United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-184

December 2006

Building A Research Legacy

The Intermountain Station

1911-1997

By Richard J. Klade
Klade, Richard J. 2006. Building a research legacy—The Intermountain Station 1911-1997.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-184. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 259 p.

Abstract

Includes highlights of the history of organizations that preceded formation of the Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station in 1954. Provides detailed accounts of Intermountain 

Station research and administrative accomplishments, some of the people who led activities, and 

changes in the organization from 1954 through 1997 when the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations merged to become the Rocky Mountain Research Station. Many significant Station publications are indicated by title in the text, and the references list includes other publications that 

provide additional historic background on research programs and results.

The Author

Dick Klade graduated from the University of Wisconsin—Madison in 1957 with a bachelor 

of science degree in journalism. His early jobs were editor of a weekly newspaper and sports 

editor for a daily paper. Before joining the Forest Service in 1968 as a writer-editor at the Forest 

Products Laboratory in Madison, Klade worked for Allis-Chalmers, The West Bend Company, 

and RCA (at a Job Corps Center) in editorial and news media contact positions. He became Public 

Information Officer for the Boise National Forest in 1972, and later served as Information Officer 

for the Eastern and Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service. He worked at the Intermountain 

Station twice, from 1974 through 1977 and from 1983 until he retired in 1994 as Staff Director for 

Research Information.

On the Cover

Three giants among the scientists who worked at the Intermountain Station and its predecessor 

organizations are superimposed on a Salmon River scene. The river was the boundary between 

Forest Service Regions 1 and 4. The two Regions encompassed the territory where most Station 

research was conducted throughout the bulk of its history. Chuck Wellner, Arthur Sampson, and 

Harry Gisborne (left to right) stood out from the many who contributed new knowlege to help 

solve natural resource management problems. Gisborne, Sampson, and Wellner contributed much 

more than improved techniques. They provided fundamental ideas and leadership that inspired 

many others to bring about continuing improvements in the conservation of America’s natural 

resources.

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing 

information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify 

the publication title and series number.

Publishing Services

Telephone: (970) 498-1392

FAX: (970) 498-1122

E-mail: rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address: Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Building A Research Legacy

The Intermountain Station

1911-1997

By Richard J. Klade

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-184

December 2006

Acknowledgments

Writing this history was not a lonely occupation. Many people gave generously of their time 

and expertise. Their helpful attitudes and professionalism would have pleased those who dedicated 

a large part of their lives to building a legacy of useful natural resource research at Priest River, 

Great Basin, the Northern Rocky Mountain Station and the Intermountain Station.

Larry Lassen, Intermountain Station Director, 1983-92, laid the foundation for this history over 

several years of work as a volunteer after he retired. Lassen conducted interviews with scientists 

and administrators, reviewed available histories of Forest Service Research, and made detailed 

inspections of annual reports covering many years of activities at the Intermountain Station and its 

predecessor organizations. The result of his work was a 70-page narrative outline that served as a 

starting point for development of this history. Lassen also responded to many questions as work on 

the document progressed and wrote or rewrote several segments where his insights as a former top 

administrator in the Washington Office and at two stations were especially relevant. His excellent 

contributions are appreciated.

Two people provided especially important assistance and support throughout the project. Dave 

Tippets, Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) Public Affairs Specialist, devoted many hours 

to answering questions, searching for hard-to-find information, and providing guidance based on 

his considerable knowledge of natural resource management and the history of the Intermountain 

(INT) and Rocky Mountain Stations and Regions 1 and 4. His help was invaluable in advancing this history from concept to publication. Louise Kingsbury, who retired near the end of the 

project as RMRS Group Leader of Publication Services, volunteered judgments on significant 

Intermountain Station research and publications that without exception were confirmed by current 

and former Station scientists. She also provided valuable editorial advice and made members of 

her staff available to handle production matters.

Many INT and RMRS active and retired scientists, technicians, professional support, and administrative personnel went far beyond what might be considered normal participation in a history 

project. They took the initiative to provide rare photos, accounts of their experiences, publications, 

and leads to the whereabouts of other individuals and source documents. These very special people 

were Bobbie Bartlett, RMRS Forester, Missoula Fire Lab; Carolyn Bohn, RMRS Hydrologist, 

Boise; Warren Clary, retired INT Project Leader, Boise; David Cole, RMRS Research Geographer, 

Aldo Leopold Institute, Missoula; Bob Denner, RMRS Forester and Priest River Superintendent, 

Moscow; Dave Fellin, retired INT Team Leader, Missoula; Dennis Ferguson, RMRS Project 

Leader, Moscow; Mal Furniss, retired INT Project Leader, Moscow; Willa Gingery, RMRS 

Administrative Support Clerk, Missoula; Mike Hardy, retired INT Research Forester, Missoula 

Fire Lab; Harold Haupt, retired INT Project Leader, Moscow; Bob Lucas, retired INT Project 

Leader, Missoula; Durant McArthur, RMRS Project Leader, Provo; Ward McCaughey, RMRS 

Research Forester, Missoula; Walt Mueggler, retired INT Project Leader, Logan; Kerry Overton, 

RMRS Technology Transfer Specialist, Boise; David Parsons, RMRS Program Manager, Aldo 

Leopold Institute, Missoula; Jan Qualls, retired INT Section Head, Ogden; Jack Schmidt, RMRS 

Forester and Coram Superintendent, Missoula; Nancy Shaw, RMRS Botanist, Boise; Al Stage, 

retired INT Project Leader, Moscow; Elaine Sutherland, RMRS Project Leader, Missoula; Jonalea 

Tonn, RMRS Forester, Moscow; and Shirley Waters, RMRS Computer Programmer, Ogden.

Rare photo images and identifying information were provided by Amanda Burbank, Region 1 

Archives Manager; Beth King, Region 4 Technical Information Specialist; Richa Wilson, Region 4 

Architectural Historian; Renee Green-Smith, Forest Service Washington Office Visual Information 

Specialist; and Teresa Hamann, Archives Technician, K. Ross Toole Archives, Maureen and Mike 

Mansfield Library, University of Montana-Missoula. Prints of photos identified in this history as 

from the Gisborne Collection may be obtained from the Mansfield Library. Jim Stone, Region 4 

Public Affairs Specialist, suggested the Salmon River scene used on the cover.

Individuals who consented to telephone or personal interviews are listed in a section that 

follows the main text of this history. The list will not be repeated here, but all are appreciated. 

Others also responded positively to specific requests for information. They were: Dale Bartos, 

iii
RMRS Project Leader, Logan; Barbara Bentz, RMRS Project Leader, Logan; Liz Close, Region 

4 Director, Recreation; Keith Evans, retired RMRS Assistant Station Director; Rick Fletcher, 

RMRS Public Affairs Specialist; Kathy Graham, Senior Advancement Consultant, Sun Gard SCT 

Higher Education, Moscow; Roy Harniss, retired INT Range Scientist, Logan; Beverly Holmes, 

retired Region 5 Deputy Regional Forester, Administration; John Kinney, Range Technician 

and Desert Range Superintendent, Boise; Ron Lindmark, retired Director, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station; Jack Lyon, retired INT Project Leader, Missoula; Delpha Noble, retired INT 

Public Information Specialist, Ogden; Renee O’Brien, RMRS Lead Ecologist, Ogden; Richard R. 

Price, M.D., Salt Lake City; Jerry Sesco, retired Forest Service Deputy Chief—Research; Dennis 

Simmerman, retired RMRS Forester, Fire Lab, Missoula; Ron Stoleson, retired Region 4 Director, 

Vegetation Management; JoAn Steele, RMRS Budget Officer; Dwane Van Hooser, retired RMRS 

Program Manager, Ogden; Jack Waide, RMRS Assistant Station Director; Alan Watson, RMRS 

Research Social Scientist, Aldo Leopold Institute, Missoula; Bruce Welch, retired RMRS Plant 

Physiologist, Provo; and Bill Wykoff, retired RMRS Research Forester, Moscow.

Critical reviews resulted in many corrections and improvements. The complete manuscript 

was reviewed by Roger Bay, retired INT Station Director, Jim Brown, retired INT Project Leader, 

Missoula, Fire Lab; Evans, Furniss, Kingsbury, and Lassen.

Comments on one or more segments were provided by Gene Amman, retired INT Project 

Leader, Ogden; Carol Ayer, RMRS Library Group Leader; Bartlette; Bartos; Bohn; Dave Born, 

retired INT Research Forester, Ogden; Ray Brown, retired INT Project Leader, Logan; Jeanne 

Chambers, RMRS Team Leader, Reno; Clary; Jim Clayton, retired INT Soil Scientist, Boise; 

Denner; Bill Elliot, RMRS Project Leader, Moscow; Fellin; Bob Ferguson, retired INT Range 

Scientist; Dennis Ferguson; Graham; Haupt; Holmes; Kinney; Lindmark; Jesse Logan, RMRS 

Project Leader, Logan; Lyon; McArthur; McCaughey; Jack McIntyre, retired INT Project Leader, 

Boise; Walt Megahan, retired INT Project Leader, Boise; Noble; O’Brien, Overton; Parsons; 

Bruce Rieman, RMRS Project Leader, Boise; Sesco; Shaw; Stage; Tippets, Russ Thurow, RMRS 

Fisheries Biologist, Boise; Van Hooser; Waters; and Michael Wilson, RMRS Assistant Station 

Director, Ogden.

Bob Hamre, retired RMRS Group Leader of Research Information who was a long-time 

colleague, provided insightful editing that helped shorten the manuscript by pointing out where 

a number of passages strayed too far into matters curious or humorous, but peripheral to Station 

history. The exorcism of some anecdotes, many photos, and other fun things that followed is 

lamented, but Hamre’s suggestions undoubtedly helped make this history a better read.

iv
Contents

1. The Trail We Will Follow 1

What’s In a Name? 2

What Was the Territory? 3

Who Made Things Work? 4

How Did the Staff Change? 6

2. Early Forest and Range Research 7

Grazing Studies 7

Silviculture and Products 8

Fire Studies 8

Water Studies 8

Insect Studies 9

The Branch of Research 10

Congressional Support 10

3. Priest River—Early Days 11

Site Selection 11

Program and Headquarters Changes 13

Harry Gisborne—Inspirational Leader 14

Marshall Hikes Into History 18

4. Great Basin—Early Days 21

Arthur Sampson—Father of Range Management 22

Direction and Name Problems 24

Plantings Fail to Take Root 25

Range Research Ventures Beyond Great Basin 26

The Cowboy Forester 27

Some Help Arrives, but Not Much 28

Was the Work Important? 29

5. Congress Authorizes Stations 31

6. The Northern Rocky Mountain Station, 1926-1953 33

Experimental Areas—Establishment and Disestablishment 33

Other Special Areas 35

Cooperators Join Council 36

Forest Survey Begins and Interest Grows in Other Work 37

Depression Years 38

Where the Tall Timber Grew 39

The Boys Roll Up Their Sleeves—The CCC Era 41

v
Learning About Larch 42

Greening the Grasslands and Summer Ranges 45

World War II Intervenes 47

Research Recovers 48

The Research Center Concept 48

New Emphasis Areas 50

Fire Research Takes off with Barrows 51

7. The Intermountain Station, 1928-1953 55

Renner, Pearse, and Peg-leg Annie 55

Hail to the Chiefs 57

Intermountain Officially Arrives 59

The Committee Complains, but Advances are Made 59

New Deal Was a Good Deal for the Station 60

Science Grows in the Boise Basin 61

Experimental Ranges Created 64

Wisdom Flows from Watersheds 66

Range Remains Important 70

The Old Headquarters—An Ogden Landmark 70

Field Day Concept Spreads 72

Time Out for War 73

8. Merger and Change, 1954 75

The Headquarters Question 75

A Time of Adjustment 76

Beetles, Budworms, and Bushes Get Lots of Attention 77

Bingham’s Team Turns the Tide 80

Range Is Rearranged 81

More New Directions 83

9. The Expansion Era 85

Harper’s Influence 85

Forestry Schools Grow 86

10. Station Growth, 1955-1971 87

Research Helps Win “Range Wars” 87

The Beef Was at Benmore 89

Sediment Spells Trouble for Salmon 91

Watershed Work Changes Course in the North 94

The Fire Lab Fires Up 95

Rothermel Had the Right Formula 97

Pat Andrews—Reluctant “First Lady” 100

Seeing in the Dark 101

Raising the Education Bar 103

vi
Modern Labs Matriculate 104

To Spray, Or Not To Spray 108

Aha! The Wilderness Unit Discovers a Better Approach 109

Tree Planting Success Soars 111

The Stamp of Quality 113

Introducing Friendly Fires 114

Helping Elk Thrive 119

Mr. Plummer’s Opus 121

Fire Danger Rating Goes National 123

Thunder Joins Lightning at the Fire Lab 124

11. New Approaches, 1971-1990 129

Chuck Wellner—Forest Science Visionary 129

A Better Way to See the Forest 132

Dr. Stage Made the Right Prognosis 135

Administrative Changes 136

Special Programs Bring Special Problems and Achievements 137

The Challenge of Managing Change 144

The P&A Training Ground 146

A Lot More to Survey 148

Family Fights Erupt 149

Willkommen to High-Elevation Forestry 150

Integrating Insects with Management 152

Getting the Word Out—The Station’s Strong Suit 156

INTercom Makes the Connection 161

50 Years of Noble Service 162

Major Program Shifts 163

Reclaiming the High Country 167

Revising the Revision 169

Peter Koch—Superstar 170

High Hopes Come Crashing Down 171

Chemists Formulate New Fire Analyses 172

Long-Term Desert Range Work Completed 174

Controversies Inspire Riparian Research 174

Range Scientists Round Up the Knowledge 176

The Sages of Sagebrush 179

Two (Happy) People, One Paycheck 182

Boise Basin Research Regenerated, Briefly 183

Publishing Firsts 184

Exploring the Past to See the Future 186

Aquatic Science Moves into the Mainstream 188

A New Experimental Forest (Finally) 190

Tough Guys (and Gals) Do Research 192

A New Role for Great Basin 197

The Volunteers 201

The Ecosystem Approach Comes to Lick Creek 202

The Leopold Wilderness Institute 205

vii
12. Consolidations and a New Station 207

Bev Holmes—Ace Administrator 207

Co-locations 208

No, It’s Not the IRS 210

The Last Picture Show 211

The Final Merger 211

13. Not In The Line Of Duty 215

The Most Constructive Turk 215

Numbskull! 216

Fairies and Farewells 219

Give Us a Break 221

14. A Quick Trip Through the Last Two Decades 223

Interviews 239

References 240

Appendix A. Pechanec Remembers His Early Days in Research 248

Appendix B. A Few Days with Ralph at the Desert Range 250

Index 254

viii
–

There was no organization known as the Intermountain Station until 

1928, but its origins were in earlier 

times.

The first predecessor was the 

Priest River Experiment Station in 

the Panhandle area of northern Idaho. 

Research began there in 1911. The 

second location was on the slopes of 

the Wasatch Plateau in central Utah, 

where the Utah Experiment Station was 

established in 1912 (Rocky Mountain 

Research Station 1999).

C h a p t e r 1.

The Trail We Will Follow

assigned to begin fire research in 1922, 

total Priest River Station funding was 

increased to $18,920 for all of 1923.

In contrast, in April 1997 shortly before it merged with the Rocky Mountain 

Station, the Intermountain Station directory listed 241 full-time employees. In 

addition the Station had a large number 

of seasonal and part-time workers, plus 

people working in special programs, 

such as the Senior Community Service 

Employment Program. Several 

dozen administrative employees of the 

Intermountain Region also did Station 

business through a shared services 

arrangement. A substantial number of 

volunteers contributed many hours of 

useful work in many program areas.

Laboratories, which were crude or 

nonexistent in the early days, were 

homes to a variety of research units. 

Labs were located at Reno, Nevada; 

Boise and Moscow, Idaho; Ogden, 

Provo, and Logan, Utah; and Missoula 

(two) and Bozeman, Montana. Six 

of them were on or near university 

campuses. The Station maintained five 

experimental forests and two experimental ranges. Twenty research units 

conducted studies that spanned a wide 

range of natural resource protection and 

Forestry research started in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains in 1911 

when a small tent was pitched at 

Priest River.

In 1916 the Priest River Station headquarters moved to Missoula, Montana, 

although the original location remained 

as an experimental forest. The Station 

was known by a variety of names until 

1925 when it became the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment 

Station.

In Utah, after a few years of 

operation, the organization’s name was 

changed to the Great Basin Experiment 

Station. Heavy snows forced the 

small staff to spend winter months 

elsewhere. They moved to Ogden each 

fall, probably to be near the District 4 

headquarters. In 1928 Congress passed 

legislation recognizing research as an 

Great Basin was 

lovely in winter, 

but not a good 

place to live 

after the weather 

turned cold. Snow 

had to be shoveled off the roofs 

periodically to 

keep them from 

collapsing.

entity within the Forest Service. The act 

formally authorized a Station for Utah 

and adjacent States. The Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 

thus was conceived, with the Great 

Basin organization as its foundation.

In 1953 the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture announced a series of 

major Forest Service consolidations. 

Among them was the merger of the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station and 

the Intermountain Station, effective 

January 1, 1954. Ogden was designated 

as the headquarters site and the new 

organization assumed the Intermountain 

Station name.

The early experiment Stations bore 

little resemblance to today’s Stations 

in terms of staffing, funding, and scope 

of the research program. For example, 

in the early 1920s the Great Basin 

staff consisted of a director and two 

temporary field assistants. Research was 

confined to a few range and watershed 

experiments and work on establishment 

and growth of three tree species. At 

about the same time, limits on funding 

reduced the staff of the Priest River 

Station to one person, who served as 

the director and the only investigator. 

When the first full-time forester was 
–

management topics. The Station budget 

was $15.5 million.

Fortunately, excellent histories of the 

Priest River and Great Basin Stations 

have been published. Chuck Wellner, 

a retired Assistant Station Director, 

wrote of events at Priest River up to its 

65th anniversary year (Wellner 1976). 

Wellner worked at Priest River in the 

1930s and was closely associated with 

activities there for many years. In 2004 

the Rocky Mountain Station published a 

history by Kathleen Graham, who took 

a somewhat different approach to the 

Priest River story. Graham’s work added 

coverage of the years from 1976 to 2003 

(Graham 2004). Wendell Keck, retired 

Intermountain Station editor, wrote 

a Great Basin history as a volunteer 

(Keck 1972). Keck acknowledged 

technical assistance by Bill Laycock, 

Perry Plummer, Jim Blaisdell, and Joe 

Pechanec, all of whom were personally 

involved in research at Great Basin. 

Incidentally, Pechanec is pronounced 

Pah-hah-nek. Blaisdell described him 

years later as “the nice guy with the 

funny name” (Blaisdell 1989).

Control and proper use of wildland 

fire have always posed challenges in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains and 

Great Basin. Fire research was a large 

part of the early work at Priest River 

and later became one of the most 

important parts of the total Station program. Charles E. (Mike) Hardy wrote 

two comprehensive histories of the 

“Gisborne Era” of fire research, which 

spanned the years from 1922 to 1950 

(Hardy 1977, 1983). Hardy had a 22-

year career at the Fire Lab contributing 

to development of the National Fire 

Danger Rating System.

Material from the five histories is included here. However, to avoid needless 

duplication the strategy was to extract 

highlights from the earlier works, adding 

such new information as could be found. 

Although descriptions of a few events 

are carried through to 2005 to complete 

the account, this history emphasizes 

the era that began in 1928 and ended in 

1997 when the Intermountain Station 

name was discontinued. Only the name 

passed into history. The organization did 

not die. It lives today as a vibrant part of 

the Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

which was established with the 1997 

merger.

What’s In a Name?

Looking back on 86 years of research 

history in the Great Basin and Northern 

Rocky Mountains, one encounters a 

somewhat bewildering array of different 

names for sites, organizations, programs, 

and the jobs of the participants. Many 

labels for the same thing changed 

several times. Were all these changes 

necessary? Or, were some mainly caused 

by the inclination of bureaucrats to 

tinker with things?

Whether all the name changes were 

needed or not, some were a reflection of 

research strategies that were formed and 

re-formed to meet ever-evolving needs 

of natural resource managers. They 

also reflect addition of new scientific 

disciplines and administrative skills as 

the world grew increasingly complex, 

populations expanded, and there were 

demands for new research approaches to 

support ecosystem management.

Some of the names were cumbersome 

in the extreme. The Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, official 

name during much of the organization’s 

history, was descriptive but a mouthful. 

To anyone who had to write or type it 

frequently, it was a real pain. Within 

the Forest Service this problem was 

minimized in a minor way by using 

the acronym IF&RES. But few in the 

outside world had any idea of what that 

represented.

Later, Station acronyms were discontinued and “INT” became the official 

brief identifier. Many people within 

Forest Service Research used INT, and 

when they were communicating with 

other research personnel within the 

service the meaning was understood. 

But if you said, “I’m working at INT,” 

to many National Forest managers, you 

were likely to get a “Huh?” in response. 

The Northern Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station name 

was truly mind-boggling—two words 

longer than the Intermountain Station’s 

official title.

Several Intermountain Station people, 

including the author of this history, were 

unhappy with the lengthy or inappropriate unit names. Without devoting much 

time to it, they made some changes. For 

example, Publications and Information 

Services in 1975 became simply 

Research Information. Counterpart units 

at several other Stations subsequently 

adopted this name.

One theory shared by the label 

reformers was that an important 

consideration in selecting a good name 

ought to be what most people called 

the thing—common usage. Forest 

Survey was called just that for many 

years. Most people who had any contact 

with the unit used the term and knew 

what it described. In 1974 the Forest 

Service changed the name to Renewable 

Resources Evaluation (RRE). The 

change was applied to units at Stations 

as well as the national program. The 

new name never took hold. Most people 

continued to call the operation Forest 

Survey. One who disliked the RRE label 

was Dwane Van Hooser. When he came 

to the Intermountain Station in 1979 

as project leader he promptly proposed 

changing the unit name back to Forest 

Survey. Assistant Station Director Jim 

Blaisdell approved, and “Forest Survey” 

returned to common usage at the Station 

(Van Hooser, interview 2004).

That name change probably should 

have had national office approval. 

Blaisdell took care of that by merely 

neglecting to ask for approval. Van 

Hooser recalled that a few people in the 

Washington Office were “not particularly pleased” with the unilateral change 

at the Intermountain Station, but no 

formal protest was made. Currently, the 

unit is known as Forest Inventory and 

Analysis. Van Hooser said he believes 

this label is a good one—descriptive 

of the unit mission and accepted by the 

people involved.

A more important name change did 

get Washington Office approval. In 1990 

the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station officially became the 

Intermountain Research Station. Most 

employees were pleased.

Those who have read this far may 

have noticed a highly regarded administrator, Charles A. Wellner, referred to as 

“Chuck.” A laboratory has been called a 

“lab” and the Priest River Experimental 

Forest shortened to just “Priest River.” 

Some might argue that such informality 

is inappropriate in describing the history 

of an organization that had a serious 

and important mission. But those are 

the terms people used during the times 

chronicled here.
–

Many oldtimers have fond memories 

of their experiences as members of 

the “Forest Service family.” Some of 

the customs and traditions that caused 

employees to feel like “family” began 

to fade away in the late 1970s, but they 

were nearly universal during most of 

the history of the Intermountain Station. 

People went out of their way to help 

fellow employees, on and off the job. 

It was common to invite out-of-town 

Forest Service visitors home for dinner with one’s “real” family. Many 

supervisors showed appreciation for 

subordinates by hosting parties for them, 

usually during the holiday season.

People who worked together participated in informal social events—picnics, 

house parties, or get-togethers in restaurants or taverns. Unit Christmas parties 

(see chapter 13) usually were fairly 

elaborate affairs. Retirement parties 

were considered equally important and 

they were well attended. For many, the 

Forest Service was the hub of their social life as well as the outfit they worked 

for. As in a real family, arguments over 

matters large and small could be heated, 

but the antagonists usually patched 

things up rather quickly.

It is not surprising, then, that “Forest 

Service family” members were on 

a first-name basis with each other. 

This familiarity ran from the bottom 

of the organization to the very top. 

Intermountain Station Directors, for 

example, were known to one and all 

as “Joe,” or “Roger.” Assistant Station 

Director Beverly C. Holmes was “Bev.” 

Few ever called Dr. Albert R. Stage 

“Dr. Stage” or even “Albert.” He was 

“Al.” Similarly, Dr. Walter E. Cole was 

“Walt.” Perhaps in consideration of others who held jobs at the same level but 

did not have Ph.D. degrees, those who 

had earned doctorates rarely used “Dr.” 

in identifying themselves. In fact, “Dr.” 

seldom was heard anywhere around the 

Station.

When this history identifies a unit 

informally—the Fire Lab, for example—

or uses the informal first name of an 

employee it is not an effort to be folksy 

or flippant. It is part of an attempt to 

reflect the culture as it was.

What Was the Territory?

Forest Service research stations 

traditionally have been assigned territories just as the management units had 

National Forest and Regional boundaries. In the early days of research the 

“territory” had considerable meaning. 

Research locations were in remote areas, 

communication methods were primitive, 

and travel was difficult. Of necessity, 

most studies concentrated on local plant 

species and conditions and seldom 

produced results that were transferable 

to other areas (West 1990). For many 

of the early years, research was under 

regional administration, so, for example, 

the territory of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station corresponded to that 

of the Forest Service’s Northern Region 

(Region 1, known as District 1 until 

1932).

After the Intermountain and Northern 

Rocky Mountain Stations merged in 

1954, the new Station territory included 

northwestern South Dakota, eastern 

Washington, a bit of eastern California, 

western Wyoming, and all of Idaho, 

Utah, Montana, and Nevada. By the 

early 1970s, most of the bits and pieces 

of States had been assigned to other 

Stations. By then, it simply didn’t matter 

very much because huge changes had 

taken place in the work of the Station.

Many research units had responsibilities that went well beyond the 

boundaries of the Station territory, and a 

few were national in scope. Four 

examples are given here. The Forest 

Survey unit working from Ogden 

conducted resource assessments in 

nine western states. The Fire Lab in 

The Intermountain Station territory, 1970-1997, included about threequarters of the National Forest System’s Region 1 (Montana and 

northern Idaho) and all of Region 4 (Utah, Nevada, western Wyoming, 

southern Idaho, and small areas of California and Colorado). Many 

Station units worked in larger areas and much work was national and 

international in scope.
–

Missoula was one of only three in the 

Nation when it was established, and 

many of the results of work there were 

applicable nationally and internationally. 

The Wilderness Research Unit was the 

only such organization in the Nation and 

its investigators conducted studies in 

many parts of the country. Scientists at 

the Shrub Sciences Lab in Provo worked 

in cooperative programs that sought to 

improve vegetation on millions of acres 

throughout the Inland West.

By 1960 it was becoming common 

for Intermountain Station scientists 

to travel to the four corners of the 

globe, often at the behest of the Forest 

Service’s International Forestry staff in 

Washington, DC. They consulted with 

research counterparts and resource managers in friendly countries, participated 

in international meetings, and even 

collected plants. When the Iron Curtain 

opened a crack, a Station scientist was 

among the first Americans to be allowed 

to travel fairly freely in the Soviet 

Union. When the Bamboo Curtain lifted 

a little, Station personnel were among 

early western visitors to communist 

China. Others worked in Nepal, Taiwan, 

Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, 

Israel, and many other places.

Over the years the Station developed 

international mailing lists that delivered 

notices of new publications written by 

its scientists and cooperators to natural 

resource organizations around the world. 

Publications were sent to anyone who 

asked for them, with the exception of requests from a few countries listed by the 

State Department as ineligible for technical assistance. Key natural resource 

libraries and some major organizations 

automatically received copies of every 

publication. In 1989 the Station filled 

orders for more than 100,000 copies of 

publications, and about 15 percent went 

to international clients. Increasingly, 

Station scientists published results in 

international journals and the Station 

published proceedings of international 

symposia that included papers whose 

authors came from many lands.

In 1911 the Station’s territory 

basically was defined by a line on a 

map around some 4,500 acres at Priest 

River. By 1997, although strong emphasis was placed on meeting the needs 

of managers in Forest Service Regions 

1 and 4, clients were everywhere and 

the territory in essence had become the 

world.

Who Made Things Work?

One former Chief of the Forest 

Service was fond of stating, “The Forest 

Service is its people.” The statement 

applied at the Intermountain Station. 

Occasionally, successes in research 

come about through serendipity—

unexpected discoveries that seem due to 

good luck more than anything else—but 

more often success results from hard 

work by good people pursuing welldefined objectives within a sound 

framework.

Good people who got good results 

were abundant throughout the Station’s 

history. The key people, of course, 

were those who planned and conducted 

research and reported the findings. No 

one, however, worked in isolation. A 

host of technicians, support personnel, 

and administrators who guided programs 

and reviewed results helped in fulfilling 

the Station’s mission. Also important 

were a great many people who were not 

Station employees.

Cooperators—Literally hundreds of 

cooperators contributed to Station programs over the years. Sometimes they 

did so through long-standing formal 

arrangements such as the partnerships 

between the Station and the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources and 

the Idaho Fish and Game Department. 

The Care Takers

One group of Station employees who often got less recognition than they deserved 

were the technicians and professional support people. Some were caretakers in the 

classic sense; they were superintendents of major experimental areas, for example, 

John Kinney at the Desert Experimental Range and Bob Denner at the Priest River 

Experimental Forest. Others were assigned to specific research units or labs. They all 

had one thing in common. They took care of things, whether the task was shoveling 

snow, hosting visitors, operating sophisticated equipment, recording data, planting trees 

and shrubs, or showing new scientists where 

old study plots were located and describing 

the studies that applied to them. Some had 

remarkably long careers with the Station. Paul 

Hansen (see “A New Role for Great Basin,” 

chapter 11) devoted 47 years to “taking care of 

things” at Great Basin. Many were remarkably 

versatile people. Steve Briggs was one 

example.

