1

Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative

2016 Forestry & Wildlife

Research Review

Aday‐longsymposium:TuesdayJanuary12,2016

8:45am–3:45pmCloquetForestryCenterinCloquet,MN

2

Table of Contents Agenda.........................................................................................................................................................................................3 

WelcomeandOverview........................................................................................................................................................4 

Block1:Silviculture................................................................................................................................................................5 

Influenceofaggregatedoverstoryretentiononregenerationandbiodiversityinaspen‐dominatedforests...............................................................................................................................................................5 

Extrapolating50yearsofnativeplantcommunitysamplingtoinformforestmanagementplanning..................................................................................................................................................................................6 

TheGreatLakesSilvicultureLibrary:Intelligenttinkering,shared.......................................................7 

Thinningreducesvulnerabilityofredpinegrowthtodrought......................................................................8 

Buildingpartnershipandresolvingconflict:PreliminaryanalysisofperspectivesfromUSFStribalrelationsprogrammanagers.............................................................................................................................9 

Block2:Wildlife.....................................................................................................................................................................10 

SuperiorNationalForest'sCanadalynxDNAdatabase.............................................................................10 

Summerbatsurvey,monitoringandresearchinMinnesota2013‐2015.........................................10 

UnderstandingthemoosedeclineinnortheasternMinnesota.....................................................................11 

Assessingmoosebrowsingpatterns........................................................................................................................12 

RecentResearchonMinnesotaForestBirds.........................................................................................................13 

Block3:Other..........................................................................................................................................................................14 

Post‐fireforestfloorfireseverityindexrelationshipswithforestfloorandsoilcarbon,nitrogenandmercurypools:Issuesofscale.........................................................................................................14 

Naturalresourcemanagers’perceptionsofforestlandparcelizationtrends,drivers,andimpactsintheLakeStates..............................................................................................................................................................15 

Biomassdry‐down:Fuelbenefitsandsiteimpacts............................................................................................16 

Managementimplicationsforprivateforestlandwhentherearemultipleowners.....................17 

IdentifyingandpreservingHeritageForestStandsthroughtree‐ringrecords:Acasestudyoffirehistoryandculturally‐modifiedtreesintheBoundaryWatersCanoeAreaWilderness...................18 

Block4:Insects&Invasives..............................................................................................................................................19 

AssessingtheacarologicalriskofhumanexposuretotickbornepathogensinMinnesota..............19 

AnewresearchcenterattheUniversityofMinnesotaonterrestrialinvasivespecies......................20 

Dispersalcapacityoflateinstargypsymothlarvae(Lymantriadispar)andimplicationsforwoodproductsmovement.........................................................................................................................................................21 

Attendees..................................................................................................................................................................................22 

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................................................27 

SFECMemberorganizationsfor2015‐2016..............................................................................................................28 

KeepinginTouch...................................................................................................................................................................28 

3

Agenda 2016 Forestry and Wildlife Research Review January12,2016from8:45am–3:45pm,CloquetForestryCenter

8:15am Check‐inopens

8:45am Welcome and agenda review EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC

9:00am Block 1: Silviculture ‐Influenceofaggregatedoverstoryretentiononregeneration

andbiodiversityinaspen‐dominatedforests‐Extrapolating50yearsofnativeplantcommunitysampling

toinformforestmanagementplanning‐TheGreatLakesSilvicultureLibrary‐Thinningreducesvulnerabilityofredpinegrowthto

drought‐Buildingpartnershipandresolvingconflict:Preliminary

analysisofperspectivesfromUSFStribalrelationsprogrammanagers

Blosdk‐MirandaCurzon,UMN‐DavidWilson,UMN‐FR

‐EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC‐BrianPalik,USFS‐NRS‐MikeDockry,USFS‐NRS

10:15am Breakandpostersession

10:45am Block 2: Wildlife ‐SuperiorNationalForest'sCanadalynxDNAdatabaseand

Summerbatsurvey,monitoringandresearchinMinnesota2013‐2015

‐UnderstandingthemoosedeclineinnortheasternMinnesota‐Assessingmoosebrowsingpatterns‐RecentResearchonMinnesotaForestBirds

Block‐TimCatton,USFS–SuperiorNF

‐GlennDelGiudice,MNDNR

‐ChristinaMaley,1854TreatyAuthority

‐JerryNiemi,UMD‐NRRI

Noon Lunchandpostersession

1:00pm Block 3: Other ‐Post‐fireforestfloorfireseverityindexrelationshipswith

forestfloorandsoilcarbon,nitrogen&mercurypools‐Naturalresourcemanagers’perceptionsofforestland

parcelizationtrends,drivers,andimpactsintheLakeStates

‐Biomassdry‐down:Fuelbenefitsandsiteimpacts‐Managementimplicationsforprivateforestlandwhenthere

aremultipleowners‐IdentifyingandpreservingHeritageForestStandsthrough

tree‐ringrecords

Block‐RandyKolka,USFS‐NRS

‐MikeKilgore,UMN‐FR‐BradJones,ICC‐StephanieSnyder,USFS‐NRS

‐EvanLarson,UW‐Platteville

2:15pm Breakandpostersession

2:45pm Block 4: Insects & Invasives ‐Assessingtheacarologicalriskofhumanexposureto

tickbornepathogensinMinnesota‐AnewresearchcenterattheUniversityofMinnesotaon

terrestrialinvasivespecies‐Dispersalcapacityoflateinstargypsymothlarvae

(Lymantriadispar)andimplicationsforwoodproductsmovement

crud‐JennaBjork,MDH‐RobVenette,UMN

‐RachaelNicoll,UMN

3:45pm Adjourn

denotesaLightningTalk‐‐visitthepostersessiontolearnmore.

4

Welcome and Overview WelcometoSFEC’s12thAnnualForestryandWildlifeResearchReview!

TheResearchReviewisdesignedtoofferrapid‐fireoverviewsofabroadcross‐sectionofactive,currentresearchrelevanttoMinnesotalandmanagers.Thisyear’stopicsrunfrombatstobrowse,lynxtolandparcelization,tickstoterrestrialinvasives,leavetreestoLymantria,biomasstotheBoundaryWatersandbeyond.We’vegotaterrificgroupofspeakersandhopeyouenjoytheprogram.

