'.7lJJ

RESOURCES

THE

HEADWATER

COUNTIES

BWE DocuMpfTO coffrcnod

MAY 1 - 1984

MONTANA STATE IfflRARr

1515 E. 6fh AV'£.
HELENA, MONTAH/I

Z^m^

wScv>

MONTANA DEPARTMENT

OF STATE LANDS
DIVISION OF FORESTRY

and

FOREST SURVEY
INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

REGION 1. USDA FOREST SERVICE

JUN 6 1984 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

S33375F4lhc 19e4c 1

Timber resources ot the headwater counli

IHIII
3 0864 00048010 6

TIMBER RESOURCES

of

THE HEADWATER

COUNTIES

LEWIS AND CLARK, POWELL, GRANITE,

DEER LODGE, BEAVERHEAD, SILVER BOW,

MADISON, JEFFERSON, BROADWATER

COUNTIES

JANUARY, 1984

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
STATE LANDS

FORESTRY DIVISION

2705 SPURGIN ROAD
MISSOULA, MONTANA 59801

and

FOREST SURVEY

INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

REGION 1, USDA FOREST SERVICE

ABSTRACT

Timber inventory data collected in 1978 for the 1.2 million acres of state
and private commercial timberlands in Working Circle 3 estimated a total
growing stock volume of 1.7 billion net cubic feet. Sawtimber volume was
estimated to be 4.7 billion net board feet Scribner. Approximately 906,500
acres of grazable commercial timberland, of which 729,800 acres are in good
or excellent condition, existed on state and private lands within the working
circle. In 1978 the carrying capacity of this acreage was estimated to be
127,900 animal unit months.

The average potential productivity was found to be 54 cubic feet per
acre per year. About 54 percent of the timberland had the potential to
produce 50 or more cubic feet of wood per acre per year. Forty percent of
the commercial timberland sampled was rated as excellent or good for timber
production.

A large amount of the privately owned commercial forest is at a formative
stage and can be manipulated to greatly increase future timber production.
Silvicultural treatment opportunities existed on 60 percent of the commercial
timberland sampled. These silvicultural treatments could dramatically increase
the growth rates and thereby increase future timber supplies from state and
private timberlands. The extent to which these opportunities are realized,
beginning immediately, will determine the amount of timber available for
harvest in the future.

Ill

CONTENTS

Illustrations vii

Tables ix

Preface xv

Acknowledgments xvii

Abbreviations xix

Introduction 1

Geographical Overview 1

Forest Types 7

Inventory Procedures 18

Major Inventory Findings 19

The Timber Resource 19

The Grazable Forest Land Resource 31

Analysis of the Timber Resource 37

Forest Condition 37

Timberland Quality Class 56

Silvicultural Treatment Opportunities 60

Available Timber 70

Inventory Data by County 73

Area by Owner 73

Timber Resource 75

Grazable Forest Land Data 90

Conclusions and Recommendations 92

Overview of the Current Grazable Forest Land Resource 92

Overview of the Current Timber Resource 94

Past Harvest Rates and Growth 95

Can Production Be Increased 99

Appendix 1. Data Reliability 103

Appendix 2 . Additional Data by County , 105

Appendix 3. Additional Survey Information 113

Appendix 4 . Wood Processors in Working Circle 2 150

Appendix 5. Description of Treatment Codes 155

Appendix 6. Location Record Sheet and Tree Data Sheet 161

Appendix 7. Forest Land Crazing Data Sheet and

sample SCS Grazing Guide 153

Literature Cited 165

Glossary 167

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1 Geographical Features of Working Circle 3. 3

2 Forest Cover Map, Working Circle 3. 5

3 Proportion of the total sampled area (forest and nonforest) by 21
ownership group, Working Circle 3.

4 Proportion of the sampled commercial timberland area by owner- 21
ship class. Working Circle 3.

5 Net volume of softwood growing stock on commercial timberland by 25
by species and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand

cubic feet) .

6 Net volume of softwood sawtimber on commercial timberland by 26
species and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand board

feet Scribner) .

7 Area of commercial timberland by stand size class, Working 47
Circle 3 (acres) .

8 Area of commercial timberland by stand volume class. Working 49
Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

9 Example of the shape of the desired average basal area by 54
diameter class curve.

10 Current average basal area per acre for softwoods by diameter 54
class, MAI site class 20-49, Working Circle 3.

11 Current average basal area per acre for softwoods by diameter 55
class, MAI site class 50+, Working Circle 3.

12 Area of commercial softwood timberland by stand size class and 59
timberland quality class, Working Circle 3.

13 Proportion of sampled commercial timberland by ownership group 76
for each county, Working Circle 3.

14 Net volume of growing stock by county. Working Circle 3. 82

15 Net volume of sawtimber by county. Working Circle 3. 83

16 Volume cut from private lands, calendar years 1968 through 98
1982, Working Circle 3 (million board feet Scribner).

VI 1

TABLES

Table Page

1 Total land area by owner, Working Circle 3 (acres) . 20

2 Area of commercial timberland and other forest land by owner, 20
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

3 Area of commercial timberland by forest type and ownership 23
group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

4 Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by forest 23
type and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic

feet) .

5 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by forest type 24
and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet
Scribner) .

6 Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by species 24
and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

7 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by species 27
and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet
Scribner) .

8 Net annual growth of growing stock on commercial softwood 27
and hardwood forest types by ownership group. Working Circle

3 (thousand cubic feet) .

9 Net annual growth of sawtimber on commercial softwood and 27
hardwood forest types by ownership group, Working Circle 3
(thousand board feet Scribner) .

10 Net annual mortality of growing stock on commercial softwood and 28
hardwood forest types by ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

11 Net annual mortality of sawtimber on commercial softwood and 29
hardwood forest types by ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand board feet Scribner) .

12 Net annual mortality and net and gross growth per acre for 29
commercial softwood forest types by ownership group. Working

Circle 3 (cubic feet and board feet Scribner) .

13 Area of commercial timberland by forest type and M.A.I, site 30
class. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres).

14 Area of commercial timberland by M.A.I, site class and owner- 30
ship group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

IX

15 Area of commercial timberland by condition class, crown density, 32
and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

16 Available animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberlands 34
by condition class, crown density, and ownership group.

Working Circle 3.

17 Potential animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland 35
by crown density and ownership group. Working Circle 3.

18 Net volume, gross growth, mortality, and net growth of growing 38
stock and sawtimber by softwood species on commercial timberland.
Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet, thousand board feet
Scribner) .

19 Net volume, gross growth, mortality, and net growth of growing 40
stock on commercial timberland by diameter class for softwood
species. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

20 Net volume, gross growth, mortality, and net growth of sawtimber 40
on commercial timberland by diameter class for softwood species,
Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

21 Net annual mortality of growing stock on commercial timberland 42
by species and cause of death. Working Circle 3 (thousand

cubic feet) .

22 Net annual mortality of sawtimber on commercial timberland by 42
species and cause of death. Working Circle 3 (thousand board

feet Scribner) .

23 Average potential productivity per acre by forest type for 45
commercial timberland. Working Circle 3 (cubic feet/acre) .

24 Area of commercial timberland by stand size class and insect 45
and disease category. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

25 Area of commercial softwood timberland by stand age class and 48
ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

26 Area of commercial timberland by stand volume class and owner- 48
ship group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

27 Area of commercial timberland by ownership group, stand size 51
class, and stocking percent class. Working Circle 3 (thousand
acres) .

28 Area of commercial softwood timberland by ownership group, 58
stand size class, and timberland quality class. Working

Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

29 Treatment opportunity code definitions for Tables 30 and 31. 63

30 Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity 64
group and ^4AI site class, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres).

31 Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity 66
group and timberland quality class, Working Circle 3 (thousand
acres) .

32 Area of commercial softwood timberland by ownership group, treat- 67
ment class, and timberland quality class. Working Circle 3
(thousand acres) .

33 Availability class and definitions and components. 71

34 Area of commercial timberland by availability class, productivity 72
class, and land class, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres),

35 Total land area by owner and county. Working Circle 3 (acres) . 74

36 Area of commercial timberland by county, softwood and hardwood 79
types, and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres).

37 Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by county, 80
softwood and hardwood species, and ownership group. Working

Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

38 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by county, 81
softwood and hardwood species, and ownership group. Working

Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

39 Net annual growth of growing stock on commercial softwood forest 85
types by county and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand
cubic feet) .

40 Net annual growth of sawtimber on commercial softwood forest 85
types by county and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand
board feet Scribner) .

41 Net annual mortality of growing stock on commercial softwood 86
forest types by county and ownership group, Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

42 Net annual mortality of sawtimber on commercial softwood forest 86
types by county and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand
board feet Scribner).

43 Area of commercial timberland by treatment class and county, 88
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

44 Area of commercial timberland by county and condition class, 90
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

45 Available animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland 91
by county and condition class. Working Circle 3.

XI

46 Potential animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland 91
by county and crown density. Working Circle 3.

47 Volume of sawtimber cut from private lands, calendar years 96
1968 through 1982, by county. Working Circle 3, (thousand

board feet Scribner) .

48 Forest land area and associated sampling error percentages for 103
Working Circle 3.

49 Net volume, net annual growth, and annual mortality on 103
commercial timberland, with associated sampling error percentages
for Working Circle 3.

50 Area of commercial and other timberland by county and owner, 105
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

51 Area of commercial timberland by county, M.A.I, site class, and 107
softwood and hardwood forest types, Working Circle 3 (thousand
acres) .

52 Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by county, 109
softwood and hardwood forest types, and ownership group. Working
Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

53 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by county, 110
softwood and hardwood forest types and ownership group. Working
Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

54 Area of commercial softwood timberland by timberland quality 111
class and county. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

55 Net annual growth per acre on commercial softwood timberland by 111
county. Working Circle 3 (cubic feet/acre and board feet
Scribner/acre) .

56 Net annual mortality per acre on commercial softwood timberland 111
by county. Working Circle 3 (cubic feet/acre and board feet
Scribner/acre) .

57. Area of commercial timberland by ownership group, forest type, 113
stand size class, and MAI site class. Working Circle 3 (acres).

58 Area of commercial timberland by stand volume class and owner- 121
ship group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

59 Number of growing stock trees per acre by diameter class and 121
stand size class on commercial timberland, Working Circle 3.

60 Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by forest 122
type and species. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

61 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by forest type 123
and species. Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner),

Xll

62 Net volume of growing stock on conunercial timberland by 124
diameter class, species, and ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

63 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by diameter 128
class, species, and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand
board feet Scribner) .

64 Net volume of sawtimber on commercial softwood timberland by 132
stand size class, timberland quality class, and ownership group.
Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) ,

65 Ratio of net board foot Scribner to net cubic foot volume by 133
diameter class and softwood species commercial timberland.

Working Circle 3.

66 Average d.b.h. age by diamet^^r class, species group, and M.A.I. 134
site class for growing stock trees on commercial timberland.
Working Circle 3 (years) .

67 Area of commercial timberland by primary habitat type and M.A.I. 136
site class. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

68 Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity 137
group, M.A.I, site class, and ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand acres) .

69 Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity 140
group, timberland quality class, and ownership group. Working
Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

70 Area of commercial timberland by crown density, condition class, 143
and climax series, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres).

71 Available animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland 144
by crown density, condition class, and climax series. Working
Circle 3.

72 Potential animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland 145
by crown density and climax series. Working Circle 3.

73 Area of commercial timberland by forest type, fuel loads per 145
acre, and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

74 Area of commercial timberland by salvable dead volume class 146
and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

75 Net volume of salvable dead by diameter class and condition of 147
dead class for commercial softwood species. Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

76 Net volume of salvable dead on commercial timberland by 147
ownership group and condition of dead. Working Circle 3

(thousand cubic feet) .

Xlll

77 Net volume of salvable dead on commercial timberland by forest 148
type and condition of dead class. Working Circle 3 (thousand

cubic feet) .

78 Net volume of nonsalvable dead by diameter class and ownership 148
group on commercial timberland. Working Circle 3 (thousand

cubic feet) .

79 Number of softwood and hardwood trees on commercial timberland 149
by tree class, salvable dead, and ownership group. Working

Circle 3 (thousand trees) .

80 Sawmills in Working Circle 3. 150

81 Post and pole processors in Working Circle 3. 153

82 Log home manufacturers in Working Circle 3. 154

XIV

PREFACE

This publication summarizes the findings of a timber resource inventory-
conducted in Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Granite, Jefferson, Lewis
and Clark, Madison, Powell, and Silver Bow Counties (Working Circle 3). It
is the fourth in a series of forest inventory reports. Each report displays
and analyzes inventory data for a different portion of the state. A statewide
report will subsequently be published by the Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station in cooperation with the Montana Department of State Lands
(DSL), Forestry Division.

The inventory of Working Circle 3 began in November, 1977, under the
authority of an existing cooperative agreement between the Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Region 1 of the USD A Forest Service,
and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry
Division. Under the agreement, the Forestry Division, transferred to the
Department of State Lands in 1981, would supervise the collection of forest
inventory data on all lands in Working Circle 3 except those administered by
the USDA Forest Service or the USDI Bureau of Land Management. The
USDA Forest Service would provide technical assistance and 60 percent of the
funding for the project. The state of Montana would provide the remaining
40 percent.

Aerial photo interpretation began in December, 1977, and was concluded
in June of 1978. Field data collection from 460 forested plots began in May
and continued until the last plot was measured in December, 1978.

Readers should note that because the data was rounded off to reach the
numbers used in this report, the column and row totals in some tables may
not be the exact sum of the individual cells.

XV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project could not have been completed without the willing assistance
of numerous groups. DSL, the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, and Region 1, Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management jointly wish
to acknowledge the following agencies, organizations, and individuals for their
contributions and cooperation:

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Soil Conservation Service

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

Beaverhead National Forest

Deerlodge National Forest

Flathead National Forest

Gallatin National Forest

Helena National Forest

Lewis and Clark National Forest

Lolo National Forest

Clerk and Recorder's offices in Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deer Lodge,

Granite, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Madison, Powell, and Silver

Bow Counties
Assessors' offices in Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Granite,

Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Madison, Powell, and Silver Bow

Counties
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Plum Creek Timber Company, Incorporated
Champion International Corporation
USDI Bureau of Land Management
Local landowners who granted access to their lands.

For collecting inventory data, DSL recognizes the forest inventory crew,
which included: supervisor Brian Long; inventory foresters Jim Huter, Steve
Wallace, Dave Remington, Pete Metzmaker, and Bob Dillon; inventory techni-
cians Kurt Gelderman, Mark Hannah, Steve Jorgenson, Jeff Rupkalvis, and
Randy Piearson; and secretary Caroline Flink. For consulting, adopting, and
developing special inventory procedures, DSL recognizes: Hal Hunter and
Frank Kirschten of the Soil Conservation Service, and Vince Frezzo of the
Forestry Division (forest land range inventory); Jeff Jahnke and Paul Klug of
the DSL (silvicultural treatment opportunities inventory); Terry Lonner of the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (wildlife use inventory); and
Bill Fischer of the Forest Service (fuel loading inventory). DSL also recog-
nizes: Brian Long and Bob Dillon of the Forestry Division for writing this
report; Diane Smith for editing it; Bob Dillon and Kurt Gelderman of the
Forestry Division for the photographs used in this report; and the Montana
Department of Administration, Publications and Graphics Bureau for helping
with the graphics, layout, and printing. Earl Salmonson and Don Artley of
the Forestry Division provided direction for the project.

xvii

ABBREVIATIONS

AUM animal unit month

BAF basal area factor

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFL commercial forest land

d.b.h. diameter at breast height

DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

DSL Montana Department of State Lands

MAI mean annual increment

MBF thousand board feet

MBFS thousand board feet Scribner

MMBF million board feet

NCFL noncommercial forest land

NPS National Park Service

SCS Soil Conservation Service

USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U. S. Department of the Interior

USFS U. S. Forest Service

xix

INTRODUCTION

Geographical Overview

Working Circle 3, located on both sides of the Continental Divide in
southwestern Montana, is characterized by diverse and often spectacular
geological features. Alpine glaciers have left their mark on the upper ele-
vations, leaving deep U-shaped valleys above broad intermountain basins.
Several major rivers flow through the region, including the Clark Fork, the
Blackfoot, and two of the Three Forks of the Missouri. Lewis and Clark ex-
plored much of the area on their historic trip in 1805 and 1806. Their re-
ports inspired others to explore the area further.

The geologic forces that uplifted and folded the existing terrain also
brought rich metal ores within reach. Gold was discovered in July, 1862,
along Grasshopper Creek in Beaverhead County, and the Montana gold rush
was on. Nearby Bannack became the first Territorial Capital but, in the
spring of 1863 rich gold deposits were found in Alder Gulch in Madison
County, and the Capital was soon transferred to Virginia City, leaving
Bannack a ghost town when the gold played out. Then, on July 14, 1864,
gold was discovered in Last Chance Gulch. Helena quickly became the third
Territorial Capital, and the State Capital when statehood was bestowed upon
Montana.

Mining is still a major industry throughout Working Circle 3, but no-
where has it had as much impact as in Butte, the "Mining City." Other nick-
names, such as "The Richest Hill on Earth" and "A Mile High and a Mile
Deep," indicate the value of the ore and the lengths miners were willing to go
to get at it. The smelter at nearby Anaconda became famous when they erec-
ted the world's largest smokestack.

Working Circle 3 has many interesting features which are enjoyed by lo-
cal residents and visitors from all over the world. Rock Creek and
Georgetown Lake are famous for the quality of fishing they offer; Montana's
first State park, Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park, is in Working Circle 3,
just up the Jefferson River from Three Forks; Red Rock Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge, just below the Centennial Mountains in the very southern
part of the state, boasts nesting pairs of trumpeter swans (Olor buccinator)
as well as other, more common wildlife. Not far from the refuge is Quake

-1-

Lake, which was created when a large earthquake on August 17, 1959, slid
half a mountain into the Madison River valley, damming the river. Three
dams have been built on the Missouri River near Helena, forming Canyon
Ferry Lake, Hauser Lake, and Holter Lake, all of which offer a variety of
recreation opportunities.

Beaverhead County, the largest county in the state, is located in south-
western Montana on the Idaho border. Of the 8,200 people in the county,
nearly half live in Dillon, the county seat. There is one large sawmill, three
smaller ones, two log home manufacturers, and one post and pole processor
(Montana Department of State Lands, 1983). Broadwater County, on the east
side of Working Circle 3, has two sawmills, one large and one small, and a
post and pole processor. There are 3,300 people in Broadwater County, and
half of them live in Townsend, the county seat. Deer Lodge County has a
post and pole producer. About two-thirds of the county's 12,500 residents
live in the county seat. Anaconda. There are four small sawmills and a post
and pole producer in Granite County. The county seat, Philipsburg , is home
for about 40 percent of the county's 2,700 inhabitants. Jefferson County has
two small sawmills and three post and pole processors. One-fifth of the 7,000
people in Jefferson County live in Boulder, the county seat.

The northeastern part of Working Circle 3 is in Lewis and Clark County.
The county seat, Helena, is also the State Capital. A little more than half of
the 43,000 people in Lewis and Clark County live in Helena. There are six
small and one large sawmills, one log home manufacturer, and two post and
pole processors in Lewis and Clark County. Madison County, in the south-
eastern part of the working circle, is home for 5,400 people. Only about 200
people live in Virginia City, the county seat and Montana's second Territorial
Capital. There are three small sawmills and a post and pole processor in
Madison County. Powell County stretches from the northwest boundary almost
to the center of Working Circle 3. Deer Lodge is the county seat, and home
for more than half of the 7,000 Powell County residents. There are three
small and one large sawmills, and a post and pole processor. The smallest
county in Montana is Silver Bow. More than half of Silver Bow County's
37,900 inhabitants live in Butte. There are three smedl sawmills and a post
and pole processor in Silver Bow County.

-2-

CO
LU
CC

3

CO
LU

O
CC

< U- ^

o o a

LU

Q.

<
CC

(3

O
LU

o

CC

o

5

or*"'

e\W

B&'

.09^

JC

to

<0

c

5

o

•-^

o

.^

or

c

.^

1

fJr

c

Q)

O

^

(0

LU

CC

•

CO

b

LU

<

-1

LU

o

u.

CC

< u.

o

o o o

<
CC

(D

O

LU

CD

CC

o

y^ -

CM

O

3

o>
iZ

0.

CO

<

UJ

cc

O

LU

CC

s

U.

O

o

O

O

H

z

CO

^

LU

cc

CC

o

O

5

^ CO

i !^

tt y

LU QC

CJ

Bu. ^

3

o o o

O)

il

^ z

(0 ^

LU GC

£ o

U- ^

3
0)

Q.

CO

<

LU

— 1

cc

O

LU

CC

B

U.

o

o

O

o

H-

z

(0

^

LLJ

QC

CC

o

O
II

^

Forest Types

A description of each forest type sampled in Working Circle 3 follows.
These descriptions may not be the same for all working circles in the state.

Because more than one tree species can occur within a given forest
type, those species that exhibited the largest number of live trees (plurality
of stocking) at a sampled location determined the forest type. Individual
trees were ranked according to their relative dominance in the plot. In those
cases where trees had overstocked a site, smaller or less-dominant trees were
not counted. Unless a stand of trees was lightly stocked with poletimber or
sawtimber, seedlings and saplings were seldom considered when designating a
forest type.

-7-

Forest Types

A description of each forest type sampled in Working Circle 3 follows.
These descriptions may not be the same for all working circles in the state.

Because more than one tree species can occur within a given forest
type, those species that exhibited the largest number of live trees (plurality
of stocking) at a sampled location determined the forest type. Individual
trees were ranked according to their relative dominance in the plot. In those
cases where trees had overstocked a site, smaller or less-dominant trees were
not counted. Unless a stand of trees was lightly stocked with poletimber or
sawtimber, seedlings and saplings were seldom considered when designating a
forest type.

-7-

Douglas-fir Type

Important Statistics

CFL Area (thousand acres)

655.2
Net Volume

928,026 Mft'
2,730,970 MBFS

Percent of CFL Total

55.5

52.8

58.4

The Douglas-fir forest type covers more acres and contains more timber
volume than any other forest type in Working Circle 3. This type was sam-
pled over a wide range of elevations, from 3,800 feet to 8,400 feet, and was
found on all aspects. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii variety glauca)
comprised 82 percent of the cubic foot volume found within the type.
Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta variety latifolia) and ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa) were most commonly found growing with Douglas-fir.

-8-

Lodgepole Pine Type

Important Statistics

CFL Area (thousand acres)

193.0
Net Volume

438,419 Mft^

812,781 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total

16.4

25.0
17.4

Stands of lodgepole pine, typically homogeneous, can be found growing
on most forest sites except within certain timberline whitebark pine (Pinus
albicaulis) habitat types, ponderosa pine habitat types, and the warmer, drier
Douglas-fir habitat types. The lodgepole pine forest type was sampled at ele-
vations from 4,100 feet to 8,000 feet. Eighty-six percent of the net cubic
foot volume found in the type consisted of lodgepole pine. Douglas-fir and
subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) were found to be the most common associate
of lodgepole pine.

Generally, the presence and abundance of lodgepole pine reflects the fire
history of the area. After a fire or certain harvesting practices, this species
will often regenerate into dense stands which tend to stagnate.

-9-

Ponderosa Pine Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres) Percentage of CFL Total

139.5 11.8

Net Volume

122,884 Mft' 7.0

348,412 MBFS 7.5

The ponderosa pine forest type was sampled at elevations of 3,800 to
5,700 feet. Natural ponderosa pine stands were not found in Beaverhead or
Madison Counties. It appears the climate of the forest zones in these two
counties is too cold for ponderosa pine (Pfister et al. 1977). Nearly pure
stands are most often found on sites where ponderosa pine is the climax
species or on the warmer, well-drained Douglas-fir climax sites. Douglas-fir
was found to be the most common associate of ponderosa pine.

-10-

Subalpine Fir-Spruce Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres)

56.1
Net Volume

114,038 Mft3
333,315 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total
4.8

6.5
7.1

Commercial stands of the subalpine fir-spruce type were sampled at
elevations from 4,100 to 9,200 feet. Besides subalpine fir and spruce (Picea
species) the most common associated tree species were lodgepole pine and
whitebark pine. The sample estimated this forest type to consist of about 40
percent subalpine fir and 30 percent spruce on a cubic foot basis. On the
drier, more exposed sites, stands of this type contain very few, if any,
spruce trees.

Forest stands of this type tend to be uneven aged and heavily stocked
under natural conditions. Subalpine fir is highly shade tolerant and grows in
cold, moist climates. It is not a preferred timber species due to the brittle
nature of its wood and its susceptibility to heart rot. However, subalpine fir
is growing in importance as logging moves higher into the mountains.

■11-

Whitebark-Limber Pine Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres)

35.9
Net Volume

44,045 Mft3
119,047 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total
3.0

2.5
2.5

This forest type actually represents two very different topographic and
climatic extremes. The whitebark pine forest type occurs at the upper eleva-
tional limits of commercial timberland. Spruce and subalpine fir were the most
commonly found species associated with whitebark pine. This type is often
found above or adjacent to the subalpine fir-spruce forest type, on sites too
harsh or exposed to be dominated by subalpine fir.

The limber pine forest type can be found on some of the driest sites
capable of supporting trees (Pfister et al. 1977). This forest type was found
growing just above the grasslands and at mid- to upper-elevations on steep,
dry, rocky mountain slopes in the vicinity of the subalpine fir-spruce type.
The most commonly associated commercial tree species at lower elevations was
Douglas-fir. Limber pine and whitebark pine were rarely found occupying
the same sites.

These forest types are not commercially important timber producers.

■12-

Juniper Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres)

18.3
Net Volume

9,939 Mft'
33,197 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total
1.6

0.6
0.7

The juniper forest type grows on dry, rocky sites over a wide range of
elevations. Stands were sampled at elevations of 4,300 to 6,500 feet. Most
juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) stands are found on sites that are not capable
of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year under natural con-
ditions. Commercial timberland classified into this forest type contained
Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and/or ponderosa pine. In some parts of the
state, juniper is used for fence posts and firewood. However, the volume
shown for each forest type does not include juniper because it is not con-
sidered a commercial species in Montana.

■13-

Spruce Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres) Percentage of CFL Total

3.6 *

Net Volume

989 Mft' *

~ MBFS

In Montana, the most common species of spruce is Engelmann spruce
(Picea engelmannii) , although in many stands Engelmann spruce has hybrid-
ized with white spruce (Picea glauca) . Occasionally a stand containing white
spruce can be found (Pfister et al. 1977).

Spruce is commonly found growing in cool ravines, along streams and
lakes, or in areas with a high water table. It also can be found growing at
or near the timberline in association with whitebark pine and subalpine fir.
One stand was sampled at 6,400 feet.

*Indicates less than 0.05%.

-14-

Western Larch Type

Important Statistics

CFL Area (thousand acres)

1.2
Net Volume

2,278 Mft^

10,461 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total

*

*
*

Like lodgepole pine, the presence of old growth western larch (Larix
occidentalis) reflects the fire history of the area. Western larch is the least
shade tolerant commercial tree species in the northern Rockies (Schmidt et
al. , 1976). To regenerate harvested larch stands, even-aged management
techniques including clearcutting, shelterwood, and seed-tree methods are
used to create conditions similar to those that follow wildfires.

Western larch always occurs as a serai component of the forest and can
be found growing over a wide range of ecological conditions. The most
common associate was Douglas-fir, with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine and
ponderosa pine. Naturally regenerated stands are found only west of the
Continental Divide in Working Circle 3.

*Indicates less than 0.05%

-15-

Aspen Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres)

45.2
"Net Volume

51,560 Mft^
126,145 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total
3.8

2.9
2.7

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands usually occur on moist sites adja-
cent to or among conifer stands. The aspen forest type was sampled at ele-
vations of 4,200 to 6,300 feet. The most commonly associated species were
lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine.

Periodic wildfires seem necessary for aspen stands to perpetuate (Pfister
et al. 1977). In areas where wildfires have successfully been suppressed,
aspen stands seem to be succeeding towards conifer stands.

Aspen is not an important commercial species in Working Circle 3. How-
ever, there has been some recent experimentation in using aspen as feed for
cattle.

■16-

Cottonwood Type

Important Statistics
CFL Area (thousand acres)

31.9
Net Volume

44,718 Mft^
164,997 MBFS

Percentage of CFL Total
2.7

2.5
3.5

Stands of cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) grow along rivers and
streams throughout the working circle. The cottonwood forest type was sam-
pled at elevations of 3,600 to 5,700 feet. Most of the stands were comprised
almost entirely of cottonwood. Ninety-six percent of the estimated cubic foot
volume for this type is cottonwood. Although this type is not commercially
important, cottonwood stands serve an important role in maintaining river and
stream bank stability.

■17-

Inventory Procedures

The timber resource inventory was designed to provide inventory data
for the individual working circles in Montana and the state as a whole.
Because reliable county data was desired in Working Circle 3, a large number
of field plots were sampled. This allowed the data to be stratified further to
provide better information at the county level.

Forest inventory data was collected on all private, state, county, munici-
pal, and some miscellaneous federal lands in the working circle. These
miscellaneous federal lands included USDI Fish and Wildlife Service lands,
lands within national monuments, and lands controlled by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the USDI Bureau of Reclamation. The sampled area,
which totalled 6.6 million acres, included forested and nonforested lands.
(NOTE: Timber Resources on USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land
Management, and National Park Service Lands were not inventoried).

Sample points were selected, measurements taken, and data analyzed
through the following methods:

1. Initial area estimates were based on the classification of 52,463
sample points systematically placed on the latest aerial photographs available.
The dates of these photos ranged from 1955 to 1976; most were 1972 photos.
The sample points were summarized and grouped into strata for subsequent
field sampling. The photo points, adjusted to meet known land areas, were
used to compute area expansion factors for the field stratum means.

2. Land classification and estimates of timber characteristics and volume
were based on observations and measurements recorded at 460 ground sample
locations. Sample trees were selected using a 10-point cluster that included
fixed plots (1/300 acre) for trees less than 5.0 inches d.b.h. and variable
plots (40 BAF) for trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. or larger.

3. All photo and field data was sent to the Intermountain Experiment
Station in Ogden, Utah, to be punched onto computer cards and stored for
machine computing, sorting, and tabulation. Computerized edits were sent to
the inventory crew for corrections. Final estimates were based on statistical
summaries of the data.

Data reliability is listed in Appendix 1.

-18-

MAJOR INVENTORY FINDINGS

The Timber Resource

The total sampled area was 6.6 million acres of which 1.2 million acres
(18 percent) were classified as commercial timberland. About 70 percent of
the sampled timberland was owned by the other private ownership group, 16
percent was owned by forest industries, and 14 percent was state owned.
Douglas-fir was found to be the dominant forest type, covering 56 percent of
the commercial timberland. Growing stock net volume was estimated to be 1.7
billion cubic feet and sawtimber volume was estimated to be 4,7 billion board
feet Scribner. Annual growing stock net growth totaled 37.1 million cubic
feet and sawtimber totaled 107.2 million board feet. Annual mortality was
estimated to be 5.5 million cubic feet or 13.6 million board feet. The
average acre of commercial timberland had the potential to produce 5k cubic
feet per acre per year. About 54 percent of the timberland had the potential
to produce 50 or more cubic feet per acre per year.

Area By Ownership Group

Table 1 shows the acreage and percentage of land in Working Circle 3
owned or administered by the different owners. As this table shows, public
agencies owned or administered 58 percent of the land. The USDA Forest
Service administered the largest portion of this public land, as well as most
of the forested land in the working circle.

The proportion of the sampled lands — private, state, county, munici-
pal, and miscellaneous federal — owned or administered by different owner-
ship groups is shown in Figure 3. The total sampled area was 6.6 million
acres which included nonforest land as well as forest.

Of the commercial forest land sampled, about 61 percent, or 722,500
acres, was owned by farmers and ranchers (see Table 2). Another 16 per-
cent was owned by forest industries (see Figure 4). The State of Montana
owned an additional 14 percent of the commercial timberland sampled.

-19-

Table 1. Total land area by owner. Working Circle 3 (acres)

Owner
Public:

USDA Forest Service

USDI Bureau of Land Management

USDI National Park Service

Miscellaneous Federal

State

County and Municipal

Subtotal
Private:

Forest Industry

Private

Subtotal

Total Land Area

Percentage

Acreage

of

Total

5,477,126

40.9

1,321,821

9.9

2,184

*

49,613

0.4

947,320

7.1

6,175

*

7,804,239

58.2

243,141

1.8

5,355,335

40.0

5,598,476

41.8

13,402,715

100.0

Table 2. Area of commercial timberland and other forest land by owner.
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Owner

Commercial

Other

All

Percentage

Timberland

Forest Land

Forest Land

of Total

thousand

5.5

Montana Department of

113.2

118.7

9.5

State Lands

Other- state

49.1

3.4

52.5

4.2

Miscellaneous federal

3.1

0.1

3.2

0.3

County and municipal

**

-

**

*

Subtotal

165 . 3

9.0

174.3

14.0

Private:

Forest industry

186.9

2.9

189.8

15.2

Farmer/rancher

722.5

48.8

771.3

61.9

Other private - corporate

42.5

2.3

44.8

3.6

Other private - individual

62.7

2.3

65.0

5.2

Subtotal

1,014.6

56.3

1,070.9

86.0

Total

1,180.0

65.3

1,245.3

100.0

*Indicates less than 0.05 percent.
**Indicates less than 50 acres.

-20-

Figure 3. Proportion of the total sampled area (forest and nonforest) by
ownership group, Working Circle 3.

Forest
Industry

4%

Figure 4. Proportion of the sampled commercial timberland area by ownership
class, Working Circle 3.

Montana Department

of State Lands

10%

State and
Ottier Public

4%

Other Private
Individual

5%

Other Private-
Corporate

4%

-21-

Forest Type Acreage

Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine forest types together
comprised 84 percent of the total commercial timberland acreage (see Table 3).

Volume Estimates

The Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine forest types con-
tained 85 percent of the total growing stock cubic foot volume and 83 percent
of the total sawtimber board foot volume occurring on sampled land in Working
Circle 3 (see Tables 4 and 5).

About 65 percent of the total sampled volume belonged to owners in the
other private ownership group. About 20 percent was owned by forest
industries. These percentages apply to both board foot and cubic foot
volumes.

The volume by species is compared by ownership groups in Tables 6 and
7. As shown, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine made up 76 percent of the total
cubic foot volume and 73 percent of the total board foot volume.

The average volume per acre for all sampled lands was estimated to be
4,000 board feet Scribner.

-22-

Table 3. Area of commercial timberland by forest type and ownership group.
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Forest Type

Other Public

Industry

thousand

113,1

Private

Total

of

Total

Douglas-fir

86.8

455.3

655.2

55.5

Lodgepole pine

33.8

39.0

120.2

193.0

16.4

Ponderosa pine

19.0

9.2

111.3

139.5

11.8

Subalpine fir-spruce

7.8

12.9

35.4

56.1

4.8

Whitebark-limber

pine

6.3

5.3

24.3

35.9

3.0

Juniper

2.5

0.7

15.1

18.3

1.6

Spruce

0.6

0.9

2.2

3.6

0.3

Western larch

-

1.2
182.3

-

1.2

1,102.9

0.1

Softwood types

156.8

763.8

93.5

Aspen

4.4

2.9

38.0

45.2

3.8

Cottonwood

4,3

1.7

26.0

31.9

2.7

Hardwood types

8.6

4.6

63.9

77.1

6.5

All forest types

165,4

186.9

827.7

1,180.0

100.0

Table 4. Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by forest type
and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Forest Type

Other Public

Industry
-thousand

Private
cubic feet

Total

of

Total

Douglas-fir

127,021

199,350

601,654

928,026

52.8

Lodgepole pine

82,131

103,722

252,638

438,491

25.0

Ponderosa pine

18,764

6,631

97,489

122,884

7.0

Subalpine fir-spruce 17,140

23,742

73,157

114,038

6,5

Whitebark-limber

pine 8,440

8,242

27,362

44,045

2.5

Juniper

1,364

403

8,173

9,939

0.6

Spruce

160

237

592

989

0.1

Western larch

-

2,278
344,605

-

2,278
1,660,690

-

0.1

Softwood types

255,020

1,061,065

94.6

Aspen

4,250

1,022

46,288

51,560

2.9

Cottonwood

6,561

1,221

36,937

44,718

2.5

Hardwood types

10,811

2,243

83,225

96,278

5.4

All forest types

265,831

346,848

1,144,290

1,756,968

100.0

-23-

Table 5. Net volume of sawtimber on coiranercial timberland by forest type and
ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Forest Type

Other Public

Industry
-thousand

Private
board feet

Total

of Total

Douglas-fir

373,779

664,729

1,692,462

2,730,970

58.4

IiOdgepole pine

167,025

196,425

449,332

812,781

17,4

Ponderosa pine

53,062

25,062

270,289

348,412

7.5

Subalpine fir-spruce 48,261

71,511

213,543

333,315

7.1

Whitebark- limber

pine 22,780

23,280

72,987

119,047

2.5

Juniper

4,441

1,345

27,410

33,197

0.7

Spruce

-

-

-

-

-

Western larch

-

10,461
992,813

-

10,461
4,388,183

0.2

Softwood types

669,348

2,726,023

93,8

Aspen

8,478

3,937

113,730

126,145

2.7

Cottonwood

24,108

3,710

137,179

164,997

3,5

Hardwood types

32,586

7,647

250,909

291,142

6,2

All forest types

701,934 1

,000,460

2,976,932

4,679,326

100.0

Table 6. Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by species and
ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) ,

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Species

Other Public

Industry
-thousand

cub:

Private
Lc feet

Total

of Total

Douglas-fir

113,373

182,795

530,155

826,323

47.0

Lodgepole pine

89,508

103,633

309,806

502,947

28,6

Ponderosa pine

21,310

19,450

114,350

155,110

8.8

Subalpine fir

10,727

13,453

36,898

61,078

3.5

Whitebark- limber p

ine 10,037

9,924

33,406

53,367

3,1

Spruce

8,235

7,276

36,640

52,150

3.0

Western larch

1,181

8,917

993

11,090

0.6

Softwood species

254,371

345,447

1

,062,248

1,662,066

94,6

Aspen

4,178

464

40,963

45,604

2,6

Cottonwood

7,175

917

40,757

48,849

2.8

Other hardwoods

105

21

321

449

*

Hardwood species

11,460

1,401

82,041

94,902

5.4

Total all species

265,831

346,848

1,

,144,289

1,756,968

100,0

♦Indicates less than 0.05 percent.

