MONTANA STATE LIBRARY Communicating Issues and Ideas Important to the Management of Montana's State Forest Lands SFLMP Guidance Tom Schultz The first installment of implementation guidance for the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP) has been dis- tributed to the field. As you may have noticed, some of the guidance is in draft form, while other guidance is in final form. The Forest Management Bureau (FMB), after dis- cussion with the area managers, decided to release the guid- ance in final form if it had been developed through a work- ing group. Working groups were convened for biodiversity, wildlife, road management, and weeds. All other guidance, with the exception of the Water Quality Monitoring Pro- gram (Watershed RMS 3, 18, 19, and 20), will be distrib- uted in draft form. Currently, final guidance has been distributed for big game, sensitive species (animals), threatened and endangered (T&E) species, and road management. Weed management should be distributed as final by early April. The draft Wa- ter Quality Monitoring Program Guidance is currently be- ing reviewed by the State Land Board and should be final- ized by mid- April. (See the article by George Mathieus later in this newsletter for more information about the Water Quality Monitoring Program.) Final biodiversity guidance should be distributed by the end of April after the final work- ing group convenes. Comments on draft guidance for graz- ing, fisheries, and watershed are due by April 20, and this set of guidance should be distributed as final by mid-May. Sensitive plants should be distributed in draft form by mid- April, and distributed as final by early June. Remember, there are ten resource categories (biodiversity, silviculture, road management, watershed, fisheries, T&E species, sensitive species, big game, grazing, and weed man- agement) that have associated standards; however, not all resource management standards (RMS) have guidance. In accordance with the SFLMP Implementation Schedule (dated 9/30/96), RMS that show “NG” in the “Guidance” column will not be provided with any subsequent guidance on SFLMP implementation. The reason for this is ^at most RMS are self-explanatory and need no further guidance from FMB on how to implement them. Guidance is provided as a tool to assist land office and unit staff in interpreting and implementing the various RMS. Implementation of this guidance will be phased in. For projects that are proposed or just starting, this guidance should be applied; however, if a project has already started, but still is in the developmental stages, apply the guidance as best you can without causing substantial delays. FMB strongly recommends that all units utilize the guidance and provide feedback to FMB as you work with the guidance. Final guidance is not set in stone; however, we ask that you work with the guidance for six months before compiling a multitude of proposed changes. Comments on draft guid- ance should be addressed to the author of the guidance, and comments on fi- nal guidance should be addressed to Tom Schultz, the new forest planner. If you choose not to follow the guid- ance, but instead use alternative methods to meet the RMS, docu- mentation is required. Your ulti- mate responsibility is to satisfy the standards. Everyone with a SFLMP Implementation binder will receive a copy of the final guidance; however, only area managers and unit managers will receive cop- ies of the draft guidance. Draft guidance will be distrib- uted as hard copy and elec- tronically to foster easy dis- tribution within the units. Winter/Spring 1998 The Happy Valley Solution Bill Schultz and Bev O ’Brien Montana DNRC recently completed a timber harvest project with a new twist. In cooperation with the Flathead Forestry Project, Bev O’Brien, Kalispell Unit Forest Management Supervisor, sold a 20-acre permit on school trust lands as a forest stewardship demonstration project. The permit is lo- cated near the Happy Valley Subdivision 5 miles south of Whitefish. What makes it different from other permits? Bev requested interested loggers to prepare a technical pro- posal and associated price proposal for harvesting and mar- keting timber. The purpose of the project was to demon- strate the aesthetic, environmental, and financial benefits of responsible forest management as applied on the ground by “professional stewardship” loggers. The proposals were required to meet the treatment objectives as described in the silvicultural prescription. The proposals were required to address the following criteria. Evaluation of the propos- als was based on a point system applied to the criteria. ^ Address the products to be harvested and the value to be paid to the state. ^ Describe the methods, treatments, equipment, and other actions proposed to meet the treatment objectives. ^ Provide a detailed logging plan. ^ Outline safety measures. ^ List past experiences, training, and qualifications of logging personnel who would work on the project. ^ Provide references from previous