potential growth.

Despite the work group's claim that thinnings, selective harvests, and shelterwood harvests (different degrees of thinning forests) are proven silvicultural systems that foster regeneration of white pine, it is unclear how effective these methods will regenerate white pine in northeastern Minnesota where hardwood competition, blister rust, and deer are major problems. These harvest methods have proven successful only in places such as north central Minnesota and the Menominee Indian Reservation where such problems are less daunting. So little is known of the results of such procedures in northeastern Minnesota that this recommendation must be considered experimental there. In northeastern Minnesota, thinning can promote aspen rather than white pine; or white pine regeneration that results from an initial thinning can be destroyed by a second thinning. Study is needed to determine what techniques are most successful under what conditions. Until we know, do we want to continue cutting a resource that is already scarce?

In parts of Minnesota where white pines have been severely overharvested or regeneration is especially difficult, extra caution is required. With most of the white pines less than 120 years into a 400-year growth cycle, there should be no hurry to cut up future old-growth stands until more is known about regenerating white pines in such areas. With 98 percent of our white pine forests already gone, there are plenty of places to plant white pines without cutting more to make room. We don't have to cut them to save them, as we are often told. (More on this later). Cutting in such areas should initially be done only as part of limited experiments to determine the best regeneration practices.

The second sentence is also an improvement over past policy because it means some scattered trees will be left in future sales. However, the idea that not all of these scattered trees will be left is not useful. Where white pines are so scarce as to be only scattered individuals, also leaving the poorer seed-producing trees to produce what seed they can and then become snags and large diameter logs (see below) to provide centuries of ecological values has merit (see critique of Recommendation 2).

We often hear an argument for cutting that says leaving only the rust-free trees promotes selection for rust resistance. On the other hand, we doubt that much resistance has been obtained to date, even under the more intense laboratory/nursery conditions. Field surveys conducted by North Central Forest Experiment Station in northern Minnesota showed no higher survival by so-called rust resistant trees than by natural seedlings. They showed little resistance to blister rust and were more susceptible to other causes of death, especially browsing by deer. Also, it is difficult to determine rust resistance from the presence of a few dead branches or a dead top. There are three types of resistance, and the tree might have the type in which it arrests the spread through rapid death of the affected area before the disease travels far under the bark. The genetic complexity of resistance in Eastern white pines what makes artificial selection difficult. So where white pines are scarce, even infected white pines should be left for their ecological values. The disease does not spread from tree to tree. White pines can contract rust from a source miles away.

With a resource as depleted and difficult to regenerate as white pines are in parts of Minnesota, the emphasis of recommendations must not be to maximize short-term harvest but to develop a partial restoration plan based on principles of sustainable yield, ecosystem management, and conservation biology. Following is our proposal for managing white pines on state-administered lands.
back

Forest land management organizations should be encouraged to reserve the better white pine trees that occur as scattered individuals or in small groups for their seed producing, aesthetic, wildlife, and ecological benefits.
back

We contend that all scattered white pines should be left uncut on public land and that this be made mandatory rather than encouraged. In many areas, scattered white pines (mostly second growth) are all that remain of our white pine forests. These trees represent the genetic reservoir of locally adapted stock. They are our last hope for maintaining a broad distribution of white pines across their native range. They play a different ecological role than white pine forests and are of special value, living and dead, to a host of wildlife. Scattered trees should be the focus of regeneration efforts rather than targets for harvest. Stating that only "the better white pine trees" should be reserved suggests that dead, dying, or less than perfect trees should be harvested. However, with scarcity comes the need for extra protection to maintain scarce values. When trees are as scarce as white pines are in many parts of Minnesota, ecological values of the few that are left must take precedence over the desire to harvest more board feet. In many cases, these trees are surrounded by hardwoods which provide more competition than white pine seedlings can handle. Thus, cutting these scattered white pines eliminates the last individual from that stand forever. The gap it leaves is usually quickly taken over by aspen or other hardwoods. Making white pines even scarcer also can contribute to problems of self-pollination and genetic impoverishment. This recommendation also does not take into account that we have not yet defined sustainable harvest levels. The work group did not consider how difficult it is to regenerate a replacement white pine in the face of hardwood or spruce-fir competition. In many microsites where lone white pines remain, and could remain for one to three centuries, conditions have changed so that regeneration after cutting is very difficult. To cut the last tree and then try to get it back would cost more than the tree is worth as timber. One can only assume that in making this recommendation, the group did not plan to try to regenerate the scattered trees that are cut. This recommendation caters to industry and disregards the ecological and aesthetic values important to the public that owns the trees.

