United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service Northern Region 200 East Broadway 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula MT 

59807 

Table 1. Expenditures for PSR-funded white pine pruning and surveys in 2006.

District Pruning Survey

Acres Cost $/

acre

Pruning 

$ total

Acres Cost $/

acre

Survey $ 

total

Total PSR 

$ 

Pierce 145 71.28 10 336 712 10.14 7 219 17 555 

Palouse 150 60.45 9 068 271 12.00 3 252 12 320 

N. Fork 28 97.00 2 716 297 12.52 3 720 6 436 

Powell 41 97.00 3 977 16 15.00 240 4 217 

 

Sub Total: 364 26 097 1 296 40 528 

Vehicle: FOR/Mileage 3 970 3 970 

Contract Admin/Overhead 6 673 6 673 

Totals: Acres 364 1 296 

 Dollars $ 36 740 14 431 51 171

The Clearwater National Forest has a very active 

western white pine pruning program and 

accomplished a great deal with PSR funding in 

2006. Pruning and pre- and post-suppression 

surveys were completed on four of five districts on 

the Forest (Table 1). Young western white pine 

were pruned on 364 acres and nearly 1300 acres 

were surveyed at a total cost of $51,171. 

A single contractor with a crew of 10-15 

accomplished roughly 80% of the pruning in 2006. 

Pruning efficiency of this crew was about 90-95% 

in stands we evaluated shortly after treatment. The 

treatment was assessed by the contract 

administrator prior to paying the contractor and all 

stands were determined to have met the 95% 

pruning efficiency standard for full payment. 

Pre-treatment surveys were conducted in 42 stands, 

1,294 acres and post-treatment surveys were done 

in two stands on Pierce district. The average cost 

for pre-treatment surveys was a little over $11/acre 

and post-treatment surveys were $13/acre. 

Summary 

Report 06-11 November 2006 

Western White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater National Forest, 2006

Susan K. Hagle, Plant Pathologist, Mark Klinke, Forest Culturist 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 
Report 06-7 White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater NF Page 2 

Background 

The Clearwater National Forest is the heart of the 

historic white pine type. Most of the Clearwater 

provides prime white pine habitat. This Forest 

managed an active timber program in the 1980’s 

including numerous regeneration harvests that were 

planted with high proportions of rust-resistant 

western white pine. 

These young stands are now of particular value 

because of their species composition. White pine 

and western larch constitute a large proportion of 

the species composition of these stands along with 

Douglas-fir and grand fir. Root diseases are 

prevalent and increasing in the young Douglas-fir 

and grand fir in these stands, while white pine and 

larch are relatively resistant. 

Unharvested and selectively harvested stands on the 

forest are predominantly grand fir, Douglas-fir and 

western redcedar with root disease and heartrot 

general throughout the type. Restoring western 

white pine and western larch is important both for 

the ecologic and economic health of the Forest. 

Therefore the value of rust-resistant white pines far 

exceed their future timber value. 

Evaluation of Pruning Projects 

Pruning was accomplished by contract on 82% of 

acres, mostly on Pierce and Palouse Ranger 

Districts. The remainder was performed by local 

fire crews, largely on Northfork and Powell Ranger 

Districts. The contract crew was under the direction 

of Anaclato Perez. This crew pruned the 295 acres 

on Pierce and Palouse Ranger Districts that were 

financed using PSR monies and additional acreage 

funded from other sources (including RAC). The 

winning bid was considerably lower than expected. 

Recent contracts have gone for $105 to $130 per 

acre but Perez’s bid was $60.45 per acre for the 

Pierce stands and $71.28 for the Palouse. Despite 

some concern that the bid might be too low and 

lead to poor performance or default, the contracts 

District Crew Stand Acres Location Name

Pierce Contract 10205031 5 GEZEL CR 

 Contract 10407036 5 GOLD SHELL 

 Contract 10706048 6 MOOSEHORN DOLLA 

 Contract 11804032 62 RD 5216 

 Contract 11804055 67 RD 5216 

Palouse Contract 25601041 21 

 Contract 25602043 21 

 Contract 25603018 28 

 Contract 27903024 26 

 Contract 27903025 43 

 Contract 29101033 11 

Northfork Force account 33603069 12 

 Force account 33603070 1 

 Force account 33603071 6 

 Force account 33603086 4 

 Force account 33604079 5 

Powell Force account 63302004 17 JOHNBOY 

 Force account 63302010 24 JOHNBOY 

 18 stands 364

Table 2. Stands pruned in 2006 with PSR funding. 
Report 06-7 White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater NF Page 3 

were awarded to Perez. After inspecting the work, 

the contract administrators signed off on all stands 

and the contractor was paid in full indicating that 

the projects were completed within contract 

specifications. 

