Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative

2015 Forestry & Wildlife Research Review

Aday‐longsymposium:TuesdayFebruary24,2015

8:15am–4:30pmCloquetForestryCenterinCloquet,MN

2

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

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

ForestryKeynote:Adaptingforeststoclimatechange:Lessonsandapproachesformanaginguncertainty............................................................................................................................................................................5 

WildlifeKeynote:Anoverviewofforestwildlifepopulations&managementissues...........................6 

Block1:SilviculturePresentations..................................................................................................................................7 

Evaluatingtheecologicalimpactsofemeraldashborerandclimatechangeonblackashforests.7 

Newcohortandstand‐levelbiomassgrowthaftervariableretentionharvestsinaredpineecosystem...............................................................................................................................................................................8 

Forestresponsetoharvestresidueremovalandassociatedpracticesvarieswithsiteconditions..................................................................................................................................................................................................10 

Block2:Forest‐basedWildlifePresentations............................................................................................................11 

Northernlong‐earedbatinMinnesota....................................................................................................................11 

ThestatusandconditionofMinnesota’smoosepopulation..........................................................................11 

Fisherandmarten:Seeingthestructurefortheforest.....................................................................................12 

Block3:“LightningTalks”byPosterPresenters......................................................................................................13 

Aninformationexchangeforwildlifeinfire‐dependentecosystemsoftheNorthernLakeStates13 

StructureanddynamicsofjackpineforestsincentralMinnesota..............................................................14 

Thelongestrunningnorthernhardwoodsilvicultureexperimentintheworld!..................................15 

HowhealthyareMinnesota’sforests?InsightsusingforesthealthindicatorsfromtheForestInventoryandAnalysisProgram................................................................................................................................16 

Block4:Presentations.........................................................................................................................................................17 

AssessingeffectsofharvestlandingsonearlystandgrowthusingLiDAR...............................................17 

Forestdisturbanceandimplicationsforeffectsonwaterqualityatthewatershedscale.................18 

Forestdeadwood:researchinsightsforforestandwildlifemanagers.....................................................19 

Attendees..................................................................................................................................................................................20 

CreditandAcknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................24 

Notes...........................................................................................................................................................................................25 

SFECMemberorganizationsfor2014‐2015..............................................................................................................28 

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

3

Agenda

2015 Forest and Wildlife Research Review February24,2015from8:15am–4:30pm,CloquetForestryCenter8:15am Check‐inopens

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

9:00am Forestry Keynote Adaptingforeststoclimatechange:Lessonsandapproachesformanaginguncertainty

MariaJanowiak,NIACS

9:45am Wildlife KeynoteAnoverviewofforestwildlifepopulations&managementissues

MikeLarson,MNDNR‐Wildlife

10:30am Breakandpostersession:AtriumandStineRoom

11:00am Block 1: Silviculture ‐Evaluatingtheecologicalimpactsofemeraldashborerandclimatechangeonblackashforests‐Newcohortandstand‐levelbiomassgrowthaftervariableretentionharvestsinaredpineecosystem‐Forestresponsetoharvestresidueremovalandassociatedpracticesvarieswithsiteconditions

BrianPalik,USFSNRSRebeccaMontgomery,UMN‐FR

MirandaCurzon,UMN‐FR

Noon Lunchandpostersession:DiningHallandStineRoom(posters)

1:00pm Block 2: Forest-based Wildlife‐Northernlong‐earedbatinMinnesota‐ThestatusandconditionofMinnesota’smoosepopulation‐Fisherandmarten:Seeingthestructurefortheforest

RichBaker,MNDNR‐EcologicalResources

RonMoen,UMD‐NRRIJohnErb,MNDNR‐Wildlife

2:00pm Block 3: “Lightning Talks” by Poster Presenters‐Aninformationexchangeforwildlifeinfire‐dependentecosystemsoftheNorthernLakeStates‐StructureanddynamicsofjackpineforestsincentralMinnesota‐Thelongestrunningnorthernhardwoodsilvicultureexperimentintheworld!‐HowhealthyareMinnesota’sforests?InsightsusingforesthealthindicatorsfromtheForestInventoryandAnalysisProgram

LindseyShartell,MNDNR‐Wildlife

KyleGill,UMN‐FRChristelKern,USFSNRSMattRussell,UMN‐FR

2:30pm Breakandpostersession

3:00pm Block 4: Other Presentations ‐AssessingeffectsofharvestlandingsonearlystandgrowthusingLiDAR‐Forestdisturbanceandimplicationsforeffectsonwaterqualityatthewatershedscale‐Forestdeadwood:researchinsightsforforestandwildlifemanagers