clients. ^ Explain how the logger would select trees to cut or leave. Bev received seven proposals. The project was awarded to the bidder that best met the project objectives as reflected in scoring the criteria. The successful bidder presented the best overall proposal and not necessarily the proposal that paid DNRC the most short-term revenue. The sale has been harvested with good results. The logging job was very well done, it required a minimum of supervi- sion by DNRC, products were well utilized, the residual stand meets the prescription, the school trust was paid $243/ mbf, and the neighbors in the adjacent subdivision are pleased. If you would like more information on Happy Valley, call Bev O’Brien at 406 751-2264. What are the benefits of Request for Proposal (RFP) man- agement? ^ Less administrative time for DNRC in sale preparation and administration ^ The ability to have some discretion in choosing the operator ^ Potential for a better job done on the ground ^ Providing for long-term productivity on the site What is the downside to RFP management? ^ Developing the new RFP contract process ^ More time in evaluating proposals ^ Possibly less short-term revenue DNRC plans to use a process similar to that used by Bev at Happy Valley on a larger timber sale. The Tarkzeau timber sale on the Missoula Unit is a likely candidate. Eric Trimble is the project leader for this FY99 sale, which is estimated at 1 .5 mmbf. Under our preliminary proposal, two separate contracts would be awarded. About one-half of the sale would be logged under the RFP management scenario. The remainder of the sale would be contracted in our traditional fashion. We still have a lot of details to work out, such as selection criteria and what sale prep work we will require of the purchaser. If you have questions about this sale, call Bill Schultz (406 542-4276) or Eric Trimble (406 542-4245). Timber Sale Preparation Contracts DNRC began contracting timber sale preparation work sev- eral years ago, primarily using consultant foresters to mark and cruise timber. We are still contracting this type of work, but we have expanded our efforts to contract for other types of sale prep work. The types of work for which we con- tracted include sensitive plant surveys, watershed cumula- tive effects analysis, soil surveys, weed inventories, trans- portation planning/logging system analysis, EIS editing, wildlife analysis, big game winter range mapping, road sur- vey, design and construction staking, property line location, fire ecology analysis, bald eagle nest site plans, and col- laborative planning/altemative development. DNRC has de- veloped contracts to cover all of these types of contracting. If you are interested in pursuing any of these options, a re- view of the existing contract(s) is good place to start. Call Bill Schultz for more information; if he doesn’t have a copy, he’ll direct you to someone who does. Timber Sale Status Since July 1, 1997 (FY98), DNRC has sold 17 timber sales totaling 28 mmbf. The average bid price is $245/mbf. We have taken approximately 12 mmbf to the State Land Board so far in FY98, leaving 30 mmbf to be taken to the land board yet this fiscal year. Sales currently scheduled to be sold include: ^ Trail Creek — March 30 (SLO-Billings) ^ Indian Creek — April 7 (NWLO-Plains) ^ Quiet Stems — May 6 (SWLO-Clearwater) Notice of sale and prospectus information are now posted on the DNRC web page at www.dnrc.mt.gov/ news.html#bids. 2 Forest Management Newsletter Harvest Methods to Retain Nutrients in the Woods Bob Rich Current research and direction within DNRC indicate a need to retain slash (particularly needles, twigs, and branches) for nutrient cycling in harvest units. Recent timber sale agreements on the Missoula Unit have required retention or return skidding of 95 percent of the slash produced as a result of harvesting. To date, six different contractors, with varying attitudes toward compliance, have had to deal with this contract language. The most common method loggers have used is to carry slash back into the woods from the landing when the skidder goes back for the next drag of logs. When the slash is back in the unit, it can be scattered by partially opening the grapple and dribbling the slash put. The skidder can also push the slash around with the blade to even things out. However, in most of the units where we have required returning slash, we have actually required that the slash be placed in small piles at least 5 feet from leave trees, rather than scattered. By concentrating the slash in small piles, we hope to be able to bum the unit, provide scattered site prep, protect the leave trees from cambial damage, and retain the nutrients in the unit in a form available for tree growth. A few situations shout “Watch Out” with return skidding slash. Many loggers like to cold deck tree lengths several days ahead of their delimber. This is not possible when return skidding, as you have to skid into the delimber and take slash back out as it is created. This can lead to