Briggs earned a forest management degree 

at Utah State University but in 1993 was 

working at the Shrub Lab in Provo. He had 

been stationed at the Moscow Lab (1979-82) 

the Boise Lab (1982-86), and had done some 

work at every experimental area in the Station 

territory except Tenderfoot Creek and the Davis 

County Watershed. In addition to his “normal” 

duties, Briggs served as property officer and 

safety officer for the Provo unit. He also listed 

“snow relocater” as a duty.

Briggs had plenty of variety in his personal as 

well as professional life. A Vietnam veteran, he 

had been commander of the American Legion 

Post while at Boise. He was a junior warden 

of his church, taught hunter education at the local Elk’s Lodge, and was active in the 

local chapter of the Society of American Foresters. Versatility and a service attitude 

were common characteristics of technicians and professional support personnel at the 

Station. Several of them are featured in this history.

Forester Steve Briggs’ years at the 

Station featured valuable service 

and a wide variety of activities.
–

Utah Wildlife Resources employees 

located at Ephraim worked so closely 

with Station scientists that everyone 

considered them to be part of the 

Intermountain Station family. Other 

formal cooperation, usually with university professors or graduate students, 

was fostered by financial support from 

the Station. This was significant. Of 

the $15.5 million total Station budget 

in 1997, $1.4 million was allocated to 

fund research grants and cooperative 

agreements.

Many other scientists and resource 

managers worked with Station people 

at experimental forests and ranges. 

Manuscripts intended for publication 

by Station authors were given peer 

review by countless fellow scientists and 

resource agency staff people. This voluntary work helped ensure the accuracy 

and credibility of the products of Station 

research.

A tremendous debt of gratitude 

is owed to all the cooperators. No 

attempt will be made to list them all. 

Any such list would omit so many as 

to be completely inadequate. But some 

cooperators will be mentioned from time 

to time. The intent is not to assert that 

they were among the most important, 

but to cite them as examples of a much 

larger group that was vital to conducting 

the Station’s work.

Special Employment Programs—

Another important group of people 

worked within Station units but were not 

Forest Service employees. Earlier, the 

Senior Community Service Employment 

Program (SCSEP) was mentioned. 

This program was financed by the 

Department of Labor. SCSEP enrollees 

were people over 55 years of age with 

limited incomes. They were assigned 

directly to units in need of help and 

worked side-by-side with the Station’s 

“regular” employees. Many SCSEP 

enrollees were highly regarded. They 

brought the skills and good work habits 

of mature people to the organization, 

and as a group were considered to be 

reliable and conscientious. One of the 

goals of the program was to help prepare 

enrollees for higher paying jobs. Several 

who worked at the Station successfully 

made the transition.

A somewhat similar program 

known as “Green Thumb” provided 

much-needed labor for fieldwork that 

helped Station scientists at the Shrub 

Lab conduct studies. Participants had 

a well-deserved reputation as hard 

workers.

The “College Work-Study Program” 

supplied needed help to several Station 

units. This program allowed college 

and university students to earn money 

through part-time work to help finance 

their educations. The educational institutions administered the program and 

provided individuals to fill jobs defined 

by the Station. The students worked 

parts of days between or after classes 

and sometimes only a few days each 

week. They brought the enthusiasm of 

youth to the units in which they worked, 

and learned something about natural 

resource research in return.

Notable People—A strong case can 

be made that three individuals—Harry 

Gisborne, Arthur Sampson, and Chuck 

Wellner—were giants among all who 

labored at the Intermountain Station 

and its predecessor organizations. These 

three stand out because of the profound 

influence their ideas had on major segments of natural resource science and 

management. However, just as we will 

not presume to say some cooperators 

were more valuable than others, with 

the exception of the three standouts, 

we believe it would be foolish to try to 

rank all the distinguished individuals 

among hundreds who appeared on the 

Intermountain Station’s rolls over the 

years.

Some individuals became famous, 

at least in natural resource circles. For 

example, Bob Marshall’s status as a 

champion of wilderness preservation 

was acknowledged when a premier 

Wilderness within the National Forest 

System was named for him. Some, 

like Gisborne, were at the Station or 

its predecessor organizations for all or 

a great part of lengthy careers. Others 

worked at the Station only in the early 

years of their careers and moved on to 

high positions within the Forest Service, 

other resource management and research 

organizations, or the academic world.

This history will mention some of 

the “notables” briefly, and describe 

the activities of others in some detail. 

Neither the brief mentions nor the 

detailed descriptions should be taken 

as suggestions that these were the most 

important Station people. In some cases, 

they are included simply because information about them is readily available 

in historic documents. A few, like Perry 

Plummer, had very long and fruitful 

careers at the Station and might be 

said to have become legendary figures. 

Somewhat detailed descriptions of the 

work of others are included mainly to try 

to show the successes (and sometimes 

failures) of Station people in human 

terms. Regrettably, chances are high 

that many who were notable have been 

overlooked.

Successes were many throughout the 

Intermountain Station’s history. They 

were of many different types. As with 

descriptions of the work of outstanding 

individuals, this history will describe 

some of them, but make no attempt 

to include them all or to rank them or 

declare one “the most important.”

Research cooperators came 

from many organizations and 

brought diverse skills and 

knowledge to the Station 

program. Here Australian 

Range Scientist Ron Hacker 

(left) worked with Shrub Lab 

Technician Tom Monaco in 

1995 to record mule deer diet 

preferences for different species of kochia collected from 

around the world.
–

How Did the Staff 

Change?

As the Intermountain Station staff 

grew in numbers from a handful to 

more than 200 it was evolving in terms 

of educational levels and diversity. The 

number of personnel with advanced 

academic degrees increased gradually 

throughout the organization’s history 

until the 1960s, when its growth accelerated. Diversity was a different matter. 

There were few women in professional 

positions (none in the top jobs) and no 

ethnic minorities in the workforce until 

the early 1970s. Then change came 

rather rapidly.

Advanced Degrees—Pioneer 

researchers in the Intermountain 

Station territory seldom had academic 

degrees beyond the bachelor’s level. 

Resource conservation was a rather new 

idea in the United States. Only a few 

universities offered courses in forestry, 

which was defined as “the preservation 

of forests by wise use” by President 

Theodore Roosevelt in his first message 

to Congress in 1901. Range management was a concept, not yet a discipline. 

It would be years before courses in fields 

such as wildlife and recreation management were established in colleges and 

universities.

The higher education system changed 

quite rapidly. After establishment of 

the first American professional forestry 

school at Cornell in 1898, many other 

universities started programs. Several 

schools developed range management 

curricula. As master’s and doctoral 

programs emerged, more and more 

graduates with advanced degrees joined 

the ranks of Forest Service researchers. 

By 1997 the formal education level of 

Intermountain Station personnel had 

evolved to the point that a scientist without a M.S. or Ph.D. was a rarity. Support 

people with advanced degrees also had 

become more numerous.

The same thing happened within 

the National Forest System. Many 

histories point out that the first forest 

rangers were local men without college 

training. Some did not have high school 

diplomas. By the 1990s, nearly all 

professional positions within the service 

were staffed by college graduates. It was 

not unusual to find personnel at many 

levels in the organization with master’s 

degrees or doctorates.

This general upgrade in formal 

education certainly increased the sophistication with which research could attack 

problems. Partly because the resource 

managers who were the principal clients 

also had higher education levels, the 

nature of what was wanted from research also changed. So education levels 

were one factor in the evolution of the 

Intermountain Station research program.

In a way, the increase in educational 

levels within natural resource management organizations is a tribute to 

research. The professors who wrote 

the books and trained the foresters, 

ecologists, range managers, engineers 

and other professionals got most of their 

information directly or indirectly from 

research as the state-of-the-art advanced 

in each field through the years. There 

is no question that progress would 

have been much slower without new 

knowledge generated by research. The 

problem is that credit to the researchers 

who create the new knowledge tends 

to diminish and then evaporate over 

time. It is hard for administrators to tell 

those who hold the purse strings “what 

research has done for you lately” when a 

direct link between scientific studies and 

improved management is not readily apparent. But a link always exists through 

the educational system.

Diversity in the Workforce—For 

more than a half century the U.S. Forest 

Service was an organization dominated 

by white males. All top management 

positions were filled with men. With rare 

exceptions, middle-management and 

first-line supervisory and professional 

jobs also were filled by men. Although 

the men frequently acknowledged the 

importance of women to the organization, the women by and large were 

confined to clerical and secretarial jobs 

at the lower pay levels. Ethnic minorities 

were virtually nonexistent in any fulltime position at any level.

By 1970 there still were very few 

female Project Leaders in Forest Service 

Research and the same could be said 

for other professions and for minorities 

in any type of professional job. No 

women or minorities held upper-level 

scientific or professional positions at the 

Intermountain Station. This situation 

came about, in part, because enrollment 

in university natural resources training 

had for years consisted almost entirely 

of white males. The first Earth Day, 

April 22, 1970, provided a “kick start” 

that sent thousands of urban youth, 

including many women, into natural 

resource career training. In the ensuing 

26 years the place of women in the 

Station workforce changed dramatically. 

Employment of minorities increased, although the progress made by minorities 

was much less than that by women.

The Station directory for 1997 listed 

women in 23 scientist and five research 

forester slots. One Project Leader 

was a woman, seven women headed 

administrative units, and three women 

directed administrative shared services 

staffs. Two minority scientists were 

listed; one had only recently been appointed a Project Leader. Several other 

minorities were employed at the Station 

or in shared services administrative 

units. In a somewhat unusual example of 

workforce change Ollie Quirante, a man 

of Pacific Island heritage, had been secretary to the Station Director just a few 

years before 1997. Throughout Station 

history, until Quirante’s appointment, 

the job had been held by a white woman.

Where it seems appropriate this 

history will introduce you to some of 

the women and minorities who gained 

employment or earned advancement as 

the workforce evolved.

Pacific Southwest and Intermountain 

Station Director’s secretaries Cynthia 

Jacobs and Ollie Quirante exchanged a 

traditional Hawaiian hug during Jacobs’ 

visit to participate in an Asian-Pacific 

American program in Ogden in 1992.
–

Natural resource research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture predated 

the 1905 birth of the Forest Service, and 

there were early calls for establishment 

of experiment stations. In 1881, Franklin 

Hough was appointed by Congress as 

the first forestry agent in the Federal 

Government, and assigned to USDA 

to compile a statistical report on the 

condition of U.S. forests. He soon was 

appointed Chief of the new Division of 

Forestry in USDA (West 1992).

Hough wrote several major reports on 

forestry. One issued in 1882 included a 

chapter titled Experimental Stations for 

Forest Culture. The language strongly 

urged establishment of forest experiment 

stations (Storey 1975). Hough’s multivolume Report on Forestry (1878-1884) 

also called for the creation of experiment stations.

In 1898, Gifford Pinchot, a Yale 

graduate from a wealthy and influential 

family, who had studied forestry in 

France, became Chief of the Division 

of Forestry. Pinchot was critical of 

his predecessor, Bernard Fernow, for 

emphasizing technical and theoretical 

aspects of forestry over more practical 

problems (Steen 1976). Despite his 

criticism, Pinchot quickly established a 

Section of Special Investigations, which 

could be considered the research arm of 

the Division of Forestry. Although definitions were imprecise, perhaps as much 

as 25 percent of Pinchot’s early budget 

was related to research (Steen 1998).

Under Pinchot, the Division of 

Forestry began to grow, and in 1901 

became the Bureau of Forestry in 

USDA. Investigations on forestry, 

forestry reserves, forest fires, and lumbering were permitted under the 1901 

appropriations act, and forest products 

studies that had been suspended in 1896 

were restarted (Storey 1975). Pinchot’s 

vision for the Bureau of Forestry was 

undoubtedly helped by the election of 

Theodore Roosevelt as President in 

1901. Here was a President who had 

a strong conservation ethic, and was a 

friend of Pinchot’s. It was a friendship 

that aided in the growth and influence of 

the bureau.

Under Pinchot, the Section of 

Special Investigations soon became a 

division with 55 employees, and then 

was merged with the Division of Forest 

Investigation and the Division of Forest 

Management to encompass all technical 

studies. This merged division accounted 

for one-third of the Bureau of Forestry’s 

$185,000 annual budget (Steen 1976).

In terms of the Forest Service’s 

current research program, much of 

the effort of the Division of Forest 

Investigations would not be classified as 

research. “Investigators” often offered 

empirical conclusions rather than tested 

hypotheses. They seldom made rigorous 

scientific inquiries into problems, but 

rather conducted random experiments 

or based recommendations on limited 

observations. Nevertheless, the work 

reflected Pinchot’s realization that 

programs of practical forestry could only 

succeed if supported by sound information obtained through research efforts 

(Storey 1976).

The first experimental range area 

opened in 1903 as the Santa Rita Range 

Reserve near Tucson. The first forest 

experiment station opened in 1908 at 

Fort Valley, Arizona, and 5 years later 

there were six (Steen 1998). Two of the 

early experimental areas, Priest River 

and Great Basin, were the forerunners of 

the Intermountain Station.

Grazing Studies

Pinchot was aware of the importance 

of grazing in the National Forests that 

were formed in 1905 with the birth of 

the Forest Service. His interest was 

appropriate, for in the early years following the transfer of the forest reserves 

to the Forest Service, grazing produced 

more revenue than timber (Pisani 1992). 

Although Pinchot had recognized that 

grazing problems were the most significant ones facing the forest reserves, 

early range research began in USDA’s 

Division of Botany under Frederick 

Colville, rather than in the Division of 

Forestry.

Colville believed sheep would not 

harm the range if properly controlled. 

He began studies of sheep grazing 

C h a p t e r 2.

Early Forest and Range Research

President Theodore Roosevelt (left) and 

Gifford Pinchot charted a course for 

natural resource conservation in the 

United States.
–

in the Oregon Cascades in 1897 to 

confirm or refute his beliefs. Grazing 

research, such as it was, continued 

under this arrangement until 1901 when 

it was placed in the Bureau of Forestry 

(West 1992).

Range research was given technical 

direction by the Office of Grazing in the 

Branch of Grazing in the Washington 

Office. Two of the earliest range 

researchers were James Jardine and 

Arthur Sampson, who in 1907 conducted studies to determine the grazing 

capacity of the Wallowa National Forest 

in Oregon. Their work provided the 

basis for deferred and rotation grazing, 

which addressed the issues of carrying 

capacity and numbers of stock that 

could be grazed in an area (West 1992). 

Three years later Jardine went on to 

establish and head the Office of Grazing. 

Sampson became a key person in the 

development of the Intermountain 

Station and of range science generally. 

Early range experiments in reseeding 

overgrazed areas in the Intermountain 

District (District 4) territory were also 

under way at this time (Alexander 

1987).

Silviculture and Products

Silviculture and forest products 

research were in the domain of the 

Office of Silvics in Washington. This 

effort was headed by Raphael Zon, who 

got his natural resources education at the 

New York College of Forestry at Cornell 

University. Zon believed that scientific 

research was essential to sound resource 

management, a view not shared by many 

at the time. Zon has been considered by 

some as the founder of Forest Service 

Research. He established several of the 

first experiment stations, including Priest 

River.

All Forest Service research seemed 

to be carried out in rather fragmented 

fashion in those early days, and forest 

products research was no exception. 

There were reports of the Forest 

Service studying the treatment of 

lodgepole pine for railroad ties in 

conjunction with several railroad 

companies (Alexander 1987), but most 

of the forest products work was done 

at various universities. In an effort to 

centralize forest products research, Zon 

selected the University of Wisconsin 

in Madison as the site for the Forest 

Products Laboratory (FPL). This was 

significant because FPL was the first 

substantial research laboratory within 

the Forest Service.

When FPL was dedicated in 1910, 

Chief Henry Graves, who left his 

position as Dean of the Yale Forestry 

School to replace Pinchot, was there 

to preside. In 1912, he set up the 

Central Investigative Committee in 

Washington with Zon as chairman. 

Zon represented silviculture; James 

Jardine, grazing; and Carlisle (Cap) 

Winslow, forest products. One of the 

major functions of the committee was 

to distinguish between administrative 

and investigative studies (Steen 1976). 

“Investigations” was the term commonly used then for what we would 

call “research” today.

Graves had a major concern with 

wood waste in harvest and manufacture, 

and was in favor of centralizing forest 

products research at FPL (Steen 1976). 

A side effect of FPL’s establishment 

was the reduction, if not complete phase 

out, of cooperative research between the 

Forest Service and universities. It wasn’t 

until the 1960s that the cooperative 

research program was reinstituted in a 

major way (Steen 1976).

Fire Studies

Fire research had begun under 

Pinchot when he authorized the study of 

5,000 forest fires cataloged since 1754 to 

better understand the damage caused by 

fires. The urgency for and the emphasis 

on fire research increased dramatically 

when the fires of 1910 burned more than 

3 million acres in northern Idaho and 

western Montana, killing 80 fire fighters.

Later, Chief Graves was appalled by 

proposals originated by scientists to use 

fire beneficially. He said it was inconceivable. There was concern among the 

Forest Service leadership that the public 

was confused by the concept of “good” 

and “bad” fires.

Graves and some on his staff also 

feared that complaints would be raised 

in the public and political arenas that 

the Forest Service was wasting money 

on research when the National Forests 

weren’t well protected from fire. And, 

there were those in the Forest Service 

who even challenged the idea that 

research was a legitimate Forest Service 

function. Graves also took the position 

that no general expense money was 

to be used for research. Instead, the 

strategy was to ask Congress directly to 

appropriate funds for that purpose (Steen 

1976).

Water Studies

In addition to interest in grazing and 

wildfire problems, water quantity and 

quality was a major Forest Service concern. Flood control was an issue in the 

humid and populous East; water availability was always of prime importance 

to the semi-arid West. Early watershed 

research began in 1900 with a cooperative project between the Forest Service 

and the Weather Bureau at Wagon 

Wheel Gap in the Rio Grande National 

Forest in Colorado. The study evaluated 

the effect of timber removal on water 

yields and helped ensure passage of the 

Weeks Law (West 1992).

The Weeks Law of 1911 authorized 

the Forest Service to buy land for 

National Forests for watershed 

Raphael Zon, who established the 

Priest River Experiment Station in 1911, 

fought hard as a Forest Service official 

and editor of the Journal of Forestry for 

the principle that sound resource management required a scientific basis.
–

protection and flood control in the East. 

Foresters favored watershed protection 

for flood control, while the Army Corps 

of Engineers favored construction of 

dams and levees.

Private land purchase by the Federal 

Government in the East was in marked 

contrast to the long-standing Federal 

policy of disposing of public lands in 

the West (West 1992). Acquisition of 

land for National Forests in the East not 

only reflected concern for protecting 

resources and property, but worked 

to change the Forest Service from a 

“western agency” to one representing 

national interests; thus its constituency 

and political clout also increased (West 

1992). This change in Forest Service 

responsibilities was important to the 

Intermountain Station because it became 

a factor in annual competitions for 

research program dollars.

Insect Studies

In the early days, research on forest 

insects and diseases was not a Bureau 

of Forestry responsibility. Those studies 

were carried out in USDA’s Bureau 

of Entomology and Bureau of Plant 

Industry. However, the importance of 

these investigations, particularly insect 

work, was not lost on Gifford Pinchot.

In 1899, Pinchot’s first full year as 

head of the Division of Forestry, he 

appointed Andrew D. Hopkins as a 

collaborator to investigate forest insect 

problems in the Pacific Northwest. 

Three years later, Pinchot influenced 

the Bureau of Entomology to name 

Hopkins head of the newly created 

Division of Forest Insect Investigations. 

In that era, the insects responsible for 

problems in American forests were 

mostly unknown and undescribed. 

Hopkins endeavored to change that 

situation by specializing in bark beetle 

research and hiring and training field 

personnel (Furniss 2003).

Forest insect investigations began 

in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 

1909 when Hopkins appointed Joseph 

Brunner, a big game hunter and writer 

who had some forestry training, as a 

field representative. Brunner had written 

to Pinchot wondering about the name 

The forest fires of 1910 burned 3 million acres and caused many deaths. 

The city of Wallace, Idaho was devastated (below) as seen in this photo 

looking east into the main business district. The fires created public 

awareness of the need for fire research as well as better wildfire control.
10–

of the “little bug that makes the inner 

bark of freshly fallen trees its primary 

breeding place.” Pinchot referred the 

letter to Hopkins, and the contact 

resulted in Brunner’s hiring to do field 

work throughout the northern Rockies. 

Brunner’s office was in Missoula.

Throughout his tenure, Brunner was 

antagonistic toward the Forest Service. 

His issues were primarily about Forest 

Service managers “dragging...their 

feet” and being inept in bark beetle 

control compared to other agencies and 

landowners. He also questioned Forest 

Service attitudes about the relative 

importance of fire and insects, and their 

relationships (Furniss 2003).

Brunner was skeptical when Jim 

Evenden, a Forest Service employee, 

was assigned as one of his assistants 

after being hired as an Entomological 

Ranger in 1914 (at a $900 annual salary), although he later said Evenden 

“appears to be promising material...” 

Evenden, however, quickly became 

dissatisfied with his new position. To 

keep him in the Bureau of Entomology, 

Hopkins moved him to Coeur d’Alene 

in northern Idaho to set up a sub-station. 

Evenden remained there, except for a 

break for military service during World 

War I, until he retired a year after being 

assigned to the Intermountain Station at 

the end of 1953.

The head-strong Brunner had a falling out with Hopkins over a personnel 

matter in 1917 and was separated from 

government service. After Brunner left, 

the Missoula office was closed, and 

forest insect operations in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains were centered at 

Coeur d’Alene under Evenden’s supervision (Furniss, in preparation).

The Branch of Research

Forest Service research programs 

underwent significant change in 1915. 

Chief Henry Graves established the 

Branch of Research, replacing the 

Central Investigative Committee. 

Earle Clapp, one of the assistant chief 

foresters, was put in charge of research 

and remained so until 1935 when he 

became associate chief (and later served 

as acting chief through the World War II 

years).

The Branch of Research at first was 

composed of three sections: (1) Forest 

Investigations headed by Raphael Zon, 

(2) Industrial Investigations, and (3) the 

Forest Products Laboratory. All Forest 

Service research except grazing was 

brought together within the Branch of 

Research.

Establishment of the Branch of 

Research was significant because 

researchers had complained for years 

that they were denied recognition and 

independence from National Forest 

administrators. Thus, Clapp’s appointment meant that the chief forester 

would settle any disputes between the 

assistant chief forester for research and 

the other assistant chief foresters. Even 

after this action, some controversy 

continued over whether the Washington 

Office research branch or the District 

offices should set research priorities. 

As time went on the drift was toward 

the Washington Office. Clapp’s view 

was that research should be responsible 

only to Washington, and that District 

participation stifled research (Steen 

1976).

The associate forester (later called 

the associate chief) at the time, Albert 

Potter, was a research advocate. He 

thought that the research program was 

the main reason the Forest Service 

was in Agriculture rather than Interior 

(Prevedel and Johnson 2005). However, 

when discussions were held on integrating range investigations with the other 

research programs, Potter appealed 

directly and successfully to the Secretary 

of Agriculture to keep the range studies 

under grazing administration (Steen 

1998).

The United States entrance into 

World War I in 1917 caused a major 

disruption for the Forest Service because 

so many people went into military service. Much of the research program was 

dropped or curtailed, with the notable 

exception of war effort research centered 

at FPL.

Because of the diffuse nature of the 

research organization and continuing 

flat funding for research, Clapp in 1921 

began to publish his ideas about the 

need for forest experiment stations. 

He covered the why, where, what, and 

costs proposed for this type of research 

organization (Storey 1975).

Congressional Support

The Annual Report of the Forest 

Service in both 1922 and 1924 cited the 

research program as lacking focus and 

recognition of its importance. The reports called for unifying legislation and 

specific Congressional support (Steen 

1976). Congress did, in fact, take some 

notice of Forest Service research in its 

passage of the 1924 Clarke-McNary 

Act. The act added two areas of 

research: (1) Effects of tax laws on 

forest perpetuation, and (2) practical 

methods of protecting standing timber 

in growing forests from losses by fire 

and other causes (Storey 1975).

The Office of Grazing Studies in 

the Branch of Grazing was transferred 

to the Branch of Research within the 

Washington Office in 1926, bringing 

all Forest Service research together. W. 

R. Chapline, who replaced Jim Jardine 

in 1920, continued as the director of 

range research (Storey 1975). Chapline 

began his career as a grazing assistant 

under Arthur Sampson at Great Basin, 

1913-1914.

Also in 1926, the American Tree 

Association published a 232-page report, 

A National Program of Forest Research, 

produced by the Society of American 

Foresters’ committee on research. In 

the report Earle Clapp outlined what he 

called an organic act for Forest Service 

research. Clapp wanted $1 million for 

the Forest Products Lab, $1 million to be 

shared by experiment stations, $500,000 

for forest inventory, and $250,000 to 

study grazing. The report included a 

description of regional experiment 

stations, among them a Northern Rocky 

Mountain Forest Experiment Station for 

investigations of western white pine, 

larch-fir, and other forests in Idaho, 

Montana, and eastern Washington and 

Oregon (Steen 1976).
–11

Raphael Zon worked with officials 

of District 1 (later Region 1) to 

designate the Priest River Experiment 

Station in northern Idaho, in 1911. The 

purpose behind the experimental areas 

in the National Forests was to carry out 

silvicultural and forest products utilization studies, and develop an appreciation 

of indirect forest benefits. Model 

forests were part of the concept for 

demonstration purposes and as meeting 

grounds for forest supervisors, rangers, 

and guards. Priest River was the fourth 

experimental forest designated (Storey 

1975).

It was a busy first year at Priest 

River. One of the priorities was to clear 

a site at the Benton Ranger Station in 

the Kaniksu National Forest. Donald R. 

Brewster was brought in from the St. Joe 

National Forest (southernmost of the consolidated 

Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests) on a one-month 

temporary assignment to 

oversee construction. He 

pitched a tent at the site 

and proceeded to go to 

work.

From September to 

December, 1911, work 

crews built a road, 

completed construction 

of a laboratory, installed a 

gasoline-powered electric 

system, and started some 

experiments after first 

melting snow off the 

ground by lighting bonfires. They even started a 

greenhouse. Brewster was 

so successful overseeing 

construction at Priest River 

that he was selected to stay 

on as the first director.

Early in the next year, ranchers 

from the surrounding countryside gave 

a “housewarming” for the lab/office 

building that lasted until 6 a.m. It was 

reported that about 50 people attended 

although it is not known if all were still 

there at the end (Wellner 1976).

Site Selection

All the experimental areas and 

programs were administered by the 

Districts in those days, so Priest River 

was a part of District 1. At that time, 

District 1 extended from the Lake 

C h a p t e r 3.

Priest River—Early Days

The crew that established the Priest 

River Experiment 

Station in 1911. 

From left: Howard 

Simson, Raphael 

Zon, W. W. Morris, 

Ed Brown, Donald 

Brewster, John 

Kirk, “Dad” Crosby, 

and F. I. Rockwell 

(Wellner 1976).

1911

Priest River 

Experiment Station

The first greenhouse at Priest River was 

not an imposing structure.
12–

States to Washington State and had 

three types of “forests”: (1) Northern, 

(2) Rocky Mountain, and (3) Pacific 

Coast. Other experiment stations were 

conducting research in the Northern and 

Rocky Mountain forests, so the decision 

was to locate an experimental forest 

in the Pacific Coast forest—the Idaho 

Panhandle.

F. I. Rockwell, in charge of silvics, 

and R. Y. Stuart, Assistant District 

Forester for Silviculture for District 1, 

believed because western white pine 

was so important that Priest River was 

the place to locate. Besides, Douglas-fir, 

larch, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole 

pine were also nearby in plentiful supply. Zon provided research direction 

from Washington, and gave major 

emphasis to nurseries, planting, and 

natural regeneration studies for the first 

2 years. This direction was in response 

to the 1910 fires that swept across Idaho 

and Montana. From the beginning, the 

Station Director reported administratively to Assistant District Forester Stuart, 

who was in charge of silviculture, but 

received technical guidance from Zon’s 

Office of Silvics in Washington.

The initial concept for development 

of Priest River was to create a miniature 

(4,500 acres) model forest. It was to be 

financially self-supporting from the sale 

of the annual timber growth. In addition 

to providing a place for research, Priest 

River was the site of an annual ranger 

training school beginning in 1915. Much 

time was spent in constructing facilities 

for the ranger school so the attendees 

wouldn’t have to pitch tents as they 

did the first few years. Priest River did 

become a model forest, but it did not 

become self-supporting financially.

Then, as today, Federal procurement 

regulations had a dampening effect 

on getting things done in a timely and 

economically efficient manner. At Priest 

River, a $650 construction limit per 

building was in effect, far too little to 

get the jobs done. That obstacle was 

at least partly overcome by using the 

donated time and money of some of the 

employees. These contributions were 

recognized by small bronze strips placed 

in the window frames of buildings. In 

spite of the obstacles, the Priest River 

compound was built and could even 

claim a Forest Service construction 

first...a cottage containing a bath tub

(Wellner 1976).

Brewster got a research assistant, 

Julius Ansgar Larsen, in 1913. Larsen, 

a Norwegian who had become a U.S. 

citizen, earned B.S. and M.S. forestry 

degrees at Yale. Known as “Skipper,” 

he took over as director in 1917 when 

Brewster left for an assignment at 

the Forest Products Lab. Priest River 

also added a full-time District Ranger, 

Gerhardt Kempff, as part of the Station 

staff.

Larsen was one of the premier 

scientists of his time. He authored 

29 publications covering many topics, and did much to help establish 

silvicultural research in the Northern 

Rocky Mountain area. The Larsen 

family traveled from Montana to Priest 

River in 1913 by railroad and stage 

coach. One of the features of the Priest 

River Experimental Forest—Margaret 

Gulch—is named for Larsen’s daughter.

Most of Larsen’s studies at Priest 

River were concerned with western 

white pine, but he was interested in 

other species as well. His investigations 

included growth and yield, methods of 

cutting, natural reproduction, and thinning. His publication, Conifers of the 

This group attended the second 

annual ranger training school at Priest 

River, in 1916. For 

the first two years, 

the trainees lived 

in tents. They spent 

most of the second 

year’s session helping erect buildings 

to remedy that situation. Each training 

school lasted about 

2 months (Wellner 

1976).

