These photographs accompany a Missoulian article on a vegetation management project on the Lolo National Forest in Missoula’s WUI, showing trees (ponderosa pines?) marked for removal. Most of the purpose and need is related to reducing fire risk, but there is also an assertion that these marked trees are ecologically inappropriate. Here is what the decision notice says:
While ecological restoration and resiliency are embedded in WAM, the MCCWPP, Forest Service policy, and the National Cohesive Strategy, there is less agreement from the Missoula community about restoration as the sole basis for wildfire risk reduction fuel treatments. This debate about restoration has been ongoing for many years, as the wildfire hazard and risk to our community continues to increase. As the District Ranger, I considered this challenge and while the purpose and need focuses on fuel treatments to reduce hazard and risk, the project also meets ecological objectives to create resilient ecosystems. Both objectives are met through the actions included in the Selected Action and this decision and are designed to achieve the following restoration and resilience strategies:
-
Reduce surface and ladder fuels; increase crown base heights
-
Reduce and maintain lower tree densities; decrease crown bulk density
-
Increase composition of fire and drought-tolerant species (ponderosa pine and western larch
-
Increase mean diameter and individual tree vigor by retaining large trees with healthy crowns
-
Conserve existing species and genetic diversity
-
Restore horizontal spatial heterogeneity of forest structure, including openings where early-seral species can establish
-
Reintroduce fire to reduce fuel loads, stimulate understory species, and maintain desired fuel beds
-
Reduce/maintain appropriate levels of pathogens, insects, and other disturbances in order to create decadence, mortality, and interactions with fire that lead to regeneration of new tree cohorts and diverse understories
-
Monitor key processes including mortality, regeneration, growth, fuel accumulation and new species colonization to inform management if the project is meeting objectives to reduce hazard and risk and create resilient ecosystems.
Make sense? Both objectives met? (Note that board feet is not mentioned here.) To me this kind of captures the debate about when is it necessary to remove the overstory to provide fuel reduction, which is going to be the “mature” trees that many would like to save. Should we be striving for historical conditions, or less density than that because there are houses nearby, in which case I would say the ecological goal is not being met? Keeping in mind that the “natural range of variation” is a requirement for ecosystems, not projects, I hope the forest plan identifies areas where risk reduction outweighs restoration as a desired outcome (purpose and need) of projects. And that the NRV for ecosystems takes into consideration the areas that won’t have that desired condition.
Your hope may be wanting…
You can’t hear the skepticism in that statement …..
Is it thinning? I suppose. Thinning is in the eyes of the beholder, it seems. Ponderosa is a shade intolerant species. So when prescribing, setting up marking rules for priorities, and finally marking, one has to be cognizant of what might happen if too much of too little is removed. On the forest I managed, the best practice for ponderosa was 1/2 to acre openings to allow light in for ponderosa regeneration. In a fuel modification project, I would try to have a break in fuel ladders from the regen to the overstory. If the trees grow at 2-3 feet/year, another thinning of the surrounding overstory will need to be considered within a decade or so. And, yes, the person doing the thinning will need to make a profit. They have bills to pay too. These projects are always compromises. The harvest is too much for the public, and not enough for the objectives.
Spot on! 👍
Great objectives but the trees are still way too thick. Cut tree marking, when trying to reduce BA/Canopy Bulk Density, is really a non-starter. I guarantee, guarantee the result will be an overstory that will carry running crown fire, I can see it in the picture. Will it help stand productivity and prepare for reintroduction of Rx fire? Sure!
I’m as hard-headed as a Missouri mule but finally did come around to a restoration strategy of stand treatments in Ponderosa pine! GTR 310 was developed further south but dry-site Ponderosa is similar wherever Ponderosa occurs; I wish I had known this back in the Oregon days of silviculture and pre-sale….
Looks like treatments prescribed 20 – 30 years ago!
Prescriptions and marking guides might be more effective if ‘we’ dropped the pretense of NRV and focused on treatment and fire effects relative to management goals. Landscapes, climate and fire effects are all hugely changed relative to some historical period. Process restoration is an act of blind faith. What is the carbon carrying capacity that can be sustained under current and projected future conditions?
NRV isn’t a pretense; it’s a requirement in regulations, but at the ecosystem and plan level. It’s also not necessarily the “historical period;” it’s what is expected to be resilient under future climate conditions. That’s sort of like “blind faith,” but the requirement is “best available science.” At the project level, the purpose and need for the project should be to achieve conditions on the site consistent with achieving the desired conditions for the ecosystem.
