Forest Range Types of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Interior Pacific Northwest Region

                                     western larch (tamarack)         coast association

                                     western white pine                   coast association

                                     grand fir                                   coast association

                                     Douglas fir                               coast and montane associations, but mostly montane    

                                                                                    (eg. interior Douglas fir predominate)

                                     ponderosa pine                         montane association

                                     lodgepole pine                         montane association                        

                                     Englemann spruce                   montane association

                                     western red cedar                    coast association

                                     western hemlock                      coast association.

Western larch and western white pine “may well be regarded as the two most typical dominants of this forest” with grand fir also “more characteristic of the transition region” while with eastward progression in this forest region “the major dominants of the coast association are the first to drop out” (Weaver and Clements, 1938, p. 504).

The designation of Interior Cedar-Hemlock-Western White Pine Forest (Baumgartner et al., 1994) is consistent with the “arborvitae-hemlock vegetation zone” having the three dominants of western arborvitae or western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and grand fir (Abies grandis) which was presented by Daubenmire in Davis (1952, ps. 9-10). Rexford F. Daubenmire is the ecologist who published the most about these forests (eg. Daubenmire, 1943, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1980; Daubenmire and Daubenmire, 1968). The Daubenmire concept of habitat type was adopted by the United States Forest Service which made further detailed descriptions of habitat types within this general forest community using the series-habitat type-phase hierarchy (eg. Pfister et al., 1977, Cooper et al., 1991). As indicated by these forest habitat types and the diversity among them there are various upperstorey and otherwise dominant tree species for the locally rich habitats within this part of the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Peet  in (Barbour and Billings, 1988, p. 83 and Barbour and Billings, 2000, p. 97-104 passim) and Franklin and Halpern in (Barbour and Billings, 2000, ps. 127-132 and 148-150) gave general descriptions of Rocky Mountain and Pacific Northwest forest vegetation which corresponded closely to the western white pine-western larch and  western red cedar-hemlock of Clements. From his review of several workers Peet (cited above) concluded that the western red cedar and western hemlock were joined with mountain hemlock, Douglas fir, and grand fir as local climax species in the Northern Rockys and Cascade Range. He concluded that the first two species dominate moist sites while Douglas fir dominates drier sites with grand fir dominant on sites intermediate between these. All of these conifers are prone to devastating crown fires, and while they all are frequently successional species, lodgepole pine, western white pine, and western larch more commonly function as seral trees. Western larch is probably the most fire-tolerant tree of the Rocky Mountains and it is also one of the most shade-intolerant species. Western larch is thus often a co-dominant with ponderosa pine in open parklike forests with grass understories. Western white pine is the seral species most commonly present in climax western hemlock-western red cedar climax on moist sites (ie. the Interior Cedar-Hemlock-White Pine Forest).

Forest communities in what is poetically called the Inland Empire vary greatly over relatively small areas. This is particularly the case for the understory. As indicated above, this diversity has been classified and described by the U.S. Forest Service using the hierarchial sequence of series-habitat type-phase for, mostly climax, vegetation. These units were applied to the photographs of forest range types in the Northern Rocky Mountain Region shown immediately below when such were obvious and/or appropriate. It became obvious to this author/photographer that there are numerous examples of apparently climax vegetation (including old growth forests) which could not be accurately categorized as any published habitat type. Classification of habitat types (like this publication on range types) is an unfinished project.

According to Franklin and Halpern in Barbour and Billings (2000, ps. 127-132 and 148-150) the climax coniferous forest of the northern Cascades (as well as the Coast Range and Olympic Mountains) is the Douglas fir-western hemlock-western red cedar community with grand fir, Sitka spruce, and western white pine as climax associates with these dominants. This is consistent with the earlier conclusion of Weaver and Clements (1938, p. 503-504) that the transition forest of western larch-western white pine association has the same species as the coastal coniferous forest except for loss of Sitka spruce and diminished dominance of hemlock and western arbor vitae. It also confirmed the legitimacy of the tamarack-western white pine as a climax in its own right. That is why it was treated as a climax forest range type in the photographs and their descriptions which follow.