Members of the first 

families to live at the 

Priest River Station 

headed out in 1913 

for church services 

held at the Priest River 

schoolhouse. Front 

seat, Julius, Jenny, and 

Margaret Larsen. Rear 

seat, Mrs. Donald 

Brewster with Priscilla 

and Mrs. Gerhardt 

Kempff with her son.

Julius Larsen in a climax stand of western hemlock in the Upper Priest River 

Valley in the early 1920s. His research 

made him an authority on conifers of 

the Northern Rocky Mountains.
–13

Northern Rocky Mountains, was a major 

reference work in the 1920s.

Like many scientists, Larsen 

exhibited a high degree of dedication to 

his work. After several years as Station 

Director, he apparently felt a need to 

learn how research was being conducted 

in Europe. He took 6 months of leave 

without pay, and, traveling at his own 

expense, toured forest experimental 

areas in Denmark, Germany, England, 

and his native Norway (Baker and others 

1993).

Program and 

Headquarters Changes

In 1914 District 1 was still trying to 

recover from the fires of 1910. Research 

emphasis was given to the planting 

program in the burned-over country 

near Wallace, Idaho, and to the seedling 

production program concentrated at the 

Savenac Nursery in Montana. Brewster 

started a thinning program near Priest 

River, and studies of the larch/Douglasfir type in western Montana. During the 

first decade of operation, Wellner (1976) 

estimated the research activity at Priest 

River was distributed about like this:

Research area Percent

Planting 45

Cutting methods 30

Thinning 2

Meteorological 8

Growth and yield 3

Tree studies 2

Fire 10

Each District had an investigative 

committee established to review both 

research and administrative studies, and 

to suggest priorities. District 1’s committee discussed, in 1916, a suggestion 

that Priest River begin studies related 

to the detection and control of forest 

fires. As a result, a project was begun on 

“the rate of spread of forest fire and its 

relation to different weather conditions, 

site conditions, and variations in cover.” 

Larsen, director and lone investigator at 

Priest River at the time, began to study 

the relationship of meteorological conditions to fire hazard and slash disposal 

related to fire hazard. These studies were 

the start of fire research in the Station 

(Wellner 1976). Limits on staff and 

funds meant that not much else was going on at Priest River at that time.

World War I had curtailed research 

within the Forest Service, and the postArmistice period brought no increases 

in funds or staffing. Priest River was 

particularly hard hit in 1921. Most of 

its research funds were lost, so it was 

kept alive by using District 1’s National 

Forest administration funds for maintenance and protection. To maintain some 

semblance of bureaucratic fiscal integrity, Larsen was temporarily transferred 

from his research assignment to work 

on slash studies so he could be paid. 

Robert H. Weidman succeeded Larsen as 

Station Director that year.

Weidman was skeptical of the 

concept that Priest River could become a 

model sustained-yield forest because 

no constant market for all species and 

sizes of trees had developed, nor had 

efficient trucking and railroad transportation systems become available. 

Nevertheless, Priest River continued 

to play a significant role in forestry 

research, education, and demonstrations.

Priest River also continued to be an 

important experimental site for cooperators and collaborators from universities 

and other government agencies. Some 

of this work was on matters of great 

concern to National Forest managers. 

In 1922, USDA’s Office of Blister Rust 

Control opened an office in Moscow, 

Idaho, to deal with white pine blister 

rust. The rust, in introduced disease, 

had reached northern Idaho from 

the West Coast and posed a serious 

problem. In 1923, the agency moved 

its Seattle office to Spokane. Close 

working relationships were established 

with the Forest Service that lasted until 

the programs were transferred to the 

Intermountain Station in 1954.

In an early example of cooperative 

work at Priest River, Office of Blister 

Rust Control personnel tested eradication of Ribes (an alternate host of the 

rust) as a control measure in 1923. 

A crew of 15 men tested complete 

eradication of the bushes on 1,700 acres 

in the Benton Creek drainage. A total 

of 53,555 bushes were pulled (31 per 

acre) at a cost of $1.91 per acre (Wellner 

1976).

In the early 1920s, research activity 

in the northern Rockies had gone beyond 

the confines of Priest River. Because of 

that and common use of a bewildering 

variety of names, repeated requests were 

made to Washington for a name change 

to the Northern Rocky Mountain Forest 

Experiment Station. During the period 

1921-25 the following names were used: 

The Priest River Experiment Station; 

Priest River Branch Station; Priest River 

Station; Forest Experiment Station, 

Priest River, Idaho; and Priest River 

Experimental Forest (Wellner 1976). To 

Savenac Nursery in western Montana 

in 1910. The 1910 fires destroyed the 

nursery buildings, but they were 

rebuilt the following year. Priest 

River researcher W. G. Wahlenberg 

conducted research to improve 

seedling production at the nursery 

and enhance planting success. He 

also did studies of direct seeding. 

Wahlenberg’s work was documented 

in seven publications in the 1920s.
14–

add to the confusion, the official mailing 

address of the Priest River Experimental 

Forest in Idaho was Missoula, Montana. 

Finally, in 1925, the name change was 

approved.

The mailing address confusion had 

started in 1916 when the headquarters 

of the Priest River Forest Experiment 

Station was moved to Missoula. 

Missoula was a natural choice because 

it was the site of District 1 Headquarters 

(Wellner 1976).

The Federal Building in Missoula 

housed the District Office (which later 

was renamed the Region 1 Regional 

Office) and also served as the Priest 

River and then Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station Headquarters until 

1954. The original structure was completed in 1913. It was expanded in 1927, 

and in 1936 the “Forest Service wing” 

was added.

Before 1936, Forest Service offices 

were scattered in various Missoula 

buildings, as were other Federal offices. 

After the 1936 construction, all major 

Forest Service offices were located in 

the annex and east wing. On a visit in 

1936, Forest Service Chief F. A. Silcox 

expressed “surprise and pleasure at 

the size of the Federal building and 

the quarters provided for the Forest 

Service.” The building is on the National 

Register of Historic Places (Guth and 

Cohen 1991).

Harry Gisborne fought for and 

won additional laboratory space for 

fire research in the new wing of the 

building. Earlier, he had been able to 

acquire improved laboratory facilities 

and equipment at Priest River. Although 

he devoted considerable energy to 

seeking construction of an environmentally controlled wind tunnel-forest fuel 

combustion chamber that he planned in 

great detail, he was unable to realize that 

ambition during his lifetime. Gisborne 

considered this project to have national 

significance, and wanted it built at the 

Forest Products Lab in Wisconsin.

Gisborne regarded a wind 

tunnel-combustion chamber, which 

was incorporated into the Northern 

Forest Fire Lab in 1962, as essential to 

the study of the complex problems of 

forest fire behavior. He was able to have 

a small, portable wind tunnel built in 

the Federal Building by summer student 

employees. When the Fire Lab wind 

tunnel was constructed, it almost exactly 

fulfilled the requirements Gisborne 

described in 1931 (Hardy 1983).

Harry Gisborne—

Inspirational Leader

They named a mountain for him. 

They called his career an era. His boss 

bestowed on him the first top award 

given in the territory where he worked. 

The elite in his professional community 

added him to their memorial. His image presides over his legacy. A master 

wordsmith saluted him.

Harry Gisborne may have been the 

most highly honored Forest Service 

researcher of all time. He earned the admiration of associates during a 27-year 

career in which he was totally dedicated 

to forest fire research.

1925

Northern Rocky

Mountain Forest

Experiment Station

Missoula Headquarters

Priest River Exp. Forest

The “Forest Service 

Wing,” photographed 

in 1938 from the 

intersection of Pattee 

and Pine streets, was 

added to the original 

Missoula Federal 

Building in 1936. This 

wing housed Northern 

Rocky Mountain 

Station headquarters 

until 1954.

Harry Gisborne gained laboratory 

space in the new wing of the Missoula 

Federal Building in 1936. He and his 

associates also could compile weather 

data from a station on the roof of the 

building (Gisborne Collection, 98 (vii): 

1188).
–15

In 1922, Gisborne became the first 

full-time fire scientist assigned to the 

Priest River Forest Experiment Station. 

Forest Service Assistant Chief Earle 

Clapp had personally arranged for the 

assignment (West 1990). His forest fire 

research project started modestly. Funds 

were increased from $12,275 to $18,920 

per year at Priest River in 1923 to 

provide for Gisborne’s program.

Before Gisborne’s assignment to 

Priest River, forest fire control had 

been studied only piecemeal. He was 

the first full-fledged student in this field 

(Wellner and others 1951) and thus often 

is referred to as “the father of forest fire 

research.” Gisborne intensely believed 

that fire control had to have a scientific 

basis. His enthusiasm and imagination 

inspired his fellow workers, and many 

outstanding contributions to fire science 

were made under his leadership.

Mike Hardy, who spent two decades 

refining the fire danger rating system 

that Gisborne considered his greatest 

achievement (see “Fire Danger Rating 

Goes National,” chapter 10) told how 

the legacy of the pioneering fire scientist 

inspired him in the preface to a national 

publication he wrote titled The Gisborne 

Era of Forest Fire Research:

Like a second-generation laborer on a 

monumental cathedral, I found myself 

continuing a work begun by a great 

designer. In the case of the fire danger 

rating system, indeed of much of our 

approach to research on forest fires, the 

architect whose creativity inspired and 

guided all who followed him was Harry 

T. Gisborne. Much of what we know 

today about the origins and behavior 

of forest fires is his legacy. And the 

fire danger rating system, although 

repeatedly modified over the years (as he 

desired that it should be), is Gisborne’s 

own monument (Hardy 1983).

By all accounts, Gisborne had great 

imagination and ingenuity. He was also 

described as an outspoken man not easy 

to work with or for, given to argumentation and sarcasm. But the same people 

also note that Gisborne inspired devotion and had a knack for selecting good 

people (Kingsbury 1991).

George Jemison was an example of 

Gisborne’s ability to judge the talents 

of people. Jemison was Gisborne’s first 

full-time professional employee at Priest 

River. He went on to become Director 

of the Northern Rocky Mountain and 

Pacific Southwest Stations and finally 

Deputy Chief of the Forest Service for 

Research. Gisborne also hired Lloyd 

Hornby, who pioneered work on efficient planning for fire attack facilities 

and manpower, and Jack Barrows, who 

introduced bold, high-tech approaches to 

fire research (see “Fire Research Takes 

off with Barrows,” chapter 6).

Was Gisborne really a difficult 

person? In a document describing “The 

Gisborne Era” that was more detailed 

(and more interesting) than his national 

publication, Hardy (1977) included 

a series of statements by people who 

worked with Gisborne that reflected 

his philosophy and personality. What 

emerges is a portrait of a complex, 

extremely dedicated, yet fun-loving and 

sensitive individual.

Gisborne displayed his work 

philosophy in a 1948 note: “To some 

people advancement in pay or position is 

a controlling guide for all their actions. 

To them doing good work is secondary 

when they can get the advancement 

without doing good work... To others 

this order is reversed. The control of all 

their actions is to do a good job. If from 

this they obtain advancement they are 

more pleased, of course, but they are 

satisfied with having done a necessary or 

helpful job and done it well.”

Apparently, Gisborne not only set 

high performance standards for himself, 

but insisted on high-level performance 

from those around him, sometimes down 

to the details of a job. Barrows said, “He 

was an absolute stickler for people using 

and maintaining instruments correctly. 

He would really get upset when people 

mishandled equipment—weather instruments in particular.”

In some cases, Gisborne appeared 

somewhat insensitive to the needs of fellow employees. He vigorously opposed 

granting time off for two daily breaks 

and wrote to Senator Mike Mansfield 

protesting the trend to grant 30 days 

vacation with pay (for the most senior 

Federal employees). He also objected 

to Federal employee unions. Yet after 

reading an article critical of the motivation of Federal employees, he wrote 

to the editor: “Having worked for the 

Government in forest research ever since 

the first world war, I want to assure 

you that incentive does not go out the 

window when you enter Government 

service nor is it damped, diluted, or 

destroyed by such service.”

Gisborne published what was 

probably the first written scientific 

description of a forest fire explosion 

(Shearer and Kempf 1999). It is a rather 

dramatic account that provides some 

insight into the complicated personality 

of the author. Gisborne concludes the 

article with a sensitive portrayal of the 

fate of several animals that died in the 

explosion (Gisborne 1929). A man devoid of feelings for other creatures could 

not have written that passage.

Gisborne, known as “Gis” to his 

associates, also had a lighter, humorous 

side to his nature (Hardy 1977). A. A. 

Brown said, “Harry’s lively sense of 

humor was one of his saving graces. He 

was thoroughly delighted in nominating 

some visiting forest officer to their 

‘Numbskull Club,’ for which he was 

eligible if he pulled a big enough boner. 

Harry and his associates would exaggerate a little slip to the point where he 

would become eligible.”

Harry Gisborne getting information 

over his prized radio receiver at Priest 

River, 1924. The transmitter is at the 

right (Hardy 1983). Gisborn tested the 

ability of the equipment to receive 

weather reports and forecasts as part of 

his fire-weather research.
16–

Gisborne was as frank in his publications and official memos as he was in 

conversation. He made these comments 

critical of what was to become the 

Forest Service’s long-standing “10 a.m. 

policy”—control every fire by 10 a.m. 

the day after discovery—in an article 

titled “Mileposts:”

The so-called ‘Forester’s’ policy 

of control by 10 a.m. (issued 1935) 

undoubtedly rates either a milepost 

or a tombstone. If and when that 

policy becomes clearly recognized as 

a temporary expedient, I believe that 

it will rate a milepost. If, however, 

it has already become or ever does 

become the death knell of all previous 

objectives based on damage, then it rates 

a tombstone executed in the blackest 

of black granite. Fires can be caught 

small and cheaply, often more cheaply, 

without controlling them by 10 a.m. 

tomorrow. If one function of research is 

to assemble and array all the significant 

facts, it seems more than possible that 

it might contribute something here.

Gisborne established three research 

priorities: (1) Measuring and forecasting fire conditions; (2) assessing the 

relationship between lightning and 

fires; and (3) forecasting rainfall and 

other fire-weather conditions. Later, in 

1930, he began work on a fourth line of 

research—statistical analysis of Region 

1 fire records to determine speed and 

strength of attack needed to successfully 

control fires in each important timber and 

fuel type in the Region (Wellner 1976).

Gisborne set up fire-weather stations 

in the Kaniksu, Clearwater, and Nez 

Perce National Forests in northern 

Idaho in 1922. He discovered that 

evaporimeters, which were supposed 

to predict evaporation for the next day, 

had no value. He learned that relative 

humidity of air is not a good index of 

moisture content or inflammability of 

duff and other forest materials, but that 

temperature is an important variable in 

moisture content. Most important, he 

concluded that there was no single factor 

that could be used to measure or predict 

forest inflammability. One important 

factor was moisture content in the duff 

on forest floors. In 1923, Gisborne and 

Forest Products Lab scientist M. E. 

Dunlap developed and tested the first 

duff hygrometer to make the necessary measurements (Rocky Mountain 

Research Station 2004). In 1928, 

Gisborne published the first technical report comparing duff and wood moisture 

content with various weather elements.

Gisborne also came up with an 

idea for an inexpensive instrument to 

measure windspeed, a vital factor in predicting fire spread rates. A local plumber 

made 160 of the devices. Each was a 

bit different and had to be individually calibrated. One at a time, Jemison 

mounted the gauges on the front of his 

car. As his wife drove at 5, 10, and 15 

miles per hour, he lay on the fender and 

counted revolutions. Jemison said of this 

imaginative approach, “it was primitive 

but very effective compared to other 

methods” (Steen 1998).

In studies of the lightning-forest 

fire relationship, Gisborne analyzed 

nearly 15,000 storms over 5 years 

in three Forest Service Regions and 

British Columbia. His study resulted 

in improved levels of protection from 

lightning fires by increased surveillance, 

knowledge of the difference between a 

“fire-starting” storm and a “safe” storm, 

and more accurate forecasts of storm 

occurrences.

Forecasting rainfall turned out to be 

a very difficult task. Yet, working with 

the U.S. Weather Bureau, Gisborne 

developed a statistical method of showing the relative probability that a given 

spring or summer would be wetter or 

drier than the previous one. In 1925, 

he announced creation of a system for 

predicting rainfall monthly from April 

through September, based on 44 years of 

precipitation records (Kingsbury 1991).

Gisborne created a small cardboard 

envelope with windows and two slides 

in 1932—the first fire danger meter. It 

was designed to liberate managers from 

the time-consuming tasks of consulting 

numerous charts to get an estimate of 

the level of fire hazard in the forests 

under their care. Gisborne and his staff 

at Priest River also designed a visibility meter to help gauge fire danger. 

Visibility was one of the multiple 

components of the early fire danger 

rating system.

Other developments followed. To 

meet the need for integrating the new 

tools into action programs, Gisborne 

initiated the never-ending process of 

fire-control planning. Emergency 

program funds during the great 

depression helped by supporting major 

projects in fuel type mapping, seen-area 

mapping, and transportation planning. 

These and other studies in fire behavior, 

including the effect of topographic 

slope and aspect, ultimately resulted in 

tables giving the relationship between 

rate-of-spread and resistance-to-control 

of ongoing fires (Hardy 1977).

All of Gisborne’s projects were 

conducted with considerable coordination with knowledgeable field foresters. 

Because they participated in planning, 

and sometimes conducting, the research, 

results were readily accepted and 

generally put into practice. Wellner 

(1976) said, “At every step of the way 

he worked with land managers. He 

focused his research on critical problems 

of fire control...He worked with the 

Weather Bureau to get better forecasts 

but set up stations on National Forests to 

supply information that would improve 

forecasts. By the time he developed his 

first fire danger meter in 1932 he had 

worked with the National Forests to 

establish fire danger stations to measure 

key factors. They were able to use the 

danger meter immediately.”

Despite the successes, the heyday 

of fire research in “The Gisborne 

Era” ended in 1938 (Hardy 1983). 

Allotments shrank, emergency crews 

and budgets vanished, projects were 

terminated and vacancies went unfilled. 

A series of easy fire years reduced the 

Forest Service’s interest in fire research. 

Gisborne found this period distressing. Once again he had to do most of 

the work alone. Despite the lack of a 

Harry Gisborne using one of the atmospheric visibility meters he and his staff 

designed in 1935 as a fire danger indicator. (Gisborne Collection, 98 (vii): 49)
–17

large organization to help, Gisborne 

continued effective fire control research. 

In 1947, the Secretary of Agriculture 

gave a Superior Service Award to 

Gisborne. He was the first individual in 

the Northern Rocky Mountain territory 

to receive that honor.

World War II brought most Forest 

Service research to a near-standstill, and 

Gisborne’s studies were no exception. 

Gisborne turned his attention to planning, and in 1944 prepared a detailed 

analysis of major research areas he believed needed action to support reaching 

regional and national goals of adequate 

fire control at the least cost. His personal 

planning included ambitious goals, as 

usual. He said in a memo,

“I want to keep my eye on the ball—the 

two main balls are fire danger rating and 

fire control planning—and, if possible, 

to have these two big projects neatly 

packaged and pretty well sewed up by the 

time I retire... I have to hurry and keep 

my eye on the ball or I will not make it.”

Gisborne did not make it. In 1948, he 

said, “I am nearing the end of my official work for the Forest Service. I expect 

to retire at age 60. These five years will 

be gone before I clean up my work” He 

was to have less than one year.

On August 5, 1949, a forest fire 

roared up Mann Gulch, near Helena, 

Montana, killing 13 of the 16 firefighters 

(all but one were smokejumpers) on the 

scene. Mike Hardy (unpublished text 

of talk) described Gisborne’s involvement in a tribute titled “The Fourteenth 

Victim?”

Hardy said Gisborne was involved 

in a cloud-seeding study and couldn’t 

go to the fire, but he immediately began 

asking detailed questions about it and 

developed a theory about how it happened. The Chief of the Forest Service 

wanted complete information, and 

Gisborne went to the area on November 

9. Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

Director Charles Tebbe said, “Harry 

is not a young man...he had a heart 

condition and knew it...Reluctantly I 

approved the trip but on condition that 

he made it and the inspection of the area 

and the fireline by jeep.”

November 9 was a rainy, miserable 

day. Gisborne and Bob Jansson, the 

District Ranger, went to the fire scene 

nevertheless. The jeep was not able 

to carry them as far as they wanted, 

and disregarding Jansson’s cautions, 

Gisborne insisted they go the rest of the 

way on foot. Gisborne promised to stop 

every 100 yards or so to reduce stress 

on his heart. He took copious notes and 

was excited to learn that the evidence 

completely disproved his theory about 

how the fire developed. Late in the 

day the pair took one last breather 

near the river on their way back to the 

jeep—Gisborne’s heart stopped beating 

there.

An important period in Priest River 

and Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

history came to a close with Gisborne’s 

death, but his many associates made sure 

he and his work would not be forgotten. 

In 1951, a dedication ceremony was 

held on the summit of Looking Glass 

Mountain at Priest River to rename the 

peak Gisborne Mountain. The plaque 

placed there read, “Harry T. Gisborne, 

1893-1949, inspiring, enthusiastic, 

far-seeing pioneer in forest fire research.” Appropriately, the fire lookout 

at Priest River also was renamed for 

Gisborne.

Chuck Wellner, a colleague and 

friend for 15 years, took it upon himself 

to preserve Gisborne’s papers and 

records. In 1982, Wellner presented 

the collection for safekeeping to the 

University of Montana’s Mansfield 

Library. It includes 321 published 

and unpublished manuscripts, photos, 

scrapbooks, official and personal correspondence, and taped interviews (by 

Mike Hardy) with former associates.

An oil portrait of Gisborne by 

Intermountain Station artist Bryan Owen 

hangs in a prominent position at the Fire 

Lab, overlooking the entrance area to 

the modern facility that was one of his 

dreams. Having labored in a primitive 

laboratory at Priest River, Gisborne was 

a constant advocate of better physical facilities in which to perform fire research.

Gisborne was accorded an honor that 

might have pleased him above all others, 

given his interactions with firefighters 

and fire control managers over many 

years. The smokejumpers were considered an elite group within the Forest 

Service fire organization, reluctant to accept others into their fraternity. In 1999, 

Robert Sallee, the only living survivor of 

the Mann Gulch Fire, unveiled a bronze 

plaque in the Merriwether Picnic Area in 

Missoula that depicted a smokejumper’s 

jacket and helmet. In his remarks, Sallee 

recognized Gisborne as the 14th victim 

of the fire (Graham 2004).

The ceremony was in recognition of 

the 50th anniversary of the fire. Forest 

Service Chief Mike Dombeck and 

Montana Governor Marc Racicot hosted 

the event. The site features a small hill 

and rock wall built to resemble the scene 

where 12 smokejumpers and a forest 

guard died. Engraved stones represent 

the places where their bodies were 

found. Just over the hill is a marker in 

remembrance of where Gisborne died 

(INTercom June/91).

Noted author Norman Maclean wrote 

eloquently about the events before, 

during, and after the Mann Gulch fire 

in a best-selling work (Maclean 1992). 

The book includes a dramatic description of Gisborne’s death at the fire site. 

Maclean’s research apparently caused 

him to form several firm opinions about 

the value of Gisborne’s pioneering and 

his standing in the fire community.

Retired fire scientists Mike Hardy (left) 

and Art Brackebusch paused after the 

dedication of the Wildland Firefighters 

Memorial in Missoula to remember the 

man who inspired their careers.
18–

Maclean called Gisborne “the man 

above all others who made the study 

of fire a science.” Referring to District 

Ranger Jansson, the author said, “To 

Jansson, Gisborne was an idol, as 

he was to nearly all those who first 

approached the study of forest fires 

scientifically, and as he is to some of us 

still living.”

Marshall Hikes Into 

History

Bob Marshall came to Priest River in 

1925 as a junior forester in silvicultural 

investigations, the year the experimental 

forest became a unit of the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station. Marshall was 

raised in wealth on Park Avenue in New 

York. He acquired a taste for the out-ofdoors playing “explorer” on the family’s 

summer estate in the Adirondacks. He 

worked in the Northern Rockies for a 

relatively short time.

In June 1928, Marshall began a 

Ph.D.program in plant physiology, 

which he completed at Johns Hopkins 

University in 1930. He continued to 

be employed by the Station during that 

time; an early personnel record shows 

him with the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station until 1932. Marshall is remembered today as one of the founders of 

the Wilderness System on Federal lands 

(West 1990).

Most of the research at Priest River 

during Marshall’s stay centered on 

western white pine. Marshall worked on 

all aspects of white pine studies, including methods of cutting, reproduction, 

intermediate cuttings, yield, reforestation, and fire. As part of the fire research, 

he traveled to remote lumber camps 

and Ranger Stations, which more than 

satisfied his needs for solitude. His work 

involved the detailed study of how trees 

grew back after fire or logging operations. Counting seedlings and collecting 

data on sunlight, soil composition, slope, 

logging debris, ground cover, and other 

variables consumed his time. He wrote 

seven research reports during his service 

at Priest River (Graham 2004).

A few years after completing his 

studies at Johns Hopkins, Marshall was 

rehired by the Forest Service to write 

the recreation section in the National 

Plan for American Forestry, the 1933 

“Copeland Report.” In that report, 

Marshall foresaw a need to place 10 

percent of all forest lands in the United 

States into recreational areas, ranging 

from large parks to wilderness areas 

to roadside campsites (West 1992). To 

ensure that citizens would monitor public agencies’ protected sites, he helped 

found and fund the Wilderness Society 

(his initial contribution was $1,000). 

Marshall had earlier worked as chief 

forester for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

where he supported maintaining roadless 

areas on reservations. He returned to 

the Department of the Interior when he 

finished the recreation report for the 

Forest Service.

In 1937, Marshall became chief of 

the new Division of Recreation and 

Lands in the Washington Office of 

the Forest Service, where he drafted 

regulations giving greater protection to 

wilderness areas by banning timber cutting, road construction, summer homes, 

and even motorboats and aircraft. He 

also checked plans for recreational 

development in National Forests to see 

if they included access for lower income 

groups, a real concern during the years 

of the Great Depression.

Marshall died at the age of 39, 

two years after his appointment as 

recreation chief. An eccentric and a 

maverick, Marshall was famed for 

both his vigorous 40-mile hikes and 

his radical political opinions. Unable 

to endure the constrictions of working 

Bob Marshall 

observed tree 

seedlings in 1927 

at a burned-area 

study site in the 

Kaniksu National 

Forest.

Bob Marshall in mufti while 

working about 1926 as a Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station silvicultural researcher. His usual 

“uniform” consisted of boots and 

rough shirt and trousers for outdoor work or hiking.

A Code That Changed

Most photos of Bob Marshall show him in 

hiking attire. But he was pictured resplendent 

in coat and tie in about 1926 while a member 

of the Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

staff. Early researchers in office settings 

usually were pictured dressed in uniforms 

or coats and ties. The female office workers 

were shown wearing conservative dresses or 

blouses and long skirts.

Dress codes were a part of Station culture that 

changed dramatically over the years. Although 

dress became more casual much earlier at 

Labs, most men working at Intermountain 

Station Headquarters in professional or 

administrative jobs wore ties until the early 

1980s, and some did after that. Women 

continued to dress conservatively through the 

same period. By 1990, dress had become very 

casual everywhere within the organization, 

except for very special occasions.
–19

within the bureaucracy, he had planned 

to resign from the Forest Service, but 

then suffered an unexpected fatal heart 

attack while aboard an overnight train 

from Washington, DC, to New York City 

(West 1992). Marshall left one-third 

of his estate, nearly $500,000, to the 

Wilderness Society.

“He was a good scientist and things 

that he put in the records were correct, 

but kind of a mess and not systematic,” 

said Chuck Wellner in a 1991 interview 

(INTercom Oct./91). Wellner, who knew 

Marshall, started his career at Priest 

River shortly after Marshall left. He took 

over research on some of the projects 

Marshall had started.

Marshall believed that 80 percent of 

American forests in private ownership 

would be destroyed for short-term 

profit unless they were nationalized. 

He also thought workers in the lumber 

industry were being exploited by their 

employers, and was not bashful about 

saying so in public. Wellner recalled 

that Forest Service scientists who had 

worked with Marshall never criticized 

him for his political beliefs, even when 

they disagreed.

Marshall had many liberal friends 

and associates and when Forest Service 

Chief Ferdinand Silcox appointed him 

as the first Director of Recreation and 

Lands, he had an opportunity to apply 

his philosophies to civil rights matters. 

Marshall learned African-Americans 

were not welcome in many campgrounds in the South. It was common 

elsewhere for resorts holding permits 

to operate on National Forest lands to 

advertise that “people of the Jewish faith 

are not accepted.” Marshall’s father was 

a Jewish immigrant. Marshall succeeded 

in getting a clause added to special use 

permits prohibiting discrimination, but 

failed to end the de facto segregation in 

southern campgrounds.

Marshall also fought for the civil 

rights of government employees. In a 

letter to the Washington Post he wrote: 

“I can not conceive why any person 

working for the public must accept an 

inferior position as a citizen to one who 

received a salary from private enterprise. 

The real danger to American institutions 

and American democracy will come, not 

when government officials participate as 

citizens in the democratic determination 

of policies, but when a large body of 

American citizens who are government 

workers become permanently muzzled” 

(Glover 1986).

Marshall’s outspoken activism won 

him the distinction of being one of the 

first eight out of 1,121 Americans investigated by the House committee probing 

Left to right, Station Ranger Gerhardt Kempff, pioneer fire scientist Harry 

Gisborne, Station Director Robert Weidman, and scientist Bob Marshall pose 

with a Forest Service truck at Priest River in 1928.

un-American activities. Forest Service 

Chief Silcox was another of the first 

eight victims of what became known 

as “McCarthyism,” after Wisconsin 

Senator Joe McCarthy who chaired the 

Senate committee conducting the same 

sort of investigations.