con- gested landings and delays with machines waiting for each other to get out of the way. A mbber-tired skidder on steep ground, especially in snow, may have trouble getting back up the hill with a drag of slash. A lot of the slash winds up 300 feet or less from the landing, and not as much gets skidded all the way to the top of the unit. Occa- sionally, I have seen slash “accidentally” pushed below the road. Don’t let this happen in the first place, and, if it does, have the loader pull it back into the road for the skidder to retrieve. you still skid the limbs below the top to the landing; limbs get intertwined and drag the tops in anyhow; and, if the bot- tom trees in a bunch aren’t cut, the severed tops of the top logs ride to the landing resting on these uncut stems. You still have to back skid slash as a result of all these problems. The bottom line is it doesn’t work real well. The most goof-proof method of making sure slash stays in the woods is to process the tree into logs right after it is felled. This can be done manually with a chain saw or me- chanically with a single-grip harvester. Many people are not familiar with single-grip harvesters, as there are prob- ably less than a dozen currently operating in the state. Of- ten a single-grip processing head is mounted on a feller buncher. This setup is able to fell, delimb, and buck a tree into logs in one operation without ever letting go of the tree; thus, the term “single grip.” Skidding is done on the slash created, crushing it into the ground. Slash is distributed evenly throughout the unit, and there is no risk of the nutri- ents in the slash being removed from the site. In some small diameter stands with a large amount of submerchantable material, this method can create high slash loads that may exceed the slash law standards. This needs to be consid- ered on a stand-by-stand basis. Units can also be burned after harvest, if so desired, or the slash can be allowed to cure for a year before burning. The curing allows most of the nutrients to leach back into the soil or organic layer. Cable units limit your options for retaining slash. You can’t skid it back, and only Timberline delimbers can operate in a steep line unit. This leaves you with manually falling and then working up the logs in the unit or using a single grip. A single-grip harvester allows you to still operate mechanically in a line unit and also retain the slash and nutrients in place. y ' imi. Another method is to walk a boom delimber out into the unit and process the logs before they are skidded. This works very well; however, with the exception of delimbers made by Timberline, which can level and are designed to go into the woods, most delimbers are on carriers that are not built to get off the road much and are limited to gentle ground. Yet another method our contractors have tried is to cut the tops off the feller-buncher piles in the woods and then skid the rest of the pile to the landing. A few of the problems we encoun- tered are: it takes an extra person on the job; /jfy iii % The economic effect of retaining slash in the woods varies widely by which logger you ask. Some say it has little if any im- pact; others say it is a big deal. I feel it de- pends on whether they have done it before and how open they are to trying something different. I believe it really shouldn’t be a major cost factor, but it probably does add cost on the average. The need to retain slash and nutrients within harvest units is still a topic for debate in DNRC. However, given the potential to do long-term harm to the site, I feel it is better to be safe than sorry, especially when the economic impact of the extra work is fairly small. 3 Winter /Spring 1998 Spring Training Pat Flowers The dates for our spring forest management training are set for the afternoon of June 1 through the morning of June 4. If you work in the Forest Management Program, please plan to attend. The Forest Management Bureau will cover your per diem expenses. We developed the agenda for this spring’s training based on the training survey we sent out last fall. The results of that survey showed that your number one preference for train- ing is landscape analysis. You also expressed a strong pref- erence for a panel discussion by disturbance ecologists (yes, we’ve run through all the “disturbed ecologists’’ jokes!). We attempted to address your preferences by beginning the ses- sion with the ecologists’ panel discussion. Following that we will conduct a workshop intended to give you hands-on experience developing a landscape plan. We will work in teams over the course of two days to develop the plans. Those two days will include some field time and some class- room time working with maps, photos, data tables, etc. We also plan to offer a Techno Night where we display the lat- est in technological applications. The training session will be held in Missoula at the Grant Creek Inn (406 543-0700) on Reserve Street, just north of 1-90. For this session only, the Grant Creek Inn is offering us