Five‐minute“LightningTalks”aredesignedforposterpresenterstobrieflydiscusstheirwork,enticingyoutovisitthepostersessionforthefullstory.WehavetakenyoursuggestionstodisperseLightningTalksthroughoutthedaytoallowmoreopportunitiesforfollow‐upduringpostersessions.You’llfindthepostersandtheirpresentersintheStineRoom.

Asaneducationalcooperative,SFEC’sjobistodeliverprogramstohelpyoucontinuallyimprovethequalityofyourlandmanagementactivities.Wetakeyourinputveryseriously.Pleaseusetheconfidentialevaluationformtoshareyourcontinuingeducationneedsandtomakesuggestionsfornextyear’sResearchRevieworanyotherevent.

Thankyouforbeingheretoday.Wehopeyoufindthisyear’sResearchReviewbothfunandinformative,andwehopetoseeyouatotherSFECeventsthisyear.

‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson

5

Block 1: Silviculture

Influence of aggregated overstory retention on regeneration and biodiversity in aspen-dominated forests MirandaCurzon*;AnthonyW.D'Amato,UniversityofVermont;BrianJ.Palik,USFSNorthernResearchStation;andChristelC.Kern,USFSNorthernResearchStation

Variable‐retentionharvestingandtheadaptationofconventionalsilviculturalsystemstoincludereservedmaturetreesareincreasinglybeingusedtobalanceproductivityobjectiveswithbiodiversityconservation.Usingtwooperational‐scalestudiesthatincludeatotalofsevensitesdominatedbyquakingaspen,weinvestigatedtheinfluenceofretainedoverstoryaggregates(0.25acresinsizeperguidelinesdevelopedbytheMinnesotaForestResourcesCouncil)onregenerationinsurroundingareas2and12yearspost‐harvest.Sitesassociatedwitheachstudywereharvestedduringwinterin2010and2000,respectively,andsamplingoccurredin2012.Initial(2year)understoryspeciescompositionandmicroenvironmentconditionswithinaggregateswereintermediatebetweenintactforestandclearcutsasexpected.Aggregatesdidnotreduceinitialregenerationdensitiesofquakingaspenorothertreespeciesinimmediatelysurroundingharvestedareas(within16ft)relativetoopenconditions.Observationsfrom12yearspost‐harvestalsosuggestaggregateshadnonegativeimpactonstemdensityortotalwoodybiomasswhereasintactforestreducedvaluesforbothvariablesuptoadistanceof16ftintoharvests.Overall,ourresultssuggestthatsmall,0.25acreaggregatesachievesomeecologicalobjectiveswithoutnegativelyimpactingregeneration.

*UniversityofMinnesotamcurzon@umn.edu/612‐625‐6989

6

Extrapolating 50 years of native plant community sampling to inform forest management planning DavidWilson*;AlanEk,UMNDept.ofForestResources

Interesthasgrownintheuseoffundamentalecologicalinformationtoguidethedevelopmentandselectionofmanagementoptionsforforestedstandsandlandscapes.Thedesiretousedetailedsitedescriptiondata,ecologicalclassifications,andtheirinter‐relationshipsintheplanningprocesspre‐supposesknowledgeofthecomposition,distribution,andsuccessionalstateofplantcommunitiescomprisingthelocalandbio‐regionalecosystems.Unfortunately,suchknowledgeisnotcurrentlyavailablewiththelevelofdetailneededtomaketimelymanagementdecisionsforharvestscheduling,wildlifehabitat,biodiversity,andothervalues.However,thisgapmayberesolvedbyleveragingwhatwedoknowaboutnativeplantcommunity(NPC)distributionwithrespecttorelevantsitecharacteristics.

ThecurrentresearchfocusesonusingthephysicalandbioticconditionsdefininggrowingspacetosystematicallyidentifyassociationsbetweenNPCsandvarioussitecharacteristics.ThisprocessemploystechniquessimilartothoseusedintheMNDNRnativeplantsamplingprogram,andisinformedby23,751NPCobservationscollectedbetween1964and2013byMNDNR,combinedwithforestinventoryandadditionalphysiographicdata.Uniqueassociationsofherbaceousplantsarethoughttooccurinconjunctionwithspecificsetsoftreesonsiteswithsimilarsoils,physiography,moisture,anddisturbanceregimes.Itisthejointdependenceoftreesandherbaceousspeciesontheseabioticfactors,andonlandscape‐scaledisturbanceregimes,whichenablestheimputationprocessdevelopedbytheauthortofunction.Methodsemployedincludedatamining,multiplecorrespondenceanalysis,andhierarchicalclustering,aswellastechniquesdevelopedbytheauthortoidentifylikelyassociations.

*UniversityofMinnesotaDepartmentofForestResourceswils0602@umn.edu/612‐624‐2202

7

The Great Lakes Silviculture Library: Intelligent tinkering, shared EliSagor*

Everysilviculturaltreatmentisanexperiment.Buttoooftennewinsightsfromthisinformalresearcharelosttothelargercommunitywhenlandmanagersretire,moveon,orsimplylackawaytosharetheirwork.

WehavecreatedanewonlineresourcedesignedtoarchivetheresultsofinnovativeandinterestingsilviculturetreatmentsfromacrosstheLakesStates.Weinvitelandmanagerstocontributecasesfromtheirownworkortheworkoftheirpredecessors,particularlywhenthatworkhelpstoanswerquestionsrelevanttootherlandmanagers.Publishedcasestudiesneednotincludepeer‐reviewed,replicatedresearch–simplywell‐documentedeverydaysilviculture.

TheSilvicultureLibraryisafreeweb‐basedarchiveofreal‐world,actualsilviculturetreatmentsfromMinnesota,Wisconsin,Michigan,andOntario,contributedbylandmanagers.Eachcaseincludesdescriptiveinfoaboutthesite,silvicultureobjective,silvicultureprescription,whatactuallyhappenedduringthetreatment,andwhatwaslearnedfromit,alongwithphotos.Somehavesupplementalreports,documents,andlinks.And,importantly,eachcasehastheauthor’snameandcontactinformationtoenableconnectionswithothersengagedinsimilarsilviculturework.Publishedcasescanbevaluableresourcesforlandmanagersconsideringsilviculturaloptions.