RobSlesak,MFRCJenniferCorcoran,MNDNR‐Forestry

MattRussell,UMN‐FR

4:00pm Synthesis&opendiscussion:Reflectionsandfutureneeds EliSagor,UMN‐SFEC

4:30pm Adjourn

4

Welcome and Overview Firstandforemost,welcometoSFEC’s11thAnnualForestryandWildlifeResearchReview!Everybodyherebringsauniqueperspectiveandexperienceandweencourageyoutolisten,reflect,andshareyours.Ourpanelofspeakershasagreedtoshareadiverseandinformativeseriesofpresentationstoday,andwehopeyouwillpickupatleastafewnewideasthatyoucanputtowork. Evenwithagreatseriesofpresentations,theResearchReviewcanbeachallengingevent.Wewillmovequicklyfromonepresentationtothenext.Anyofourspeakerscouldeasilyexpandtoday’spresentationtofillaproductiveday‐longworkshop,butmosthaveonly20minutes,andsomeevenless.Andwhilewe’veaskedthemtocarveoutafewminutesforQ&A,weknowthatlimitedtimewillleavemanyquestionsunanswered.Sowhattodo?Weencourageyoutothinkofthepresentationsasthebeginningofaconversation–notthelastword.Ifyoudon’thaveachancetohaveyourquestionsfullyansweredpublicly,findthepresenterduringoneofthethreelongbreakstofollowup.Ifthatdoesn’twork(thedaycanbecomeabitchaotic),emailorcallthepresenter,whosecontactinformationappearsalongwiththeirabstractlaterinthispacket.Buildingonwhatyouhearfrompresenters,reflectonthecontentwithyourpeers:Whichnewideascanyouapply,andhow?Howmightyouthinkdifferentlyaboutyourworkafterhearingthesepresentations?Whatmorewouldyouneedtoknowtoactonwhatyoulearnedtoday?Conversely,howcanthesepresentationsvalidateideasandpracticesthatyouhavealreadyintegratedintoyourwork?LightningTalks:Thisyearwe’veaddedanewpresentationformattotheResearchReview.Whilewe’vealwaysincludedposters,thisyearposterpresentershaveaboutfiveminuteseachtogivea“LightningTalk”abouttheirresearch.Aswiththeotherpresentations,5minutescanreallyonlybegintoscratchthesurface,butwehopetheywillmaketheposterpresentersandtheirresearchamoreprominentandvisiblecomponentoftheevent.PleasecontinuetheconversationwithposterpresentersintheStineRoomduringbreaks,includingthesecondhalfofthelunchhour.Wewanttohearfromyou!HowcouldwemakethenextResearchReviewbetter?Inprioryearsyou’vetoldusyoulikethewidevarietyoftopics.Yourmostconsistentcriticismisthattalksoveremphasizeresearchdetailsattheexpenseofreal‐worldappliedvalueoftheresults.Wehavetriedtoaddressthisfeedbackthisyear,butdependonyoutohelpuscontinuallyimprove.Pleaseusetheevaluationform–wereallywanttohearfromyou.Thankyouagainforbeingheretoday.Wehopeyoufindthisyear’sResearchReviewbothfunandinformative,andwehopetoseeyouatotherSFECeventsthisyear.‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson

5

Forestry Keynote: Adapting forests to climate change: Lessons and approaches for managing uncertainty MariaJanowiak*,C.Swanston,S.Handler,L.Brandt,P.Butler,P.D.Shannon,andL.NagelAlthoughinformationontheanticipatedeffectsofclimatechangeonforestsandotherecosystemscontinuestogrow,asignificantchallengestillremainsforintegratingthisinformationintoone‐the‐groundnaturalresourcemanagementactivities.ThroughtheClimateChangeResponseFramework(www.forestadaptation.org),wedevelopedaflexible,structuredapproachtohelpnaturalresourcemanagersintegrateclimatechangeinformationintomanagementplanningandimplementation.

TheAdaptationWorkbookwasdevelopedasapracticaladaptionplanningtoolinwhichmanagersstartwiththeirmanagementobjectives,“stepdown”broadclimatechangeinformationtolocalscales,identifyopportunitiesandbarrierstomeetingmanagementobjectivesgivenclimatechange,andthendevelopadaptationactionsthatincreasethelikelihoodofmeetingobjectives.Itdoesnotprescribespecificactions,butratherdrawsupontheexpertiseofnaturalresourceprofessionalsandcomplementsalreadyexistingprocessesfordevelopingplansandprojects.Moreimportantly,thisapproachhasbeenusedinmanagementprojectsacrosstheMidwestandNortheastwithdiverseecosystemtypes,managementgoals,andmanagementchallenges,andmorethan50adaptationdemonstrationprojects(www.forestadaptation.org/demos)provideexamplesofclimatechangeadaptationinthereal‐world.Theseexamplesshowhowconsideringtheeffectsofclimatechangeiscompatiblewith,andnecessaryfor,thelong‐termstewardshipofnaturalresources.*NationalInstituteforAppliedClimateScience(NIACS)Houghton,MImjanowiak02@fs.fed.us906‐482‐6303x29

6

Wildlife Keynote: An overview of forest wildlife populations & management issues MikeLarson*Thepopulationstatusandtrendsovertimewillbereviewedforseveralforestwildlifespeciesandgroupsofspecies,includinggameanimalslikedeerandgrouseandnongameanimalslikesongbirds.Iwillalsoreviewrecentandongoingwildliferesearchprojectsintheregion,especiallythoseoftheDNR’sForestWildlifePopulations&ResearchGroup.Athirdcomponentofthepresentationwillbeadiscussionofcurrentforestmanagementissuesfromawildlifeperspective.*MinnesotaDepartmentofNaturalResourcesForestWildlifePopulationsandResearchGroupGrandRapids,MNMichael.Larson@state.mn.us

7

Block 1: Silviculture Presentations

Evaluating the ecological impacts of emerald ash borer and climate change on black ash forests BrianPalik*;TonyD’Amato,UniversityofVermont;andRobSlesak,MFRCEmeraldashborermaydevastateblackashwetlands,withimpactsexasperatedbyclimatewarming.ResearchisunderwaytounderstandtheimpactsofEABonhydrologyandplantcommunitiesandtoevaluatereplacementtrees.Thisoperational‐scaleexperimentisprovidingmanagerswithinformationneededtomitigatetheimpactsofEABandadapttheseforeststofutureconditions.*USDAForestServiceNorthernResearchStationGrandRapids,MNbpalik@fs.fed.us