-24-

Figure 5. Net volume of softwood growing stock on commercial timberland by
species and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic
feet) .

550,000 —

500,000 —

450,000 —

400,000 •

350,000

■§ 300,000 ■

I- 250,000 —

200,000 —

150,000 —

100,000 —

50,000 —

D

LEGEND

STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC

FOREST INDUSTRY

OTHER PRIVATE

a

mfl-:

M

I

e
Q

o

c
a
«

s
a>

1

c
a.

Species

JZ

5

1

■E

-25-

Figure 6. Net volume of softwood sawtimber on commercial timberland by
species and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand board
feet Scribner) .

1,500.000—,

1,400,000 -

1,300,000

1,200,000 -

1,100,000 —

1,000,000 -

5 900,000-
o

u. 800,000 -

■s

CO

o

m

1 700,000 -

o

600,000-

500,000-

400,000 —

300,000 ■

200,000 ■

100,000

-i

m

LEGEND

W \ STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC

D

FOREST INDUSTRY

OTHER PRIVATE

rwr

n

;^

s

g

il

(A

CL

a

0)

"5)

•

s

c

3

o

§^

g

n

o

8>

«

3

-i

Q.

w

I

9>

1

IB

Species

-26-

Teible 7. Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by species and
ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner)

Ownership Group

Species

Douglas-fir
Lodgcpole pine
Ponderosa pine
Subalpine fir
Whitebark- limber
Spruce

Western larch
Softwood species

Aspen

Cottonwood
Other hardwoods
Hardwood species

pine

Total all species

♦Indicates less than 0,05 percent.

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Other Public

: Industry

Private

Total

of Total

-thousand
621,205

333,558

1

,503,587

2

,458,350

52.5

186,986

182,741

584,555

954,283

20.4

66,294

79,558

353,067

498,919

10.7

19,285

27,369

67,493

114,147

2.4

27,710

27,416

88,420

143,546

3.1

29,106

27,759

141,965

198,829

4.2

5,577

30,765

3,628

39,970

0.9

668,516

996,814

2

,742,715

4

,408,044

94.2

6,359

500

79,229

86,088

1.9

26,885

3,113

154,464

184,462

3.9

174

34
3,646

523
234,217

731
271,281

*

33,418

5.8

701,934

1,000,460

2

,976,932

4

,679,326

100.0

TeQjle 8. Net annual growth of growing stock on commercial softwood and
hardwood forest types by ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

Ownership Group

State and Other Public
Forest Industry
Other Private

All Owners

Forest Type

Softwood Types Hardwood Types

thousand cubic feet-

5,511 256

5,386 62

24,148 1,761

Total

35,045

2,079

5,767

5,448

25,909

37,124

Table 9. Net annual growth of sawtimber on commercial softwood and hardwood
forest types by ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand board
feet Scribner) .

Forest Type

Ownership Group

State and Other Public
Forest Industry
Other Private
All Owners

Softwood

I Types

Hardwood Types

thou

sand

board

feet

15,

180

781

18,

993

201

65,

676

6,387

Total

99,849

7,369

15,961

19,194

72,063

107,218

-27-

Growth and Mortality by Ownership Group

Growth Commercial timberlands on state and private lands in Working
Circle 3 were growing at an annual rate of 37,124,000 net cubic feet or
107,218,000 net board feet Scribner (see Tables 8 and 9). Over time, net
growth will change depending on such factors as the forest's overall age,
condition, mortality rates, and the amount of harvest.

Most of the cubic foot and board foot net growth — about 70 percent —
took place on the other private owner group's timberland. Net growth in
cubic feet per acre was highest on timberlands owned by the state and other
public ownership group. Net growth in board feet per acre was highest on
timberlands owned by forest industries (see Table 12). Trees on an average
acre of timberland in Working Circle 3 grew 31.5 net cubic feet or 102 net
board feet Scribner per year.

Mortality The data shows that state and private timberlands in Working
Circle 3 lose 5,515,000 net cubic feet of growing stock or 13,562,000 net
board feet of sawtimber annually due to natural mortality (see Tables 10 and
11). This timber is removed from the commercial growing stock by natural
causes such as insects, disease, fire, and weather. Timber removed through
logging is not considered when computing mortality figures.

On a per acre basis, mortality rates appear to be highest on forest in-
dustry-owned lands and lowest on other private timberlands (see Table 12).
The average annual mortality rate in the working circle was 4.7 cubic feet of
growing stock per acre, or 12 board feet Scribner per acre for sawtimber.

Table 10. Net annual mortality of growing stock on commercial softwood and
hardwood forest types by ownership group, Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

Forest Type

Ownership Group Softwood Types Hardwood Types Total

thousand cubic feet

State and Other Public 669 29 699

Forest Industry 1,817 1 1,818

Other Private 2,841 157 2,998

All Owners 5,327 188 5,515

-28-

Area by Site Class

Commercial timberland was placed in one of five productivity classes (see
Tables 13 and 14). As shown in Table 14, almost half of the timberland — 46
percent — had the potential to produce from 50 to 84 cubic feet of timber per
acre per year. An almost equal amount of timberland had the potential to
produce from 20 to 49 cubic feet of timber per acre per year. An average
sampled acre of commercial timberland had the potential to produce 54 cubic
feet of timber per year. This is below the average potential yield for the
entire United States — 74 cubic feet per acre per year — and slightly below
the Rocky Mountain region's average of 60 cubic feet per acre per year
(USDA Forest Service 1973). (Average potential productivity for the differ-
ent forest types in Working Circle 3 is shown in Table 23, page 45).

Table 14 indicates the forest industry-owned timberlands had the highest
average potential productivity when compared to the other ownership groups.

Table 11. Net annual mortality of sawtimber on commercial softwood and hard-
wood forest types by ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand
board feet Scribner) .

Forest Type

Ownership Group

State and Other Public
Forest Industry
Other Private

Softwood Types Hardwood Types

thousand board feet

1,372 83

5,071 5

6,547 485

Total

1,

,454

5,

,075

7,

,032

All Owners

12,989

572

13,562

Table 12. Net annual mortality and net and gross growth per acre for commer-
cial softwood forest types by ownership group. Working Circle 3
(cubic feet and board feet Scribner) .

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Working

Mortality

Other Public

Industry

Private

Circle Total

Ft3/acre

4.2

9.7

3.6

4.7

BFS/acre

8.8

27.2

8.5

11.5

Net Growth

Ft3/acre

34.9

29.1

31.3

31.5

BFS/acre

96.5

102.7

87.1

90.9

Gross Growth

Ft^/acre

39.1

38.9

34.9

36.1

BFS/acre

105.3

129.8

95.6

102.4

-29-

TaUale 13. Area of commercial timberland by forest type and M.A.I,
class. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

site

Forest Type

Douglas-fir

Lodgepole pine

Ponderosa pine

Subalpine fir-spruce

Whitebark-limber pine

Juniper

Spruce

Western larch

All softwood types

Aspen

Cottonwood

All hardwood types

All forest types

Site

Class

(cubic feet/acre/year)

All

20-49

50-84

85-119

120-164

165+

Classes

289.6

330.3

28.4

7.0

_

655.2

63.3

115.7

12.7

1.3

-

193.0

101.1

29.6

8.8

-

-

139.5

7.5

41.4

7.3

-

-

56.1

29.7

2.6

3.5

-

-

35.9

14.4

2.1

1.8

-

-

18.3

3.6

-

-

-

-

3.6

-

1.2
522.8

-

8.3

-

1.2

509.2

62.5

1,102,9

19.1

13.0

13.1

_

.

45.2

20.4

11.5
24.5

-

-

-

31.9

39.5

13.1

77.1

548.7

547.3

75.7

8.3

1,180.0

Table 14. Area of commercial timberland by M.A.I, site class and ownership
group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

Site Class
(ft^/acre/year)

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Stat(

= and

Forest

Other

Working

Other

1 — ».

Public

Industry

Private

Circle

Total

%

% %

%

77.5

46.9

47.1

25.2

424.1

51.2

548.7

46,5

76.3

46.1

122.2

65.3

348.8

42.1

547.3

46,4

9.2

5.6

13.8

7,4

52.7

6.4

75.7

6.4

2.4

1.4

3.9

2.1

2.1

0.3

8.3

0.7

165.4

100.0

186.9

100.0

827.7

100,0

1,180,0

100.0

-30-

The Grazable Forest Land Resource

Of the commercial timberland sampled, 906,500 acres were found to be
grazable. An estimated 81 percent of this land was classified as being in
good or excellent condition. The carrying capacity on the grazable forest
land was judged to be 127,9'f8 AUM's. If every acre of grazable forest land
had been in excellent condition, the potential available carrying capacity
would be 172,277 AUM's. Actual available carrying capacity was Tt percent of
potential .

Range condition, an estimate of the departure from climax based on the
species composition of the understory vegetation, was calculated for each
commercial field location. It was assumed that the forage potential of under-
story vegetation in stands of timber with a crown density greater than 70
percent was so low that these sites were not sampled. Also, although unpro-
ductive forest lands have the potential to produce relatively large amounts of
forage, these lands contained few inventory plots and were not sampled for
range condition.

The data summarized in Tables 15 through 17 was obtained from grazing
guides developed by the SCS. Appendix 7 contains a sample grazing guide
and an example of the field data form used.

Overall Condition

Understory vegetation was estimated to be in good or excellent condition
on 729,800 acres of commercial timberland or 81 percent of the grazable
timberland. Understory vegetation on another 176,700 acres was found to be
in fair or poor condition. The remaining 273,500 acres had crown densities
greater than 70 percent (see Table 15).

Commercial timberlands with crown densities of 0-30 percent were the
most overgrazed. About 34 percent of these areas were in fair or poor
condition. Fourteen percent of the lands within the 31-50 percent crown
density group and the 51-70 percent group had understory vegetation in poor
or fair condition.

A comparison of the relative amounts of grazable timberland in fair or
poor condition between ownership groups showed almost no difference. Each
ownership group had about 17 to 20 percent of its grazable timberland in fair
or poor condition.

-31-

There were 176,700 acres of state and private forested range land in fair
or poor condition which, unless the condition of the land is currently improv-
ing, need re-evaluation of their stocking rates. Grazable timberland that was
rated as good or excellent could also be experiencing overgrazing.

Forest understories that are experiencing overgrazing should be rested
by reducing or eliminating grazing for a period of time. This will allow the
natural balance within the plant community to be restored and ultimately
increase the forage suitable for grazing. If the understory is not rested and
the overgrazing continues, the range condition will keep declining until the
forage is virtually worthless for grazing. Overgrazing can also impair the
health of livestock, reduce water quality, and adversely affect other re-
sources.

Table 15. Area of commercial timberland by condition class, crown density,
and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

Condition class and

State and

Forest

Other

crown density

Other Public

Industry

^~ r^ ^^ 1 T f^ ^ ir\ /^ *^ x^ ^^ /^ c^ ^_

Private

Total

Excellent

" — unouscina aiCLGs~

0-30

7.5

8.7

39.8

56.0

31 - 50

21.6

19.9

88.5

130.0

51 - 70

22.8

35.5

104.8

163.1

Total

51.8

64.1

233.2

349.1

Good

0-30

10.3

23.4

72.0

105.7

31 - 50

20.6

9.1

115.8

145.5

51 - 70

18.2

18.1

93.3

129.5

Total

49.0

50.5

281.1

380.7

Fair

0-30

5.4

11.0

51.1

67.5

31 - 50

4.7

7.2

33.0

44.9

51 - 70

6.3

3.2

28.2

37.8

Total

16,4

21.5

112.3

150.1

Poor

0-30

1.7

0.1

12.9

14.7

31 - 50

0.9

-

-

0.9

51 - 70

2.4

1.3

7.3

11.0

Total

5.0

1.5

20.2

26.6

Crown Density

Totals

0-30

24.8

43.2

175.8

243.8

31 - 50

47.8

36.2

237.3

321.3

51 - 70

49.7

58.1

233.6

341.4

71+

43.2

49.4

181.0

273.5

Working Circle Totals

165.4

186.9

827.7

1,180.0

■32-

Current Carrying Capacity

The current carrying capacity, expressed as available animal unit months
or AUM's, is drawn from the condition of the forest's understory vegetation,
crown density, and an adjustment based on the amount of the area that will
be grazed by livestock (primarily cattle). This adjustment is called a graza-
bility factor or utilization cut.

The available AUM's shown in Table 16 are actually recommended live-
stock stocking rates (see the definition of animal units in the glossary).
According to the Montana grazing guides, if these stocking rates are fol-
lowed, understory conditions will gradually improve. Sound range manage-
ment, including grazing during the correct season of the year and proper
distribution of livestock over the grazable forested area, must also be ap-
plied.

The total carrying capacity or recommended stocking rate for sampled
commercial timberland in Working Circle 3 was estimated to be 127,947 AUM's.
Most of this carrying capacity occurred on timberlands with 0-30 percent
crown canopies, where shading from tall brush and trees does not inhibit the
growth of grazable forage.

Grazable timberlands within the other private ownership group could
support 91,794 AUM's, or 72 percent of the working circle total (see Table
16).

-33-

Table 16. Available animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberlands by
condition class, crown density, and ownership group, Working
Circle 3.

Ownership Group

Condition Class

State and

Forest

Other

and Crown Density

Other Public

Industry

_. — — _ — — .ATTM ' a.

Private

Total

Excellent

AUrl S"

0-30

2,540

2,423

11,426

16,389

31 - 50

3,947

3,214

17,754

24,915

51 - 70

2,179

2,727

10,204

15,110

Total

8,666

8,364

39,384

56,414

Good

0-30

2,410

5,705

15,588

23,703

31 - 50

2,543

1,139

14,766

18,448

51 - 70

1,423

1,366

8,050

10,839

Total

6,376

8,210

38,404

52,990

Fair

0-30

939

1,790

9,002

11,731

31 - 50

304

633

2,337

3,274

51 - 70

249

99

1,273

1,621

Total

1,492

2,522

12,612

16,626

Poor

0-30

203

18

1,393

1,614

31 - 50

303

-

-

303

51 - 70

*

*

1

1,394

1

Total

506

18

1,918

Crown Density Totals

0-30

6,092

9,936

37,409

53,437

31 - 50

7,097

4,986

34,857

46,940

51 - 70

3,851

4,192

19,528

27,571

Working Circle Totals 17,040
♦Indicates less than 0.5 AUM,

19,114

91,794

127,948

-34-

Potential Carrying Capacity ^

Timberlands in Working Circle 3 carried 127,948 AUM's or 74 percent of
their potential. As shown in Table 17, potential available AUM's are the
amount that could be supported if every acre of grazable commercial timber-
land were in excellent condition. In 1978, a total of 172,277 AUM's could
have been supported on sampled timberlands.

If every grazable forest acre were in excellent condition, the 1978
carrying capacity could have been increased by 44,330 AUM's. Translated
into head of cattle, assuming a four month grazing season, the recommended
stocking rate could have been increased from 32,000 to 43,000 head.

The potential number of AUM's depends on more than just the understo-
ry condition. Other factors, like the number of acres in each crown density
group and the grazability factor, also affect the carrying capacity. Obvious-
ly, one way to increase AUM's would be to harvest enough timber so that
every acre has a crown density of 0-30 percent. A more practical and realis-
tic way to increase potential available AUM's is to increase the grazability
through effective range management. Salting, herding, fencing, increasing
the number of trails, increasing water developments, and reducing slash,
debris, and other mechanical barriers are some of the management techniques
that might be used. Properly applied, these methods will increase the amount
of grazed forest land and thus the range's carrying capacity.

Table 17. Potential animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland by
crown density and ownership group. Working Circle 3.

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Crown Dens;

Lty

Other Pi±ilic

Industry

_ — _______. &TTM • c:-

Private

Total

AUW S

0-30

8,211

14,784

54,686

77,681

31 - 50

9,145

6,608

47,602

63,355

51 - 70

4,357

4,608

22,276

31,242

Total

21,714

26,000

124,564

172,277

-35-

■36-

ANALYSIS OF THE TIMBER RESOURCE

In this section, maximizing timber production was used as a basis for
analyzing the forest inventory data. The analysis reviews the biological
condition of the commercial timberland, and assesses timber availability and
the quality of the forest land for timber production. Some specific areas
examined were: silvicultural treatment opportunities, stand age distribution,
timberland quality classes, current growth and mortality, stocking, and the
forest's biological potential for growing wood.

Forest Condition

An average acre of commercial timberland in the working circle was
estimated to have the potential to produce 54 cubic, feet of wood per acre per
year. The average net growth per acre for softwood forest types was estimated
to be 32 cubic feet per year. The mortality rate was moderate to low and was
calculated to be equal to 13 percent of the total cubic foot gross growth at
the time of measurement. Gross growth was estimated to be 36 cubic feet per
acre per year.

State and private timberlands were dominated by low- to medium- volume
sawtimber stands that had less than 10,000 board feet per acre. Sixty-three
percent of the commercial timberland area contained stands ranging in age from
61 to 120 years old. It was also discovered that much of state and private
timberland was not stocked properly for optimum board foot production. One
analysis estimated 35 percent of the commercial timberland acreage was improp-
erly stocked for realizing full board foot growth potential. Another analysis
indicated the average acre of timberland was generally understocked, particu-
larly with trees 9.0 inches in diameter and larger.

Growth and Mortality

Gross Growth At the time of measurement, gross growth in cubic feet
per year for all growing stock softwood species was about 2.4 percent of the
working circle's total cubic foot volume (see Table 18). Lodgepole pine
exhibited the highest rate of growth with an annual increase in total cubic
foot volume of 3.0 percent.

-37-

Table 18. Net volume, gross growth, mortality, and net growth of growing

stock and sawtimber by softwood species on commercial timberland.
Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet, thousand board feet
Scribner) .

Growing

Stock

Sawtimber

% of Total

%

of Total

M Net Cubic

Cubic Foot

M Net Board

Board Foot

Foot Volume

Volume

Douglas-

Foot Volume
-fir

Volume

Total Volume

826,323 ,

100.0

2,458,350

100.0

Gross Growth

16,527

2.0

58,293

2.4

Mortality

1,938

0.2

4,922

0.2

Net Growth

14,589

1.8

53,371

2.2

Lodgepole Pine

Total Volume

502,947

100.0

Gross Growth

15,318

3.0

Mortality

2,330

0.5

Net Growth

12,988

2.6

954,283

100.0

32,172

3.4

4,041

0.4

28,131

2.9

Ponderosa Pine

Total Volume

155,110

100.0

Gross Growth

3,132

2.0

Mortality

384

0.2

Net Growth

2,747

1.8

498,919

100.0

11,692

2.3

1,354

0.3

10,338

2.1

All Other Softwoods

Total Volume

177,685

100.0

Gross Growth

5,429

3.1

Mortality

645

0.4

Net Growth

4,784

2.7

496,493

100.0

10,213

2.1

2,673

0.6

7,540

1.5

Total For All Softwoods

Total Volume

1,662,066

100.0

4,408,044

100.0

Gross Growth

40,405

2.4

112,369

2.5

Mortality

5,297

0.3

12,989

0.3

Net Growth

35,108

2.1

99,380

2.3

-38-

Gross growth in board feet Scribner for all softwood sawtimber species
was equivalent to 2.5 percent of the working circle's total board foot volume.
In comparison, gross growth of softwood species in the entire Rocky Mountain
region was equivalent to 2.2 percent of both the total cubic foot and board
foot softwood volumes (USDA Forest Service 1978).

Most of the growth in the working circle occurred in Douglas-fir and
lodgepole pine. Table 18 shows 79 percent of the cubic foot growth for all
softwood species, as well as 81 percent of the board foot growth in these
species, occurred in Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine.

Gross growth by diameter class data indicates smaller diameter trees
grow more quickly than larger diameter trees. In other words, the growth
rate decreases with age (see Tables 19 and 20). This data also shows that
over half of the forest's gross growth, both in cubic feet and board feet,
occurred in the two smallest diameter classes. The large amount of growth
shown in the smallest diameter class is primarily caused by ingrowth.

Mortality The data collected in 1978 indicates mortality was occurring
at a low to moderate rate. Mortality in softwoods, expressed as a percentage
of the total softwood volume, was 0.3 percent for both cubic foot and board
foot volumes. Mortality in the entire Rocky Mountain region was estimated at
0.5 percent of total volume (USDA Forest Service 1978). In 1978, mortality
equalled 13 percent of the cubic foot gross growth and 12 percent of the
board foot gross growth taking place in the working circle.

Tables 19 and 20 show mortality rates generally decline as diameter class
increases until they reach diameters in the mid-twenties. At that point the
trend reverses and mortality rates increase as the diameter class increases.
Eventually mortality rates become high enough and the growth rate slow
enough that the trees are dying faster than they are growing.

-39-

Table 19. Net volume, gross growth, mortality, and net growth of growing
stock on commercial timberland by diameter class for softwood
species. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet).

Diameter Class

Volume

Gross Growth

5.0 -

6.9

7.0 -

8.9

9.0 -

10.9

11.0 -

12.9

13.0 -

14.9

15.0 -

16.9

17.0 -

18.9

19.0 -

20.9

21.0 -

22.9

23.0 -

24.9

25.0 -

26.9

27,0 -

28.9

29.0+

Total

272,092

293,924

278,881

233,691

160,641

128,290

93,147

65,669

45,020

28,878

18,853

14,597

28,382

1,662,066

20,470

7.5

5,046

1.7

4,651

1.7

3,616

1.5

2,287

1.4

1,584

1.2

1,055

1.1

689

1.0

412

0.9

209

0.7

157

0.8

92

0.6

136

0.5

40,405

2.4

Mortal:
lie feet-

ity

Net Growth

%

%*

1,108

0.4

19,362

7.1

1,123

0.4

3,923

1.3

896

0.3

3,755

1.3

942

0.4

2,674

1.1

363

0.2

1,924

1.2

171

0.1

1,413

1.1

28

* *

1,027

1.1

270

0.4

418

0.6

96

0.2

317

0.7

39

0.1

170

0.6

79

0.4

79

0.4

-

-

92

0.6

183

0.6

-46

-0.2

5,297

0,3

35,108

2.1

*Percent of cubic foot volume for each diameter class.
**Indicates less than 0.05%.

Table 20. Net volume, gross growth, mortality, and net growth of sawtimber
on commercial timberland by diameter class for softwood species.
Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

Diameter Class

9.0 -

10.9

11.0 -

12.9

13.0 -

14.9

15.0 -

16.9

17.0 -

18.9

19.0 -

20.9

21.0 -

22.9

23.0 -

24.9

25.0 -

26.9

27,0 -

28.9

29.0+

Total

Volume

Gross Growth

Mortal

ity

Net Growth

, » J

board feet

%

%

%*

798,393

57,879

7.2

2,965

0.4

54,914

6,9

907,385

19,373

2.1

4,090

0.5

15,283

1,7

690,289

12,167

1.8

1,645

0.2

10,522

1.5

579,133

8,381

1.4

785

0.1

7,596

1.3

434,754

5,562

1.3

128

**

5,434

1.2

313,717

3,627

1.2

1,331

0.4

2,296

0.7

221,858

2,157

1.0

487

0.2

1,671

0.8

144,865

1,108

0.8

193

0.1

915

0.6

95,485

864

0.9

400

0.4

464

0.5

74,109

495

0.7

-

-

495

0.7

148,057

755

0.5

965

0,7

-210

-0,1

4,408,044

112,369

2.5

12,989

0,3

99,380

2.3

*Percent of board foot volume for each diameter class.
**Indicates less than 0.05%,

-40-

The major causes of tree death in 1978 were categorized as weather, un-
known, and insects (see Tables 21 and 22). Weather caused tree mortality by
windthrow, snow breakage, and lightning. The category termed "unknown"
was used by inventory crews when they could not determine which damaging
agent was primarily responsible for killing the tree. (The inventory's mortal-
ity tree procedure allowed only one damaging agent to be recorded. Frequent-
ly the death of a tree was caused by two or more agents in concert or suc-
cession.) Mortality caused by insects was generally due to bark beetles and
occasionally defoliators.

Spruce, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine were the major victims of weath-
er, while most of the trees killed by "unknown" factors were lodgepole pine
and Douglas-fir. Because the inventory crews had limited experience at iden-
tifying root diseases, it has been suggested that much of the Douglas-fir
mortality recorded as caused by weather was probably caused primarily by
root rots. Mortality due to insects was highest in lodgepole pine.

Logging, fire, and disease also contributed significantly to mortality.
The disease category includes various rots, rusts, and mistletoe. Logging
mortality includes trees killed during the logging operation — it does not in-
clude trees cut for harvest.

At the time of measurement, weather and insects shared dominant roles
as the major causes of death in Working Circle 3. However, the causes of
mortality in a forest are dynamic and cyclic, and in a future inventory the
major causes of death may be different. The mountain pine beetle
(Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk.) epidemic had just begun in 1978 and has
continued in various locations since that time. Lodgepole and ponderosa pine
are the species that will be affected most by this epidemic.

-41-

00 O '3' tN

ro m OD in

CTi n ro iH

(J I >-l <N

o r- in
li) oj in

r- o CO
(Ti ^D in

r- 1— I in CN

i£i rH r~ r^ I

00 CTi rH

I I

I I

r-

■'3'

I I I I I

00 in rH
n o I '3'

'a*

00 I

in
I ^ I

r- in o
in o <N

M 'd" rH

I I I

0) 0)

ecu

•H -H

c

u

(0

UH Q) (0 0) J<! rH

I-t

(N

•9

Eh

m

0)
■H
U
0)

a,

woo

fl a, >H Q, X}

rH 0) QJ

tji CP TD
P Tl c
0 o o

c

(DUO)

XI

3 x:

rH SH W rH

a rJ &, W 3

a, 01
to 3

0)
O

o

3

M
(0

x:

a^ ^ CD

ro

rH

U

m »* in

O

^

O r^

CN

CN

^3

^

^

C

CN

(N

(0

in

Q)
•H
U
0

a,
w

CO

o

E-

x:

-p

<D

T!

Uh
O

(U
M

3

rH in

<C 0)

rH 3

nj ID

4-1 O
O
Eh

C
■H

O

CO

0

•H

U

0)

a

C/)

XI

C
CO

c

o

c

c

D
C

o

-rl

tn
w

<u

)H

ft CU

CN rH «3" 1^

CN ^ in o

cn o f^ "a"

^ 'J" rH

n U3 in
in rH in
■=r n rH

CN

I I

VD CO r-~ CN

n rH O lO
kO rH IXI CN

I I

I I I

3

CO to MH
CU

Q

(0 c^

CN

+J

CO

>H

0)

O

0

rH

B

0)

>H

0)

m

0)

to
+J
u

10

c

»H

rO iX) 00

O (r> in

XI in cTi

C

CO

m

3
O

x:

4->

CN

o
o

iX)

I >* I I I

<0

D
C

c

(0

■p

OJ
2

CN
CN

Eh

U

cn

C
■H

o

3

00 ro fsj
n 00 cn

CN 00 in

C C
•H -H

cTi in r-

CN

00 lO o

r^

a^ in

in

•.

CN

rH

I I

«

cu

c

>^ 04 D4 m ft

14H 0) lO 0)

I

U)

0)

■H
U

<D
ft

10 O O -H 10

(0 ft VJ ft XI

rH 0) (1) rH Q)

Cn cn TD lO j-i

3 TD C X! H

o o o 3 x:

Q J a- cn 3

x: 10

U TS

u o

10 o

rH 3

4J
C HH

0) Sh O
U CU U)

3 -P

Vj to rH

ft CI) 10

W S -P
0
Eh

I I I I I

m in
CN \D
CO

I I

to

Tl
O

o

3

O t3
lO

c
c

0)

ft -P rH

in o

< U

o x;
xi

(^

r^

o

o

in

in

0)

•rl

u

0)

ft

CO

o

Eh

0)
C
■H
ft

u

0)

0

E

o

CO

0)
TJ
3

rH

u
c

•rl
O

cn

CO

s

«

-42-

Net Growth In 1978, net growth of softwoods was 35,108,000 cubic feet
for growing stock and 99,380,000 board feet for sawtimber. This represented
2.1 percent of the softwood cubic foot volumes and 2.3 percent of the soft-
wood board foot volume (see Tables 19 and 20). For the Rocky Mountain
region, net growth for softwoods was 1.7 percent (USD A Forest Service
1978).

Over time, net growth will increase or decrease in response to changes
in mortality rates, harvest rates, amounts of insects or disease, and the for-
est's stocking and age distribution. All of these factors can be manipulated
to some degree through the management practices applied to the forest.

-43-

Potential Growth

Potential growth or yield is net growth expressed in cubic feet per acre
per year as calculated by the forest inventory computation process. The
estimate is based on yield tables developed for fully stocked, even-aged
stands of single species. These yield tables are used to construct mean
annual increment curves. Site indices derived from site trees measured on
the field location are used to choose the proper mean annual increment curve.
The potential cubic foot yield per acre per year is determined based on the
culmination point of the mean annual increment curve. The age at the cul-
mination point is the biological harvest age for producing the maximum amount
of wood. This estimate of biological potential is considered to be less than
the potential for intensively managed stands.

The average potential net growth for all forest types in Working Circle 3
was estimated to be 54 cubic feet per acre per year (see Table 23). Average
gross growth per acre for softwood forest types was estimated to be 36 cubic
feet per year, or about 67 percent of potential net growth. The average net
growth per acre for softwood forest types was estimated to be 32 cubic feet
per year, or about 59 percent of potential net growth. Nationally, net
growth was 38 cubic feet per acre per year or about 51 percent of potential
net growth (74 cubic feet) in 1970. Net growth for the Rocky Mountain
region was estimated to be 24 cubic feet per acre per year or about 40 per-
cent of the 60 cubic foot potential net growth (USDA Forest Service 1973).

When a forest is composed of stands in many age classes, a gap between
net growth and potential net growth should be expected. However, a large
gap between net growth and potential net growth may indicate management
opportunities exist to increase production. Studying the forest's growth-
related physical characteristics should suggest ways to reduce this gap.

-44-

Insects and Disease

Insects and disease were attacking trees on 319,000 acres or 27 percent
of the commercial timberland in 1978. Both the growth (vigor) and the
mortality rate of a forest are affected by the amount of insect and disease
activity. Bark beetles were found on more acres than any other insect or
disease problem. Diseases that cause rot were the most common problem in
old-growth sawtimber stands, but bark beetles were the most common problem
in all other stand size classes (see Table 24).

Table 23. Average potential productivity per acre by forest type for commer-
cial timberland. Working Circle 3 (cubic feet/acre) .

Forest Type Average Potential Productivity Net Growth

(cubic feet/acre) (cubic feet/acre)

Douglas-fir 54.1 25.1

Lodgepole pine 59.6 66.4*

Ponderosa pine 44.1 16.0

Subalpine fir-spruce 64.5 35.8

Other softwood types 45.3 25.7

All softwood types 53.8 31.8

Aspen 57.2 26.9

Cottonwood 44.7 27.1

All hardwood types 52.1 27 .0

All forest types 53.7 31.5

*This particular statistic reflects the effects of a large amount of ingrowth.

Table 24. Area of commercial timberland by stand size class and insect and
disease category, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Insect and Disease Category

Bark
Stand Size Class Unclassified Beetles Defoliators Mistletoe Rot Total

thousand acres

Old growth sawtimber 178.8 35.7 5.8 12.6

Young growth sawtimber 340.8 41.3 20.5 4.3

Poletimber 161.2 50.6 14.2 25.1

Seedlings and saplings 145.5 6.3 8.3 6.6
Nonstocked 34.6

Total 861.0 133.8 48,7 48.6

46.2

279.1

30.5

437.3

2.6

253.7

8.6

175.2

-

34.6

87.9

1,180.0

-45-

Existing Stand Structure

Distribution by Stand Size Class Sawtimber stands dominated in the
working circle according to distribution by stand size class data. Sawtimber
stands occurred on 61 percent of the commercial timberland acreage at the
time of sampling. Only 34,600 acres, or 2.9 percent of all timberlands in the
working circle, were found to be nonstocked (see Figure 7).

Distribution by Stand Age Class Distribution by stand age class data
showed much of the timberland acreage to be occupied by medium aged
stands. About 63 percent of the total softwood acreage -- 690,700 acres —
was covered by stands between 61 and 120 years old (see Table 25) .

The other private ownership group had the largest percentage of its
land occupied by young- to medium-aged stands. Seventy-four percent of
the other private timberland had stands less than 101 years old.

Distribution by Stand Volume Class Most stands of timber in the work-
ing circle had low to medium amounts of board foot volume on a per acre
basis. Overall, 63 percent of the commercial timberland had less than 5,000
board feet Scribner per acre. Stands in the higher volume classes, which
carried at least 10,000 board feet per acre, occurred on only 159,600 acres or
14 percent of the commercial timberlands in the working circle (see Table 26).

Commercial timberlands owned by the other private ownership group
contained very few high volume stands. Only 11 percent of the timberland
contained 10,000 or more board feet per acre. Stands with less than 5,000
board feet per acre occurred on 68 percent of the other private ownership
group's commercial timberland.

Distribution by Stocking Percent Stocking is a qualitative term used to
describe the "degree of adequacy" of a stand in a particular condition to meet
a certain timber management objective (Gingrich 1964). (Table 27 shows an
assessment of the forest's stocking for producing board-foot volume by dis-
playing the amount of area in each stocking percent class.) Stocking percent
is the amount of space available to one live tree on a given acre compared to

-46-

Figure 7. Area of commercial timberland by stand size class. Working
Circle 3 (acres) .

(0

S
u

<

450,000 -

400,000 —

350,000 -

300,000 —

250,000 —

200,000 —

150,000-

100,000 —

50,000 —

37%

3%

Sawtimber Sawtimber Poletimber Seedlings

(old growth) (young growth) and

Saplings

Nonstocked

Stand Size Class

-47-

TeJDle 25. Area of commercial softwood timberland by stand age class and
ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Groups

Stand Age Class

Unclassified

1 -

20

21 -

40

41 -

60

61 -

80

81 -

100

101 -

120

121 -

140

141 -

160

161 -

180

181 -

200

201+

State

and

Forest

0th

er

Other

Public

Indu:

stry

Private

Total

— thousi

and acres-

%

%

%

%

2.6

1.7

1.8

1.0

21.9

2.9

26.3

2.4

3.3

2.1

6.1

3.3

27.0

3.5

36.3

3.3

4.5

2.9

7.4

4.1

34.5

4.5

46.4

4.2

16.0

10.2

7.3

4.0

70.1

9.2

93.4

8.5

34.7

22.1

28.3

15.5

145.3

19.0

208.2

18.9

44.1

28.2

41.1

22.5

268.0

35.1

353.2

32.0

18.6

11.8

33.5

18.4

77.3

10.1

129.3

11.7

10.3

6.6

10.4

5.7

37.0

4.8

57.8

5.2

11.9

7.6

21.7

11.9

44.3

5.8

77.9

7.1

5.4

3.5

12.5

6.9

13.0

1.7

31.0

2.8

3.3

2.1

6.6

3.6

14.2

1.9

24.1

2.2

1.9

1.2

5.7

3.1

11.4

1.5

19.1

1.7

Total

156.8 100.0

182.3 100.0

763.8 100.0 1,102.9 100.0

Table 26. Area of commercial timberland by stand volume class and ownership
group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Board Foot/Acre

Volume Class State and
(Net Scribner Rule) Other Public

Ownership Group

Forest Other
Industry Private

Total

%

-tnuufadi
%

lU dCLeS-

%

%

Less than 1,500

44.5

26.9

26.8

14.3

250.7

30.3

322.1

27.3

1,500 - 4,999

57.7

34.9

53.6

28.7

309.3

37.4

420.6

35.7

5,000 - 9,999

39.3

23.8

64.8

34.7

173.7

21.0

277.7

23.5

10,000 - 19,999

21.1

12.8

38.0

20,3

86.2

10.4

145.4

12.3

Over 20,000

2.7

1.6

3.7

2.0

7.8

0.9

14.2

1.2

Total

165.4 100.0 186.9 100.0 827.7 100.0 1,180.0 100.0

■48-

Figure 8. Area of commercial timberland by stand volume class. Working
Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

325 -

300 —

275-

250 —

225 —

200 —

S
u

<

5 175-

3
O

150-

125-

100 —

75 —

50 —

25 —

LEGEND

STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC

FOREST INDUSTRY

OTHER PRIVATE

Less than
1,500

1,500-4,999

5,000-9,999

10,000-19.999

Over 20,000

Board Foot Per Acre Volume Class (Net Scrlbner Rule)

-49-

the amount of space necessary for optimum yield, measured as a percentage.
The amount of space needed for optimum yield depends on tree size and site
quality. Consequently, the desired amount of space will vary from one
sampled acre to the next (Farrenkopf 1967).