Trying to judge a mark via photographs is a fools errand. Do those trees have dead tops? Beetle hit and signs of imminent mortality? Every thinning I’ve been on has captured imminent mortality in addition to it’s guidelines for residual spacing.
It’s a good point that you tell why these trees were selected from a ground-level photo. But how important are factors indicating “imminent mortality” to fuel reduction decisions?
In my professional opinion they are very important, as more mortality = more snags which can act as aerial fuels and firebrands for spread of fire. May be good for wildlife considerations, but now what you want in a dedicated fuel break. Your point is taken though, a poorly written marking rx may not include salvage. In this situation it would not be considered thinning.
One of the easiest things to do in timber is critiquing someone else’s timber marking. Taking a picture excludes everything outside of its view, which should be affecting the mark inside of the picture. Additionally, many “thinning” prescriptions can be quite different, depending upon conditions, rules, laws and policies. I like the prescriptions that keep (mostly) contiguous canopy cover, while still separating crowns. However, I do realize that might impossible, based on actual existing conditions. I do think there should be some minimum canopy cover guidelines, consistent with conditions and locations.
I’ve seen some of the cuts from the southwest Forests, where the trees per acre looks to be very low, compared to what was there before the thinning project. That concept doesn’t really pass the ‘eye test’.
The Southwest uses GTR 310 for restoration. What you speak of is more of the Southeast forestry dynamics of “jail bar” thinning. Ponderosa pine does not grow in uniform stands, SYP, and lodgepole do. To understand canopy build density, fire safe zones within a stand and restoration, you are going to have to watch a mega fire in ponderosa! Southwest prescriptions are fully supporting the more minimalist stand density – that is the only way to reach any kind of resilience in dry-site pine!
It’s perfectly fine to have a large fire in PP, as long as the intensities are low. THAT is what should be desired for the future. Opening up a stand so much will result in fires that burn fast and far, and not be popular with the public. However, in fire prone areas, that is probably the best outcome.
If the forests can survive being overstocked, it should be able to thrive with a more conservative mark, instead of leaving just 8 trees per acre. After all, if there are only 8 trees per acre, can you actually call that a “forest”?
Is This Thinning?
While the pictures are murky, the larger trees are ponderosa pine with a closed canopy. I detect Douglas-fir or grand fir in the understory of the lower picture.
The Ponderosas in the top picture have orange-colored bark, characteristic of older trees, but with stunted diameters; however, the boles are not clear wood because the trees are in the process of self-pruning. The stand origin is around the turn of the 19th Century to the early 20th Century. Minimal log grade in the pictured trees, with all of the lateral branching and surface knots evident, so if it were a timber sale, it would receive no bids.
A cut-tree mark is evident.
This is the default WUI mitigation prescription: thinning from below with a high residual crown bulk density. Little desirable regeneration (if any), and structure, composition, and arrangement for a running crown fire. These types of heavily mitigated, muddled messes tend to trade headaches for upset stomachs, and the forest and the land (patient) are still ill when the project culminates.
So, it is thinning, but is it effective?
Reducing tree density becomes more important as we must adapt to increased aridity. With decreased moisture and increased temperatures historical forest structure may leave too much tree density. But, really good to grow more bigger trees.
Excellent thread – a lot to think about here. As this issue is well outside my lane I will only offer one caution: in the forest structure context the camera can lie. Older readers might remember the Keith Hammer kerfuffle. Experts might be able to interpret photographic evidence without more, but I only feel (albeit minimal) confidence when I can see the ground.
One thing we can always count on here at the Smokey Wire is we can read commentary from retired FS folks criticizing the current cohort of staff. “Back in my day…..!” That said, if we dig behind the two pictures included in this article and read the signed EA, we can find details on the silv prescription on mechanical treatment units. This states:
“Remove roughly 35 to 65% of the existing forest canopy creating gaps or small openings: 1) favor fire and disease-resistant PP and WL first; and, 2) thin stands from below second to an average residual basal area (BA) ranging from 40 to 80 square feet per acre, but provide a greater density range across the stand (20-100 variance). Remove diseased, suppressed, overtopped
and predominately Douglas-fir trees. Create space and gaps between trees to reduce crown fire potential. Within Units 22-24 only: Remove approximately 80% of the overstory to reduce extremely high wildfire hazard associated with extreme disease levels and heavy crown fuels. Retain the healthiest and most disease-resistant 35 to 65% of the existing forest canopy creating gaps or small openings: 1) favor fire and disease-resistant PP and WL first; and, 2) thin stands from below second to an average residual basal area (BA) ranging from 40 to 80 square feet per
acre, but provide a greater density range across the stand (20-100 variance). Remove diseased, suppressed, overtopped and predominately Douglas-fir trees. Create space and gaps between trees to reduce crown fire potential.”