 

Walk-through monitoring inspections 

We found error rates to be within acceptable limits 

in walk-through inspections of a sample of pruned 

stands. We inspected three of the stands worked by 

Perez’s crew and tallied a sample of pruned trees 

(Table 3). All three were on steep slopes in cedar 

habitat types. They had been clearcut harvested and 

broadcast burned in 1987 planted in 1988. All three 

sites were planted with F2 white pine stock from 

the Moscow arboretum (lot 6394). A walk- through 

tally of trees in each plantation yielded similar 

results for all three. Of 70 pruned trees examined in 

11802035, seven had branches below 6 feet that had 

been missed (live branches that had not been 

Table 3. Results of walk-through tallies in three stands pruned under contract in 2006. Percent of 

trees satisfactorily pruned.

District Stand Acres Aspect Elev. Plantation composition Tally 

Result

Pierce 11802035 21 N 4100’ western white pine, western larch 

and Douglas-fir 

90% 

 11804032 62 NW 4200’ western white pine, western larch 

and Douglas-fir 

95% 

 11804055 67 S 4400’ western white pine, western larch, 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine 

94% 

pruned). Of 120 pruned trees in 11804032, six had 

missed branches. And in of 104 trees in 11804055, 

six had missed branches. No other faults were 

observed. That is, we did not see trees that should 

have been treated but were not, nor did we see trees 

that were pruned less than the required height. 

In most cases, the missed branches were at the base 

of trees, often with duff covering the branch 

attachment. We also observed that trees with 

missed branches tended to be clustered in stands, 

suggesting that the error may have been committed 

most consistently by a single member of the crew. 

It is apparent that this person was not diligent in 

checking around the base of all trees thereby 

overlooking some branches that were under the 

duff or pruning slash. Although these basal 

branches often have low vigor because of shading, 

they are among the most likely branches to bear 

infections because they have been exposed to 

infection the longest. 

Missed branch 

Missed branch 
Report 06-7 White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater NF Page 4 

A few trees had been pruned that had non-prunable 

stem cankers or branch cankers. This type of error 

does not constitute a fault. Pruning of these trees 

was not required by the contract. They were 

probably pruned before the operator noticed the 

canker. 

 

Contract administrator inspections 

An inspection of the each of the contractor-pruned 

stands is performed by the contract administrator 

for the respective District. Inspection is based on a 

combination of visual observations and sample 

plots in each unit. If pruning quality looks 

acceptable based on the walk through inspection, 

the contractor will get full pay for that unit. If walk 

through observations indicate significant problems, 

such as numerous missed trees or incompletely 

pruned trees, plots are used to obtain a 

representative sample. 

If the contractor attains 95% quality or greater, they 

receive full pay. Quality less than 95% receives the 

actual percent of pay based on inspection plots. If 

plots indicate 93% the contractor would get 93% of 

their bid price/acre. Inspection of 85% or less 

requires rework of the entire stand. 

Suitability of stands for treatment 

In addition to pruning quality, we assessed the 

suitability of the stands for pruning. In all three 

cases, we found the stands to have been very good 

candidates for treatment. Each had vigorous white 

pines of genetically selected seed sources and 

sufficient evidence of rust infection to justify 

treatment. Most of the trees could be rendered 

canker-free by pruning, there were relatively few 

stem canker as yet. And the stands were at the 

proper age for treatment. 

All three sites also had abundant evidence of root 

diseases to which white pines are resistant, thus 

increasing the value of the white pine component in 

these stands. 

Given the experience of the Clearwater Forest in 

pruning project management, it is expected that 

stands would be well-chosen and projects wellconducted. 

Pruning Quality is calculated as a simple percent 

Number of satisfactorily pruned trees_______ 

Number of trees that should have been pruned 

X 100 

White pine was a very important component in the pruned 

stands. Stands were planted with white pine, larch and 

Douglas-fir. Grand fir was a common understory species. 

Patches of root disease mortality were just beginning to 

develop in the pruned stands. Clusters of several Douglasfir trees, usually near inoculum-bearing stumps, are 

common in these stands. As root disease continues to 

develop throughout the life of the stands, resistant white 

pine and larch components will be increasingly desirable. 
Pre-treatment surveys 

Pre-suppression surveys were conducted in 42 

stands on three districts on the forest (Appendix A, 

on page 6). Overall, 1296 acres were surveyed for 

potential for treatment at an average cost of 

$11.13/acre. 

The methods for pre-suppression surveys vary by 

District. Pierce and Palouse Districts are the most 

involved in white pine pruning. Pierce District 

surveys are walk-through exams conducted by the 

district Forester, Clare Brick. She uses certification 

exam data as a basis for selecting stands for walkthrough examination. During a walk-through, she 

confirms that the stocking of white pine is adequate 

to justify a project, estimates the average height of 

white pines, and estimates the percent of prunable 

and non-prunable white pines. From this, she 

determines the appropriateness of pruning 

treatment. 

