ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

Currently we are using the following environmental consequence information to
assess timber sale activities:
Water yield and its impact on stream channel stability.
Cover/forage ratios for elk, deer, and moose.
01 d-growth management 1 evel s, using the pi leated woodpecker as
an indicator specie.
Sediment production and its impact on anadromous fishery habitat.
Fuel and fire behavior potentials.
Timber growth and yield.
Habitat type informati on for predicting regeneration success and
selection of planting stock.
Visual qua1 i ty standards.
Road closures and their effect on big game populations.
In reviewing the abstracts of papers presented, I see possibilities for using new
information relating to mycorrhizae, soil nutrients (nitrogen), and critical micro-
environmental factors, and a1 so possibly expanding use of information now avai 1 able
in fuels management programs. Considering the use of such information also impl ies
that land managers could be collecting new data that require sophisticated equipment
and analysis technique. Several papers indicate that broadcast burning is superior
to dozer pi1 ing in benefits for mycorrhizae, soil and water, and wildlife.
Right now, our use of research findings is fragmentary and uneven. This is due
to factors such as 1) the need to develop new environmental consequence information
in light of numerous laws; 2) the need to improve interdisciplinary relationships so
that comprehensive plans are devised; and 3) the need to assure sufficient time for
training, and to implement environmental considerations in timber harvesting plans.
Land managers, silviculturists, and staff people are very willing to adopt and
use the results of environmental studies. To assure that environmental consequences
are understood and used in designing timber harvesting and other silvicultural
activities, however, we need to take several actions. We should support the recom-
mendations of the recent "Forest Service Technology Transfer Workshop" held in
Tucson, Ariz., February 13-15, 1979.
We should imnediately impl ement recommendations for refining techno1 ogy transfer
in the "Forest Service Program Planning and Budgeting System" (recomendations 2, 11 ,
18 and 29). We should then carry out recomendations to include technology transfer
in program and activity reviews and to include accountabi 1 i ty within the performance
rating system for national forest managers, staff officers, and scientists (recommen-
dations 5, 6, 8 and 15). These actions would be in addition to our current efforts
to gain understanding through symposia, field trips, and personal contacts.
We a1 so need to develop the recommendations outlined in the Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station and Mi ssoul a Equipment Development Center special
report "Evaluating The Need For Environmental Monitoring To Predict Timber Harvest
Impacts" (Hungerford and Babbitt 1976).
The concepts expressed will be useful in formulating silvicultural prescriptions
for land management treatments at the stand and watershed 1 evel s of deci sion-making ,
and will help to provide a framework for gathering and displaying environmental
information so it can be of use in silvicul tural prescriptions and environmental
assessment reports, This framework will a1 so give us the opportunity to explain the
complex ecosystems and management activities inherent in national forest programs.