state rates on rooms. If you would like to stay at the Grant Creek Inn, tell them you are attending the DNRC Forest Management Training. I suggest that you make your room reservations as soon as possible. The Grant Creek Inn will require you to show your state I.D. at check-in. We’ve found in previous years that the benefits of this once- a-year gathering go beyond the training topics. There is much to be gained from sharing our experiences on differ- ent units and areas. Please make plans to attend. Forest Inventory Section Update Brian Long It has been a really busy winter, and it doesn’t look like things are going to change any time soon. All right, enough whining — here is a brief update on several of our bigger projects. Stand Level Inventory Last June we let a contract to Big Sky Resource Analysts to collect stand level inventory (SLI) data in the Clearwater, Kalispell, Anaconda, and Stillwater Units. The contract also required that stand boundaries be delineated on aerial pho- tos for DNRC parcels in the Kalispell, Anaconda, and Stillwater Units. Once the work has been completed, we will have stand level inventory data for all state-owned par- cels in the Northwestern and Southwestern Land Offices except for those that are totally nonforest. The total area inventoried will be about 5 10,000 acres on about 1,200 par- cels of land. The contractor has been collecting SLI data since last July. Last field season the contractor collected stand level inven- tory data in the field for 55 parcels of DNRC land totaling 22,754 acres. This completed the Clearwater Unit’s SLI and about one-third of the Kalispell Unit’s remaining par- cels. The contract requires that a total of 197 DNRC par- cels or 90,306 acres of SLI be completed by November 1, 1998. This winter the contractor has delineated stand boundaries on aerial photos for 70 parcels of DNRC land totaling 32,458 acres. The contractor completed stand delineation for the Kalispell Unit and is about half finished with the Anaconda Unit, which is scheduled to be completed by late March. We are hoping to have 1997 aerial photos to use for the remaining sections to be inventoried in the Stillwater Unit, so stand delineation will not begin for that unit until this June. The contract requires that stand boundaries be delin- eated for a total of 139 DNRC parcels or 66,112 acres. Updating the SLI databases has become a major part of our inventory efforts. Last field season we updated stand data for three project areas in the Stillwater Unit and most of the parcels in the Libby Unit. We also collected plot data in SWLO to be used in future sustained yield projections. Next field season we will complete the Libby Unit’s update and probably will start updating SLI at the Plains Unit. The objectives meetings this spring will help determine what we do and where we do it. We are seriously considering using a major portion of the Inventory Section’s contracted services money to perform SLI updating. Eastside PI Inventory We are writing a RFP to conduct a photo-interpreted (PI), stand-based inventory of the Central, Northeastern, South- ern, and Eastern Land Offices. We have ordered about 1,960 aerial photos at a cost of about $11,800 (including lamina- 4 Forest Management Newsletter tion). Most of the aerial photos will be NAPP 1:40,000 scale. About one-quarter of the photos will be USFS 1:15,840 scale. The PI inventory will include the following ) number of DNRC parcels by land office: ti*- CLO 467 parcels NELO 294 parcels SLO 239 parcels ELO 257 parcels TOTAL 1,257 parcels The contract will be let this spring. At this time we plan to require the work to be completed by the spring of 1999. We may have to lengthen the life of the project because we will not be able to handle the contract administration with cur- rent resources. The PI data will be supplemented with field plot data (individual tree data) on a subsample of PI stand polygons. These data will also be collected using contracted resources. This information will be used primarily for sus- tained yield projections and upper- to mid-level planning. Geographic Information Systems As of this biennium we have a modest budget for acquiring geographic information system (GIS) data. This newly ac- quired data will allow us to eventually build a data set that will give GIS users a very significant spatial analy- sis capability across the state. We are pri- oritizing the data acquisition to meet For- est Management Program needs, but much of the data will be useful to nearly all DNRC programs. We are coordinat- ing our efforts with other DNRC person- nel through the Information Technology (IT) Committee and the DNRC GIS Working Group. We are writing two Requests for Pro- posal to acquire GIS data. Both RFPs will be awarded this spring and will re- quire the work to be completed some- time during the next fiscal year. One RFP will procure a statewide general ownership map at a scale of 1:100,000. This map would include DNRC, other state owners, coun- ties/municipalities, USFS, U. S. Bureau