Years later, Chief Richard McArdle 

got the opportunity to review the FBI’s 

records from their investigation. “I never 

found anything to prove or even hint that 

Bob Marshall wasn’t absolutely loyal to 

the U.S.A.,” McArdle said (Glover and 

Glover 1986).

The Wilderness Act of 1964 gave the 

Bob Marshall Wilderness in northwestern Montana statutory recognition. The 

million-acre wilderness includes parts of 

the Lolo, Flathead, and Lewis and Clark 

National Forests. “The Bob” is often 

referred to as “the crown jewel” of the 

Wilderness System.
20–
–21

I

n Utah and Idaho, administrative studies on grazing and related watersheds 

had begun several years before the 

establishment of the Utah Experiment 

Station. Because of the heavy grazing 

use, studies on methods of seed collection, eradication of poisonous plants, 

and methods of range examination were 

expanded. In the Sawtooth National 

Forest, studies were under way showing 

how natural regeneration of range could 

occur by excluding sheep. Range seeding trials also were undertaken. District 

Forester Clyde Leavitt 

probably supported the regeneration studies because 

he thought the real purpose 

of the National Forests 

was to grow trees and that 

sheep interfered with that 

(Alexander 1987).

Because the development of range research in 

the Forest Service was a 

function of the Office of 

Grazing Studies, Raphael 

Zon wasn’t involved in 

the site selection for the 

Utah Experiment Station. 

Instead, the site was 

selected by A. E. Sherman, 

the District Forester of 

District 4, Homer Fenn, 

V. R. Reynolds, and Manti 

National Forest Supervisor 

A. W. Jensen. The four men got into a 

horse-drawn buggy and checked out 

the Nebo area, then Fairview Canyon, 

then Bluebell Flat, then Kenore Tom’s 

Dugway, and settled on a site at 8,850 

feet elevation along the west slope of 

the Wasatch Plateau near the town of 

Ephraim.

Arthur Sampson, who with Jim 

Jardine, had already been engaged 

in Forest Service range research in 

Oregon, was named director of the 

Utah Experiment Station in 1912. 

Construction moved at a slower pace 

than at Priest River thanks to both 

constraining high-elevation weather 

conditions and Congress. Appropriations 

for fiscal year 1913 were to be passed by 

July 1, 1912, but Congress was slow to 

act and by the time the bill was passed 

it was too late in the season to start 

construction. Work began in the late 

spring of 1913 after snow melt allowed 

horse-drawn wagons to haul lumber and 

other building supplies up the mountain 

side from Ephraim.

C h a p t e r 4.

Great Basin—Early Days

1912

Utah 

Experiment Station

This tent, pictured in the spring of 1913, was the first dwelling at Great Basin.
22–

Early studies at the Utah Experiment 

Station included:

Effect of grazing on 

aspen reproduction

Natural revegetation of 

seriously overgrazed lands

Soil acidity related to 

artificial range reseeding

Growth and yield of aspen

Erosion and stream flow

Effect of grazing on water quality

By the end of the summer of 1913, 

the director’s house, lab building, barn, 

and fences were completed, and an 

assistant’s house was started. The fences 

were needed to protect the grounds 

and some experimental areas from 

being overrun by livestock. Director 

Sampson’s first annual report devoted 

more than 20 pages to describing the 

completed work and explaining what 

other improvements were needed in the 

immediate future. At the end of the next 

summer, the assistant’s house was finished along with blacksmith, carpenter, 

tool storage, wood storage, and cistern 

facilities (Keck 1972).

Because heavy snows limited use of 

the site to the period of late spring to 

early fall, the staff at the Station moved 

to District 4’s headquarters in Ogden for 

the late fall and winter months. Thus the 

staff had the use of government housing 

for the summer, but most had to negotiate rental housing for the remainder of 

the year. It was an annual process that 

undoubtedly added to life’s difficulties 

for the Station’s staff and their families.

Ogden, in 1908, had been selected 

as headquarters for District 4 and as the 

supply depot for all six Districts of the 

Forest Service. Ogdenite Fred J. Kiesel 

had offered to construct a building at 

the corner of Lincoln Avenue and 24th 

Street, to house both the supply depot 

and District 4 headquarters. While waiting for that development, Clyde Leavitt, 

the first District Forester, operated 

out of temporary quarters at the First 

National Bank Building on Washington 

Boulevard. This is the current site of 

the Weber Center, a county and commercial office building. As a major 

railroad center, Ogden was a natural 

•

•

•

•

•

•

pick for the supply depot location 

(Alexander 1987).

With a total annual budget of just 

over $9,500 for research on forest 

management, growth and yield, erosion, 

fire, economics, and forest products, 

one must surmise that the research 

coverage in these areas was rather thin. 

District 4 was spending about $4,400 

on administrative studies at the same 

time. Some collaborative research was 

in evidence. For example, the Station, 

the District Office, and the Union Pacific 

Railroad were involved in service tests 

of treated and untreated railroad ties 

(Annual Report, UES, 1913). However, 

collaboration and coordination among 

research and administrative studies did 

not appear to be the rule.

Arthur Sampson—Father 

of Range Management

Arthur Sampson was a fine scientist, 

extraordinary teacher, and the architect 

of early studies of range and watershed 

ecology that over many years provided 

the basis for huge improvements in 

western land stewardship. He is often 

referred to in the world literature as “the 

father of range management.”

Sampson was the first range ecologist 

hired by the Forest Service. He and Jim 

Jardine, who was appointed head of the 

newly created Office of Grazing Studies 

in 1910, conducted grazing research 

beginning in 1907 in the Wallowa 

National Forest in Oregon (West 1992). 

Sampson was appointed the first director 

of the Utah Experiment Station in 1912. 

Known to his associates as “Sammy,” he 

displayed a wry sense of humor throughout his life. Excerpts from a 1936 letter 

recalling the experiment station establishment (INTercom Jan./Feb.91) are an 

example. Emphases are Sampson’s:

In the spring of 1907, Mr. Albert F. Potter, 

then Chief of the Branch of Grazing of 

the Forest Service...induced the Secretary 

of Agriculture (James Wilson) to appoint 

two men to solve vexing range problems 

with a view to clearing up immediately

and forever all administrative difficulties. 

The very best men available in the world

at that time were, of course, James T. 

Jardine and your humble correspondent; 

as a matter of fact, these selections 

worked out to a 50 percent batting 

average (which is considered good even 

today with the more exacting Civil 

Service machinery for appointment); for 

“Jim” Jardine is now one of the most 

prominent and influential officers in 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Although by 1911 we had succeeded in 

solving all the intricate range problems 

that handicapped administrators in the 

North West, our first detailed work 

being done in Eastern Oregon, a few 

trifling questions remained to be cleared 

up elsewhere. In other words, the time 

had arrived for the location of a place 

where one could “hang his hat” and 

initiate really fundamental work...

Sampson “hung his hat” for a decade 

at what became the Great Basin Station. 

He scored some important firsts in range 

science. He was the first to promote 

deferred and rotational grazing strategies 

(Keck 1972). He also was the first to 

develop usable concepts of indicator 

species and plant succession for managers to quickly evaluate range condition.

Even before building a place to live 

at Great Basin, Sampson built grazing 

exclosures. He then mapped “quadrat” 

plots both inside the exclosures and 

outside in grazed areas to document 

the plant composition and amount of 

bare soil. Range scientist Steve Monsen 

Sampson (right) and an unidentified assistant posed for this picture to poke fun 

at the living and working conditions in the 

early days at the Utah Experiment Station 

(INTercom Sept./93), and perhaps as a way 

to urge District authorities to accelerate construction of improvements. The 

humorous approach may have worked. By 

the end of the next year a director’s house 

was completed.
–23

(INTercom July/90) said, “Sampson was 

a true ecologist.” Monsen described 

how each exclosure, built at a specific 

elevation, was tied to a climate station 

that recorded weather data for the site. 

He added that Sampson started some 

of the first range phenology, or plant 

development, studies correlated with 

both elevation and weather patterns. The 

sites were useful in studies of watershed 

reclamation as well as range revegetation, and continued to have application 

to modern research on climate change 

(Tippets and Anderson 1991).

Sampson didn’t waste much time in 

getting to work. The first of more than 

100 scientific publications he wrote during his career came out just 1 year after 

he joined the Forest Service. The last appeared in 1963, more than a half century 

later. Despite his interest in fundamental 

research, Sampson’s first goal was to 

develop practical range evaluation methods useful to managers. The “indicator 

species” concept for evaluating range 

condition was one of his contributions 

to reaching that goal. From lengthy 

descriptions of what Sampson saw as 

four stages of plant succession, the more 

simplistic classifications of “excellent, 

good, fair, and poor” range conditions 

evolved (Rowley 1985).

At Great Basin, Sampson’s studies 

fit three categories: (1) production of 

maximum forage through artificial 

and natural seeding; (2) utilization 

of forage by livestock without undue 

damage to vegetative reproduction 

and watershed 

conditions; and 

(3) securing the 

greatest grazing 

efficiency per unit 

area, including 

herding methods, 

water development, 

and poisonous plant 

research (Kingsbury 

1991b). He initiated 

the A and B watershed study (see 

“Wisdom Flows 

from Watersheds,” 

chapter 7) in 1912. 

This paired-watershed experiment 

was the first of its 

kind to demonstrate that herbaceous 

vegetation can profoundly affect storm 

runoff and erosion—a hydrologic fact 

that most livestock grazers, many 

engineers, and some foresters had been 

unwilling to accept (Chapline 1967).

Local historian Albert Andrei (1993) 

said Sampson was a familiar figure in 

both the Sanpete and Sevier Valleys 

near the experiment station. Among 

his activities were racing horses and 

wrestling professionally at county fairs. 

Andrei reported, “Local recollections of 

him have been generally friendly, and 

it has been said, the ladies in Ephraim 

were not unaware of him.”

Not everyone in the Forest Service 

was on good terms with local residents 

during the early days of the Manti 

National Forest and Great Basin. The local people had some difficulty relating to 

new, non-local forest officers, especially 

when they were in the difficult position 

of carrying out policies that restricted 

stockmen’s privileges. The reaction to 

scientific investigation was somewhat 

similar. Most citizens referred to Station 

workers as “grass counters” in jest or 

contempt (Antrei 1971). Antrei said that 

when stockmen took “pot shots” at a 

technician just for sport, one of the riflemen said later, “We just wanted to see 

how fast he could run.”

Sampson had a lifetime interest 

in athletics and physical fitness (see 

“Tough Guys (and Gals) Do Research,” 

chapter 11). At the University of 

Nebraska where he studied botany and 

plant ecology and received B.S. and 

M.A. degrees, he boxed and wrestled 

and lettered in track for three years. 

Four years after graduation he won a 

track medal in a race at Georgetown 

University (Parker 1967). He continued 

his athletic endeavors while pursuing 

post-graduate studies at the same 

time he was leading research at Great 

Basin. He was awarded a Ph.D. in plant 

ecology and climatology by George 

Washington University in 1917.

As a graduate student, Sampson 

once had a job that entailed a weekly 

7-mile hike and a 3,000-foot climb up 

a mountain to change the record sheet 

on temperature recording instruments. 

It must have been good training; later 

he broke a record for sprinting to the 

summit of Pikes Peak (Kingsbury 

1991b).

Apparently, Sampson couldn’t resist a 

natural impulse to teach. He even taught 

the local pea growers near Ephraim the 

value of pea silage as cattle feed. Until 

he demonstrated that, the farmers of 

Sanpete County had been disposing of 

the ill-smelling stuff as quickly as possible (Antrei 1993). During his last years 

at Great Basin, Sampson gave short 

courses in range management at the 

universities of Nebraska, Syracuse, and 

Timothy was growing well in 1924 in this exclosure built in 

1912 by Arthur Sampson to compare grazed and ungrazed 

areas at Great Basin.

Arthur Sampson earned renown as a 

professor of range management at the 

University of California-Berkeley.
24–

Cornell. Those assignments whetted his 

appetite for teaching (Parker 1967).

Sampson didn’t stop his research, but 

he switched his emphasis to teaching in 

1922 when he accepted an appointment 

as Associate Professor of Forestry at 

the University of California, Berkeley. 

There he became the first to teach a 

regular and continuing course in range 

management. He also was among the 

first to use lysimeters to determine the 

amount of water-soluble matter in soil, 

grow grasses in phytometers in different 

soil horizons, grow grasses in nutrient 

solution to determine effect of various 

levels of defoliation, and study the 

movement of carbohydrates in range 

forage plants (Parker 1967).

Sampson’s Range and Pasture 

Management, published in 1923, was the 

first comprehensive textbook on range 

management. He wrote three more textbooks. One was the first on range plants. 

Another was the first text on range 

animal husbandry. Sampson became a 

full professor in 1936 at Berkeley, and 

served the school until his death in 1967.

Sampson retired in 1951, but as 

Professor Emeritus he continued to 

maintain regular office hours. His 

research, before and after retirement, 

was concentrated on the role of fire in 

the ecology of California brushlands. 

He also continued studies of forage 

growth and the impact of grazing, and 

researched methods of controlling 

undesirable plants. During his retirement 

years, Sampson devoted a great deal of 

time and energy to preparing scientific 

statements used to promote sound public 

policies for the management and conservation of natural resources (Krueger and 

others 1968).

Parker (1967) said Sampson’s “sense 

of humor was great, but a ‘salty’ story 

always had to have a point He would often relate these stories with serious mien 

as a personal experience, much to the 

amazement and disbelief of the listener. 

He always had an anecdote in store for 

the campus policeman, the janitor, or 

whoever he thought might appreciate it.”

There also were stories aplenty about 

“Sammy” among former students and 

associates. One said he was so wrapped 

up in his teaching and research that he 

was inclined to be absentminded. His 

apartment was close enough so that he 

usually walked to his office. He once 

reported his car as being stolen from his 

garage, and the police advised him it 

was parked on the street where he had 

left it, with seven overnight parking 

tickets! (Parker 1967).

“Sammy” was said to have an intense 

interest in the lives, welfare, and future 

prospects of students and associates. He 

was known as a “soft touch” for temporary loans. He was adept at finding jobs 

for needy students; it was said he occasionally found a “job” that had few or no 

duties if the student desperately needed 

income. Sampson pitched horseshoes 

in contests with his students behind the 

Forestry School Building.

Sampson’s accomplishments were 

recognized in many ways. He was 

elected a Fellow of the Society of 

American Foresters, voted a Certificate 

of Merit by the Society for Range 

Management, given the fifth Eminent 

Ecologist Award by the Ecological 

Society of America, presented with a 

Distinguished Service Award by the 

American Forestry Association, and 

declared a Distinguished Alumnus by 

the University of Nebraska.

After Sampson’s death at age 82, 

to encourage students to study range 

management or related subjects, his 

friends established the Arthur W. 

Sampson Scholarship at the University 

of California.

Direction and Name 

Problems

The Investigative Committee annual 

report for 1917 cited a definite lack of 

centralization of research responsibility in the District 4 office: “It was 

demonstrated repeatedly that detailed 

research work cannot be conducted as an 

adjunct to regular administrative work.” 

The proposed remedy was to assign 

a forest officer to the District Office 

having direct supervision over all work 

falling under the Branch of Research. 

Remember that both Utah Experiment 

Station Director Sampson and the 

work at the Station were guided by the 

Branch of Grazing in Washington, not 

the Branch of Research. The various 

National Forest staffs and District 4 

office personnel were frustrated in their 

attempts to get both administrative 

and research studies accomplished and 

coordinated among the units.

Limitations at the Utah Station 

were reflected in proposals to establish 

silvicultural research in central Idaho 

under a proposed Idaho Experiment 

Station, because the Utah Station’s highelevation location was not well situated 

for ponderosa and lodgepole pine silvicultural studies. Under this concept, a 

central laboratory for soil analysis, seed 

testing, and other physiological work 

was proposed. This was at a time when 

Sampson was still hoping for an electric 

powerline hook-up for the Utah Station 

(Annual Report, UES, 1917).

1918

Great Basin 

Experiment Station

Just as Priest River had problems 

with its name in the early years, so did 

Sampson’s Utah Experiment Station. 

In Utah, the name was changed to the 

Great Basin Experiment Station because 

of confusion with the Utah Agricultural 

Experiment Station at Utah State 

Agricultural College in Logan. It subsequently was known as the Great Basin 

Branch Experiment Station (1918-1947), 

Great Basin Research Center (1947-

1970), and Great Basin Experimental 

Range after 1970. Sampson’s staffing 

situation wasn’t much different than 

Larsen’s at Priest River. In 1913, he was 

the only year-long employee, aided by 

three temporary assistants and one permanent assistant during the field season 

(Keck 1972).

The end of World War I in 1919 

negated a war-time plan to curtail 

Sampson’s research and send him out to 

work on depleted rangelands. The plan 

was to have him stimulate application 

of plant indicator work as a measure 

of range quality. Sampson made use 
–25

of the annual report that year to chide 

the District 4 administrative staff for 

giving him property without telling him 

about it first. Apparently, the District 4 

office staff had assigned him 5-gallon 

water bottles for which he said he had 

no use, soil augers that didn’t work, and 

rain gauges of which he had too many 

(Annual Report, GB, 1920). Researchers 

and administrative staff people had their 

minor tiffs throughout Station history.

On a more positive note, 1919 also 

saw the issuance of the first comprehensive report on range management. The 

report said the Forest Service had the 

best model range management program 

of any organization in the country.

Plantings Fail to Take 

Root

Administrative studies often failed 

to produce benefits of lasting value. 

District 4 opened a number of small tree 

nurseries in the early days and made 

numerous trials of planting seedlings. 

Results were not good and, in many 

instances, costs were considered excessively high. By the end of World War I, 

the District administration, realizing that 

it did not know how to plant trees successfully, closed its nurseries (Alexander 

1987). By 1923, reforestation had virtually come to a halt in District 4.

Experimental reforestation work, 

however, continued. In the early 1930s 

the administration, now renamed Region 

4, began working in cooperation with 

the Intermountain Station to try to find 

effective methods. As with the early 

administrative studies, results were not 

encouraging. Methods other than planting were studied. In 1932, the Station 

tried to restore a burned area in the 

Boise Basin by broadcasting ponderosa 

pine seed. The experiment failed because birds ate the seed.

Early researchers at Great Basin 

had been among those intrigued by the 

“pineless belt,” a large belt of brushland 

running through the center of the usual 

habitat of ponderosa pine, but containing 

few of the valuable trees (Keck 1972). 

One such area is the oakbrush zone that 

covers many acres in Utah, including 

part of Ephraim Canyon. Pioneer 

silvicultural researchers Fred Baker and 

Clarence Korstian planted some 4,500 

trees, 2,000 of them ponderosa pines, in 

the zone and established a comparison 

plot 25 miles away on the east side of 

the Wasatch Plateau where ponderosa 

grows naturally in commercial stands.

The planted ponderosas grew well, 

but they never produced offspring. 

Baker and Korstian reported that 

distribution of rainfall during the summer in the Utah brush areas “is notably 

different from that either to the north or 

south.” There is not enough rain in July 

and August, and what there is accumulates late in August only shortly before 

early autumn frosts, making it impossible for ponderosa pines to reproduce. 

The researchers also noted differences 

in soils between sites where ponderosas 

thrive and are absent, but believed the 

rainfall situation was the major limiting 

factor. Baker and Korstian both went on 

to become distinguished university professors and wrote widely used textbooks 

on silviculture.

Region 4 planted 20,000 to 30,000 

trees annually in the early 1930s with 

emergency employment program 

labor—mostly in Utah. The Region 

continued to monitor older plantations. 

Research on sample plots by Station 

scientists in Idaho focused on logging 

techniques to promote maximum 

growth, natural restocking, and watershed protection. Results of this research 

provided much of the basis for managing ponderosa pine stands.

By the mid-1930s, the Region began 

to plant more extensively. In 1934 a 

cooperative planting was started on 

the Quartzburg burn in Idaho, and in 

1935 the Boise Basin Branch of the 

Station planted about 10,000 seedlings 

on the Bannock Creek brush field, the 

Elk Creek burn, and the Quartzburg 

burn. In 1936 the Region opened the 

Tony Grove Nursery in Logan Canyon, 

Utah. It was designed to produce 2 

million seedlings annually for use in 

Utah and Idaho. Also in 1936, the Boise 

National Forest opened a small nursery 

at Bannock Creek. By the early 1940s, a 

second major nursery had been opened 

at McCall, and despite some problems, 

it was expected to help significantly in 

supplying the Region’s needs.

Unfortunately, even in the late 1930s, 

techniques for tree planting were poorly 

understood. Research and monitoring 

in the Boise Basin and on the Davis 

County watershed in Utah showed that 

seedlings did not survive well. Boise 

Basin survival rates for Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine averaged 22 and 45 percent, respectively. In Davis County, the 

survival rate in 1937 for a 1935 planting 

was only 20 percent (Alexander 1987).

The generally dry conditions in 

Region 4 forests were a factor in a lack 

of planting success, but foresters to the 

north in Region 1 territory experienced 

problems also. Chuck Wellner (1976) 

said, “Pressing problems in the District’s 

planting program and at Savenac 

Nursery resulted in a decision in 1914 

to concentrate nursery and planting 

research at Savenac and Placer Creek 

in country burned over in 1910 near 

Wallace, Idaho. Research on seed testing 

and certain fundamental nursery and 

planting studies begun at Priest River 

was continued by Larsen.”

Years later, Regional timber 

management staff personnel, nurserymen at Coeur d’Alene and Boise, 

and Intermountain Station scientists 

mounted a joint attack on reforestation 

problems and the result was dramatic 

improvement in planting success rates. 

Station geneticists were key people in 

tree improvement programs designed to 

improve the quality of seedlings used 

in the expanded planting programs of 

the 1960s and 1970s (see “Tree Planting 

Success Soars,” chapter 10).

Ponderosa pines that looked healthy, 

but would not reproduce, were planted 

by Great Basin researchers about 1915. 

This photo was taken from the EphraimOrangeville road in 1970 (Keck 1972).
26–

Early administrative trials of range 

reseeding did not fare any better than 

tree planting. A Targhee National Forest 

experiment in 1910 was “a total failure,” 

owing to the “drouth of that season.” In 

1912, after this and other such failures, 

District Forester Sherman told District 

4 Forest Supervisors who requested 

permission to reseed ranges to wait until 

the Great Basin Station completed experiments to determine “the plants that 

are most likely to succeed in soil and 

climatic conditions common in the Utah 

mountain ranges” (Alexander 1987).

The research at the Station over 

the years helped reverse the situation. 

By the 1950s, considerable scientific 

information demonstrated which plant 

species were best suited to particular 

geographic and climatic conditions. 

The information base continued to be 

expanded by geneticists and research 

foresters in subsequent years.

Range Research Ventures 

Beyond Great Basin

After Arthur Sampson left Great 

Basin in 1922, he was replaced by 

Clarence L. Forsling, the only full-time 

“technical man” at the Station. Two 

temporary field assistants rounded out 

the staff. Their vehicle fleet consisted of 

one newly acquired light Ford truck.

Forsling naturally wanted more help, 

and asked to have a ranger assigned 

at Great Basin so he wouldn’t have to 

rely on the Manti District Ranger for 

part-time assistance (Annual Report, 

GB, 1923). In spite of the small size of 

the Station and its remote location, the 

research work was considered important 

enough to draw a visit by Forest Service 

Chief William B. Greeley.

The next year’s manpower needs 

were as great as ever and chances of getting help were as slim as ever. Forsling 

was able to get some student help for the 

summer at a wage rate of $70 per month, 

plus bonus. He thought the students 

should get $120. Funds were urgently 

needed to repaint some of the 10-yearold Great Basin buildings.

Forsling and others had noted the 

advantages of an annual field day held at 

the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station (established by USDA’s Bureau of Animal 

Industry in 1915) at Dubois, a remote 

site in southeastern Idaho. The field day 

provided an opportunity to display research results and discuss them directly 

with ranchers and resource managers. It 

also was a way to heighten visibility of 

the work and facilities with the public. 

Forsling also began cooperative studies 

at the Sheep Station, the first significant 

expansion of the range research program 

beyond the Great Basin Station at 

Ephraim.

concentrated their work because they 

were grazed by sheep in the spring and 

fall (Crafts 1938), and were typical of 

vast areas of western rangelands

Long-term, season-of-use grazing trials, started in 1922, compared vegetation 

response on areas with spring grazing 

only, with fall grazing only, and with no 

grazing. Striking differences in vegetative composition were apparent in these 

and other long-term exclosures.

Other research included the effect of 

removing big sagebrush by fire on forage 

production, and management methods 

on burned areas, which was done in 

cooperation with local livestock associations (Crafts 1938). Station studies also 

included the effect of climate on plant 

growth and forage production, methods 

of reseeding depleted and burned-over 

rangelands, and ways to control exotic 

weed invasions of range lands.

In 1938, Joe Pechanec and George 

Stewart conducted landmark research 

to determine the number and sizes of 

plots needed to measure vegetation with 

an acceptable degree of confidence. 

The study, using the newest statistical 

techniques and hand calculations (long 

division, square roots), was the first to 

document how intensive sampling must 

be to accurately describe the vegetation 

of a larger area and determine with 

confidence that the treatments applied 

did, in fact, alter the vegetation (Seefeldt 

and Laycock, in preparation).

In addition to work at Dubois, Station 

researchers conducted studies in 1936 

at a work area in Fremont County, 

Wyoming, the Utah State Agricultural 

Experiment Station area near Logan, a 

work area near Kemmerer, Wyoming, 

an area on the Colorado River, and in 

Nevada at Wells and Paradise Valley.

Jim Blaisdell spent two summers 

(1941 and 1942) as a temporary worker 

at the Snake River Center and returned 

as a scientist in 1946. He was in charge 

of the Station’s research program 

there until 1954. In 1949, he hired 

range scientist Walt Mueggler, and the 

pair constituted the entire full-time 

Station staff. Mueggler took over as 

Center Leader in 1954 when Blaisdell 

transferred to Missoula. Mueggler 

was reassigned to the Inland Empire 

Research Center in Spokane in 1955 

(Laycock 1990).

1922

Great Basin 

Experiment Station

Great Basin & Ogden Headquarters

Coop Unit – U.S. Sheep Station

While the Bureau of Animal 

Industry’s research program at Dubois 

focused on sheep breeding, the Station 

focused on the range resource. A series 

of pastures were used to assess proper 

use and season of use, carrying capacity 

and range forage requirements, grazing 

systems to promote rangland health, 

range improvements, and sheep management procedures (Mitchell and others 

2005).

Research at what later was designated 

the Station’s Upper Snake River Center 

at the U.S. Sheep Station had wide-ranging applications. The experimental area 

represented several major ecosystems of 

the Intermountain West, including desert 

sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass, 

intermediate subalpine sagebrush-grasslands such as Idaho fescue, mountain 

bromegrass, and others on the foothills 

of the high-elevation summer ranges, 

and subalpine meadows and forests 

along the Continental Divide (Schmidt 

and Friede 1996). About 30,000 acres 

were sagebrush-wheatgrass range where 

Intermountain Station scientists 
–27

Some highlights of Mueggler’s career 

after he left Dubois illustrate how, a half 

century ago, Station researchers moved 

with program shifts and as needs for 

their expertise changed. Mueggler made 

fundamental scientific contributions 

by developing classification systems 

throughout his career. At Spokane, he 

made a study of seral shrub communities 

in northern Idaho; the results became his 

Ph.D. dissertation and were published in 

1965 as an Ecological Monograph.

Mueggler moved to the new Bozeman 

Lab in 1961 as Project Leader of a 

mountain grassland unit. There he 

developed a habitat type classification 

for the grasslands and shrublands of 

western Montana, described in a major 

publication issued in 1980. His research 

at Bozeman included a variety of smaller 

studies, including one of elk-shrub 

interactions, reflecting the increasing 

emphasis by Station range scientists on 

wildlife habitat research. The next stop 

was Logan, where Mueggler served as 

Project Leader of the mountain 

grassland and aspen ecology unit from 

1974 until he retired in 1988. Again, the 

most time-consuming personal study 

involved development of a classification 

system, this time for aspen community types of the Intermountain Region 

(Mueggler, personal communication).

Station research was discontinued at 

the Sheep Station after 1972 for budgetary reasons. All research responsibilities 

were assumed by the Agricultural 

Research Service in 1974. A link to 

the Station work was provided when 

ARS hired Bob Murray, a scientist at 

the Boise Lab. Murray continued to do 

research at the Sheep Station until he 

retired in 1987 (Laycock 1990).

The Station also expanded range 

research by establishing artificial range 

reseeding nurseries near Ogden and 

Logan, Utah. The research program had 

close contact with National Forest administration in carrying out these studies 

because it was the only Station doing 

any work with sagebrush, considered 

a problem for a number of National 

Forests (Pechanec interview, 1993).

The Cowboy Forester

Despite what sounded like an 

expanding program, Station Director 

Forsling found himself the only person 

to direct at the Great Basin Station 

in the winter of 1924. This happened 

because one of his assistants resigned 

to join Sampson as a professor at the 

University of California, and the other 

assistant was promoted to a job with the 

Wyoming National Forest. Nevertheless, 

his plan for a summer field day went 

forward and the Station’s first field day 

was held August 29-30, 1924. More than 

125 stockmen, Forest Service officers, 

and Extension people attended (Annual 

Report, GB, 1925).

Raised on a ranch, Forsling became 

a forester because of the romantic image of forest rangers portrayed in the 

magazines he read as a youth (INTercom

Jan/Feb/91). His first job in 1915 was 

supervising range survey crews in the 

Cache National Forest in Utah. The next 

year, he was transferred to the Jornada 

Experimental Range in New Mexico. 

There he was transformed into one of 

the first range scientists.

In a 1977 interview, Forsling said, 

“The only range management (training) 

that I had was picked up at home or in 

The two full-time Station researchers 

outside the office of the Upper Snake 

River Research Center at Dubois, 

Idaho, in about 1952. Center Leader 

Jim Blaisdell (left) and Walt Mueggler 

conducted studies on spring/fall sagebrush-grass rangelands in conjunction 

with sheep breeding research by the 

Bureau of Animal Industry. Blaisdell 

went on to become an Assistant Station 

Director. Mueggler had a long career 

with the Station as a Project Leader 

and scientist conducting grassland and 

shrubland research.