There are three stocking percent classes: less than 60 percent stocked
(understocked), 60 to 132 percent stocked, and greater than 132 percent
stocked (overstocked). Each field plot can be up to 167 percent stocked,
since each individual sample point of the ten point cluster can be up to 16.7
percent stocked (10 points x 16.7 percent stocking per point = 167 percent
stocking per field plot), depending on the size and number of trees present.
Some of the individual sample points tally more trees than required to be 16.7
percent stocked. In those instances the stocking percent remains 16.7 and
will go no higher. A stocking percent class rating of 100 percent is equiva-
lent to 60 percent of the basal area listed by a normal yield table. A normal
yield table shows the maximum volume, number of trees, and basal area that a
given site can support at a given age (Davis 1966). A stocking percent class
rating of 132 percent is equivalent to 80 percent of the basal area listed by a
normal yield table. Volume predictions made by normal yield tables are for
fully stocked stands grown under "natural" conditions without competition and
do not predict the yield that could be captured from a given site if managed.
It is believed that a range of stocking between 60 and 100 percent of the
normal yield table basal area is the range within which the full board-foot
growth potential of a forest acre can be realized. Theoretically, trees in this
stocking range are beginning to fully use the site and growth per acre is not
reduced by overcrowding.

Table 27 shows that at the time of sampling about 35 percent of the
commercial timberland in Working Circle 3 was improperly stocked for realizing
its full board foot growth potential. Approximately 250,500 acres were under-
stocked and 165,700 acres were overstocked. Many of the overstocked pole-
timber and seedling-sapling stands, jointly covering about 103,500 acres,
represent potential thinning opportunities. In the future, some of the medium
stocked and understocked stands may also require thinning before they
become sawtimber stands.

-50-

Table 27. Area of commercial timberland by ownership group, stand size
class, and stocking percent class. Working Circle 3 (thousand
acres) .

Stocking Percent Class

State and Other Public
Old growth sawtimber
Young growth sawtimber
Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings
Nonstocked
Totals

59 or

less

60-

■132

133 or

more

[unders

tocked)

1

(overstocked)

Total

j_V^

md acre;

%

%

3"

%

%

3.6

2.2

32.5

19.7

5.3

3.2

41.4

25,0

11.8

7.1

40.7

24.6

5.5

3.3

58.0

35.1

3,1

1.9

22.9

13.8

14.2

8.6

40.2

24.3

4.6

2.8

13.6

8.2

3.8

2.3

22.0

13.3

3.7

2.3

-

-

-

-

3.7

2.3

26.9 16.3 109.7 66.3 28.8 17.4

165.4 100.0

Forest Industry
Old growth sawtimber
Young growth sawtimber
Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings
Nonstocked
Totals

14.4

7.7

54.0

28.9

9.4

5.0

77.7

41.6

13.0

6.9

31.6

16.9

8.7

4.6

53.3

28.5

0.3

0.1

15.3

8.2

15.1

8.1

30.7

16.4

10.4

5.6

11.0

5.9

1.8

1.0

23.2

12.4

2.0

1.1

-

-

-

-

2.0

1.1

40.0 21.4 111.9 59.9 35.0 18.7

186.9 100.0

Other Private
Old growth sawtimber
Young growth sawtimber
Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings
Nonstocked
Totals

22.3

2.7

120.7

14.6

17.0

2.0

160.0

19.3

80.4

9.7

229.3

27.7

16.3

2.0

325.9

39.4

19.4

2.3

108.9

13.2

54.5

6.6

182.8

22.1

32.6

3.9

83.3

10.1

14.2

1.7

130.0

15.7

28.9

3.5

-

-

-

-

28.9

3.5

183.6 22.1 542.2 65.6 101.9 12.3

827.7 100.0

Working Circle Total
Old growth sawtimber
Young growth sawtimber
Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings
Nonstocked
Totals

40.3

3.4

207.2

17.6

31.6

2.7

279.1

23.7

105.2

8.9

301.6

25.6

30.5

2.6

437.3

37.1

22.8

1.9

147.1

12.5

83.8

7.1

253.7

21.5

47.6

4.0

107.9

9.1

19.7

1.7

175.2

14.8

34.6

2.9

-

-

-

-

34.6

2.9

250.5 21.1 763.8 64.8 165.7 14.1 1,180.0 100.0

-51-

Basal Area by Diameter Class The basal area by diameter class for the
average acre of commercial softwood forest land in 1978 is displayed by pro-
ductivity class in Figures 10 and 11. The average basal area per acre was
lower on the 20-49 site class timberlands than on the more productive tim-
berlands.

Figure 9 shows the expected basal area per acre by diameter class
curve for an average acre of forest land if the forest land base were brought
under full management and were fully regulated. The shape of the desired
curve is based on a theoretical situation where the forest is fully regulated
and a variety of round-wood materials (pulp, poles, and saw logs) are prod-
uct objectives (Green 1976). When regulated, the forest would consist of
many individual stands of trees with different ages and sizes. All of these
different stands, viewed as one, would give the appearance of a forest man-
aged by the selection method. The basal area in trees less than 10 inches
d.b.h. should be about 40 percent of the basal area in trees 10 inches
d.b.h. and larger, or about 30 percent of the total basal area (Green 1976).
The desired amount of basal area stocking under the curve is the average
level of stocking which should be carried over the life of the stand. Under
intensive management, the stand would be allowed to grow to a higher basal
area per acre stocking level than desired. It then would be thinned back to
a level below the desired stocking level. This process might be repeated
several times until the stand is finally harvested. Under an uneven-aged
management scheme, certain trees in a stand would be harvested on a periodic
basis but the desired average basal area per acre would still be maintained.

The percent of total basal area per acre below the 10-inch diameter class
at the time of sampling was 50 percent for the 20-49 site class timberlands
and 44 percent for the 50 plus site class timberlands. At first glance, the
percentage of basal area below the 10-inch diameter class would indicate
thinning is needed to balance out the diameter distribution on the privately
owned lower site land. This would probably be true if the average acre were
stocked at or above the desired amount. However, this does not appear to
be the case when the average stand age, site class, and forest type composi-
tion of the forest represented by each curve are taken into account. All the
sites appear to be understocked, especially when compared to basal area stan-

-52-

dard tables.* The degree to which these sites are understocked varies ac-
cording to the management regime which is chosen based on the objectives of
the land owner or manager.

If the average forest acre is understocked, the average amount of basal
area per acre may actually be low for all owners on all site classes. Thinning
opportunities would still be available, but at a level below the initial estimate.
Evidence of understocking would indicate that there are areas where stocking
needs to be increased by natural or artificial regeneration if higher yields are
desired.

The graphs in Figures 10 and 11 represent a one-point-in-time picture of
the average basal area per acre by diameter class. The key to developing
timber management strategies based on these graphs is to know the direction
and rate of change occurring within each diameter class. Estimates concern-
ing the changes or dynamics of the forest can best be made by analyzing
remeasurement data. Unfortunately, such data is not available at this time.

*For example, according to basal area standard tables for ponderosa pine
(derived from USDA Technical Bulletin No. 630, 1934), 80-year-old stands on
MAI sites of 30 cubic feet per acre per year should have a basal area stock-
ing of 93 square feet per acre. Ninety-year-old stands on MAI sites of 60
cubic feet per acre per year should have a basal area stocking of 135 square
feet per acre.

-53-

Figure 9,

t

u,

S

a

3

s

Example of the shape of the desired
average basal area per acre by diameter
class curve, providing a variety of
round-wood materials are product ob-
jectives. The amount of basal area de-
picted by the curve is depended on the
management regime and the productiv-
ity of the land to produce wood.

' total average

' basal area
/ per

' acre

70% of total average
basal area per acre

Oiameler Class

Figure 10 . Current average basal area per acre for
softwoods by diameter class, IWAI site
class 20-49, Working Circle 3.

Current mean basal area per acre: 68 square feel

Mean stand age: approximately 62 years old

Mean potential productivity: approximately 32 ft'/acre/ye«(

Diameter of average basal area: 60 inches

Oiameler Class

-54-

Figure 1 1 . Current average basal area per acre for
softwoods by diameter class, MAI site
class 50 + , Working Circle 3.

Current mean basal area per acre: 1 1 1 square teet
Mean stand age: approximately 94 years old
Mean potential productivity: approximately 61 ftVacre/year
Diameter of average basal area: 5.9 incties

Diameter Class

-55-

Timberland Quality Class

Approximately 'f40,100 acres, or liO percent, of the commercial softwood
timberland in the working circle was rated as good or excellent for timber
production based on a classification system developed for Montana. The forest
industry ownership group had S** percent of its timberland rated as excellent
or good, the greatest amount among ownership groups on a percentage basis.
The other private ownership had the most acreage rated as good or excellent
among the three major ownership groups.

Timberland quality classes in this analysis are used to rate commercial
timberlands according to their relative value for producing timber. The
rankings are based primarily on factors that indicate the operability and
productivity of the forest. Four quality classes — excellent, good, fair, and
poor — were used. To avoid confusing the findings of this timberland rating
effort with those of other state and federal land management agencies, the
term "prime timberlands" was not used.

Class Definitions

The criteria used to place timberlands into the appropriate quality
classes are as follows:

Excellent timberlands

— have a potential productivity that is greater than or equal to 85 cubic feet
per acre per year;

— have a slope that is less than or equal to 40 percent;

— have a good (class I) or medium (class II) landscape stability rating;

— are less than or equal to 7,000 feet in elevation west of the Continental
Divide and less than or equal to 8,000 feet east of the Divide.

Good timberlands

-- do not meet the requirements for excellent timberlands;

— have a potential productivity that is greater than or equal to 50 cubic feet
per acre per year;

— have a good (class I) or medium (class II) landscape stability rating;

— have a slope that is less than or equal to 40 percent if potential produc-
tivity is less than 85 cubic feet per acre per year;

-56-

— are less than or equal to 7,000 feet in elevation west of the Continental
Divide and less than or equal to 8,000 feet east of the Divide.

Fair timberlands

— do not meet the requirements for good or excellent timberlands;

— have a potential productivity that is greater than or equal to 20 cubic feet
per acre per year;

— have a slope that is less than or equal to 56 percent;

— have a good (class I) or medium (class II) landscape stability rating;
-- are less than or equal to 8,000 feet in elevation.

Poor timberlands

— do not meet the requirements for excellent, good, or fair timberlands.

Timberland Quality Class and Stand Size Class

About 40 percent, or 440,100 acres, of the commercial softwood timber-
land in the working circle was rated as good or excellent for timber produc-
tion. Fifty-four percent of the young-growth sawtimber stands and 31 per-
cent of the old-growth sawtimber stands were found on good or excellent rat-
ed timberlands. An estimated 114,500 acres or 60 percent of seedling-sapling
and nonstocked stands were found on timberland rated as fair for timber pro-
duction (see Figure 12).

Timberland Quality Class by Ownership Group

Fifty-four percent of the commercial softwood timberlands owned by
forest industries were rated as excellent or good. This compared favorably
to the relative amounts of excellent and good rated timberland found on the
other two ownership groups. State and other public had 40 percent of their
timberlands rated as excellent or good. The other private ownership group
had 37 percent.

However, if total acreage by ownership group is examined, most of the
excellent and good rated timberland in the working circle (64 percent) is
owned by the other private group (see Table 28).

-57-

Table 28. Area of commercial softwood timber land by ownership group, stand
size class, and timberland quality class. Working Circle 3
(thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

State and Other Public
Stand Size Class

Old growth sawtimber

Young growth sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings

Nonstocked

Total

Excellent

Good

3.3

11.0

2.3

26.5

1.5

11.0

0.9

5.6

0.2

0.5

Timberland Quality Class

Fair Poor
thousand acres

20,

,7

20,

.8

23,

.8

13,

.7

1,

.8

6.4
3.6
1.4
1.6
0.1

Total

8.2

54.6

80.8

13.2

41.4
53.3
37.7
21.7
2.6
156.8

Forest Industry
Stand Size Class

Old growth sawtimber

Young growth sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings

Nonstocked

Total

10.0

18.8

30.3

18.6

77.7

1.4

40.3

4.9

4.8

51.5

1.1

17.1

11.9

0.5

30.6

*

8.5

7.9

4.3

20.7

0.2

*

1.6

-

1.8

12.6

84.8

56.7

28.3

182.3

Other Private
Stand Size Class

Old growth sawtimber

Young growth sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings

Nonstocked

Total

7.1

36.6

90.0

26.4

160.0

4.8

139.4

128.2

20.6

293.0

5.9

44.6

106.3

9.0

165.8

5.5

28.9

78.3

10.4

123.1

4.2

2.9

11.2

3.5

21.9

27.5

252.4

414.0

69.9

763.8

Working Circle Totals
Stand Size Class

Old growth sawtimber

Young growth sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings

Nonstocked

Total

20.3

66.4

141.0

51.5

279.1

8.5

206.2

154.0

29.1

397.8

8.5

72.7

141.9

11.0

234.1

6.4

43.0

99.9

16.3

165.6

4.6

3.5

14.6

3.6

26.3

48.3

391.8

551.4

111.4

1,102.9

♦Indicates less than 50 acres.

-58-

Figure 12. Area of commercial softwood timberland by stand size class and
timberland quality class, Working Circle 3.

550-1

500-

450 —

400 —

350

« 300
u

<
■o
c

(0
(0

3

200 —

150 —

100 —

50

' r I 1 I 1 11""

r////////

LEGEND

OLD-GROWTH SAWTIMBER

YOUNG-GROWTH
SAWTIMBER

POLETIMBER

NONSTOCKED, SEEDLINGS
AND SAPLINGS

V////////\

1 I I I I

\///////z

A

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Timberland Quality Class

-59-

Silvicultural Treatment Opportunities

The DSL, Forestry Division, developed a procedure to analyze data record-
ed on the field location that would place the sampled stand into one of
several categories. Each of these categories represented a set of silvicul-
tural treatment opportunities. As a result of this analysis it was determined
that 60 percent of the commercial timberland offered silvicultural treatment
opportunities to improve the forest's condition and ultimately increase timber
yields. An estimated 5'fO,200 acres, or i*S percent of the commercial softwood
timberland, were placed into categories that imply silvicultural treatment
opportunities other than harvest are available. When silvicultural treatment
opportunity by timberland quality class was investigated it was discovered
that the leading individual treatment opportunities existing on excellent and
good timberlands were: harvest - low risk (90,900 acres), overstory removal
(85,800 acres), precommerci al thinning (73,100 acres), harvest - high risk
(72,200 acres), and no treatment due to productive condition (65,900 acres).

The Forestry Division has developed a procedure for using using forest
inventory data to assess silvicultural treatment opportunities. As a part of
this procedure, 12 treatment opportunity categories were selected, each
representing a group of stands with similar characteristics. Each category
was given a treatment code number and a treatment name, such as "20 - Pre-
commercial thinning."

Despite its appearance, a treatment name does not prescribe a treatment
— it is merely a label for a group of stands that exhibit common characteris-
tics. These characteristics differentiate one group of stands from another.
Although these labels have a silvicultural basis, the limited amount of stand
data used to derive these categories restricts the use of the process to plan-
ning.

To some degree, the treatment names used here reflect the forest man-
agement policies of the Forestry Division since different stand conditions and
forestry goals demand different management techniques. Other forest manag-
ers might apply different names to these categories, or possibly combine two
or more of them under a single heading, depending on their management
objectives.

-60-

Treatment Code Definitions

Table 29 lists the treatment opportunities and their code numbers. The
list is divided into three groups. The first consists of the individual treat-
ments, the other two list possible combined treatments, which are of two
types: those that do not overlap and those that may. The combined codes
listed under the "possible overlap" group represent treatments that may
overlap each other during actual treatment. For example, the combined
treatment code 13, 20, 22 suggests that a certain stand needs a treatment, or
treatments, that will remove the overstory (13), precommercially thin (20),
and sanitize the stand (22). Two or more of these needs might be met in one
step. Sanitation may be partially met by precommercial thinning, or it may
be partially or completely met by removing the overstory.

Understanding that some treatments may be handled simultaneously is
important when allocating funds, equipment, and manpower for timber stand
improvement projects. Estimates of costs and work loads may be reduced for
acreages on which treatments may overlap.

For further information about the kinds of stands represented by each
treatment code, see Appendix 5.

Treatment Opportunities by Ownership Group and Site Class

Five codes indicate no immediate treatments are needed. These are: (11)
and (15) harvest - low risk, (30) no treatment due to productive condition,
(33) no treatment - deferred until merchantable, and (40) unknown - poor
crowns, good growth. In Working Circle 3, approximately 354,800 acres, or
about 32 percent of the commercial softwood timberlands, were placed into
these treatment categories (see Table 30). An additional 207,900 acres were
placed into harvest - high risk. The remaining 540,200 acres, or 49 percent
of the commercial softwood timberlands, were placed into categories that imply
silvicultural treatment opportunities are available. If stands in the harvest -
high risk category (10) and (14) are added, the total amount of commercial
softwood timberland that could use some type of silvicultural treatment be-
comes 748,100 acres, or 68 percent of all softwood timberlands inventoried.

-61-

This does not mean that all of these acres should be treated. Because
of the costs involved and possible nontimber resource considerations, it may
not be advisable to apply the indicated treatments to some stands. Neverthe-
less, this total acreage figure is important because it helps to illustrate the
overall condition of the forest. It also partially explains why current net
growth in the working circle averages 22 cubic feet per acre per year less
than potential net growth. These opportunities can be viewed with optimism
if forest managers plan to take advantage of them to increase the health and
vigor (productivity) of the forest.

If lands in the harvest - high risk categories (10) and (14) are subtrac-
ted from the total number of acres offering silvicultural treatment opportun-
ities, an estimate of the number of acres offering treatment opportunities
other than harvesting can be made. Such a calculation shows some real dif-
ferences in the relative amounts of treatment opportunities by ownership.
Forest industry owned timberland had the least amount of acreage offering
treatment opportunities other than harvest 57,800 acres or 32 percent of the
ownership group's commercial timberland. State and other public lands had
68,800 acres or 44 percent. The other private ownership group showed the
highest amount of silvicultural treatment opportunities other than harvest with
413,900 acres or 54 percent of the commercial timberland in the ownership.
See Table 68 in Appendix 3.

-62-

Table 29. Treatment opportunity code definitions for Tables 30 and 31.

10 Harvest - high risk

11 Harvest - low risk

12 Commercial thinning

13 Overstory removal

14 Two storied stand (overstory, harvest - high risk; understory, manageable)

15 Two storied stand (overstory, harvest - low risk; understory, manageable)

20 Precommercial thinning

21 Stand conversion

22 Sanitation

23 Regeneration of understocked areas

30 No treatment due to productive condition

32 No treatment - inoperable

33 No treatment - deferred until merchantable
40 Unknown - poor crowns, good growth

No Overlap

12, 13 Commercial thinning, overstory removal

13, 20 Overstory removal, precommercial thinning

13, 20, 23 Overstory removal, precommercial thinning, regeneration of

understocked areas

13, 21 Overstory removal, stand conversion

13, 23 Overstory removal, regeneration of understocked areas

13, 33 Overstory removal, no treatment - deferred until merchantable

20, 23 Precommercial thinning, regeneration of understocked areas

22, 23 Sanitation, regeneration of understocked areas

22, 33 Sanitation, no treatment - deferred until merchantable

Possible Overlap

12, 13, 22 Commercia] thinning, overstory removal, sanitation

12, 22 Commercial thinning, sanitation

13, 20, 22 Overstory removal, precommercial thinning, sanitation
13, 20, 22, 23 Overstory removal, precommercial thinning, sanitation,

regeneration of understocked areas
13, 22 Overstory removal, sanitation

13, 22, 23 Overstory removal, sanitation, regeneration of understocked

areas
13, 22, 33 Overstory removal, sanitation, no treatment - deferred until

merchantable
20, 22 Precommercial thinning, sanitation

20, 22, 23 Precommercial thinning, sanitation, regeneration of

understocked areas

-63-

Table 30. Area of conunercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity
group and MAI site class. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Site Class
(Ft^/acre/year)

Treatment
Opportunity Group

20-49

50-84

85-119
thousand

120-164

acres—

10

79.1

104.8

4.6

3.5

11

50.8

95.8

23.3

0.9

12

-

3.5

-

-

13

21.5

32.6

-

-

14

11.5

4.3

-

-

15

-

-

-

-

20

75.5

36.8

5.9

0.4

21

3.6

28,9

5.6

-

22

24.2

18.8

1.8

-

23

92.7

13.2

5.6

-

30

62.7

87.5

10.7

3.5

32

3.6

-

-

-

33

-

3.6

3.6

-

40

-

12.2

-

-

12,

13

_

_

_

_

13,

20

6.0

11.3

-

-

13,

20,

23

-

3.5

-

-

13,

21

6.3

7.2

-

-

13,

23

12.7

14.4

-

-

13,

33

-

7.4

-

-

20,

23

7,3

5.7

-

-

22,

23

7.3

-

-

-

22,

33

0.4

-

-

-

12,

13,

22

•

_

.

_

12,

22

-

-

-

-

13,

20,

22

14.6

14.4

-

-

13,

20,

22, 23

3.6

-

-

-

13,

22

7.4

7.1

-

-

13,

22,

23

-

1.0

-

-

13,

22,

33

-

3.7

-

-

20,

22

18.4

4.7

-

-

20,

22,

23

-

-

1.2

-

165+

All
Classes

192.1

170.8

3.5

54.1

15,8

118.7

38.1

44.8

111.6

164.5

3.6

7.3

12.2

17.3
3.5

13.6

27,1
7,4

13.0
7,3
0.4

29,
3.

14.
1,
3.

23,
1,

Total

509.2

522.8

62,5

8.3

1,102.9

-64-

Silvicultural Treatment Opportunities by Timberland Quality Class

Forest managers usually consider a stand's potential economic return
before applying silvicultural treatments. Potential productivity and operabil-
ity of the land are important factors in determining the possible economic
return realized from forest management activities. Therefore, a table that
estimates acreage by timberland quality class and treatment opportunity class
can be helpful by showing how many acres are likely to be economical to
treat. Obviously, timber management funds are more likely to be spent on
timberlands rated as good or excellent than on timberlands of lesser quality.
The amounts of land in the different timberland quality classes that were
assigned to the different treatment opportunities are shown in Tables 31 and
32. These acreages are shown for the working circle as a whole, as well as
for the different ownership groups.

In Working Circle 3, the treatment opportunity with the largest amount
of good or excellent quality timberland at the time of measurement was har-
vest - low risk. This treatment opportunity existed on 90,900 acres of these
more productive lands. The category with the second highest amount of
acreage was harvest - high risk (codes 10 and 14) with 72,200 acres.

As shown in Table 31, large amounts of high quality timberland also fell
into four other treatment opportunity categories:

30 - No treatment due to productive condition (65,900 acres)

20 - Precommercial thinning (38,400 acres)
13 - Overstory removal (32,600 acres)

21 - Stand conversion (27,700 acres)

Another way to view treatment opportunities is to break the combined
treatment codes into their component treatment codes and assign each code
the total acreage figure. For example, if 10,000 acres are assigned the "13,
20 - overstory removal and precommercial thinning" combined treatment code,
then 10,000 acres present opportunities for overstory removal and 10,000
acres present opportunities for precommercial thinning. By adding the acre-
ages assigned to the individual codes it is possible to determine the amount of
land offering opportunities for each type of treatment. Table 32 shows the
total number of acres assigned to each treatment opportunity class. The tab-

-65-

Tadole 31. Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity
group and timberland quality class, Working Circle 3 (thousand
acres) .

Timberland Quality Class

Treatment

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

r\r\r\

ortunity Group

+- Vl /^l 1 ^ 3 »^ /H S /"• l^lTi C- ._

upp

x-nousana acres —

10

4.5

63.4

91.3

32.9

192.1

11

20.6

70.3

45.1

34.7

170.8

12

-

3.5

-

-

3.5

13

-

32.6

19.1

2.4

54.1

14

-

4.3

11.5

-

15.8

15

-

-

-

-

-

20

6.4

32.0

78.0

2.3

118.7

21

5.6

22,1

8.0

2.4

38.1

22

1.8

15.4

27.6

-

44.8

23

1.0

9.9

92.2

8.4

111.6

30

7.1

58.8

86.1

12.4

164.5

32

-

-

-

3.6

3.6

33

-

3.6

3.6

-

7.3

40

-

12.2

-

-

12.2

12,

13

_

_

_

_

_

13,

20

-

5.2

9.6

2.4

17.3

13,

20,

23

-

3.5

-

-

3.5

13,

21

-

7.2

3.8

2.6

13.6

13,

23

-

7.4

12.7

7.1

27.1

13,

33

-

3.8

3.6

-

7.4

20,

23

-

5.7

7.3

-

13.0

22,

23

-

-

7.3

-

7.3

22,

33

-

-

0.4

-

0.4

12,

13,

22

^

_

_

_

,.

12,

22

-

-

-

-

-

13,

20,

22

-

14.4

14.6

-

29.0

13,

20,

22, 23

-

-

3.6

-

3.6

13,

22

-

7.1

7.4

-

14.5

13,

22,

23

-

1.0

-

-

1.0

13,

22,

33

-

3.7

-

-

3.7

20,

22

-

4.7

18.4

-

23.1

20,

22,

23

1.2

-

-

-

1.2

Total

48.3

391.8

551.4

111.4

1,102.9

-66-

le also shows the amounts of land in the different timberland quality classes
that were assigned to the different treatment opportunity classes (see Table
32).

Because they are not combined with any other treatments, the number of
acres in the harvest - high risk and harvest - low risk groups does not
change in the treatment class tables. If these "harvest" groups are ignored,
the most commonly assigned treatment opportunity classes for excellent and
good-rated timberlands in Working Circle 3 were overstory removal (85,800
acres), precommercial thinning (73,100 acres), no treatment due to productive
condition (65,900 acres), and sanitation (49,400).

Table 32. Area of commercial softwood timberland by ownership group, treat-
ment class, and timberland quality class. Working Circle 3 (thous-
and acres) .

State and Other Public

Timberland Quality Class

Treatment Class

Harvest - high risk
Harvest - low risk
Commercial thinning
Overstory removal
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - high risk

Understory, manageable
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - high risk

Understory, manageable
Precommercial thinning
Stand conversion
Sanitation

Regeneration of understocked areas
No treatment due to productive

condition
No treatment - inoperable
No treatment - deferred until

merchantable
Unknown - poor crowns, good growth

Excellent

Good

thOU£

11.3

Fair

Poor

Total

1.0

11.7

3.1

27.1

3.8

11.8

9.0

5.2

29.9

-

0.5

-

-

0.5

-

7.7

9.6

0.7

17.9

-

1.0

3.4

-

4.4

0.9

6.9

18.7

0.6

27.0

1.0

3.8

1.6

0.1

6.5

0.2

6.8

11.2

-

18.2

0.1

3.1

14.1

1.1

18.4

1.2

8.9

13.1

2.5

25.8

_

_

_

0.4

0.4

-

1.1

1.3

-

2.5

0.3

0.3

-67-

Table 32.
(page 2)
Forest Industry

Timberland Quality Class

Treatment Class

Harvest - high risk
Harvest - low risk
Commercial thinning
Overstory removal
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - high risk

Understory, manageable
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - low risk

Understory, manageable
Precommercial thinning
Stand conversion
Sanitation

Regeneration of understocked areas
No treatment due to productive

condition
No treatment - inoperable
No treatment - deferred until

merchantable
Unknown - poor crowns , good growth

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

— — _ — ■f-Vl*-.!'"--'"-^ -i^-»^y-,.*^_

3.5

— — — unoi
20.5

jocijiu attics-

17.5

12.8

54.3

2.9

6.5

10.0

10.3

29.7

it

-

14.3

3.0

2.5

19.8

-

3.4

0.8

-

4.1

1.3

15.7

4.3

2.5

23.8

1.1

4.1

0.2

-

5.4

1.4

6.4

2.2

-

9.9

1.4

8.5

12.0

1.2

23.1

3.5

18.6

10.5

1.4

34.0

_

_

_

*

*

-

0.1

*

-

0.1

2.4

2.4

Other Private

Treatment Class

Harvest - high risk
Harvest - low risk
Commercial thinning
Overstory removal
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - high risk

Understory, manageable
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - low risk

Understory, manageable
Precommercial thinning
Stand conversion
Sanitation

Regeneration of understocked areas
No treatment due to productive

condition
No treatment - inoperable
No treatment - deferred until

merchantable
Unknown - poor crowns, good growth

♦Indicates less than 50 acres.

Timberland Quality Class

Excelleni

t Good

Fair

Poor

Total

-.____+-V|/^l'»/--n-.>l -.«*-^

—

— — unov

31.6

aodiiu ctUi.C£>

62.1 17.0

110.6

13.9

52.0

26.2

19.1

111.2

-

2.9

-

-

2.9

-

63.9

61.9

11.3

137.1

-

-

7.3

-

7.3

5.5
3.5
1.5
0.7
2.4

42,

21

33,

16,

31.

9.8

9.4

108.6
10.0
66.0
97.0
62.5

6.4

13.2
8.5

3.2

158.6
39.8
100.6
126.9
104.7

3.2
16.2

9.4

-68-

Table 32.

(page 3)

Working Circle Total

Timberland Quality Class

Treatment Class

Harvest - high risk
Harvest - low risk
Commercial thinning
Overstory removal
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - high risk

Understory, manageable
Two storied stand:

Overstory, harvest - low risk

Understory, manageable
Precommercial thinning
Stand conversion
Sanitation

Regeneration of understocked areas
No treatment due to productive

condition
No treatment - inoperable
No treatment - deferred until

merchantable
Unknown - poor crowns , good growth

Excellent

Good
~~~ tnou£

Fair

Poor

Total

4,5

63.4

iCLnO. acres —
91.3

32.9

192.1

20.6

70.3

45.1

34.7

170.8

-

3.5

-

-

3.5

-

85.8

74.5

14.5

174.8

-

4.3

11.5

-

15.8

7.6

65.5

131.5

4.8

209.5

5.6

29.3

11.8

5.0

51.7

3.1

46.3

79.3

-

128.7

2.3

27.5

123.1

15.5

168.4

7.1

58,8

86.1

12.4

164.5

-

-

_

3.6

3.6

-

11.1

7.7

-

18.8

12.2

12.2

-69-

Available Timber

An analysis of timber availability based on many of the factors that
affect timber management shows timber yields in Working Circle 3 may be re-
duced by 16 percent due to nontimber use constraints.

A difficult and potentially expensive task in any forest inventory is
determining the amount of timber that is actually available for harvesting.
Every acre of state and private forest land is not available for continuous
timber harvesting and probably never will be unless wood becomes much more
valuable.

The first step in assessing timber availability is to group the forest land
into availability classes. This is done based on various combinations of land
use influence zones, ownership groups, and topographic characteristics.
Some of the criteria used to delineate availability classes include water in-
fluence zones, travel influence zones, slope percent, and elevation. These
availability classes are then assigned to one of three land classes based on
each land class's definition and the characteristics of the different availability
classes. Table 33 shows the criteria used to assess timber availability in
Working Circle 3.

Land Classes

The commercial forest land in Working Circle 3 was grouped into three
land classes (Green 1976):

1. Standard: land available and operable now that is not subject to any
nontimber use impacts that might affect timber growing costs or ex-
pected yields;

2. Special: land available and operable now, but with ecological or other
use constraints that might affect the cost of growing timber, expec-
ted yield, or both; and

3. Marginal: land potentially available and operable, or both, but not
now expected to be harvested because of excessive development
costs, low product returns, or resource protection constraints.

-70-

Availability Classes

An availability class was designated for the different types of land
included in each land class. Using standard land as Availability Class I,
where full yields can be expected to be available, other availability classes
were defined as a percentage of the standard land yields expected, consider-
ing the impacts of other uses.

In this manner, it was possible to estimate the amount that timber yields
would be reduced because of nontimber use constraints. For Working Circle
3 , this amount proved to be equivalent to reducing the commercial forest land
area by 16 percent.

Table 34 shows the amount of land in each land class.

Table 33. Availability class definitions and components.

Land Class

Availability
Class

% of Standard Land
Yield Expected

Definition

Standard

Special

Special

I

I

II

100

100

90

Standard land definition

Big game winter range

Travel and municipal
influence zone

Special

III

75

Ski resort, recreation,
and subdivision
influence zones

Special

IV

50

Water influence zones
and other private
individual owner

Special

V

Subdivided land. State
Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks land,
and miscellaneous
Federal land

Marginal

IV

50

Steep slopes (greater
than 64%) , all land
greater than 8,000 feet
in elevation, and all
land that has a land-
scape stability class
rating of III (Stability
data available only west
of Divide)

-71-

Taible 34. Area of conunercial timberland by availability class, productivity
class, and land class, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres).

Land Class

Productivity

Availabili

.ty Class

Standard

Special

Marginal

Total

Class

Ft3/Acre/Year

thousand

•i*-"i<-^C^^ — ^ — -

dOico

I

20 - 49

153.2

173.3

—

326.5

50 - 84

181.1

162.2

-

343.3

85 - 119

26.5

21.8

-

48.2

120 - 164

3.4

2.2

-

5.7

165+
Total

-

-

-

-

364.1

359.5

-

723.7

II

20 - 49

»

73.4

_

73.4

50 - 84

-

62.9

-

62.9

85 - 119

-

8.8

-

8.8

120 - 164

-

0.5

-

0.5

165+
Total

-

-

-

-

-

145.6

-

145.6

III

20 - 49

..

12.4

_

12.4

50 - 84

-

13.0

-

13.0

85 - 119

-

1.6

-

1.6

120 - 164

-

0.2

-

0.2

165+
Total

-

-

-

-

,

-

27.2

-

27.2

IV

20 - 49

_

61.3

51.1

112.4

50 - 84

-

59.5

48.3

107.8

85 - 119

-

10,0

5.1

15.1

120 - 164

-

0.7

0.7

1.4

165+
Total

-

-

-

-

-

131.5

105.2

236.7

V

20 - 49

«

24.0

_

24.0

50 - 84

-

20.4

-

20.4

85 - 119

-

1.9

-

1.9

120 - 164

-

0.6

-

0.6

165+
Total

-

-

-

-

-

46.9

-

46.9

Total all

classes

364,1

710.7

105.2

1,180.0

-72-

INVENTORY DATA BY COUNTY

Area by Owner

Both the largest county in the state — Beaverhead -- and the smallest
county -- Silver Bow -- are in Working Circle 3. Some of the ownership
patterns are similar between some of the counties, while others show great
variation. The percentage of sampled commercial timberland owned by forest
industries ranges from one percent in Beaverhead, Jefferson, and Silver Bow
Counties to 36 percent in Madison County. State and other public owners
ranged from five percent in Broadwater County to 37 percent in Beaverhead
County. For other private owners it varied from 55 percent in Madison County
to 92 percent in Jefferson County. In each county, the other private owner-
ship group had more sampled commercial timberland than the other two ownership
groups combined.

As would be expected, the ownership patterns in Working Circle 3 varied
quite a bit between some of the counties (see Table 35). Beaverhead County,
the largest in the state, had the most land in five of the eight ownership
classes. Although Powell County was average sized for the working circle, it
had the most forest industry and National Park Service land. (Beaverhead
and Powell Counties had all of the NPS land in the working circle.) Lewis
and Clark County had the most county and municipal land.

There were also some differences between counties in the percentages of
land owned by the different owners. Forest Service ownership ranged from
almost half of Lewis and Clark County to less than a fourth of Broadwater
County. A difference of greater magnitude was indicated for BLM land.
Only 1.2 percent of Deer Lodge County was administered by the Bureau, as
compared to 18.7 percent of Beaverhead County. The greatest difference,
though, was in forest industry land. Beaverhead and Silver Bow Counties
each had only 0.1 percent while Powell County had a percentage of 6.2 per-
cent. About two-thirds of Beaverhead and Granite Counties was publicly
owned, but only about one-third of Broadwater County was. A little more
than half of each of the other counties was owned by a public agency.

-73-

o

Q.

</} ID

SO
0)
-J T3

C

in

,—

J-

ro

Oi

-4-

u-i

T—

(T> CO

csi CT\

oo

r- d-

O U3

r^ LO

r-.

r- cvj

<T^ •

00 ■

■"«*

VD .

t— •

if) •

'^■tt

J- •

• o

«<n

•>o

•*ir»

*>i —

«0D

O J-

CSI

(Ti

00

(r>

VD

00 u-i

t--.

CSJ

■*

J-

(Ti

<r>

C
O

o

4)

o

<D

o

Ol

c

o

3:

C
3
O

o

■o
c

ID

«

c
s
o

>l

<D
«

J-
O Ul

• J-
tri ro

,— 00^0
ID oo •

4J ..J-

o lO J-
■P oo

tO O

t- aj
o ai

10 10 CNI
4-> CSJ ll>

c <- .
0) •^^o

O CM d-
1. VD
OJ -If
O.

00 CO

J- •

•»0^

•- iri

4)

<u -a
o

5

4)
•P
IT)

s

73
ID
O

10

<u

j:
1-

>

(0

ro

-a-

in

O O

J- CO

r- o

CM •

r^ •

"".d

"O

<- J-

J- ^

CM O

lO

o

o .-

m

ID

-*

r~~

il>

^ o

oo oo

m .

T— •

•>CV1

•'0>

CM Jl-

in

0%

J-

jj-

OO

CO oo

U) CM

J- •

f — •

•^CM

-in

OO J-

oo

ro

r^

ir>

Ji-

•d-

o

,_

1^

CM

01

O

ro ffi

(Ti in

CO CM

>- ro

O t-

in in

in (^

r- O

CM •

o .

r^ •

CM •

KD •

tn •

in •

r^ •

-CM

"ro

o

-00

O

— « —

-O

ro

vo

00 in

o 5

.- J-

CTl O

1—

V£>

<Ti

<n

in .-

CN

*"

*"

d-

VC

a>

o

in

<r>

-3-

CO

00

oo (Ji

ID 00

J-

r^ 00

ro CM

^O

00 CM

in o

C^ •

o .

ro *

in .

o •

t — •

r^ •

-ro

-CM

-^

«u>

■~-oi

-in

-o

r-

1 —

r^ in

CM

r~ ro

ro J-

o o

in

■3-

1 —

<T>

00

1^

in r-

oo

in

VD

J-

o

in

o

01

Ol

1X1

<x> J-

in o

1.D

ro ro

'- *

cn •

o •

ro -K

a\ •

-in

-CM

-3-

J-

>- in

CM

CM

o

00

U5

J-

ro

^ (T.

cr. CO

r- r^

in o

CM •

rM -

in •

jT •

-CM

--3

-r^

-o

r^

CO J-

in J-

r~. o

KD

CM

ay

Ol r-

o

o

CM

ro ■

-CM

J- ^

-(T>
Ol

J-

<^

ID

iS)

at

in

CO

ro

CM

<Ty CM

in t-

CM r^

ro T—

•- in

00 o

CM in

T- in

ro O

CM •

in •

Ol .

J- .

J- •

in •

CN •

OO .

CM •

-o

-^D

-O

-m

— 1 —

-ro

--3-

-O

m

■3-

VD*"

CM

(Ti in

CM

ro j-

in j-

in o

ro

CO

CM

CM

vo

oo

f — f —

CM

01

Ol

CN

CM

o

Ol r-

CM 01

ro .

r^ .

-rO

-o

PO

01

CO

r-

in

r>.

CM

ro

oo 1^

o in

oo r~-

01 ro

r-~0

ro .

00 •

Ol •

r^ •

« — ■

-VO

-o

-CM

-ro

-o

«- in

in

CM J-

CO J-

o o

O

in

in

vo >-

to

J-

■3-

o

r^

01

-3-

if

r~.

,_

00

CM

oi VD

m CM

o

CM Ol

in CO

O ro

in »-

CO O

CM -

CM *

d- •

CM •

O •

CM •

lO •

— f~

-o

-in

-fO

-O

-•3-

-O

oo

CM

01 ID

CM

in ro

I-- ro

vo o

CM

J-

ro

1^

O .-

f^

ro

ro

I—

1^

VD

CO r~.

J- CM

m .

CO •

-t-.

— t —

oo ro

in

CO

J-

J- ^D

in 00

ID .

00 .

— 1 —

-o

I--.

O r-

in

VD

CO

,—

a>

in

CM ro

in r^

in o

O p-

cr, O

CM .

CM •

CM •

in •

r- ■

— « —

-o

-00

-co

-o

ro m

ro

r- J-

O J-

ro o

-3-

CM

ro

ps. .-

o

ro

r»- ro

oo CO

Ol •

00 •

-•3-

-oo

^ CM

U)

00

ID

d-

ID

ro

O

o o

Ol T-

CM rO

in

VD .

l~~ •

Ol .

r^

— r*

-ro

-O

1^

ro

IC

CM VD

Ol .
-r-
m ro
CO
CM

ro

O

VD

in

CM

Ol

in

o

d- r~

o r^

in

in o

ro J-

i~~ in

o

r^ -3-

ji- •

r^ .

ID -K

in .

ro .

VD .

o *

ro •

-co

— CO

-Ol

-o

—

-oo

O ro

f— r-

id""

^

■D

r~

.- VD

r-

«3

ro

ro

t—

CM

ro

VO

CO

-*

ro

J-

r^

ro

Ol 00

ro VD

CM -3-

in o

ro •

ro .

r^ •

VD •

-O

— 1 —

-CM

-o

VD

00 vD

^ vo

oo

VD

rs.

VD ^

J-

d-

r^

•

C

Ol

o

Ol

01

OJ

r^ <-

>- in

00 VD

lT) o

o

01 •

Ol •

00 •

CM •

1-

-o

— I —

-O

a>

CM

ro ro

vD ro

OO o

a.

f —

f —

ro .-

^-^

^ —

in

in

—

—

—

o

""

•"

ro

c>

a
■p

o

in

«

u

lU

<
a

3

•p

10

c

i_

0)

.^

4)

I.

-o

4)

IC

41

o>

a.

1*-

V- 10

o c

. —

in

ID

ID

0)

D

3 s:

C

<J

o

ID

o

4)

0) TO

">

C

t- c

■p

t_

ID

3 ID

ID

<1>

m -I

z

u^

I)

U

o

a

1/)

<n

to

,^

3

3

z:

4) in

E -O

4J c

I- ID

ID -1

o.

4)

<U g)

W

O 4J

ID

ID

JJ

ID 4-1

10

C (/)

ID

U

4J

4>

C

x:

o.

c
E

o

O

4>
•P
ID

>

4>
•P

^

3

4->
O

»

ID
U

•o

C

-74-

Timber Resource

Each ownership group in all of the counties had much more softwood
commercial timberland than hardwood. Lewis and Clark County had the most
commercial timberland, but Powell County had the most volume. Volumes by
softwood and hardwood species were similar to those by forest type. Other
private land had most of the growth in each county. Cubic foot growth on
state and other public land exceeded that on forest industry land, but forest
industry land grew more in terms of board feet. In each county there were
si 1 vicul tural treatment opportunities available to increase growth and improve
the health of the timberland.

Forest Acreage by Ownership Group

The proportion of sampled commercial timberland by ownership group in
each county is given in Figure 13. In Beaverhead, Jefferson, and Silver Bow
Counties, forest industries owned only one percent of the sampled commercial
timberland as compared to 36 percent in Madison County. The working circle
average was just over 12 percent. The percentage of sampled commercial
timberland owned by state and other public agencies varied from five percent
in Broadwater County to 37 percent in Beaverhead County, with an average
of almost 16 percent. Other private owners had 55 percent of the sampled
commercial timberland in Madison County, and ranged to 92 percent in
Jefferson County. The average was 72 percent.

Lewis and Clark County had the most commercial and other (unproduc-
tive) timberland sampled in Working Circle 3 (see Table 36 and Table 50 in
Appendix 2). The DSL, other public, and other private ownership groups in
Lewis and Clark County had more timberland than those groups in the other
counties, but Powell County had the most forest industry timberland. In all
counties, the other private ownership group had more acreage in each class
of timberland than the other three ownership groups combined.

Table 36 gives the area of commercial timberland in softwood and hard-
wood forest types by ownership group for each county. In all of the coun-
ties, and for both hardwood and softwood forest types, the other private
ownership group had more sampled commercial timberland than the other two
ownership groups combined. Lewis and Clark County had almost one-third of
the other private forest land (29 percent) occurring in the working circle.
Granite, Madison, and Powell were the only counties where forest industries
had substantially more commercial timberland than state and other public own-

-75-

Figure 13. Proportion of sampled commercial timberland by ownership group for
each county, Working Circle 3.

Forest
Industry

Forest
Industry

5%

State and
Other Public

5%

BEAVERHEAD

BROADWATER

Forest
Industry

State

and Other

Public

7%

DEER LODGE

GRANITE

-76-

Figure 13.
(page 2)

Forest
Industry

Forest
Industry 6%

POWELL

SILVER BOW

-77-

ers. Powell County had 43 percent of the forest industry-owned timberland
in the working circle. Every ownership group in all of the counties had
much more softwood commercial timberland than hardwood. Beaverhead
County had the largest proportion of the sampled commercial timberland on
hardwood forest types with 14.0 percent. Deer Lodge County had the small-
est proportion on hardwood forest types with 5.0 percent. Lewis and Clark
County had the most commercial timberland in the working circle, and Silver
Bow County had the least.

Timber Volume by Ownership Group

Although Lewis and Clark County had the most commercial timberland, it
was second to Powell County in the amount of volume. Broadwater County
had the least volume on the sampled commercial timberland. The other pri-
vate ownership group had more than half of both the growing stock and
sawtimber volume in each county (see Tables 37 and 38). Forest industries
had more volume than state and other public owners in Granite, Madison, and
Powell Counties. Other private timberlands in Lewis and Clark and Powell
Counties had almost equal amounts of board foot volume (23 percent each)
which was more than found in any other county. Granite, Madison, and
Powell Counties had 87 percent of the board foot volume found on forest
industry owned timberland (872,500,000 board feet).

It is not surprising that volumes by softwood and hardwood species were
similar to those by forest type. Again, Powell County had the most volume,
and Broadwater had the least. Most of the growing stock and sawtimber
volume by species was on other private land in every county but Madison,
where other private owners had a little less than half of the softwood vol-
ume. As before, state and other public owners had more volume than forest
industries except in Granite, Madison, and Powell Counties.

-78-

Table 36. Area of commercial timberland by county, softwood and hardwood
types, and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

County and

Forest Type

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Other Public

Industry

Private

Total

of Total

Beaverhead

Softwood types

-thousand
1.0

23.7

35.7

60.4

86.0

Hardwood types

2.2
25.9

*

7.7
43.4

9.8
70.2

14.0

Total all types

1.0

100.0

Broadwater

Softwood types

2.6

2.7

50.1

55.4

92.2

Hardwood types

0.2

0.2

4.4

4.7

7.8

Total all types

2.8

2.9

54.5

60.1

100.0

Deer Lodge

Softwood types

20.6

1.4

47.7

69.8

95.0

Hardwood types

0.9
21.5

*

2.7
50.5

3.6
73.4

5.0

Total all types

1.4

100.0

Granite

Softwood types

9.1

36.8

87.3

133.2

94.5

Hardwood types

0.2

0.9

6.7

7.8

5.5

Total all types

9.3

37.8

94.0

141.1

100.0

Jefferson

Softwood types

6.2

0.9

77.8

84.9

94.1

Hardwood types

0.4
6.6

*

4.8
82.6

5.3
90.2

5.9

Total all types

0.9

100.0

Lewis and Clark

Softwood types

48.1

17.7

229.3

295.1

94.6

Hardwood types

2.2

0.5

13.9

16.6

5.4

Total all types

50.3

18.2

243.2

311.7

100.0

Madison

Softwood types

9.7

43.0

59.1

111.8

91.9

Hardwood types

0.8

0.3

8.7

9.8

8.1

Total all types

10.5

43.3

67.8

121.6

100.0

Powell

Softwood types

28.0

78.6

145.4

252.1

94.0

Hardwood types

1.4

2.6

12.3

16.2

6.0

Total all types

29.4

81.2

157.7

268.3

100.0

Silver Bow

Softwood types

8.7

0.2

31.3

40.1

92.6

Hardwood types

0.4
9.1

*

2.8
34.1

3.3
43.4

7.4

Total all types

0.2

100.0

Working Circle Total

Softwood types

156.8

182.3

763.8

1,102.9

93.5

Hardwood types

8.6

4.6

63.9

77.1

6.5

All forest types

164.5

186.9

827.7

1,180.0

100.0

*Indicates less than 50 acres.

-79-

Table 37. Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by county,
softwood and hardwood species, and ownership group. Working
Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

Ownership Group

County and
Species

Beaverhead

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Broadwater

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Deer Lodge

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Granite

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Jefferson

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Lewis and Clark

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Madison

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Powell

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Silver Bow

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

Other Public

Industry
-thousand cub:

Private

Total

of Total

42,107

2,082

65,616

109,805

89.7

2,981

12

9,600

12,593

10.3

45,088

2,094

75,216

122,399

100.0

2,618

2,442

41,697

46,758

90.4

287

107

4,616

5,011

9.6

2,906

2,550

46,313

51,768

100.0

38,433

2,645

86,964

128,042

97.1

850

47

2,949

3,847

2.9

39,283

2,693

89,913

131,889

100.0

18,590

71,276

134,211

224,078

95.6

337

290

9,674

10,301

4.4

18,927

71,566

143,885

234,378

100.0

6,253

682

84,801

91,736

92.8

512

62

6,512

7,086

7.2

6,765

745

91,312

98,822

100.0

57,624

34,558

256,530

348,713

94.7

2,499

65

17,113

19,678

5.3

60,124

34,623

273,644

368,390

100.0

17,729

83,929

99,794

201,452

94.7

1,175

348

9,853

11,377

5.3

18,904

84,277

109,647

212,828

100.0

55,144

147,625

236,013

438,782

95.2

2,354

436

18,967

21,757

4.8

57,497

148,061

254,981

460,539

100.0

15,872

207

56,622

72,701

95.7

464

33

2,755

3,253

4.3

16,337

240

59,377

75,954

100.0

Working Circle Total
Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

254,371

345,447

1,062,248

1,662,066

94.6

11,460

1,401

82,041

94,902

5.4

265,831

346,848

1,144,289

1,756,968

100.0

-80-

Table 38. Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by county, soft-
wood and hardwood species, and ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand board feet Scribner) .

County and
Species

Beaverhead

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Broadwater

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Deer Lodge

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Granite

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Jefferson

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Lewis and Clark

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Madison

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Powell

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Silver Bow

Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Working Circle Total
Softwood species
Hardwood species
Total all species

Ownership Group

State and Forest Other
Other Public Industry Private

thousand board feet —

109,731 5,479 173,844
10,116 43 32,363

Percentage
Total of Total

42,552

289,054
42,522

475

153,835

87.2
12.8

119,848

5,522

206,207

331,576

100.0

6,870

5,747

102,840

115,457

87.4

917

273

15,354

16,543

12.6

7,786

6,020

118,193

132,000

100.0

94,897

7,502

229,934

332,334

96.9

2,185

108

8,028

10,321

3.1

97,082

7,611

237,962

342,655

100.0

53,205

203,624

354,259

611,097

95.7

714

807

25,825

27,346

4.3

53,919

204,430

380,094

638,444

100.0

16,150

1,795

212,719

230,662

92.2

1,503

212

17,870

19,586

7.8

17,653

2,007

230,589

250,248

100.0

149,876

106,172

641,893

897,941

94.5

6,813

153

45,787

52,753

5.5

156,689

106,325

687,680

950,694

100.0

43,589

229,936

256,615

530,140

93.8

3,789

936

30,977

35,702

6.2

47,379

230,872

287,592

565,842

100.0

152,774

436,150

624,365

1,213,291

95.4

6,252

1,048

50,414

57,714

4.6

159,026

437,198

674,779

1,271,005

100.0

41,424

409

146,237

188,068

95.5

1,129

66

7,599

8,793

4.5

196,861 100.0

668,516

996,814

2,742,715

4,408,044

94.2

33,418

3,646

234,217

271,281

5.8

701,934

1,000,460

2,976,932

4,679,326

100.0

-81-

Figure 14. Net volume of growing stock by county. Working Circle 3.

500

450

400

350

300

o

O 250

200

150

100

50

County

-82-

Figure 15. Net volume of sawtimber by county, Working Circle 3,

1,300

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

0)

c

800

a

0)

0)

700

■g

flB

o

m

c
a

600

500

400

300

200

100

County

-83-

Growth and Mortality

Broadwater County had the least net annual growth of both growing
stock and sawtimber in Working Circle 3 (see Tables 39 and 40). Powell
County had the most growth. Other private land provided most of the
growth on commercial softwood forest types in each county. Cubic foot
growth on state and other public land exceeded that on forest industry land
for the working circle, but forest industry land grew more in terms of board
feet.

Broadwater County also had the least net annual mortality, and Powell
County had the most. Other private owners had the most growing stock
mortality in each county except Powell, where forest industries had the most.
Thirty-eight percent of the growing stock mortality and 43 percent of the
sawtimber mortality was occurring in Powell County (see Tables 41 and 42).

On a per acre basis, Broadwater County had the least growth and
mortality of both growing stock and sawtimber (see Tables 55 and 56 in Ap-
pendix 2). Silver Bow County had the most cubic foot growth per acre, and
the second most board foot growth. Powell County had the most board foot
growth per acre, but also the most board foot and cubic foot mortality per
acre. •

-84-

Table 39. Net annual growth of growing stock on commercial softwood forest
types by county and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand
cubic feet) .

Ownership Group

County

Beaverhead

Broadwater

Deer Lodge

Granite

Jefferson

Lewis and Clark

Madison

Powell

Silver Bow

State and

Forest

Other

All

Other Public

Industry

Private

Owners

thousand cubic

feet

1,072

51

1,633

2,755

57

49

900

1,006

1,027

60

2,143

3,230

300

963

3,062

4,324

134

21

1,779

1,934

1,095

373

5,361

6,829

461

1,989

2,510

4,960

968

1,873

5,301

8,143

398

6

1,461

1,865

Total

5,511

5,386

24,148

35,045

Table 40. Net annual growth of sawtimber on commercial softwood forest types
by county and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand board
feet Scribner) .

Ownership Group

County

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Deer Lodge
Granite
Jefferson
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Powell
Silver Bow

State and

Forest

Other

All

Other Public

Industry

Private

Owners

— thousand board

feet

2,380

95

3,543

6,018

184

178

3,124

3,486

2,072

139

4,692

6,903

1,095

4,098

8,204

13,398

446

50

5,846

6,342

3,904

1,787

17,118

22,809

883

4,321

5,452

10,656

3,354

8,311

14,476

26,141

862

13

3,221

4,096

Total

15,180

18,993

65,676

99,849

-85-

Table 41. Net annual mortality of growing stock on commercial softwood
forest types by county and ownership group, Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

Ownership Group

County

Beaverhead

Broadwater
Deer Lodge
Granite
Jefferson
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Powell
Silver Bow

Total 669

♦Indicates less than 500 cubic feet.

State a

.nd

Forest

Other

All

Other Public

Industry

Private

Owners

cubic

feet

100

6

153

259

5

5

64

73

107

5

197

309

57

426

491

974

11

1

151

163

117

237

527

881

51

185

240

477

184

952

882

2,018

36

*

135

172

1,817

2,841

5,327

Table 42. Net annual mortality of sawtimber on commercial softwood forest
types by county and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand
board feet Scribner) .

Ownership Group

County

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Deer Lodge
Granite
Jefferson
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Powell
Silver Bow

Total

State and

Forest

Other

All

Other Public

Industry

Private

Owners

thousand

board feet

189

11

316

516

6

4

53

63

163

15

414

591

153

1,271

1,371

2,795

13

1

196

210

225

667

1,078

1,970

74

432

432

938

473

2,669

2,433

5,575

75

1

255

331

1,372

5,071

6,547

12,989

-86-

Silvicultural Treatment Opportunities

Often a stand of timber has two or more treatment opportunities avail-
able, so the acreage of that stand is applied to each of those opportunities.
Commercial timberland acreage by treatment class, shown in Table 43, gives
the total number of acres categorized as having a particular treatment oppor-
tunity. There are six treatment classes that indicate that no immediate
treatment opportunities are available. Those classes are: harvest - low risk;
two-storied stand (overstory, harvest - low risk; understory, manageable);
no treatment due to productive condition; no treatment - inoperable; no
treatment - deferred until merchantable; and unknown - poor crowns, good
growth.

The most common treatment class on sampled land in Beaverhead County
was harvest - high risk, followed closely by harvest - low risk, and no
treatment due to productive condition. If the treatment classes that indicate
that immediate treatment opportunities are available are ignored, about 55
percent of the sampled commercial timberland in Beaverhead County had
treatment opportunities available.

In Broadwater County, the most common treatment classes were precom-
mercial thinning, regeneration of understocked areas, and overstory removal.
About 85 percent of the sampled commercial timberland had treatment oppor-
tunities.

Harvest - high risk was the most common treatment class in Deer Lodge
County, followed by harvest-low risk and no treatment due to productive
condition. There were treatment opportunities available on 57 percent of the
sampled commercial timberland.

In Granite County, harvest - high risk and overstory removal were tied
for the leading treatment class. Precommercial thinning and harvest - low
risk were the next most common. Treatment opportunities were available on
72 percent of the sampled timberland.

The most common treatment classes in Jefferson County were precommer-
cial thinning, regeneration of understocked areas, overstory removal, and
sanitation. There were treatment opportunities on 80 percent of the sampled
timberland.

-87-

^ 00 in CO CO

CM O ro

If)

r^

r^

J-

Ul

ID

CO

CM

§

iri

00

oo

J-

ro

00

CnJ

*—

> s

— o

.- CD

O csj

O O
eg f—

<n m r^
J- ■- ^

CM o^

0)

X
o

0% >J}

CO

ro CM CM CM ro

C

o

-D
<0

«

o

«

T3
C
«
M

3

o

c

c
o

T3

C

o

>»
+»

c

O

o

T3

C

4)
■P

C

o

o^
o

l/^ CM

P^ ^ o

»- oo CM
fO CM

OO

o

00
o

Ol po ro f— CM
O ro u^ o^ t—

ro T—

^ »— CM CM t—

t— .— CM GO <Tt

ro <S>

O r^

00 r^ o^ oo
r^ OS Ol o

r- in
>— ro

>■

O

o

4)

T3
O

CM li3
00 VD

<r> VD o r^

t^ CM ro Jl-

s
•a

ro O f—

(Xt in CM CTs
vo >- (Ti in

-3- (Tl

c

i

■D

«

■o
c
a

E

4>

>

^ VO

in j^

J- in

CM f—

r^ oo OS
in >- ro

>— ro
J- ro

4J

c

Ol

£

o

1

1

0)
10

o>

c

•p

4)

4->

4)

^

(71

irt

Ol

</)

Ol

c

(A

^

C

• •

V

10

• •

4)

<0

c

•r-

Wl

•^

f^

"D

>

c

■o

>

c

(-

•r-

c

"0

c

i-

10

c

t-

ID

x:

c

1-

c

>

(D

"0

E

10

10

E

•p

o

^

•^

o

•P

£

•p

X

o»

£

^

E

1/)

*

«

*t

r—

U5

■»-

O

4J

4)

•s

>.

•t

>i

10

l-

j:

^

L.

•o

>%

1.

■a

>.

1-

4)

^

V

1-

o

V

u

O

o

>

1

1

(T

>^

o

■p

o

■P

t.

c

• ^

l-

t.

4->

U)

u

■p

tn

41

o

*j

■P

o

o

0

10

u

O

«/)

t-

c

o

irt

tA

1-

4->

•p

1-

4)

■P

t-

4>

p

a>

0}

<b

<n

»>

V

■o

(/)

4J

■D

Q

T3

>

>

p

t-

>

c

a

C

u

C

t-

C-

^

V

o

o

3

o

3)

4)

(0

(D

(0

<s

>

s

c

I.

4-1

X

X

o

H*

>—

a.

CO

c
o

<o

4->

c

«n

C

(J

JO

ID

o

l_

4-1

0)

o

^

§

■0

4>
>

1.
o>

■D

•f-

• .—

4)

4->

4^

"O

J£

o

c-

o

U

3

4J

T

o

o

■o

Ol

*i

o

^

T3

in

u

10

41

A

t.

a.

L-

t-

<n

4)

4)

t-

c

T3

o

Q.

41

«

C

4J

O

>4-

o

J

C

4)

t-

41

-^

■o

o

u-

D

o

■D

I

1

t.
o

c

•P

4-1

4J

o

o

C

C

C

o.

•^

4)

4)

4)

4-1

h

F

g

1

<o

4-1

4-1

4->

t-

10

10

10

c

4>

4)

4)

4)

«

C

C

1-

l-

o

41

4J

4J

4-1

c

Ol

Jt

4)

O

o

o

c

(K

2

z

z

3

-88-

Precommercial thinning was the leading treatment class in Lewis and
Clark County, followed by regeneration of understocked areas, overstory
removal, and sanitation. Treatment opportunities were available on 79 percent
of the sampled commercial timberland.

The most common treatment classes in Madison County were harvest -
high risk, harvest - low risk, and no treatment due to productive condition.
Treatment opportunities were available on 57 percent of the sampled timber-
land.

In Powell County, harvest - high risk was the leading treatment class,
followed by overstory removal, harvest - low risk, precommercial thinning,
and no treatment due to productive condition. There were treatment oppor-
tunities available on 71 percent of the sampled commercial timberland.

Harvest - high risk was the most common treatment class in Silver Bow
County. Harvest - low risk and no treatment due to productive condition
were the next most common classes. Treatment opportunities were available
on 56 percent of the sampled commercial timberland.

-89-

Grazable Forest Land Data

The timberland in Working Circle 3 can also support livestock. If the
condition of the grazable forest land was improved in each county, a substan-
tial increase in the carrying capacity would be obtained.

Although Lewis and Clark County had the most commercial timberland in
the excellent and good range condition classes, it also had the most in the
fair and poor classes (see Table 44). In fact, on a percentage basis, only
Broadwater and Jefferson Counties had more timberland in the fair and poor
condition classes. The proportions in the other counties were nearly identi-
cal.

In spite of the fact that Lewis and Clark had the most area in each
range condition class, Table 45 shows that Powell County had a few more
available animal unit months (AUM's). Lewis and Clark and Powell Counties
togehter had about half (49 percent) of the total available animal unit months
estimated for the working circle.

Table 44. Area of commercial timberland by county and condition class, Working
Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Condition Class

County

Excellent

Good

Fair

Mr- Vh ^^^ \ V ^^ '^ *^ ^^ "^ ^^ ^^ ^N J"^

Poor

Total*

-tnousana acres —

*■"""'"*■"'■'""""

Beaverhead

25.3

17.5

6.5

1.7

51.0

Broadwater

14.6

22.8

11.1

1.6

50.1

Deer Lodge

23.9

20.4

6.6

2.7

53.6

Granite

41.9

48.0

16.7

1.3

107.9

Jefferson

22.6

31.3

14.1

2.5

70.5

Lewis and Clark

84.0

108.3

47.6

7.5

247.4

Madison

39.0

35.2

10.3

5.2

89.7

Powell

82.6

85.7

33.4

2.7

204.4

Silver Bow

15.1

11.5

4.0

1.3

31.9

Total

349.1

380.7

150.1

26.6

906.5

*The total does not include timberland with a crown density greater than 70
percent because the understory is considered to have no value for livestock.

-90-

Table 46 shows that if all commercial timberland were in excellent range
condition, Lewis and Clark County would carry the most AUM's, followed by
Powell County. Silver Bow County has the potential to carry the fewest
AUM's. In each county, if the range condition was improved, the grazable
forest land carrying capacity would increase. The amount of the increase
ranged from about a 50 percent increase in Broadwater, Jefferson, and Lewis
and Clark Counties to about a 14 percent carrying capacity increase in
Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, ^4adison, and Silver Bow Counties.

Table 45. Available animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland by
county and condition class, Working Circle 3.

Condition Class

County

Beaverhead

Broadwater

Deer Lodge

Granite

Jefferson

Lewis and Clark

Madison

Powell

Silver Bow

Total

Excellent

Good

5,848
1,802
4,743
6,490
2,858

10,867
7,836

12,656
3,313

56,414

2,252

2,964
2,278
7,886
3,887

14,104
4,112

14,113
1,395

52,989

Fair

— AUM's-

296

1,347

293

2,277

1,530

5,690

413

4,576

204

16,626

Poor

Total

*

206

*

130
330
965

*

287

1,917

8,396

6,319

7,314

16,783

8,605

31,626

12,361

31,632

4,912

127,946

*Indicates less than 0.5 AUM's.

Table 46. Potential animal unit months (AUM's) on commercial timberland by
county and crown density. Working Circle 3.

Crown Density

County

0-30

31-50

Beaverhead

2,312

Broadwater

5,358

Deer Lodge

2,383

Granite

11,807

Jefferson

6,153

Lewis and Clark

23,194

Madison

3,685

Powell

21,228

Silver Bow