8

New cohort and stand-level biomass growth after variable retention harvests in a red pine ecosystem RebeccaMontgomery*,BrianJ.Palik,SuzanneB.Boyden,andPeterB.ReichThereissignificantinterestinusingsilviculturalsystemssuchasvariableretentionharvesting(VRH)tosustainstructuralcomplexity,spatialheterogeneity,andbiologicaldiversityinmanagedforests.However,theconsequencesofvariableretentionharvestingfornewcohortgrowthandsurvivalarenotwellcharacterizedinmanyforestecosystemsnoristhereaclearideawhethercontinuedgrowthoftheresidualcohortmightcompensateforgrowthreductionofthenewcohort.Moreover,therelativeimportanceofresourcepreemptionbyexistinggroundlayervegetationaftervariableretentionharvestsisunclear.WeimplementedaVRHinredpineforestinMinnesotaandtrackednewpinecohortgrowthandsurvival,aswellasstand‐levelbiomassgrowth,whichintegratessurvivalandbiomassincrementofnewcohortandresidualtrees.Treatmentsincludedathinningwithresidualtreesdispersedevenlythroughthestand(dispersed)andtwopatchcutsthatleft0.1hagapsor0.3hagapsinaforestmatrix(aggregated).Halfofeachtreatedstandwasannuallybrushedtocontrolshrubs.Residualbasalareawasheldnearconstantintheharvesttreatments.Weaddressedthefollowinghypotheses:1)growthofnewcohortofplantedmixed‐pineregenerationwillbehighestwithaggregatedratherthandispersedretention;2)growthofnewcohortinVRHstandswillincreasewithwoodyshrubreduction;and3)growthoftheresidualoverstorywillbehigherwithdispersedratherthanaggregatedretention.OurfirsthypothesiswasnotsupportedasVRHresultedinrelativelysmalldifferencesingrowthandsurvivalforallspeciesacrosstheretentiontreatments(althoughalldifferedasexpectedfromuncutcontrols).Totalabovegroundbiomassgrowthinthenewcohortrangedfrom0.4kgha‐1yr‐1intheoverstorycontrol‐ambientshrubtreatmentto23kgha‐1yr‐1intheaggregatedretention‐shrubreductiontreatment.Thedifferencebetweenthecontrolandthepooledretentiontreatmentswassignificant,butnotbetweendispersedandaggregatedretention.Wefoundsomespeciesspecificresponsestoretentiontreatmentsthatwerepartiallyrelatedtoshadetolerance.Tolerantwhitepinehadhighsurvivalacrossallretentiontreatmentswhereasintolerantredandjackpinehadlowersurvivalinuncutcontrols.Ingeneral,jackpinehadthestrongestgrowthresponsetoreductionofoverstorydensity.However,bothwhiteandjackpineachievedhighestgrowthinthedispersedtreatmentdespitedifferencesinshadetolerance.Regardlessofspecies,shrubshadastrongimpactonseedlinggrowth.Indeed,differencesingrowthwereoftenlargeracrossshrubtreatmentsthanamongretentiontreatments.Ourresultssupportthehypothesisthatshrubspreemptresourcesanddampentheimpactsofdifferentoverstoryretentionpatternsonnewcohort

9

growthandsurvival.Biomassgrowthofresidualtreesrangedfrom2404kgha‐1yr‐1intheuncutcontrol‐ambientshrubtreatmentto1043kgha‐1yr‐1intheaggregatedretention‐shrubreductiontreatment.Differencesweresignificantbetweenthecontrolandpooledretentiontreatments,andmarginallyhigherwithdispersedversusaggregatedretention,lendingsupporttoourthirdhypothesis.Ourresultsimplythatmanagershaveconsiderableflexibilitytoemployvarioustypesofretentionpatternscoupledwithplantinginredpineecosystemsatleastatthelevelsofretentionstudiedhere.Theycanexpectsimilarstand‐levelbiomassgrowthofplantedregenerationregardlessofretentionpattern,butsomewhathigherstand‐levelbiomassgrowthofretainedtreeswithdispersedretention.*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesSt.Paul,MNrebeccam@umn.edu612‐624‐7249

10

Forest response to harvest residue removal and associated practices varies with site conditions MirandaCurzon*,AnthonyW.D’Amato,andBrianJ.PalikClimatechangeandotherthreatstoforestproductivityandfunctionhaveincreasedthebreadthofpotentialforestmanagementobjectivesaswellasthechallengesassociatedwithachievingthem.Forexample,residuesfromconventionalharvestsareincreasinglybeingthoughtofasapotentialsourceofbioenergyfeedstocks.IntheLakeStatesregion,aspen‐dominatedforestsareoftenassumedtoberesilienttoharvestingandotherdisturbance,butthereissomeuncertaintysurroundinghowproductivity,standdevelopment,andspeciescompositionmightbeimpactedoverthelong‐termbyincreasedbiomassremovalandassociatedpractices.WeuseddatafromtheLong‐TermSoilProductivitystudymaintainedbytheUSDAForestServicetoaddressthefollowingquestions:1)Doeswhole‐treeharvest(removingresidues)decreasestandingbiomassinaspen‐dominatedforestsovertime?2)Doeswhole‐treeharvestinfluencethespeciescompositionoftheregeneratingforest?3)Doresponsesvaryacrossdifferencesinsoiltextureandsitequality?Harvesttreatmentshaddifferenteffectsonstandingbiomassatdifferentsites.Onsandysoilswhole‐treeharvestreducedmeantreestandingbiomassat15yearsby25%comparedwithconventional,stem‐onlyharvest.Increasedcompactionofsoilsdidnothaveanegativeeffectonstandingbiomassandneitherresidueremovalnorcompactioninfluencedcommunitycomposition.Incontrast,therewasnoevidenceofanegativeimpactonstandingbiomass15yearsafterwhole‐treeharvestonclayeyorsiltyloamsoils.Theremovalofresiduesalsohadnoapparentinfluenceoncommunitycomposition(woodyspecies)atthesesites.However,increasedcompactionreducedstandingbiomass,particularlyoftreespecies,onsiltyloamsoils.Alsoonsiltyloam,thecombinationofwhole‐treeharvestandseveresoildisturbance(heavycompactioncombinedwithremovaloftheforestfloor)resultedinashiftindominancefromtreetoshrubspecies.

Managementrecommendations

1. Removingharvestresiduesforuseasbioenergyfeedstocksmaybeappropriateinaspen‐dominatedforestslocatedonfine‐texturedsoils.However,careshouldbetakentominimizecompactionandothersoildisturbance.

2. Removalofallresiduesisnotrecommendedwhenharvestingforestsgrowingonsandysoils.Thispracticemayreducestandingbiomassasaresultofassociatednutrientlossesandlowersoilmoisture.