The U.S. Sheep Station location was remote, and for those who lived there 

winters could be tedious. Walt Mueggler said he and Jim Blaisdell usually developed severe cases of “cabin fever” shortly before spring weather arrived. Then, 

Division Chief Linc Ellison would show up to give them a pep talk, and “we’d be 

fired up again” (Mueggler, personal communication). This photo was taken June 

1, 1933, after a somewhat unusual late-season snow storm.
28–

the summers I spent on range surveys 

between school semesters.” But he did 

have the benefit of the same strong 

botany program at the University of 

Nebraska that produced Arthur Sampson 

and W.R. Chapline.

Forsling’s immediate success at 

Jornada probably stemmed from his 

early life as a cowboy rather than his 

academic training. He was the first 

person with the ability to achieve regulation of livestock at Jornada and he got 

the stockmen to cooperate in sharing 

their records with the researchers. Later 

at Great Basin he no doubt did rely on 

his academic background to successfully 

supervise completion of much of the 

range-watershed research started by 

Sampson.

Forsling served as Station Director 

until 1930, so he got opportunities to supervise research in forestry areas as well 

as range management. He then moved 

into the Washington Office, becoming 

the Deputy Chief for Research in 1937. 

One of his early national assignments 

created serious controversy. Forsling 

was assigned to help finish The Western 

Range, a 600-page report that took 4 

years to prepare. It bluntly stated that 

rangelands were seriously deteriorated 

for two basic reasons—Interior had 

failed to live up to its management 

responsibilities and the 1934 Taylor 

Grazing Act gave the livestock industry 

too much power. The report said the 

solution was to have the Forest Service 

manage all Federal rangelands.

Interior Secretary Harold Ickes and 

the livestock industry took exception. 

They vigorously challenged the Forest 

Service research findings. Stockmen did 

a study of their own that showed lack of 

rainfall, not overgrazing, caused range 

depletion (Steen 1998). A period of tense 

relations between the two Federal departments began that lasted for decades.

Some Help Arrives, but 

Not Much

In 1925 the Station staff was back 

to three “technical men” on a full-year 

basis. More help arrived for the summer 

season, causing Forsling to plead for 

another house to be built at the Station. 

Two families, a cook, and another person were all housed in one building. In 

addition, three other people joined them 

for meals. In his annual report, Forsling 

said, “...such a ‘family’ could be happy 

under one roof only under extraordinary 

circumstances.” Another Forsling statement reflected how personnel policies 

have changed since the 1920s: “Every 

effort will be made to have an unmarried 

clerk in the future, but there is no saying 

to what extent we will be successful in 

heading off matrimony even though we 

start out with an unmarried clerk.” The 

idea was to get a male clerk who could 

Station Director C. L. Forsling skied to the headquarters on April 27, 1927. 

Maintenance at Great Basin was known to be excellent. A handwritten note in the 

Great Basin scrapbook tells the story of an occasion when a good thing may have 

been overdone. The arch was broken (in about 1934) by a cement truck entering 

the headquarters area. Repairs were made so quickly that the arch was rebuilt 

before the truck left the area. When the truck left, it knocked the arch down again.

Station Director C. L. Forsling led an inter-regional fire inspection party in 

1932 on Grass Mountain in the old Idaho National Forest.
–29

be used to help with manual labor in 

the field when clerking duties got a bit 

slack.

Also in 1925, District 4 decided to 

get back into administrative studies 

involving lodgepole pine, ponderosa 

pine, and aspen. The Investigative 

Committee complained about the 2-to 

3-year length of time it took to get study 

results from manuscript to print. Forest 

Service researchers and editors are light 

years faster in getting research results 

disseminated now, but the work can 

never be done promptly enough. There 

will always be complaints that editorial 

and production work is not fast enough.

Pressures to publish and difficulty in 

getting work published must have been 

considerably different in the 1920’s 

than they were later. By 1926, the Great 

Basin Station listed only six publications 

since its 1912 inception. Of course, the 

permanent staff was still a slim total of 

three “technical men” with one to three 

summer assistants.

In addition to research under way 

at Ephraim, browse studies were being 

conducted in the Dixie National Forest 

in southern Utah, and cooperative 

studies at the U.S. Sheep Station. Some 

help was received from National Forest 

officers detailed to the Station for four 

weeks of training at the three sites. The 

detailers included forest supervisors, 

deputy supervisors, rangers, and range 

examiners. Still, compilation and 

analysis of field data was not keeping up 

with data collection. Forsling wanted to 

hire a man for a $2,400 salary and $600 

expenses to do the job.

Equipment was so scarce that 

employees were using their own cars on 

the rough dirt roads much of the time. 

What was needed, according to Forsling, 

was a properly equipped Dodge touring 

car for $1,000. Another building at the 

Great Basin site was still on the wish 

list to relieve the crowding pressures of 

families and single persons living and 

eating together during the summer field 

season.

Was the Work Important?

Total funding for the Great Basin 

Station reached only $12,901 in 1926, 

and Forsling began questioning openly 

whether research findings related to 

range management were being recognized within the administrative ranks of 

the Forest Service. Research had been 

under way for 20 years without gaining 

much support; and, in the beginning, 

Forest Service administrative leaders 

had been skeptical or indifferent about 

the possibilities of range management. 

Apparently, Forsling wasn’t sure if those 

attitudes had changed much over the 

years (Annual Report, GB, 1927).

Forsling left the Forest Service in 

1944 to head Interior’s Grazing Service . 

“No doubt it was the cowboy in me that 

led me away from forest research into 

the Grazing Service,” he said. Shortly 

after the Bureau of Land Management 

was created with the Grazing Service as 

a key component, Forsling retired with 

39 years of government service.

Investigations and administrative 

studies in District 4 were placed in four 

categories in 1927: (1) range research 

at the Great Basin Station, paid for 

by research funds; (2) administrative 

range projects; (3) administrative forest 

management projects conducted by 

National Forest staffs under direction 

of the District Office; and, (4) fish and 

game management studies conducted by 

National Forest personnel in cooperation 

with the Office of Lands.

The research activity within District 

4 carried out by the Great Basin Station 

was of quite limited scale and scope. 

Forest Service research was not involved 

in areas other than range research within 

District 4 territory, so the District and 

its National Forests had to rely on 

administrative studies to provide needed 

information.

The research emphasis placed on 

range, given limited resources, was 

undoubtedly proper. A 1923 census 

estimated 1.3 million cattle and 5.7 

million sheep in the District 4 territory. 

Range management was a major activity 

for the National Forests of the District, 

and the 1927 programs reflected that. 

The District 4 Investigative Committee 

stated that the essentials of the research 

program were to ensure maintenance 

and full development of industries utilizing water and providing water; to make 

full use of 80 percent of the land area for 

production of timber, forage, and associated resources; and to supply as much 

as possible of the commodities while 

affording recreation, hunting, outdoor 

life, and scenery viewing opportunities. 

This was one of the early mentions of 

the nonconsumptive uses of the National 

Forests in a document describing research, but they were not given the same 

status as the production of water, timber, 

and forage (Annual Report, GB, 1928).
30–
–31

Although the Experiment Stations were a fairly early creation within 

the Forest Service, the first Stations were 

much different than those that developed 

later. The early Stations were minuscule 

in both staffing and funding, and were 

administratively part of a National 

Forest District (now National Forest 

System Region).

Even with the establishment of 

experiment stations at a number of 

western locations, research was almost 

wholly submerged in the Forest 

Service’s efforts to administer the 

National Forests. Administration was 

a huge task that started almost from 

scratch because Interior had done little 

with the forest reserves, so there was 

no program to build on. Compared 

to National Forest Administration, 

Research was out of sight and out of 

mind for most Forest Service people 

(Storey 1975). Research faced another 

big problem, according to Assistant 

Chief Forester Earle Clapp. He wrote, 

“That the national requirements for forest research have not been met during 

the last decade is primarily because 

sufficient men with the necessary 

mental equipment and training have for 

one reason or another been nonavailable.” Clapp also said the agency 

routinely used Research as a dumping 

ground for those who did not fit well in 

Administration (Steen 1998).

Eight years of efforts by Clapp to 

gain legislative recognition of the Forest 

Service research organization paid off 

in 1928 when the McSweeney-McNary 

Act was passed as the organic act for 

research. Congress authorized $3.575 

million for research annually through 

1938, in much the manner envisioned 

by Clapp in 1926 when he proposed a 

revamped and vastly expanded national 

program. The authorization put research 

funding at a ratio of 1:20 with other 

Forest Service activities.

The McSweeney-McNary Act gave 

the Branch of Research a more important place within the Forest Service. 

It strengthened the ability to deal with 

other agencies, dealt with nonfederal 

research, and began to balance funding 

for silvicultural and products research 

(Steen 1998). The Act expanded the 

areas of research responsibility, and 

provided for funding by a specific 

research budget line item. There was 

no overnight transformation for the 

Stations, however. The promise of the 

Act for research was soon dampened by 

a national economic downturn following 

the stock market crash of 1929 and the 

Great Depression, which lasted from the 

early 1930s until World War II. Thus, 

the flowering of the Forest Service 

research program came many years later 

than hoped for by the Forest Service 

leadership.

The act followed Clapp’s national 

program concept by authorizing a number of Experiment Stations, including 

the Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

already operating under that name, and 

adding a Station for “the intermountain 

region of Utah and adjoining States.” 

It also provided $100,000 to USDA’s 

Bureau of Plant Industry to study native 

and naturalized diseases of forests 

and forest products, including white 

pine blister rust. Forest insect research 

assigned to the Bureau of Entomology 

fared better in funding because bark 

beetles destroyed more timber than was 

removed by fires and timber harvesting 

combined.

McSweeney-McNary instituted a 

nationwide survey of all forested areas, 

a new program that would become important to the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station and later to the Intermountain 

Station. It took a few years for the 

program to develop.

Wildlife research was also authorized by the act—to be conducted by 

USDA’s Biological Survey, not by 

the Forest Service. Investigations of 

weather related to forest fires also were 

authorized. The Forest Service was to 

do the research necessary to aid the U.S. 

Weather Bureau in making forecasts of 

forest fire hazards.

The McSweeney-McNary Act 

was a tremendous benefit to Forest 

Service research through expanding the 

scope of the program, authorizing the 

establishment of experiment stations, 

and increasing the research budget. In 

the first year following passage in 1928, 

Forest Service research was funded at 

$906,000; this increased to $2.6 million 

by 1938. Part of this was in increase on 

paper only, however. Appropriations 

during the first decade of the act never 

reached the levels authorized.

The first year, there were no funding increases at all. President Calvin 

Coolidge had obtained a promise from 

Congress that the research budget would 

remain as it was for a year, so the 1929-

1930 fiscal year was the first to include 

McSweeney-McNary appropriation 

increases. They totaled 20 percent. 

Included in the bill was authorization 

for the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station in Ogden. Of significance to the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station was $40,000 to begin the Forest 

Survey (Steen 1998).

Twenty percent sounds like a big 

hike, but the starting point was low. 

For example, the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station in 1928 had only 

a four-man technical staff, a female 

clerk, and a budget of $22,254 One 

staff person was the Station Ranger, 

one covered forest management, one 

C h a p t e r 5.

Congress Authorizes Stations
32–

covered fire, and Station Director R. 

H. Weidman handled supervision and 

special projects (Wellner 1976). A plea 

was made for more research help to (1) 

work on fire control by detecting fires 

more quickly and getting men to the fire 

more quickly, (2) determine growth and 

yield of western larch in Montana, and 

(3) address the most important national 

problem...leaving and maintaining 

cut-over land in a productive condition. 

No funds were available for grazing 

research; yet grazing problems in the 

District 1 National Forests were second 

only to timber management problems.

Only $136,000 was being spent by all 

agencies combined for research in the 

Northern Rockies that year. The Station 

and District 1 together spent $45,100. 

By contrast, the Office of Blister Rust 

Control spent $54,000.
–33

Wildland fire was a major research 

area for the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station throughout its history. 

At the Station’s inception, fire did more 

than pose difficult scientific questions. 

Its very presence interfered with the 

research program.

A disastrous fire season in 1926 

seriously interrupted research field work 

in northern Idaho and western Montana. 

Forest Service policy at the time was to 

give fire fighting top priority, and that 

meant researchers were shifted from 

their normal duties to the fire lines as 

needed. Although current policy calls for 

research personnel to continue with their 

research assignments except for serious 

emergency situations, the old policy 

was understandable because the Stations 

continued to be units of the National 

Forest System Districts.

The Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station annual report for the preceding 

year stated, “Although it is questionable 

whether the highest efficiency is served 

by keeping research men on fire lines 

for protracted periods of a normal fire 

season, as was done for nearly four manmonths in 1925, there is no doubt that in 

such a grave emergency as last summer 

the research man should be mobilized.”

The northern Rockies have a short 

field season, and the field assistants, who 

were mainly forestry students, returned 

to their universities in September. Thus, 

a bad fire season was a significant 

impediment to research progress. Harry 

Gisborne was out on so many fires in 

the summer of 1926 that he planned on 

no research getting done. But, in spite 

of the bad fire season, the energetic 

Gisborne was able to prepare a manuscript, Measuring Forest Fire Danger in 

Northern Idaho.

As a means to expand the Station’s 

research program, cooperative research 

was undertaken with the University of 

Idaho, University of Montana, the Forest 

Products Lab, the Bureau of Entomology 

and the Bureau of Plant Industry. Of 

course, the extent of cooperation varied 

with the organizations involved.

Cooperation with the University of 

Idaho went beyond research activity. 

The Idaho School of Forestry began to 

hold a field session at Priest River covering investigative work and timber sale 

practices as taught by the staff of the 

Kaniksu National Forest (Wellner1976). 

Although the idea of Priest River as a 

model sustained-yield forest had been 

discarded, the demonstration forest 

concept was very much in effect to show 

foresters and lumbermen a variety of 

things without the small research staff 

having to travel over a wide area.

Other USDA agencies were studying 

mountain pine beetle control in lodgepole and ponderosa pine stands, along 

with Ribes ecology and chemical control 

of white pine blister rust. Early estimates 

were that it would take 15 years to control blister rust in the northern Rockies. 

This turned out to be a wildly optimistic 

projection. The same report also claimed 

mountain pine beetle control was being 

done for 5 cents per acre, but didn’t 

indicate its effectiveness.

Progress was made in several 

administrative areas. The trail system at 

Priest River almost reached completion, 

and the University of Idaho started the 

Idaho Forest Experiment Station. The 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station also 

began to look at the possibilities of 

creating additional experimental forests. 

District 1 changed the name of its 

Investigative Committee to Investigative 

Council and expanded its membership 

outside the Forest Service for the first 

time. Members were concerned that 

some projects being submitted to the 

council really were not research items. 

The council undertook, apparently for 

the first time in District 1, to define 

the terms “research,” “investigation,” 

“study,” and “experiment.” They identified 63 categories of research, including, 

for example, “nursery practices” and 

“wood chemistry.”

Experimental Areas—

Establishment and 

Disestablishment

Despite continued meager funding, 

the Station began expansion plans to 

have three experimental forests for 

western white pine, and one in each of 

the lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and 

larch-fir types. Priest River and Bernice 

in Montana already existed, and an 

experimental forest at Coram, Montana, 

was approved. Priest River and Bernice 

had been earmarked much earlier for 

research purposes, but their use as 

C h a p t e r 6.

The Northern Rocky Mountain Station, 

1926-1953

Harry Gisborne speaking to University 

of Montana Forestry School seniors in 

1940 at the Priest River clearcut inflammability station. Priest River was a place 

for natural resource students to learn 

from its earliest days as a research and 

demonstration area.
34–

experimental forests was not confirmed 

with an official designation until 1931.

Two years later, Deception Creek 

gained formal recognition as an 

experimental forest. At about the same 

time, the Station concentrated its range 

research at what was known initially as 

the U.S. Range Livestock Experiment 

Station at Fort Keough, Montana.

Before the 1930s, the Forest Service 

did not have mechanisms to make 

meaningful designations of experimental 

forests and ranges. New regulations 

administered by the Secretary of 

Agriculture changed that (Regulation 

L-20 was usually the authority for 

establishing experimental areas). The 

change was important in preserving the 

areas for their intended purposes. When 

an experimental forest or range was 

designated officially, it also was withdrawn by the Department of the Interior 

from mining entry. If this was not done, 

mining law (until 1994) allowed private 

parties to prospect for valuable deposits, 

stake a claim, and take title to the land 

should the claim produce commercial 

quantities of ore. Even if the claim did 

not change title by being “patented,” 

the miner could occupy and work the 

land by paying small annual fees and 

demonstrating that some development 

work had been done. This apparently did 

not happen within experimental areas in 

the Station territory, but it surely could 

have, especially in heavily mineralized 

parts of Montana and central Idaho.

At Priest River, a different kind 

of problem took 17 years to unravel 

(Wellner 1976). At the time the experimental forest was being established, 

officials of the State of Idaho and USDA 

were reaching an agreement to convey 

lands to the State to compensate for 

sections within National Forest boundaries. This would have removed all of the 

experimental forest lands from Federal 

ownership.

The State and the Forest Service 

agreed that ownership of the Priest River 

lands would remain as it was, but somehow that agreement never got to the 

right people. The lands were selected by 

the State and the transfer was approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. No 

one in State government had authority 

to correct the mistake. Finally, it was 

necessary for the Federal government to 

bring a “friendly lawsuit” against Idaho 

to recover the lands. This was done, and 

the Supreme Court decreed that ownership would be returned to the United 

States.

Other problems with land titles in 

the Benton and Canyon Creek drainages 

were gradually solved without recourse 

to the highest court in the land. But it 

was 20 years from the time Priest River 

was established until the Chief of the 

Forest Service signed an order making it 

official in 1931. Some other ownership 

changes followed, and another 30 years 

passed before Public Land Order 2377 

withdrew the final 6,368-acre experimental forest. Even then, the order had 

the acreage wrong!

The specter of severe disruption of 

research studies by mining activities and 

questionable land ownership, such as 

that at Priest River, evidentally caused 

Forest Service Research to start a program to formalize designations. Getting 

everything in order took a long time. In 

a 1955 letter to the Chief, Reed Bailey, 

director of the newly merged Northern 

Rocky Mountain and Intermountain 

Stations, reported progress, but also 

listed several actions still to be taken 

(Bailey 1955). Two areas in the old 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station territory never achieved formal status.

Bailey’s report listed a 5,000-acre 

“Piquette Creek Experimental Forest” 

on National Forest land near Darby, 

Montana, that was “established Dec. 

20, 1939 by administrative approval of 

[the] Regional Forester.” In the remarks 

section, Bailey listed “none.” All or 

part of this tract may have been used 

for research in an informal way for 

years. Ultimately, the Lick Creek 

Ecosystem Management/Research 

Demonstration Area was established in 

this part of Montana by a cooperative 

agreement between the Intermountain 

Station and Bitterroot National Forest 

in 1991 (see “The Ecosystem Approach 

Comes to Lick Creek,” chapter 11). 

Wellner (1976) noted that the “Piquette 

Experimental Forest” was in a 

ponderosa pine timber area within the 

Bitterroot National Forest, and that it 

had been “disestablished.” Because it 

never had been established formally at 

the national level, this change probably 

simply involved a revocation by the 

Regional Forester of the approval to use 

it as a research area.

Bailey also said that a “Fort 

Missoula Experimental Range” of 40 

acres had been established in 1949 by 

“informal agreement” with the Regional 

Forester on land transferred from the 

War Department to the Bureau of Land 

Management. The report noted that the 

area was reserved for research use by 

the Forest Service, although no studies 

had been started there, and the newly 

formed Agricultural Research Service 

might want to use it for revegetation 

research.

Bernice and Priest River were 

formally designated, but their use and 

development were much different. 

Although subject to big swings in 

funding, research generally grew and 

diversified at Priest River over the years. 

It never really got going at Bernice.

Station administrative files contain 

a chart titled “Bernice Experimental 

Forest,” with data from a timber inventory made in 1914. Bernice included 

2,909 acres in the Deerlodge National 

Forest near Basin, about 30 miles from 

Butte. Most of the area was covered by 

timber, and 70 percent of the trees were 

lodgepole pine.

Because Butte was booming at the 

time as a center of the mining industry, 

and the mines needed large numbers of 

timbers, it was thought there would be 

a ready market for Bernice timber. This 

situation, and the presence of a local 

charcoal burner that used small-diameter 

wood, fit into the District 1 plans for experiments at Bernice. Early documents 

said the area was “teeming with deer 

and elk,” so studies of effects of various 

habitat alterations on big game also were 

envisioned.

The master plan was to make a 

variety of selection, strip, and clear 

cuts on a regular, sustained-yield basis 

to gain experimental data and conduct 

management demonstrations. To transport the logs, a 3-mile road was built 

into the area in 1917. However, World 

War I manpower needs and transfers 

of several people most interested in the 

project prevented further development 

of the area by District 1. The 1931 

experimental forest establishment document said, “Research was not able to 

do work on the area, because of limited 
–35

funds and the need to concentrate 

its activity in the western white pine 

type.”

The research organization never was 

able to do work at Bernice, although 

Harry Gisborne, chief of the division 

of forest management research in 

1942, encouraged development of the 

demonstration forest concept. Gisborne 

said he was confident that the Bernice 

District Forest Ranger and a willing 

local timber operator would be able 

to conduct a harvesting program that 

would “leave on the ground some 

excellent demonstration of applied silviculture, utilization, and brush disposal 

which will be of great value to future 

foresters.” Not surprisingly “the father 

of forest fire research” included a bit of 

advice about cutting and leaving brush 

in a few areas so that “if a fire gets in 

there, the results will be obvious.”

The single road was extended to 

cross the Bernice parcel and some 

timber was cut. The largest timber 

sales were made during World War II 

years, not for experimental purposes, 

but as part of the war effort to provide 

timbers and charcoal wood for the local 

copper mines and smelters.

Acting on the recommendation 

of the Station, the Forest Service 

disestablished the Bernice Experimental 

Forest in 1962. The land was returned 

to the Deerlodge National Forest for 

general management purposes. The 

disestablishment recommendation 

said “no investigative work had been 

done” there and that Bernice had “no 

outstanding characteristics to qualify it 

above other comparable National Forest 

lands as an area for future research.”

The original proposal by research 

was to hold “from 100 to 500 acres” 

within the experimental forest as a 

Research Natural Area (see next section). Gisborne assessed the parcel in 

1943 and recommended a 300-acre 

RNA. The District Ranger posted it 

as a “closed area.” When Bernice was 

disestablished in 1962, the report said 

the tract had never been recommended 

to the Washington Office for formal 

designation as a natural area. The 

report said, “Because there appears to 

be no sentiment either public or Forest 

Service against abandoning the proposed 

natural area, all boundary signs shall be 

removed.”

The report authors apparently hadn’t 

checked the “sentiment” of Chuck 

Wellner, the Station’s persistent champion of RNA establishment (See “Chuck 

Wellner—Forest Science Visionary,” 

chapter 11). Wellner probably put the 

area on his “to examine” list. After a 

detailed analysis, a 451-acre Bernice 

Research Natural Area was formally 

designated in 1996.

Wellner (1976) said national research 

reorganization away from research 

centers to single-discipline projects in 

the 1960s threatened the continued existence of Priest River as an experimental 

forest. Part of the reorganization was a 

move away from experimental forests to 

laboratories.

The buildings and other improvements at Priest River required costly 

maintenance and national office personnel suggested that the experimental 

forest should be disestablished as 

Bernice and Piquette had been, or at 

least that many buildings should be 

closed and Priest River should operate 

only as a summer facility. Station management insisted that Priest River was 

needed, and it was retained. In 1961, 

Intermountain Station Director Bailey 

decided all the headquarters buildings 

would remain and so would year-round 

operations (Wellner 1976). However, 

funding problems continued.

One side effect of the move to singlediscipline research was that funding was 

provided by several individual units 

rather than as a lump sum allocated by 

Station Headquarters. Disagreements 

flourished over how much each unit 

should contribute, and how the funds 

would be spent. The bickering became 

so extreme that some high-profile 

research was moved away from Priest 

River to other National Forest lands.

The strong-willed scientists got 

together some years later and devised a 

three-tiered funding system that created 

different levels of contributions by 

various types of users. The Priest River 

system worked so well that after the 

Intermountain-Rocky Mountain Station 

merger, the new Station applied it to 

other experimental forests (Graham 

2004).

Other Special Areas

Nine Research Natural Areas (RNAs) 

were selected by forest type in 1929, 

and District 1 began looking for possible 

wilderness areas to set aside. RNAs are 

special areas designated by the Forest 

Service within National Forests that are 

permanently protected and maintained in 

This composite photo of central Montana slopes covered with lodgepole pine was made in 1915 as part of an intensive topographic and mapping survey of the Bernice Experimental Forest area. The map makers added landmark information by hand 

to supplement data from old survey markers they found to define the Bernice location.
36–

natural conditions to conserve biological 

diversity. They are available for research 

that does not manipulate the vegetation and for low-impact educational 

activities. Stations are responsible for 

administering research activities in 

RNAs. The National Forests have 

general administrative and protection 

responsibilities for them. RNAs should 

not be confused with wilderness areas, 

which are established by Congress under 

provisions of the Wilderness Act of 

1964, and have different purposes.

The Wilderness Act refers to research 

use only in a very general way. One 

provision states: “Except as otherwise 

provided...wilderness areas shall be 

devoted to the public purposes of 

recreational, scenic, scientific (emphasis 

added), educational, conservation, and 

historical use.” Stations are not specifically made responsible for scientific 

activities within designated wildernesses, as they are for RNAs. The National 

Forests that administer the acreage 

exercise control over scientific activities 

in wildernesses, although individual 

cases often involve consultation with 

Station personnel, and Intermountain 

Station scientists conducted studies in 

wilderness starting in the early 1960s.

The concept of wilderness in the late 

1920s and early 1930s differed from 

that defined in the Wilderness Act and 

generally understood today (Alexander 

1987). A major purpose of National 

Forest wilderness areas under the early 

concept was to recapture a sense of past 

times, but resource use was allowed. 

Forest Service Chief Robert Y. Stuart 

argued consistently in 1928 that wilderness designation would not unduly 

“curtail timber cutting, grazing, water 

development, mining, or other forms of 

economic utilization...but rather...guard 

against their unnecessary invasion by 

roads, resorts, summer-home communities, or other forms of use incompatible 

with the public enjoyment of their major 

values.”

Thus, some forms of environmental 

change could be allowed, but economic 

activities and recreation involving technological development were excluded. 

Stuart envisioned areas “within which 

primitive conditions of subsistence, 

habitation, transportation, and environment will permanently be maintained to 

the fullest practicable degree.”

The first National Forest “wilderness” had been designated in 1924 in 

New Mexico. In 1928 the Forest Service 

developed a formal program to assess 

lands and designate those with wilderness qualities as primitive areas. By 

1937 the service had set aside 72 primitive areas encompassing 13.5 million 

acres in 10 western States (Alexander 

1987). The area served by the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station eventually 

included millions of acres of designated 

Wilderness, an important consideration 

in locating the Nation’s first wilderness 

research unit in Missoula.

Cooperators Join Council

In 1929, District 1 still had its 

Investigative Council chaired by Evan 

Kelley, the District Forester. Included in 

the council were the forestry schools of 

Idaho and Montana, the Office of Blister 

Rust Control, consulting foresters, 

private timber operators, the Weather 

Bureau, the Bureau of Entomology, 

forestry researchers in British Columbia, 

State Foresters, the Timber Protective 

Association, and the Indian Service. At 

the annual meeting in Spokane, emphasis was placed on speeding publication 

and getting research results out and 

into use (Annual Report, NRM 1930). 

District 1 was still in the research business via administrative studies. In fact, 

District 1 was doing more research in 

1929 through administrative studies than 

was the Station. Cooperation between 

the two units appeared to be good, 

however, with the Station using District 

1 field men to work on research projects.

Four more centers of blister rust 

infection of western white pine were 

found during the year, adding to the urgency of blister rust research. Mountain 

pine beetles continued to be significant 

pests as well. Control techniques studied 

included the use of parasites, peeling 

and burning the bark of infested trees, 

and the use of chemicals to kill the 

beetles (Annual Report, NRM 1930).

A variety of studies of forest insects 

was being conducted by Bureau of 

Entomology researchers working out 

of the Coeur d’ Alene field laboratory. 

During the lab’s existence, under the 

direction of Jim Evenden, research involved the biology and natural enemies 

(parasites and predators) of the mountain 

pine beetle; biology of the Douglas-fir 

beetle; methods of controlling bark 

beetles, including using toxic sprays; the 

western spruce budworm; and surveys 

of insect infestations.

Tom Terrell was the second staff 

member hired by Evenden. His career in 

forest entomology began quite accidentally. Terrell was reporting to work as a 

fire guard for the Forest Service when, 

he said, “At Wisdom (Montana) I got 

on the wrong Forest Service truck and 

ended up at a bark beetle control camp 

where I met Jim Evenden. Jim thought 

that I might be a good spotter (locating 

infested trees to be treated).”

In 1930 Terrell scored a first in the 

survey work that was to become an 

Intermountain Station responsibility in 

1954. He made the first aerial survey 

of forest insect damage in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains, covering Yellowstone 

National Park. The first flight of the 

survey, from a field in Livingston, 

Montana, was an adventure, and an 

unsuccessful one at that (Furniss, in 

preparation). Terrell gave this account:

Away we went and got lost in the 

Absaroka Mountains where we were 

caught in a violent rainstorm. The plane 

was a small open-cockpit biplane, the 

pilot in the rear and me up front. The 

engine went quiet! Then loud pounding 

behind me! I was about to dive over 

the side and pull the ripcord when I 

discovered that the pilot was pounding 

on the plane to get my attention. He got 

it. He wanted to know if I didn’t think we 

ought to go back? He had cut the engine 

so he could talk to me. I most certainly 

agreed with him. I was scared stiff. 