The Society of American Foresters (Eyre, 1980) designated several forest cover types in this Interior Pacific Northwest-Northern Rocky Mountain Region using common names of single species which were often managed silviculturally as single species stands (eg. western larch, western white pine, grand fir). The SAF forest cover types include both aggregations of species like associations and “essentially pure stands” and these “may be either stable or transitory” (as in climax forests or successional, seral, forest communities, respectively) (Eyre, 1980, p. 1). Thus, SAF cover types describe “the present forest cover” only, but as descriptions include discussions of ecological succession SAF cover types furnish “clues to further development” of forest. In absence of major or abnormal disturbancees present forest vegetation described “would tend to move toward “ climax or potential natural vegetation such as that described by the Kuchler units. Thus “some SAF descriptions of climax types strongly resemble Kuchler’s phytocenoces”; this relationship or similarity to climax at earlier seral stages is “often obscure” (Eyre, 1980, p. 3).

Given that the Kuchler units of potential natural vegetation correspond closely (certainly not exactly) to units of climax vegetation previously identified and described (eg. formations and associations given by such authorities as Clements [1920] and Shelford [1967]), it follows that SAF climax cover types coincide closely to traditionally or historically recognized climaxes. Eyre (1980, p. 3) indicated that habitat types of the Daubenmire concept are “similar to Kuchler’s potential vegetation types but more refined”. Eyre (1980, p. 3) specifically referenced the classification of Montana forest habitat types detailed by Pfister et al. (1977). This and subsequent Forest Service habitat type references (eg. Cooper et al, 1991) were noted in this introduction to Northern Rocky Mountain and Interior Pacific Northwest forests wherein it was indicated that these habitat types were given for forest (range) vegetation shown in the preceding slides as appropriate. Erye (1980, p. 3) also noted the value of descriptions of vegetation in Franklin and Dryness (1973). These details were also applied to the following slides of range cover types when possible.

1. General exterior view of Northern Rocky Mountain forest- Two major kinds of forest (general forest types) occur in this photograph. Interior Douglas-fir (SAF 210) forest is seen in the foreground along the banks of the Lochsa River while the arch-type Idaho mixed coniferous forest occupies the north slope above the Douglas-fir forest zone. In general, an upslope progression has general topographic or elevational zones going from grand fir to a mixed community of western larch, western red cedar, western hemlock, and western white pine to lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce at hill crest.  

Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains). June.

2.  Closer exterior view of Northern Rocky Mountain forest- The same forest as seen in preceding slide, but taken at shorter distance and with less Interior Douglas-fir at lowest level. Both of these photographs had to be taken with cloudy overcast sky. FRES, Kuchler, and SAF same as immediately above. Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains). June. 

This Rocky Mountain mixed conifer type could qualify as one to several FRES, Kuchler, and SAF designations. At the mapping scale (1;7,500,00) of Kuchler’s potential natural vegetation used in the map, Ecosystems of the United States, which accompanied FRES Agriculture Handbook No. 475 (Garrison et al., 1977) this was mapped as K-13 (Grand Fir-Douglas-fir Forest) or an overlap of K-13 and K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest). K-13 might be topographic climax on this north slope— and these two species were dominant at lowest elevation (by Lochsa River) —but upslope forest was clearly K-12. K-12 might, again on this north slope, be seral to K-13. This forest was never logged but much of this area burnt back in the 1930s and it may not have regained the state of old-growth.  At practical management size this is a patchwork of these two plus pockets of pure Douglas-fir (K-11) along the river. Thus, K-24 (Mosaic of Cedar-Hemlock-Douglas-fir Forest) seemed most apt which would throw this into FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem). Mapped as K-13, however, places this vegetation in FRES No. 25 (Larch Forest Ecosystem). Idaho Batholith- Lochsa-Selway-Clearwater Canyons Ecoregion, 16c (McGrath et al., 2001). It was difficult to apply vegetation units which were mapped at large-scale to local vegetation. Furthermore, “ground truth” did always confirm mapping units applied at continental scale. It was probably remarkable that units were this consistent.      

Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho . June.

FRES, K-, and SAF designations discussed immediately in next slide which is another view of this same forest. Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains). June.

5. Flood plain forest of interior ponderosa pine and interior Douglas-fir- The two dominants of the canopy are joined with black cottonwood (first and third tree trunk from left in foreground) as an associate of this upperstorey. The two right-most boles are Douglas-fir and the second trunk from left (between two black cottonwoods) is ponderosa pine. The prominent tall shrub layer is composed of riparian zone species with red osier dogwood, Sitka or mountain alder, and black or Douglas hawthorn dominant while serviceberry ranks as an associate of this strata. A second and lower shrub layer is dominated by common snowberry and wood or pearhip rose which replace the riparian shrub species a short distance from the hydric soil zone (see next slide).