Resultshttp://z.umn.edu/MMWcurzon*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesStPaul,MNmcurzon@umn.edu

11

Block 2: Forest-based Wildlife Presentations

Northern long-eared bat in Minnesota RichBaker*;TimCatton,SuperiorNationalForest,USDAForestService;BrianDirks,CampRipleyEnvironmentalOffice,MNDNR;andGerdaNordquist,MNDNRInOctober2013,theUSFWSproposedlistingthenorthernlong‐earedbatasanendangeredspeciesunderthefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct.Theproposalwasduetothecatastrophicimpactofadiseaseknownaswhite‐nosesyndromeonnortheasternU.S.batpopulations.Thenorthernlong‐earedbatisdistributedthroughoutMinnesota,whereitwintersincavesandroostsintreesduringtherestoftheyear.White‐nosesyndromehasyettoreachMinnesota,thoughthefungusthatcausesthediseasehasbeenfoundintwocavesinthestate.TheUSFWSidentifiedsummerforestmanagementashavingthepotentialtoharmroostingbats,especiallyfemaleswithpupstooyoungtofly.In2014,theMinnesotaDNRpartneredwiththeSuperiorNationalForestandCampRipleyTrainingCenterstafftoinitiateapilotstudyofnorthernlong‐earedbatsummerhabitatuse.WithcooperativefundingprovidedbytheUSFWSandfourDNRdivisions,theprojectusedmist‐nettingandradiotelemetrytocapture130bats,including28northernlong‐earedbats,andtoidentify33northernlong‐earedbatroostsites.Pendingapprovalbythe2015legislature,amuchlargerstudyofnorthernlong‐earedbathabitatwillbeconductedduring2015‐2017.Thistalkwillreviewtheproposedfederallistingofthenorthernlong‐earedbat,theimplicationsofthatlistingforMinnesota’sforests,currentresearchneedsandplans,andfindingsfromthe2014pilotstudy. *MNDNR,DivisionofEcologicalResourcesSt.Paul,MNrichard.baker@state.mn.us    

The status and condition of Minnesota’s moose population RonMoen*andSteveWindels,VoyageursNationalParkThemoosepopulationinMinnesotahasdeclinedfrom>8,000toabout4,000.Iwillreviewcausesforthedeclineandresultsofrecentresearch.*UMDNRRIandUMDBiologyDepartmentDuluth,MNrmoen@d.umn.edu

12

Fisher and marten: Seeing the structure for the forest JohnErb*;PamCoy,MNDNR;BarrySampson,MNDNR;MichaelJoyce,UMDNRRI;andRonMoen,UMDNRRIAspartofalargerprojectonMartesecologyinMinnesota,webeganmonitoringvariousaspectsofhabitatusebyradio‐collaredfishers(Martespennanti)andmartens(Martesamericana)duringspring2009.DistributionofthesespeciesinNorthAmerica,andwithinMinnesota,illustratesthatbothareclearlyforest‐dependent.However,fine‐scaleforestattributeslikelydeterminethesuitabilityofaforeststandorlandscapetothesespecies.Inparticular,structurethatprovidesdenandrestsites,protectionfrompredators,preyhabitatorcuesforlocatingprey,andthermalprotectionappearscritical.Allbut2ofthe56fishernatalormaternaldenswehavelocatedhavebeeninelevatedcavitiesoflargediameter(ave.dbh=20.5”)livetreesorsnags,predominantlyinaspen(66%)andoak(14%).Theremaining2fishermaternaldenswereinhollowlogseitheronorsuspendedabovetheground.Elevatedtreecavities(ave.dbh=20.1”)arealsothemostcommonstructuresusedbyfishersasrestingsites,thoughinsummermore‘open’structuresintrees(‘witchesbrooms’,leafandsticknests,largebranches,etc)arecommonlyusedaswell.Of45martennatalormaternaldensidentified,36%havebeeninundergroundburrows,commonlyinrock‐ladenandlacustrinesoils,while64%havebeeninelevatedtreecavities(ave.dbh=18.6”).Mosttreecavitymartendenshavebeeninaspen(38%)andwhitecedar(34%)trees.Dataonwinterrestsitesshowsthatmartenuseofundergroundorsubniveansitesishighestduringfallandwinter,andoftenassociatedwithlowlandconiferstands.Insummer,martenuseofelevatedtreestructures(treecavities,branches,leaf/sticknests,and‘witchesbrooms’)increasesandiscorrelatedwithmoreuseofmixed‐woodstands.Comparedtorandomsites,denandreststructuresusedbymartensoccurinsiteswithhigheramountsofcoarsewoodydebris,higheraveragetreediameter,highersnagdensity,andgreaterstemdensities.Preliminarydataindicatesthatbothspeciesspend~75%oftheirtimeindenstructuresduringwinter,suggestingthatsuchstructuresarelikelycriticaltosurvival.Predationhasbeenthedominantnon‐humancauseofmortalityforbothspecies,furthersuggestingthatstructuralcomplexity(escapecoverandstructures)maybecritical.Humanactivitiesorforestmanagementstrategiesthatreduceorfragmentforestcover,orthatdonotproduceormaintainstructuralcomplexityinforeststandswillbedetrimentaltofishersandmartens.However,monitoringfiner‐saleforestmetricshasbeenhamperedbylackofspatially‐continuousforestinventorydatacapableofquantifyingforestmetricsofapparentimportancetothesespecies.LIDARdataappearswell‐suitedtoremotelyquantifyingstructuralcomplexityinforestedlandscapes,thoughadditionalanalysisisnecessary.WediscussourapproachtoassessingthemeritsofLIDARasatoolforquantifyingstructuralcomplexityrelevanttomartensandfishers.*MNDNRDivisionofWildlifeGrandRapids,MNjohn.erb@state.mn.us218‐999‐7930

13

Block 3: “Lightning Talks” by Poster Presenters PostersaresetupintheStineRoom,acrossthehallfromtheauditorium.

An information exchange for wildlife in fire-dependent ecosystems of the Northern Lake States LindseyShartell*;ShelbyA.Weiss,R.GregoryCorace,III,andDawnS.Marsh,SeneyNationalWildlifeRefuge,USFishandWildlifeServiceInthenorthernLakeStates,arecentgapanalysisofpeer‐reviewedliteraturehasshownthatourknowledgeoftheinteractionsamongdisturbances,vegetation,andwildlifeinfire‐dependentecosystemsisgenerallylacking.In2013,theLakeStatesFireScienceConsortium(LSFSC)begananefforttoidentifyfire‐dependentwildlifespeciesanddevelopedalistof46bird,15mammal,and13reptilespeciesassociatedwith20fire‐dependentecosystemtypesinMichigan,Wisconsin,andMinnesota.Toinvestigatehowthesespeciesareprioritizedformanagementintheregion,theirconservationstatus,gamestatus,andotherdesignationswerenoted.Resultsindicatethat22fire‐dependentwildlifespeciesareStateThreatenedorEndangered,14aregamespecies,and6havebeenidentifiedassurrogatespeciesbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.Additionally,effortsweremadetoinvestigatewhatpeer‐reviewedliteratureexistsforfire‐dependentwildlife;itisapparentthatcurrentgapsinfireliteratureareunevenacrosstaxaandaremorepronouncedforreptilesintheregion.Movingforward,theLSFSChopestocommunicatewithprofessionalswhoaredoinginventory,monitoring,andresearchonfire‐dependentwildlifeinanefforttoinitiateaninformationexchangeforthesespecies.*MNDNRDivisionofWildlifeGrandRapids,MNlindsey.shartell@state.mn.us