Instead of the “eye of the beholder,” looking at these numbers, I’d have a simple rule like, if most of the overstory canopy is removed, you can’t call it thinning.
Jon – –
Forestry is not cooking cutting, simple rules exacberate problems in complex ecosystems. Arbitrary & capricuous residual canopy closure rules?
Surprising!
I was thinking about communicating with the public. When a commercial harvest takes most of the canopy and calls it thinning, it comes off as disingenuous (if not a lie).
Two versions of the Dictionary of Forestry (DOF), Helms (1998) and Deal (2018) define various practices and outcomes as thinning.
Thinning is a silvicultural practice to reduce stand density of trees or canopy primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. Types of thinning include:
Chemical
Free thinning
Low thinning aka “thinning from below”
Mechanical
Selection
Tree crowns/canopy are included in thinning types.
What your rules cannot anticipate are the stand composition of tree species. For example, if the stand is accreting with shade-tolerant and pyrophyte trees (white fir, grand fir) would responsible forestry leave canopy closure and stocking of such trees or open the canopy to encourage more shade-intolerant and fire adapted trees to regenerate?
I agree on communication, so there are no surprises!
A good silvicultural prescription focuses on post-treatment condition, not the volume of material removed.
Much like when I’m thinning carrots in the garden, how many seedlings I pull depends on desired spacing, how many seeds I planted, and how many successfully sprouted.
I was talking about the what’s left being less than half of what was there.
I would call it a very poorly written silvicultural prescription! Sounds good, but passing the intent to a mostly young timber marking crew, without verifiable parameters within the marking guide is wishful thinking! How big are the holes to create? Removing the overstory will increase stand diameter, and restore structure? 🤣. I guess if you cut one tree per acre you are reducing BA?
The only given is these BA’s will do nothing to substantially reduce canopy bulk densities…. Sorry folks, but we old timers know better! 👍
You’re, it was silly of me to question the expertise of any retired FS employee. I should have known that your vast knowledge in forest management in western MT would allow you to write silv Rxs based on two photos, each representing 1/10 of an acre, and a summary paragraph from an EA. Someone of your skill does not require consideration of the well document desired BA for DF dominated stands in this country ranges from 40-110ish ft2/acre, nor do you even require existing stand condition data to develop a Rx that “guarantees” a crown fire would not occur. As a matter of fact, maybe the FS should completely dismantle their Silv Program and just rely on your photo interp skills to develop the silv Rx. The increased efficiency across the agency would be exponential and would likely result in Chief’s Award.
Respectfully…
Who are you referencing; You’re doesn’t make sense. If it was me then yes I’ve worked in western Montana, which is so similar to eastern Oregon they are one and the same. Did you read the objectives? They contradict themselves! How can a marking crew carry out the stated intent, with confusing or contradicting objectives?
And yes, I’ve seen a few things; been involved as Agency Administrator on fires eclipsing half a million acres. In pine, Doug fir, larch, lodgepole, you name it! It wasn’t until late in my career until the pieces of fire resilience and true stand modifications for WUI protection came into view. I guess working in five Regions has some effect.
And now, I will struggle all weekend, or until I finish typing this, over not meeting your expectations – as wrong as they are…..🤣
There is only so much even an expert can deduct from pictures. The photos appear to cover a miniscule amount of land area, 1/10 to 1/4 acre max. It is possible that these areas are intended to create small canopy gaps if the Rx calls for it. Who took the photos and what was their angle on all this? The article is paywalled for me, unfortunately. Also, no view of the tops. A good forester always looks up. I saw the other comment about the EA stating 40-80 ft2/ac BA retention. In the second photo, i see several apparently larger leave trees (no blue paint). These might easily comprise 40 or more. The first photo has such a narrow view is completely worthless for gauging density / retention, plus there is nothing for scale to indicate size. My cynical mind tells me someone took photos of specific locations and angles to convey a slanted message. A walk through the stand with a silviculturist is they only way to understand what the specifications and intent was. Chances are, you might get a pretty convincing explanation.
