Ash Management Guide for Private Forest Landowners

More documents

Recommendations

Info

General Ash ManagementGuidelinesIntroduction: Walking the TalkThere is a lot of talk about how to manage Minnesota’s ash trees. The ‘talk’ has become thefocal point of professional management discussions and policies, as well as the news around thebreakfast tables of those who own nearly 50 percent of the forested land in the state: YOU, theprivate forest landowner.Natural resource professionals reviewed ash management recommendations, includingthose for state land, developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (AppendixA). Those resources professionals wanted to offer you, the family forest landowner, anotherapproach. This Guide will discuss some specific guidance on ash management. It was developedcooperatively with insight from many different fields related to forestry and ecosystem management.A detailed, multi-process survey allowed experts to apply their knowledge several times tooffer useful management tips for the complicated and unprecedented future that faces Minnesota’sforests. As a result of this effort there are some basics you should use as the foundation tobuild upon in your management decisions.The following are a few baseline tips shared by a diversity of public and privateprofessional resource managers:• Seek and use the advice of a professional forester/forest plan writer.• Closely monitor stands with ash.• Plan for forest conversions when ash is a major component of your forest.• Work with neighboring landowners to address threats on a larger scale.• Actively discourage invasive plant and insect species; manage for native species.• Think outside the box. Contemplate a wider choice of tree species appropriate to yoursites and needs. Diversify the species you select. Tree and plant diversity will help preventfuture large-scale mortality the next time we discover a major pest attacking a tree species.• Think about replacement tree species before the ash dies.• Underplanting. Consider planting shade-tolerant trees beneath canopies of existing trees.• Minimize harvest damage by using the services of a professional logger who has takentraining with the Minnesota Logger Education Program. Ask for credentials and references.• Keep in mind - you can’t call a logger and expect him/her to be out harvesting at your sitein the next week or month. In most cases, you are going to need to set the plans in motion2-3 years before the timber is harvested.• Be extremely careful if using heavy equipment on very wet sites. It may be best to leavethe ash alone in these areas.• Be familiar with, and apply Best Management Practices.Following is a detailed background of ash as a resource, ash tree identification, emerald ashborer information and identification, and ash in our woodlands and recommendations on how tomanage ash forests through this transition. We hope this Guide is useful and informative as weface this unprecedented forest change together.2
The Delphi Survey ProcessThe University of Minnesota Extensionand the MN Department of Natural Resources(DNR) recognized a need to offer practical andtimely ash management recommendations forfamily forest landowners in the emerald ashborer (EAB) era. However because EAB is sucha new pest, first discovered in Michigan in 2002,and trees grow slowly – the average life spanof an ash is 200 years – and science takes time;we were tasked with the nearly impossible: topredict the future. We did our best to make recommendationsto manage for this uncertainty.Extension took the lead in exploring options onthe best way to predict and plan for an unknownfuture. After much consideration and consultationwith Extension’s evaluation experts, a surveyprocess called a modified-Delphi was chosen.This process is a systematic, interactive, anonymous,structured survey method to facilitate apanel of experts to offer recommendations oropinions from many areas of expertise.For this Ash Management project Extensionfacilitated three rounds of the modified-Delphisurvey. Of the 31 participants not all participatedin each round. This process was extensive, Round1 (84% response rate), consisted of 19 open endquestions. Participants were given two weeks tocontribute to the survey. Following those twoweeks Extension had two weeks to tally surveyresponses and create the next round of thesurvey based on feedback offered in the previousround. Round 2 (81% response rate) waslarge, 103 questions all generated from Round1. Round 3 included all the results from Round2 plus new information generated in Round 2.In total, Round 3 (68% response rate) was 98questions. The results of this survey processare wide reaching, but they are not exhaustive.When consensus couldn’t be reached we didn’treport that recommendation. It is very importantto remember that none of us has a crystal ballwhich we can see the future of Minnesota’s ashforests. This is our best effort to find a methodand experts to offer help. However it will be veryimportant for everyone, landowners and naturalresource professionals alike, to stay abreastof current research and information becauserecommendations are likely to change as the sciencescatches up.Forty-one experts, mostly from Minnesota,were asked to participate. They were experts insilviculture, forest hydrology, the MN DNR’s ecosystemclassification system, timber harvesting,family forest landowners, forest regeneration,forests and climate change, wood utilization andlogging, forest wildlife, woodland communication,EAB quarantine, EAB, cultural aspects ofash, and forest genetics. Deliberate effort wasmade to find experts from different organizationsincluding the University of Minnesota, DNR,US Forest Service, private industry, Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Minnesota counties, and privatelandowners. However, survey facilitators hadlittle control over who actually participated inthe survey. Of the 41 invited to participate 31actually contributed in any of the three rounds.All response rates are based on the 31 expertsthat actually participated in at least one of therounds.Funding and resources for this project,beyond the valuable and extensive time contributedby the panel of experts, were offered bythe University of Minnesota Extension, the MNDepartment of Natural Resources, Forest StewardshipFunding, and the Renewable ResourcesExtension Act.3
Page 3 and 4: We gratefully acknowledge Melvin Ba
Page 5: Table of ContentsChapter 1A History
Page 9: The Emerald Ash Borer & Chestnut Bl
Page 12 and 13: Chapter 1A History of Minnesota’s
Page 14 and 15: Chapter 2MinnesotaAsh SpeciesIdenti
Page 16 and 17: How to tell an ash from an ashIdent
Page 19 and 20: Chapter 3Ash: A 21stCentury Resourc
Page 21 and 22: Ash wood has been gathered and shap
Page 23 and 24: igger, then ash is not the first ch
Page 25 and 26: Photo by Pennsylvania Department of
Page 27 and 28: Chapter 4The EmeraldAsh BorerA litt
Page 29 and 30: feed on ash leaves for a few weeks
Page 31 and 32: will likely reduce population build
Page 33: Chapter 5The Native PlantCommunitie
Page 36 and 37: Chapter 5The Native PlantCommunitie
Page 39 and 40: Wet Forest: Dieback and declineEmer
Page 42 and 43: Chapter 5The Native PlantCommunitie
Page 44: Chapter 5The Native PlantCommunitie
Page 49 and 50: Mesic hardwood forests have a diver
Page 51 and 52: the invasion of undesirable plants
Page 53 and 54: for ash roots to reach mineral soil
Page 55 and 56: and re-colonize a burned landscape.
Page 57:
A general overview of ash species d
Page 61 and 62:
Survey Recommendations: WildlifeUnt
Page 63 and 64:
Chapter 7Other Implicationsof EAB a
Page 65 and 66:
Windthrow MortalityAll hardwood for
Page 67 and 68:
• Create conditions favorable for
Page 69 and 70:
Appendix BQuestions & Answers about
Page 71 and 72:
Appendix CMinnesota Department of N
Page 73 and 74:
GLOSSARYabiotic: Nonliving parts of
show all

Ash Management Guide for Private Forest Landowners

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?