TheLibraryisathttp://silvlib.cfans.umn.edu/

*UMNSustainableForestsEducationCooperative,CloquetForestryCenteresagor@umn.edu/218‐409‐6115

8

Thinning reduces vulnerability of red pine growth to drought BrianPalik*;AlessandraBottero,UniversityofMinnesota;AnthonyD’Amato,UniversityofVermont;JohnBradford,USGS;ShawnFraver,UniversityofMaine

Reducingtreedensitiesthroughthinninghasbeenadvocatedasastrategyforenhancingresistanceandresilienceoftreegrowthtodrought,yetfewempiricalevaluationsofthisapproachexist.Weexamineddetaileddendrochronologicaldatafromtwolong‐term(50and65years)replicatedthinningexperimentstodetermineifdensityreductionsconferredgreaterresistanceand/orresiliencetodroughts,assessedbythemagnitudeofstandlevelgrowthreductions.Ourresultssuggestthatthinninggenerallyenhanceddroughtresistanceandresilience;however,thisrelationshipvariedsomewhatwithstandage.Theseresultsconfirmthepotentialofdensitymanagementtomoderatedroughtimpactsongrowth,andtheyhighlighttheimportanceofaccountingforstandstructurewhenpredictingclimate‐changeimpactstoforests.

*USDAForestServiceNorthernResearchStationbpalik@fs.fed.us/218‐326‐7116

9

Building partnership and resolving conflict: Preliminary analysis of perspectives from USFS tribal relations program managers MichaelDockry*;SophiaGuttermanѱ;andMaeDavenport,UniversityofMinnesota

AmericanIndiantribeshaveinherentrightstoNationalForestlandandresourcesoriginatingintreaties,theUSconstitution,andcaselaw.ThisincludesbutisnotlimitedtotheuseofUSFSlandsforhuntingandgathering,spiritualandreligiousceremonies,andaccesstosacredsites.Theserightsrequiregovernment‐to‐governmentconsultationbetweeneachtribeandtheUSFStobestassessandmeettheneedsandrightsoftribeswithregardstoUSFSmanagedlands.Alongwithgovernmentmandatedconsultation,theForestServiceseekstocreateopportunitiestoworkincollaborationandpartnershipwithtribalnationstomanageland.Despitebesteffortstocollaborateandcommunicate,theinherentintricaciesoftribal‐federalrelationshipsanddifferencesinlandmanagementpracticescanleadtoconflict.Tominimizeconflictsandfulfilltheirlegalresponsibilitiestotribes,theUSFSbuildslong‐termrelationshipswithtribesandemploysenvironmentalconflictresolutiontoreachsolutions.Thisposterusesqualitativeresearchmethodstoanalyzesemi‐structuredinterviewswithUSFStriballiaisonsthroughouttheEasternRegiontounderstandtheirperspectivesontheirjobs,USFSmandates,andstrategiestheyusetobuildpartnershipsandresolveconflictswithAmericanIndiantribes.

*USFSNorthernResearchStationandUniversityofMinnesotamdockry@fs.fed.us/651‐649‐5163

ѱUniversityofMinnesotaUndergraduateHonorStudent,ForestResourcesDepartmentgutte009@umn.edu

10

Block 2: Wildlife

Superior National Forest's Canada lynx DNA database TimCatton*;DanRyan,SuperiorNationalForest;DaveGrosshuesch,SuperiorNationalForest;andSteveLoch,PrivateResearcher

SnowtrackingandothermethodsusedtoobtaingeneticsampleshaveconfirmedpresenceofCanadalynx(Lynxcanadensis)acrossnortheasternMinnesotasinceDecember2000.In2008theSuperiorNationalForestcreated,andcontinuestomaintain,adatabaseofgeneticallyconfirmedCanadalynxtodocumenttheiroccurrence,persistenceandreproductioninMinnesota.Thecurrentdatabasecontains1,306samplesthathavebeensubmittedtotheUSDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation’sNationalGenomicsLaboratoryforWildlifeandFishConservationforDNAtesting.MitochondrialDNAanalysishasidentified1,039ofthem(79.6%)aslynx.NuclearDNAanalysishasdetermined268uniquelynxgenotypes,129female(47.9%),138male(51.3%)and1ofundeterminablesex.Additionally,thedatabasecontains42samplesthathavebeenidentifiedasF1lynx‐bobcathybrids.Thereare13uniquelynx‐bobcathybridgenotypes,5femaleand8male.Since2011,21familygroupshavebeenidentifiedproducing50kittensthatsurvivedtothewinterfollowingtheirbirth.Ofthe236individualsthatwerenotoriginallydetectedasaresultofamortality,51(21.6%)areknowntohavepersistedintoasecondyear,thelongestovera6yearperiod,afemale.

Summer bat survey, monitoring and research in Minnesota 2013-2015 TimCatton*;USDAForestService‐ChippewaandSuperiorNFs;MinnesotaDept.ofNaturalResources;UniversityofMN‐DuluthNaturalResourcesResearchInstitute

BatpopulationsintheeasternUnitedStateshavebeendecimatedbywhite‐nosesyndrome(WNS),adiseasecausedbythefungusPseudogymnoascusdestructans(Pd)thatleadstoincreasedwinteractivityandextremelyhighmortalityratesofhibernatingbats.InApril2015,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicelistedthenorthernlong‐earedbat(Myotisseptentrionalis;MYSEorNLEB)as“threatened”underthefederalEndangeredSpeciesActduetotheimpactofWNS.Obtainingknowledgeaboutnorthernlong‐earedbatsummerhabitatuseanddistributionbeforeapopulationdeclineoccursinMinnesotawillbecriticalinformationforconservationofthespeciesinthestate.Bothmobile(driving)andpassive(stationary)acousticsurveyshavebeenconductedtohelpdocumentspeciespresence,distribution,populationtrendsandresponsestoWNS.Acousticsurveysforbatshavebeenconductedsince2005.Mist‐nettingandtransmitterdeploymentbeganin2013.Todatewehavecaptured370batsrepresenting6ofthe7speciesofbatthatoccurinMinnesota.Forty‐fivetransmittershavebeendeployedonMyotidbats(38NLEBs,7littlebrownbats)and114rooststructureshavebeenidentified.Thisworkhasledtothecurrentstate‐wideresearchproject“EndangeredBats,White‐NoseSyndromeandForestHabitat”whichisfundedbyMinnesota’sEnvironmentalandNaturalResourcesTrustFundinto2017.

