Conflict resolutions BMP vs Aerial Spraying

[Bill Johnson]

In my neck of the woods (N. Ont) we've been encouraging the forest industry to emulate natural disturbances by leaving trees standing the in the harvest blocks following operations.
The self agreed to guidelines for the retention of snags request that the industry do the following:
a)Retain at least 6 living or dying cavity trees or potential cavity trees per hectare (14 trees/acre)( or any combination thereof.)
b)Cavity trees must be at least 15cm or 6" dbh of which at least 2 trees per hectare must be greater than 30cm or 12".
c)These residual trees may be retained in a variety of patterns across harvest blocks depending on site conditions. Retained cavity tress will reflect the overstory composition of the harvest block.
d)Cavity trees in decreasing order of preference are Po. Pb, Sw, Pj, and Bw. Retained Pw, Pr, Ab, and Ms of sufficient size will also be considered cavity trees.
e)In all cases the retention of standing residual trees will be at the discretion of the forest worker. Forest worker safety (both harvesting and renewal) is of paramount importance.
f)Where possible forest operators will be encouraged to leave unmerchantable portions of tree boles and slash at the harvest site to provide for coarse woody debris for marten habitat. Site preparation techniques that encourage the retention of residual trees yet minimizes slash removal from the site is preferred.
The forest industry voluntarily implements these requirements and actively encourages the retention of residual material. Cutovers now do not appear to be swept clean and are usually host to a wide variety of birds and wildlife.
The problem arises when it becomes necessary to aerially tend these areas usually using vision (round-up) to control competing vegetation. Since this is a non selective herbicide all the deciduous material which has been left is usually killed off. This results in a "hard" type of snag the does not meet the intent of original "guideline", we have tried to encourage the industry to group hectare so that the is a 60 tree patch for every 10 (148 tree/25 acres)hectares but even these are at risk of pesticide damage.
Most harvest blocks are too large to economically ground spray as the average size of our blocks is around 30 hectares (75 acres).
The idea is to have successive snag trees available within the harvest area until the crop trees reach such a height as they are producing their own snags.
I am looking for suggestions as to how we can best reach our goal while allowing for cost-effective renewal to take place.

Just a side note, where the guideline talks of Pw, Pr, Ab and Ms being retained that is because we do not harvest those species here at present.

I look forward to reading what you have to say.
Thanks much
Bill

[Ron Scott]

The broadcast Aerial spraying of herbicides is not compatible with the ecosystem management and other resource objectives you are trying to achieve, thus the reason for Best Management Practices (BMP's). The USDA-Forest Service here gave up aerial spraying of herbicides or just about all use of herbicides some time ago. Only selective basal spraying if at all.

[Bill Johnson]

We've looked at that as an alternative, and ground spraying is starting to become a more widely used tool, however it's not as cost effective as aerial and with the bottom line in most cases being the dollar people are reluctant to use it.
For example this year in our district the industry is anticipating doing aerial tending on approximately 5000 hectares (12,000 acres) as well as doing an additional 1296 hecatares (3200 acres) of ground applications, from experience I would suggest that the aerial component will be completed before the ground spray will have even started.
Most of areas treated will have been subjected to the implementation of "snag tree" practices.
One correction from my first message. 6 tree/ha=2.5 trees/ac.  and 60/10 ha=60/25 acres I originally multiplied the conversion instead of dividing.
Still, trying to make the best out of the situation (given that there is no legal requirement for the leaving of snag trees)is there other recommendations as to how to best preserve some live trees in an area which will be subject to aerial tending.
We work quite close with our industry partners, in trying to get around these types of problems and they are usually willing to try any suggested changes.
Thank you arcwoods for your reply, I appreciate the input.
Bill

[Ron Scott]

We leave 4-5 mast, den, cavity, and or snag trees per acre. The USDA-Forest Service even as live growing trees "topped" to provide snag trees in timber types such as red pine plantation areas where there are not a sufficient number of such  trees for wildlife. I realize that your management
situation there is a little different with the Crown lands and timber licenses issue to private companies to manage large acreages of your timber lands.
However, it will probably be only a manner of time
before the environmentalists get on your case of blanket aerial spraying of nonselective herbicides as they have here. We got the message strongly back in the early 1980's so only basal spraying if any at all with none at all near water, wet land areas, road sides etc. Appropriate buffer zones have to be provided.  There must be cautious use of any systemic herbicides, especially where conifers are near hardwoods to be sprayed. Aerial spraying may be cheaper from a timber production stand point, but when the other nonmonitary resource values of an ecosystem are considered and determined to be "priceless" it made use any use of herbicides become selective and site specific in there need and use.
I was recently called out to do an all resources damage assessment where the systemic herbicide Garlon was used within a powerline right of way to kill trees and bush but extended off onto the adjoining landowner property. So even the selective basal spaying sometimes get carried away to far here in our more urban areas.
I assume you that you are balloon marking and ground checking the no-spray areas so your good pilots are aware of them and not hitting them.