1,562

Total

77,681

5,692
3,000
4,167
6,821
4,072

15,097
7,927

13,649
2,929

63,355

51-70
-AUM's- —
1,491
1,204
1,767
4,204
2,478
8,059
2,719
8,299
1,020
31,242

71 + *

Total

9,496

9,562

8,317

22,832

12,703

46,350

14,331

43,177

5,511

172,277

*No range data was collected on forest land with greater than 70 percent
crown density because the range is considered to have no value for livestock.

-91-

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOmENDATIONS

Overview of the Current Grazable Forestland Resource

In 1978, approximately 77 percent (906,500 acres) of the sampled commer-
cial timberland acreage had less than 71 percent crown density and, therefore,
was considered grazable. The condition of the understory was estimated to be
excellent or good on about 81 percent (729,800 acres) of the grazable commer-
cial timberland. The current available carrying capacity was estimated to be
127,9'*8 AUM's or about 7'* percent of the potential available carrying capacity
of 172,277 AUM's. It is necessary to re-evaluate the grazing practices on
those acres experiencing a downward trend in range condition to keep the
amount of acres in poor or fair condition from increasing.

The amount and location of grazable forest acreage changes from year to
year as new stands are logged or burned and as crown densities in existing
timber stands increase and block out the sun. In 1978, approximately 77
percent (906,500 acres) of the sampled commercial timberland acreage had less
than 71 percent crown density and, therefore, was considered grazable. The
condition of the forest understory was estimated to be excellent or good on
about 81 percent of the grazable commercial timberland. Timberlands with
crown densities of 0-30 percent showed evidence of the most overgrazing.
About 34 percent of these areas were in fair or poor condition.

Overall, a total of 176,700 acres of the commercial timberland's understo-
ry were determined to be in fair or poor condition. If the ecological condi-
tion of the understory on these acres are not currently improving, their
stocking rates probably need to be re-evaluated. Some of the grazable
timberland that was rated as being in excellent or good condition could also
be experiencing overgrazing. Over a period of time even land in excellent
condition, if overgrazed, could deteriorate to a poor condition.

The current carrying capacity, defined by the inventory procedures as
available animal unit months (AUM's), was estimated to be 127,947 AUM's. If
every acre of grazable timberland were in excellent condition, the potential
available carrying capacity would be 172,277 AUM's. The actual available
carrying capacity was 74 percent of the potential available carrying capacity.

-92-

I

The objective of most grazing management programs is to make optimum
use of forage resources while maintaining or improving these resources. It is
clear, based on the data, that many acres have not been managed in a man-
ner that would achieve this objective.

Land managers can improve overgrazed areas by simply reducing the
amount of time livestock graze an area or by reducing the amount of live-
stock. Land managers can also maintain or improve the grazing resource and
optimize use through more aggressive management techniques that may include
some or all of the following items: salting, herding (rotation grazing),
fencing, increasing the number of trails, increasing water developments, and
reducing slash, logging debris, and other mechanical barriers. Another
obvious tactic that may conflict with timber objectives is to maintain lower
crown densities or less canopy cover in those forest stands that are being
grazed. This could be done by thinning precommercial material or by har-
vesting some commercial timber while still maintaining a crop of trees for
future harvest.

-93-

Overview of the Current Timber Resource

The average acre of state and privately owned commercial timberland in
Working Circle 3 was estimated to have the potential to produce 5k cubic feet
of wood per acre per year. In addition, 40 percent, or itif8,100 acres, of the
commercial softwood timberland sampled was rated as excellent or good for
timber production. These same acres had 2 A billion board feet of volume or
about 55 percent of the total estimated softwood board foot inventory.
Sixty-two percent of the softwood net board foot volume was held by the other
private ownership group. Forest industries had 23 percent of the softwood
volume and state and other public lands had 15 percent.

The data indicates many of the younger sawtimber stands are not even-
aged, low in board foot volume, understocked, and have many sapling and
poletimber trees of excessive age. It is suggested that when it becomes
economical to do so, many of these stands should be harvested and replaced by
new, vigorous stands.

The average potential growth for state and private commercial timberland
in Working Circle 3 was estimated to be 54 cubic feet per acre per year.
Based on unpublished inventory data, this working circle has about average
potential timber producing capabilities when compared to potential productivity
for the other working circles in the state.

Approximately 40 percent, or 440,100 acres, of the commercial softwood
timberland was rated as good or excellent for timber production. These same
acres had 2.4 billion board feet of volume or about 55 percent of the total
estimated board foot inventory (see Table 64 in Appendix 3).

In 1978, the estimated softwood volume of timber on other privately
owned timberlands totaled 2,743 million net board feet Scribner. Forest
industry-owned timberlands held an estimated softwood volume of 997 million
net board feet. State and other public lands held a softwood volume of 669
million net board feet.

Sixty-three percent of the commercial timberland area had less than
5,000 net board feet per acre, and only 14 percent of the timberland acreage
had 10,000 or more board feet per acre (see Table 26).

Only about six percent of the softwood sawtimber volume consisted of the
commercially less desirable species — subalpine fir, limber pine and whitebark
pine. Of the remaining more commercially desirable softwood species, 53
percent of the board foot volume was found on trees ranging from 9.0 inches
to 15.0 inches d.b.h. (see Table 63 in Appendix 3).

-94-

Old growth sawtimber stands had an average of 7,000 net board feet
Scribner per acre. Young growth sawtimber stands averaged 4,200 net board
feet Scribner per acre. The average number of trees per acre by diameter
class and stand size class (see Table 59 in Appendix 3) indicates most of the
old growth sawtimber stands, and to a lessor degree the young growth saw-
timber stands, are uneven-aged. If the distribution by diameter class for
young growth sawtimber stands is analyzed along with the understocked
nature of these stands and the excessive age of many of the smaller diameter
trees, an unfavorable silvicultural picture begins to unfold. To optimize
timber production, many of these stands need to be harvested and started
over when it becomes economical to do so.

Past Harvest Rates and Growth

Data covering a 15 year period shows timber harvesting has fluctuated but
generally increased on private lands from 1970 to 1980. The average amount of
timber harvested annually on private land in Working Circle 3 over 15 years
was 88.'* million board feet. Powell County supplied k^ percent of the total
volume harvested from private lands during the period. The annual average
harvest from private land over the last 15 years is only slightly higher than
the board foot net growth estimated for 1978.

Each year, the Forestry Division attempts to determine the amount of
timber harvested on state and private lands. This amount is determined from
state land records and hazard reduction agreements drawn between the state
and logging operators. The board foot volume listed in Table 47 shows the
amount of timber loaded on trucks and delivered to mills. Normally, the
smallest trees delivered are in the 6-inch diameter class. In addition to the
volume brought to the mills, a portion of the merchantable volume is left in
the forest as logging residue. Based on figures reported by the USDA
Forest Service for western Montana and northern Idaho (Wilson et al. 1970),
the amount of residue left on the logging site is about 7 percent of the board
foot volume delivered to the mills. Timber is also harvested for railroad ties,
posts, poles, rails, and firewood (cord wood) but the amount of timber har-
vested for these uses is small compared to the amount harvested for other
forest products.

-95-

o>

c

•H

M

u

o

s

»

>1

■p

B

3

0

o

>1

£l

^

CN

00

<ri

iH

^

0^

3

0

u

jC

+J

CO

VO

(Ti

iH

(A

M

Id

0)

>1

^

l«

■o

G

a>

■H

«

u

^

(0

TJ

C

•

(0

,^^

iH

M

Q)

(1)

C

4J

XI

(fl

•H

>

M

•H

U

>^

cn

a.

■p

E

0)

O

0)

1-4

l*-(

M-<

-n

■P

M

3

to

U

C)

XI

u

0)

Ti

-^

c

•H

U)

■P

3

»

0

(0 x;

«
H

■p
c

3
O

u

(0

o

OQ
>

CO

0)

o

c
o

U]
■H
■O

(0

T3
C
(C

in
■<-i

(1)

►J

u

o
O

m

CN

O

CO

1-1

n

00

O
00

O

CN

IT)
CN
CO

in
ro
•<*

(N

o
in

CO

o

tN

CO

CO

O

o

m

ro
O

(N

o

t-H

CN
ro

rH

00

00

in

I I

t^r--coiDmincTiiD

I I iH CTi CTl 'i' CN rH

(N

CN in

in \D

CN

in r^ o
»* (Ti in
a\ -^ \o

^cNCTiin^Hroro'^o
iHOro'l'roOOOCNO
C0ro^ovD•Vc»1C0^-O^

cN'^r~'^c-ir~-r-'*o

P
0)
0)

ID T3

(0
O
XI

'O
C
(0
m
3
O
JC

p

iH in
'S' cri

0)

p

•rH

c

10

M

0)

Q) -a

Q) o

Q hJ

M
(U
■P
10

T3
<0
O

OQ

•O
ro
<U

x:

0)

>
m

CO

en (Ti

in ro ro T

o vo en r-

in rH ^ "a*

ro 00 rH

i^l^rHOrHrHlOO

rH '^ CO ro CN O

in in (^ >i) CN

"*

"a"

fO

incnocNininoocNOOO
kDinioin'i'CNcocTicNrH

COOrH^Or^-CnTrHrO
Cn'^inCTlrHrOrH rH

cocnOrHCNro^inicr^cooiOrHCN
^OkOr-r-[^c^r^r~r^r-r~-r^oooooo
C^CT^CJ^cn0^cnO^O^O^O^C^O^O^o^O^

CTi

lO

00

■^

rH

ro

in

VO

O

00

ID

<T\

CN

T-t

in

00

^)

rH

"S-

vO

i-t

00

(T^

O

>£>

O

o

rH

n

00

■^

o

r-i

rs)

in

r^

r-(

en

ro

(N

(Ti

t^

00

•^

CO

^

T

o

(N

o

r^

•^

(^

in

00

■<T

'S-

O

VO

o

VD

r^

H

00

^

fM

^

CN

'*

ro

o

en

VO

^

CM

CN

ro

CN

ro

in

ro

^

ro

ro

'*

in

■^

ro

rsi

in

ro

ro
ro

in

en

CN

CO

o

ro

in

CN

ic

en

in

00

o

vo

r~-

00

rH

r-

in

vD

rH

-*

o

r-

rs)

'*

in

r-

o

■^

in

o

rsj

CN

en

en

kC

T

1^

r-

in

in

CO

rH

in

ro

ro

vi)

CTi

o

rH

o

en

o

eO

en

co

00

r~-

'd'

I^

rH

ro

^

\D

U3

in

iX>

en

in

r^

rH

rH

rH

r-i

rH

rH

CN

•^

rH

fN

rH

in

CM

H

O

'3'

•^

CO

iD

r-

cn

o

in

en

in

r-

in

in

1.0

o

ro

ro

eo

^D

O

ec

C\

■^

in

r~

cn

in

ro

rH

r~

M"

r-

vti

•^

<D

r-

ro

CO

CM

•<T

o

"S-

CN

>*

CN

CN

ro

ro

^

ro

rH
rH

(^

o

'f

CN

iD

rH

"d"

CM

in

cn

r-

in

r-

rH

<-l

VD

o

in

O

CO

^

ro

ro

o

ro

cr.

in

CN

CO

1^

ro

CM

vO

CN

ro

"*

O

VD

^

O

00

rH

o

rM

in

00

ro

in

ro

o

o

en

ro

in

rH

o

<N

CO

en

en

lO

o

CO

ro

'3'

en

rH

r^

rM

rH

00

ro

CO

ro

ID

rH

rH

rH

rH

CN

rH

OJ

CN

rvi

rH

rH

rH

rH

in
CN

rH

CTl

en

r--

in

CO

^

^

^

vO

r\)

ro

<N

ro

^

CTl

ro

in

r-

cn

O

ro

ID

O

O

O

in

00

ro

00

■^

in

CN

•<*■

ID

r-

"*

CN

rM

rM

in

ro

rH

en

in

in

en

eD

^

in

o

rH

ro

i^

O

CM

t^

ro

rH

00

ro

r-

o

rH

•<t

CN

T

ro

"sr

o

'T

ID

ro

ro

ro

ro

ro

rH

o

"S-

in

rH

vD

in

CN

t-<

*.

«.

r-

ro

■■3"

U

a)

nj

cr>

rH

0)

(0

0)

»

u

P

Q)

o

in

>

H

rH

<

-96-

Data covering a 15-year cutting period (see Table 47 and Figure 16)
shows that timber harvesting has fluctuated wildly but generally increased on
private lands from 1970 until 1980. The recently depressed housing market,
caused principally by high interest rates, has decreased harvesting rates.
The average amount of timber harvested on private land in Working Circle 3
over the 15 years was 88.4 million board feet. Powell County supplied 41
percent of the total volume of timber harvested from private lands during the
period.

In 1978, the amount of timber removed from the private land inventory
totaled 154.0 million board feet (this figure includes logging residues). The
average volume of timber removed from the private land inventory since 1968
has been 94.6 million board feet Scribner annually. (This figure also in-
cludes logging residues.) The net annual board foot growth for sawtimber on
private lands was estimated to be 91.3 million board feet Scribner in 1978.
Subtracting net growth from harvested volume shows the standing inventory
of timber was reduced by 62.7 million board feet. In other words, harvesting
in 1978 occurred at a rate that was 167 percent of sawtimber board foot
growth.

The net board foot growth estimate does not include the board foot
growth produced by softwood trees smaller than 9.0 inches d.b.h. or hard-
wood trees smaller than 11.0 inches d.b.h. Net growth in softwood trees 5.0
to 8.99 inches d.b.h. totaled 23.3 million cubic feet in 1978. Of this net
growth, 19.4 million cubic feet occurred in trees in the 6-inch diameter class.

Some or all of the growth produced by poletimber size trees could be
considered nullified for comparison purposes since not all of the timber or its
growth is available for harvest. According to the timber availability analysis
(see Tables 33 and 34), 16 percent of the timber inventoried is not available
for harvest due to nontimber resource uses and constraints.

The level of harvesting on private lands in 1978 was the highest record-
ed since 1968. The 15 year average annual harvest is only slightly higher
than the net growth estimated for 1978. However, the period of 1976 through
1980 had an average annual harvest of 112.9 million board feet (not including
residues) .

-97-

Figure 16, Volume cut from private lands, calendar years 1968 through 1982,
Working Circle 3 (million board feet Scribner) .

150 -,

140

100

t
■s

«
o
m

70

60 -

SO

40

30

20

10 -

1968 1969 1970

-98-

Can Production Be Increased

A large amount of the privately owned commercial forest is still at a
formative stage and can be manipulated to greatly increase future timber pro-
duction. Production could also be increased through improved utilization of
timber harvested.

Timber production will be a major and probably a primary use of the land
for 25 percent of the commercial timberlands in Working Circle 3. The outlook
for timber production on the remaining two-thirds owned by non-industrial pri-
vate landowners is unclear. Getting the non-industrial private forest owner
to use intensive timber management practices is difficult. It remains to be
seen how well that challenge will be met.

Sil vicultural treatment opportunities exist that could dramatically in-
crease the growth rates and thereby increase future timber supplies from state
and private timberlands. The extent to which these opportunities are real-
ized, beginning immediately, will determine the amount of timber available for
harvest in the future.

The future supply of timber from private lands will depend, to a large
extent, on the intensity of forest management applied now and in the future.
A large amount of the privately owned commercial forest is still in a formative
stage and can be manipulated to greatly increase future timber production.
An estimated 68 percent of the commercial timberland (748,100 acres) offered
silvicultural treatment opportunities which have the potential to increase
timber yields from these acres. Table 79 in Appendix 3 shows there were
105.8 million cull trees (20 percent of all live trees greater than or equal to
1.0 inches d.b.h.) existing on commercial timberland. Cull trees do not
provide useable growth or volume to the standing inventory. They do,
however, occupy space that could be used by growing stock trees. Table 66
in Appendix 3 displays average breast height age by diameter class for
various site classes and species groups. Both the average age and the range
of ages indicate there are many non-vigorous growing stock trees. These
same tables also raise a concern for the genetic quality of the existing trees
to produce fast growing seedlings for future crops of timber.

The large amount of silvicultural treatment opportunities, the existence
of non-vigorous trees of excessive age scattered throughout the forest, and
the large numbers of cull trees are some of the factors which contributed to
the modest average net growth of 32 cubic feet per acre per year.

-99-

For this working circle, a management plan to improve growth and yield
should be thrcc-pronged: It would include conversion of high risk sawtimber
stands and many of the uneven aged, understocked, young growth sawtimber
stands to younger, fully stocked, mixed species stands; intermediate treat-
ments of submerchantable stands before the opportunity is lost; and a commit-
ment to increase stocking in understocked areas. (Opportunities to increase
stocking in understocked areas were most common for timberlands in the 20-49
site class category.)

Production could be further increased through improved utilization of the
timber harvested. Employing the latest harvesting and milling technologies
would increase the board-foot volume recoverable per tree. These tech-
nologies include more efficient log manufacturing, smaller saw kerfs, and a
more efficient first cut by the sawyer. Some mills can currently saw smaller
diameter logs which increases production because smaller trees can be eco-
nomically harvested and more of each tree can be used.

A major factor that will affect future yields of timber from private forest
lands will be the amount of the commercial timberland contained in relatively
small land holdings. In most cases, as forest lands are subdivided and
decrease in size, the owners become less willing to sell their timber. Thus,
as more of the forest land is developed and subdivided into smaller parcels,
more and more of the timber becomes physically and economically unavailable
for harvesting.

When this inventory was conducted, only five percent of the sampled
commercial timberlands were placed in the other private-individual ownership
class. By definition, this ownership class is made up of private land owners
with holdings of 40 acres or less. The majority of the timberland sampled (62
percent) was placed in the farmer/ rancher owner class. Information and
education programs could make these landowners more aware of forest manage-
ment opportunities. Unfortunately, many individuals need to be contacted
before much forest acreage can be treated.

Timber production will be a major and probably a primary use of the
land for those timber lands owned by the forest industries and the Montana
Department of State Lands (about 25 percent of the total). The outlook for
timber production on the two-thirds of the commercial timberland owned by

100-

the non-industrial private landowners is unclear. There will be conflicts
between timber production and grazing for livestock or other nontimber
resource values. Getting the non-industrial private forest landowner to use
aggressive timber management practices is difficult. It remains to be seen
how well that challenge will be met.

Silvicultural treatment opportunities exist to dramatically increase the
growth rates and thereby increase future timber supplies from the state and
private timberlands. The extent to which these opportunities are realized,
beginning immediately, will determine the amount of timber available for
harvest in the future.

-101-

-102-

APPENDIX 1. DATA RELIABILITY

4

The sampling errors presented in tables 48 and 49 are calculated for one
standard error — the 67 percent confidence level. In other words, in
two-out-of-three times, the actual value will be within the specified confidence
interval. Individual cells within tables should be used with caution. Some of
the data presented in other tables are based on small sample sizes and as a
result have high sampling errors. For example, the percent error for indi-
vidual forest type acreages within the commercial timberland total will all have
a higher error than 1.8 percent (see table 48).

Table 48. Forest land area and associated sampling error percentages for
Working Circle 3.

Item Softwood Types Hardwood Types All Types

Acres Error Acres Error Acres Error

Commercial

timberland 1,102,860 ±1.9% 77,140 ±19.7% 1,180,000 ±1.8%

Other

timberland 51,205 ±20.6% 14,119 ±41.3% 65,324 i:18.2%

Table 49. Net volume, net annual growth, and annual mortality on commercial
timberland, with associated sampling error percentages for
Working Circle 3.

Item Softwood Species Hardwood Species All Species

Volume Error Volume Error Volume Error
Volume :

Growing stock 1,662,066 ±4.1% 94,902 ±31.7% 1,756,968 ±4.1%
(thousand cubic feet)

Sawtimber 4,408,044 ±4.9% 271,281 ±39.1% 4,679,326 ±5.0%
(MBF Scribner)

Net Growth:

Growing stock 35,108 ±8.7% 2,016 ±28.0% 37,124 ±8.3%

(thousand cubic feet)

Sawtimber 99,380 ±7.6% 7,838 ±29.8% 107,218 ±7.3%

(MBF Scribner)

Mortality:

Growing stock 5,297 ±15.6% 218 ±58.2% 5,515 ±15.2%

(thousand cubic feet)

Sawtimber 12,989 ±21.1% 572 ±89.8% 13,562 ±20.6%

(MBF Scribner)

-103-

-104-

APPENDIX 2. ADDITIONAL DATA BY COUNTY

Table 50. Area of commercial and other timberland by county and owner.
Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

County and Owner

Commercial

Other

Total

Timberland

Timberland

Timberland

Beaverhead County

Department of State

^ ^ ^ 4~ V» l~\^ if^»^/^ riy-^^i~i»-»

Lands

23.0

unOUSana aCTSS

1.1

24.1

Other public*

2.8

0.1

2.9

Forest industry

1.0

**

1.0

Other private

43.4

1.8

45.2

Total

70.2

3.0

73.2

Broadwater County

Department of State

Lands

2.6

0.4

3.0

Other public

0.1

-

0.1

Forest industry

2.9

0.2

3.1

Other private

54.5

7.5

62.0

Total

60.1

8.0

68.1

Deer Lodge County

Department of State

Lands

0.3

**

0.3

Other public

21.2

0.7

21.9

Forest industry

1.4

0.1

1.5

Other private

50.5

3.9

54.4

Total

73.4

4.7

78.1

Granite County

Department of State

Lands

9.2

**

9.2

Other public

0.1

0.1

0.2

Forest industry

37.8

0.1

37.9

Other private

94.0

1.8

95.8

Total

141.1

2.0

143.1

Jefferson County

Department of State

Lands

5.7

0.6

6.3

Other public

1.0

0.2

1.2

Forest industry

0.9

0.4

1.3

Other private

82.6

8.3
9.5

90.9

Total

90.2

99.7

Lewis and Clark County

Department of State

Lands

41.5

2.4

43.9

Other public

8.8

1.4

10.2

Forest industry

18.2

0.1

18.3

Other private

243.2

14.7

257.9

Total

311.7

18.6

330.3

*Other public lands include: other state, county and municipal, and
miscellaneous federal land.

**Indicates less than 50 acres.

-105-

Table 50.

(Page 2)

County and Owner

Commerci

al

Other

Total

Madison County

Timberland

Timberland

Timberland

Department of State Lands

8.5

0.7

9.2

Other public*

2.0

0.7

2.7

Forest industry

43.3

2.1

45.4

Other private

67.8

10.6

78.4

Total

121.6

14.1

135.7

Powell County

Department of State Lands 19.6

Other Public 9.9

Forest industry 81.2

Other private 157 . 7

Total 268.3

0.1

19.6

0.1

10.0

-

81.2

2.8

160.5

3.1

271.4

Silver Bow County

Department of State Lands

Other public

Forest Industry

Other private

Total

2.8
6.3

0.2
34.1

0.1

2.9

0.3

6.6

**

0.2

1.9

36.0

43.4

2.3

45.7

Working Circle Total

Department of State Lands

Other public

Forest Industry

Other private

Total

113,

.2

52,

.2

186,

.9

827,

.8

1,180.0

5.4

118.5

3.6

55.8

3.0

189.9

53.3

881.1

65.3

1,245.3

*Other public lands include:
miscellaneous federal land.

other state, county and municipal, and

**Indicates less than 50 acres.

-106-

Table 51.

Area of commercial timberland by county, M.A.I, site
softwood and hardwood forest types, Working Circle 3
acres) .

Forest Types

class, and
(thousand

County and

Site Class

Beaverhead

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Broadwater

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Deer Lodge

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Granite

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Jefferson

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Lewis

and '

20 -

49

50 -

84

85 -

119

120 -

164

165+

Total

Softwood

Hardwood

All

Forest Types

Forest Types

Forest Types

29.4

7.4

36.8

28.8

2.1

30.8

1.5

0.4

1.8

0.7

-

0.7

-

-

-

60.4

39.6

14.7

1.2

55.4

33.
33.

1.

0.

69.8

35.2

84.0

12.7

1.3

133.2

56.0

26.5

2.4

84.9

174.

.7

104,

.7

14,

.9

0,

.8

295.1

9.8

2.4
2.3

4.7

1.9
1.0
0.7

3.6

2.9
1.8
3.2

7.8

2.1
3.2

5.3

6.4
8.8

1.4

16.6

70.2

41.9

17.0

1.2

60.1

35.3

34.6

2.5

0.9

73.4

38.1

85.8

15.9

1.3

141.1

58.2

29.6

2.4

90.2

181.

.1

113.

,4

16,

.3

0,

,8

-

311.7

-107-

Table 51.

(Page 2)

County and
Site Class

Madison
20 - 49
50 - 84
85 - 119

120 - 164

165+

Total

Forest Types

Softwood

Hardwood

All

Forest Types

Forest Types

Forest Types

57.5

7.1

64.6

50.3

1.9

52.2

2.8

0.7

3.5

1.3

-

] .3

-

-

-

111.8

9.8

121.6

Powell
20 - 49
50 - 84
85 - 119

120 - 164

165+

Total

64.5

160.6

24.3

2.8

252.1

7.2
2.9
6.2

16.2

71.7

163.4

30.5

2.8

268.3

Silver Bow
20 - 49
50 - 84
85 - 119

120 - 164

165+

Total

19.0

19.6

1.0

0.5

40.1

2.1

0.7
0.5

3.3

21.

.0

20,

,3

1,

.5

0.

.5

-

43.4

Working Circle Totals

20 - 49 509.2

50 - 84 522.8

85 - 119 62.5

120 - 164 8.3

165+ -_

Total 1,102.9

39.5
24.5
13.1

77.1

548.7

547.3

75.7

8.3

1,180.0

■108-

Tcible 52. Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by county,
softwood and hardwood forest types, and ownership group, Working
Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet) .

Ownership Group

County and
Forest Types

Beaverhead

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Broadwater

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Deer Lodge

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Granite

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Jefferson

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Lewis and Clark
Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Madison

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Powell

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Silver Bow

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Working Circle Total
Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

State and

Forest

Other

Other Public

Industry

thousand

2,083

Private

Total

%

42,127

65,647

109,857

89.8

2,962

11

9,569

12,542

10.2

45,089

2,094

75,216

122,399

100.0

2,644

2,466

42,041

47,151

91.1

261

84

4,272

4,618

8.9

2,906

2,550

46,313

51,768

100.0

38,464

2,647

87,021

128,132

97.2

819

46

2,892

3,757

2.8

39,283

2,693

89,913

131,889

100.0

18,659

71,157

133,237

223,053

95.2

268

409

10,648

11,325

4.8

18,927

71,566

143,885

234,378

100.0

6,300

703

85,263

92,266

93.4

464

42
745

6,049
91,312

6,555
98,822

6.6

6,765

100.0

57,861

34,427

256,579

348,866

94.7

2,263

196

17,065

19,524

5.3

60,124

34,623

273,644

368,390

100.0

17,741

83,949

99,854

201,544

94.7

1,163

328

9,794

11,285

5.3

18,904

84,277

109,647

212,828

100.0

55,338

146,966

234,762

437,067

94.9

2,159

1,095

20,218

23,472

5.1

57,497

148,061

254,981

460,539

100.0

15,886

208

56,660

72,754

95.8

450

32

2,717

3,200

4.2

16,337

240

59,377

75,954

100.0

255,020

344,605

1,061,065

1,660,690

94.6

10,811

2,243

83,225

96,278

5.4

265,831

346,848

1,144,290

1,756,968

100.0

-109-

Table 53. Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by county,

softwood and hardwood forest types and ownership group. Working
Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

County and
Forest Types

Beaverhead

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Broadwater

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Deer Lodge

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Granite

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Jefferson

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Lewis and Clark
Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Madison

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Powell

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Silver Bow

Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Working Circle Total
Softwood types
Hardwood types
Total all types

Ownership Group

State and

Forest

Other

Other Public

Industry
thousand

Private
board feet-

Total

%

109,586

5,479

173,591

288,655

87.0

10,262

43

32,616

42,921

13.0

119,848

5,522

206,207

33], 576

100.0

6,960

5,814

103,775

116,549

88.3

827

206

14,419

15,451

11.7

7,786

6,020

118,193

132,000

100.0

94,712

7,485

229,398

331,595

96.8

2,370

125

8,565

11,060

3.2

97,082

7,611

237,962

342,654

100.0

53,468

203,021

348,294

604,782

94.7

451

1,410

31,801

33,661

5.3

53,919

204,430

380,094

638,443

100.0

16,296

1,875

213,923

232,093

92.7

1,357

132

16,666

18,155

7.3

17,653

2,007

230,589

250,248

100.0

150,512

105,616

640,004

896,132

94.3

6,177

710

47,676

54,563

5.7

156,689

106,325

687,680

950,695

100,0

43,494

229,860

256,042

529,396

93.6

3,384

1,012

31,550

36,446

6.4

47,379

230,872

287,592

565,842

100.0

153,043

433,269

615,113

1,201,425

94.5

5,983

3,929

59,667

69,579

5.5

159,026

437,198

674,779

1,271,004

100.0

41,277

395

145,884

187,556

95.3

1,275

80

7,951

9,306

4.7

42,552

475

153,835

196,862

100.0

669,348

992,813 2

,726,023

4,388,183

93.8

32,586

7,647

250,909

291,142

6.2

701,934 1

,000,460 2

,976,932

4,679,325

100.0

-110-

Table 54. Area of commercial softwood timberland by timberland quality class
and county, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

County

Timberland

Beaverhead

Broadwater

Deer Lodge

Granite

Jeffe

;rson

Quality

Class

%

%

%

%

%

Excellent

0.7

1.2

0.8

1.5

0.9

1.3

10.3

7.7

1.6

1.9

Good

15.2

25.1

10.5

18.9

18.2

26.1

70.3

52.8

21.1

24.9

Fair

31.8

52.6

41.9

75.5

36.5

52.4

41.7

31.3

58.9

69.4

Poor

12.7

21.1

2.3

4.1

14.0

20.2

10.9

8.2

3.2

3.8

Total

60.4

100.0

55.4

100.0

69.8

100.0

133.2

100.0

84.9

100.0

Timberland

Lewis

1 & Clark Madison

Powell

Silver Bow

Total

Quality

Class

_. _,v-<-^^

%

%

%

%

%

Excellent

11.2

3.8

1.3

1.1

21.0

8.3

0.5

1.3

48.3

4.4

Good

84.4

28.6

26.9

24.1

134.5

53.4

10.7

26.6

391.8

35.5

Fair

185.5

62.9

58.1

52.0

75.6

30.0

21.2

52.9

551.4

50.0

Poor

14.0

4.7

25.5

22.8

21.0

8.3

7.7

19.2

111.4

10.1

Total

295.1

100.0

111.8

100.0

252.1

100.0

40.1

100.0

1,102.9

100.0

Table 55. Net annual growth per acre on commercial softwood timberland by
county, Working Circle 3 (cubic feet/acre and board feet
Scribner/acre) .

County

Beaverhead
Broadwater
Deer Lodge
Granite
Jefferson
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Powell
Silver Bow

Growing Stock
Cubic feet/acre
46
18
46
32
23
23
44
32
46

Sawtimber

Board feet/acre

100

63

99
100

75

77

95
104
102

Table 56. Net annual mortality per acre on commercial softwood timberland
by county. Working Circle 3 (cubic feet/acre and board feet
Scribner/acre) .

County Growing Stock Sawtimber

Cubic feet/acre Board feet/acre

4 8

1 1
4 8

7 21

2 2

3 6

4 8

8 22

Beaverhead

Broadwater

Deer r,odge

Granite

Jefferson

Lewis and Clark

Madison

Powell

Silver Bow

8

-111-

-112-

APPENDIX 3. ADDITIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION

Table 57. Area of commercial timberland by ownership group, forest type,
stand size class, and MAI site class, Working Circle 3 (acres).

State and Other Public

Forest Type and

Site Class

Stand Size Class

All

Douglas-fir

165+

120-164

85-119

50-84

20-49

Classes

— 3.cires

""*" — — — — — —

Sawtimber

-

-

3,724

30,424

21,759

55,907

Poletimber

-

1,040

-

5,368

11,941

18,349

Seedlings and

-

-

-

4,316

7,585

11,901

saplings

Nonstocked

_

-

-

-

667
41,953

667

Total

1,040

3,724

40,107

86,824

Lodgepole pine

Sawtimber

-

-

1,132

8,789

4,629

14,551

Poletimber

-

911

564

9,231

3,518

14,224

Seedlings and

-

433

37

2,776

1,309

4,555

saplings

Nonstocked

_

-

-

498
21,295

-

497

Total

1,345

1,733

9,456

33,828

Ponderosa pine

Sawtimber

-

-

1,300

4,753

8,007

14,059

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

2,410

2,410

Seedlings and

-

-

-

216

1,775

1,991

saplings

Nonstocked

_

-

124
1,424

-

414
12,606

538

Total

-

4,969

18,998

Subalpine fir-spruce

Sawtimber

-

-

590

3,953

-

4,543

Poletimber

-

-

-

1,630

400

2,030

Seedlings and

-

-

-

94

1,051

1,146

saplings

Nonstocked

~

-

94
684

-

-

94

Total

-

5,678

1,452

7,814

Whitebark-limber pine

Sawtimber

-

-

-

500

3,486

3,986

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

714

714

Seedlings and

-

-

414

-

1,144

1,558

saplings

Nonstocked

^

-

-

-

-

-

Total

-

414

500

5,344

6,257

Juniper

Sawtimber

-

-

221

370

1,054

1,645

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

-

-

Seedlings and

-

-

-

-

-

-

saplings

Nonstocked

^

-

-

-

814
1,868

814

Total

-

221

370

2,459

-113-

Table 57. State and Other Public (continued) page 2

Forest Type and Site Class

Stand Size Class All

165+ 120-164 85-119 50-84 20-49 Classes
Spruce acres

Sawtimber _ _ - -

Poletimber _ _ _

Seedlings and _ _ _ - 590 590

saplings

Nonstocked - - - - - ~

Total _ _ - - 590 590

Western larch

Sawtimber _ _ - - -

Poletimber _ _ - -

Seedlings and _ _ _ - - -

saplings

Nonstocked - _ _ _ - -

Total
Total softwoods

Sawtimber

Poletimber -

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total
Aspen

Sawtimber -

Poletimber

Seedlings and -
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total
Cottonwood

Sawtimber

Poletimber -

Seedlings and _ _ _ _

saplings

Nonstocked - _ _ - 59 59

Total
Total hardwoods

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total
All Types

