A. Who Uses Wood?
1. Population Growth Impacts Our Need For Space and Resources. U.S. Census Bureau projections now indicate that the number of households will grow by nearly 24 million between the year 2000 and 2020. That breaks down to a need for approximately 1.2 million new homes each year. In order to accommodate these homes and the businesses that come with them, by 2030, the U.S. will require 44% more built-up space (developed land) than existed in the year 2000.
2. The Average American Home Is Larger Today. Today’s average home is approximately 2,200 square feet in size, compared to the 1,400 square feet of the average home built in the 1970’s. This size figure includes apartments and condos, which make up 32% of U.S. housing. A typical 2,500 square foot home is built with approximately 15,000 board feet of lumber and wood paneling or 2-3 truck loads of raw logs. Depending upon the size and species of tree, approximately 130 – 180 trees would be needed to build the same 2,500 sq. ft. home. In addition, the average U.S. citizen uses about 12 pounds of wood fiber each day in their consumption of cardboard, paper, lumber, and household products. One source estimated this to be the equivalent of each person using an 18 inch diameter tree that is 100 feet in height every year!
3. The U.S. currently imports almost 40% of our wood products to supply the growing appetite for this valuable resource. The demand for land to build on will further exacerbate this problem as more private forestland and agricultural land is sold for residential use. What role does the Treasure State play in growing wood products and supplying the demand? What are the benefits to our state? Read on to find out what every Montana resident should know.
B. “Wood Is Good”
1. Saving the Environment by Using Wood Instead. When we are good stewards of our forestlands, wood is a renewable resource that continues growing and fulfilling our needs into the future. In addition, wood is 100% biodegradable, recyclable, and natural. Did you also know a recent study in cold snowy Minnesota revealed that a wood frame constructed home uses 17% less energy to heat than comparable steel construction and 16% less than a concrete structure? The study was conducted by the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), at a cost of one million dollars. The Consortium, a non-profit group of 15 research universities, further revealed that the growth of wood in renewable forests works to “sequester” and remove carbon from the atmosphere. If that isn’t enough, fewer carbon emissions are created during wood product manufacturing than their steel and concrete counterparts. This makes wood a smart choice for those individuals seeking environmentally friendly products and building materials!
C. Montana Forest Land Classification
1. Diverse Forests of The Big Sky. The forests of Montana are as diverse as her landscapes. Seventeen coniferous species cover about one-fourth of Montana’s land area, some 22.5 million acres. Forests on the east side of the Continental Divide are dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas Fir. In western Montana, many more species are present, mostly due to higher precipitation levels, including western larch, lodgepole pine, western white pine, grand fir, alpine fir, Englemann spruce, western hemlock and western red cedar.
2. Forested Acres, Then and Now. About 97%
of what was forested in Montana in the early 1600's is still forested today (Figure 1)
Changes reflect human influence such as harvesting and settlement, as well as natural events, such as forest fires and disease infestations. Some changes are also due to modification in how “forestland” is classified.
3. Ownership of Montana’s Forests. Montana’s
forests contain about 22.4 million acres of classified forestland. Over 9.6 million federal acres (43% of all forested acres) are “reserved” or unavailable for harvest of wood products. Of this, 3.4 million acres are in National Forest Wilderness Areas, National Parks, and National Monuments,while an additional 6.2 million acres of U.S. Forest Service lands are also unavailable for harvest, due to their status as proposed wilderness areas, roadless areas, experimental stations, and other “special management” considerations. (Figure 2.) The remaining non-reserved land, 12.9 million acres (57 % of the total forestland), is comprised of the following:
Ø 5.2 million acres of National Forest Land, administered by the 10 National Forests in Montana.
Ø 726,662 acres of forested state trust lands administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC.
Ø 5.4 million acres held by private individuals, farmers, ranchers, and other “non-industrial” private landowners.
Ø 1.6 million acres owned by the forest products industry or 8% of the forestland in Montana.
1. Sustainable Forest Management. According to the most recent inventory data available, tree growth in Montana far exceeds natural mortality and harvest combined. Theoretically, if only the volume equivalent to the annual growth and mortality were harvested each year, there would be little impact on existing forest volumes.
D. FIRE IN THE FOREST
1. Winds Of Change: It is often said that the one thing we can count on in the world is CHANGE. Forests are no different. Every day trees die and new trees are born. Left to it’s own processes, nature has a way of managing the birth and death of trees. In the western states, that natural management tool is fire.
When we introduced humans into the ecosystem, so many years ago, we started to change the natural fire regime. Fire to man is a scary, dangerous thing that we have all been ingrained to eliminate. Since the turn of the century, fire has been considered to be the enemy of the forest and we did a great job of “protecting” our forests from the red devil!