*USDAForestService,SuperiorNationalForesttcatton@fs.fed.us/218‐626‐4376

11

Understanding the moose decline in northeastern Minnesota GlennD.DelGiudice*;MichelleCarstensen,WildlifeHealthProgram,MNDNR;WilliamJ.Severud,DepartmentofFisheries,Wildlife,andConservationBiology,UMN

AccordingtotheState's2015MooseSurvey,thenortheasternmoosepopulationcontinuestoexhibitaconsistentdecliningtrend.Thepointestimatewas3,450(2,610‐4,77095%CL),whichis61%lowerthanin2006(8,840moose).Researchsince2003hasshownthatalowaverageannualadultsurvivalrateof80%(20%mortalityrate)hashadthegreatestnegativeimpact.ArecentstudyofGPS‐collaredadultmoosedocumentedsurvivalratesof81%,88%,and91%from2013to2015,respectively,with39%ofthemortalitybeingwolf‐relatedand61%health‐related.Ourcalfstudyisshowingthatsignificantdecreasingcalfproduction(57%since2006)andannualrecruitmentalsoaredepressingthepopulation'sgrowthrate.Wolfandblackbearpredationaccountforthegreatestpercentageoftotalcalfmortality,40%occurringby30daysofage.Additionally,ourwinterphysiologicalassessmentsofmooseareshowingthatseverenutritionalrestrictioniscloselytrackingthemoosedeclineandthewinterandwinter‐summermortalityratesoftheGPS‐collaredmoose.Wearenowinvestigatingpotentialrelationshipsofourwinternutritionalrestrictionfindingstoforestdisturbanceandotheraspectsofhabitatacrossthemooserangelandscape.

*ForestWildlifePopulations&ResearchGroup,MNDNRglenn.delgiudice@state.mn.us/651‐296‐0702

12

Assessing moose browsing patterns ChristinaMaley*

Mooseforaginghabitatiscreatedbyshearing,timberharvest,prescribedburns,windstormsandforestfires.Wehavemeasuredacombined229moosehabitatrestorationsitesinspring(winterbrowse)andfall(summerbrowse)since2013.Browseuseandavailabilityweremeasuredateachsite.Datawascollectedon13commonspecieseatenbymooseinMinnesota.Atypicalsitecontained7ofthese13species.Aspen(27%),beakedhazel(22%),andpaperbirch(12%)werethemostabundantspeciesavailable.Thesespecieswerebrowsedlessthantheiravailability,buttheywerebrowsedmostheavilyinabsolutetermsandareimportantforagespecies.Conversely,maplespecies,red‐osierdogwoodandmountainasharelesscommon,butwerebrowsedatthehighestpercentages,22.4%,16.1%,and14.5%,respectively.

Suggestedforestrymanagementstrategieswouldincludegainsinregeneratingbirch,northernhardwoods,suchasmaplespecies,anduplandbrushspeciesatheightslessthan3meters.Althoughnotopposedtoaspenregenerationasamanagementgoalthatprovidestimberbenefitsandmooseforage,itistheaspenstandsalsorichinadditionalforagespeciesthataremostbeneficialtomoose.Silviculturetreatmentsthatachieveanunevenagedstand,greaterthan80acres,withahighspeciesrichnesswouldultimatelybeadvised.

*1854TreatyAuthoritycmaley@1854treatyauthority.org/218‐722‐8907

13

Recent Research on Minnesota Forest Birds Gerald'Jerry'Niemi*;AlexisGrinde,EdmundZlonis,AnnieBracey,andJoshBednar,NaturalResourcesResearchInstitute,UMN‐Duluth

Recently,Minnesotahasseenasubstantialreductioninloggingactivity.Duringthisperiodwehavebeenmonitoringbreedingbirdpopulationsfor74birdspeciesintwoofMinnesota’snationalforestsfor21years(1995‐2015).Inthesetwonationalforestscombined,7specieshaveincreasingtrendswhile9havebeendecreasing.Themajorityofspecieshavebeenstablebutmanyhavewidelyfluctuatingpopulations.Mostbirdguildanalyseshaveindicatedsignificantincreasingtrendsineachnationalforestandregionally,butbirdspeciesassociatedwithearly‐successionalhabitatshavenotbeenincreasing;apatternconsistentwithreductionsinharvestlevels.Thebirdmonitoringprogramprovideawealthofdataovertimetoanalyzeforest‐relatedquestionsofmanagementinteresttobirdsincludingtheeffectsofhabitatandclimatechange,interspecificinteractions,andlandscapeinfluences.WepresentseveralexamplesofmultipleeffectsonseveralbirdspeciesofconcerninMinnesotaforestssuchastheGolden‐winged,Connecticut,andCanadaWarbler.

*BiologyandNaturalResourcesResearchInstitute,UniversityofMinnesota‐Duluthgniemi@umn.edu/218‐788‐2670

14

Block 3: Other

Post-fire forest floor fire severity index relationships with forest floor and soil carbon, nitrogen and mercury pools: Issues of scale RandyKolka*;BrianSturtevant,USDAForestServiceNorthernResearchStation;JessicaMiesel,MichiganStateUniversity;PhilTownsend,UniversityofWisconsin;PeterWolter,IowaStateUniversity;ShawnFraver,UniversityofMaine;TomDeSutter,NorthDakotaStateUniversity

Althoughweknowfireleadstocombustionofforestfloorandmineralsoilorganicmatterandlossesofelements,littleresearchhasassessedhowfireseverityinfluencespost‐firepoolsofthoseelements.Ifwecanrelatefireseverityindiceswithchangesinsoilelementalpools,fireseveritycanbeusedasasurrogatetoevaluateC,NandHgemissionspostfire.Weusedforestfloorfireseverityindicesbothaggregatedattheplotscaleandindividualmeasurementsatthesubplotscalewheresoilsweresampled,toassessourabilitytopredictelementallossesfollowingthe2011PagamiCreekFireinnorthernMinnesota.Wesampledforestflooranduppermineralsoilssoonafterfireandagainafteronegrowingseason.DuringthefirstsamplingwecomparefireseverityindicesandforestfloorandmineralsoilC,N,andHgaggregatedattheplotscale.DuringthesecondsamplingweassessedfireseverityandmeasuredforestfloorandmineralsoilC,N,andHgatthesubplotscale.Ourresultsindicatethataggregatingattheplotscaledoesnotdifferentiateamongforestfloorfireseveritycategories.Differencesinelementpoolswhereonlyfoundbetweenburnedandunburnedplots.However,assessingforestfloorfireseverityatthesubplotscaleandrelatingitdirectlytotheforestfloorandmineralsoilsamplestakenatthatscaleexplainmuchmorevariabilityintherelationshipbetweenforestfloorfireseverityandpostfireelementpools.