We made it back to the field where Jim 

Evenden was waiting. By that time the 

storm was real bad. The pilot taxied the 

plane up to the fence where we jumped 

out and with the help of Jim hung onto 

the plane and the fence to keep the plane 

on the ground until the storm let up.

The Station staff didn’t change in 

1931 but the first major increases in 

funds in a decade materialized. Funding 

jumped from $22,254 to $45,000. A big 

share, $20,000, was to start the Forest 

Survey. Fire research received $15,000, 
–37

and $10,000 went to the cooperative 

range research program at Fort Keogh, 

Montana. The range program gained 

recognition of the highest order—the 

Station added it to its name. The organization officially became the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station (Wellner 1976).

Forest Survey Begins and 

Interest Grows in Other 

Work

Congress had authorized a nationwide 

survey of all forested areas, irrespective 

of ownership, in the McSweeneyMcNary Act of 1928. There was, 

however, little enthusiasm to start the survey at a time the market for timber was 

virtually nonexistent at the beginning of 

the Great Depression. A committee did 

meet in 1930 to establish policy for the 

survey (Baker and others 1993).

Using the $20,000 it received earlier, 

the Station began its first survey in 

northern Idaho in 1932. It was completed in 1937. During the project, private 

and public information on the condition 

and volume of timber was checked and 

adjusted to conform to Forest Survey 

standards. Areas that included merchantable timber for which information was 

unavailable were cruised using the linetransect method.

The Montana inventory, including the 

collection of growth and timber removal 

information, began in 1934. Before its 

interruption by World War II, the survey 

was completed for that part of the State 

west of the Continental Divide and in 

four counties east of the Divide.

While the nationwide Forest 

Survey proceeded, independent forest 

inventories were conducted by the 

National Forests to strengthen the data 

base for management planning. These 

inventories, however, were limited in 

scope because of a drastic reduction in 

funding for timber survey allotments. 

The entire District was allocated $5,100 

to $5,700 for surveys during each fiscal 

year between 1929 and 1935. The work 

usually was done for the commercial 

timber parts of each National Forest 

and defined by block, working circle, or 

some other geographic area.

From 1929 to 1938 some form of 

timber inventory work was conducted 

by most of the National Forests of the 

District, and in several, including the 

Deerlodge and St. Joe, five inventories 

were made during the 8-year period. 

These inventories, although limited, 

facilitated the development of timber 

management plans and contributed to 

early attempts to develop sustained-yield 

programs (Baker and others 1993).

In 1932, District 1 was using $10,000 

per year for studies on the placement 

of fire lookouts, smoke chasers, roads, 

trails, and telephone lines, reflecting the 

high interest the Forest Service had, and 

continued to have, in forest fire control 

in the northern Rockies. Because Forest 

Service policy now was to place all 

research activity within the Stations, 

forest products, fire, and silviculture 

research undertaken by the District 

were transferred to the Station, adding 

$14,000 to the Station budget.

An increase of $43,000 went to fire 

research, Forest Survey, and range 

research. The Station was slow to 

expand in the latter two areas because 

of the impossibility of recruiting trained 

personnel during fire season. Range 

research was centralized at Fort Keogh.

District 1’s 1931 annual meeting of 

the Investigative Council had produced a 

number of significant recommendations. 

All of the research agencies, including 

the Station, were again criticized for 

failure to get much-needed information 

out to forest administrators and lumbermen promptly and in a form showing 

direct application to forest practice. 

This was neither the first nor last time 

research organizations were to hear this 

criticism. As a partial solution to the 

problem council members asked that 

Tom Terrell posed at the Spokane airport in 1932 with a plane equipped by the 

Bureau of Entomology with insect traps mounted between the wings. The plane 

was ready for a flight over Priest Lake country in studies to “test out flight habits 

of beetles at high altitude.” Terrell used a similar aircraft for his historic insect 

damage survey flights over Yellowstone National Park in 1930.

Inventory work in National Forests 

sometimes turned up surprises. This 

lodgepole pine, having an increment 

core removed here by Region 1 forester 

Harvey Toko, was 19 inches in diameter 

in 1966. It and other lodgepoles were 

the largest trees in a white pine plantation established in 1911 in the Coeur 

d’Alene National Forest.
38–

Applied Forestry Notes, discontinued in 

1926, be revived.

Questions arose regarding the 

Forest Service’s ability to perpetuate 

western white pine, the prime timber 

species of the area. Western white pine 

was difficult to protect from fire, was 

attacked during pine beetle epidemics, 

and was susceptible to blister rust. With 

the onset of the Great Depression some 

unemployment relief funds were made 

available to use for blister rust control at 

the same time regular blister rust control 

funds were being reduced. With the 

potential demise of western white pine 

as a commercial species, it was apparent 

to the District 1 timber management 

staff that little research information was 

available to help stem the losses. This 

was true as well for western redcedar, 

another commercially valuable species.

The summer of 1931 proved to be a 

bad fire season in the District, necessitating calling the Station staff to help fight 

fires. The annual report of the Station 

included the comment, “It was necessary 

to practically turn Station manpower 

over to District 1.”

Changes in 1932 weren’t restricted 

to research. The National Forest System 

Districts were renamed Regions to avoid 

confusion with Ranger Districts. The 

identifying numbers used throughout the 

Forest Service were unchanged: District 

1 became Region 1; District 4 was 

designated Region 4.

Depression Years

The stock market crashed in October 

1929 signaling in dramatic fashion the 

start of the Great Depression, which 

lasted for a decade. Following the crash, 

many businesses folded, investments 

were lost, and unemployment soared. 

Lack of recovery from the depression 

caused voters to defeat President 

Herbert Hoover in his reelection bid in 

favor of Franklin D. Roosevelt and a 

Congress dominated by the Democratic 

Party. Roosevelt immediately initiated 

his “New Deal” of activist Federal 

Government programs to attempt to 

bring the Nation out of the depression.

Thus, 1932 found the Forest Service 

in a position of financial retrenchment, 

George Jemison started his career 

in fire research at Priest River.

Onward and Upward

Three men who served at the Northern Rocky Mountain Station went on to become 

Deputy Chief for Research, the highest administrative position in the research arm of 

the Forest Service.

George Jemison’s first Forest Service job was in 1931 as a junior forester at Priest 

River in fire research under the direction of Harry Gisborne. After several career 

advancements, Jemison was named Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station Director in 1950. 

In 1953 he moved to the Pacific Southwest 

Station as Director and then spent 12 years 

in the Washington Office, where he became 

Deputy Chief. Jemison had great respect for 

Gisborne. He maintained his interest in fire 

research throughout his career, and made 

numerous efforts to obtain financial support 

for fire programs in general, including those at 

universities (Maunder 1978).

Jemison led the first group of U.S. foresters 

ever to visit Russia to observe forest conditions 

and practices. He served for 3 years as 

President of the International Union of Forest 

Research Organizations. After leaving the 

Forest Service, he became a professor at 

Oregon State University.

M. B. Dickerman, who had served at the old 

Lake States Station, as a member of the War 

Production Board (1943-44), and as a forester 

with the Allied Control Commission after 

World War II, came to the Station in Missoula 

in 1947. He was put in charge of the economics unit and Forest Survey.

Dickerman returned to the Lake States Station in 1951 as Director. He served there for 

14 years and started many new programs. Among them was recreation research in the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area. To head the program, Dickerman hired Bob Lucas, a 

social scientist (see “Aha! The Wilderness Unit Discovers a Better Approach,” chapter 

10). Hiring a social scientist for Forest Service research work was a novel idea at the 

time, but Dickerman said, “Bob Lucas had the capacity to understand that there were 

many social implications in recreation and forestry.”

Dickerman moved to Washington in 1965 for a special assignment in USDA research 

planning. He became Associate Deputy Chief for Research in 1972 and Deputy Chief 

in 1973 (Arnold and others 1994).

Bob Buckman was looking for a job in 1953 and landed one with Forest Survey 

in Missoula (Jemison was Station Director). Near year end, the merger with the 

Intermountain Station was announced, and part of the plan was to move Forest Survey 

to Ogden. Instead of making the move, Buckman chose to return to school for a Ph.D. 

program at the University of Michigan.

Buckman became a scientist at the Lake States Station, moved to the Washington 

Office, and then served many years as Director of the Pacific Northwest Station. He 

was named Deputy Chief for Research after Dickerman retired (Arnold and others 

1994).
–39

but with the New Deal programs 

the Federal Government became the 

employer of last resort and the Forest 

Service was a beneficiary of many of the 

make-work programs. Both the Northern 

Rocky Mountain and Intermountain 

Station programs were impacted by 

funding cuts and New Deal attempts to 

put people to work.

The general economic depression in 

the Midwest and West was made worse 

by drought in the Great Plains during 

the early 1930s. The drought and Great 

Depression came on the heels of an 

existing agricultural depression, which 

had been going on for years before the 

stock market crash. The West suffered 

a loss of many farms and ranches and 

diminishing livestock numbers.

In eastern Montana the number of 

farms decreased by more than 10,000 

over a decade. Thousands of acres of 

dry farms and homesteads were abandoned. Within Region 1’s territory, the 

numbers of horses and cattle decreased 

gradually from 202,000 head in 1919 

to 146,000 in 1930—a 26-percent drop. 

Sheep numbers went from 988,000 to 

765,000 during the same period. The 

human population also dropped in the 

plains. In the mountains to the west, 

the distressing economic conditions 

meant forest land was rapidly being cut 

over and abandoned as tax-delinquent 

property.

The Federal Government began to 

emphasize land-use planning as one tool 

in its efforts to combat the depression. 

These plans placed demands on the 

Station for various kinds of data about 

standing timber species, growth, size, 

and removal. The Station’s annual report 

for 1934 said it was satisfying to have 

various Federal agencies using its data 

in connection with livestock loans and 

land evaluation.

Some of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station’s programs, Forest 

Survey for example, were maintained 

as in earlier years with money and 

manpower help from Region 1. Survey 

work was done largely by men assigned 

to the Station from the Region for short 

periods of time, but lack of funds meant 

the cycle between surveys was too long. 

To this day, pressure to reduce cycle 

time remains, regardless of the area of 

the country, because users of survey 

information clamor to get the data the 

moment it is taken.

In addition to help from Region 1, 

emergency program funds from the 

“alphabet soup” New Deal programs 

such as the National Industrial Recovery 

Act (NIRA), the Emergency Work Corps 

(EWC), and the Economic Recovery 

Act (ERA) helped to replace the regular 

appropriations cuts.

The Investigative Council went on 

record recommending several additional 

experimental forests be set aside in 

1933. These included a western white 

pine experimental forest at Deception 

Creek in the Coeur d’Alene National 

Forest and another at Pine Creek in the 

Clearwater National Forest, both in 

Idaho, and a larch-fir experimental forest 

near Coram in the Flathead National 

Forest and a ponderosa pine experimental forest at Little Trapper Creek in 

the Bitterroot National Forest, both in 

Montana.

Recommendations to establish 

Deception Creek and Coram 

Experimental Forests were forwarded to 

Washington, but no immediate answers 

were forthcoming. When the answers 

came, they were positive.

Where the Tall Timber 

Grew

Deception Creek Experimental Forest 

was established in 1933 in the heart of 

one of the most productive forest areas 

in the Rocky Mountains. Priest River 

had been supervised directly by Rocky 

Mountain Station Director George 

Jemison with advice by the Divisions 

of Silviculture and Fire, but when he 

left the responsibility largely passed to 

Gisborne’s Fire Research 

Division, although 

Silviculture remained 

responsible for many activities. Fire research activities 

were growing, and eventually there was no room 

for a strong silvicultural 

program at Priest River. 

So Priest River became the 

center for fire research and 

Deception Creek led the 

way in silvicultural studies. 

Considerable rivalry between the two 

divisions ensued (Wellner 1976).

Facilities at the Deception Creek 

Experimental Forest were built by a 

250-man CCC contingent working 

from a camp established at Skookum 

Creek in 1934. The first CCC camp 

superintendent was Elton Bentley, who 

provided an oral history many years 

later (Russell 1984). Bentley said some 

of the CCC boys had never known work 

and “wouldn’t recognize discipline.” He 

related a story of an incident where discipline was established in a forceful way.

Bob Nearing was foreman for a crew 

building trail. One boy sat down and 

refused to work. Nearing said, “If you 

don’t pick up that shovel and help the 

others, I’ll throw you in the river.” The 

boy didn’t move, and Nearing picked 

him up and tossed him into the river. 

The crewmen had been members of a 

street gang in New York City, and they 

understood physical demonstrations of 

power. Bentley said they worshipped 

Nearing after the incident.

Bentley became superintendent at the 

Deception Creek Experimental Forest in 

1937. Working under the supervision of 

a silviculturist, he led crews developing 

planting experiments and special cutting 

studies. Bentley served at Deception 

Creek until 1942, when he left the Forest 

Service. He said, “It became obvious 

that without a college degree I’d reached 

the maximum advancement.”

While at Deception Creek, the 

Bentley family was assigned a house 

“with nice hardwood floors, plastered 

walls and heated by a furnace.” Bentley 

said the home was treated with respect. 

Loggers took off their caulked boots to 

sit on the front porch during summer 

evenings, and Forest Service personnel 

wouldn’t sit on the family davenport 
40–

until a protective blanket was thrown 

over it. Some things weren’t ultramodern, however. Bentley said the 

caretaker at the nearby Riverside Mine 

once invited the Deception Creek ladies, 

including his wife Doris, for a special 

visit to inspect a newly installed flush 

toilet.

Western white pine was by far the 

most valuable tree in great supply in the 

region, but it was declining because of 

its susceptibility to fire and insect and 

disease attacks. Funds were available 

to make valiant attempts to control 

fire, blister rust, and the mountain pine 

beetle, so the hard question of whether it 

was economically feasible to grow white 

pine was deferred (Wellner 1976), and 

Station silvicultural research continued 

to focus on white pine. Deception Creek 

was a good place to do that.

Deception Creek, 22 miles from 

Coeur d’Alene, consisted of 3,520 acres 

that included large stands of old-growth 

white pine and associated species. It was 

an excellent place for timber management and forest ecology research, and 

even after the white pine there declined 

markedly in the 1940s it thrived as a 

center for regeneration, growth, and 

genetic studies. Fire effects, insect and 

disease, watershed, and soils studies 

were added after the early years (Jain 

and Graham 1996).

The forest included the 330-acre 

Montford Creek Natural Area, which 

was set aside as a sample of virgin, oldgrowth timber in the western white pine 

type. Deception Creek was divided into 

five blocks for research and demonstration purposes. In addition to Montford 

Creek, two blocks were for small-plot 

studies, one for continuing tests of tree 

vigor after selection cutting, and one for 

demonstrations.

As was true for every unit throughout 

Station history, the research program at 

Deception Creek grew or shrank with 

the national economic situation and 

the unstable nature of Federal funding. 

World War II had many effects. One 

might have included a little bit of good 

with the bad. In 1942, the Station 

combined the Fire and Silvics divisions 

under Harry Gisborne to conserve 

funds. That probably ended most of the 

reported rivalry that strained relations 

between the two units. However, a 

report by Gisborne in 1942 showed just 

how trying the times were at Deception 

Creek and Priest River:

...the major effort of both silvicultural 

and fire research has been to maintain 

the continuity and standards of the most 

essential long-time research projects 

which were under way when the war 

started. Gisborne, Lyman, and Helmers 

constituted the total technical staff, with 

Miss Johnson continuing to serve as 

compilation clerk and stenographer for 

the division. A high school boy served 

at Deception Creek Experimental Forest 

and a college professor at Priest River 

Experimental Forest as temporary 

assistants during most of June, July, and 

August. Three Civilian Public Service 

men from the R-1 smokejumper squad 

The headquarters compound at Deception Creek in the 1940s. The 160 acres 

surrounding the headquarters was once a homestead claim. Most of the white 

pine was cut in 1914 and 1915, leaving a stand of grand fir and hemlock. The 

young white pines adjacent to the buildings in this scene came in after the 

land next to the old homestead buildings was cleared from about 1905 to 1910 

(Wellner and Foiles 1951).

This aerial view of part of Deception Creek in 1957 included more than 20 

study and demonstration areas featuring various types of regeneration methods and stand ages.
–41

helped on the silvicultural fall plot 

work from September 15 to November 

25. One of these men is being used 

throughout the winter at Missoula on 

compilation of plot data, while two others 

are serving as caretakers at Deception 

Creek. These men receive no salary 

and cost us only $5 per month plus 

their actual travel and subsistence.

Despite the obstacles, research 

produced useful results over the long 

term. Ray Boyd summarized a few of 

them from the early years of silvicultural 

research (Boyd 1960) in a leaflet describing Deception Creek:

White pine regenerated well 

naturally following strip clear 

cutting, shelterwood, and seed 

tree cuttings, except on south and 

southwest exposure slopes.

Planting was the best artificial 

regeneration method. Direct 

seeding was often successful, 

but not as dependable.

Thinning usually proved to be 

a poor investment in white pine 

stands of pole-sized trees, unless the 

thinnings could be sold. Thinning 

by removing commercial-sized 

timber could be successful without 

reducing general productivity.

Carefully designed selective cutting 

in mature stands was useful to 

salvage weak or diseased trees, aid 

blister rust control, and develop 

good distribution of age classes, 

although it could not be safely 

used where less than half the trees 

had excellent or good vigor.

These summaries are presented 

to show the scope of early silvicultural research within the Station, and 

to illustrate how the studies resulted in 

specific management guidelines. Later 

research became progressively broader 

as it addressed more general problems 

and more scientific disciplines were 

included.

By the 1990s, research at Deception 

Creek involved studies of how forest 

management affects ecosystem structures and functions. Scientists assumed 

that clearcuts probably would be used 

less in future forest management. 

Therefore, many variations in both evenage and uneven-age silviculture were 

•

•

•

•

being studied. Other studies included 

fire effects on sedimentation and soil nutrients, management effects on overstory 

and understory species composition, 

growth and yield, forest genetics, and 

root disease (Jain and Graham 1996).

The multidisciplinary nature of 

research that developed was reflected 

in studies started in the mid-1980s. 

Research Forester Russ Graham announced plans to harvest 100 acres 

of old-growth timber for silvicultural 

research at Deception Creek and invited others to participate. Fire Effects 

Project Leader Jim Brown wanted to 

test existing fuel consumption models 

and develop new ones, so personnel 

in his unit took advantage of the opportunity to design burns of the logging 

slash to gain new data. Fire management personnel from the Fernan Ranger 

District handled the burning. When the 

fire work was done, personnel from the 

Station’s silviculture and pathology unit 

at the Moscow moved in to plant tree 

seedlings and determine how the soil 

was impacted by the fire (INTercom

7/24/86).

The Boys Roll Up Their 

Sleeves—The CCC Era

Regular appropriations were reduced 

in 1934, but the Station was much 

better prepared than in the previous 

year to handle the infusion of New Deal 

program workers with trained temporary 

supervisors. Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) camps were established 

at Priest River, Deception Creek, and 

Coram. The young men at these camps 

were under off-duty supervision by 

the U.S. Army, and were employed on 

Forest Service projects during work 

hours. Road construction was the major 

activity, but they did other things such 

as establishing thinning and stand 

improvement plots, treating old burns 

to reduce fire hazards, pulling Ribes 

bushes, poisoning rodents, planting 

trees, and making timber surveys of the 

experimental forests. The camp at Priest 

River was a full-year operation, the 

Coram camp closed for half the winter 

and Deception Creek operated only in 

the summer.

NIRA funds were used to make major 

improvements at Priest River. In fact, 

most of the buildings currently at Priest 

River were constructed at this time. A 

fire-weather observation tower, a fourroom cottage, five three-room dwellings, 

garages, a gas house, a water system, 

and electric power lines were built. 

New facilities also were constructed at 

Deception Creek and Fort Keogh.

The intensity of cooperative research 

with the Bureau of Animal Industry 

at Fort Keogh was increased in 1934, 

particularly studies of artificial reseeding 

techniques for the range on the shortgrass plains of eastern Montana (Crafts 

1938).

In addition to experimental forests, 

new experimental ranges were proposed 

during this period as the Station saw 

opportunities for expansion, particularly 

with the passage of the Taylor Grazing 

Act. The act was of great importance in 

the West. Its passage in 1934 effectively 

ended previously free and unregulated 

grazing use of vast acreages of public 

lands and introduced Federal protection 

and management of the lands and their 

resources.

Among other things, the Taylor 

Grazing Act shaped the Bureau of Land 

Management’s range management 

program. The act also reversed the longstanding Federal policy of encouraging 

settlement by granting homestead 

ownership of public lands to farmers. 

Elizabeth Reinhardt, research forester 

in the fire effects unit, collected samples from a cutting unit at Deception 

Creek in 1986 before crews from the 

Fernan Ranger District burned slash.
42–

Much of this land in the semi-arid West 

was unsuitable for crop agriculture, and 

several million acres were reacquired 

through purchase by the Federal 

Government when the homesteaders 

went bankrupt during drought years 

(USDI 1984).

The most serious drought then on 

record in eastern Montana occurred in 

1934. Miles City, for example, received 

only 5.5 inches of precipitation for the 

entire year. Some of the range research 

focused on artificial reseeding of 

abandoned dry-land ranches. Proposals 

for experimental ranges at Rochester 

Basin and Vigilante in the Beaverhead 

National Forest in Montana were made 

to accommodate new research on high 

mountain ranges. Experimental forests 

at Clearwater and Pleasant Valley, Idaho, 

to address ponderosa pine research were 

also proposed.

Fire research, under Gisborne, 

produced a technique for measuring 

dryness and flammability of dead 

branchwood and duff under field 

conditions. By this time, the results 

of Gisborne’s fire control planning 

and fire danger measurement research 

were so good that they were applied 

by National Forests and various State 

and private fire protective systems. The 

research results guided organizational 

planning for manpower and physical 

facilities needed in fire control. In 

Region 1 the improved efficiencies 

in construction and location of fire 

lookouts and transportation systems, 

along with allocation of smoke chasers, 

resulted in an estimated 20-percent 

reduction in fire fighting costs.

During the depression years, there 

was a strong feeling that lumbering was 

and would continue to be the major 

industry of the Inland Empire (northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, 

and Montana west of the Continental 

Divide). The Anaconda Copper 

Company, which exerted tremendous 

political and economic influence in 

Montana, expressed interest in the possibilities of practicing sustained yield 

forestry on its considerable acreage of 

forest lands. In contrast, however, many 

private landowners were liquidating 

their investments by clearcutting due 

to distressed economic conditions. In 

the 1930s, this was the environment in 

which silvicultural research 

was operating.

I. T. Haig, who had 

studied western white 

pine at Priest River for 

12 years, transferred into 

the Washington Office, 

and Ken Davis, field superintendent at Deception 

Creek, took on responsibility for leading western 

white pine research. Davis 

went on in later years 

to serve as head of the 

Forestry Department in the 

University of Michigan’s 

School of Natural 

Resources. Lloyd Hornby, 

who had transferred from 

fire control to the Station, 

was in charge of silviculture research.

When Melvin Bradner 

became acting director of 

the Station in 1938, white 

pine was still the backbone 

of the forest products 

industry as it had been 

since pioneer days. It was 

the only Inland Empire 

species able to compete in 

the large market centers 

of the U.S. closer to major 

timber supplies.

Western white pine commanded 

premium prices because of its many 

favorable characteristics. Its wood 

was straight grained, not resinous, and 

relatively easy to machine because it 

was softer than the wood of many other 

conifers. Clear grades did not shrink 

or swell very much with moisture 

changes and therefore were desirable for 

high-value uses such as pattern making, 

furniture making, and home hobby projects. Most grades were highly desired 

for the manufacture of moldings and 

trim boards, products that carried higher 

retail prices than general construction 

lumber. White pine could be processed 

to produce decorative plywood as well 

as plywood for industrial uses (Burns 

and Honkala 1990).

The species had problems with fire, 

insects, and disease, and these problems 

continued to serve as much of the 

justification for the Station’s research 

program in the 1930s. But, as western 

white pine declined, research began to 

shift slowly toward western larch. Once 

Station researchers moved their focus to 

larch, they assembled a huge knowledge 

base to guide management of the species 

in the northern Rockies. Their field laboratory, the Coram Experimental Forest, 

was to become recognized as a world 

center for larch information.

Learning About Larch

The Coram Experimental Forest 

was established in 1933 on 7,460 acres 

within the Flathead National Forest. 

Western larch and Douglas-fir were the 

dominant tree species. Many were older 

than 300 and a few larch were more than 

500 years of age. Second-growth trees 

ranged in age from 5 to more than 50. 

Earlier work was done at Coram, but 

Station research began there in earnest 

in 1948 (Shearer 1996).

The majestic, commercially valuable western white 

pine long was the mainstay of the timber industry 

in northern Idaho. Its decline due to logging and effects of fire, insects, and blister rust caused Station 

scientists to begin focusing their attention on other 

species during the 1930s.
–43

The new emphasis on 

wildlife habitat featured 

establishing permanent 

study plots within the 

Coram Research Natural 

Area, which included 839 

acres in an undisturbed area 

of old-growth forest. As in 

other natural areas, no timber cutting of any kind was 

permitted, and controlled 

fires used in other parts of 

the experimental forest also 

were prohibited.

One result of research 

that included plots in the 

natural area was a summary 

of studies of breeding birds. 

As part of his master’s 

degree program at the 

University of Montana, 

Zoologist Bret Tobalske studied the 

presence of 32 species of small birds 

in various small logged areas and the 

undisturbed natural area plots. The results showed the significance of logging 

methods and the number of snags left on 

the sites in maintaining bird populations. 

The Station research paper presenting 

the findings included numerous management recommendations.

The first comprehensive research 

and development 

program in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains to 

evaluate multiple factors 

associated with intensive 

forest management was 

centered at Coram (see 

“Special Programs Bring 

Special Problems and 

Achievements,” chapter 

11). In 1974, a multidisciplinary team used Coram to 

investigate alternative tree 

harvesting practices that 

promote intensive, environmentally compatible, tree 

utilization. Participants had 

skills in engineering, wood 

technology, economics, 

meteorology, microbiology, 

mycology, pathology, 

entomology, silviculture, 

fire management, hydrology, and wildlife habitat. 

Although the studies were 

site-specific, results at Coram and 

other program study sites in the Rocky 

Mountains had application to management of coniferous forests in general 

(Shearer and Kempf 1999).

Research results from Coram studies 

had been presented in more than 200 

publications by 1997. Shearer was senior 

author of 29, Wyman Schmidt produced 

20. Jack Schmidt provided data for 

many publications, and was a co-author 

Two leaders in western larch research, 

Ray Shearer (left) and Wyman Schmidt, 

were equally at home in the Missoula 

Forestry Sciences Lab and in the field at 

Coram.

Fifty years after Station scientists 

concentrated on work at Coram, 

Research Silviculturist Ray Shearer 

wrote a detailed summary of all the 

studies conducted there and the results 

(Shearer and Kempf 1999). Shearer, 

Project Leader Wyman Schmidt, and 

Forester Jack Schmidt were the guiding 

lights over many years in making Coram 

a successful experimental forest.

Shearer summarized the research by 

decade:

Studies in the late 1940s and the 

1950s determined how to regenerate 

larch and other conifers naturally 

using even- and uneven-age cutting 

strategies coupled with a wide 

range of site preparation methods.

Research in the 1960s centered 

on how to regenerate larch using 

seeding and planting and how young 

larch forests, grown with a wide 

range of tree densities, respond 

in growth, understory vegetation 

development, water use, and insect, 

disease, and animal interactions.

Studies in the 1970s and 1980s 

determined how to establish desired 

tree mixtures after cutting leaving 

varying amounts of woody residue, 

determined effects of thinning on 

tree and understory vegetation 

development, and sought to reduce 

insect and disease problems, and 

enhance watershed, esthetic, and bird 

and other wildlife habitat values.

•

•

•

Participants in a novel Station research and development program studied numerous techniques at 

Coram for harvesting and regenerating larch effectively, such as this strip thinning operation in a 30- to 

40-year-old larch and lodgepole pine stand.
44–

of several. Jack Schmidt served as 

superintendent and the research contact 

person for Coram for many years.

Early in Coram’s history, researchers 

began to collect climate data, a process 

automated to a great extent later with 

advanced instrumentation. Data collected at 18 locations at various times 

were summarized and published by 

researchers from Missoula in 1984. In 

the late 1990s, seven climate stations 

were operating at Coram, measuring 

air, soil and water temperatures; wind 

directions and intensities; precipitation; 

stream flows; and relative humidity 

(Shearer 1996).

In 1976, Coram entered the international arena in a big way. It and nearby 

Glacier National Park were designated 

as Biosphere Reserves by the United 

Nations Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

UNESCO followed up in 1979 with a 

similar designation for Waterton Lakes 

National Park in Canada, which abuts 

Glacier Park. The trio of special areas 

became known as “The Crown of the 

Continent Biosphere Reserves.”

The UNESCO program sought, 

where possible, to pair one manipulated 

research area, such as Coram, with one 

essentially preserved area. Glacier and 

Coram were a good fit because they 

were very close to each other and had 

similar terrain, soil, plants, and animal 

populations. Their designations were 

commemorated at a joint ceremony 

featuring Station, Flathead National 

Forest, Park Service, and U.N. officials. 

The designation assured that research 

from Coram on the ecology and management of western larch forests would 

be shared worldwide. The purpose of the 

three reserves was to play a major role 

in protecting and conserving examples 

of the world’s alpine and subalpine 

ecosystems, provide scientific research 

opportunities, and monitor the sustainability of development.

Coram added to its status as an 

international center for larch research 

in 1992. Wyman Schmidt chaired the 

first comprehensive examination of 

larch species of the world, a symposium 

that drew 340 participants to Whitefish, 

Montana. The gathering was sponsored 

by 10 natural resource agencies and 

organizations in the U.S. and Canada. 

The 521-page proceedings (Schmidt 

and McDonald 1995), published by the 

Station, included more than 100 papers 

by authors from 20 countries (Kingsbury 

1992). It was the largest compendium of 

information on larch ever issued. Many 

of the papers by U.S. scientists reported 

on research wholly or partly conducted 

at Coram.