of Land Manage- ment (BLM), National Park Service, the forest industry, and other private ownership delineations. This map will be cre- ated using PAMAP GIS software and be organized by DNRC administrative boundaries so it can easily be distributed to OASIS software users. The other RFP will require a contractor to use USFS Carto- graphic Feature Files (CFF) and other data to create at least four separate map layers at 1:24,000 scale for the North- western and Southwestern Land Offices. The map layers consist of (1) section lines; (2) county, DNRC administra- tive, and other political boundaries; (3) roads, railroads, and power lines; and (4) hydrography (streams, rivers, and lakes). Some other map layers we plan to obtain are watershed boundaries, forest cover (includes potential productivity), SLI polygon boundaries, PI polygon boundaries, roads and hydrography for eastern Montana, etc. More and more data are becoming available “off the shelf,” and our priorities will change; consequently, this list will be quite dynamic. INVENTORY In the not-so-distant future we will be re- vising/upgrading INVENTORY again. Each unit office will receive a memo from Will Wood identifying currently known “bugs.” This memo also contains a brief survey asking for your priorities for improving INVENTORY. Please take the time to respond to this memo. Considering recent activity by the For- est Management Advisory Committee (FMAC) Measurements Working Group, we will probably need to improve INVENTORY’S ability to calculate weight by species and change the tim- ber sale appraisal tables. Data Creep Tom Schultz Recently, several specialists have voiced concerns about data that have been massaged between the publication of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) and the final document. On occasion, af- ter a preferred alternative is chosen, the unit may perform some sale prep work and, in the process, gather more pre- cise determinations of volume and acreage to be harvested. Unless these data are acquired for all alternatives, the pre- ferred alternative should not be updated to reflect the more precise data in the final document. Updating only the pre- ferred alternative can result in inconsistencies in harvest areas and road lengths in the document, or in the need to perform additional analyses to account for minor changes. Additionally, if any harvest units are added to or subtracted from an alternative between the publication of the draft and the distribution of the final, ensure that all members of the interdisciplinary (ID) team are notified, including Donna Leeper. This will ensure that ID team members are notified of any additional analyses that they may need to perform. 5 Winter/Spring 1998 New Water Quality Monitoring Program George Mathieus With spring fast approaching, the “water boys” are getting geared up for another challenging field season. Adding to the normal timber sale review, cumulative effects analysis, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) mitigation comes the implementation of our new Water Quality Monitoring Program. It is no secret that the long winter hours spent developing implementation guidance for the SFLMP have led to a strong desire to get into the woods and get our feet wet. So what exactly is the new monitoring strategy, and how will it be implemented? The Water Quality Monitoring Pro- gram for forested trust lands is part of the department’s com- mitment to the SFLMP and Watershed RMS 20. We will strive to make our program compatible with other monitor- ing efforts by coordinating with other landowners and regu- latory agencies on methodology, monitoring sites, and data. This program will integrate a variety of qualitative and quan- titative monitoring methods to meet our goals. These goals, as outlined in the guidance document, are: Goal 1. Determine the sources of watershed impairment on school trust land and develop strategies for remedial actions. Goal 2. Monitor implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other mitigation mea- ''Goal 3.''' Investigate relationships between land-use activities and watershed integrity of aquatic systems on state land. Goals 1 and 2 are met primarily through field surveys and qualitative assessments of management activities. Achiev- ing Goal 3 requires measurement of water column, chan- nel, and related variables from a suite of monitoring param- eters. Goal 1 will be met primarily through the implementation of Watershed RMS 3, which requires DNRC to identify causes of watershed degradation and set priorities for restoration. To accomplish this, DNRC will conduct sediment source surveys on priority watersheds and prescribe remedial ac- tions. Specific, predetermined criteria have been established for prioritizing watersheds. DNRC will complete a mini- mum of five watershed inventories a year. Goal 2 will be accomplished through visual, qualitative evaluations to determine whether practices are applied con- currently with timber harvest activities and whether these practices are