Rodney McKay on
October 15, 2025 at 11:16 am
said:
“One of the easiest things to do in timber is critiquing someone else’s timber marking.”
Well, this isn’t a critique, but……..
We were on planning training session for the district employees on implementing the “new” forest plan in the field.
We ran into a timber sale just before lunch that had just been marked. No stump marks. And nobody in the session was in on the planning for this particular timber sale.
So my question was simple. Was the sale a cut tree or a save tree mark??
In a group of forty natural resource professionals….no consensus.
My guess was that it was a random tree mark. Probably done, by people that were NOT USDA Forest Service employees.
If ONLY the Forest Service had followed NFMA!!!
I also think it is important for someone to walk through their own marking strip. Yes, it WILL open your eyes to see your own mistakes. Sometimes it is merely a matter of the direction you are moving. Or what time of day it was. Every timber marker should be able to justify their choices, as well as they can.
I was a very good timber marker, years of practice and a degree in forest management, time spent mill deck and yard scaling, certifications from the South to the Pacific Northwest. However, I still remember my first tree marked – it was the wrong one! 🤣🤣. I’d rolled out of the Crummy with a seasoned, older crew of timber markers; the marking foreman was a distant friend and we were in a sawlog only unit. 9.6” dbh or larger and at least a 16’ log was the minimum spec. I spied a 11” tree and added my “right slash” (we each had our own distinctive mark) and called it out to the tallly man. The foreman told me to look at the tree; it was a suppressed shortleaf, and though larger than 9.6” dbh, it didn’t have a full log!!!
I learned real quick I didn’t know it all…..🤣🤣🤣
Or, the north, south, east, west facing sloped project area. I have no experience in a forester’s realm other than being in the high headwater timber during winter and early fall for almost 60-years witness to late season stream flow, snow retention and downstream return flow. Given what has already occurred and is about to occur with the Upper and Lower Colorado River System apportionments, I am surprised that water very seldom enters these thinning discussion threads.
Or, the north, south, east, west facing sloped project area. Given what has already occurred and is about to occur with the Upper and Lower Colorado River System apportionments, I am surprised that water very seldom enters these thinning discussion threads.
I agree with what many have said here, that a couple of random photos cannot be used to analyze a written silvicultural Rx. I also agree that 30 foresters walking through this patch would probably result in 30 different combinations of marked trees. Is it thinning? It could very well be a very effective thinning from the perspective of either stand growth objectives or fire risk reduction. Small groups being created can be done for a whole list of reasons that cannot be determined from these photos. Small groups can be perfectly in tune with a thinning prescription if some other factor is in play (mortality, disease pockets, dead tops, etc). I am a retired FS silviculturist but know better than to fall into the trap of criticizing someone else’s prescription implementation without being on the ground and being able to look through the entire area.
A more serious problem that is seldom discussed in forestry is the follow up timber sales sometimes decades later.
My timber marking career was only four years of part-time sales in the early 1970’s. At that point, I went off into recreation management and forest planning.
However, after I retired I did revisit as many of my timber sales as I could. Some burned over in fires and a few of those did well given the marking. Lower tree densities do help in preserving forests.
However, the most interesting one was a private property along I-80 in the Sierra Nevada’s. It was a fairly high elevation property with a very diverse stand. The private owner wanted to maintain the scenic qualities and species diversity. I was really proud of my marking on that sale.
Twenty years later, I was in the neighborhood and made it point to see how the property had developed.
The property had been sold to a X-Country Ski Resort and to pay for their expansion they put up a timber sale. It was real easy to locate the property. The environmentally oriented ski resort (they said that in all their promotional literature) had removed ALL the other tree species EXCEPT for lodgepole pine.
It was real easy to see the property lines where they abutted National Forest managed lands.
I was really disappointed that my beautiful tree marking only survived 20 years.
It being California I would have liked to have seen the timber harvest plan that the state of California approved twenty years later.
It made me realize that while foresters are proud of taking the “long-view” over time. It really doesn’t work that way in real life.
If you’re interested in following up on that private land timber sale, CalFire keeps all those harvest plans on file. Give the Redding Hq a call. My guess is it was a timber conversion, which probably is the size of several Los Angeles area phone books (given you were marking in the ’70s, you’ll remember phone books). CalFire foresters will be happy to talk to you about that property and the California Forest Practices Act.