Sawtimber -

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

-

-

-

-

-

_

6,967

48,789

38,935

94,691

1,951

564

16,229

18,983

37,727

433

451

7,402

13,454

21,741

_

218
8,200

498
72,918

1,895

73,267

2,610

2,384

156,769

_

320

567

_

887

-

646

519

991

2,157

-

-

-

254

254

_

_

591
1,677

472
1,718

1,064

-

966

4,361

_

_

1,725

2,158

3,883

_

—

-

311

311

-

-

1,725

2,528

4,253

_

320

2,292

2,158

4,770

-

646

519

1,302

2,468

-

-

-

254

254

_

_

591

3,402

531
4,245

1,123

-

966

8,615

_

7,287

51,081

41,093

99,461

1,951

1,210

16,748

20,285

40,195

433

451

7,402

13,708

21,995

_

218

1,089

2,426

3,733

Total - 2,384 9,166 76,321 77,512 165,384

•114-

Table 57. Forest Industry

page 3

Forest Type and

Site Class

Stand Size Class

All

Douglas-fir
Sawtimber

165+

120-164

85-119

50-

-84

20-49

Classes

-

3,523

8,700

64,152

12,405

88,780

Poletimber

-

377

-

5

,335

6,327

12,039

Seedlings and

-

-

-

8

,094

4,112

12,206

saplings

Nonstocked

"•

-

-

-

88
22,932

88

Total

3,900

8,700

77

,581

113,112

Lodgepole pine

Sawtimber

-

-

101

14

,859

5,728

20,688

Poletimber

-

-

1,080

12

,626

1,909

15,615

Seedlings and

-

-

-

1,

,652

981

2,633

saplings

Nonstocked

^

-

-

29,

36

,173

-

36

Total

-

1,181

8,618

38,972

Ponderosa pine

Sawtimber

-

-

2,633

569

4,118

7,320

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

195

195

Seedlings and

-

-

-

181

183

364

saplings

Nonstocked

—

-

181
2,814

-

1,090
5,586

1,271

Total

-

750

9,150

Subalpine fir-spruce

Sawtimber

-

-

876

6,

r357

-

7,233

Poletimber

-

-

-

1,

,252

421

1,674

Seedlings and

-

-

-

3,

,374

642

4,015

saplings

Nonstocked

~

-

-

-

-

-

Total

-

876

10,

,983

1,063

12,921

Whitebark-limber pine

Sawtimber

-

-

-

535

3,076

3,611

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

1,057

1,057

Seedlings and

-

-

10

-

642

651

saplings

Nonstocked

~

-

-

-

-

-

Total

-

10

535

4,774

5,319

Juniper

Sawtimber

-

-

101

60

148

309

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

_

-

Seedlings and

-

-

-

-

-

-

saplings

Nonstocked

~

-

-

-

431
579

431

Total

-

101

60

740

Spruce

Sawtimber

-

-

-

-

-

-

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

-

-

Seedlings and

-

-

-

-

876

876

saplings

Nonstocked

"-

-

-

-

Total

_

_

—

876

876

■115-

Table 57. Forest Industry (continued) page 4

Forest Type and Site Class

Stand Size Class All

165+ 120-164 85-119 50-84 20-49 Classes

Western larch acres

Sawtimber - - - 1,249 - 1,249

Poletimber _ _ _ _ _

Seedlings and _ _ _ _ _
saplings

Nonstocked - - - _ _ _

Total - - -
Total softwoods

Sawtimber - 3,523 12,411

Poletimber - 377 1,080

Seedlings and - - 10
saplings

Nonstocked - - 181

Total ^^ 3,900 13,682
Aspen

Sawtimber - -

Poletimber - - 107

Seedlings and - -
saplings

Nonstocked - -

Total - - 107

Cottonwood

Sawtimber - - -

Poletimber - -

Seedlings - -

saplings

Nonstocked - - -

Total -

Total hardwoods

Sawtimber -

Poletimber

Seedlings and -
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total -

All Types

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

1,249

-

1,249

87,781

25,475

129,190

19,213

9,909

30,580

13,301

7,436

20,745

36

1,609

1,826

120,331

44,429

182,341

197

_

197

27

-

134

-

2,436

2,436

88

48

136

313

2,484

2,903

1,514

162

1,676

-

-

1,514

162

1,676

—

—

1,711

162

1,873

-

107

27

-

134

-

-

-

2,436

2,436

_

—

88
1,826

48
2,646

136

-

107

4,579

3,523

12,411

89,492

25,637

131,063

377

1,187

19,240

9,909

30,714

-

10

13,301

9,872

23,181

-

181

124

1,657

1,962

Total - 3,900 13,788 122,157 47,073 186,917

■116-

Table 57. Other Private

page 5

Forest Type and
Stand Size Class

Douglas-fir

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total
Lodgepole pine

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total
Ponderosa pine

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total
Subalpine fir-spruce

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total
Whitebark- limber pine

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total
Juniper

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total
Spruce

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total

165+

Site Class

All

120-164

85-119

50-84

20-49

Classes

_

15,955

161,207

117,745

294,907

2,057

-

30,023

53,579

85,659

-

-

21,339

46,663

68,002

—

_

_

6,683
224,669

6,683

2,057

15,955

212,568

455,250

—

1,492

23,036

14,615

39,143

-

5,924

29,083

20,336

55,342

-

2,386

10,131

10,231

22,747

_

-

2,947

65,197

-

2,947

-

9,801

45,182

120,180

—

3,873

20,711

52,444

77,029

-

-

-

15,875

15,875

-

-

3,167

11,448

14,614

_

696

4,570

-

3,103
82,869

3,799

-

23,878

111,317

_

2,184

16,910

_

19,094

-

-

4,241

1,786

6,027

-

-

3,538

3,207

6,745

_

3,538
5,721

-

_

3,538

-

24,689

4,993

35,404

_

_

1,546

11,074

12,620

-

-

-

2,880

2,880

-

3,103

-

5,678

8,780

_

—

-

-

-

-

3,103

1,546

19,631

24,280

_

1,492

1,653

7,104

10,248

1,492

1,653

4,889
11,993

2,184

2,184

4,889
15,137

2,184

2,184

-117-

Table 57. Other Private (continued)

page 6

Forest Type and
Stand Size Class

Western larch
Sawtimber
Poletimber
Seedlings and

saplings
Nonstocked
Total

Total softwoods
Sawtimber
Poletimber
Seedlings and

saplings
Nonstocked
Total

Aspen

Sawtimber
Poletimber
Seedlings and

saplings
Nonstocked
Total

Cottonwood
Sawtimber
Poletimber
Seedlings and

saplings
Nonstocked
Total

Total hardwoods
Sawtimber
Poletimber
Seedlings and

saplings
Nonstocked
Total

All types
Sawtimber
Poletimber
Seedlings and

saplings
Nonstocked
Total

165+ 120-164 85-119

2,057

2,057

2,057

2,057

Site Class

50-84
-acres

All
20-49 Classes

-

-

-

-

24,996

225,063

202,982

453,041

5,924

63,347

94,456

165,783

5,489

38,175

79,411

123,072

4,234

2,947

14,675

21,856

40,643

329,532

391,524

763,752

6,863

3,873

_

10,736

5,199

4,141

4,688

14,028

-

-

6,969

6,969

—

2,981
10,995

3,256
14,913

6,237

12,062

37,970

_

8,309

13,857

22,166

-

-

2,955

2,955

856

856

-

8,309

17,669

25,978

6,863

12,182

13,857

32,902

5,199

4,141

7,643

16,983

-

-

6,969

6,969

—

2,981
19,304

4,112
32,581

7,093

12,062

63,947

31,859

237,245

216,839

485,943

11,123

67,488

102,099

182,766

5,489

38,175

86,380

130,041

4,234

5,928

18,787

28,949

52,703

348,834

424,104

827,699

-118-

Table 57, Working Circle Total

page 7

Forest Type and

Site Class

Stand Size Class

All

165+

120-164

85-119

50-84

20-49

Classes

Douglas-fir
Sawtimber

-

3,523

28,379

dClTGS

255,783

151,908

439,594

Poletimber

-

3,474

-

40,725

71,848

116,047

Seedlings and

-

-

-

33,748

58,361

92,109

saplings

Nonstocked

^

-

-

-

7,438
289,554

7,438

Total

6,997

28,379

330,256

655,187

Lodgepole pine

Sawtimber

-

-

2,725

46,685

24,972

74,381

Poletimber

-

911

7,568

50,940

25,763

85,182

Seedlings and

-

433

2,422

14,559

12,521

29,935

saplings

Nonstocked

"■

-

-

3,481
115,664

-

3,481

Total

1,345

12,715

63,256

192,980

Ponderosa pine

Sawtimber

-

-

7,806

26,033

64,569

98,408

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

18,480

18,480

Seedlings and

-

-

-

3,564

13,405

16,969

saplings

Nonstocked

^

-

1,001
8,807

-

4,606
101,061

5,608

Total

-

29,597

139,465

Subalpine fir-spruce

Sawtimber

-

-

3,649

27,221

-

30,870

Poletimber

-

-

-

7,123

2,608

9,731

Seedlings and

-

-

-

7,006

4,900

11,906

saplings

Nonstocked

_

-

3,632

7,281

-

-

3,632

Total

-

41,350

7,508

56,139

Whitebark-limber pine

Sawtimber

-

-

-

2,581

17,636

20,217

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

4,651

4,651

Seedlings and

-

-

3,526

-

7,463

10,989

saplings

Nonstocked

-^

-

-

-

-

-

Total

-

3,526

2,581

29,749

35,856

Juniper

Sawtimber

-

-

1,813

2,083

8,306

12,202

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

-

-

Seedlings and

-

-

-

-

-

-

saplings

Nonstocked

*"

-

-

-

6,134
14,440

6,134

Total

-

1,813

2,083

18,336

Spruce

Sawtimber

-

-

-

-

-

-

Poletimber

-

-

-

-

-

-

Seedlings and

-

-

-

-

3,649

3,649

saplings

Nonstocked

•"

-

-

-

-

-

Total

-

-

-

3,649

3,649

-119-

Table 57. Working Circle Total (continued) page 8

Forest Type and Site Class

Stand Size Class All

165+ 120-164 85-119 50-84 20-49 Classes
Western larch acres

Sawtimber - - - 1,249 - 1,249

Poletimber _ _ -

Seedlings and _ _ _
saplings

Nonstocked - _ _ _ _

Total
Total softwoods

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total
Aspen

Sawtimber -

Poletimber -

Seedlings and -
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total
Cottonwood

Sawtimber -

Poletimber -

Seedlings and _ _ _ _

saplings

Nonstocked - _ _ _ 916 916

Total
Total hardwoods

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and -
saplings

Nonstocked -

Total
All Types

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and
saplings

Nonstocked

Total -

-

-

1,249

-

1,249

3,523

44,372

361,635

267,391

676,921

4,385

7,558

98,788

123,350

234,091

433

5,948

58,877

100,299

165,557

—

4,633
62,521

3,481
522,781

18,178
509,218

26,293

8,341

1,102,862

«.

7,183

4,638

_

11,820

—

5,952

4,687

5,679

16,318

-

-

-

9,660

9,660

—

—

3,660
12,985

3,776
19,115

7,436

-

13,134

45,234

_

_

11,547

16,177

27,724

-

-

-

3,266

3,266

-

-

11,547

20,359

31,906

_

7,183

16,185

16,177

39,544

-

5,952

4,687

8,945

19,584

-

-

-

9,660

9,660

_

_

3,660
24,532

4,692
39,474

8,352

-

13,134

77,140

3,

,523

51,555

377,820

283,568

716,465

4,

,385

13,520

103,475

132,295

253,675

433

5,948

58,877

109,959

175,217

-

4,633
75,657

7,141
547,312

22,870
548,690

34,645

8,

,342

1,180,000

-120-

Table 58. Area of commercial timberland by stand volume class and ownership
group, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

Ownership Group

State

and

Forest

Other

Cubic Foot

Other

Public

Indu:

stry

Private

Total

Volume Class

%

%

%

%

Less than 500

29.4

17.8

29.8

15.9

199.2

24.1

258.4

21.9

500 - 1,499

64,0

38.7

65.0

34.8

328.6

39.7

457.6

38.8

1,500 - 2,499

39.8

24.1

36.7

19.6

174.9

21.1

251,4

21.3

2,500 - 3,499

14.1

8.5

29.9

16.0

65.7

7.9

109,6

9.3

3,500 - 4,999

16.1

9.7

25.2

13.5

57.3

6.9

98.6

8.3

5000 or more

2.0

1.2

0.4

0.2

2,1

0,3

4,4

0.4

Total all classes 165.4 100.0

186.9 100.0

527.7 100.0 1,180.0 100.0

Table 59. Number of growing stock trees per acre by diameter class and stand
size class on commercial timberland. Working Circle 3.

Stand Size Class

Old

Young

Seedlings

Diameter

Growth

Growth

and

Overall

Class

Sawtimber

Sawtimber

Poletimber

Saplings

Nonstocked

Average

rage number

of trees/ac]

a.Ve

CQ——————————

1.0 -

2.9

107.73

79.46

233.62

491.05

-

178.07

3.0 -

4.9

78.64

54.10

230.32

137.52

-

108.59

5.0 -

6.9

46.98

48.78

164.90

32.59

-

69.48

7.0 -

8.9

35.65

33.22

86.49

11.28

1.00

41.04

9.0 -

10.9

30.63

27.69

29.03

4.95

1.31

24.52

11.0 -

12.9

19.91

17.93

9.74

3.59

2.26

14.05

13.0 -

14.9

10.53

9.42

2.27

1.68

-

6.72

15.0 -

16.9

7.15

4.81

1.33

1.04

0.58

3.93

17.0 -

18.9

4.01

3.28

0.56

0.32

0.06

2.33

19.0 -

20.9

2.39

1.75

0.34

0.24

0.46

1.34

21.0 -

22.9

1.43

1.13

0.19

0.07

-

0.81

23.0 -

24.9

1.02

0.45

0.08

0.07

0.11

0.44

25.0 -

26.9

0.41

0.31

0.09

0.02

-

0.23

27.0 -

28.9

0.30

0.21

0.01

0.02

0.11

0.16

29.0+

0.38

0.28

0.04

0.05

0.02

0.21

Total

347.16

282.82

759.01

684.49

5.91

451.92

-121-

Table 60. Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by forest
type and species. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic feet).

Softwood Species

Whitebark-
Douglas- Lodgepole Ponderosa Subalpine limber Western
fir pine pine fir pine Spruce larch*
thousand cubic feet

Forest Type

Douglas-fir
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Subalpine fir-
spruce
Whitebark-

limber pine
Juniper
Spruce

Western larch
Softwood types

Aspen
Cottonwood
Hardwood types

759,544 97,338 45,459

37,447 375,003 1,770

15,013 3,698 103,456
17,805

5,357

2,728

3,289
409
356

1,222
3,633

597
152

824,142 498,700 151,433

1,843 4,247 3,678
338

1,674
12,170

44,482

2,752

5,462

1,263

189

13,301

33,054

98

61,078 53,367

2,182

4,247

3,678

7,933
6,569

31,451

4,289

1,178
580

52,000

150

150

6,628

1,367

1,249

1,771
11,015

75

Total all types 826,323 502,947 155,110 61,078 53,367 52,150 11,090

Hardwood Species

Total

Softwood

Forest Type

Species

Aspen

Cottonwoo
-thousand

Douglas-fir

924,038

2,369

1,619

Lodgepole pine

435,589

2,449

453

Ponderosa pine

122,355

-

529

Subalpine fir-

113,645

393

-

spruce

Whitebark-

44,045

-

-

limber pine

Juniper

8,795

579

566

Spruce

989

-

-

Western larch

2,278
1,651,734

-

-

Softwood types

5,790

3,167

Aspen

9,919

39,100

2,541

Cottonwood

414

715

43,141

Hardwood types

10,332

39,815

45,682

Total
Other Hardwood

Total all types 1,662,066 45,604 48,849
*May also include a small amount of subalpine larch,

449
449

449

3,987

2,902

529

393

Total

All

Species

928,026
438,491
122,884
114,038

44,045

1,145

9,939

-

989

-

2,278

8,956

1,660,690

41,641

51,560

44,305

44,718

85,946

96,278

94,902

1,756,968

-122-

Table 61. Net volume of sawtimber on conunercial timberland by forest type
and species. Working Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

Softwood Species

Whitebark-
Douglas- Lodgepole Ponderosa Subalpine limber Western
fir pine pine fir pine Spruce larch*

thousand board feet

2,287,198 206,295 164,222 3,257 14,608 29,567 19,151

23,086

5,858
6,380

Forest Type

Douglas-fir

Lodgepole pine

Ponderosa pine 24,666 17,756 304,178

Subalpine fir- 19,845 57,812 - 81,677

spruce
Whitebark- 7,886 425 - 6,128

limber pine
Juniper 8,736 15,153 2,937

Spruce _______

Western larch 1,096 - 784 - - - 8,580
Softwood types 2,448,914 941,470 480,255 114,147 143,546 198,165 39,970

18,664 - - 664

2,920 19,560
504

39,388 126,492

85,672 18,936

454 3,611

Aspen
Cottonwood
Hardwood types

Total all
types

8,632 12,813
804

9,436 12,813 18,664

664

2,458,350 954,283 498,919 114,147 143,546 198,829 39,970

Hardwood Species

Total

Total

Softwood

Other

Hardwood

Total All

Species

Aspen

Cottonwood

hardwoods Species

Species

-thousand be
6,673

Douglas-fir

2,724,298

_

6,673

2,730,970

Lodgepole pine

803,071

7,827

1,883

-

9,710

812,781

Ponderosa pine

347,105

-

1,307

-

1,307

348,412

Subalpine fir-

331,594

1,721

-

-

1,721

333,315

spruce

Whitebark-

119,047

-

-

-

-

119,047

limber pine

Juniper

30,891

-

2,306

-

2,306

33,197

Spruce

-

-

-

-

-

-

Western larch

10,461
4,366,468

-

-

-

-

10,461

Softwood types

9,547

12,168

21,716

4,388,183

Aspen

40,773

74,859

10,514

_

85,373

126,145

Cottonwood

804

1,682

161,780

731

164,193

164,997

Hardwood types

41,577

76,541

172,294

731
731

249,566

291,142

Total all

4,408,044

86,088

184,462

271,281

4,679,326

types

*May also include a small amount of subalpine larch.

-123-

TeUale 62. Net volume of growing stock on commercial timberland by diameter
class, species, and ownership group, Working Circle 3 (thousand
cubic feet) .

State and Other Public

Diameter
Class

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

13.
15,
17.
19.

6.9
8.9
10.9
12.9
14.9
16.9

21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

18.
20.
22,
24.

26.9
28.9

Douglas- Lodgepole
fir pine

14,087

15,712

15,807

16,643

11,094

9,790

8,193

5.996

,697
,060
,727
,759

22,446

23,040

19,302

12,584

6,134

3,910

1,455

466

151

7

6

Softwood Species
Ponderosa Western Subalpine

2,809

pine

-thousand
1,308
2,164
2,878
3,433
3,114
2,403
1,840
1,106
1,000

438

632

318

676

larch

fir

cubic feet-

10

55

13

78

99

288

276

26

227

108

3,204

2,509

1,851

1,562

631

463

174

229

49

54

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

928
703

1,143
657
989

1,263
836
452
598
153
238
150
124

1,338

1,886

2,654

1,232

814

767

316

492

297

77

97

67

All Classes

113,373

89,508

21,310

1,181 10,727

8,235 10,037

Hardwood Species

Total

Diameter

Softwood

Clai

3S

6.9

Species

5.0 -

43,320

7.0 -

8.9

46,070

9.0 -

10.9

43,648

11.0 -

12.9

36,190

13.0 -

14.9

22,876

15.0 -

16.9

18,885

17.0 -

18.9

13,091

19.0 -

20.9

8,766

21.0 -

22.9

7,019

23.0 -

24.9

4,788

25.0 -

26.9

3,700

27.0 -

28.9

2,334

29.0+

3,683

All CI,

asses

254,371

Total Total
Other Hardwood All
Aspen Cottonwood hardwoods Species Species
thousand cubic feet

598

763

,350

898

357

64

53

78

8

4
5

4,178

40
309
337
718
867
419
913
831
925
502
326
413
577

7,175

64

42

639

1

,136

1

,686

1

,658

1

,224

483

966

908

933

502

330

418

577

107

11,460

43,959

47,206

45,335

37,848

24,099

19,368

14,057

9,675

7,952

5,291

4,030

2,752

4,259

265,831

■124-

Table 62,
(Page 2)

Forest Industry

Diameter
Class

5.0 -
7.0 -
9.0 -
11.0 -
13.0 -
15.0 -
17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28

,9
,9
,9
.9
.9
.9
.9
,9
,9
,9
.9
,9

Douglas- Lodgepole
fir pine

14,701

18,639

27,188

28,068

23,295

20,091

17,076

11,419

5,893

4,236

2,984

3,796

5,410

28,855

31,022

20,139

11,186

7,186

3,777

906

363

199

Softwood Species
Ponderosa Western Subalpine

pine
-thousand

115

681
2,301
2,335
1,886
3,280
1,805
3,467
1,588

920

418

380

274

All Classes

182,795 103,633

19,450

larch fir

cubic feet

1,235

816
1,802

883

863

296

341

945

301

697

449

154

135 -_

8,917 13,453

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

3,527

2,951

2,384

2,349

983

539

259

308

73

80

573

377

1,060

793

1,072

1,175

717

480

479

119

250

52

128

7,276

1,437

1,800

2,590

1,186

690

782

409

507

247

99

103

72

9,924

Hardwood Species

Total

Total

Total

Diameter

Softwood

Other

Hardwood

All

Class

Species

Aspen

Cottonwood

hardwoods

Species

Species

-thousand cu
8

5.0 -

6.9

50,443

118

126

50,569

7.0 -

8.9

56,287

36

35

12

84

56,371

9.0 -

10.9

57,464

197

122

-

319

57,783

11.0 -

12.9

46,801

37

47

8

92

46,894

13.0 -

14.9

35,974

37

104

-

141

36,115

15.0 -

16.9

29,940

2

30

-

33

29,973

17.0 -

18.9

21,512

21

181

-

202

21,714

19.0 -

20.9

17,490

16

68

-

84

17,574

21.0 -

22.9

8,780

-

170

-

170

8,950

23.0 -

24.9

6,152

-

56

-

56

6,207

25.0 -

26.9

4,204

-

32

-

32

4,236

27.0 -

28.9

4,382

-

23

-

23

4,405

29.0+

6,018

-

41

-

41

6,059

All CI,

asses

345,447

464

917

21

1,401

346,848

-125-

Table 62.

(Page 3)

Other Private

Diameter
Class

5.

7.

7.

11.

13.0 -
15.0 -
17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

6,9
8.9
10.9
12.9
14.9
16.9
18.9
20.9
22.9
24.9
26.9
28.9

Softwood Species

Douglas- Lodgcpole Ponderosa Western Subalpine

fir pine pine larch fir
thousand cubic feet

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

63,264
78,682
84,911
84,037
56,034
46,118
36,669
21,976
19,053
13,925
7,704
5,344
12,439

87,938

84,316

57,954

37,848

20,499

11,965

5,756

2,100

635

309

172

312

7,580

11,831

14,838

15,386

15,324

13,416

10,387

8,852

6,696

2,584

1,549

1,502

4,406

210

279

169
178

157

11,114

8,348

6,472

5,632

1,694

1,809

646

800

182

200

3,099
1,860
4,889
3,828
5,702
3,736
3,819
3,831
1,800

657
1,224

877
1,317

5,125

6,529

8,427

3,969

2,538

2,421

1,097

1,676

854

263

299

207

All Classes

530,155 309,806 114,350

993

36,898 36,640 33,406

Hardwood Species

Total

Total

Total

Diameter

Softwood

Other

Hardwood

All

Class

Species

Aspen

Cottonwood

hardwoods

Species

Species

-thousand cut

5.0 -

6.9

178,329

3,451

111

-

3,562

181,891

7.0 -

8.9

191,567

5,890

1,649

193

7,733

199,300

9.0 -

10.9

177,769

13,429

1,646

-

15,075

192,844

11.0 -

12.9

150,701

10,769

4,317

128

15,214

165,915

13.0 -

14.9

101,791

5,011

4,267

-

9,278

111,069

15.0 -

16,9

79,465

849

2,564

-

3,413

82,878

17.0 -

18,9

58,544

565

5,289

-

5,854

64,398

19,0 -

20,9

39,413

751

4,809

-

5,560

44,973

21.0 -

22,9

29,221

118

5,350

-

5,468

34,689

23.0 -

24.9

17,938

-

3,147

-

3,147

21,085

25.0 -

26.9

10,948

59

1,941

-

2,001

12,949

27.0 -

28.9

7,881

71

2,408

-

2,479

10,360

29.0+

asses

18,681
1,062,248

-

3,258
40,757

321

3,258
82,041

21,939

All Cli

40,963

1,144,289

-126-

Table 62.

(Page 4)

Working Circle Total

Softwood Species

Diameter
Class

5.0 -
7.0 -
9.0 -
11.0 -
13.0 -
15.0 -
17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

6.9
8.9
10.9
12.9
14.9
16.9

18.
20,
22,
24,
26,
28,

Douglas-
fir

92,051

113,033

127,905

128,748

90,422

75,999

61,937

39,391

29,643

22,221

13,415

10,899

20,657

Lodgepole

pine

139,239

138,379

97,396

61,618

33,818

19,652

8,116

2,930

986

316

178

319

Ponderosa Western
pine larch

thousand cubic

9,003 1,454

14,677

20,016

21,155

20,324

19,099

14,032

13,425

9,283

3,942

2,599

2,200

5,356

871
2,094
962
962
584
787
1,149
528
697
449
419
135

Subalpine
fir

feet

17,845

13,807

10,707

9,543

3,308

2,812

1,079

1,337

305

335

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

4,600
2,941
7,092
5,278
7,763
6,174
5,372
4,762
2,878
929
1,713
1,078
1,569

7,900

10,216

13,671

6,387

4,043

3,971

1,822

2,676

1,398

439

499

346

All Classes

826,323 502,947 155,110 11,090 61,078 52,150 53,367

Hardwood Species

Total

Total

Total

Diameter

Softwood

Other

Hardwood

All

Class

species

Aspen

Cottonwood

hardwoods

Species

Species

5.0 -

6.9

272,092

4,167

160

4,326

276,419

7.0 -

8.9

293,924

6,690

1,993

270

8,953

302,877

9.0 -

10.9

278,881

14,975

2,105

-

17,080

295,962

11.0 -

12,9

233,691

11,705

5,081

178

16,965

250,656

13.0 -

14.9

160,641

5,405

5,237

-

10,642

171,283

15.0 -

16.9

128,290

915

3,013

-

3,928

132,218

17.0 -

18.9

93,147

639

6,383

-

7,022

100,169

19.0 -

20.9

65,669

844

5,708

-

6,552

72,221

21.0 -

22.9

45,020

126

6,444

-

6,570

51,591

23.0 -

24.9

28,878

-

3,705

-

3,705

32,583

25.0 -

26.9

18,853

63

2,299

-

2,363

21,215

27.0 -

28.9

14,597

76

2,844

-

2,920

17,517

29.0+

asses

28,382
1,662,066

-

3,875
48,849

449

3,875
94,902

32,257

All Cl<

45,604

1,756,968

-127-

Table 63. Net volume of sawtimber on commercial timberland by diameter

class, species, and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand
board feet Scribner) .

State and Other Public

Softwood Species

Diameter
Class

9.0 -
11.0 -
13.0 -
15.0 -
17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

10.
12.
14.
16.
18.
20.
22.
24,
26.
28.

Douglas- Lodgepole
fir pine

37,560
58,251
45,726
43,726
38,235
28,932
23,469
20,449
13,788
8,942
14,480

Ponderosa Western

pine larch
thousand board

67,392

60,282

30,026

19,124

7,075

2,252

737

33

32

34

4,848

10,243

11,854

10,134

8,469

5,135

4,802

2,196

3,316

1,585

3,711

45

304

458

1,412

1,429

135

1,197

597

Subalpine
fir

feet

5,566
6,516
2,789
2,078

797
1,045

226

268

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

3,976

2,877
4,455
790
830
068
794
727
164
771
654

8,502
5,447
3,757
3,613
1,471
2,307
1,429
373
478

334

All Classes

333,558 186,986 66,294 5,577 19,285 29,106 27,710

Hardwood Species

Diameter

Class.

9,

.0 -

10.

,9

11,

.0 -

12.

.9

13,

.0 -

14.

,9

15,

.0 -

16.

.9

17,

.0 -

18.

,9

19,

.0 -

20.

,9

21,

.0 -

22.

,9

23.

.0 -

24.

,9

25

.0 -

26.

,9

27

.0 -

28.

.9

29,

.0+

All Cli

asses

Total

Softwood

Species

Aspen

Cottonwoo(

127,888

_

143,920

3

,856

2,989

99,066

1

,587

3,732

85,878

278

1,775

61,305

233

3,857

41,875

334

3,438

34,653

34

3,748

24,045

-

2,011

18,778

17

1,298

11,895

20

1,672

19,214

-

2,366

Other

hardwoods

174

Total

Total

Hardwood

All

,s Species

Species

_

127,888

7,018

150,939

5,319

104,384

2,053

87,931

4,090

65,395

3,771

45,646

3,783

38,436

2,011

26,056

1,315

20,092

1,692

13,587

2,366

21,580

668,516

6,359

26,885

174

33,418

701,934

■128-

Table 63.
(Page 2)

Forest Industry

Diameter

Class

9.0 -
11.0 -
13.0 -
15.0 -
17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

10.

12.

14.

16.

18.

20.

22.

24.

26.9

28.9

Softwood Species

Douglas- Lodgepole

fir

pine

73,831
105,967
100,086
91,841
80,995
55,265
29,453
21,322
15,195
19,393
27,858

68,220

53,684

35,187

18,519

4,405

1,758

970

Ponderosa Western
pine larch

thousand board

4,728 5,623

7,532
7,806

15,262
8,605

17,316
8,010
4,653
2,264
1,964
1,418

3,606
4,071
1,378
1,761
4,851
1,583
3,781
2,506
859
747

Subalpine

fir
feet

7,413

9,840

4,377

2,412

1,182

1,411
336
398

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

3,649

3,480

4,818

5,382

3,277

2,197

2,244

564

1,217

265

666

8,401
5,323
3,202
3,687
1,898
2,364
1,189
484
511

358

All Classes

621,205 182,741 79,558 30,765 27,369 27,759 27,416

Hardwood Species

Diameter

Class

9.0 -

10.9

11.0 -

12.9

13.0 -

14.9

15.0 -

16.9

17.0 -

18.9

19.0 -

20.9

21.0 -

22.9

23.0 -

24.9

25.0 -

26.9

27.0 -

28.9

29.0+

All CI,

asses

Total

Softwood

Species

171,865

189,432

159,547

138,480

102,123

85,162

43,784

31,201

21,694

22,480

31,046

996,814

Other
Aspen Cottonwood hardwoods
thousand board feet

166

163

9

93

68

500

197
447
129
765
280
684
223
128
92
167

3,113

34

34

Total

Total

Hardwood

All

s Species

Species

_

171,865

396

189,828

610

160,157

138

138,619

859

102,981

348

85,510

684

44,468

223

31,424

128

21,822

92

22,572

167

31,213

3,646

1,000,460

-129-

Table 63.
(Page 3)

Other Private

Diameter
Class

9.0 -
11.0 -
13.0 -
15.0 -
17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23.0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29. OH-

IO

12

14

16

18

20.9

22.9

24.9

26.9

28.9

Softwood Species

Douglas- Lodgepole
fir pine

Ponderosa Western

pine larch
thousand board

207,981

291,978

229,539

204,365

170,207

105,031

94,841

69,901

38,805

26,979

63,961

200,114

180,500

100,321

58,487

27,957

10,144

3,094

1,519

852

1,567

25,377
43,470
56,688
55,313
46,733
41,450
32,123
12,824
7,790
7,312
23,988

971

867
915

875

Subalpine
fir

feet

19,865

23,526

7,549

8,111

2,948

3,663

838

992

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

17,436

16,942

25,900

17,107

17,515

17,634

8,422

3,104

6,088

4,568

7,248

26,898

17,616

11,680

11,392

5,099

7,842

4,101

1,278

1,478

1,035

All Classes

1,503,587 584,555 353,067 3,628 67,493 141,965 88,420

Hardwood Species

Total

Total

Total

Diameter

Softwood

Other

Hardwood

All

Class

Species

Aspen

Cottonwood

hardwood

Is Species

Species

-thousand board feet-

9.0 -

10.9

498,641

-

-

-

-

498,641

11.0 -

12.9

574,033

46,512

17,931

523

64,966

638,999

13.0 -

14.9

431,676

22,258

18,366

-

40,624

472,300

15.0 -

16.9

354,775

3,695

10,858

-

14,553

369,328

17.0 -

18.9

271,326

2,475

22,316

-

24,791

296,117

19.0 -

20.9

186,680

3,255

19,890

-

23,145

209,825

21.0 -

22.9

143,420

495

21,677

-

22,172

165,592

23.0 -

24.9

89,618

-

12,598

-

12,598

102,216

25.0 -

26.9

55,013

246

7,729

-

7,975

62,988

27.0 -

28.9

39,735

294

9,735

-

10,029

49,763

29.0+

asses

97,798
2,742,715

-

13,365
154,464

523

13,365
234,217

111,163

All CI,

79,229

2,976,932

-130-

Table 63.
(Page 4)

Working Circle Total

Diameter
Class

9,
11.
13.
15.

10.9
12.9
14.9
16.9

17.0 -
19.0 -
21.0 -
23,0 -
25.0 -
27.0 -
29.0+

18.
20.
22,
24.
26,
28.

Softwood Species

Douglas- Lodgepole
fir pine

319,371
456,195
375,351
339,932
289,436
189,228
147,763
111,673
67,789
55,313
106,298

335,726

294,467

165,534

96,129

39,437

14,154

4,801

1,551

884

1,601

Ponderosa Western
pine larch

thousand board

34,953 6,639

61,246
76,348
80,709
63,806
63,901
44,935
19,672
13,370
10,861
29,117

3,910
4,528
2,790
4,057
5,902
2,780
3,781
2,506
2,331
747

Subalpine

fir

feet

32,843
39,882
14,716
12,602

4,927

6,119

1,400

1,658

Whitebark-
limber
Spruce pine

25,061

23,299

35,173

28,280

24,623

21,899

13,460

4,395

8,469

5,604

8,567

43,800

28,386

18,639

18,692

8,468

12,514

6,719

2,135

2,467

1,727

All Classes

2,458,350 954,283 498,919 39,970 114,147 198,829 143,546

Hardwood Species

Total

Total

Total

Diameter

Softwood

Other

Hardwood

All

Class

Species

Aspen

Cottonwood

hardwood

Is Species

Species

-thousand board feet-

9.0 -

10.9

798,393

-

-

-

-

798,393

11.0 -

12.9

907,385

50,534

21,116

731

72,380

979,766

13.0 -

14.9

690,289

24,008

22,545

-

46,553

736,842

15.0 -

16.9

579,133

3,982

12,763

-

16,744

595,878

17.0 -

18.9

434,754

2,802

26,938

-

29,740

464,494

19.0 -

20,9

313,717

3,657

23,608

-

27,265

340,981

21.0 -

22.9

221,858

530

26,109

-

26,639

248,496

23.0 -

24.9

144,865

-

14,832

-

14,832

159,697

25.0 -

26.9

95,485

263

9,155

-

9,418

104,902

27.0 -

28.9

74,109

314

11,499

-

11,813

85,922

29.0+

asses

148,057
4,408,044

-

15,898
184,462

731

15,898
271,281

163,956

All Cl<

86,088

4,679,326

-131-

Table 64, Net volume of sawtimber on commercial softwood timberland by stand
size class, timberland quality class, and ownership group, Working
Circle 3 (thousand board feet Scribner) .

Ownership Group and
Stand Size Class

State and Other Public
Old growth sawtimber
Young growth sawtimber
Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings
Nonstocked
Total

Excellent

48,066

26,081

7,980

10

513

82,650

Timberland Quality Class

Good Fair Poor
thousand board feet

98,389

157,002

40,329

8,412

304,132

107,921

54,988

33,131

4,938

401

201,379

57,375

18,947

1,908

2,941

16

81,188

Total

311,751

257,018

83,347

16,302

930

669,348

Forest Industry

Old growth sawtimber

Young growth sawtimber

Poletimber

Seedlings and saplings

Nonstocked

Total

95,063

183,490

179,842

162,710

621,104

5,131

226,911

10,893

26,123

269,058

7,827

48,089

18,764

1,137

75,817

-

10,512

5,459

10,455

26,426

398

-

9

-

408

108,419

469,002

214,967 200,425

992,813

Other Private

Old growth sawtimber 103,999

Young growth sawtimber 65,399

Poletimber 17,475

Seedlings and saplings 681

Nonstocked 10,512

Total 198,067

Working Circle Total

Old growth sawtimber 247,128

Young growth sawtimber 96,611

Poletimber 33,281

Seedlings and saplings 692

Nonstocked 11,423

Total 389,136

317,776

365,009

238,792

1

,025,575

779,157

383,332

76,050

1

,303,939

143,027

143,034

10,439

313,974

25,063

27,137

15,334

68,214

-

3,066
921,577

742
341,357

T

14,320

1

,265,023

,726,023

599,654

652,772

458,876

1

,958,431

1

,163,070

449,213

121,121

1

,830,015

231,445

194,928

13,484

473,138

43,987

37,533

28,730

110,942

-

3,476
1,337,923

758
622,969

T

15,657

2

,038,156

,388,183

-132-

T3 W

rH

O 0)

•0

m

0 -H

0

4-1

> U

o

o

■P Q)

»

E-i

t-l Qi

+J

0 Oi

l;^

W

0

CO

T)

C

c

H j::

(d

a) o

■P M

(0

M m

(0

0) iH

m

s

iH

o

u

<u

+j

(U

g

2

■rl

04

T3

w

>1

43

1 0)

0

>

o

o •

U Q)

•H .H

U -H
U

Q) Cn
C C

O
+J

U
0)
C
XI
•H
^^
U
CO

-P

o
o

4-1

tl
U
(0

o

ja

p

(U

c

>p
o

o

(0 a
a en

in

0)

0)

u

4^

■rH

(0 a

X!

0)

x;

0)

c

■rH
ft M

fd M-H
XI

3
W

(0

o

C
O

O
Ck

-a
o

I

en

O
Q

■rH

14-1

-P 05

(n(nnLnt~-cx)criOrHrH(N

fNirHr^corMrHn-^ixiiriLn

• ••••••••

CO ^ '^ ^ ^ "^ '^ ^ ^

[^(TioocNinoocoOr-icn^

•>*OOCT^a^C^OOO^a^O O

LnLncNinr^COOOrHr-lrH

cNro'^'a''3''*minininin

■>-(
Q

U

cr»0^cT^cT»criO><Ttcri(Tt(Ti

OtN-^vOCXJOtN^iilOO
rHiHrHHrHtNC-MrsirvJog

ooooooooooo

<TirHnLnr~-<T>.Hroinr^cn

rHrHiHiHrHrM<N(N(NfSl

O

U3

in

00

^3*

ro

CO
ro

CN

CT»

CM
ro

CTi

o

o

>*

+

ro

0)

u

0)

(1)

o

0)

■^

<Ti

c

p

•rH

-rH

s:

■P

U)

»

r-H

•

:*

d)

n

rH

XI

in

0)

Vh

<a

■

en

p

^

Cp

X)

r-l

j::"

(-1

,i^

+

m

.H

(0

u

z

p

r-i

J^

p

o

o

o

frt

()

p

•

H

—

73

H

tn

in

■133-

Table 66. Average d.b.h. age by diameter class, species group, and M.A.I,
site class for growing stock trees on commercial timberland,
Working Circle 3 (years) .

M.A.I.

Site Class

Species

Group :

(ft3/

acre/year)

Douglas-

•fir

20-49

50-84

85+

years — — —

Diameter Class

Age

Range

Age

Range

Age

Range

1.0 -

2.9*

58

21-110

58

21-100

54

41- 70

3.0 -

4.9

61

21-140

72

21-170

53

41- 70

5.0 -

6.9

80

21-190

81

21-200

76

41-130

7.0 -

8.9

85

31-200

89

31-200

91

41-180

9.0 -

10.9

89

31-200

99

31-200

97

41-200

11.0 -

12.9

103

31-200

105

41-200

112

61-200

13.0 -

14.9

115

41-200

114

41-200

123

61-200

15.0 -

16.9

119

41-200

131

51-200

132

71-200

17.0 -

18.9

133

51-200

136

41-200

142

71-200

19.0 -

20.9

154

81-200

142

41-200

144

91-200

21.0 -

22.9

159

81-200

154

51-200

126

71-200**

23.0 -

24.9

177

121-200

176

71-200

134

81-200**

25.0 -

26.9

168

101-200**

181

81-200

155

121-200**

27.0 -

28.9

160

111-200**

178

71-200**

113

91-200**

29.0 -

30.9

141

131-160**

192

131-200**

166

81-200**

31.0 -

32.9

195

191-200**

194

151-200**

-

-

33.0 -

34.9

195

191-200**

188

131-200**

195

191-200**

35.0 -

36.9

160

121-200**

195

191-200**

135

131-140**

37.0 -

38.9

-

-

195

191-200**

-

-

39.0+

195

191-200**

195

191-200**

-

-

Species

Group: Lodgepole

pine

1.0 -

2.9*

51

11- 80

62

21-140

49

31- 70

3.0 -

4.9

77

21-150

71

31-140

64

41-110

5.0 -

6.9

90

31-200

85

21-200

63

31-110

7.0 -

8.9

106

31-200

101

31-200

81

31-190

9.0 -

10.9

121

41-200

110

41-200

92

41-200

11.0 -

12.9

125

51-200