Depending on interpretation this is either FRES No. 21 (Ponderosa Pine Forest Ecosystem) and K-17 (Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir Forest) or FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem) and K-11 (Douglas-fir Forest) to be either SAF 237 (Interior Ponderosa Pine) or SAF 210 (Interior Douglas-fir). Black cottonwood (see Eyre, 1980, p. 114) as a major component— an obvious associate —of this forest community would seem to qualify this, and definitely so, as the former FRES, K-, and SAF designations (21, 17, and 237, respectively), but this may be somewhat subjective. The forest vegetation shown in this and the immediately preceding and following slides was described “perfectly” by the Soil Conservation Service in Montana as vegetation mapping unit #51, Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine Climax Forests on Deep Soils (Ross and Hunter, 1976, ps. 31-32). Middle Rockies- Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley Ecoregion, 17s (Woods et al., 2002).

Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains). June.

Same FRES, K-, and SAF as for last slide (these three slides are all the same forest). Probably the Pinus ponderosa/ Symphoricarpos albus plant association (a climax type) of the Natural (Pre-settlement) Vegetation of Montana Outline. Soil Conservation Service vegetation mapping unit #51 for Montana, Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine Climax Forests on Deep Soils (Ross and Hunter, 1976, ps. 31-32). Middle Rockies- Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley Ecoregion, 17s (Woods et al., 2002).

Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana (Bitterroot Range- Clearwater Mountains). June.

7. Wolf lichen (Letharia vulpina)- Lichen is a type of composite organism consisting of a fungus (the mycobiont) and an alga or cyanobacterium (the phycobiont) that live in mutualistic symbiosis (Allaby, 1998). Although lichens are a combination of two species of taxonomically distinct major groups they are classified and named as distinct species. The binominal nomenclature refers to the fungal member of the symbiotic partnership and in recent decades the lichenized fungi have been integrated into the classification of the fungi (Purvis, 2000, p. 48).

Wolf lichen is one of the more interesting species from the standpoints of its common and scientific names and the human use made of it. Letharia vulpina contains a toxin identified as vulpinic acid which has been used to kill wolves and foxes (Purvis, 2000, p. 31; Brodo, 2001, ps.411-413). It is vulpinic acid that gives the characteristic color to this fruticose lichen. Fruticose describes the lichen thallus (the vegetative body comprised of the algal and fungal components) that is stalked, pendent, or shrubby, and normally with upper and lower surfaces that are indistinguishable (Brodo et al., 2001, ps. 758, 763).

This specimen was growing on a partially decayed knot (where a limb emerged from the trunk) of ponderosa pine. Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana. June.

FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem), K-11 (Douglas-fir Forest), SAF 210 (Interior Douglas-fir). As discussed above, at the mapping scale (1:7,500,000) used on the map, Ecosystems of the United States, for Agriculture Handbook No. 475 this vegetation was mapped as Kuchler unit 13 (Grand Fir-Douglas-fir Forest) or maybe overlapping K-13 and K-12 ((Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest). At local scale of this 28mm camera lense the vegetation is K-11 (no doubt). Pseudotsuga menziesii Association, Douglas Fir-White Fir (Mixed Conifer) Series in Rocky Mountain Montane Conifer Forest biotic community of Brown et al. (1998). Middle Rockies- Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley Ecoregion, 17s (Woods et al., 2002).

Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains). June.

FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem), K-11 (Douglas-fir Forest), SAF 210 (Interior Douglas-fir). Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphoricarpos albus plant association (Montana Natural Vegetation Outline designation). Pseudotsuga menziesii Association, Douglas Fir-White Fir (Mixed Conifer) Series of Brown et al. (1998). Middle Rockies- Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley Ecoregion, 17s (Woods et al., 2002). Middle Rockies- Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley Ecoregion, 17s (Woods et al., 2002).

Lolo National Forest, Missoula Montana, Montana (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains). June.

Probably closest to FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem), K-11 (Douglas-fir Forest), SAF 210 (Interior Douglas-fir) primarily, but also transition or ecotone between FRES No. 20 and FRES No. 25 (Larch Forest Ecosystem), K-13 (Grand fir-Douglas-fir Forest).Middle Rockies- Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley Ecoregion, 17s (Woods et al., 2002).

Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana (Bitterroot Range-Clearwater Mountains).  June.

At lowest elevation (just above riparian zone of the Clearwater River and extending to base of foot slope) this was a Douglas-fir-ocean spray community— and beyond any doubt-- but, a Pseudotsuga menziesii/Holodiscus discolor habitat type was not published for either Montana (Pfister et al., 1977) or Idaho (Cooper et al., 1991). This shows once again that the habitat type classification is, as of this writing, an unfinished project. The habitat type showing clearly at the bottom of this photograph with the ocean spray in full-bloom seemed obvious to this author. In an elevational zone immediately above this obvious habitat type grew the Douglas-fir-ninebark (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus) habitat type (Pfister et al., 1977, ps. 41-43; Cooper et al., 1991, ps. 73-75). FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem), K-11 (Douglas-fir Forest), SAF 210 (Interior Douglas-fir). Pseudotsuga menziesii Association in Douglas Fir-White Fir (Mixed Conifer) Series of Brown et al. (1998). Idaho Batholith- Lochsa-Selway-Clearwater Canyons Ecoregion, 16c (McGrath et al., 2001).Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho. June.

*** Examples of ocean spray and syringia were included with the slides of ponderosa pine forests in the northern Rocky Mountain and Palouse Prairie region; photographs of birchleaf spiraea and ninebark were placed with slides of the western white pine forest type.

12.  Interior Douglas-fir forest with pinegrass and snowberry understory- This local parklike even-aged stand of Douglas-fir was growing in a predominately ponderosa pine forest in which Douglas-fir was the associate. At the local scale yet large enough to display the habitat type and a “micro-shot” of the forest cover type this is an arch-typical example of the Northern Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forest with a well-developed understory. The dominant species of this understory was pinegrass but with common snowberry the associate (and close runner-up for dominant).     

13.  Inside a Douglas-fir forest with grassy understorey dominated by pinegrass with elk of Geyer’s sedge and Idaho fescue as associates.  Yellow mule’s ears (Wyethia amplexicaulis) is the major forb, a photograph of which can be seen with the ponderosa pine forest slides taken at McCroskey State Park, Latah County, Idaho. June. Immediately behind this local example of the Douglas-fir-pinegrass habitat type is the ponderosa pine-common snowberry habitat type that was included with the other slides of the interior ponderosa pine cover type (SAF 237). The change between these two forest forms (habitat types) is abrupt and clearly evident in this slide. Nonetheless some species from the dominant shrub understory of the ponderosa pine-common snowberry community stand at the edge of the Douglas-fir type. These include the dominant snowberry and also ninebark, ocean spray, and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana).

FRES No. 20 (Douglas-fir Forest Ecosystem), K-11 (Douglas-fir Forest). SRM 210 (Interior Douglas-fir). Pseudotsuga menziesii Association, Douglas Fir-White Fir (Mixed Conifer) Series of Brown et al. (1998). Douglas-fir-pinegrass habitat type. Northern Rockies- Grassy Potlatch Ridges Ecoregion, 15f (McGrath et al., 2001).McCroskey State Park, Latah County, Idaho (edge of Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June. 

SAF No. 25 (Larch Forest Ecosystem) and K-13 (Grand Fir-Douglas-fir Forest) as shown in Agriculture Handbook No. 475, but this inclusion of K-13 under Western Larch is very confusing (at least to this author).  SAF 213 which is the Grand fir forest cover type. Franklin and Dryness (1973, ps. 193-198) designated and described this vegetation as the Abies grandis zone. Abies grandis/Senecio triangularis habitat type. Idaho Batholith- Lochsa-Selway-Clearwater Canyons Ecoregion, 16c (McGrath et al., 2001). Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho (Clearwater Mountains). June. 

14. Grand fir forest- In the valley of the Lochsa River, especially along the greater flood plain, local forest communities dominated by grand fir grow in narrow zones just up-slope (and, in flood plains, outward) from forest dominated by Douglas-fir (Figures 4 and 5 in Cooper et al., 1991, ps. 18-19). These local communities are within the general unit of K-13 (Grand Fir-Douglas-fir Forest) at regional scale. Douglas-fir was the associate unit in the community shown here with scattered ponderosa pine and black cottonwood. Common shrubs included ninebark, birchleaf spiraea, red osier dogwood, common snowberry, and, along streams and depressions, Sitka or mountain alder. Willows were limited to the riparian zone and did not grow under grand fir. Most of this community had an understory dominated by the forb, arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis).