*USDAForestServiceNorthernResearchStationrkolka@fs.fed.us/218‐326‐7115

15

Natural resource managers’ perceptions of forest land parcelization trends, drivers, and impacts in the Lake States MichaelKilgore*;StephanieSnyder,USDA‐ForestService,NorthernResearchStation

ForestlandparcelizationisviewedasapotentialthreattomaintainingtheproductivityandviabilityofprivateforeststhroughouttheUnitedStates.Naturalresourceprofessionalssuchasforestersandwildlifemanagerswhoworkinpredominantlyforestedlandscapeshaveunique,field‐basedperspectivesandinsightsonforestlandparcelization(e.g.,parcelizationdrivers,impacts,trends)thatcanbeimportanttoresearchersandpolicy‐makers.Additionally,thoseworkingforpublicresourcemanagementorganizationscanofferdistinctperspectivesonhowprivateforestlandparcelizationactivityisaffectingormayaffectthemanagement,use,andprotectionofpublicforestlands.Usinganinternet‐basedsurvey,morethan250field‐basedpublicnaturalresourcemanagersintheLakeStatesprovidedinformationontheirfamiliaritywithparcelization,perceivedparcelizationtrendsintheirworkarea,perspectivesonimportantdriversofparcelization,potentialoutcomesassociatedwithaparcelizedlandscape,parcelizationimpactsonpubliclandmanagement,andstrategiesforpreventingorslowingtherateofparcelization.Theyalsorankedfouruniqueforestlandownershippatternsaccordingtotheirperceptionsofhoweachownershippatternimpactsthreeforestresources:timberproduction,wildlifehabitat,andforestrecreation.Selectedsurveyresultshighlightingnaturalresourcemanagerperspectivesonforestlandparcelizationtrends,drivers,andimpactstoprivateandpublicforestswillbediscussed.

*ForestResourcesDept,UMNmkilgore@umn.edu/612‐624‐6298

16

Biomass dry-down: Fuel benefits and site impacts BradJones*

Overthepastseveralyears,Europeanmodelsforrenewablefuelhavedrawnconsiderableattention.Sweden,Germany,AustriaandSwitzerlandhavemademajorcommitmentstobecomereliantonrenewablefuelforthemajorityoftheirpowerandheatingneeds.Forthepast30years,thesecountrieshavebeenconductingresearchdesignedtorefinetechniquesforintegratingrenewablesintothemainstream.Thisproject,fundedbytheUSDepartmentofAgriculturethroughtheFondduLacBandofLakeSuperiorChippewa,isdesignedtodemonstrateEuropeanmodelsforinwoodsdryingofbiomassfuelsandutilizethesefuelsasathermalenergysourceinmodernpelletappliances.Theprojectevaluatesthefinancialandenvironmentalimpactsofin‐woodsdryingandwillusetheresultstoevaluatetribalandstatecontractingpractices,supplychainlogisticsandlegalbarriers,andmakerecommendationsforoptimizingvalue‐chainefficiencyinthestateandregion.Thispresentationwilldiscusstheresultsoffueldryingandtheimpactonloggingeconomics,aswellaspreliminarydataonthesiteimpactoflong‐termstorageofwoodybiomassintheforest.

*ItascaCommunityCollegebrad.jones@itascacc.edu/218‐322‐2354

17

Management implications for private forestland when there are multiple owners StephanieSnyder*;MikeKilgore,UniversityofMinnesotaDept.ofForestResources

Whenaparcelofforestlandisjointlyheldbymultipleowners,isthatabarriertoforestmanagement?Previousresearchhasfoundthatwhenagriculturallandisjointlyheldbymultipleco‐owners,suchlandsmayoftengounmanaged,beabandoned,partitioned,orforcedintosale.Multi‐personownershipofforestedparcelsmaycomplicatetheabilitytoundertakeactivitiessuchasharvestinggiventhatallownersmustsignacontractaswellasprovideproofofownership.Moreover,forestedparcelswithlargenumbersofownersmaynotqualifyforloansorassistanceprogramsduetopotentialdifficultiesingettingallownerstoagreetotheconditionsoftheprogramand/orinprovidingcleartitletotheland.Whileanecdotalevidenceofsuchimpactshasbeenofferedintheliterature,thesefindingshavenotbeenrigorouslytestedordemonstratedonabroadscale.Weundertookastudyutilizinganationaldatasetofinformationonprivateforestlandowners,theNationalWoodlandOwnerSurvey,whichisadministeredbytheFIAprogramoftheUSForestService.TheNWOSdataallowedustoexaminewhetherforestmanagementbehaviorsandintentionsonprivateforestlandsmaydifferwithincreasingnumbersofowners.Wealsoexaminedhowforestlandownershipstructuresandlandownerdecision‐makingnetworksarerelatedtopastpracticesandfutureintentions.Contrarytopreviousfindings,ourresearchsuggeststhathavingagreaternumberofownersneednotnecessarilyreducethelikelihoodofactivitiessuchasharvestingorwildlifehabitatimprovement.

*NorthernResearchStation,USForestServicestephaniesnyder@fs.fed.us/651‐649‐5294

18

Identifying and preserving Heritage Forest Stands through tree-ring records: A case study of fire history and culturally-modified trees in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness EvanLarson*;KurtF.Kipfmueller,UniversityofMinnesota;LaneB.Johnson,UniversityofWisconsin‐Platteville

Weassessedthefirehistory,agestructure,andculturaluseofsitesacrosstheprimaryforestsoftheBoundaryWatersCanoeAreaWildernessinordertobetterunderstandtheroleofpeopleinthehistoricalfireregimesofthislandscapeandhowhumanactivitiesofthepastmaypersistintheforestsoftoday.Ourresultsincludeover400yearsofdetailedfirehistory,forestinventorydatafor31stands,andtheidentificationof28siteswhereculturally‐modifiedtreesprovidedirectevidenceofpastlanduse.BasedonthesedataweproposetheconceptofHeritageStandsthatcouldbetargetedforrestorationorspecialmanagementconsiderationinordertoactivelymanageculturally‐influencedforestsitesthatembodytheessenceofwilderness.Ourresearchhighlightsthevalueofnaturalareasasecologicalbaselinesandhowresearchfromwithinwildernesscaninformmanagementbeyonditsborders.Themethodsweemployedareapplicableacrossallforestsystems,andthoughpastlandusemayhavereducedtheexistenceofsiteswarrantingheritageconsideration,wepresentinformationonlandscapeswheresuchsitesmaystillexist.Directmanagementimplicationsfromthisworkrangefromthedocumentationandmappingofthesestandstotheexplicittailoringofprescribedfireprogramstoincorporatetheuniquehistoryofsuchsitesintheirmanagementandthepotentialofactivemanagementwithinwildernessareas.EffortstoidentifyHeritageStandsthroughouttheforestsoftheUpperMidwestcouldhelpinformsite‐specificmanagementactivitieswhilepreservingtheculturalandnaturalhistoryoftheregion.