Ecological values apply to living trees, dead trees, and those that are defective. For example, eagles and ospreys often select white pines with dead tops for nests. Dead supercanopy white pines, which are scarce in Minnesota because of overharvest, remain standing for up to a half century or more because of their decay-resistant outer wood. They are the preferred roost trees for a host of bird species. The loose bark on these trees creates maternity sites for bats in summer and roosting sites for songbirds in winter. They are the preferred trees of many woodpeckers, according to an Ontario study. Unlike red pines, they tend to become hollow due to heartrot, providing homes for larger wildlife than can be accommodated in smaller snag trees. After they fall, the large diameter white pines remain moist inside, unlike smaller diameter trees that quickly dry out and disintegrate. Fallen white pines take up to two centuries to disintegrate. During that time, they serve as miniecosystems that house salamanders, red-bellied snakes, rare fungi, and uncommon mosses, and they serve as nurse logs that increase the survival of the next generation of white pines.
back

All white pine on state-administered timber lands should be managed under the DNR's Extended Rotation Forest (ERF) Guideline so as to increase the acreage and distribution of older white pine stands and trees on the landscape.
back

This recommendation is an improvement over past policy because it allows white pines to live somewhat longer. However, it would be a mistake to apply this policy to all white pine on state-administered timber lands in the absence of information on sustainable harvest levels. It allows no white pine forest to reach old age on state-administered lands where the public has a right to expect better protection of old growth than on private land. The ERF Guideline recommends cutting white pine at 150-180 years of age, which is less than half their potential lifespan. By this age, white pine stands show few old-growth characteristics. The stands are still composed of half-grown trees. There is no scientific or ecological basis for this recommendation. It does not take into account regional differences. It does not allow white pines to reach the large diameters (four to six feet) that our forefathers saw. It detracts from northern Minnesota's potential for tourism. This recommendation ignores the fact that a healthy forest is a functioning ecosystem. With white pine forests already depleted on other lands, white pines should have some protection as scarce wildlife habitat on our public lands. Those lands and those trees belong to all Minnesotans and must not be managed for the benefit of industry or any other special interest group. Minnesota is lacking in old growth white pine forests and old scattered supercanopy individuals. With the skewed age structure and scarcity of white pines in Minnesota at this time, the few remaining white pine forests should be allowed to advance into old age to provide aesthetic and ecological values while we make up for a half century when we cut without replacement. We need to take a break from cutting and take the responsibility indicated by the regeneration recommendations of the group. We need to grow some pole-sized trees before we go on harvesting the larger trees. Regeneration efforts can create a crop of younger trees to replace the pole-sized trees, creating an even flow of trees into old age and beyond, providing ecological values and timber for the future. As studies determine allowable harvest levels, sustainable yield harvest can create jobs in the future. Continued overharvest of an already overharvested resource will further reduce Minnesota's position as a white pine timber producer.
back

The DNR should protect (maintain) selected stands of white pine greater than 20 acres in size in various ages classes on state-administered lands to provide for future old growth. Limited harvesting for sanitation and maintenance may be allowed in some of the selected stands to help perpetuate the life of the stand and promote regeneration. Resource managers on federal and county-administered lands are encouraged to also follow this recommendation.
back

This recommendation conflicts with Recommendation 3, which states that all state-administered white pine forests should be managed under DNR ERF guidelines, which holds that all white pines would be harvested by age 180. Even if the wording is adjusted to eliminate that conflict, this recommendation remains weak because it is unclear what portion of Minnesota's white pine stands will be selected for management as future old growth? If only half our stands are greater than 20 acres (as estimated by the DNR) and only a portion of these will be selected and some of the selected stands will be subject to sanitation cuts, what is left to become old growth? How severe will the sanitation cuts be? Will most or all defective trees be removed, preventing development of snags and large-diameter logs and the old-growth characteristics these stands are supposed provide? What will the foresters be sanitizing the forest from? Blister rust does not spread from tree to tree. Will white pine seedlings and saplings be destroyed as the cut trees are dragged out? Will the forests be opened up to the point that they become susceptible to aspen invasion? There is no scientific basis for the numbers and procedures recommended. This recommendation caters to industry and offers little opportunity for our remaining white pine forests to become true old-growth forests.
back

The DNR should protect (maintain) older white pine stands greater than 20 acres in size so that approximately 25 percent of these older and larger stands exceed 120 years of age on state administered lands. Fifty percent of the acreage of these stands older than 120 years should be maintained as old growth. Resource managers on federal and county-administered lands are encouraged to also follow this recommendation.
back

This looks like a refinement of Recommendation 8 with percentages filled in. Recommendation 8 said "selected" stands... will provide for future old growth. Recommendation 9 says "25 percent of the older and larger stands" will exceed 120 years of age on state-administered lands. This is not much acreage in old growth considering that only about 3200 acres of stands over 120 years old remain on state and federal lands outside the BWCA, and a quarter of that is in Itasca State Park. The age distribution of white pine stands in the BWCAW is unknown. These stands total less than 3,000 acres.

The recommendation is unclear because it states that fifty percent of these stands older than 120 years should be retained as old growth. According to the DNR definition, white pine stands older than 120 years are old-growth. Perhaps the group meant to let them become truly old-growth and let them live out their natural lives at 400 years or so. However, that would conflict with recommendation 3 which calls for "all" white pine to be cut at 180 years under "Extended Rotation Forestry Guidelines."
back

The work group made commendable recommendations for research concerning regeneration but did not raise questions about the effects of continued harvest in the different ecological subsections.
back