SAF No. 25 (Larch Forest Ecosystem) and K-13 (Grand Fir-Douglas-fir Forest) as shown in Agriculture Handbook No. 475, but this inclusion of K-13 under Western Larch is very confusing (at least to this author).  SAF 213 which is the Grand fir forest cover type. Franklin and Dryness (1973, ps. 193-198) designated and described this vegetation as the Abies grandis zone. Abies grandis/Senecio triangularis habitat type. Idaho Batholith- Lochsa-Selway-Clearwater Canyons Ecoregion, 16c (McGrath et al., 2001). Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho (Clearwater Mountains). June. 

Grand fir is a tolerant species and on some sites (such as shown here) is the climax. On such sites grand fir succeeds species that are typically seral for those sites (eg. western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and, even, Douglas-fir). Only the most tolerant species of the region, western hemlock and western redcedar, will— on some sites —succeed grand fir. Succession to these two regional or climatic climax species can require centuries, time enough for disturbances like windthrow and wildfire to intervene (Eyre, 1980, p. 94). It could be underscored that this potential sequence in which grand fir is seral to western hemlock and western redcedar was based on Clementsian monoclimax theory. According to polyclimax or climax pattern theories grand fir-dominated forest would be an edaphic or topographic climax (ie.Kuchler’s Grand Fir-Douglas-fir Forest).    

More slides and details of the grand fir forest cover type (SAF 213) were presented below in this section  under the subheading of Silvilcultural Practices in the Northern Rocky Mountain Mixed Conifer Forest.

FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem). K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest). SAF 227 (Western Redcedar-Western Hemlock). Northern Rockies- St. Joe Schist-Gneiss Zone Ecoregion, 15p (McGrath et al., 2001).

St. Joe National Forest, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June.

St. Joe National Forest, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June.

However, these trees teach other lessons from the standpoint of forest ecology and less intensively managed commercial forests. These dead and dying trees are a natural feature of the forest ecosystem and they serve desirable, if not essential, functions in the forest ecosystem, functions with which the ecosystem evolved. When these tops fall to ground (hopefully no human winds up under them) they will be ultimately be incorporated into the soil as humus and recycled nutrients. Before that stage they will serve as “blotters” or “sponges” to hold precious water from precipitation and slowly release this moisture into the soil. The logs that finally fall from the dead trees may become “nurse logs” for species like western hemlock. Long before that stage the dead spires and, finally, snags serve as homes for wildlife species such as cavity nesting birds and mammals (eg. squirrels, coons, pine martins). Also, the rotting wood serves as media for fungi which are then used as feed for rodents which in their turn serve  as prey for predators like the famous (or infamous) northern subspecies of the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis curina).

The high amount of dead, rotting wood is a feature of old-growth forest (ie. rate of wood lost to decomposition equals rate or amount of wood produced). This is why, in the context of this forest ecology lesson, old-growth forests are essential for continued survival of species like the aforementioned hooter. (From this biological relationship grew the intriguing sociopoliticoeconomic tale of the northern spotted owl and old-growth forest of the Pacific Northwest.) And this is why, in the context of efficient forest management, foresters desire to harvest old-growth forests and convert them into forests of young, actively growing trees which are producing a net yield of wood (positive wood biomass accretion). In between, bird-watchers just want to have the owl to view and the loggers, logging truck drivers, and mill workers just want a job and beans on the plate. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” 

FRES 12 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest), SAF 221 (Western Redcedar-Western Heemlock). Northern Rockies- St. Joe Schist-Gneiss Zone Ecoregion, 15p (McGrath et al., 2001).

St. Joe National Forest, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June.

St. Joe National Forest, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June

An understory consisting of one shrub and one herbaceous layer was present throughout most of this community which qualified it as a range vegetation type. Dominant herbaceous species was pinegrass  (= pine reedgrass) with sedges (Carex spp.) and introduced and naturalized Kentucky bluegrass and timothy common in localized patches and clumps, respectively. While there were shrubs (common snowberry, birchleaf spiraea, and some huckleberry species [Vaccinium sp.]) enough to form a localized woody component this was clearly secondary to the herbaceous layer. Cooper et al. (1991, ps. 78-79) described a Pinus  contorta series consisting on one habitat type (climax) and two community types (seral), but none of these seemed to describe either this community or the likely climax vegetation. It was possible that the potential natural vegetation (climax) was one of the grand fir habitat types.