effectively protecting soil and water resources. For forest management activities, this goal will be met pri- marily through contract administration, inspection reports, and internal BMP audits. Hey, don’t let that scare you; it’s really the same as before — except this time, copies of in- spection reports will be sent to Tom Schultz, the Forest Man- agement Bureau’s forest planner. He will compile these data into a report to be submitted to the State Land Board. Rumor has it we will be conducting internal audits on all units with recently completed or ongoing harvest operations. To meet Goal 3, DNRC will quantitatively determine the effectiveness of commonly applied mitigation measures (BMPs) in reducing nonpoint source pollution in receiving waters and quantify water quality and channel characteris- tics in selected representative watersheds. Depending on the management activity, water quality issues, and avail- ability of funding and personnel, several types of monitor- ing may be used to reach this goal. Since the forest hydrology is just a stone’s throw shy of rocket science, I will avoid any confusion and exclude the intense details of the new monitoring plan. Several instream and upslope field methodologies will be utilized to fulfill our current goals. Many of the tasks the “hydroboys” will be performing are not new to what we have been doing on the ground all along. The new plan will, however, better track and document the measurements and assessments be- ing performed by our bureau’s highly trained staff. Till next time, remember. water is life. 6 Forest Management Newsletter Footprints in the Snow: Do We Make a Difference on White-Tailed Deer Winter Range? Ross Baty and Rich Harris Conventional wisdom has it that white-tailed deer require some minimal amount of coniferous cover to survive west- ern Montana winters. Last year being a somewhat snowy winter, we decided it would be instructive to survey a re- cently harvested timber sale on a white-tail winter range to observe the effects of harvesting. So on February 17, 1997, we visited the recently completed 6-Mile Timber Sale west of Missoula, along with lead forester Bob Rich, from the SWLO’s Missoula Unit, and Bob Henderson, of Region 2 of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP). To determine which areas white-tails were using or avoid- ing, we donned snowshoes and paced transects about 50 meters long in randomly determined directions from ran- domly determined starting points within four harvest units and four adjacent leave strips, counting each deer trail en- countered as a single observation. Bob Rich had left these strips uncut, in part, to allow for the wintering white-tails in the area. But the cutting units themselves were hardly de- void of trees: to the contrary, they maintained a healthy spac- ing of mature ponderosa pine trees, that will soon achieve the open, park-like appearance that probably typified the sale area historically, prior to fire suppression. Our results were impressive in their clarity. We found no differences in deer use among the four samples within the uncut areas, and none within the four cut units. And al- though all four of us worked independently (and probably differed somewhat in our pacing and in our exact definition of a “deer trail”), deer trails encountered did not differ among observers (which is pretty amazing, considering that one observer was a DNRC forester and another a MDFWP big- game biologist!). But we sure-enough did find a difference in deer use between the cut and uncut units. The uncut strips averaged 1 3.7 deer trails per transect, while the cutting units averaged only 1 .6. Not surprisingly, this more than eight- fold difference was statistically significant (N= 5 1 , F = 9. 1 1 , p < 0.005). In short, deer confined their activities to the uncut strips, even though the units were cut to emulate pre- fire-suppression conditions. We also measured snow depth as we traveled, using some hi-tech gadgetry: a yardstick. Somewhat surprisingly, dif- ferences in snow depths between cut and uncut areas were not significant. We’re unsure, but this similarity may be because of the timing of our survey: deeper snow that accu- mulated earlier in the winter in the more open, cut stands may have already begun melting by the time we got there. What does this all mean? Well, for one thing. Bob Rich’s intended mitigation worked: deer used the areas left for them, and did not use the recently cut areas, at least during this winter of relatively deep snow. But does that mean that the deer there will be okay (because they’ve got the uncut strips), or that they will be in trouble (because the cut stands are now apparently unus- able)? We don’t really know, because we don’t know whether they can get by with the now reduced acreage of winter range. Whether this pattern will be repeated in subsequent winters, particularly those with lighter snow accu- mulations, is also uncer- tain— although, perhaps we’ll have a chance to find out next year. Further, what do we make