*UniversityofWisconsin‐Plattevillelarsonev@uwplatt.edu/608‐342‐6139

19

Block 4: Insects & Invasives

Assessing the acarological risk of human exposure to tickborne pathogens in Minnesota JennaBjork*;DavidNeitzel,FrannyDorr,andElizabethSchiffman,MinnesotaDepartmentofHealth;TammiJohnsonandRebeccaEisen,CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention;SoniaKjos,UniversityofMinnesota,Duluth;andJeanneMinnerath,SaintMary'sUniversityofMinnesota.

Ixodesscapularis,theblacklegged(deer)tick,istheprimaryvectorofseveralpathogenscausinghumandiseaseintheUnitedStates.Overthelasttwodecades,I.scapularis‐bornediseaseshaveincreasedinincidenceaswellasgeographicdistribution.UsingexistingdataonblackleggedtickpresencepreviouslycollectedbytheMinnesotaDepartmentofHealth(MDH),theCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(CDC)createdatickdistributionmodelthatpredictsareasthatareecologicallyconducivetothesurvivalofI.scapularis.Themajorobjectivesofthisstudywereto1)developanacarologicalriskmodelforMinnesotathatcanbeusedtoidentifyareasofelevatedabundanceofhost‐seekingI.scapularisandareasoffutureexpansionand2)monitorI.scapularispopulationsfromAprilthroughOctoberatfourgeographicallydiverseregionsofthestateinanefforttobetterunderstandthephenologyofticklifestagesinMinnesota.Intotal,80acarologysiteswererandomlyselectedbythemodelbasedonsuitablehabitatandpubliclandclassification;thesesitesweresampledtwiceinJune,duringtheanticipatedpeakquestingperiodofblackleggedticknymphs.Anadditionalfourphenologysiteswerechosenbytheresearcherstorepresentvariousregionsofthestate;thesesitesweresampledbiweeklyfromAprilthroughNovember.Forallsites,tickswerecollectedusingadistance‐basedsamplingmethodinwhichawhitecottonclothwasdraggedovertheground,coveringatotalareaof750m2persite.Preliminaryresultsindicatethat5,754tickswerecollectedfrom80(95%)of84sitesvisitedin2015.Ofallthetickscollected,4,556(79%)wereidentifiedasI.scapularisandatleastoneI.scapularistickwascollectedfrom73(87%)of84sites.Anaverageof6.6(median3,range0‐77)nymphswerecollectedontransectpersitevisit.Datacollectionfromeachofthephenologysitesindicatedthatthepeaknymphalquestingperiodoccurredslightlylaterthanexpectedin2015,inlateJuneandearlyJulyinsteadofmid‐June.Therefore,whilethenumbersofnymphsfoundquestingduringourstudyrepresentarelativedegreeofriskbetweensites,absolutetickdensityislikelyunderestimatedandsubjecttoseverallimitations.Knowledgeofsuitabletickhabitat,includingcurrentlyestablishedandpotentiallyemergingareas,aswellastickphenologyisimportantforguidingtickbornediseasepreventionstrategiesinMinnesota.

*MinnesotaDepartmentofHealthJenna.Bjork@state.mn.us/651‐201‐5803

20

A new research center at the University of Minnesota on terrestrial invasive species RobertVenette*

Theinvasionsofnewinsects,diseases,andplantsintoMinnesotacontinuetopresentdifficultchallengestoforestmanagers.TheMinnesotaInvasiveTerrestrialPlantsandPestsCenterwasrecentlyestablishedattheUniversityofMinnesotatoresearchnewmethodstopreventorminimizethesethreatstoMinnesotaforests,prairies,wetlands,andagriculture.Threeinitialprojectsfocusonconcernsinforestry.ThisbriefpresentationwillintroducetheCenter,itsinitialpriorities,andprogresstowardsrankingthetop120invasivespeciesthreatstoMinnesotalands.

*MinnesotaInvasiveTerrestrialPlantsandPestsCenter,UniversityofMinnesotavenet001@umn.edu/612‐301‐1405

21

Dispersal capacity of late instar gypsy moth larvae (Lymantria dispar) and implications for wood products movement RachaelNicoll*;ScottMyers,USDAAPHIS‐PPQ;andBrianAukema,UniversityofMinnesota

Thegypsymoth(Lymantriadispar)isaninvasiveforestdefoliatorofover300treeandshrubspecies,mostnotablyoakandaspen.ItsrangehasexpandedthroughoutthenortheasternregionoftheUnitedStatesandeasternCanadianprovincestoMidwesternandSoutheasternstatesprimarilythroughhumantransportation.Eggmasses,inparticular,arereadilyconveyedonwoodproducts.Tomitigatespreadviawoodproducts,stateandfederalquarantinepoliciesrestrictmovementofregulatedarticlessuchaslogsandfirewood.Woodmovementmitigationmeasuresincludea100‐foothostvegetation‐freebufferzonesurroundinglogdeckstopreventinfestationoflogsandadjacentforestbycrawlinggypsymothlarvae.However,nostudiesexistwhichevaluatethelong‐distancedispersaloflateinstargypsymothlarvae,thedevelopmentalstagewiththegreatestpotentialformovementacrosstheground.Thedispersaloflateinstarlarvaemayreducetheeffectivenessofgypsymothcontainmentpoliciesasthelocationofpupationstronglyinfluencestheegg‐layingsiteoftheflightlessfemalegypsymoth.Insummer2015,wereleasedfourth,fifth,andsixthinstargypsymothlarvaedailyforsixdaysatapapermilllumberyardandvisuallyassessedtheirdispersalcapacityover12hourswithharmonicradarsupplementation.Movementof20percentofthelarvaesurpassedthebufferzonewidth,andthegreatestdispersaldistancewas143.7feet.Theseresultsdemonstrateaneedtoevaluatethewoodproductsmovementrestrictionsofthegypsymothquarantineaswellastheeffectivenessofalternativecontainmentmeasures.

