History of Old Growth Controversy on School Trust lands:

1996: DNRC adopted the State Forest Land Management plan. It was a good plan that would have provided protection for old growth. Unfortunately, in 1998 DNRC adopted internal guidance for managing old growth that did not reflect the original plan and would have resulted in increased harvests of old growth. This led to conflict.

2000: Land Board hired 4 independent forestry experts to prepare a report on old growth management strategies. They had excellent recommendations that have largely been ignored.

• “Producing" old growth habitats through active management is an untested hypothesis.
• Fragmentation of old growth habitat decreases effectiveness.
• Connectivity increases habitat value of old growth.
• Networks must be established over time so planning is essential.
• Identify old growth stands on a map and protect them until you have reached the commitment
• Identify replacement stands on the map and ensure long-term commitment.
• MONITOR unit and land office compliance in designating old growth retention stands as soon as possible.

2003: Land Board adopted rules to guide management of old growth and other timber resources.

• MEIC and others supported the rules but said their success would rest on implementation. The language was vague and could be interpreted different ways. We are concerned that these rules are not being properly implemented and monitored to maintain biodiversity.

Land Board approved new annual sustained yield analysis and increased harvests on state school trust lands by 26%

2004: DNRC promised it would complete a “habitat conservation plan” (HCP) for threatened and endangered species that would guide management in old growth to protect species like the grizzly bear, Canada lynx, bull trout, and other fish species. This HCP was supposed to make sure that management of old growth would be done with an eye toward protecting these species.