14

Structure and dynamics of jack pine forests in central Minnesota. KyleG.Gill*;AnthonyW.D'Amato,UniversityofVermont;andShawnFraver,UniversityofMaineJackpinereachesitssouthwesternrangelimitinthecentralfloristicregionofMinnesotawhereitdisplaystraitsthatdifferfromotherportionsofitsrange,includingprimarilynon‐serotinouscones.Ithasbeenhypothesizedthathistoricjackpineforestsandwoodlandsofthisregionmayhavenotfollowedstereotypicaleven‐agedstanddynamicsbutabroadervarietythatresultedinprimarilyunevenormulti‐agedstands.However,theirhistoricstanddynamicshaveneverbeeninvestigated.OuraimwastoquantifythenaturalrangeofvariabilityofstanddynamicsandstructureincentralMinnesotajackpineforeststoestablishreferenceconditionsforthedevelopmentofregionaladaptivemanagementtechniquesaswellasformonitoringfutureclimateimpacts.Wefoundbothepisodicandextendedrecruitmentinbothrandomandclumpedspatialarrangementssuggestingthatjackpinestandsinthisregioncanbestructurallycomplex,evenorun‐evenagedsystemsthatfollowavarietyofdevelopmentalpathways.Assuch,managementpracticesandregenerationexpectationscanbebroadenedtoaccountforthevarietyofstructuralconditionsanddevelopmentalpathwaysthathistoricallycharacterizedtheseforestsystems.Suchchangeswouldhelptoconservejackpineforestsfortheshort‐termwhilepromotingthepropensityforlong‐termresilienceandadaptability.*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesSt.Paul,MNgillx096@umn.edu

15

The longest running northern hardwood silviculture experiment in the world! ChristelC.Kern*andLauraS.Kenefic,USDAForestService,NorthernResearchStationUneven‐agedsilviculture,whichcreatesandmaintainsstructuraldiversity,providesameansformaintainingcomplexityandproductivityinmanagedforests.Specifically,agoaloftheselectionsystemistomaintainspeciescompositionandarangeofageclassestosustainsawtimberproductionovertimewithoutmajorlapses.Despitealonghistoryofselectionsilvicultureuseinnorthernhardwoods,long‐termdataandtestedmanagementguidelinesarerare.Wetestedforsawlogsustainabilityamongcontrastingtreatmentsoveran80‐yearperiod,which,toourknowledgeisthelongestrunningnorthernhardwoodsilvicultureexperimentintheworld!Thisstudywasthesourceofthewell‐known“Arbogastguide”(1957),andhasservedasthebasisofnorthernhardwoodsilviculturethroughoutNorthAmerica.Resultsindicatethatdiameterlimitcuttingcreateslapsesinsawlogproduction,whileselectionsustainedsawlogproductionbymeetingrecommendationsinstocking(16m2/ha),composition(80%Acersaccharum),structure(areverse‐jdistribution),andgrowth(growth=cut)over80years.Moderngoalstomaintainstructuralcomplexity,diversity,andlargetreehabitatweremetbyavarietyofcuttingmethods.Withalong‐termperspective,ourresultssuggestarangeofcuttingmethodscanbeusedtomeethistoricalandmodernsustainableforestmanagementgoals.*USDAForestService,NorthernResearchStationGrandRapids,MNcckern@fs.fed.us

16

How healthy are Minnesota’s forests? Insights using forest health indicators from the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program MatthewRussell*;AngelaGupta,UMNExtension;EliSagor,SustainableForestsEducationCooperative;andLindaNagel,UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesandCloquetForestryCenterInformationfromstrategicforestinventoriesmayaidnaturalresourcemanagersinassessingthestatusandtrendsofvariousforesthealthissuesofconcern.TheForestInventoryandAnalysis(FIA)programmayaidindeterminingtheseassessments.Forexample,144terrestrialinvasiveplantspecieshavebeenobservedthroughtheFIA’sprogramacrossMinnesotaforestsfrom2001to2010.Shapingthecurrentandfutureforeststructureandcomposition,disturbancesrelatedtoweather,insects,anddiseaseshaveimpacted4%ofFIAplotsoverthepastfiveyears.Additionalindicatorsmayhelptoinformtheabilityofforeststoprovidestructureforwildlifehabitat(e.g.,standinganddownedwoodydebris)andlossesinindividualtreeproductivityidentifiedusingtreecrownassessments.Collectively,weshowhowthesevariousforesthealthindicatorscanhelptoquantifythenatureandextentoflossesinstructureandproductivitythroughoutMinnesotaforests.*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesSt.Paul,MNrussellm@umn.edu612‐626‐4280

17

Block 4: Presentations

Assessing effects of harvest landings on early stand growth using LiDARRobSlesak*andTylerKaebisch,MNDNRResourceAssessmentRoadandlandingareasarecentraltotimberharvestingoperations,butthesehigh‐trafficareascanreducesiteproductivitybycompactingsoilandcausingsubsequentreductionsinstandgrowth.Here,weusedstatewideLiDARdatacoupledwithahistoricspatialdatabaseofharvestedsitestoevaluatethemagnitudeofimpacttostandgrowthusingvegetationheightasaproxyforstandproductivity.Approximately80sitesharvestedoverthepast15yearswereanalyzedthatspannedarangeofsoilconditionsandseasonofharvest.Weassesseddifferencesinvegetationheightbetweenthegeneralharvestareaandlandingareaacrosssites,andalsocomparedhowthesedifferencesvariedbetweenwinterandsummerharvest(toassessmitigation)andovertime(toassesspotentialrecovery).Relativevegetationheightwassignificantlylowerinlandingareasrelativetothegeneralharvest,similartofindingsfrommanyotherstudies.Therewasnosignificanteffectofharvestseasonontheresponse,indicatingthatimpactsaresimilarregardlessiftheharvestoccursunderfrozensoilconditions.Therewasalsonoevidenceofsoilrecoveryoverthe15yearperiodeventhoughconditionswhichpromoterecovery(e.g.,frostheaving)arecommoninMinnesota.Theassumptionoflowerimpactstosoilduringwinterharvestingshouldbereevaluated,especiallygiventhatimpactsdonotappeartolessenwithtime.Thefindingsunderscoretheimportanceoflimitingtheamountoflandingarearegardlesstheseasonofharvesttominimizesoilimpacts.*MinnesotaForestResourcesCouncil(MFRC)St.Paul,MNraslesak@umn.edu