FRES, Kuchler, and SAF designations were uncertain. It was possible that this was climax lodgepole pine forest (FRES No. 26), but prior co-dominance with western white pine (or even predominance by this species) made FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem) seem equally plausible. Loss of western white pine to an alien (non-native) species of rust would most certainly not disqualify this type as being part of FRES No. 22 as the potential natural vegetation. Northern Rockies- St. Joe Schist-Gneiss Zone Ecoregion, 15p (McGrath et al., 2001).

26. Understorey of western white pine-dominated forest- Another view of the seral forest shown in the last  three slides. Lodgepole pine was locally absent, but grand fir invasion is obvious in background and in the trunk of the sapling (centermost tree). Western white pine is regarded as having relatively low genetic diversity but there is considerable tree-to-tree variation in bark features among young trees seen here. The coarse bark of the two white pines in the foreground of this photograph is atypical plus it is still partly wet from a recent shower so identification would be difficult were it not for the telltale lesion of white pine blister rust on the trunk of the doomed specimen on the left. More readily identified is the pine reedgrass (=pine grass) with unusually abundant flowering stalks and characteristic interrupted spikelike panicles (foreground). Pinegrass forage is generally lower in nutritive value than other native grass species like Idaho fescue or pine bluegrass, but it is one higher yielding grasses native to this region.  

FRES, Kuchler, SAF not conclusive, but at local habitat scale this appeared to be FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem) and SAF 215. If grand fir succeeded white pine this would be SAF 231.

FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock Pine Forest). SAF 215 (Western White Pine). Northern Rockies- Northern Idaho Hills and Low Relief Mountains Ecoregion, 15v (McGrath et al., 2001).

Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho. June.

Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June.

30. Interior of old-growth western white pine- This is the same forest as seen in the last two photographs. At local scale it is a closed canopy with absolutely no understory whatsoever except for some species of moss which was growing on the deep sponge-like duff of “pine straw” (= pine needles) that has accumulated over the years. This understory literally has a “bounce” to it when walked on and is characteristic of dense old-growth western white pine (personal communication: Mr. Jack Puckett, forest and range fuels specialist, U.S, Forest Service, retired; June 2001). Viewers should note that there is regeneration of western white pine in this old-growth forest. While this was not a forest stand consisting of numerous ages neither was it an even-aged forest. There were at least two cohort ages, roughly speaking, in this community. The reproduction of western white pine would seem unusual given the seral status of this species which is so typically regenerated by patch-creating disturbances, notably wildfire. Yet, western white pine was rated as “intermediate” in tolerance which, by the way, it shared with sugar pine, the other major lumber white pine in western North America (Wenger, 1984, p. 3). Thus, it has been established that this species does regenerate to some extent in it’s own shade. This feature coupled with its presence as a relict from natural wildfire likely explains the associate species nature of western white pine even in western red cedar-western hemlock forests (Baumgartner et al., ps. 42-48) as well as it’s natural co-dominance with western larch in the western larch-white pine climax of Clements. (Once again, the famed  “Idaho Mix” described above.) Western larch, western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir, and Grand fir were all present within this general local area, but only the first two species were “captured” in this photo-frame. The reddish log on the ground in center of photograph was western larch. Western red cedar can be seen: the tree closest to left margin, the tree (with entire lower trunk visible) closest to right margin, and the second (from left) of the three larger trunks in foreground. Otherwise, “pure” western white pine.    

31. Inside a virgin western white pine forest- This is a consociation of western white pine, in fact a nearlysingle-species stand except for a few western red cedar, western hemlock, and Douglas fir which are out of camera range. The trees in this virgin forest are not as large as some of the old-growth specimens of yesteryear, but this nice relict stand clearly showed why the old-time timbermen loved  “king Pine” and why today’s foresters are “pulling out the stops” to restore this magnificent tree to its throne in the Inland Pacific Northwest. This “dog-hair” stand has a multi-aged structure (at very least two generations are obvious) proving that the pine is reproducing but, as is the usual case for such crowding, all trees were relatively small (by standards for trees of this species on this favorable site). This crowded stand was compared to a more open (more widely dispersed) forest less than 100 yards distant three slides from now. The spongy layer of pine needles and moss is clearly apparent as is much downed timber which is characteristic of old-growth forests in general. 