122

51-200

95

61-200

13.0 -

14.9

130

51-200

129

61-200

104

81-170

15.0 -

16.9

150

111-200

130

51-200

120

81-180**

17.0 -

18.9

156

111-180**

138

61-200

118

81-170**

19.0 -

20.9

130

111-150**

159

81-200**

145

141-150**

21.0 -

22.9

-

-

190

181-200**

115

111-120**

23.0 -

24.9

115

111-120**

-

-

-

-

25.0 -

26.9

-

-

105

101-110**

-

-

27.0 -

28.9

-

-

-

-

-

^

29.0 -

30.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

31.1 -

32.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

33.0 -

34.9

165

161-170**

-

-

-

-

35.0 -

36.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

37.0 -

38.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

39.0+

-

-

-

-

-

-

*Ages

recorded

for the

2 inch diameter class are total

tree ages. All ot

diameter clas;

ses have

d.b.h. age

recorded for them.

** Indicates a very small sample is responsible for the estimates.

-134-

63

51- 80

79

61-130

85

61-140

76

51-110

97

61-140

116

51-180

97

71-150**

118

61-200**

116

71-200**

76

61-90**

96

71-200**

155

151-160**

151

91-200**

85

81- 90**

195

191-200**

175

171-180**

Table 66.

(Page 2) M.A.I. Site Class

Species Group: (ft^/acre/year)

Western larch, 20-49 50-84 85+

Ponderosa pine years

Diameter Class Age Range Age Range Age Range

1.0 - 2.9* 49 21- 70 40 21- 60 35 31- 40

3.0 - 4.9 64 31- 90 51 21- 80 - -

5.0 - 6.9 69 41-140 68 21-120

7.0 - 8.9 78 31-150 69 21-110

9.0 - 10.9 82 31-160 86 41-180

11.0 - 12.9 92 41-200 93 41-180

13.0 - 14.9 117 51-200 99 31-200

15.0 - 16.9 130 41-200 90 51-200

17.0 - 18.9 142 61-200 119 71-200

19.0 - 20.9 145 81-200 127 61-200

21.0 - 22.9 172 71-200** 150 61-200

23.0 - 24.9 172 141-200** 136 71-200**

25.0 - 26.9 193 181-200** 161 81-200**

27.0 - 28.9 195 191-200** 182 121-200**

29.0 - 30.9 168 121-200** 182 151-200**

31.0 - 32.9 195 191-200** 175 171-180**

33.0 - 34.9 195 191-200**

35.0 - 36.9 - - 195 191-200**

37.0 - 38.9 - - - -

39.0+ 195 191-200** 195 191-200**

Species Group: Subalpine fir. Spruce

1.0 - 2.9* 56 31-100 69 41-140 105 61-150**

3.0 - 4.9 57 31- 80 63 31-100 79 51- 90**

5.0 - 6.9 71 41-190 84 41-190 136 41-200**

7.0 - 8,9 87 51-200 99 51-200 148 41-200**

9.0 - 10.9 116 61-200 112 61-200 112 51-200**

11.0 - 12.9 154 91-200 118 61-180 158 81-200**

13.0 - 14.9 116 71-190** 121 61-200 176 51-200**

15.0 - 16.9 169 141-200** 143 81-200 170 51-200**

17.0 - 18.9 195 191-200** 161 91-200 171 91-200**

19.0 - 20.9 195 191-200** 159 91-200 195 191-200**

21.0 - 22.9 195 191-200** 179 91-200** 195 191-200**

23.0 - 24.9 - - 170 141-200**

25.0 - 26.9 185 181-190** 191 171-200** 195 191-200**

27.0 - 28.9 - - 195 191-200** 85 81- 90**

29.0 - 30.9 - - 195 191-200**

31.0 - 32.9 - - - - - -

33.0 - 34.9 - - 195 191-200**

35.0 - 36.9 - - - - - -

37.0 - 38.9 - - - - - -

39.0+ - - 195 191-200**

*Ages recorded for the 2 inch diameter class are total tree ages. All other

diameter classes have d.b.h. age recorded for them.
**Indicates a very small sample is responsible for the estimates.

-135-

Table 67. Area of commercial timberland by primary habitat type and M.A.I,
site class, Working Circle 3 (thousand acres).

Site Class
(Ft3/Acre/Year)

20-49 50-84 85-119 120-164 165+ Total

Habitat Type thousand acres

Scree 13.3 1.0 _ _ _ 14.3

PIFL/AGSP 13.3 - - - - 13.3

PIFL/FEID 18.1 - 3.5 - - 21.6

PIFL/JUCO 3.6 - - - - 3.6

PIPO 1.0 _ _ _ _ 1.0

PIPO/AGSP 11.1 - - - - 11.1

PIPO/FEID 26.2 3.5 1.0 - - 30.7

PIPO/PUTR 3.5 - - - - 3.5

PIPO/SYAL 7.2 - - - - 7.2

PSME 16.8 13.4 - - - 30.2

PSME/AGSP 38.3 16.3 4.6 - - 59.2

PSME/FEID 74.7 23.6 - - - 98.3

PSME/FESC 20.7 15.7 - - - 36.4

PSME/VACA 2.4 23.6 7.3 - - 33.4

PSME/PHMA 8.7 20.0 3.5 3.5 - 35.6

PSME/VAGL 11.2 17.3 - 0.4 - 29.0

PSME/LIBO 5.1 51.3 2.4 - - 58.8

PSME/SYAL 47.4 104.6 14,9 - - 166.8

PSME/CARU 85.7 89.8 7.2 - - 182.8

PSME/CAGE 11.0 6.7 - - - 17.7

PSME/SPBE - 3.5 - - - 3.5

PSME/ARUV _ 11.1 11.2 _ _ _ 22.3

PSME/JUCO " 7.3 - - - - 7.3

PSME/ARCO 3.5 - - - - 3.5

PSME/SYOR - 3.5 - - - 3.5

PICEA/EQAR - - 1.8 - - 1.8

PICEA/CLUN 3.6 - 1.1 - - 4.7

PICEA/GATR - 3.6 0.4 - - 4.0

PICEA/VACA - 1.2 1.0 - - 2.2

PICEA/SEST 1.6 - - - - 1.6

PICEA/LIBO 7.3 17.0 - 4.4 - 28.7

PICEA/SMST 2.4 3.8 5.4 - - 11.7

ABLA/CLUN - 10.3 - - - 10.3

ABLA/VACA - 3,4 - - - 3.4

ABLA/CACA - 7.3 3.6 - - 10.9

ABLA/LIBO 6.7 19.5 4.5 - - 30.7

ABLA/XETE - 11.9 - - - 11.9

ABLA/VAGL - 3.6 - -.- 3.6

ABLA/VASC 17.9 15.2 - - - 33.1

ABLA/CARU 4.9 8.9 3.6 - - 17.4

AELA/CLPS 3.8 - - - - 3.8

ABLA/ARCO 3.6 3.6 - - - 7,3

ABLA/RIMO 8,4 5.6 - - - 14.0

ABLA-PIAL/VASC - 2.6 - - - 2.6

ABLA/LUHI 6.2 - - - - 6.2

PIAL-ABLA 6.2 2.6 - - - 8.8

PIAL 6.0 _ _ _ - 6.0

-136-

Table 67.

(Page 2)

Habitat Type

PICO/VACA

PICO/VASC

PICO/CARU

Hardwoods

Total

20-49

3.6
2.6

22.8
548.7

50-84

3.6

18.6

547.3

Site Class
(Ft3/Acre/Year)

85-119 120-164
thousand acres

9.5
75.7

8.3

165+

Total

3.6

2.6

3.6

50.9

1,180.0

Table 68. Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity
group, M.A.I, site class, and ownership group. Working Circle 3
(thousand acres) .

State and Other Public

Treatment 20-49 50-84

Opportunity Group

10 9.8 15.8

11 9.9 16.2

12 - 0.5

13 3.3 2.7

14 3.4 1.0

15 - -

20 11,9

21 0.2

22 3.8

23 10.7
30 9.4

32 0.4

33 - 0.1
40 - 0.3

3,
4.
3,
1.
14.

M.A.I. Site Class
(ft^/acre/year)
85-119 120-164

-thousand acres

1.6

2.9 0.9

165+

0.5
1.0
0.2
0.3
1.3

0.4

0.4

1.0

Total

27.1

29,9

0.5

6.0

4.4

16.5

5.7
7.7
12.8
25.8
0.4
0.5
0.3

12,

13

-

13,

20

1.0

13,

20,

23

-

13,

21

0,6

13,

23

1.5

13,

33

-

20,

23

1.0

22,

23

1.0

22,

33

0.4

12,

13,

22

_

12,

22

-

13,

20,

22

1.4

13,

20,

22, 23

1 0.1

13,

22

0.9

13,

22,

23

-

13,

22,

33

-

20,

22

2.5

20,

22,
al

23

-

Tot;

73.3

1.6

0.3
1.1
0.9
0.8

0.7

2.6

0.8
2.6

72.9

8.2

2.4

2.0
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.6
4.0

156.8

-137-

Table 68.
(Page 2)

Forest Industry

M.A.I. Site Class

(ft^/acre/year)

Treatment

20-49

50-84

85-119
thousand

120-164

165+

Total

Opportuni-cy

ijroup

aCTGS

10

9.7

40.3

0.9

3.5

-

54.3

11

8.8

14.4

6.5

-

-

29.7

12

-

*

-

-

-

*

13

1.3

3.5

-

-

-

4.8

14

0.8

3.4

-

-

-

4.1

15

-

-

-

-

-

-

20

2.1

7.7

*

-

-

9.8

21

-

4.3

1.1

-

-

5.4

22

0.5

2.9

0.1

-

-

3.5

23

8.3

7,2

0.4

-

-

15.8

30

9.4

20.7

3.5

0.4

-

34.0

32

*

-

-

-

-

*

33

-

-

*

-

-

*

40

-

2.4

-

-

-

2.4

12,

13

_

-

-

-

-

-

13,

20

0.1

5.9

-

-

-

6.0

13,

20,

23

-

3.5

-

-

-

3.5

13,

21

*

-

-

-

-

*

13,

23

1.2

0.1

-

-

-

1.3

13,

33

-

*

-

-

-

*

20,

23

0.9

0.1

-

-

-

1.0

22,

23

0.1

-

-

-

-

0.1

22,

33

-

-

—

"-

""

^

12,

13,

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,

22

-

-

-

-

—

—

13,

20,

22

0.1

1.1

-

-

-

1.2

13,

20,

22,

23

-

-

-

-

-

—

13,

22

*

2.5

-

-

-

2.5

13,

22,

23

-

0.2

-

-

-

0.2

13,

22,

33

-

0.1

-

-

-

0.1

20,

22

1.0

*

-

-

-

1.1

20,

22,

23

-

-

1.2

-

-

1.2

Total

44.4

120.3

13.7

3.9

182.3

♦Indicates less than 50 acres,

-138-

Table 68.
(Page 3)

Other Private

M.A.I. Site Class
(ft^/acre/year)

Treatment

20-49

50-84

85-119

120-164

165 +

Total

Onp

/-\vt-n

n -i -f-TJ

(^ V'oi 1 1^— — — — — — — —

•• — ^ 1" Vi /~\t T o za Y^ /H

10

V3.L \J

59.7

48.8

2.2

acres — —

_

110.6

11

32.0

65.2

13.9

-

—

111.2

12

-

2.9

-

-

_

2.9

13

16.9

26.4

-

—

-

43.3

14

7.3

-

-

—

_

7.3

15

-

-

-

-

—

_

20

61.4

25.4

5.5

-

—

92.4

21

3.4

12,6

3.5

-

-

27.1

22

19.8

12.3

1.5

-

—

33.6

23

73.8

4.3

4.9

-

-

83.0

30

44.0

52.8

5.9

2.1

-

104.7

32

3.2

-

-

-

-

3.2

33

-

3.5

3.2

-

-

6.7

40

-

9.4

-

-

-

9.4

12,

13

_

_

_

_

_

_

13,

20

4.8

3.8

-

—

—

8.7

13,

20,

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,

21

5.7

7.0

-

-

-

12.7

13,

23

10.0

13.3

-

-

-

23.2

13,

33

-

6.5

-

-

—

6.5

20,

23

5.4

4.8

-

-

-

10.2

22,

23

6.2

-

-

-

-

6.2

22,

33

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,

13,

22

_

_

_

_

^

_

12,

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,

20,

22

13.1

12.6

-

-

-

25.8

13,

20,

22,

23

3.5

-

-

-

-

3.5

13,

22

6.5

3.3

-

-

-

9.7

13,

22,

23

-

0.7

-

-

-

0.7

13,

22,

33

-

3.0

-

-

-

3.0

20,

22

14.8

3.3

-

-

-

18.1

20,

22,

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

391.5

329.5

40.6

2.1

763.8

-139-

Table 69. Area of commercial softwood timberland by treatment opportunity
group, timberland quality class, and ownership group. Working
Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

State and Other Public

Treatment

Excellent

Oppvjj. uuiix uy

UJ-UUp

10

1.0

11

3.8

12

-

13

-

14

-

15

-

20

0.9

21

1.0

22

0.2

23

0.1

30

1.2

32

-

33

-

40

-

12,

13

_

13,

20

-

13,

20,

23

-

13,

21

-

13,

23

-

13,

33

-

20,

23

-

22,

23

-

22,

33

.

12,

13,

22

-

12,

22

-

13,

20,

22

-

13,

20,

22,

23

-

13,

22

-

13,

22,

23

-

13,

22,

33

—

20,

22

-

20,

22,

23

-

Total

8.2

Timberland Quality Class

Good Fair Poor

thousand acres

11.3 11.7 3.1

11.8 9.0 5.2

0.5

2.7 3.2 *

1.0 3.4

3.0
3.5
2.6
1.6
8.9

0.
0.

1.0

12.0
1.1

4,

10,
13,

0.4

1.6

0.4

0.7

1.4

-

0.1

1.4

0.9

0.1

-

0.6

-

1.4

2.5

-

-

0.6

*

0.5
2.5
0.4

Total

27.1

29.9

0.5

6.0

4.4

16.5
5.7
7.7
12.8
25.8
0.4
0.5
0.3

2.6

0.3

0.5

0.1

0.8

0.6

1.5

0.6

2.6

0.5

0.4

-

0.9

0.8

1.0

-

1.8

-

1.0

—

1.0

0.4

2.0
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.6
4.0

54.6

80.8

13.2

156.8

♦Indicates less than 50 acres.

-140-

Table 69.
(Page 2)

Forest Industry

Timberland Quality Class

Treatment

(^ r~v »~» /~\ V ■(" 1 1 T^ T "1" T 7 /^ 'V"*~*1 IV^

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

L/^^ux uuiix uy

vjj.v-'ia^

~i,nousa.na acires

10

3.5

20.5

17.5

12.8

54.3

11

2.9

6.5

10.0

10.3

29.7

12

-

*

-

-

*

13

-

3.5

1.3

-

4.8

14

-

3.4

0.8

-

4.1

15

-

-

-

-

-

20

*

7.6

2.1

0.1

9.8

21

1.1

4.1

0.2

-

5.4

22

0.1

2.5

0.9

-

3.5

23

0.2

4.7

9.8

1.1

15.8

30

3.5

18.6

10.5

1.4

34,0

32

-

-

-

*

*

33

-

-

*

-

*

40

—

2.4

—

_

2.4

12, 13

-

-

-

-

-

13, 20

-

3.4

0.2

2.4

6.0

13, 20,

23

-

3.5

-

-

3.5

13, 21

-

-

*

-

*

13, 23

-

*

1.2

*

1.3

13, 33

-

*

*

-

*

20, 23

-

0.1

0.9

-

1.0

22, 23

-

-

0.1

-

0.1

22, 33

_

_

_

.

_

12, 13,

22

-

-

-

-

-

12, 22

-

-

-

-

-

13, 20,

22

-

1.1

0.1

-

1.2

13, 20,

22,

23

-

-

-

-

-

13, 22

-

2.5

*

-

2.5

13, 22,

23

-

0.2

-

-

0.2

13, 22,

33

-

0.1

-

-

0.1

20, 22

-

*

1.0

-

1.0

20, 22,

23

1.2
12.6

-

-

-

1.2

Total

84.8

56.7

28.3

182.3

♦Indicates less than 50 acres.

-141-

Table 69.

(Page 3)

Other Private

Treatment

J J i /-> — _..—

Excellent

Opporcuiiiuy vjiuup

10

-

11

13.9

12

-

13

-

14

-

15

-

20

5.5

21

3.5

22

1.5

23

0.7

30

2.4

32

-

33

-

40

-

12,

13

—

13,

20

-

13,

20,

23

-

13,

21

-

13,

23

-

13,

33

-

20,

23

-

22,

23

-

22,

33

-

12,

13,

22

_

12,

22

-

13,

20,

22

-

13,

20,

22, 23

-

13,

22

-

13,

22,

23

-

13,

22,

33

-

20,

22

-

20,

22,

al

23

-

Tot

27.5

Timberland Quality Class

Poor

Good Fair

thousand acres —

31.6 62.1
52.0 26.2

2.9
26.4 14.5 2.4

7.3

21.3
14.4
10.2
3.6
31.3

3.5
9,4

0.9

12.6

3,3
0.7
3.0
3,3

252,4

63.9
6.7
21.9
71,9
62,5

3.2

7.8

13.1
3.5
6.5

14.8

414.0

17.0
19.1

1.7
2.4

6.8
8.5
3.2

Total

110,6
111.2

2,9
43,3

7,3

92,4

27,1

33,6

83,0

104,7

3,2

6,7

9,4

8,7

7,0

3.3

2,5

12,7

6.8

10.0

6.5

23,2

3,3

3,2

-

6,5

4,8

5,4

-

10,2

-

6,2

-

6,2

69,9

25.8
3.5
9,7
0.7
3.0

18.1

763,8

-142-

o
1^

•9

(0
0)

•H
U
(U

W

X

u

(0
4-1

o

o

u<

(U

01

c

m

■rH

■a

ft

C)

J

u

OJ

0)

c

•H

ft

K-l

(0
T)
O
O

(S

K

U

ft

CO

m
o
u
<i>
■o
c
o

OJ

c

-H

ft M

iH -rH
(0 4-1
XI

13
CO

3 4-1
O

Q

O

C en I

(0 (0 o

o

r~-

Ln

r-

00

li)

in

r~-

^

n

in

o

^D

rH

OJ

o

0) CNJ

U
(0

Tl
C
(0

cn

3 m

o •

x; CO

>X)

VD

kD rH 00 IXI

in rH 00 m

00

cn

■*

i-H

iH

00

rH

(N

iH

■'J'

CM

00

m

rH

i-t

>i u

Tl
C
O

u

-p

•H
U)

c
<u

Q
C

o
u

U O -H
X O fO

O 4-1

o o

W O fc CU H

o

in

CTi

<T\

n

o

in

'S-

o

iH

ro

>*

rr

(N

i-H

iH

m

^D

ID

O)

00

(N

CM

CNJ CO (N
[^ ro t-~

k£) CTl 00
ro O O

o

p^

CO

a\

ro

CTi

00

rH

o

in

a^

o

CM

rsj

o

m

I

iH
ro

>i
4J

■H 4->

W C

C 0)

0) rH

Q rH

0) T3
C U O
X O

O
U
U

fO

V4 to
O 4-1
O O

U O Pm P4 H

rH

in

00

o

•<*

ro

cn

r-~

rH

rH

^D

CM

00

rH

■^

rH

rH

ro

00
p-

CN

rH

r-

<-l

VD

in

O

(Tl

00

o
CO

00

o
in

rH

CN

00

Ov)

O

00

rH
rH

I • I

00

on

iX) IX) vD
rvj 00 00

(Tl (Tl ovj \S>

, . . I
>X) o r- 00

vo

r- 00

in

-^

M-

a\

O 00 vD

cn

(Tl

O VD
rH

rH

in

in

00
OM

00 CN rH
rH rH

00

CN

o
in

CN

00 CO VD

OM

00

00 IX) rH

CO

00

in

00 00 00

rH
CM

00
rH

(~- r- U)

rH r-\

00

rH

in

^

CO

r~

r-t

in

r- 00

c^

^D

rH

CM
CN

>*

rH

<y^ -^

r-i

o

cn

00

00

O

CTi

cn

OM

rH

•>*

rH

r-

(D

rH

r^

r^

00

00

O

CO

<y\

00

Ovl

rH

O

"*

00

r-t

vD

rH

CO

o

00

^

^

o

rH

en

00

(N

r^

(N
CN
CN

o

r-

I

rH

in
•p

■rH
W

c

OJ
Q

O
U
U

OJ T)
U O
X O

w a [14 o-

•H
!/)

c

0)

a

c
3

o
u
o

to

(U
•H
4-1
•H

W

c

0)
Q

c
o
u

u
o

(44

(0
4J

o

Eh

ID

in

M'

VO

r-t

00

"*

'a-

00

^

iX>

00

00

p-

(Tl

rH

^

00

OM

CN

rH

r~

c

0)

(U T3 >H

O -H
O (0

W C5 fa

4-)
•H

C
0)
Q

C
3

O

u
u

rd
4J
O
Eh

-143-

•s

(0
(U
•H

cn

g

-H
U

m
■p
0

O

Ti ft
0

J

(Ti tN rH m

CX) O n iH

n r^ r- vD

i£) n i-l r-(

H CN tH

CO

00

(A
TI
O
O

Id u)
X -

0)

o
ft

00

o

W
O
M
0)
-O

c
o

c

■H

ft >-l

r-{ -H

(0 m

w

'a* iH (M

in 00 00

^£) Ol "^

00 00 r-

■^ <D r-i

o 00 r~

rH CN CTl

00 o r~-

•^ \D O

in CO 'T ro

rH ^ t^ O

CTl •^ CN CO

^ CO ro

CM rH

CO

I I I

'^ rH

O rH ^D

O ro r^
CTl r~- r~

vX)

\D

ro

in

■*

r-

rH 1

ro

rH

CM

(N

VD

O CTl rH

rH n (N

rH 00 VD

in O rH

o

I CN

in

vO

0) 0)

m ro

\S)

o in cn

•^

^

VD

•i-S

O 00 1 1

00

(N in in 1

m

1 m 1 1

n

(Ti r^

ID

(^ tN r-

r-

■^

«*

■H ft

^

•*

•.

h3

rH

(N

rH

CTl
I O

00

^

rH
rH

269

C3>

i£)

CN

iX) vJ3 ro
in r~ r~- i

I^ IX) rH

in
o

in

rH

in
in

CM

vD

n rH

CN

VD

in

CO

o

in

00

CN

r^

"S" (Tl IT) r- rH

rH CO CN rH Vi)

rr tn o) (Ti

VO fNl VD rH

in in rH

00 o tri

r~-

T CN 00 1 1

in

m in 00

r-

ro ■^ (Ti

tN r^ in

vO •5j< (^

O rH 00
CN CN O

O rH ^a-

1 VO

O iX) in

rH CN in

^ CTl vx)

•=3' rH

I I

VO

r^

CTl

ro

CN

rH

o

cr\

vD

r-~ 1

'S"

in

in

■^r

rH

r^

m ■^ r-i

<y\

<Tl "* in rH

<3^

00 ro r- 1

<T>

rH r~ in

•^

1

m

0)

(0

O

00

vO

rH

in

"a-

in

r~

ro

tn

CN

rH

iD

cr\

•r(

vD

^

cn

'3'

ro

rH

U

ro

lO

in

'f

(Ti

in

o

in

O

rH

ro

^

VD

1

ro

1

4J

rH

rH

r-

-*

1

in

D^

•r(

O

>*

rH

'd'

o

o

VD

in

ro

in

rvj

in

rH

0^

•H

ro

vD

CO

r^

in

3

4H

k.

^

^

*,

^

^

^

^

^

^

K

^

^

W

^

^

•h

k.

^

0

lO

(^

00

rH

ro

t^

CN

rH

H

H

r~

H

<y\

c

•^

r~-

o

rH

'S-

Q

rH

ro

r^

rH

ro

rH

r-i

0)

ro

r*1

r-i

00

Q

c

O

o

>i

O

in

r-

Q

■p

TI W

ro

1

1

+

Vh

•rl

C Ifl

1

rH

tH

rH

U

(0

(0 fd

O

CO

in

r-

c

rH

i-t

0)

>< U

>i

>,

>i

>,

•-{

Q

4-1

4-1

4J

4J

4-)

<

•H C

•rH

4-1

•H

■P

•H

4-1

•H

4-1

C

in 0

m

c

V)

c

U)

C

U)

u

C

3

C -H

c

<u

c

0)

c

(U

c

0

<u

0

0) +J

0)

•-{

0)

rH

0)

rH

d)

tl

rH

M

Q -H

Q

■-t

•-*

a

rH

•-t

Q

rH

r-^

a

rH

U --i

■o

0)

XJ

u

u

(0

<D

•o

U

U

(0

0)

■a

Vl

^

m

Ul

0)

TJ

U

U

(d

C C

C

u

o

•H

o

4-1

c

u

o

•H

0

4J

C

U

0

■rl

o

4-1

c

rH

u

O

•H

o

+ 4-1

S 0

3

X

0

nj

o

0

5

X

o

(0

0

O

3

X

0

<tl

o

o

3

to

X

O

(0

0

rH O

0 U

0

w

o

b

o*

Eh

0

W

CJ

fc

Ou

Eh

o

w

o

fcl

0^

Eh

O

4J

w

O

fr4

cu

r- EH

Vh

M

u

u

u

0

O

U

u

u

o

EH

-144-

Table 72. Potential animal unit months (AUM's) on commercia] timberland by
crown density and climax series. Working Circle 3.

Climax Series

Crown
Density

0-30
31 - 50
51 - 70

Total

Douglas- Subalpine Ponderosa

fir

51,922
43,250
22,739

Limber Lodgepole

fir

4,502
3,510
3,922

117,911 11,933 13,486 8,770 11,015

pine

pine Spruce Hardwoods

AUM's

8,358 6,211 1,964 2,947
4,866 449 7,973 2,959

262 2,110 1,079 436

6,342

pine

Total

1,778 77,681

348 63,355

693 31,242

2,819 172,277

Table 73. Area of commercial timberland by forest type, fuel loads per acre,
and ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group
and Forest Type
State and
Other Public
Douglas-fir
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Other softwoods
Total softwoods
Total hardwoods
Total all types

Fuel Loads in Tons Per Acre

0 to 10.0

10.

,1 to 25,

.0
5and

25.1 +

Total

36.5

33.0

17.3

86.8

9.8

6.5

17.4

33.8

11.5

7.0

0.5

19.0

5.5

3.4

8.3

17.1

63.2

49.9

43.7

156.8

2.3

5.8

0.5

8.6

65.5

55.6

44.1

165.4

Forest Industry
Douglas-fir
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Other softwoods
Total softwoods
Total hardwoods
Total all types

32.7

36.9

43.6

113.1

8.3

12.1

18.6

39,0

4.9

4.2

*

9.1

2.7

8.1

10.4

21.1

48,6

61.3

72.6

182.3

2.7

1.7

0.2

4.6

51.4

63.0

72.8

186.9

Other Private
Douglas-fir
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Other softwoods
Total softwoods
Total hardwoods
Total all types

179.9

171.9

103.5

455.3

40.5

18.5

61.1

120.2

67.2

38.5

5.6

111.3

22.6

13.0

41.0

77.0

310.2

242.4

211,3

763.7

11.5

46.6

6,0

63.9

321.6

288.9

217.3

827.7

Working Circle Total
Douglas-fir
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Other softwoods
Total softwoods
Total hardwoods
Total all types

249.1

241.7

164.4

655.2

58.6

37.1

97.2

193.0

83.5

49.8

6.2

139.5

30.7

25.0

59.6

115.2

421.9

353.4

327.5

1,102.9

16.5

54.1

6.6

77.1

438.5

407.4

334.1

1,180.0

-145-

Table 74. Area of commercial timberland by salvable dead volume class and
ownership group. Working Circle 3 (thousand acres) .

Ownership Group

Volume

Class

(net (

"ubic

State and

Forest

Other

Percentage

feet pe:

r i

acre)

Other Public

Industry
— thousand
81.6

Private

Total

of Total

None

77.1

acres

437.2

595.9

50.5

1 -

100

41.6

32.5

186.2

260.3

22.1

101 -

200

20.7

33.9

91,8

146.4

12.4

201 -

300

10.1

14.9

50.1

75.2

6.4

301 -

400

5.4

9.6

27.9

42.9

3.6

401 -

500

0.5

7.4

1.5

9.5

0.8

501 -

600

4.8

1.8

14.5

21.1

1.8

601 -

700

0.7

0.9

5.6

7.2

0.6

701 -

800

0.6

0.9

2.2

3.6

0.3

801 -

900

0.6

0.9

2.2

3.6

0.3

901 -

,000

-

-

-

-

-

1,001 -

,100

1.0

0.4

2.1

3.5

0.3

1,101 -

,200

0.6

0.9

2.2

3.6

0.3

1,201 -

,300

-

-

-

-

-

1,301 -

,400

-

-

-

-

-

1,401 -

,500

-

-

-

-

-

1,501 -

,600

-

-

-

-

-

1,601 -

,700

1.0

0.4

2.1

3.5

0.3

1,701 -

,800

-

-

-

-

-

1,801 -

,900

-

-

-

-

-

1,901 -

2

,000

-

-

-

-

-

2,001 -

2

,100

-

-

-

-

-

2,101 -

2,

,200

-

-

-

-

-

2,201 -

2

,300

0.6

0.9

2.2

3.6

0.3

2,301+

-

-

-

-

-

Total

165.4

186.9

827.7

1,180.0

100.0

-146-

Table 75. Net volume of salvable dead by diameter class and condition of
dead class for commercial softwood species, Working Circle 3
(thousand cubic feet) .

Condition of Dead Class

Diameter Class

5.0 -

6,9

7.0 -

8.9

9.0 -

10.9

11.0 -

12.9

13.0 -

14.9

15.0 -

16.9

17.0 -

18.9

19.0 -

20.9

21.0 -

22.9

23.0 -

24.9

25.0 -

26.9

27.0 -

28.9

29.0+

Total

No

Defect

7

,729

7

,381

1

,858

1

,272

677

313

75

58

134

79

322

-

Defect — Mostly Defect — Mostly

Physical Rot
thousand cubic feet

Total

1,484
1,469
3,025
3,889
1,544
874

208
335

19,897

12,829

12,529

18,350

10,287

10,045

8,447

4,687

3,897

2,640

1,707

1,604

718

498

1,545

76,952

21,742

27,199

15,170

15,206

10,668

5,874

3,971

2,905

2,176

1,604

797

820

1,545

109,677

Table 76. Net volume of salvable dead on commercial timberland by ownership
group and condition of dead. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic
feet) .

Condition of Dead Class

Ownership Group

No Defect

State and Other Public 1,788

Forest Industry 6,033

Other Private 12,076

Working Circle Total 19,897

Defect — Mostly Defect — Mostly
Physical Rot

thousand cubic feet

2,455 14,401

2,026 15,901

9,189 52,032

13,670

82,333

Total

18,643

23,960

73,296

115,900

-147-

Table 77. Net volume of salvable dead on commercial timberland by forest
type and condition of dead class, Working Circle 3 (thousand
cubic feet) .

Condition of Dead Class

Forest Type

Douglas-fir
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Western larch
Remaining

softwood types
Hardwood types
Total

No Defect
Standing Down

Defect — Defect —
Mostly Physical Mostly Rot
Standing Down Standing Down

Total

9,609

1,259

3,108

1,229

15,668

7,381

38,254

6,951

1,050

5,406

-

19,951

11,170

44,527

401

306

211

95

1,024

688

2,724

-

-

-

-

70

107

177

56

265

1,380

1,344

12,848

8,178

24,072

-

-

827

70

3,501

1,747

6,145

17,017 2,880

10,932 2,738

53,062 29,271

115,899

Table 78. Net volume of nonsalvable dead by diameter class and ownership

group on commercial timberland. Working Circle 3 (thousand cubic
feet) .

Ownership Group

Diameter Class

State and
Other Public

5.0 -

6.9

7.0 -

8.9

9.0 -

10.9

11.0 -

12.9

13.0 -

14.9

15.0 -

16.9

17.0 -

18.9

19.0 -

20.9

21.0 -

22.9

23.0 -

24.9

25.0 -

26.9

27.0 -

28.9

29.0+

Total

337
282
610
526
283
155
314
229
137
206
198
89
575
3,941

Forest

Industry

--thousand

177

592

761

661

367

390

545

782

408

356

282

165

389
5,873

Other
Private

cubic feet

1,208

1,177

2,148

1,952

1,549

935

1,167

1,021

567

434

521

476

1,145

14,299

Total

1,723
2,051
3,518
3,139
2,199
1,479
2,026
2,032
1,112

995
1,001

730

2,109

24,114

-148-

Table 79. Number of softwood and hardwood trees on coiranercial timberland by
tree class, salvable dead, and ownership group, Working Circle 3
(thousand trees) .

Ownership Group
and Tree Class

State and

Other Public
Desirable
Acceptable
Sound cull
Rotten cull
Salvable dead*

Species

Softwoods
# trees %

36,073

44,629

15,498

76

3,180

36.2

44.9

15.6

0.1

3.2

Total

99,457

100.0

Forest Industry

Desirable

32,283

28.7

Acceptable

58,435

51.9

Sound cull

17,702

15.7

Rotten cull

198

0.2

Salvable dead*

3,880

3.5

Total

112,498

100.0

Other Private

Desirable

168,903

39.4

Acceptable

175,760

41.0

Sound cull

70,952

16.5

Rotten cull

794

0.2

Salvable dead*

12,476

2.9

Total

428,884

100.0

Working Circle Totals

Desirable

237,260

37.0

Acceptable

278,823

43.5

Sound cull

104,152

16.2

Rotten cull

1,068

0.2

Salvable dead*

19,536

3.1

Hardwoods

# trees

%

thousand
913

trees-
36.6

1,277

51.1

36

1.4

16

0.7

255

10.2

2,497 100.0

588

65.2

289

32.1

**

***

2

0.2

23

2.5

902

100.0

5,554

35.2

8,561

54.3

347

2.2

160

1.0

1,153

7.3

15,776 100.0

7,056

36,8

10,127

52.8

383

2.0

178

0.9

1,431

7.5

# trees

%

36,987

36.3

45,905

45.0

15,534

15.2

92

0.1

3,435

3.4

101,954 100.0

32,871

29.0

58,724

51.8

17,702

15.6

199

0.2

3,903

3.4

113,400 100.0

174,457

39.2

184,321

41.5

71,299

16.0

954

0.2

13,629

3.1

444,660 100.0

Total

640,839 100.0

244,315

37.0

288,950

43.8

104,535

15.8

1,246

0.2

20,967

3.2

19,175 100.0

660,013 100.0

*The number of salvable dead trees includes only those trees with a d.b.h.
of 5.0 inches and larger. The number of live trees by tree class includes
all trees 1.0 inches at d.b.h. and larger.
**Indicates less than 500 trees.
***Indicates less than 0.05%

-149-

APPENDIX ^. WOOD PROCESSORS IN WORKING CIRCLE 3.

Table 80. Sawmills in Working Circle 3.

COMPANY

ANNUAL
PRODUCTION

SPECIES
PROCESSED

PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED

BEAVERHEAD COUNTY

Dillon

F.H. Stoltze Land

and Lumber Company

R & V Log and Lumber

Wisdom

Lee Kirkpatrick

10-25 MMBF

Less than
3 MMBF

Less than
3 MMBF

Wilke Brother's Sawmill 3-5 MMBF

DF
LPP
ES
WF

DF
LPP

DF

LPP

ES

BROADWATER COUNTY

Townsend
Dewey Cooper

Less than
3 MMBF

Wickes Forest Industries 10-25 MMBF

DF
PP
LPP

DF
ES
LPP

Dimension
1" Boards
Rough and
Surfaced

Dimension
1" Boards
Timbers
Studs
Ties

Portable
Sawmill

Dimension
1" Boards
Rough and
Surfaced
Timbers

Timbers

Ties

Rough

Dimension

Studs

Surfaced

GRANITE COUNTY
Philipsburg
Granite Timber Treating Less than

3 MMBF
Hall

Hall/Alt Lumber Co.

Magera Lumber

Sorenson Brothers
Lumber Co.

3-5 MMBF

3-5 MMBF

Less than
3 MMBF

Studs

1" Boards
Dimension
Rough

*InforTnation obtained from the 1983 Directory of Montana's Forest Products
Industry, Montana Department of State Lands, Forestry Division.

-150-

Table 80.
(Page 2)

COMPANY

ANNUAL
PRODUCTION

SPECIES
PROCESSED

PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED

JEFFERSON COUNTY

Boulder

Barton L. Cooper Sawmill Less than

3 MMBF

Portable
Sawmill

Earl Stagg House
Log Operator

Less than
3 MMBF

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY

Helena

Champion Building

Products

E. Klos

Gean Debree

Morris Lumber Co.

Wolf Creek
R&R Lumber

East Helena

Warren Wood Sawmill

25-50 MMBF

DF

Studs

PP

Ties

LPP

ES,WF,WL

Less than

DF

Dimension

3 MMBF

PP

1" Boards

LPP

Rough

Less than

Portable

3 MMBF

Sawmill

Less than

3 MMBF

Less than

DF

Studs

3 MMBF

PP

Ties

LPP

Less than
3 MMBF

Dimension
1" Boards
Timbers

Part-Time
Sawmill

Lincoln
Woodhurst Lumber

Less than
3 MMBF

McAllister
Buds Boards

MADISON COUNTY

LPP
PP

Rough

1" Boards

Beams

Sheriden
DAF Logging

Twin Bridges
Iron Rod Sawmill

-151-

Table 80.
(Page 3)

COMPANY

ANNUAL
PRODUCTION

SPECIES
PROCESSED

PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURED

POWELL COUNTY

Deer Lodge
Joe Applegate

Less than
3 MMBF

Avon
Lawrence Beck

Less than
3 MMBF

Dimension

Deer Lodge
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

25-50 MMBF

DF

ES
LPP

Studs

Avon
Soren Beck

Less than
3 MMBF

Butte

Arthur Dick Sawmill

SILVER BOW COUNTY

Less than
3 MMBF

Ties
Timbers

Howard Stratton

Less than
3 MMBF

Montana Pole & Treating 3-5 MMBF

-152-

Table 81. Post and pole processors in Working Circle 3.

PROCESS PRESERVATIVE

COMPANY

Wisdom

USED

USED

BEAVERHEAD COUNTY

Raymond Weaver Post & Pole

Townsend

Townsend Post & Pole

BROADWATER COUNTY

DEER LODGE COUNTY

PRODUCTS
^4ANUFACTURED

Anaconda
Anaconda Post
& Pole

Thermal-Cold soak
— Non-pressure

Penta-oil born

Posts, Poles
Peeled &
Split
Rails &
Gates

GRANITE COUNTY

Porter's Corner
Granite Timber Treating

JEFFERSON COUNTY

Boulder

B.L. Cooper Post Yard

Gary Marks Post Cold soak — Non-pressure Penta-oil born

Whitehall
Pipestone Post
& Pole

Thermal--Non-pressure Penta-oil born

Posts
Poles

Posts
Poles
Rails

Lincoln
Blackfoot
Treating Plant

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY

Thermal — Non-pressure Penta-oil born

Bouma Post Yard Cold soak — Non-pressure Penta-oil born

MADISON COUNTY

Cameron

John Gecho Post & Pole

Posts
Poles
Rails

-153-

Table 81.
(Page 2)

COMPANY

PROCESS

USED

PRESERVATIVE

USED

PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURED

POWELL COUNTY

Elliston

Thomas Post Yard Thermal — Cold soak

Penta-oil born

Posts
Poles

SILVER BOW COUNTY

Butte

Montana Pole And

Treating Plant

Pressure

Penta-oil born

Posts

1" Boards

Ties

Poles, Timbers

Pilings

Table 82. Log home manufacturers in Working Circle 3.

COMPANY

AVERAGE NUMBER
OF HOMES
ANNUALLY

SPECIES
PROCESSED

TYPE OF
LOG HOME

Dillon

Hyland Log Homes

BEAVERHEAD COUNTY

Wisdom
Wilke Bros.
Sawmill Incorp.

10

Dead LPP

Tongue & Groove
Lap on Outside
to Cover Joint.

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY

Lincoln

Lincoln Log Cabins

50

Green LPP

Hand Peeled,
Sawn 2 Side

-154-

APPENDIX 5. DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT CODES

The purpose of this appendix is to define the stand characteristics which
make up each of the fourteen categories. In many cases, a stand may receive
more than one treatment code. Under each treatment code description below
there is a list of the other codes which may occur in combination with the one
being described.

Code 10: Harvest - high risk

Code 10 includes all commercial, non-vigorous, overmature stands, as
well as any merchantable stand which exhibits an unmanageable insect or
disease problem.

Lodgepole sawtimber stands which are over 100 years old are automatical-
ly included.

Possible combinations: None

Code 11: Harvest - low risk

This is a diverse category which includes the following types of stands:

1. All commercial stands older than 100 years which do not qualify as
high risk (they are of relatively better vigor than high risk
stands). If such a stand is dominated by shade tolerant species, it
is included here, regardless of age.

2. All commercial lodgepole stands which are 50-100 years old and non-
vigorous, and which have not qualified as high risk.

3. Various other stands containing commercial material which are not
manageable because of poor tree quality and vigor.

Possible combinations: None

Code 12: Commercial thinning

This category includes stands which are fully stocked to overstocked
with Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa or lodgepole pine, and which meet
all of the following characteristics:

1. Would yield commercial sawtimber if thinned.

2. Are less than 100 years old.

3. Are currently growing at less than full potential, but are capable of
release.

4. Do not exhibit unmanageable insect or disease problems.
Possible combinations: (12, 13), (12, 13, 22), (12, 22).

-155-

Code 13: Overstory removal

Code 13 includes any stand which contains commercial size trees in
excess of 1,000 b.f. per acre, and which also meets one of the following
conditions:

The trees in question are relicts, i.e., not part of the manageable stand
component.

The trees in question represent the upper story of a two storied stand,
but they are inadequately stocked to be treated as a separate
management component.

Possible combinations: (13, 22, 33), (12, 13), (12, 13, 22), (13, 33),
(13, 22), (13, 22, 23), (13, 20), (13, 20, 23), (13, 20, 22, 23),
(13, 23), (13, 21).

Code 14: Two storied stand (overstory, harvest - high risk; understory,
manageable)

This category is made up of two storied sawtimber stands meeting the
requirements of treatment code 10. The following conditions also exist:

1. The overstory has a crown density of 10-50%.

2. One or more of the following treatment codes is indicated for the
understory: 12, 20, 22, 30, or 33.

Code 15: Two storied stand (overstory, harvest - low risk; understory,
manageable)

Two storied sawtimber stands meeting the requirements of treatment code
11, plus the following conditions, are assigned this code:

1. The overstory has a crown density of 10-50%.

2. One or more of the following treatment codes is indicated for the
understory: 12, 20, 22, 30, or 33.

Code 20 : Precommercial thinning

There are two general types of stands which qualify for precommercial
thinning. These are:

1. Seedling and/or sapling stands which contain a manageable compo-
nent of desirable or acceptable crop trees, but which will suffer
growth loss from competition prior to reaching merchantable size,
if stocking is not reduced.

2. Sapling to pole size Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa or lodge-
pole pine which meet all of the following characteristics:

a. Stand is currently growing at less than full potential because
of competition.

-156-

b. There is a fully stocked, manageable component which is capa-
ble of release.

c. Thinning would not yield merchantable material, and would not
involve the felling of near-merchantable trees.

Possible combinations: (13, 20), (13, 20, 23), (20, 23), (13, 20, 22,
23), (20, 22, 23), (13, 20, 22), (20, 22).

Code 21: Stand conversion

This treatment code automatically implies the need for regeneration,
following conversion.

Stands which qualify for this category include all precommercial stands
which have unmanageable insect or disease problems. Also included are non-
vigorous precommercial stands which would not be capable of release, if
thinned. In the case of lodgepole pine, it includes all non- vigorous stands
which are older than 50 years.

Seedling and sapling stands which are grossly understocked with crop
trees, but which contain a significant stocking of undesirable (excess) trees,
are also included under this category.

Possible combinations: (13, 21).

Code 22: Sanitation

This code applies to all crop stands whose health can be improved
through intermediate cuttings, i.e., cuttings which reduce the source of the
insect or disease problem (not applicable for most defoliating insect prob-
lems) .

This category does not include stands which are in need of commercial
harvest or precommercial stand coversion because of insects or disease, low
vigor, or stagnation. It applies only to stands which can be sanitized and
managed as a crop stand.

Possible combinations: (13, 22, 33), (22, 33), (12, 13, 22), (12, 22),
(13, 22), (13, 22, 23), (22, 23), (13, 20, 22), (20, 22), (13, 20, 22,
23), (20, 22, 23).

Code 23: Regeneration of understocked areas

Code 23 includes all precommercial stands which are inadequately stocked
with desirable or acceptable crop trees. The minimum standard for adequate
crop tree stocking is 210 trees per acre, with at least 70% of the area
stocked.

This code by no means implies a particular method of regenerating
understocked areas. Under code 23, options may exist for use of existing
seed sources, site preparation, planting, direct seeding, or combinations of
these methods. In many cases, this treatment code represents situations