*UniversityofMinnesotanicol071@umn.edu/651‐624‐7683

22

Attendees ScottAbelRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNsabel@redlakenation.org2187663826

Bruce AndersonMNDNR.WLDivisionCloquetMNbruce.d.anderson@state.mn.us218‐879‐0880

Brian AndersonUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNand03662@umn.edu6126264280

TonyArolaRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNtarola@paulbunyan.net2182804055

Dave ArrasMNDNRDuluthMNDave.Arras@state.mn.us218‐723‐4791

Penny BackmanMNDNRInternationalFallsMNpenny.backman@state.mn.us218‐286‐5434

ChrisBalzerMNDNRCloquetMNchristian.balzer@state.mn.us218‐878‐5665

Greg BernuCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonMNgreg.bernu@co.carlton.mn.us218‐384‐9179

Jan BernuTwoByForestryCloquetMNtwoxforestry@gmail.com218‐879‐4433

BudBertschiselfemployedBrainerdMNbudbert@brainerd.net218‐820‐9640

Jenna BjorkMNDepartmentofHealthSt.PaulMNjenna.bjork@state.mn.us651‐201‐5803

Tom BodellLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNtom.bodell@co.lake.mn.us2188348340

PeterBundyMasconomoForestryMinneapolisMNppbundy@gmail.com952‐380‐7793

Tim CattonSuperiorNationalForestDuluthMNtcatton@fs.fed.us218‐626‐4376

Darion CobenaisRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNmwilson@redlakenation.org2186791639

JenniferCorcoranMNDNRForestryStPaulMNjennifer.corcoran@state.mn.us651‐259‐5898

Allissa CorrowMNDNREffieMNAllissa.Corrow@State.mn.us218‐743‐3694

Anne CoyleMNDNRInternationalFallsMNmargi.coyle@state.mn.us218‐286‐5434

HelenCozzettoMNDNRThiefRiverFallsMNhelen.cozzetto@state.mn.us218‐681‐0889

Miranda CurzonUniversityofMinnesotaSaintPaulMNmcurzon@umn.edu(612)625‐6989

Casey DabrowskiItascaWoodlandServices,Inc.NEVISMNcdabrowski@gmail.com2182528572

KevinDahlmanCassCountyLandDepartmentBackusMNkevin.dahlman@co.cass.mn.us218‐947‐3338

Glenn DelGiudiceMNDNRForestLakeMNglenn.delgiudice@state.mn.us651‐296‐0702

Bob DeRocheCompassForestryServices,LLCCottonMNbobderoche6@gmail.com2187307997

23

TedDickMNDNRGrandRapidsMNted.dick@state.mn.us2189997870

Mike DockryUSForestServiceSaintPaulMNmdockry@fs.fed.us651‐649‐5163

Scott DowlingItascaCountyLandDepartmentGrandRapidsMNscott.dowling@co.itasca.mn.us2183270673

NolanEckRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNnolan.eck1@gmail.com2185567577

Nate EideLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNnate.eide@co.lake.mn.us2188348340

Alan EkUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNaek@umn.edu612‐624‐3098

DarinEricksonUPMBlandinGrandRapidsMNdarin.erickson@upm.com320‐310‐9532

Jeff FossenRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNjfossen@paulbunyan.net2187663826

Katie FrerkerUSDAForestServiceDuluthMNkfrerker@fs.fed.us218‐626‐4358

MackGlasbyUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNglasb005@umn.edu6126264280

Stanley GrossmanItascaWoodlandServices,Inc.NEVISMNiws@wcta.net2182528572

Sophia GuttermanUSForestService/UMNSaintPaulMNgutte009@umn.edu651‐649‐5163

WesHabedankMNDNRForestryFloodwoodMNwes.habedank@state.mn.us218‐476‐7022

Brooke HaworthMNDNREWRDuluthMNbrooke.haworth@state.mn.us651‐259‐5755

Anna HeruthMNDNRGrandMaraisMNanna.heruth@state.mn.us218‐387‐3037

LarryHimangaMNDNRlakecityMNlarry.himanga@state.mn.us651‐259‐5277

Jeff HinesMNDNRGrandRapidsMNjeff.hines@state.mn.us2189997940

Justin JanssenRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNJustin.Janssen@redlakenation.org2182098197

BradJonesItascaCommunityCollegeGrandRapidsMNbrad.jones@itascacc.edu218‐322‐2354

Mike KilgoreUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNmkilgore@umn.edu612‐624‐6298

Joshua KoelschMNDNRWillowRiverMNjoshua.koelsch@state.mn.us218‐423‐6026

RandyKolkaUSFSGrandRapidsMNrkolka@fs.fed.us218‐326‐7115

Chuck KramerUMNCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNckramer@umn.edu218‐726‐6411

Evan LarsonUniversityofWisconsin‐PlattevillePlattevilleWIlarsonev@uwplatt.edu608‐342‐6139

JeffLeeMinnesotaBiologicalSurvey/DNRDuluthMNJeffrey.Lee@state.mn.us218‐723‐4763

Quintin LeglerUPM‐BlandinPaperCo.GrandRapidsMNquintin.legler@upm.com218‐327‐6304

Erik LindquistCassCountyLandDepartmentBackusMNerik.lindquist@co.cass.mn.us218‐947‐3338

24

ChristinaMaley1854TreatyAuthorityDuluthMNcmaley@1854treatyauthority.org2187228907

Jeremy MaslowskiMNDNRTowerMNjeremymaslowski@state.mn.us218‐753‐2580

Justin MayneLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNjustin.mayne@co.lake.mn.us2188348340

LeslieMcInenlyMinnesotaDNRSt.PaulMNleslie.mcinenly@state.mn.us651‐259‐5235

Rachael NicollMinnesotaForestResourcesCouncilSt.PaulMNnicol071@umn.edu651‐603‐6761

Jerry NiemiUMDNRRIDuluthMNgniemi@umn.edu218‐788‐2670

BillNixonLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNbill.nixon@co.lake.mn.us2188348340