of this information, given the direction under our new State Forest Land Management Plan to prioritize emulating naturally occurring stand conditions? Clearly, one can hardly fault the harvest prescriptions on the 6-Mile sale, because they did just that. And yet, for the white- tailed deer in the area, winter living space was re- duced considerably. We’d suggest that it means two things. First, we have to admit that we can’t have everything on the same site. Fre- quently, opening a canopy to resemble fire-influenced con- ditions will be harmful to white-tailed deer that winter on that site. Indeed, the SFLMP EIS (p. IV- 166-67) has al- ready considered this: ""Omega [attempts] to restore a re- semblance to naturally occurring proportions in forest types, successional stages, and stocking levels. . . [but] may pro- duce some reductions in habitat value for these [big-game] species.” Second, it means that attempts to “. . . promote a diversity of stand structures” and to . . manage to provide for big- game habitat to the extent possible” (RMS 116) should be taken seriously, because they really can make a difference. Areas that, because of stream corridors, rocky soils, inoperability, or other micro-site characteristics, are appropriately maintained in a relatively well stocked con- dition will often succeed in providing for white-tailed deer, even when the broader landscape is managed for a more open condition. A winter like last year’s shows us that efforts to find those places will be rewarded with the diver- sity of biological conditions we’re after. 7 Winter/Spring 1998 Forest Improvement Update Scott McLeod This fiscal year we received approximately a 30 percent increase in our forest improvement (FI) budget. The in- crease came in the form of contracted services. No addi- tional full-time equivalents (FTEs) accompanied the bud- get increase. So, our already full plates are more full in the effort to develop the projects we forecast we could accom- plish. Naturally, the added workload has caused some stress, but more importantly has caused us to reassess the way we do business. The expectation was that we could contract out many of the abundant, good projects that need to be done. Much of that contracting is under way for FY98, and it will allow us to greatly exceed FI accomplishments in recent years. Along with these greater accomplishments has come a shift in workload. We are finding ourselves spending more time writing and administering contracts, rather than going out and doing the work ourselves. This change in the nature of the workload has been difficult for some of our foresters to accept. That difficulty is understandable since the workload shift requires all of us to find job satisfaction in different ways. Our satisfaction now must come from the accom- plishments of the program, rather than from the personal satisfaction of doing it ourselves. Despite the success we have had with contracting, we are also learning that some of our tasks and projects do not lend themselves to simple contracts. Some contracts are ex- tremely difficult to write up, they are associated with high levels of uncertainty (both for us and for potential bidders), they present difficult administrative concerns, and they re- quire crews capable of making many on-the-spot decisions. These factors often add up to relatively high bid prices, caus- ing anxiety in relation to our role as prudent asset manag- ers. What this all means is that we need to determine the best combination of FTEs and dollars to accomplish our FI tar- gets. We are in the process of doing this for the next bien- nium. This process consists of first assessing the existing backlog of FI needs, and then setting priorities for the next biennium. This is not an easy task, given that we must con- sider the variability in nature plus the uncertainty of our own activities. The second step is to identify how best to accomplish the work: should it be contracted or done inter- nally? We need to continue to identify new and existing opportunities that are well-suited to contracting. Once we identify the right mix of FTEs and budget to accomplish our FI targets most efficiently and effectively, our request will then be subjected to the uncertainty of the legislative budgeting process. For now, we should strive to be as effective as possible with the tools (i.e., allocated dollars and allocated FTEs) at our disposal. Persons with disabilities who need an alternative, accessible format of this document should contact DNRC at the address below. Phone 406 5424269 • fax 406 5424274 150 copies of this document were published at an estimated cost of $.40 per copy. The total cost of $70 includes $60 for printing and $10 for distribution. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Trast Land Management Division 2705 Spurgin Road Missoula, MT 59801 STATE DOCUMENTS COLLEC iU il^ON'TANA STATE LIP.r^ARY 1515 E. 6th AVE. HELENA, MONTANA 59020 Communicating Issues and Ideas Important to the Management of Montana's State Forest Lands