where the stocking of undesirable excess trees must be reduced prior to
supplementing the existing understocked crop stand with additional regen-
eration. In such cases, this treatment would occur in combination with
precommercial thinning (code 20).

■157-

It should also be noted that regeneration needs which are associated with
stand conversion (code 21) are separate from those under code 23.

Possible combinations: (13, 22, 23), (22, 23), (13, 20, 23), (20, 23),
(13, 20. 22, 23), (20, 22, 23), (13, 23),

Code 30: No treatment due to productive condition

Stands in this category are adequately stocked with productive crop
trees, for timber management purposes. In the case of very young stands,
stocking of undesirable (excess) competition is minimal, and should not impact
growth rates on crop trees before merchantable size is attained. In the case
of large sapling to small sawtimber stands, the crop trees are currently
growing at or near full potential for their age and the site, and are expected
to continue to do so for several years.

There are no significant insect or disease problems associated with
stands in this category, with the possible exception of defoliators which have
not affected the manageability of the stand.

Possible combinations: None

Code 32: No treatment - Inoperable

This category includes all stands on sites which are considered inopera-
ble, using current, conventional Montana logging systems (balloon and heli-
copter systems are not considered conventional in Montana) .

Generally, slopes steeper than 80% are considered inoperable at the
present time. Other inoperable situations include very rocky areas, where
road building and logging might be difficult, or an otherwise operable site
which has no operable access routes.

This code is not assigned using the key, but is based on field obser-
vations.

Code 33: No treatment - Defer until merchantable

Code 33 includes poletimber to small sawtimber size stands of trees whose
growth rates could be improved through thinning, but not without the loss of
near-merchantable material. Because growth rates and tree quality are ac-
ceptable (but not optimal), stands in this category are deferred from treat-
ment until the stand emerges into a size class where commercial treatment
options exist. However, stands in this category may qualify for overstory
removal (code 13) and/or sanitation (code 22), even though the crop stand
has been deferred from thinning. In other words, the "No treatment" label
applies only to the main stand component.

Possible combinations: (13, 22, 33), (22, 33), (13, 33).

Code 40: Unknown - Poor crowns, good growth

This is a fairly unique but well defined category for which the data
compiled in the stand treatment analysis does not provide enough information
to make a logical decision.

-158-

All stands under code 40 possess the following characteristics:

1. Fully stocked Douglas-fir, western larch, or ponderosa pine sap-
lings, poles, or small sawtimber.

2. Growth rates at or near full potential.

3. Poor crown ratios (less than 30%).

4. No unmanageable insect or disease problems.

The problem in this situation is that the compiled data fails to explain
why a stand would have poor crown ratios, but also good growth rates during
the last ten (10) years. Have crowns recently become suppressed from
competition? In this case, the next ten years' growth might be much lower.
Or, has this stand been released during the last ten years? In this case,
the crown ratios may be improving, even though they are presently unaccept-
able.

Because the data summary does not answer the above questions, the
treatment opportunities are not logically defined for such a stand.

Possible combinations: None

-159-

■160-

APPENDIX 6. LOCATION RECORD SHEET AND TREE DATA SHEET

UJ-

•EC
<_>
CD

oa

Kvi.nv

■av)3

s; 'i-.-.ii

V

-fc-<*=

n::s cw.'is

'i:iii(M 'lanj

-v9

To

i^

«o

«o

<N2

O

GO

LU
UJ

2.:

(/3

cc:
o
o

UJ

z:
o

<
O

o

NOI1VA313; ;;; i \n\ Q.

\ A3Auns p

' JO L:

o

CO
LU
Q

Z

o

<

o
o

SIIW'IdMXjJ

:-,■ I'll

DMl'oVJ

■Kin

Lso: QKJ

CO I O

ro

V7

v<»

a

o

u
s

w IS

o ISI

^vS
3

c^

^4

Eh tH

t/) LO

M M

0» CO

^

\»

So

i^ Cb fii

H '-n (/I

M

2 X >i

E

^

?^

n

k

1

o w o

E" 1^ H

O O O

K 05 nc

di IX li

«

o

&"
^

^^^

iJ u u

ru s H

M fS <

U. 2 Q

7

X
^

(N^

4

V

M

w
u

M W W

fci 3 Eh

Ch rS <

O 2 a

fc.

m

o

J?

-161-

'/)

m-

0)
CC

<

5
ai

CC

cr

*
c

<

— i

(.

r^

>^

CD
LO
CO

h -

O

-J

1

>0

y>

tn

^

u.'

I—

•a:

CD

_J

0

UJ

i

z
o

1-

0.

o

s

U--

s

s

u^

rfi

'dMo:> 'Zi'do/i

s

(*\

0^

s

w

<i

ci

- m

•iisri-t '(jjoi

m

^

-J

J^

>-[

^

-S

in

fo

0

IVLl^VH

^1

H

^

-J

w

oj

W

3

•n

>*

r

— .

-3

—

s

LxJ
1

or:

►— *
q::

?

fVl

^

«n

l-^

(^

fx

1 -

1

1

7

1 i
^ 1 1

^

s;>3i3 r

i^

g

X

■aN03 avaa

■^

i;

5

ro

CO

o

1-
<
o
til

-1

o

UJ
LU
CC

h-

h-
Z
UJ

LU

CC

<

UJ

LLI
UJ
□C

t-

/]3ai

^

^

<:i

0

0

0

0

0

lo

';! c>

«n

i:>

0

— ,

0

<b

n

^

.i-

^

^-

—

^

ci

—

^

•^1 —

V?

r>^_

^

w

w

u^

0

V

Hi/3a jo3snvo

(3DV/iVa

"^

—

—

—

c^

H

—

J-,

^^,

cs —

cvi ^

in

0

0

0

—

— «

0

•V

0 1

— 1 0

—1 —

■^

s.oi -:>.'A lOi

TT

1

<H ff—

<r-

,0-4<5-

- 1 <ar 1 1 j<s— ! «-

j<J~I QT-

T

iDSjdO if;i

■:,■

<r-

cr~

vH<J~"

a~i<3~|

0-1 i [«H«r-

ic— t c-

■«

rj

o

i03Jaa

c

^

—

-^

— *-

c4 <S

;

ol

rjl-H

c>l

:;

^

t^

—

—

— ■

-J —

:t

—■

loil--

0^

0

STATE

NOIllSOd AdONVD

-~»

— -

—

—

—

S

—

-H

{'-'

. — •

.0

r.rV.OL'O "iSd

■:?

—

—

- —

- —

— 1 "^

J?

— '

—

—

s

ssv^D ao 1 S

ir^

c^

«r»

^«^|C\

n

<A 1 Ic'JIcO

1 IcO

«*A

n

Olivj 'JO 1 ^

\Vo

^3-

■3-

— 1-3-tr;*-i

1,^

vn J-

Vi^l^rL i ^iV/'

J=

H-

30V

33ai

«^

>-

•Tl°

Vo

c>r ^

0

(-1

t»^

^

**1

io

\n

0

UJ

V

0

^
0

—

0

0

t-t

CO

MlMObDCVb
bV3Jk0l

ri

"^■"

TT

"c^

c-^

^

1^

k--*

0

Trt

V-

w>

«n

<

;^

— J

0

<^

0

0

0

n

<

J.H0I3H

n

c^

cj

n

0 0

v^

.-t

s

-3J

w

9^

0

C3

o

r

^

U)

=»- r-

r~-

rj

^

tf»

in

t7

•3-

UJ

s

0

0

•o»

^^ ol

i^S

^

c>»

0

0

0

0

03

oc

HOQ

iNi

-^

\a

c^

-zrpr-

r-

cv

cO

^

CO

r-1

M

(N

1 —

U3

^

0

-A

<Nl

0

.0

r"

Vn

H

rr-

cS

to

<
<

•n

^■<^\-

^

«-*

—

—

z
o

1-
<
o

U-

t-

2
UJ

Q

Ul

UJ

CC

S3l03dS

r>l

c4

^

^

f>l

^

'^

CH

C^

cA.

c«/

cK

•*

1—

<N

0

0

0

Q

0

0

c~.

0

0

0

0

A

0

^^*

ol

(S

ci

o(

cA

CN

(N

^

-^

c^

H

<>i

3003
33UinilS

7:.

U

/

Vo

?^

\l\

;;

0

^

>^

<r-

0

T-

0

r—

AUOl^JIH
3JU1

-

—

-^

.

;.

_

__

o»

LU

<n

0

0

c>>

0

0

0

2?

•0

0

c>

0

c

«

lU
X
CO

30NV1SI0

-

0-1

«4

[-3-

C~

l/T

cO|

-

ZT-

k

CTO

0

^

-

£

—

—

0

—

— .

-

0

—

—

^

<

1-

HiriMI/V

"J

T.S

«

\a

-.^

0

0

-

-I

vc

r-

-J-

V)

-

<^

U

r-

->

<C^

0

•J

C^

r-

^

0

cr*

«

<

-

■0

—

0/

t\

r<>

-

r(»

H

Ci

ci

l-t

Q

33U1

c-

— c4

«A

-g-

V)

J

■."

el

-

cH

rst

LU
LJ

:.

0 0

0

0

0

0

r

0

*3

0

-Q

0

0

INIOd

0

^ ol

(S

f>4

H

c>(

of

i-

(^

-^

-^

;j-

u

lo

Vn

CFt

0

0 0

0

0

^

i:^

<i

c-

<:i

<5

0

0

0

0

0

0

<•

^

^.

¥

y

r

V

/

r

— '

F

'^

*-

-r

-162-

APPENDIX 7. FOREST LAND GRAZING DATA SHEET AND SAMPLE

SCS GRAZING GUIDE

MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF FORESTRY

Location

County 6f</IMlT/^

WOODLAND RANGE FORAGE CONDITION RECORD

/^"^ Crew sr^i/£ Tcf^C'Trz/SoA/ - j£ff A'i^p/^Aii^/c

Date /(;///// K

Working Circle f^J,

State Forest

Species

Column A
Present Percent
Composition by Wt.

Column B
Present Percent
Composition Allowed

DECREASERS :

fl}< irPH'^

JO

30

INCREASE RS:

f^))JL /if^/)5S

3S

fC

^ifr>Octt/ /^ac

r

INVADERS: ^p,rir^

'0

T

s

A ( M-o.'uf- /^LUr c.f^/^:;s

T

Percent Composition

Condition Class Rating

100%

xxxx

Aq_

%

Condition

Guide Sheet c?ou(, Fj/^ ^U^-^My Precipitation Zone :2I_

— :,^ cTrcle One

Crown Density ^ io-^n } 30-50 ^S^^O^ — _ 70+

10-30y XQ-^° ..5Xi^'5« — . 70H
Soil Depth ^eelp^alTa Moderatery Deep J^J^ Shallow and Coarse

"• — Very~Shallow (10")

Greater Effective Moisture YES (^)

REMARKS : /){,.^) 'S - . ■ 3S it.di^.t^ALllL^-:^'^'"'^^ ' ^ J ^

-163-

O i-i
Ul u

-1 <

9£

O O
H (J

o o

U Vi
teJ

-«»

is

o o

bd w

I

§

3 W

Z

U U

s,e

1;^

< V

a

w

o c

«

C w
B > ^

H

•-a

R

U V ^

<B «

a c -

vox

^

4

• o m

5

3 W -1

a.

M

1

W (Q

5 4) 6C «3 -O

k. 3 « ^ <0

Xlo. 3«) VO&I&I

tfi ^--«l 60*j3^

-« «c-o3 ^* fo*-"

(D "lie— PCCV)

w

3 T3 « O X^ » D. O O -<

c

C4IU'0--J£ >.4jCtf)--*-j:

C4tM4> — 0«^^-* www

3

^>w*J a»3-D«-'w4l>-n)-CI

^

<Ouui OaiUHHi-JQXtn

o

« o

/>

C r^

00

V <

lA 1 •

in »n t t

O O O irt

c

o

o o

c

T)

Q.

^

a

u

=)

4>

o

V

> O

2

O Ml

I'

U 1

O ' trt

O O I •

O lA tn »

l><

(0

o

o

o
u

g^

il

o

-a

u

u

u

00

4-1

g

o

c

<u r>

.J

V I

m irt lA

1 1 U^ Ul

W-t 1 • 1

M

h o

3

>

q)

H --^

j:

tn

o

9

u

P

o

C
C
<

X

..

a.

•o

b

(Q

«

<N

u

u

3

^

V

•u

(U

CO

0

5

CL.

W O

C r^

M

w

(&

V 1

O I •

O O t t

m irt ir> O

U.<

Jl

o O

*N

fN --•

^■4 ^

u

!.• Ut

"O

o

V

01

V

M

o.

*J ^->.

3

a

u

>

<u

01

H

£

> o

0 lA

U 1
U3 3

u <

o t tn

m tn 1 1

in *n tn Ml

a>

w

>

o

01

C
4>

Al

c n

4» OO

U

CL

M

(p

u

c

«

L.

u

<1 Ji

0«

o

u o

0

§

O

« 1

u-i u-t O

O t trt lA

oil"

*-» Ji

X

u o

C 73 •

J

^

H — '

01 C 0)
U <0 0)

M

Li Z 3

CO

a

4> ^^

Z

4>

5!

CD O

w

a k>

> * *<

b V

0 60 3

t) «e

U <0

(B «

U k*

CB

« 0)

C V 01
S > w

M

■

«

01 h

g

«

u

M U

o o to

&

u c

Li U 01

to

c

c -^

U k-

<

« «

)M

■" «

c a

S

C 3

CO

o. >

V y V

01 0 «

3 U

*J

ki t-> X o

^

«D -^ o>

0.«M O

b k<

m V

o. « o

O 00 ki o

H u *

<0 « Uh

(A 01 M

^ 1 4,

K *J 5 c

u b 3

k« -^

c a»

00 b o

•- O ^ 1-

V -^ £

W I. » -^

V 00 U 01

0)

C (0 (0

k< <o ^ a

£ « n £

«j

-- u -o

to V to 0

U U 0) «->

o

e. a. t-«

O X OQ J

O O CQ O

2

J -■

u

00 tn (A

41 w) U)

^ n <0 «J « U)

•O Li U « a 0)

V 00 00 <Q <a <Q

t/1

W 4> u M to w S
C ^oi •Q0000009

->.3«u5S*4i«<fl b XX

ac

u

(/I

<

^

5

D

«'-*V")C U 004IAb«V

u

-0^*fc.-<.-.«CT3Cfc- «»«V-JO£

a

>^> ^(QCSUUVXmuVWU

■£:V00§C-OWM*-tCuC>>^JK
<J33— 3T3 an) tf)«>--0l-000

-it^oooo— w«— ww&tcax

1

QC CO oe u

X Z 03 Ob

2 (/^ M (/)

</i w X O 1

o

3

o

H

Z

u
o

s

«J o o c

£ (0 cq a

CO U «J O.

.jr< L> u 4J

i:::

Li C C U)

*J O ^ -o

U to (0

W <n >

tu 01 c

tM 3 01 M

V *•! (0

(0 3 4)

^ > 3

E w -1

5 5C5

CO y •

> *- O C 4»

O O »J O N

^ VI ^ -^ -^

< U Li

g£ (0 <q

Lt J ■-< P

-4 J X. -^ 3

'SBi -

M to > 3 41

-164-

LITERATURE CITED

Davis, K.P., Forest Management; Regulation and Valuation, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1966 (Second Edition).

Farrenkopt, T.O., "On the Computation and Use of Stocking Percent," a
presentation made for the third annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain
Timber Inventory Technique Coordinating Committee, 1967.

Gingrich, S.F., "Criteria for Measuring Stocking of Forest Stands," Proceed-
ings for a Society of American Foresters meeting, 198-201, 1964.

Green, A.W., "Assessing the Timber Resource Situation on a Working Circle
using Inventory Data," USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-183,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, 1976.

Montana Department of State Lands (DSL), Forestry Division, Directory of
Montana's Forest Products Industry, 1983.

Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby, "Forest Habitat
Types of Montana," USDA Forest Service General Technical Representa-
tive. INT-34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Ogden, Utah, 1977.

Schmidt, W.C., R.C. Shearer, A.L. Roe, "Ecology and Silviculture of West-
ern Larch Forests, USDA Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1520, 1976.

USDA Forest Service, The Outlook for Timber in the United States. Forest
Resource Report No. 20, 1973.

USDA Forest Service, Forest Statistics of the U.S., 1977., 1978.

Wilson, A.K., R.E. Green and G.A. Choate, "Logging Residues on Sawlog

Operations, Idaho and Montana," USDA Forest Service, Research Paper,
INT-77, 1970.

-165-

-166-

GLOSSARY

Acceptable tree

Growing-stock tree of commercial species that does not qualify as a de-
sirable tree.

Access

The degree to which the range will be utilized. The factors affecting
grazability are slope, miles to the nearest stream, trails and roads in the
area, water developments, brush, slash, rocks and mechanical barriers.

Accretion

Annual increase in net volume of trees in a size class, and the increase
in net volume of trees after reaching a measured size class during the
year.

Allowable cut

The volume of timber that would be cut on commercial forest land during
a given period under specified management plans for sustained produc-
tion such as those in effect on national forests.

Animal Unit

One mature (1,000 pound) cow with or without an unweaned calf, or the
equivalent. A mature bull is 1.3 animal units, a mature horse is 1.25
animal units, a mature sheep is 0.2 of an animal unit, a mature elk is
0.7 of an animal unit, and a mature deer is 0.2 of an animal unit.

Animal unit month

The amount of forage required by an animal unit for one month.

Area condition class

A classification of commercial forest land based upon stocking by desir-
able trees and other conditions affecting current and prospective timber
growth.

Basal area

A measure of square feet of space occupied by the stem of a tree. This
measurement is made at breast height.

Basal area factor

The basal or stem area per unit of stand area for a given angle for each
tree intercepted from a given point.

Basal area standard

Sixty percent of normal basal area usually for trees 0.6 inches d.b.h.
and larger.

Bureau of Land Management lands

Federal land administered by the USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Census water

Water areas of more than 40 acres and water courses more than 1/8 mile
wide.

-167-

Climax series

A group of habitat types that at climax will be dominated by the same
tree species.

Commercial species

Tree species presently or prospectively suitable for industrial wood
products.

Commercial thinning

A thinning in which the cut trees are large enough to be removed and
utilized, regardless of whether their sale offsets the cost of the thin-
ning.

Commercial timberland

Forest land producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood
and not withdrawn from timber utilization. (Note: Areas qualifying as
productive forest land have the capability of producing in excess of 20
ft^/acre/year of industrial wood under management. Currently inaccessi-
ble and inoperable areas are included, except where the areas involved
are small and unlikely to become suitable for production of industrial
wood in the foreseeable future).

Condition class

A method of expressing the general health of the range by comparing
the expected percentage of the climax composition contributed by each
species to the actual composition. No invaders (plants present only be-
cause of a disturbance, such as grazing) are counted and only the
amount of increasers (plants that increase under grazing pressure) that
would be present at climax are included. All of the decreasers (plants
that decrease under grazing pressure) are counted.

County and municipal lands

Lands owned by counties and local public agencies or municipalities, or
lands leased to these governmental units for 50 years or more.

Crown class

A classification of trees based on dominance in relation to adjacent
trees in the stand as indicated by crown development and amount of
light received from above and the sides.

Crown density

The percentage of the forest floor that is covered by tree crowns. For-
est land with greater than 70% crown density is considered to have no
range value for livestock.

Cull

Portions of a tree that are unusable for industrial wood products because
of rot, form, or other defect.

Decreaser (decreasing range plant)

Plants which decrease under heiivy grazing pressure. These are usually
the more palatable plants and the ones that the livestock prefer to eat.

-168-

Diameter breast height (d.b.h.)

The diameter of a tree at a point 4^ feet above the ground on the tree's
uphill side. Height of d.b.h. may vary on abnormally formed trees.

Desirable tree

Live noncull trees of commercial species are divided into two classes:
desirable and acceptable. For a tree to be desirable it must be free
from disease, of good form, potentially not more than 10 percent defect
of disease or fire scar, of good vigor, and not excessively limby if saw-
timber. A tree will be considered to have good vigor if it has 40 per-
cent or more crown (exception: ponderosa pine, and aspen may have on-
ly 30 percent crown to be classed as desirable). It is the kind of tree
that would be favored in cultural operations or featured in management
in under rotation-age stands. Mature trees (over rotation age) of com-
mercial size with less than 20 percent defect and expected to live 10
years are low-risk trees and may also be classed as desirable trees. A
species which is not adapted to the site should be classified as sound
cull.

Diameter Classes

A classification of trees based on diameter outside bark, measured at
breast height (4i feet above the ground). Note: D.b.h.. is the common
abbreviation for diameter at breast height. Two-inch diameter classes
are commonly used in Forest Survey, with the even inch of the approxi-
mate midpoint for a class. For example, the 6-inch class includes trees
5.0 through 6.9 inches d.b.h., inclusive).

Farmer-rancher lands

Lands owned by individuals with a minimum of 40 acres.

Fixed radius plot

For this inventory a 1/300 acre (6.8 feet radius), circular plot, located
at each sample point on which live trees up to 4.99 inches d.b.h. are
tallied.

Forest industry

Lands owned by companies or individuals operating wood-using plants.

Forest land

Land at least 16.7 percent stocked by forest trees, or formerly having
such tree cover, and not currently developed for nonforest use. Forest
land does not include land currently developed for nonforest uses such
as urban or thickly settled residential or resort areas, city parks,
orchards, improved roads, or pasture lands improved by such measures
as seeding or irrigation. The minimum area for classification of forest
land is one acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of timber
must be at least 120 feet wide to qualify as forest land. Unimproved
roads, trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classed as
forest land if they are less than 120 feet wide.

Forest types

A classification of forest land based upon the dominant species forming a
plurality of stocking based on area occupied in the present tree cover.

■169-

Fish, Wildlife, and Park Land

Land administered by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks.

Grazability

The degree to which the range will be utilized. The factors affecting
grazability are slope, miles to the nearest stream, trails and roads in
the area, water developments, brush, slash, rocks and mechanical barri-
ers.

Gross growth

Annual increase in net volume of trees in the absence of cutting and
mortality. It includes ingrowth and accretion.

Growing-stock trees

Live trees of commercial species qualifying as desirable or acceptable
trees. (Excludes rough, rotten, and dead trees.)

Growing stock volume

Net volume in cubic feet of live sawtimber trees and live poletimber
trees (all trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger) from stump to a minimum
4.0 inch top (of central stem) outside bark. Net volume equals gross
volume less deduction for rot and missing bole sections.

Habitat type

An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing similar
plant communities at climax.

Hardwoods

Dicotyledonous trees, usually board-leaved and deciduous.

Increaser (increasing range plant)

Plants which increase under heavy grazing pressure. These are usually
less palatable plants.

Indian lands

Tribal lands held in fee by the Federal Government, but administered for
Indian tribal groups and Indian trust allotments.

Ingrowth

The number or net volume of trees that grow large enough in diameter
during a specified year to qualify as saplings, pole timber, or sawtim-
ber.

Inoperable stand

Any stand on a site that is considered inoperable using current, conven-
tional Montana logging systems (balloon and helicopter systems are not
considered conventional in Montana) . A more detailed explanation is giv-
en under treatment code 3<i in Appendix 5.

Invader (invading range plant)

Plants that are not part of the climax cover but which invade under hea-
vy grazing pressure. Few invaders are preferred by livestock and many
are worthless.

-170-

Land use influence zones

Zones delineated around areas or regions where it is likely that other
nontimber uses or environmental constraints would have an impact on
availability of timber.

Mean annual increment

A measure of the volume of wood, in cubic feet, produced on 1 acre
during 1 year. Forest Survey minimum standard for commercial forest
land is the ability to produce 20 ft^ /acre/year.

Miscellaneous federal

Federal lands other than national forest lands, lands administered by the
USDI Bureau of Land Management, or Indian lands.

Mortality

Number of sound-wood volume of growing stock trees dying from natural
causes during a specified period.

Mortality tree

A tree of commercial species, 5.0 inches d.b.h., or larger standing or
down, that has died within the past 5 years and was not a cull tree at
the time of death.

National forest land

Federal lands which have been designated by executive order or statute
as national forests or purchase units and other lands under the admini-
stration of the USD A Forest Service, including experimental areas.

Net annual growth

The increase in net volume of a specified size class for a specific year.
(Note: Components of net annual growth include the increment in net
volume of trees at the beginning of the specific year surviving to its
end, plus net volume of trees reaching the size class during the year,
minus the net volume of trees that died during the year, minus the net
volume of trees that became rough or rotten trees during the year) .
Net growth figures in this in this publication when expressed as
ft^ /acre/year of growing stock are for all live growing stock trees 5.0
inches d.b.h. and larger.

Net volume

The gross volume of a tree less deductions for rot, sweep, or other de-
fect affecting use for wood products.

Noncommercial forest land

Forest land incapable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial
wood under management, because of adverse site conditions, includes on-
ly nonreserved forest land.

Noncommercial species

Tree species of typically small size, poor form, or inferior quality
which normally do not develop into trees suitable for industrial wood
products.

-171-

Nonforest land

Land that has never supported forests and lands formerly forested where
use for timber management is precluded by development for other uses.
It includes areas used for crops, improved pasture, residential areas,
city parks, improved roads of any width and adjoining clearings, power-
line clearings of any width and 1 to 40 acres of water classified by the
Bureau of the Census as land. If intermingled in forest areas, unim-
proved roads and nonforest strips must be more than 120 feet wide, and
clearings, etc., more than 1 acre in size to qualify as nonforest land.

Nonsalvable dead

Dead trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger, standing and down, and less
than 50 percent sound on a cubic-foot basis.

Firm rotten: Tree is less than 50 percent sound on a cubic-foot basis.
More than half the total volume loss is due to rot and less than half is
due to such defects as excessive sweep and crook. Tree or potential
product sections are firm enough to hold together if handled.

Crumbly rotten: Tree is less than 50 percent sound on a cubic-foot
basis. More than half the total volume loss is due to rot and less than
half is due to such defects as excessive sweep and crook. Tree or
potential product sections will not hold together if handled.

Nonstockable

Areas of forest land not capable of supporting seedlings of commercial
species because of the presence of rock, water, roads, etc.

Nonstocked land

Commercial forest land less than 16.7 percent stocked with growing stock
trees .

Normal basal area

The basal area at which all growing space is effectively occupied but
having ample room for development of the crop trees.

Old-growth sawtimber stands

Sawtimber stands in which 50 percent or more of the area is occupied by
old-growth sawtimber trees.

Other forest land

See noncommercial forest land

Other private ownership group

The ownership group that consists of land owned bv farmers, ranchers,
miscellaneous private corporations, and miscellaneous private individuals.

Other private corporate

Land owned by corporations not in the forest industry.

Other private individual

Lands smaller than 40 acres owned by individuals.

■172-

Other state lands

State land other than state forests, land board, and Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks.

Ownership class

The finest level of ownership used in this report. The classes are:
miscellaneous federal, Department of State Lands-Classified Forest Land
and Classified Grazing Land, county and municipal, Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, other state, forest industry, farmer-ran-
cher, other private corporate, and other private individual.

Ownership group

Convenient groups of ownership classes. The groups are: State and
other public, forest industry, and other private.

Poletimber stands

Stands at least 16.7 percent stocked with growing stock trees of which
50 percent or more of this stocking is in pole timber and/ or sawtimber
trees, and with pole timber stocking exceeding that of sawtimber.

Pole timber trees

Trees at least 5.0 inches in diameter at breast height but smaller than
9.0 inches for softwoods and 11.0 inches for hardwoods.

Potential growth

Or yield capability is defined as mean annual increment of growing stock
attainable in fully stocked natural stands at the age of culmination of
mean annual increment. When expressed in cubic feet of growing stock,
unless specified otherwise, the volume figure includes all surviving live
trees 1.0 inches d.b.h. and larger, for most tree species. See Brickell
(1970) for further information.

Precommercial thinning

A thinning in which the cut trees are too small to be removed and util-
ized.

Productive-reserved forest land

Forest land sufficiently productive to qualify as commercial forest land,
but withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, administrative
designation, or exclusive use for Christmas-tree production.

Rotation

The period of years between establishment of a stand of timber and the
time when it is considered ready for cvitting regeneration.

Rotten trees

Live trees of commercial species that do not contain at least one 12-foot
sawlog or two noncontiguous sawlogs, each 8 feet long or longer, now or
prospectively and/ or do not meet regional specifications for freedom from
defect primarily because of rot; that is, when more than 50 percent of
the cull volume in a tree is rotten.

■173-

Rough trees

(1) Live trees of commercial species that do not contain at least one 12-
foot sawlog or two noncontiguous sawlogs, each 8 feet long or lon-
ger, now or prospectively, and/or do not meet regional specifica-
tions for freedom from defect primarily because of roughness or
poor form.

(2) All live trees of noncommercial species.

Salvable dead

Standing and down dead trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger and more
than 50 percent sound on a cubic foot basis.

No defect: Tree has no rot, and no defect such as excessive sweep and
crook.

Defect-mostly physical: Tree is more than 50 percent sound on a cubic-
foot basis. Less than half the total volume loss is due to rot and more
than half is due to such defects as excessive sweep and crook.

Defect-mostly rot: Tree is more than 50 percent sound on a cubic-foot
basis. More than half of the total volume loss is due to rot and less
than half is due to such defects as excessive sweep and crook. Tree or
potential product sections are firm enough to hold together if handled.

Sanitation

Improving the health of a stand through intermediate cuttings which re-
duce the source of the insect or disease problem.

Saplings

Treeg 1.0 inches to 4.0 inches in diameter at breast height.

Sawlog

A section of a tree stem of sufficient size to yield commercial size dimen-
sion lumber.

Sawtimber trees

Softwood trees which are 9.0 inches and larger and hardwood trees
which are 11.0 inches and larger in diameter at breast height.

Sawtimber volume

Net volume in board feet of sawtimber trees of commercial species. Net
volume equals gross volume less deduction for rot, sweep, crook, and
other defects that affect use for lumber.

Scribner Rule

The common board-foot log rule used in determining volume of sawtimber
in the Western states.

Seedlings

Live trees less than 1.0 inch in diameter at breast height.

Seedling-sapling stands

Stands at least 16.7 percent stocked with growing stock trees in which
more than half of the stocking is saplings and/or seedlings.

■174-

Site Class

A classification of forest land in terms of inherent capacity to grow
crops of industrial wood. Site classifications are based upon the mean
annual growth of growing stock (not including thinnings) attainable in
fully stocked stands at culmination of mean annual growth. Height-age
relationships are usually used as indicators of the specified volume-site
class.

Site index class

A measure of site productivity based upon the height of trees at a given
base age. Site index classes are height classes represented by a
graphed curve of height over age for each class.

Site trees

Trees measured for height and age, used to estimate site index.

Softwoods

Coniferous trees, usually evergreen, having needle or scale-like leaves.

Stand density

A quantitative measure of a stand in terms of square feet of basal area,
number of trees, or volume per acre. It reflects the degree of crowding
of stems within the area.

Stand-size class

A classification of forest land based on the class of growing stock trees
on the area, that is, sawtimber, pole timber, or seedlings and saplings.
(Note: Only those trees that contribute to no more than 16 percent of
stocking at a plot point, based upon a 10-point location, will be consid-
ered in determining stand-size class) .

State and other public ownership group

The ownership group that consists of state, county, municipal, and mis-
cellaneous federal land.

State forest

Lands administered by the Department of State Lands that are managed
as a unit.

State forest land

State owned land that is principally valuable for forest and watershed
cover that is classified as forest and administered by the Department of
State Lands.

State grazing land

State owned land that is principally valuable for forage production that
is classified as grazing and administered by the Department of State
Lands.

Stocking

Stocking is an effort to express the extent to which growing space is ef-
fectively utilized by present or potential growing-stock trees or commer-
cial species. "Percent of stocking" is synonymous with "percentage of
growing space occupied" and means the ratio of actual stocking to full

■175-

stocking for comparable sites and stands. Basal area is used as a basis
for measuring stocking.

"Stocking percentages" express current area occupancy in relation to
specified standards for full stocking based on number, size, and spacing
of trees considered necessary to fully utilize the forest land.

Full utilization of the site is assumed to occur over a range of basal
area. As an interim guide, 60 percent of the normal yield table values
has been used to establish the lower limit of this range which represents
full site occupancy. This is called 100-percent stocking. The upper
limit of full stocking has been set at 133 percent. Sites with less than
100-percent stocking represent under-stocking with less than full site
occupancy. Over-stocking is characterized by sites that have over 133
percent stocking.

Tertiary deposits

Rock and materials deposited in the period of geologic time previous to
the current period, which ran from about 65 million to about 2.5 million
years ago.

Tree class

A classification assigned to each live tree based on such physical charac-
teristics as surface and internal defects, crown ratio, crown class, and
damage sustained by the tree. (See also desirable tree, acceptable tree,
rough tree, and rotten tree).

Tree size class

A classification of trees primarily according to diameter at breast
height outside bark, including sawtimber trees, pole timber trees, sap-
lings, and seedlings.

Unproductive forest land

Forest land incapable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial
wood under natural conditions, because of adverse site conditions.
(Note: Adverse conditions include sterile soils, dry climate, poor drcdn-
age, high elevation, steepness, and rockiness).

Variable radius plot

A plot on which a predetermined critical angle is projected from a central
point, and swept in a full circle, to determine the basal area, tree
count, and volume per unit of area. The radius of this plot is a func-
tion of tree basal area and is therefore variable.

Young-growth sawtimber stands

Sawtimber stands in which 50 percent or more of the stand is occupied
by young-growth sawtimber trees.

Young-growth sawtimber trees

Sawtimber trees less than 100 years old.

-176-

MONTANA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS

DIVISION OF FORESTRY

MISSOULA, MONTANA

700 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of
$7.28 per copy, for a total cost of $5,100.00, which includes $5,100.00 for
printing and $.00 for distribution.