18

Forest disturbance and implications for effects on water quality at the watershed scale JenniferCorcoran*,RobSlesak,andDickRossmanThisworkpresentsnewcapacityforspatialanalysesofforestdisturbancepatternsandanalysesoftheimplementationofforestmanagementguidelinesatthewatershedscale.Akeyaspectofthisnewapproachinvolvesincorporationofforestdisturbancepatterns(e.g.,forestharvesting,blowdown,landuseconversion)thatarederivedfromLandsatimagery.Thispresentationwillfocusonevaluatingforestlanddisturbancepatternsandwillshowpreliminaryresultsoncharacterizingthedisturbanceinfourwatersheds:LakeSuperiorNorthandSouth,RumRiver,andMississippiHeadwaters.Thetimeframeofforestdisturbanceintheworkpresentedwasfrom2011‐2013.ResultsshowthatforestlanddisturbanceintheRumRiverWatershedisverylow;whereonlyabout1%oftheforestlandinthewatershedisdisturbed,15%ofwhichareadjacenttoalakeorpond.IntheLakeSuperiorWatersheds,aslightlygreaterpercentageoftheforestlandisdisturbed(2‐3%).IntheLakeSuperiorNorthWatershed,about15%ofthedisturbedareasoccuradjacentorincloseproximitytoanywaterfeaturetype(notincludingwetlands),4%ofwhichoccurwithin5mtoatroutriverortroutlake.IntheLakeSuperiorSouthWatershed,35%ofthedisturbedareasoccuradjacentorincloseproximitytoanywaterfeaturetype(notincludingwetlands),3%ofwhichoccuradjacentorincloseproximitytoatroutriverortroutlake.IntheMississippiHeadwatersWatershed,about4%oftheforestlandhasbeendisturbed,whichincludesablowdownstormeventthathappenedin2012.Theseresults,alongwithasuiteofmetricsfromremotelysenseddata(suchas:elevation,slope,soilerodability,andlocationofwaterbodiesandwetlands)andguidelinemonitoringdataofharvestedlands,willaidinabetterunderstandingoftheimpactofforestmanagementpracticesonwaterquality.Additionalresearchisunderwayindevelopingadata‐drivenriskassessmentframeworktobringmoreawarenesstotheimportanceofguidelineimplementationatthewatershedscale.Theresultsofthisresearchandthecollaborationwithotherdivisions,agencies,andstakeholderswillprovideinsightintothechallengestoincreasingtheeffectivenessofbestmanagementpracticeswiththeoverarchinggoalofultimatelyenhancethevalueofecosystemservicesprovidedbyforestlandinMinnesota.*MNDNRDivisionofForestryStPaul,MNJennifer.Corcoran@state.mn.us

19

Forest dead wood: research insights for forest and wildlife managers MatthewRussell*DEADWOODINMINNESOTA’SFORESTSForestdeadwood,intheformofstandingdeadtreesanddownedwoodydebris,isessentialforassessingwildlifehabitatavailability,quantifyingbiomassavailability,andcreatingdiverseforeststructure.Understandingdeadwoodpatternsandprocessesiskeytounderstandingbioenergyimplicationsandforestfuel.Totalstockingofdeadwoodisimportant,butalsoisthequalityofwoodinvariousstagesofdecayanddecomposition.InMinnesota,thegreatestnumberofstandingdeadtreesoccurinnortheasterncounties,whiledownedwoodydebrisstocksaremorevariableacrossthestate.EmployingforestdeadwoodinformationusingForestInventoryandAnalysisplotscanhelptoinformthemanagementofwoodydebrisstocksforspecificwildlifespecies(e.g.,)andtoestimatethetemporaldynamicsofwoodydebrisstocks.DEADWOODLONGEVITYThedecompositionofdeadwoodisnotalwaysconsideredinforestandwildlifemanagementplanning.Wecanconsiderthehalf‐life(whenhalfofalog’sbiomassisdecomposed)andresidencetime(whenanentirelogisdecomposed)ofasasurrogatefordeadwoodlongevity.Understandingdeadwoodlongevitytimecandirectlyinformquestionsabouthowlongdeadwoodpopulationsareexpectedtoresideinforestecosystems.RESOURCES

Residencetimesanddecayratesofdeadwoodbiomass:http://z.umn.edu/tpt(PDF) Deadwoodforwildlife(PSU):http://bit.ly/1zqSQnJ

*UMNDepartmentofForestResourcesandExtensionStPaul,MNrussellm@umn.edu612‐626‐4280

Species Half‐lifeResidencetime

Whitespruce 20 86Balsamfirandred

pine20 87

Jackpine 22 94Northernredoak 10 73

Blackash 11 81Aspen 11 89

Average number of standing dead trees (n = 1,927 FIA plots) and downed woody debris stocks (n = 213) in Minnesota forests, 2006-2010.

Dead wood longevities for common Minnesota species.