Palouse District uses a seasonal silviculture crew to 

record measurements on 1/50th acre quick plots. 

One plot per acre is established on a grid 

throughout the stand. The crew counts the total 

number of white pines on the plot, the number that 

are prunable. They estimate the average height of 

white pine on each plot. Tallies are turned over to 

the district silviculturist but they are not entered 

into the database. The district silviculturist 

determines the eligibility of each stand for pruning. 

 This information is also used to prepare the bid 

invitations. Prospective contractors are provided 

some basic data on each stand including the stand 

acres, the approximate range of prunable white pine 

per acre, and the range of white pine heights. They 

are encouraged to visit each stand before submitting 

a bid. 

Report 06-7 White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater NF Page 5 

Evaluation of Survey Projects

Silviculturists will consider the vigor and importance of the 

white pine component in a stand as well as the frequency and 

location of cankers when deciding whether to prune. 

Post-treatment monitoring 

Monitoring of treatment effectiveness was 

a minor part of the program in 2006. With 

money and time limited, it is natural to 

place emphasis on treating as many stands 

as possible. 

It is commendable that Pierce District 

took on post-suppression monitoring in 

two treated stands (Table 5). Walk-through 

surveys were conducted in these stands 

with informal counts of successfully and 

unsuccessfully treated trees. The cost for 

these assessments was only $13 per acre. 

Table 4. Post-treatment surveys 2006 Clearwater National Forest

District Stand Acres $/A Cost Location Name

Pierce 10502002 18 13 234 DUTCHMAN

10503062 27 13 351 DUTCHMAN

45 585

Resource publication: 

Schnepf, C. C. and J. W. Schwandt. 2006. Pruning 

western white pine. A vital tool for species restoration. 

Pacific Northwest Extension. University of Idaho. PNV 

584. 62 p. Pocket size, water resistant. 
Report 06-7 White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater NF Page 6 

Appendix A. Pre-treatment surveys 2006 Clearwater National Forest

District Stand Location Name Method Acres $/A Cost

Pierce 10501051 SIBERIA #2 Walk-through 35 10 350 

 10603031 SNOWY CAMP Walk-through 31 10 310 

 10801012 ELDORADO MOUTH Walk-through 36 9 324 

 10901006 SIBERIA #2 Walk-through 27 10 270 

 10902009 WHITE CR #2 Walk-through 80 10 800 

 10905030 ELDORADO MOUTH Walk-through 23 10 230 

 11106013 FANTASTIC Walk-through 9 10 90 

 11106028 FAN CR #3 Walk-through 29 10 290 

 11106043 FAN CR #3 Walk-through 16 10 160 

 11202007 UPPER YAKUS Walk-through 32 10 320 

 11202014 UPPER YAKUS Walk-through 24 10 240 

 11202016 UPPER YAKUS Walk-through 9 10 90 

 11202017 UPPER YAKUS Walk-through 25 10 250 

 11202046 UPPER YAKUS Walk-through 6 10 60 

 11507001 CABIN CR Walk-through 10 10 100 

 11602018 THREE BEAR Walk-through 63 10 630 

 11802035 RD 5216 Walk-through 21 10 210 

 11804009 RD 5216 Walk-through 30 10 300 

 11804032 RD 5216 Walk-through 62 10 620 

 11804055 RD 5216 Walk-through 67 10 670 

 12001068 CABIN CR Walk-through 22 10 220 

 12001130 CABIN CR Walk-through 10 10 100 

Palouse 27903024 Quick Plot 26 12 312 

 27903025 Quick Plot 43 12 516 

 27904013 Quick Plot 33 12 396 

 27904025 Quick Plot 26 12 312 

 27904027 Quick Plot 13 12 156 

 27904029 Quick Plot 27 12 324 

 29101014 Quick Plot 21 12 252 

 29101030 Quick Plot 25 12 300 

 29101031 Quick Plot 24 12 288 

 29101032 Quick Plot 10 12 120 

 29101037 Quick Plot 12 12 144 

 29101041 Quick Plot 7 12 84 

 29101043 Quick Plot 4 12 48 

Northfork 31108002 Walk-through 85 12 1020 

 31108010 Walk-through 22 15 330 

 31108011 Walk-through 30 15 450 

 31108079 Walk-through 85 12 1020 

 33502001 DUMMY SALE Walk-through 58 12 696 

 33605014 Walk-through 17 12 204 

Powell 64502044 Walk-through 16 15 240 

Total 42 stands 1 296 A $14 431

Report 06-7 White Pine Pruning on the Clearwater NF Page 6