32. Floor of virgin western white pine forest- A mound created by an uprooted forest giant is now covered with the spongy mixture of pine straw and some moss. This is a reminder of the value of forests in watershed protection and yield of water for ownstream- and down-the-mountain users. It also illustrates nutrient cycling in forest and range ecosystems while the Lilliputian moss reminds students that no species regardless of its apparent financial worthlessness is really insignificant in ecosystem structure and function and, ultimately, in economic impact. The down branch with browning needles was recently wind-torn from a mature white pine. FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest), SAF 215 (Western White Pine). Northern Rockies- Northern Idaho Hills and Low Relief Mountains Ecoregion, 15v (McGrath et al., 2001).

Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho. June.

33. The dead wood and downed timber of an old-growth western white pine forest- It is hard to see in the dim-lite, dark interior of this virgin western white pine stand, but viewers can see the old snags of western white pine (eg. biggest trunk, front and center of slide) and decaying downed tops and limbs that are good indicators of the old-growth status of this forest community. This is an example of the architecture and interior physiogonomy of a climax forest dominated by chronologically-physiologically mature trees. At this endpoint of both plant and ecosystem succession the net rate of wood accumulation or biomass accretion is zero: wood produced by net primary productivity equals wood lost by decay. Most of the older-cohort trees are at or approaching the final stage of old-age and are rotting away (ie. they are at the down-slope point of the maturity stage on the sigmoid growth curve which represents the life cycle of every living thing). It was explained above when discussing the dead spires of mature timber in the canopy of an Idaho mixed conifer forest that this natural process of decay is a waste of valuable stumpage, a commodity capable of generating profit and building material, and yet also a feature of natural ecosystems which serves essential roles in the functions of forest ecosystems. Specifically, snags serve as food sources for invertebrates which become food for wildlife such as woodpeckers. Snags also serve as nest sites for cavity dwelling animals. Once fallen, these snags become water-retaining logs which slowly release this life-giving  moisture until finally the rotted wood becomes a source of humus and soil minerals. Before that final stage of decomposition the dead wood serves as food for saprophytes (both vascular plants as well as fungi) and other reducers like microorganisms. At this stage dead, rotting wood continues to serve as a food source for insects like grubs or ants which in turn can be eaten by big game like bears. On the other hand, this “balance of Nature” could be so completely balanced that job-creating, building material-supplying lumber companies could not balance their books. Then there would be no dividends paid to stock-holding retirees, many of whom are members of the Sierra Club and native plant societies. Nor would there be that source of revenue which helps in the provision of the essential services of government and private enterprise (eg. a portion, typically a quarter, of the revenue from stumpage goes to the local county to support schools and roads).  A balance is required in all aspects of the ecosystem which certainly includes the human dimension, man as ecosystem manipulator.

This view of a densely populated (closely spaced, narrowly dispersed) forest of western white pine provided pictorial evidence of the ability of this species to regenerate in its own shade, but the death of a large proportion of the younger cohorts was also evident. Thick stands of western white pine as seen here were the result of high rates of seedling establishment in clearings created by natural disturbances like crown fires and windthrow (or perhaps outbreaks of mountain pine beetle), but size (especially diameter) was much less than in more open stands of this species which is rated as having intermediate tolerance. The next slide of an adjoining community provided a comparison that illustrated the result of forest crowding (and the benefit of tree thinning, by natural or artificial means).

Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June.

34. Another local variant of the old-growth western white pine forest- Amazingly, this forest community dominated by widely spaced western white pine with western red cedar as the associate species grew less than 90 yards from the forest vegetation shown in the last six slides (and with basically the same slope and aspect). Here the individual old-growth trees were over twice the diameter as on the “dog-hair” stand. The much greater spacing among trees did not allow a closed canopy of interlocking branches. Rather, it was more of a woodland overstory and physiogonomy which allowed a rich multi-layer understorey to florish. The two immense old-growth specimens of western white pine in the foreground are examples of what made this pine the loggers’ favorite and what made history for the Idaho Panhandle. The center large trunk is western red cedar. Small trunks of downed young trees were white pine and grand fir that were brought down by the crash of a top-broken mature white pine (barely visible in left background). Seedlings of all these conifers (plus a few of Douglas-fir) grew throughout the understorey. Understorey shrubs included ninebark, Rocky Mountain maple, birchleaf spiraea, common snowberry, serviceberry, creeping Oregon grape, thimbleberry, and Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana). Pine reedgrass was the major grass present, but it was widely scattered as were a few plants of sedges.      

FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest), SAF 215 (Western White Pine). Northern Rockies- Northern Idaho Hills and Low Relief Mountains Ecoregion, 15v (McGrath et al., 2001).   

Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho. June.

FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest), SAF 215 (Western White Pine). Northern Rockies- Northern Idaho Hills and Low Relief Mountains Ecoregion, 15v (McGrath et al., 2001).

Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains). June.

36. Old-growth western white pine forest- Another view of the same virgin forest seen in the last eight slides showing even more widely spaced trees and, therefore, a more open and better developed understorey than observed in previous photographs. Regeneration of western white pine was even more prolific than in the preceding views. A greater number of shrub species were also observed even though this immediate vegetation was less than 20 yards from that shown in the last two photographs. Shrubs included ocean spray, ninebark, birachleaf spiraea, Rocky; Mountain maple, thimbleberry, common snowberry, serviceberry, and Nootka rose. Douglas-fir and grand fir seedlings were abundant in microsites such as depressions. The herb layer was mostly suppressed by the multi-layer woody understorey.    

FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), K-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest), SAF 215 (Western White Pine). Northern Rockies- Northern Idaho Hills and Low Relief Mountains Ecoregion, 15v (McGrath et al., 2001). Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho. June.

The western white pine forest at Heyburn State Park shown in the last nine slides illustrated the remarkable variation of the mixed conifer forest (the “Idaho Mix”) of the Interior Pacific Northwest that can occur at local scale. From the perspective of range management this was a textbook case of the problems that are often encountered in establishing proper stocking rates— those that provide for full proper use of the forage/browse resource while allowing regeneration of commercially and ecologically important woody plants all the while providing for maximum watershed protection— on public land allotments and commercial forests. Tremendous local variation in vegetation (“translated” into livestock and game feed, wildlife habitat, watershed, and board foot of timber), water availability, soils (site potential), topography (accessibility of  feed), and so forth often occurs over the area encompassed by a management unit such as a range, allotment, forest compartment, state park, etc. 

Reconnaissance as either a formal process, as was often the case on public land in the “early days”, or informal, as on private ranchlands, was often the first study made of the range. Formal range surveying, especially as conducted by government conservation agencies, was prelude and prerequisite to scientific planning of range use. Range reconnaissance was often the main activity that beginning government rangemen became involved in, and those early range surveys, extensive though they were, provided some of the most useful information ever gathered on the public ranges in North America. Mini editorial: the range surveys done by junior officers in agencies like the U.S. Forest Service were worth more than all the environmental impact statements ever printed and wasted on American pulp.

A good introductory discussion of range surveys was published in Stoddart and Smith (1943, chapter IX).

FRES No. 22 (Western White Pine Forest Ecosystem), N-12 (Cedar-Hemlock-Pine Forest), SAF 215 (Western White Pine). Benewah County, Idaho (Coeur d’Alene Mountains, Northern Rocky Mountain Region). June.

Many to most of the western or Idaho white pine growing in Heyburn State Park have natural resistance to the dreaded introduced white pine blister rust. The cones of these genotypes are routinely gathered at Heyburn as sources of germ plasm from which to propagate seedlings and develop rust-resistant strains of white pine. Easily read accounts of these sorts of breeding program can be found in  Neuenschwander et al. 1999) and Finnis et al. (2001). Alliances of the U.S. forest Service, state forestry programs, and groups like the Inland Empire Tree Improvement Cooperative are working feverishly to develop blister rust-resistant pines to restore this once grand “King Pine” to the Northern Rockys. Unfortunately, a number of recent forces have slowed progress in restoration of Idaho white pine forests. These range from cutbacks for research into rust resistance to changed silvicultural systems (especially fewer clearcuts which could restore western white pine faster) and shorter timber rotations which do not favor larger species like white pine (Neuenschwander et al. 1999, p. 14). Time will tell if man is able to restore the once magnificent western white pine forest of the Inland Empire.