20

Attendees MikeAlbersMNDNR‐ForestryGrandRapidsMNmike.albers@state.mn.us218‐327‐4115

Brian AllenAllenForestryDuluthMNallen.forestry2@gmail.com218‐348‐5252

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

NateAndersonSt.LouisCountyLand&MineralsDeptDuluthMNAndersonN2@stlouiscountymn.gov218‐625‐3718

Erik AntonSt.LouisCountyLand&MineralsDeptDuluthMNantone@stlouiscountymn.gov218‐625‐3718

Andy ArensItascaCountySWCDGrandRapidsMNandy.arens@itascaswcd.org218‐326‐0017

DaveArrasMNDNRDuluthMNDave.Arras@state.mn.us218‐723‐4791

Rich BakerMinnesotaDNRSt.PaulMNrichard.baker@state.mn.us651‐259‐5073

Mark BakerSt.LouisCountyLand&MineralsDeptDuluthMNbakerm@stlouiscountymn.gov218‐625‐3718

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

Gene BeckerSt.LouisCountyLand&MineralsDeptDuluthMNBeckerg@stlouiscountymn.gov218‐625‐3718

Jan BernuTwoByForestryCloquetMNtwoxfour@2z.net218‐879‐4433

TimBeyerMNDNRSt.PaulWITim.Beyer@state.mn.us651‐259‐5256

Brian BignallPotlatchLand&LumberBemidjiMNbrian.bignall@potlatchcorp.com218.759.4302

Tom BodellLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNTom.Bodell@co.lake.mn.us2188348340

PeterBundyMasconomoForestryMinneapolisMNppbundy@gmail.com952‐380‐7793

Jeff BusseMNDNRForestryDivisionStPaulMNjeff.busse@state.mn.us651‐259‐5280

Bruce CarlsonMNDNR‐DivsionofEcological&WaterResourcesDuluthMNbruce.carlson@state.mn.us218‐723‐4763

SusanCattonSuperiorNationalForestDuluthMNscatton@fs.fed.us218‐626‐4384

Jennifer CorcoranMNDNRForestryStPaulMNJennifer.Corcoran@state.mn.us651‐642‐0660

Bruce CoxClearwaterCoLandDept.BagleyMNbruce.cox@co.clearwater.mn.us218‐694‐6227

GaeaCrozierMNDNRGrandRapidsMNgaea.e.crozier@state.mn.us218‐327‐4267

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

Kevin DahlmanCassCountyBackusMNkevin.dahlman@co.cass.mn.us218‐947‐3338

21

BobDeRocheCompassForestryServices,LLCDuluthMNbobderoche6@gmail.com2187307997

Nolan EckRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNn_eck@hotmail.com2186791616

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

TomEngelDNRGrandRapidsMNtom.engel@state.mn.us218‐999‐7936

John ErbMNDNR‐WildlifeGrandRapidsMNjohn.erb@state.mn.us218‐999‐7930

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

MarkFultonBemidjiStateUniversityBemidjiMNmfulton@bemidjistate.edu218‐755‐2787

Kyle GillUniversityofMinnesota,Dept.ofForestResourcesSt.PaulMNgillx096@umn.edu612‐625‐6989

Mack GlasbyUMNForestResourcesSt.PaulMNglasb005@umn.edu6126264280

ShelleyGorhamMNDNRBemidjiMNshelley.gorham@state.mn.us218‐308‐2332

Nancy HansenMNDNRWildlifeTwoHarborsMNnancy.hansen@state.mn.us218‐834‐1452

Bob HedburgSt.LouisCountyLand&MineralsDeptDuluthMNhedburgb@stlouiscountymn.gov218‐625‐3718

JulieHendricksonCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNhendr065@umn.edu218‐726‐6403

Jeff HinesMNDNRGrandRapidsMNjeff.hines@state.mn.us218999‐7940

Beth Jacqmain‐PalikUPMBlandinGrandRapidsMNbeth.jacqmain‐palik@upm.com2183276602

MariaJanowiakNIACSHoughtonMImjanowiak02@fs.fed.us906‐482‐6303

Justin JanssenRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNn_eck@hotmail.com2186791602

Nick JensenMNDNRBemidjiMNnicholas.jensen@state.mn.us218‐308‐2636

SteveKatovichUSDAForestServiceStPaulMNskatovich@fs.fed.us651‐649‐5264

Christel KernUSDAFSNRSGrandRapidsMNcckern@fs.fed.us218‐326‐7134

Rick KlevornMNDNR‐ForestrySt.PaulMNrick.klevorn@state.mn.us651‐259‐5274

MeadowKouffeld‐HansenMNDNRGrandRapidsMNmeadow.Kouffeld‐Hansen@state.mn.us218‐327‐4438

Chuck KramerUMNCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNckramer@umn.edu218‐726‐6411

Mike LarsonMinnesotaDNRGrandRapidsMNmichael.larson@state.mn.us2189997933

22

QuintinLeglerUPM‐BlandinPaperCo.GrandRapidsMNquintin.legler@upm.com218‐327‐6304

Tony LenochDNRGrandRapidsMNtony.lenoch@state.mn.us218999‐7947

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

PerryLoegeringMNDNRGrandRapidsMNPerry.Loegering@state.mn.us218999‐7939

Steven LudwigPrivateForestryConsultantLakeGeorgeMNstludwig@paulbunyan.net2186993823

Darren MayersCrowWingSWCDBrainerdMNdarren.mayers@crowwingswcd.org218‐828‐6197

RonMoenUMDNRRIDuluthMNrmoen@d.umn.edu218‐720‐4372

Rebecca MontgomeryUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNrebeccam@umn.edu612‐624‐7249

RichardMooreBeltramiCountyNRMBemidjiMNrichard.moore@co.beltrami.mn.us218.333.4163

LindaNagelCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNlmnagel@umn.edu218‐726‐6484

Christian NelsonFondduLacForestryCloquetMNchristiannelson@fdlrez.com218‐878‐7118

Bill NixonLakeCountyForestryTWOHARBORSMNbill.nixon@co.lake.mn.us2188348340

MichaelNorthMNDNRSectionofWildlifeBrainerdMNmichael.north@state.mn.us218‐833‐8642

