Treated Area Better Choice for the Forest

I'm going to compare and contrast the differences and similarities between the Auggie forest controlled and treatment areas. Things that may differ or be the same will be the fuel loads, ground cover, horizontal cover, the types and amount of trees in the area and the coarse woody debris.

To start, our group looked at the ground cover of the controlled area. Litter and woody debris mostly covered the ground. Whereas in the treatment areas the ground mostly consisted of woody debris. The ground cover on both sides did include similarities in woody debris, but in the treatment area the woody debris looked as though it was aftermath from logging, whereas the controlled area was more natural.

We also looked at horizontal cover in both areas. In the controlled area, the most it was ever covered was 98 percent but in the treatment area the most we saw covered was only 15 percent. Both of the plots had trees with lower and higher branches but in the treatment area most of these trees had been logged, leaving the logged areas more exposed.

The treatment area would not be a good habitat for animals like lynx that need a lot of cover in their habitat. The controlled area would have a lot more cover for wildlife but would also supply more fire fuels.

A major pro to treatment area is that there is not a lot of fire fuel because most of it has been thinned out. Although there were similar amounts of one-hour fire fuels, such as a small log or tree, there was a big difference in ten hour and one hundred hour fuels between the two plots. There seemed to be less ten-hour fuel in the treatment area, like larger trees and more vegetation. Surprisingly there were more one hundred hour fuels, like very large trees, dry areas and denser vegetation area, in the treatment area than there was in the controlled areas.

The areas both included Douglas fir but that was the only tree species the two plots shared. The majority of both sites were Douglas fir, but the controlled area had two different types of live trees while the treatment area only had one other live species of trees. Both of their tree majorities landed on Douglas fir, so it would be safe to assume that the Douglas fir doesn't need a very specific habitat.

On the controlled plot, we found three Engelmann spruce trees and three Douglas firs. But in the treatment plot we only found three Douglas firs and one Lodgepole pine.

Even though the treatment area isn't that pretty to look at, it has many pros for safety and health. The controlled area did look more natural but it poses many possible dangers to wildlife and communities like Seeley Lake.

The controlled area was very close to the road and if it were to catch on fire, it would pose a threat to our town. The treatment areas would be a safer and healthier choice. Thinning out beetle killed trees and dead trees is a benefactor to the safety and health of the forest, lowering the amount of fire fuels in the area.

In conclusion, our group decided that the treatment area would be a better choice for the health of the forest, rather than controlled area based upon the data we took.