A highlight of symposium activities 

was establishment of the International 

Larix Arboretum, featuring plantings 

of all larch species of the world, on a 

1.2-acre site next to the Coram forest 

headquarters at Hungry Horse. The 

goal was to provide a place for species 

comparisons and genetics research. It 

was a large undertaking. Spanning much 

of southern Canada and the northern 

United States, larch forests also cross 

parts of Western Europe and Eurasia. 

The trees occur as 10 species with 

numerous varieties and hybrids.

Shearer and Jack Schmidt designed 

the arboretum, and Schmidt assumed 

the maintenance job, making annual 

measurements of survival and growth 

of all the plantings. He took photos as 

part of the assessments, so the information made available at Coram included 

images of virtually all the types of 

larch found in forests worldwide. These 

photos added to Coram imagery already 

available to scientists in several sets of 

aerial photos taken in the 1950s.

Larch genetics research was 

important. Hybrids from western and 

alpine larch, the two naturally occurring 

species in the northern Rockies, had 

potential to produce seedlings that could 

better survive freezing, a subject of great 

interest to foresters in Iceland, Germany, 

and Switzerland. Other genetics work 

had potential to extend the range of the 

hardy larches southward in the U.S. 

by improving resistance to insects and 

diseases (Tippets 1996a).

Not all the genetics research on larch 

originated at Coram. Research Forester 

Clint Carlson and University of Montana 

Professor George Blake found rare 

offspring of western and alpine larch 

produced by natural cross-pollination 

growing on a rocky outcrop in the Carlton 

Ridge Research Natural Area in the late 

1960s. Carlson produced additional 

hybrids through controlled cross-pollination and sent seeds to Iceland for growth 

trials on harsh sites. Seedlings were 

planted in eastern and western Canada, 

and a commercial tree grower in the U.S. 

was interested in the hybrids.

A small greenhouse was built at the 

Forestry Sciences Lab in Missoula to 

perform tests in several environments 

and develop additional hybrids. Some 

700 hybrids were growing in the greenhouse by the early 1990s. The work 

was jointly funded by the Station and 

Region 1.

“This study demonstrates the 

importance of Research Natural Areas 

in forestry research,” Carlson said. 

“Studies conducted in these RNA’s, 

such as Carlton Ridge, lead to a better 

understanding of forest ecosystems and 

more appropriate management of forest 

resources” (INTercom June/93).

Coram was rich in demonstration 

sites, and most were within short walking distance from roads. A self-guided 

auto tour featured stops at eight sites, 

plus the entrance to two nature trails 

that provided outdoor classrooms for 

schools. Guided tours were available. 

For example, Region 1 held a 1-day field 

tour as part of its annual meeting of forest timber staff officers in 1986. Timber 

Management Director John Hughes said 

of the event, “The group was especially 

interested in viewing the western larch 

studies because much of what Region 1 

is doing regarding management of larch 

is based on information gained from research conducted at Coram” (INTercom

5/29/86).

Station Director Roger Bay unveiled 

the plaque recognizing Coram as a 

Biosphere Reserve during dedication 

ceremonies in 1980.
–45

Greening the Grasslands 

and Summer Ranges

After the Northern Rocky Mountain 

and Intermountain Stations merged 

in 1954, the tendency was to think 

of the northern part of the territory 

as the forestry research area and the 

southern part as the center of range and 

watershed research. This was not the 

case throughout the time the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station existed as 

a separate entity. Although Station 

research continued to concentrate on 

fire and silvicultural studies as it had 

in early days at Priest River, range 

research begun in a small way in the 

1920s was expanded as management 

problems increased in Region 1. The 

common territory of both the Region 

and Station included vast rangelands 

in eastern Montana, North Dakota, 

and part of South Dakota, plus many 

higher elevation summer grazing areas 

important to livestock operations.

Until 1934, virtually the entire region 

had experienced dramatic increases in 

livestock use for almost a half century. 

In early years of the Forest Service, 

policies strongly favored increased 

use of public rangelands in the Region 

1 National Forests. Later, demands 

for permits increased use on many 

allotments into the early 1930s even as 

overuse became apparent (Wyckoff and 

Hansen 1991). In the Great Plains part 

of Region 1, a combination of forces 

resulted in “dust bowl” conditions that 

led to New Deal land utilization projects 

and subsequent creation of National 

Grasslands.

The National Grasslands had a checkered history. Much of the land within 

and near them was homesteaded late, 

some in the 1910-20 era. The family 

farms did fairly well for a time, but in 

the late 1920s and early 1930s grasshoppers, dust storms, and the collapse of 

farm prices wiped them out. The Federal 

Government stepped in, bought up the 

ruined farm land, and resettled farmers 

to irrigated areas where crop agriculture 

was sustainable. The 4 million acres 

of utilization areas acquired by the 

Government in the Northern Great 

Plains were first administered by the 

Farm Security Administration; they were 

transferred to the Soil Conservation 

Service in 1941. The Forest Service was 

given jurisdiction in 1954.

The Montana land utilization acreage 

was transferred in 1958 to the Bureau 

of Land Management, despite Forest 

Service protests, especially by Johnny 

Forsman, Supervisor of the Custer 

National Forest. He called the transfer 

“a tragic mistake.” The rest of the lands 

(about 1.2 million acres) became part 

of the National Forest System and were 

designated as National Grasslands in 

1961. The National Grasslands came to 

be recognized as some of the best grazing lands in the semi-arid West (Baker 

and others 1993). Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station research played a 

major role in the improved management 

that resulted in that happy situation and 

in parallel improvements in the mountain grazing areas in the National Forests 

to the west.

Research at what became known as 

the Fort Keogh Livestock and Range 

Research Laboratory was a key to 

converting the failed dryland farms 

within the land utilization projects 

to highly productive rangelands. The 

facility, near Miles City, Montana, was 

operated by USDA’s Bureau of Animal 

Industry. Station researchers began 

cooperative work there in 1924 shortly 

after the area was established as a 

research site when Congress transferred 

the land from the U.S. Army to USDA 

(Wellner 1976).

Fort Keogh originally was set aside 

as a military post following the Battle 

of Little Big Horn in which General 

George Custer and his men were overwhelmed by Indian warriors. It included 

55,000 acres southwest of Miles City, 

and was composed mainly of native 

grasslands typical of the Northern Great 

Plains that historically supported vast 

numbers of buffalo (Schmidt and Friede 

1996).

Early cooperative research at Fort 

Keogh included evaluations of sheep, 

turkeys, swine, horses, and cattle and 

their relationship to the range. The work 

was the major part of the total Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station range program. 

It included studies of forage plant 

development and range readiness for 

livestock grazing, evaluations of grazing 

impacts, studies of grazing patterns 

and range utilization, and development 

in nurseries of grasses and legumes 

suitable for improving rangelands. Tony 

Evanko, retired Station range scientist, 

thought the most important studies 

were of range readiness, with work on 

range revegetation next in importance 

(interview, 2005).

Management of the extensive grasslands in the land utilization project areas 

had an unusual cooperative aspect. The 

Soil Conservation Service had promoted 

formation of large grazing associations 

when it was responsible for the lands, 

and the Forest Service continued to have 

close relationships with these groups.

By working with the boards of 

directors of the associations, rather 

than individual stockmen, the Forest 

Service could resolve issues and transfer 

research results most effectively. The 

Region 1 associations ultimately organized into an Association of National 

Grasslands, which operated nationally. 

Private lands were intermingled with 

public lands in the grassland areas, 

Forester Jack 

Schmidt installed an 

identification sign 

for Japanese larch 

at the International 

Larix Arboretum 

established in 1992 

next to Coram 

Experimental Forest 

headquarters.
46–

so through communication with the 

associations, management policies and 

research results were applied to almost 

twice the 1.2 million grassland acres 

under the jurisdiction of the Custer 

National Forest (Baker and others 1993).

Evanko said working relations in the 

area “were the best encountered in my 

career, especially with private land owners—both ranchers and farmers—whose 

utilization of research information was 

most rewarding and beneficial to all 

parties.”

More than 1 million acres of 

privately owned lands were seeded 

in the late 1930s and early 1940s as a 

result of the range research programs 

conducted by the Station at Fort Keogh 

(Baker and others 1993). Improvements 

in the grasslands and higher elevation 

ranges in National Forests to the west 

continued, and Evanko attributed some 

of them to valuable range and watershed 

information generated by Station scientists at the Research Center in Spokane, 

which opened in 1948.

and other grasslands continued to benefit from studies of plant genetics and 

reproduction, nutrition and growth of 

beef cattle, and range pasture development, improvement, and management 

(Schmidt and Friede 1996). The 1954 

reorganization also assigned primary 

Forest Service research responsibilities 

in North Dakota, western South Dakota, 

and eastern Washington to other 

Stations.

The Vigilante Experimental Range 

was established in 1935 on 8,468 acres 

in the Beaverhead National Forest 

near Alder to study the problems of 

the high-elevation summer ranges 

in southwestern Montana. Mountain 

bunchgrass studies had begun there in 

1924, but were discontinued in 1928, so 

the establishment marked a reentry into 

that line of research (Crafts 1938). A 

3,937-acre cattle allotment was fenced 

and used for grazing experiments. A 

126-acre area within a large sheep 

allotment was fenced and also used for 

research.

The Forest Service was adept at 

selecting names for its facilities that 

conjured up romantic images of the 

“Old West,” and Vigilante was a prime 

example. It was located in the Virginia 

City-Bannack area where gold strikes 

in 1863 caused a mass influx of miners 

accompanied by assorted unsavory characters. Miscreants were tried by “miners’ 

courts,” but justice apparently was too 

slow and unevenly applied to suit some 

residents. They formed a Vigilante 

Committee patterned after an earlier 

group in San Francisco and launched 

a wave of lynchings. In 6 weeks, the 

Montana Vigilantes hanged 22 men after 

“trials” conducted in secrecy. On one occasion, the Vigilantes hanged a man for 

murder while his victim was still alive. 

The victim later recovered (Schmittroth 

1998).

Development and use of the 

Vigilante Experimental Range appears 

to have been nearly as inconsistent as 

the early frontier justice in the area. 

The original plan was to divide the 

whole area into pastures for seasonal 

grazing and other management studies. 

This plan was abandoned, presumably 

for lack of funds. The proposal to disestablish the range in 1962 said “only 

limited range research has been done, 

and no studies of grazing techniques.” 

The range was closed at the start of 

World War II and reactived in 1948, 

but initially the post-war staff consisted 

of a single scientist. Nevertheless, 

research at Vigilante produced useful 

results.

Seeding trials started shortly after 

Vigilante was established formed part of 

the basis for a Department of Agriculture 

The first CCC camp in Region 1 was set up in 1933 at the Ruby River Ranger 

Station (Guth and Cohen 1991) where the Vigilante Experimental Range was 

established in 1935. The building at far right, erected before 1925, became an 

experimental range cottage.

Fort Keogh was assigned to the 

Agricultural Research Service as part 

of the 1954 USDA reorganization. 

Research continued in cooperation with 

the Montana Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Montana State University. 

Although Forest Service research no 

longer was directly involved, lands 

managed by the Custer National Forest 

1935

Northern Rocky

Mountain Forest & Range

Experiment Station

Bernice Exp. Forest

Deception Creek Exp. Forest

Coram Exp. Forest

Vigilante Exp. Range

Coop Unit – Fort Keough

Missoula Headquarters

Priest River Exp. Forest
–47

bulletin, Regrassing Montana Range 

Lands, published in 1943. After the 

site reopened in 1954, Tony Evanko, 

the “one-man staff,” did research that 

resulted in publications on methods 

to control undesirable range plants. 

Seasonal trends in cattle weights were 

defined over a 3-year period and the 

results were of interest to area stockmen. 

Range Scientist Jack Schmautz authored 

publications on the weight gain work 

and vegetation preferences of cattle on 

summer range. Schmautz left the Station 

to join the Region 1 range management 

staff in the early 1960s. Some of the 

data from vegetation surveys and plots 

at Vigilante were used by Region 1 in 

1961 to develop a simplified approach to 

estimate forage utilization.

The first Civilian Conservation Corps 

camp in Region 1 was established at 

Vigilante in 1933. Corpsmen built most 

of the improvements used by Station 

scientists and seasonal workers over 

the years. These included a three-room 

dwelling, a water system, a combination 

woodshed and garage, a corral, more 

than 12 miles of fence, and an outdoor 

toilet.

Someone involved in the construction 

knew at least part of Vigilante history 

in the area. The mark “3-7-77” was set 

into the brick work of the dwelling’s 

fireplace. Local legend said this mark 

was branded or painted on the doors of 

suspected “bad guys” by the Vigilantes. 

It was said to represent the grave the 

villain would occupy if he didn’t get out 

of the territory—a space 3 feet wide, 7 

feet long, and 77 inches deep (Prevedel 

interview, 2005).

A scale house was built near 

Cottonwood Creek where Station researchers weighed cattle as part of their 

studies. Results of the cattle-weighing 

research had benefits in some cases. One 

finding was that weight gains stopped 

or diminished after mid-September, 

an incentive for ranchers to remove 

their stock from the public lands earlier 

than was customary, giving the range 

a slightly longer rest period. Retired 

Ranger Dan Chisholm said in 2005 that 

years later he intended to sell the scales 

as surplus property. When he arrived at 

the site, he found that persons unknown 

had made off with the scales (Tippets 

interview, 2005).

The CCC-built facilities, plus an 

older four-room dwelling, were turned 

over to the Beaverhead National Forest 

in 1963 when the experimental range 

was disestablished. The value of the 

outhouse was listed as $100.42 in the 

official property transfer records. No 

indication was given as to how that 

figure was determined. Earlier, the 

Ranger Station had become the Ruby 

River Work Center, and administration 

of its area was assigned to the Sheridan 

Ranger District.

The disestablishment recommendation (Shepherd 1962) gave two main 

reasons for returning the Vigilante acreage to National Forest management: (1) 

The area represented only one of several 

kinds of range for which research was 

needed; and (2) the Station did not have 

funds to develop and operate Vigilante 

as an effective experimental facility.

The Beaverhead National Forest 

agreed to maintain many of the study 

plots that Station scientists said would 

continue to provide useful data. Montana 

State University continued some studies 

at Vigilante after administration of the 

area was returned to the National Forest.

Sagebrush-grass rangeland management in Region 1 also benefited from 

results of research at the U.S. Sheep 

Experiment Station near Dubois, Idaho. 

The sheep station’s experimental area 

represented several major ecosystems 

and included thousands of acres in the 

Centennial Mountains in Montana. 

Although of less importance than in 

Region 4, spring-fall grazing studies 

conducted by Intermountain Station 

scientists, including use of fire as a management tool, were applicable to many 

Region 1 areas.

World War II Intervenes

Concerns about decreasing funding 

from New Deal emergency programs 

proved to be well-founded, because by 

1940 the regular research appropriations 

for fire, silviculture, and forest products 

were 30 percent less than in 1931 when 

all lines of research were transferred 

from Region 1 to the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station (Annual Report, 

NRM 1940). The country still had not 

completely pulled out of the Great 

Depression, although the economic 

situation had improved from the worst 

days. But along with the improvement, 

a new uncertainty was brought about by 

the start of World War II in Europe in 

the late 1930’s.

World War II created a major impact 

on the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station, just as it did on almost every 

aspect of American life. Many Forest 

Service employees were drafted or volunteered for military service. Rationing 

of resources such as gasoline, rubber, 

metals, wood, and other materials 

needed for the war effort meant they 

weren’t available for civilian pursuits. 

In many areas of research, the programs 

were essentially put on hold for the 

duration of the war.

Thirteen men and women from the 

Station were in military service, and 

only one of the vacant positions was 

filled, largely because the salary and 

operating expense funds for the vacant 

The “south house” 

where Station 

personnel lived 

when the Vigilante 

Experimental Range 

was an active research site, 1935-41 

and 1954-62. The 

photo was taken in 

1987.
48–

recovery for Forest Service research at 

the Northern Rocky Mountain Station. 

Expectations were that the research programs that had been reduced during the 

war would not only regain their former 

vigor, but also grow.

The war had caused a backlog in the 

dissemination of research results. The 

Forest Research Council was revived in 

Missoula, and forest products research at 

the various Stations was organized into a 

newly formed Forest Utilization Service 

conceived by the Washington Office. Its 

concept was to have utilization experts 

at the Stations capable of discerning 

forest products industry research needs 

(mainly for consideration at the Forest 

Products Lab), and disseminating utilization research findings to industry.

In American society “research” was 

a word used more frequently in relation 

to human and industrial events than ever 

before. Every man and woman on the 

street knew that the atomic bomb was 

the result of scientific research. People 

were associating the word “research” 

with progress. Three bills were introduced in Congress in 1946 to expand 

nearly all types of scientific research. Dr. 

Vannever Bush, high-profile director of 

the U.S. Office of Scientific Research 

and Development, wrote Science the 

Endless Frontier. The Stations strove to 

develop statements of research needs in 

concert with the Bush report, hoping for 

more forestry research support.

As expected, lumber demand 

increased dramatically during the war, 

but the lumber went to the war effort 

and few new homes were built. Post-war 

demand for housing was spurred by the 

formation of new families as ex-servicemen married and reentered the civilian 

labor force. Lumber demand doubled 

and the cut from the National Forests in 

1946 increased 200 percent over the average for the previous five years. Forest 

Service research funding, however, 

remained down.

Everything about timber gained 

importance in the Forest Service, 

including programs to control forest insects that defoliated or killed trees. Two 

entomologists who later transferred 

to the Intermountain Station provided 

technical guidance in 1947 for the largest aerial spraying project undertaken 

up to that time in western forests. Jim 

Evenden, assisted by Phil Johnson, 

gave scientific advice for a project to 

control an outbreak of the Douglas-fir 

tussock moth that threatened to defoliate 400,000 acres of forest in northern 

Idaho. Eleven assorted aircraft (three 

crashed during the project) sprayed 

one pound of DDT in one gallon of oil 

per acre in the area centered in Latah 

County.

Coincidentally, the western spruce 

budworm had begun to infest vast areas 

in Oregon and Washington. The apparent success of the Idaho tussock moth 

project caused Bureau of Entomology 

personnel to test the spray successfully against the budworm in 1948. 

Thereafter, 9 million acres were sprayed 

during the 1949-58 period, mostly in 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho but also 

in Montana and the northern part of 

Yellowstone National Park (Furniss, in 

preparation).

The Research Center 

Concept

Ed Kotok, Sr. was the Deputy Chief 

for Research in 1946 and he promoted 

the concept of research centers, some 

of them at existing experimental forests 

and ranges. (His son, Ed Kotok, Jr. 

headed the Forest Utilization Service 

unit at the Intermountain Station in 

the 1960s). Centers were intended to 

be tied to a geographical area or a 

single-problem area, and to be staffed 

by researchers from more than one 

discipline.

Mel Bradner, who had served as 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

Director since 1938, died in early 1946 

and was replaced by Charles L. Tebbe. 

In the interim, Harry Gisborne, serving 

as Acting Station Director in 1946, announced the establishment of a western 

Montana forest research work center in 

Missoula. It was to be one of several 

included in long-range plans developed 

under Deputy Chief Kotok’s concept 

of research centers. Investigations conducted by researchers at the Missoula 

center included:

Timber harvesting methods to 

increase the yield of forest products

•

Not only the men went to war. Helen B. 

Davis, a member of the clerical staff of 

the Northern Rocky Mountain Station, 

served in the Women’s Army Corps.

positions had gone to war, too. The 

money simply wasn’t there to allow the 

Station to hire anyone. Forest Survey 

was busy because of the relatively high 

priority given to working with the War 

Production Board. Silviculture research, 

at the other extreme, was down to a oneman effort.

World War II was a relatively short 

span in the history of the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station, but a significant one. Not only did many of the staff 

leave for military service, but some 

never returned to the Forest Service after 

the war. Other resources necessary for 

the conduct of research weren’t available because the military had first call on 

them. Much of the activity that did go 

on was related to the war effort.

Some degree of post-war planning 

was initiated before the war ended and it 

provided an opportunity to think about 

change both in research and in organization. Post-war planning at the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station foresaw changes from the over-cutting taking place in 

the forests of Idaho and Montana toward 

a sustained-yield management system. 

A shift from western white pine as the 

premier timber species to greater utilization of western larch and lodgepole pine 

was also predicted.

Research Recovers

World War II ended in August of 

1945, beginning a post-war period of 
–49

Regenerating forests 

following logging

Improving young timber stands by 

cultural practices such as thinning

A press release quoted Gisborne 

as saying, “Expansion of this kind 

of research in western Montana is 

urgently needed...[because] much 

of the Station’s forest research has 

heretofore been concentrated in the more 

intensively exploited white pine territory 

of Idaho. Now because of the national 

scarcity of lumber, increasing demands 

are being made on Montana forests 

for all kinds of forest products” (NRM 

1946). Russell K. LeBarron, Chief of 

the Station’s Division of Silvicultural 

Research, was put in charge of the new 

Missoula Research Center.

Establishment of this center proved 

timely. New markets for lodgepole pine 

timber from the northern Rockies began 

to develop in 1947 as the pulp and paper 

industry in the Lake States sought new 

pulpwood supplies for the mills concentrated there. The demands for timber 

species that practically couldn’t be given 

away prior to World War II were spectacular. The cut of timber from Region 1 

National Forests rose 150 percent above 

1940 levels.

Research centers were decidedly 

nonuniform. Each was assigned a geographic area that was normally, but not 

always, at or near an experimental forest 

or range. They were planned to solve 

the primary management problems of 

an area, although some at times were assigned problems not specific to the area. 

Usually a center had research involving 

several functional fields, but this was not 

always the case. By 1947, Forest Service 

Research had established 34 centers; 19 

more were authorized and established 

that year. The plan was to have 80 

centers eventually (Storey 1975).

By 1948, the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station was on the way to 

reaching its goal of establishing research 

centers at Bozeman, Priest River, Fort 

Keough, and Spokane, as well as the one 

in Missoula. Under the research center 

concept, each organization was headed by 

a center leader who served as a line officer 

in charge of all the research at the center, 

regardless of discipline. Division chiefs 

had the staff responsibility, at Station 

•

•

headquarters, for coordinating research 

within disciplines among the centers.

Having research centers at both Priest 

River and Spokane was a very temporary arrangement. Chuck Wellner was 

named center leader for both operations. 

Less than a year later, the Spokane organization was renamed the Inland Empire 

Research Center. Wellner continued as 

leader. Priest River was returned to its 

earlier designation as an experimental 

forest. Wellner said this change made 

no real difference—the two locations 

already were being managed as one 

(Wellner 1976).

At Spokane, plans called for studies 

of:

Converting old-growth forests 

to managed forests

Cutting young, second-growth 

forests to obtain the most products

Determining the growth 

rate of forested areas

Starting new forests, both 

naturally and artificially

Restoring depleted rangeland 

to full productivity

Managing rangeland to 

yield the most products

Wellner served as Center Leader for 

10 years until he was named Chief of 

the Intermountain Station’s Division 

•

•

•

•

•

•

of Forest Management Research (INT 

1958). When Wellner left Spokane, he 

was replaced by Bob Callaham, who 

later became Director of the Pacific 

Southwest Station.

“Empire” may have been a fitting 

descriptive word for the Spokane 

operation in more ways than one. Al 

Stage recalled, “In those days, Research 

Centers were on the verge of becoming 

little Experiment Stations. Their leaders 

had considerable political pull. They 

also had a very close involvement with 

forest professionals in industry, the 

State, and the rest of the Forest Service” 

(Stage 2003).

Stage noted that people concerned 

with forest research and management 

had an organization in Spokane called 

the Hoo Hoo Club, a place where 

industry and Forest Service people 

got together once a month for lunch 

and talked about problems. “And then 

some of them would go talk to their 

politicians,” he said. “And problems 

generated money. Money generated 

people, and that’s sort of how things 

grew the way they did.”

Stage pointed out that because all the 

scientists at a Research Center reported 

directly to the center leader, the organizations were long on cooperation. He 

said, however, they were “rather shallow 

technically in any one field.” Stage 

believed this situation reversed later 

when centers were discontinued in favor 

of research work units at laboratories.

Some of the fundamental strengths 

of the centers led to abandonment of the 

concept. Each center was specifically 

identified in Congressional appropriations measures. Some Forest Service 

administrators came to believe that 

strong center leaders and strong local 

ties lessened support of the broader 

goals of the Stations. There was also 

unwanted pressure from Congress to 

establish unneeded centers. In the future, 

Research leaders would be challenged 

to control the situation without losing 

scientific creativity (Steen 1998).

Organizational changes occurred in 

the Washington Office as well as at the 

Stations in the late 1940s. The Division 

of Forest Fire and Atmospheric Sciences 

Research was established (West 1990), 

a development that was to be of great 

importance to the Station.

1951

Northern Rocky

Mountain Forest & Range

Experiment Station

Inland Empire Research Center

Bernice Exp. Forest

Deception Creek Exp. Forest

Upper Columbia Research Center

Coram Exp. Forest

Upper Missouri Research Center

Vigilante Exp. Range

No. Great Plains Research Center

U.S. Range Livestock Exp. Station

Missoula Headquarters
50–

New Emphasis Areas

As the 1940s came to a close, 

changes occurring in the forest products 

industry began to influence changes in 

the Station’s Forest Utilization Service 

program. Lodgepole pine, small in 

size, growing at high elevations with 

difficult access and far from markets, 

had not been extensively utilized. Yet, 

the volume of lodgepole pine in the 

forests of the northern Rockies was 

significant. The Station’s efforts to aid 

industrial development were directed 

toward utilization of lodgepole pine 

in a developing pole industry, and in 

aiding the pulp and paper industry’s 

consideration of establishing pulp mills 

in the Inland Empire.

Federal funding for wildlife research 

went to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), with none to the 

Forest Service. However, because 

management of the National Forests 

obviously involved wildlife habitat, the 

problem of addressing Forest Service 

research needs in this area was met by 

assigning USFWS personnel to Forest 

Service research locations. In the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station area, 

wildlife research was done by a USFWS 

biologist located at the Missoula 

Research Center (Annual Report, NRM 

1949).

The late 40s and early 50s continued 

to feature change in research program 

emphases. Watershed management 

research was assuming more importance 

in the eyes of forest managers by 1949, 

and the Station cited the need to integrate watershed research into the area 

called “forest influences.” The allocation 

of funds for forest economics research 

began, adding a new dimension to the 

research programs.

Research programs within the 

Stations, including the Northern Rocky 

Mountain, were still organized according to functional divisions—timber 

management, fire, range management—but there was a realization that 

some integration was desirable and 

should occur. It also was recognized 

that funds and people were still out of 

balance with the research needs identified by the Station (Annual Report, 

NRM 1948).

The effectiveness of efforts to stem 

the losses of western white pine to blister rust through Ribes eradication began 

to receive serious challenges, and a new 

problem labeled “pole blight” emerged. 

Pole blight ravaged pole-sized stands 

of western white pine, and its cause 

and ways to control it were unknown. 

It joined the list of research problems 

addressed by the Station.

Post-war shifts in agricultural livestock production were also reflected in 

changes in the Station’s range research 

program. In the Interior West, Sheep 

numbers were down 51 percent from 

their 1942 peak of 3.9 million; horses 

were in a steady decline from 450,000 

in 1930 to 173,000. But there were 

twice as many cattle as in 1938, reaching an all-time high of 1.8 million in 

January 1945. On the Great Plains, 

wheat acreage was increasing because 

farmers were plowing fields that hadn’t 

been used in years.

By 1950, the United States was 

already involved in a cold war with 

the Soviet Union and other communist 

countries. That summer, a hot war broke 

out in Korea as communist North Korea 

invaded South Korea, immediately 

involving the U.S. in the fighting. This 

dramatic change in events was reflected 

in the Station’s annual report. The 

authors wondered if events were leading 

toward World War III, and what the 

Station’s role would be.

It was also a time when the Forest 

Service began viewing forest genetics 

as the “glamour item” within forestry 

research. Significant and well-publicized 

gains had been made in agricultural 

crop production. If productivity gains 

could be made in agriculture, why not 

in forestry? The question came naturally 

because commodity production as a 

goal was common in the Forest Service 

at that time. This was reflected in the 

Station’s mission statement: “The 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station’s 

mission is to aid in the production of 

timber, forage, and water (in harmony 

with animals).”

Some frustration was evident in a 

1948 annual report statement, “The 

general public may not be aware that 

Forest Service research is under way, or 

if they are, is skeptical about its value.” 

Such frustrations and sentiments were 

Sticks for Cash

Because of the success of Harry Gisborne’s 

earlier work with fuel moisture indicator 

sticks used in evaluating fire hazard, the 

Station in 1948 was given the assignment 

of manufacturing the sticks for all the forest 

protective agencies west of the Mississippi 

River. The job was transferred from Region 5 

(the California Region) to Priest River where 

1,500 sets per year were manufactured at a 

cost of $1.50 per set. It was not big money, 

but the fuel moisture indicator sticks became 

important tools in forecasting forest fire danger.

By 1954, the process of making indicator 

sticks had been automated and moved to a 

Forest Service warehouse in Spokane. A twoman team worked 6 or 7 weeks each winter 

producing 1,800 sticks. All indicator sticks 

used at fire-weather stations were replaced 

annually (Hardy 1954).

Chuck Wellner displayed the halfinch versions of Harry Gisborne’s 

fuel moisture indicator sticks that 

earned a few extra dollars for the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station. 

(Gisborne Collection, 98 (vii): 205)
–51

not unique to either the Station or the 

time. They have been voiced by many 

Forest Service researchers and research 

administrators through the years. 

Developments in fire research were soon 

to make Forest Service research more 

visible to the public and to demonstrate 

its value.

Fire Research Takes off 

with Barrows

Harry Gisborne convinced Jack 

Barrows to join the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station staff in 1946. Barrows 

was destined to carry fire research into 

new realms made possible by wartime 

technological developments (Hardy 

1983).