Alan OlsonConsultantforesterPlatoMNalolson50@embarqmail.com3202382436

Steve OlsonFondduLacForestryCloquetMNstevenolson@fdlrez.com218‐878‐7105

KellyOsterdykKanabecSWCDMoraMNkelly.osterdyk@mn.nacdnet.net320‐679‐3781

Brian PalikUSDAForestServiceGrandRapidsMNbpalik@fs.fed.us218‐326‐7116

Ethan PerryMinnesotaDNRDuluthMNethan.perry@state.mn.us218‐723‐4791

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

Bailey PetersenMNDNRWildlifeTwoHarborsMNbailey.petersen@state.mn.us218‐834‐1454

Tim QuincerMNDNR‐WildlifeBrainerdMNtim.quincer@state.mn.us(218)833‐8629

MikeReinikainenCFC,UniversityofMinnesotaCloquetMNrein0331@umn.edu2628447654

Molly RoskeCloquetForestryCenterCloquetMNmrroske@umn.edu218‐726‐6417

Tom RuschMNDNRTowerMNtom.rusch@state.mn.us218/753‐2580

23

MattRussellUniversityofMinnesotaSt.PaulMNrussellm@umn.edu6126264280

EliSagorUMNSFECCloquetMNesagor@umn.edu218‐726‐6404

BrandonSchadMNDepartmntofNaturalResourcesBaudetteMNbrandon.schad@state.mn.us218‐634‐1705

SawyerSchererUniversityofMinnesota,Dept.ofForestResourcesSt.PaulMNscher344@umn.edu763‐370‐1681

Martin SchoeweMolpusTimberlandsManagementInt'lFallsMNmschoewe@molpus.com2182443461

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

RobertSlaterMNDNRDuluthMNRobert.slater@state.mn.us218‐723‐4791

Rob SlesakMFRCSt.PaulMNraslesak@umn.edu651‐603‐6756

Brian SmithPotlatchCorp.BemidjiMNbrian.smith@potlatchcorp.com218‐759‐4312

ClarissaSpicerMNDNRDept.ofForestryGrandRapidsMNclarissa.spicer@state.mn.us(218)999‐7838

Mark SpodenMNDNRGrandRapidsMNMark.Spoden@state.mn.us218999‐7941

Glen SwantKBMResoucesGroupThunderBayONgswant@kbm.on.ca807345‐5445

ClarenceTurnerDNRForestry/MFRCSt.PaulMNclarence.turner@state.mn.us651‐259‐5291

AmberBeth VanNingenMNDNR‐EcologicalResourcesTowerMNamberbeth.vanningen@state.mn.us(218)753‐2580

BruceWhiteRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNn_eck@hotmail.com2186791602

MitchWilsonRedLakeDNRRedLakeMNmwil80@hotmail.com2186791639

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

Mike YoungMNDNR,Div.ofForestryTwoHarborsMNmichael.young@state.mn.us218‐834‐1424

24

Credit and Acknowledgments Asissooftenthecase,manypeopleandorganizationscontributedtomakethe11thAnnualForestryandWildlifeResearchReviewasuccess:Thisyear’sResearchReviewplanningcommitteeofAlanEk,GeorgeHost,RickKlevorn,BrianPalik,andRobSlesakhelpedtoidentifytopicsandspeakersfortheday.SpeakersRichBaker,JenniferCorcoran,MirandaCurzon,JohnErb,KyleGill,ChristelKern,MikeLarson,MariaJanowiak,RonMoen,RebeccaMontgomery,BrianPalik,MattRussell,LindseyShartell,andRobSlesakweregenerousenoughtosharetheirtimeandtheresultsoftheirwork,emphasizingtheappliedvalueofthatworktonaturalresourcemanagers.CloquetForestryCenterstaffChuckKramer,StephanieOberg,DeniseVolk,andSimonClarkhelpedwitheventlogisticsandensuredasmoothflowtotheday.MealswereprovidedbyJimnJo’sNorthlandKateringofCloquet. Asaneducationalco‐operative,theSFECdependsonthecontinuedinvestmentofourmemberorganizationsandindividuals,financialandotherwise.Withoutthosecontributions,SFECwouldnotbeabletooffereventslikethisone.WearealsosupportedbytheUniversityofMinnesotaCollegeofFood,Agriculture,andNaturalResourceSciencesandtheCloquetForestryCenter.Andfinally,withoutyourregistrationandparticipation,theeventwouldhavebeensignificantlylessinteresting.Thankyouforjoiningustoday.OnbehalfoftheSustainableForestsEducationCooperative,weextendourheartfeltthankstoeverybodywhomadethisyear’seventasuccess.‐EliSagorandJulieHendrickson

25

Notes

26

27

28

SFEC Member organizations for 2014-2015 AitkinCountyLandDepartmentAitkinCountySWCDBeltramiCountyNaturalResourceMgmtCampRipleyNaturalResourcesCarltonCountyLandDepartmentCarltonCountySWCDCassCountyLandDepartmentChequamegon‐NicoletNationalForest(USFS)ChippewaNationalForest(USFS)ClearwaterCountyLandDepartmentCrowWingCountyLandDepartmentFondDuLacReservationGrandPortageBandofChippewaHubbardCountyNaturalResourceMgmtItascaCommunityCollegeItascaCountySWCDKoochichingCountyLand&ForestryLakeCountyLandDepartmentMilleLacsBandofOjibweMNAssociationofCountyLandCommissionersMNDNR‐DivisionofForestryMNDNR‐ForestStewardshipPlanwriters

MNDNR‐ DivisionofEcological&WaterResourcesMNDNR‐SectionofWildlifeMNForestResourcesCouncilMolpusTimberlandLLCPineCountySWCDPotlatchCorporationRedLakeTribalDNRSappiFinePaperSouthSt.LouisCountySWCDSt.John’sUniversityArboretumSt.LouisCountyLandDepartmentSuperiorNationalForest(USFS)TheNatureConservancy–MNChapterUMNExtensionForestryUMNDept.ofForestResourcesUPMBlandinPaperCompanyWadenaCountySWCDWhiteEarthTribalForestryWIDNRDivisionofForestryVermilionCommunityCollege

Keeping in Touch YoucanalwaysfindinformationonupcomingSFECevents:http://z.umn.edu/SFECeventsMailinglist:Ifyoudidnotreceiveapapercopyofourrecentcalendarofevents,emailJulieHendricksonatsfec@umn.edutogetonourmailinglist.Orjustdropusaline:EliSagorSFECManageresagor@umn.edu218‐409‐6115JulieHendricksonSFECProgramAssistantsfec@umn.eduorhendr065@umn.edu218‐726‐6403