2. Historically, Fire Played An Important Role in Western Forests. Fire kept dangerous fuel in the form of dead trees, needles and other forest litter in check. At the same time, fire helped manage the age class distribution of our forests in a healthy state, killing some of the old and weak trees, and providing seed beds for regenerating new trees. Fire managed tree density, thinning stands to maintain optimal growing space. Fire also determines tree species composition on a site. Some tree species such as ponderosa and lodgepole pines are dependant on fire for their survival.
Figure Fire-1 shows the naturally occuring (pre-settlement) fire regimes in some of the western states. The light green indicates forest types that experienced frequent low intensity fire or “non-lethal” fire. The orange represents less frequent, “mixed severity” fires, these are fires that may have small areas that burn hot enough to kill trees, but are interspersed with areas of low intensity where the majority of the trees survive.
The red indicates the “lethal” fire regime. This is where fire is an infrequent visitor, but when it occurs, is devistating and usually kills most of the trees within the burned area. This is what we call a “catastropic fire”.
Figure Fire 2 shows current fire regimes for the same area. The obvious difference is the increase in the red or “lethal” fire regime. Why the change? When we prevented fire from performing it’s natural duty in the forest, the forest changed anyway. In some instances, the historic species component was changed in the absence of fire. Douglas-fir and true firs grow where open stands of pine once occupied the same site (see Figure Fire 3).
Trees kept dying and germinating. Fuels built up, trees became sick and crowded. Today our forests are full of dead, sick, and crowded trees. The very trees that mother nature would have used fire to eliminate.
Figure Fire 4 compares acres of forest under current and historical fire regimes. You can see that historically, each fire regime is well represented. Current conditions show a dramatic increase in the “lethal fire regime.” What does this mean to you and I? These lethal fires threaten human life and property, ecological integrity of our wild lands, sensitive wildlife habitat and water quality. Furthermore, this type of fire greatly increases fire suppression cost and is much more dangerous to the fire fighter trying to stop it’s spread.
3. Where Do We Go From Here? Figure Fire-5 shows the predicted mortality within the next 15 years, with red areas being areas of high mortality. Change continues to happen, we can not put our forests in a box on a shelf and expect them to be exactly the same when we open the box in 50 years.
4. Public Sentiment Shows That The Results Of “Unmanaged Change” Are Not Acceptable. Fires today are more catastrophic in nature, destroying life, property and the very things we are trying to protect…..our forests. Without changing our way of doing things, we can only expect things to get worse.
Figure Fire-6 shows the acres burned in western forests since 1916. You can see the relatively low number of
5. We Have A Choice! Responsible forest management, including prescribed fire, fuels reduction and commercial timber harvest can replicate many of the effects of natural fire. We can restore our forests to more natural and healthy states, protect our homes and communities from fire, and produce valuable wood products, jobs and healthy economies.
Mitigating the effects of severe fires after the fact will always be harder than preventing them from being so severe in the first place.
E. Forest Facts
1. A Look at Harvest Trends. Figure 5 tracks Montana’s timber harvest during the past six decades.
Harvest levels typically mirror the health of the nation’s economy. Note how harvest levels plummeted during the recession of the early 1980's. However, recent declines in federal harvest levels are politically driven, and run counter to the nation’s robust economy. During the last 10 years, harvest from national forests in Montana have fallen 70%, even as U.S. housing starts reached record levels. The federal harvest decline is a direct result of regulatory constraints, timber sale appeals, and litigation.
2. Growing Tomorrow’s Forest Today. Forest managers in Montana believe it’s not enough to simply care for existing forests; we must also ensure that future generations have the same abundant forests we enjoy today.
That’s why foresters in Montana are committed to reforestation of harvest areas through tree planting or planned natural regeneration. In 2004, nearly 26,000 acres of forestland in Montana were regenerated through planting and seeding This does not include areas naturally regenerated with seeds from surrounding trees.
F. Management of Our Public Forests
1. Why Manage Our National Forests? You may have heard this question raised by those who believe we shouldn’t cut trees from our National Forests. The truth is, timber management has many benefits besides production of useful forest products from our renewable resource.
Timber harvesting is used to improve wildlife habitat, reduce losses to insects and disease, improve the growth and vigor of our forests, reduce the risk of high intensity wildfires, and restore forests to historic conditions.
2. The Cost of Restoration. In recent years the federal timber program has come under scrutiny for so-called “below-cost” timber sales, where costs of selling timber exceed revenues. The reasons behind this phenomenon are complex and varied.
Even though National Forest harvest levels have plummeted, a large staff is still required to conduct all environmental assessments for timber projects. Timber sales are being designed to remove smaller trees with less volume per acre, and specialized logging equipment is often required. These factors result in higher logging costs and reduced federal timber revenues. Many timber sales contain requirements for work that has no timber output, such as streambed restoration. Yet, the cost of these projects is billed to the timber program.