Michael NorthMNDNRSectionofWildlifeBrainerdMNmichael.north@state.mn.us218‐330‐4815

Anne OldakowskiWadenaSoilandWaterConservationWadenaMNAnne.Oldakowski@mn.nacdnet.net2186313195

RachaelOlesiakCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNrolesiak@umn.edu218‐269‐4324

Brian PalikUSFS‐NorthernResearchStationGrandRapidsMNbpalik@fs.fed.us218‐326‐7116

StephaniePattonUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNpatt0373@umn.edu6126264280

EmilyPetersDepartmentofNaturalResourcesSaintPaulMNemily.peters@state.mn.us651‐259‐5135

Larry PetersenMNDNRInternationalFallsMNlawrence.petersen@state.mn.us218‐286‐5434

Chris PetersonPrivateForestryConsultantGrandRapidsMNchrisbizpeterson@gmail.com218‐326‐4645

BethPetersonPineSWCDSandstoneMNbeth.peterson@co.pine.mn.us320‐216‐4245

Beckie PrangeHubachekWildernessResearchCenterElyMNrjprange@umn.edu218.365.7766

Jodie ProvostDNR‐WildlifeAitkinMNjodie.provost@state.mn.us218‐429‐3052

AmyRandCassCountyLandDepartmentBackusMNamy.rand@co.cass.mn.us218‐947‐3338

Matt RussellUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNrussellm@umn.edu6126264280

LindseyShartellMNDNRGrandRapidsMNlindsey.shartell@state.mn.us218‐999‐7932

StephanieSnyderUSForestService,NorthernResearchStationSt.PaulMNstephaniesnyder@fs.fed.us651‐649‐5294

Dan StewardBoardofWater&SoilResourcesBrainerdMNdan.steward@state.mn.us218‐203‐4474

David ThomasMNDNRBemidjiMNdavid.h.thomas@state.mn.us218‐308‐2377

JessicaVanDuynMNDNRTowerMNjessica.vanduyn@state.mn.us2187532580

Robert VenetteUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNvenet001@umn.edu612‐301‐1405

MarkWestphalCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonMNmark.westphal@co.carlton.mn.us218‐384‐9179

25

PatrickWherleyMNDNRCloquetMNPatrick.Wherley@state.mn.us218‐341‐8540

BruceWhiteRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNjustin.janssen@redlakenation.org2186791602

MitchWilsonRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNmwilson@redlakenation.org2186791639

DavidWilsonUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNwils0602@umn.edu612‐624‐2202

Joe WormMNDNRCloquet,MNMNjoe.worm@state.mn.us218‐878‐5664

MelissaYoungquistUniversityofMinnesotaGrandRapidsMNmyoungquist@umn.edu218‐326‐7132

26

Notes

27

Acknowledgements Wearegratefultoeveryonewhohelpedtomakethisyear’sForestryandWildlifeResearchReviewasuccess.

TheResearchReviewplanningcommitteeconsistingofAlanEk,GeorgeHost,RickKlevorn,MikeLarson,BrianPalik,andRobSlesakhelpedtoidentifytopicsandspeakersandprovidedvaluableinputontheformat.

SpeakersandposterpresentersJennaBjork,TimCatton,MirandaCurzon,GlennDelGiudice,MikeDockry,SophiaGutterman,BradJones,MikeKilgore,RandyKolka,EvanLarson,ChristinaMaley,RachaelNicoll,JerryNiemi,BrianPalik,StephanieSnyder,RobVenette,andDavidWilsongenerouslydevelopedanddeliveredpresentationstranslatingtheirresearchintorelevant,practicalresultsthatwehopeyoucanuse.CloquetForestryCenterstaffSimonClark,AndyDavid,ChuckKramer,StephanieOberg,JoeUlsby,DeniseVolk,JimWarren,andTimYoungcontributedtotheevent.MealswereprovidedbyJimnJo’sNorthlandKateringofCloquet.

Asaneducationalcooperative,theSFECdependsonthecontinuedinvestmentofourmemberorganizationsandindividuals,whosecontributionsenableustooffereventslikethisone.WearealsosupportedbytheUniversityofMinnesotaCollegeofFood,Agriculture,andNaturalResourceSciencesandtheCloquetForestryCenter.

Andfinally,withoutyourregistrationandparticipation,theeventwouldhavebeensignificantlylessinteresting.Thankyouforjoiningustoday.

‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson

28

SFEC Member organizations for 2015-2016 AitkinCountyLandDepartmentAitkinCountySWCDAudubonCenteroftheNorthWoodsBeltramiCountyNaturalResourceMgmtCampRipleyNaturalResourcesCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonCountySWCDCassCountyLandDepartmentChequamegon‐NicoletNationalForest(USFS)ChippewaNationalForest(USFS)ClearwaterCountyLandDepartmentCrowWingCountyLandDepartmentFondDuLacReservationGrandPortageBandofChippewaHubbardCountyNaturalResourceMgmtItascaCommunityCollegeItascaCountySWCDKoochichingCountyLand&ForestryLakeCountyLandDepartmentMilleLacsBandofOjibweMNAssociationofCountyLandCommissionersMNDNR‐DivisionofForestryMNDNR‐ForestStewardshipPlanwriters

MNDNR‐ DivisionofEcological&WaterResources

MNDNR‐SectionofWildlifeMNForestResourcesCouncilMolpusTimberlandLLCPineCountySWCDPotlatchCorporationRedLakeTribalDNRSappiFinePaperSouthSt.LouisCountySWCDSt.John’sUniversityArboretumSt.LouisCountyLandDepartmentSuperiorNationalForest(USFS)TheNatureConservancy–MNChapterUMD–NaturalResourcesResearchInstituteUMNExtensionForestryUMNDept.ofForestResourcesUPMBlandinPaperCompanyWadenaCountySWCDWhiteEarthTribalForestryWIDNRDivisionofForestryVermilionCommunityCollege

Keeping in Touch ViewSFEC’sCalendarofEvents:http://z.umn.edu/SFECevents

Joinourmailinglists:Toreceiveourmonthlyemailnewsletter,subscribeathttp://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/Toreceiveourcalendarofeventsbymail,contactJulie(hendr065@umn.edu)

Contactus:EliSagorSFECManageresagor@umn.edu218‐409‐6115JulieHendricksonSFECProgramAssistanthendr065@umn.eduorsfec@umn.edu218‐726‐6403