[Bill Johnson]

As you can appreciate the application of pesticide in any form is highly regulated, especially aerial application. The Ministy of Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources both have a wide variety of policies and procedures that cover this.
Industry however, is not usually bound by any policy or procedure unless it is a legal requirement.
We've employed a wide variety of techniques to implement the snag guidelines. The patches which are left are usually in protected areas where they are not susceptable to blowdown, single stems left in the harvest blocks especially conifer species tend to blow down.
Industry has also developed several techniques that they employ, one of them has the feller buncher cut the trees off at varying heights between 1 metre (3') and 5.1 metres (16') and leaving these for snags.
To ensure that the best trees are left for cavity trees industry also developed and uses "ugly tree diagrams" to train their staff as to what is acceptable. Basically this means any stem that is already dead, dying or decayed is an excellent candidate. Trees which have extremely heavy branching for its entire length, trees that are full of crook and sweep, trees which are forked before the first merchantable bolt length is reached and trees which broken off due to natural reasons are all preferred as snag trees.
Since these trees would usually end up left in the skidways as unmerchantable or unmarketable if they were cut industry in most cases is more than happy to leave them standing.
When it comes to aerial tending, industry project supervisors meet daily with the pilots to discuss the areas to flown, all pilots are supplied with coloured photography and maps showing the block and no spray zones.
I know that balloons and markers used to be used but I'm not sure what is done now.
I think the only way we are going to be able to protect as many trees as possible will be to group them in patches and encourage the industry to designate these areas as no spray zones.
With our friends the environment groups becoming more and more common out in our neck of the woods it only pays for us to be pro-active.
Bill

[mad murdock]

I know that this is an old thread, but I feel the need to chime in on the subject from the point of view of one who works for an aerial applicator that applies to forest land over several states, namely, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Utah.  There have been volumes of data generated on spray drift models, (National Spray Drift Task Force), and other studies, done in both field settings and extensive wind-tunnel testing.  Our company has directly been involved in an interesting spray drift study done by Oregon State University, with EPA funding, that shows that the earlier spray drift modeling done in the late 1990's and early in 2000's was not the best model to use when considering chemical label language, and real-world evidence of what is going on.  Couple with that, the massive improvements in equipment, including DGPS guidance, Nozzle design, knowledge about the relationship between nozzle deflection angles and chemical pressure at the nozzle, etc. etc.  In short, we can apply chemical faster, and with more precision, safer and more cost effectively than any ground based application.  Any long term planner with stewardship over larger tracts of commercial timberland, uses Aerial application as an integral part of BMP, there is a time and place for ground crews, but aerial has been given a bad rap due to the oft-times mis-information of those supplying regulatory agencies  the data with which they use to base their decisions .  Especially when it comes to forestry, I personally know applicators who cover forest land on both sides of the 49th parrallel, from the east coast to the Pacific Ocean, and all of the applicators I know belong to Porfessional Organizations, and attend and fund alot of science that goes into what we do, so we cn say with confidence that we do a good job in the most responsible way, when it comes to controlling driftable fines, and being sensitive to the whole forest ecosystem.  The herbicides with forestry labels we use today in the states that we cover, have a lower L/D -50 rating than common table salt, without exception.  Unfortunately this is a highly politicised subject with alot of disinformation given out as fact to the general public, which serves no useful purpose, except to those bent on shutting honest utilization of the earths resources for the benefit and good of all, instead of being controlled by the elite.

[Dana]

Ron, a power company has a line that runs on our property. The line feeds a cement company exclusively.  They used an aerial spray on their right-of-way. The spray drift traveled 50 to 100 yards over into our cedar and spruce swamp. Very disappointing to find that kind of damage. >:(

[Ron Scott]

What were the damages and how severe? Any wetlands or waters involved?