Gisborne and Barrows admired 

each other. They had become close 

friends during the 1930s when Barrows 

conducted fire control and fire behavior 

workshops and later became Chief of 

Fire Control Training for the National 

Park Service. Gisborne thought Barrows 

was exactly the right person to continue 

research started by Lloyd Hornby, who 

had developed the first basic principles 

for fire control planning. Barrows said 

Gisborne was “certainly a man that I 

wanted to know and be associated with 

because he was obviously way ahead 

of his time. His concepts, his thinking, 

his vigorous approach to problems were 

absolutely infectious to people. He 

inspired me to do things” (Hardy 1977).

The 3-year Barrows-Gisborne association didn’t turn out to be exactly what 

Gisborne envisioned. After less than a 

month getting ready to analyze a huge 

backlog of fire reports to begin his planning research, Barrows was detailed to 

lead a new Aerial Bombing Project for 

the Forest Service. According to Hardy, 

Gisborne might have been a bit disappointed in this change, because Gisborne 

had waited a long time to restart fire 

control planning work. But Gisborne 

had picked the right man to move the 

total program forward.

“Barrows was not one to let anything 

stand still if he was convinced it should 

start moving,” Hardy said. Despite his 

reassignment, during his first winter 

in Gisborne’s unit Barrows prepared 

a detailed working plan and started 

machine compilation of 23,000 punchcarded National Forest fire reports. This 

work was the foundation of an improved 

design for fire control planning that capitalized more fully on new knowledge of 

fire behavior in the northern Rockies and 

new equipment and techniques available 

to field forces.

So Barrows did fulfill his obligation 

to resume work in the general fire 

control planning arena, but he made his 

mark using his boundless energy, organizational skills, and military and political 

connections to introduce revolutionary 

“high-tech” methods into wildland fire 

research and management.

Barrows’ military assignments during 

World War II had included serving as a 

Lieutenant Colonel on the staff of Gen. 

Curtis LeMay doing work related to the 

incendiary fire bombing of Japan. After 

spending 3 years formulating aerial 

bombing strategy and tactics with the 

Army Air Corps in the Pacific, he was 

discharged and accepted the employment offer Gisborne had made in a 

letter while Barrows was still in the Air 

Corps. Because of his military experience, Barrows was a natural choice as 

liaison between the Army Air Corps and 

the Forest Service in the cooperative 

work that was necessary for the Aerial 

Bombing Project to succeed.

Gisborne was enthusiastic about the 

Aerial Bombing Project. He had backed 

a few abortive attempts at testing water 

drops on fires in the 1930s. One was a 

drop of an oak beer barrel filled with 

water from 250 feet. It created a hole 

and a wet spot. “Looked as if someone 

had tried to drown out a badger,” said 

Gisborne’s close friend and cooperator 

Howard Flint (Hardy 1977). The next 

try was with a specially built iron can. 

It broke “like a fresh egg dropped on 

a concrete walk.” Other attempts were 

drops from a Ford Trimotor equipped 

with a 100-gallon tank. This technique 

eventually worked from 30 feet above 

ground but didn’t provide enough water 

to “faze a light grass fire.”

Flint said Gisborne wondered if foam 

fire suppressants might be applied from 

the air. So for several hours he and a 

technician filled paper shopping bags 

with foam. They were hauled to the 

top of a 150-foot tower with a rope and 

dropped at targets on the ground. Results 

were “less than promising.”

Despite Gisborne’s interest, he turned 

the entire Aerial Bombing Project over 

to Barrows, limiting his participation to 

providing occasional advice. Massive, 

fast-moving enterprises were really 

not Gisborne’s thing. When the project 

ended, he was reluctant to go along with 

sweeping conclusions based on limited 

data and experience. Big, high-tech 

enterprises and quick results definitely 

were Barrows’ thing.

The project sought to use wartime 

bombsights, modern aircraft, and other 

innovations to make accurate drops and 

try to find an ideal drop height. It was 

strongly backed by David Godwin, the 

Forest Service Director of Fire Control, 

who was a close friend of Air Force 

Commander Hap Arnold. The first season was devoted to fitting the “bombs” 

with fins and fuses and preparing a fire 

site about 20 miles from Missoula.

The exciting part started in 1947. 

A B-29 Superfortress and two P-47 

Thunderbolts arrived from Eglin Air 

Force Base and made many practice 

runs, first over level ground and later in 

mountainous terrain. The P-47s bombed 

a few fires caused by lightning near 

the end of the season; results of those 

attacks are unknown.

Hardy (1977) said, “This probably 

was the most publicized fire research 

endeavor ever to occur in this Region 

(Region 1).” At a public ceremony at 

Great Falls, the mayor christened the 

B-29 the “Rocky Mountain Ranger.” 

Frequent newspaper articles kept the 

public well-posted on developments in 

the project. Three progress reports were 

issued, the last an 83-page illustrated 

document giving details of the research, 

recommendations, and conclusions. It 

was prepared jointly late in 1947 by 

the Station and the Air Force Proving 

Ground Command.

Ambitious plans were made for tests 

in 1948. They included using bigger and 

better bombs, trials of foam and chemical retardants, bombing a large fire head, 

and formation bombing. None of this 

came about. The project was terminated.
52–

C. S. Crocker, Region 1 Chief of Fire 

Control, blamed the old guard. He said, 

“There were too many Forest Service 

men that were back in the horse and 

buggy days” and didn’t want this kind 

of work continued. A different view 

was given by a project representative 

who attended an Air Force meeting at 

the Pentagon: “I got the feeling that the 

junior officers were interested and sympathetic toward continuing the program, 

but the senior officer, who was new, and 

presumed to represent the Secretary, was 

very adamant that orders from above 

were to discontinue it. I never learned 

exactly why” (Hardy 1977).

The idea of fighting wildfires with 

the aid of aerial retardant drops was 

pretty much put on hold by the Forest 

Service until 1954 when tests began in 

California of dropping free-falling or 

cascading water as part of “Operation 

Firestop.” Producing new retardant 

technology became an important part of 

the Missoula Fire Lab program later, and 

aerial fire attack became a vital part of 

fire control efforts throughout the world.

Undaunted by termination of the 

aerial bombing program, Gisborne and 

Barrows became involved in another 

high-tech fire research adventure—cloud 

seeding to control the lightning that was 

by far the principal cause of wildfires 

throughout the western United States.

Immediately after World War II, 

Irving Langmuir and Vincent J. Schaefer 

of the General Electric Company’s 

research laboratory in Schenectady, 

New York, accidentally discovered that 

when dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) 

was dropped into a freezer containing a 

fog cloud, snow resulted and the cloud 

vanished. Gisborne, who apparently kept 

track of all sorts of people and things, 

had met Langmuir in 1933. Barrows 

said when Gisborne learned about the 

new dry ice test results, “he just sparked 

immediately and proceeded to find out 

if it could become a tool in fire control” 

(Hardy 1977).

Although the Forest Service did not 

want to be involved in cloud-seeding 

research because other agencies already 

were working in this area, Schaefer 

was invited to Priest River to visit for a 

month in the summer of 1948. Informal 

meetings and experiments that included 

Gisborne and Barrows during his stay 

resulted in a sort of “bootleg” participation by the Station in cloud-seeding 

research.

The next summer, Region 1 made a 

contract C-47 aircraft available and it 

was rigged with a dry-ice hopper and 

oxygen tubes leading to the rear of the 

cabin where the crew could chop and 

cascade dry ice. On a test flight, each 

man was tied to the plane by a rope in 

case he fell out the door. Bob Johnson, 

founder of the Johnson Flying Service 

that owned the plane, gave this account 

of the flight:

We got to 26,000 feet but the darned 

thunderhead was moving up pretty near 

as fast as we were. We finally got into 

and almost on top of it and they started 

letting loose the dry ice. But in the deal 

somebody back there either stepped on 

the oxygen tube or kicked it loose, letting 

it run all over the plane. I don’t know 

what [happened], but they had no oxygen 

and all at once Gisborne came busting 

up to the cockpit yelling “go down, go 

down, do down, we got no oxygen.” 

Gis’ face was purple. But anyway we 

took the nose down and we came down 

pretty fast—a lot faster than we went up.

The C-47 proved to be unsuitable 

for cloud-seeding, so Barrows used his 

connections to get a B-29 from Fairchild 

Air Force Base. It was equipped with a 

specially designed ice hopper and Forest 

Service radios. Although the plane 

made several test runs near Priest River 

that summer, no clouds appeared that 

were suitable for a proper experiment. 

Gisborne said he “got heavy pressure to 

get busy and do something, go up and 

ice a cloud, any cloud, and see what 

happens.” “But,” he said, “I am not 

going to do that. I am not going to try to 

plug the gap by pulling a stunt instead of 

Jack Barrows spoke 

at the christening of the B-29 

Superfortress, “The 

Rocky Mountain 

Ranger,” which 

was outfitted to 

drop water in large 

containers that 

would burst on or 

above the ground 

as part of the Aerial 

Bombing Project.

Jack Barrows (right) 

operated the radio 

near a mobile radar 

unit in 1956 as Don 

Fuquay (left) and 

Vincent Schaefer 

used a cloud theodolite to check 

cloud speed and 

direction.
–53

conducting an experiment, as much as I 

would like to go up and see what we can 

do” (Hardy 1977).

Schaefer wrote a report in January of 

1949 that summarized the efforts up to 

then and proposed a detailed procedure 

for conducting further research on cloud 

seeding for fire prevention. He said in 

an interview, “It was Harry Gisborne, 

along with his young assistant Jack 

Barrows, who planted the seed in my 

mind for the development of the fullblown research endeavor which became 

Project Skyfire.” Gisborne died that 

year. Barrows took his place as Division 

Chief of Forest Fire Research at the 

Station and also as the chief advocate of 

Project Skyfire.

Langmuir and Schaefer came to 

Priest River in 1952 to help conduct the 

first training school for lookouts who 

would keep track of lightning storms 

and make cloud surveys. Skyfire became 

a formal Forest Service research program in 1953, a move enthusiastically 

supported by Barrows.

Project Skyfire came to include many 

diverse cooperators, and assembling and 

keeping the team together and motivated 

was a role Barrows played well. He 

was a master at locating and obtaining 

funding and the right personnel. In 

a progress report (Barrows 1954) he 

said the first Station cooperator was 

the Munitalp Foundation, a private, 

nonprofit organization dedicated to 

fostering basic research in meteorology. 

“The man who endowed the money 

that made this foundation possible was 

a mining engineer who did not wish 

to publicize his own name,” Barrows 

said. “However, he did make his fortune 

in platinum and therefore Munitalp is 

simply platinum spelled backwards.” 

The name of the foundation’s benefactor 

remains unknown.

With funds in hand, Barrows hired 

Meteorologist Don Fuquay to lead the 

Station research. Fuquay had conducted 

research on thunderstorms and lightning 

physics at the University of Washington, 

where he earned BS and MS degrees in 

meteorology, and also for the Munitalp 

Foundation. He designed much of the 

specialized research equipment used in 

the Skyfire program.

The Project Skyfire cooperator 

list mushroomed. It came to include 

the U.S. Weather Bureau, Montana 

State University, the University of 

Washington, the General Electric 

Research Laboratory, Boeing, the 

National Park Service, the California 

Experiment Station, the California 

State Division of Forestry, and all 

Forest Service western Regions. The 

broad objectives were to (1) gain basic 

information on the occurrence, behavior, 

and control of lightning-caused forest 

fires and the characteristics of storms 

that produce the fires, and (2) to develop 

methods for suppression of lightning 

fires, including cloud modification 

(Barrows and others 1957).

The list of Skyfire activities was as 

impressive as the role call of cooperators 

(Barrows and others 1957). It included:

Statistical studies of lightning fires 

throughout the western U.S. that 

showed where lightning-caused 

fires were most prevalent, dates 

and times of occurrences, the speed 

of detection, rate of fire spread, 

areas burned and other data.

Development of a network 

of 22 lookout stations that 

provided information on clouds 

and lightning storms in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains.

Studies of the theory of cloud 

seeding and techniques for 

cloud modification.

Specially developed equipment, 

including a mobile atmospheric 

laboratory, mobile radar unit, 

airborne cloud-seeding generator, 

ground-based cloud-seeding 

generator, wind tunnel for generator 

tests, and many modifications 

of standard meteorological 

equipment.

Special time-lapse motion picture 

cameras used at numerous 

points to record the life cycle 

of clouds and thunderstorms.

Studies of the origin, development, 

and intensity of thunderstorms in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain area, and 

of the associated atmospheric factors.

Studies in Arizona and the northern 

Rockies of freezing nuclei of silver 

iodide and other seeding agents.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Detailed analyses of the results 

of cloud seeding experiments.

Studies of lightning storm 

forecasting to determine methods 

for predicting storms in local areas 

and differences in the storms.

The researchers found that they could 

reduce the incidence of lightning, but 

national Forest Service officials put a 

stop to the studies for fear of lawsuits 

filed by people adversely affected by 

induced weather changes (Rothermel 

interview, 1993). The research, however, 

produced several spinoffs. One of the 

most important to natural resource 

management agencies was the early 

work on development of lightning detectors placed on mountain tops, which 

ultimately became part of a network 

of remote reporting stations recording 

lightning conditions and feeding the 

data into the National Interagency Fire 

Center in Boise.

Barrows and Gisborne shared several 

characteristics, perhaps most notable 

their personal dedication to fire research, 

meticulous organization skills, and 

an emphasis on meeting ambitious 

goals. But there were differences, too. 

Gisborne tended to demand perfection from himself, his subordinates, 

and cooperators. Barrows appears 

to have shared this appreciation for 

excellent work, but he tempered it with 

diplomacy.

In the course of his unending 

crusade for better fire-weather forecasting, Gisborne created some bitter 

relationships with personnel of the U.S. 

Weather Bureau (later Service). His 

impatience with progress in weather 

forecasting turned to irascibility in his 

later years (Hardy 1983). The Region 1 

Director of Fire Control, Crocker, berated Gisborne in 1948: “You advocate 

(and practice) needling, aggravating, 

fighting, and antagonizing the Bureau. 

That approach over the years has 

brought us nothing that could not have 

been realized through other more ethical 

means.”

Barrows healed wounds by including 

the Weather Bureau in Project Skyfire 

as an important partner and carefully 

acknowledging good work by bureau 

personnel and other cooperators in 

his progress reports. Like Gisborne, 

•

•
54–

Barrows campaigned for improved 

funding for fire research. Gisborne 

openly criticized the Forest Service’s 

budget for fire studies as “grossly 

inadequate.” Barrows worked more 

indirectly with key individuals, including Montana Senator Mike Mansfield, 

to gain increased funding (INTercom

3/16/89). One result was establishment 

of the Fire Lab at Missoula, which cost 

$1 million to build and opened in 1960 

with Barrows as chief administrator 

(see “The Fire Lab Fires Up,” chapter 

10).

A firefighting tragedy was another 

impetus for fire research, and ultimately 

construction of the Fire Lab. Thirteen 

firefighters, 12 of them smokejumpers, 

lost their lives in the Mann Gulch Fire 

in Montana in 1949. This was not the 

biggest loss of life due to wildland fire 

before 1949 or since, but it and several 

investigations that followed the disaster 

captured the attention of national news 

media and thus the public and politicians. Red Skies of Montana, a movie 

starring Richard Widmark that appeared 

in television reruns for many years, 

was said to have been based on events 

during the Mann Gulch Fire. It was 

produced by Twentieth Century Fox in 

1952, when investigations and lawsuits 

related to the fire were still in progress. 

Mann Gulch did not immediately inspire 

a quest for new knowledge of forest fire 

behavior, but over time it did ( Maclean 

1992). It also was the place where Harry 

Gisborne died.

Barrows’ administrative talents and 

connections to the military did not go 

unnoticed in Washington, DC. In 1964, 

he was promoted to Chief of Fire and 

Atmospheric Sciences Research. He 

continued to be a strong advocate of fire 

behavior research and control methods 

that incorporated new technology. 

Evidence of Barrows’ political instincts 

and effective use of contacts to make 

things happen is shown in the 19-fold 

increase in fire research funding from 

1945 to 1970. Other research budget 

items increased 5- to 8-fold during the 

same period. Barrows taught at Colorado 

State University, where he had earned his 

bachelor’s degree in forestry, for several 

years after his retirement in 1972.

After he died in 1989, Barrows was 

honored with a scholarship fund in his 

name at Colorado State to help graduate 

students studying fire management or 

research subjects. His former research 

associates recognized his achievements 

by displaying his portrait in the Fire 

Lab, an honor he shared with his friend 

Harry Gisborne.

Art Brackebusch took over as Fire 

Lab Chief in 1964, and the high-tech 

research programs continued and expanded. By 1968, the staff numbered 50, 

and as many as 100 were employed during summer fire seasons. Brackebusch 

said the staff was working on six major 

projects, including infrared sensing, 

lightning detection and control, fire 

retardants, fuel combustion, and computer data analysis (Morrison 1968).

Brackebusch was the last Fire Lab 

Chief. The Lab had functioned much as 

the large research centers did. The lab 

chief, like a strong center leader, had 

considerable autonomy and was able to 

develop political contacts. The Fire Lab 

had its own administrative officer with 

several assistants to deal with management of the physical plant and personnel 

and financial matters, plus a few 

employees performing publishing and 

public information program functions. 

This situation made the lab a prime candidate for change when Forest Service 

Research decided to move to research 

work unit-Assistant Station Director 

configurations, with general support 

functions managed from Station headquarters (see “Administrative Changes,” 

chapter 11). Although the transition took 

several years, the lab chief position was 

abolished and the administrative support 

personnel ultimately were moved out 

of the lab and supervised from Station 

Headquarters in Ogden.

The spot where Smokejumper Stanley 

J. Reba died was one of 13 marked at 

the Mann Gulch fire site. The place 

where Harry Gisborne died nearby was 

marked later. The tragic Mann Gulch 

fire focused national public attention 

on wildland fire fighting and one result 

was increased support for the Station’s 

fire research program.

Research Forester Art Brackebush took 

the helm at the Fire Lab in 1964 when 

Jack Barrows was promoted to direct 

the Forest Service’s national fire science 

program.
–55

Passage of the McSweeney-McNary Act in 1928 provided for establishment of the Intermountain Station, but 

the language was much less specific than 

it was for the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station and the other 10 experiment 

stations. The act simply authorized an 

additional station for Utah and adjoining 

States. Clapp’s National Program of 

Forest Research, published in 1926, had 

not described the Intermountain Station 

as it had the others. Nevertheless, a plan 

for the Intermountain Station was developed envisioning various work centers 

and substations.

The organization was to be similar 

to the State agricultural experiment 

stations. Included in the plan was an advisory council. The plan also called for 

the correlation of research on allied land 

management problems and for cooperation with other institutions. The plan was 

not put fully into effect until 1930. In 

the meantime, Great Basin continued to 

function as before.

McSweeney-McNary had an immediate effect on the Great Basin Station 

budget. In 1929, base funds reached 

$14,300, plus an increase of $14,500 for 

range investigations and $5,000 for special erosion research. Some of the new 

range and erosion funding was allocated 

to studies in the Boise River watershed 

in Idaho. This watershed was selected 

because conditions representative of 

many western drainages were present. 

Accelerated erosion, vegetation loss, and 

flooding resulting from excessive cattle 

and sheep grazing were common in the 

West (Shaw 1990).

The early Idaho watershed researchers, George Craddock and Fred Renner, 

were based in Ogden. They worked 

across much of the overstressed range 

land in the southern part of the Boise 

National Forest, living in tents or 

at Forest Guard Stations near study 

areas. They returned to Ogden during 

the winter months (Haupt, personal 

communication).

Craddock and Renner participated in 

a survey of erosion conditions and factors related to erosion in the late 1920s 

on about 370,000 acres of land between 

the Middle and South Forks of the Boise 

River. Factors included slope gradient, 

soil features, type of plant community, 

amount of ground cover, rodent infestations, and accessibility to livestock 

(Holmgren 1984).

About the same time, the organization that was soon to officially become 

the Intermountain Station began other 

studies in the Boise Basin. The early 

research was on the effects of various 

timber cutting methods on reproduction 

of ponderosa pine, snow recession in 

mountainous areas, and snow measurement methods.

Renner, Pearse, and 

Peg-leg Annie

Fred Renner was a famous range 

conservationist, but few know he laid 

the technical foundation as a Station 

range scientist for a career that led to his 

post as Chief of the Soil Conservation 

Service’s Range Conservation Division 

and a term as President of the Society 

for Range Management. Renner also 

became known as the leading authority 

on the work of cowboy-artist Charlie 

Russell, and he had a substantial collection of works by Russell.

C h a p t e r 7.

The Intermountain Station, 

1928-1953

In 1933 Ken Pearse photographed Fred Renner inspecting erosion damage in 

Wood Tick Creek in the Boise National Forest.
56–

Renner studied forestry and animal 

husbandry and became a National Forest 

administrator in Oregon in 1916. He 

changed course in 1928 when he moved 

to the Great Basin Station as a range 

examiner and started studies in the Boise 

Basin, where he worked until 1936. Like 

most of the first range scientists, Renner 

focused his early research on the link 

between overgrazing and soil erosion. 

He pioneered snow survey work as part 

of his range-watershed research, and 

was especially proud of having planned 

and conducted the first scientific snow 

survey.

Mining camp doctors saved Annie’s 

life by “filling her with whiskey” and 

amputating both feet.

By the time Renner met Annie 

she was an old woman living in the 

mountains, supported by the charity 

of the miners who still worked claims 

around Atlanta. In a strange twist of fate, 

Renner was caught in an unexpected 

blizzard while on a snow survey. He 

weathered the storm by sleeping on the 

floor of Annie’s cabin. Old timers recall 

that the story of Renner and Peg-leg 

Annie was printed in early training 

manuals for snow surveyors. Their experiences motivated the Soil Conservation 

Service to build survival cabins on many 

snow courses where survey sites were 

located.

Ken Pearse created some of the first 

experiments using artificial rainmakers 

to measure surface erosion on rangeland. 

After graduating from the University 

of Chicago in 1929 with a B.S. degree 

in plant ecology, Pearse spent a year 

working at the Jornada and Great Basin 

Stations before joining Renner to study 

the relationship of domestic grazing to 

erosion (INTercom Jan/Feb/ 91).

Pearse apparently had a knack for inventing things. In time for the 1933 field 

season, he and Joe Pechanec designed 

an improvement in the pantographs used 

by range researchers to translate data 

from field plots to maps or graphs. The 

creation was a new tubular aluminum 

arm that improved the performance of the 

Conservationist, Art Collector

Fred Renner was the second President of the Society for Range Management (SRM), 

following Joe Pechanec. In 1949, Society Secretary W. James Anderson suggested a 

need for an emblem for SRM. Earlier, Renner had received a typewritten copy of the 

program for the 1950 

annual meeting 

for printing. In 

response, he attached 

a photograph of 

Charles M. Russell’s 

drawing of “The Trail 

Boss” to the program 

instructing the printer 

to reproduce it in the 

center of the cover.

This was the first 

use of “The Trail 

Boss” in society 

materials. It inspired so many favorable comments that the SRM Board of Directors 

obtained permission to use it as the society emblem. Except for a few years in the 

1970s, “The Trail Boss” appeared as an underprint on the covers of the Journal of Range 

Management and it was widely used elsewhere as the official emblem of the society.

Renner said the drawing “had long symbolized qualities that it occurred to me 

were particularly appropriate to our newly formed Society: the importance of strong 

leadership, the necessity of all hands working together, and a willingness to travel 

uncharted trails” (Wasser and others 1987).

Renner pursued his range conservation work with great zeal and he was equally 

relentless about his art collection hobby, which became a full-time occupation after he 

retired from the Soil Conservation Service in 1961. He was honored for both activities. 

The Frederic G. Renner Award is the highest honor bestowed by the Society for Range 

Management. The Frederic G. Renner Library in the C. M. Russell Museum at Great 

Falls, Montana, is a research library dedicated to the study of western art and Charles 

Russell materials.

Renner wrote Charles M. Russell, the book Russellphiles consider the most authoritative 

ever written about the works of the legendary artist (Chohlis 1980). Few original Russell 

works were purchased during Renner’s lengthy lifetime without his authentication. 

Collectors, auction houses, dealers, museums, and most others wanted his opinion 

before buying. Renner’s opinions were backed by a huge photo collection and library 

that he spent decades assembling. He also assembled one of the largest personal 

collections of Russell works.

According to his widow in 1990 

(INTercom Jan/Feb/91) Renner frequently reminisced about his early years 

in the Boise Basin. He told a story about 

surviving a blizzard in Peg-leg Annie’s 

cabin and the connection to Annie’s own 

story of winter survival.

Annie and another lady of the 

evening, “Dutch Em,” worked the gold 

rush mining camps of Atlanta and Rocky 

Bar. During May 1898 they decided 

to walk from Atlanta to Rocky Bar 

on the crusted snow. Halfway there, 

the two were caught in a blizzard that 

killed Dutch Em and froze Annie’s feet. 

Station scientists pioneered snow 

survey research like that shown in this 

1932 photo in the Payette National 

Forest near McCall, Idaho.
–57

pantograph. It is not known how information on new instruments or modifications 

was transmitted in the 1930s, but in later 

years Station scientists and technicians 

were encouraged to publish Research 

Notes to describe equipment advances or 

new techniques. The knowledge then was 

readily available worldwide to anyone in 

research and resource management who 

had an interest.

Many of the range study exclosures 

built in the 1930s were criticized later as 

being too small, but Pearse and Renner 

constructed some exclosures as large 

as 40 acres, and one in Elk Creek in the 

South Fork of the Boise River drainage 

covered a half section. The Elk Creek 

exclosure was designated a Research 

Natural Area in 1979 as an excellent 

example of sagebrush-steppe plant 

communities on granitic soils. The site, 

including the fence, was burned by a 

wildfire in 1992.

Pearse and Renner made big plans 

for a comparative watershed study at 

Arrowrock similar to the successful 

one already under way at Great Basin. 

The Arrowrock study was planned for a 

much larger area than watersheds A and 

B at Great Basin. The duo built a field 

station at the location of the comparative 

watersheds. They installed fences and 

other facilities necessary to measure 

sediment from a control watershed and a 

manipulated and grazed watershed. Just 

as they were ready to start collecting 

data, disaster struck.

“The research project was screwed 

up because the Boise Forest closed the 

whole area to grazing...so we had no 

comparison,” Pearse lamented in an 

interview in the early 1990s.

Renner headed to the California 

Experiment Station where he supervised the creation of the San Joaquin 

Experimental Range before leaving the 

Forest Service to assume his leadership 

role with the Soil Conservation Service. 

In California, he finished writing a comprehensive technical bulletin on erosion 

in the Boise River watershed (Renner 

1936).

Pearse stayed in Idaho, and between 

1932 and 1938 conducted the research 

that he later described as the most 

significant accomplishment of his 

career—the artificial rainmaker work. 

Many years later, Station research 

engineers and hydrologists used the 

technique for important studies of erosion from forest roads. Pearse died at 

age 89 in 1996. He directed that when 

his wife died, their ashes were to be 

scattered at the Arrowrock substation 

where they had lived more than 50 years 

earlier.

Hail to the Chiefs

Thirteen Chiefs led the Forest Service 

during Station history. Two of them—

Lyle Watts and John McGuire—worked 

at the Station early in their careers. A 

third—Ed Cliff—was born and grew 

up in the Intermountain West and was 

strongly influenced by Station people.

Lyle Watts was a scientist and 

administrator. He left a post as head of 

the forestry department at Utah State 

Agricultural College in Logan to become a senior silviculturist for the Great 

Basin Station in 1929. He conducted 

research in the southern parts of the 

Boise National Forest in Idaho.

Watts served briefly as an Assistant 

Station Director of the newly designated 

Intermountain Station before becoming 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

Director in 1931. In 1936, he moved to 

Milwaukee as Regional Forester of the 

Eastern Region and became Regional 

Forester for the Pacific Northwest 

Region before being appointed Chief in 

1943. He believed that after World War 

II the National Forests should be opened 

to development that was scientific and 

orderly.

Watts encouraged hiring new college graduates, many of them who got 

their education with help from the GI 

bill, to assist in development of forest 

road systems and intensively managed, 

sustained-yield forests (Williams 1993). 

Watts served as Chief until 1952.

New Deal emergency programs 

were responsible for the hiring of John 

McGuire for the brief time he spent 

at the Station at the start of his career. 

Ken Pearse (left) and an unidentified 

assistant demonstrated the improved 

pantograph he and Joe Pechanec developed.

Artificial rainmaking equipment designed by Ken Pearse was set up to measure 

surface erosion from this Idaho rangeland that had been heavily overgrazed by 

domestic sheep.
58–

McGuire was an emergency program 

assistant to Station technicians for 

only about a year, but that experience 

may have influenced his future. He 

decided to go back to school to become 

a research forester. He earned a masters 

degree from Yale University, entered 

the Army where he attained the rank of 

Major in the Corps of Engineers, and 

then worked at the Northeastern Station, 

where he also earned a masters degree in 

economics.

McGuire became Director of the 

Pacific Southwest Station and later 

moved to Washington. He was named 

Chief in 1971 at a time of increasing 

public environmental awareness. During 

his 7 years in office, McGuire strengthened the roles of Research and State and 

Private Forestry and led 

reviews and changes in 

forest management practices (Williams 1993).

“Lyle Watts was really 

one of my heroes,” wrote 

Ed Cliff, who became the 

ninth Chief of the Forest 

Service (Hartzer 1981). 

Cliff was born in Heber 

City, Utah, and first 

worked with the Forest 

Service as a summer field 

assistant in 1929 for the 

Cache National Forest. 

Watts recommended him 

for the job.

Cliff attended what 

later became Utah State 

University where he took basic courses 

in agriculture and animal husbandry 

the first year. The following year, 1929, 

Watts was selected as the first head 

of the Department of Forestry. Range 

management was shifted to the new 

department. Watts became Cliff’s mentor and was a major influence on his 

outlook and subsequent career (Hartzer 

1981). Arthur Sampson, first Director 

of the Great Basin Station, wrote the 

primary range management textbook 

Cliff studied in college.

Cliff moved up through various positions in the Pacific Northwest Region 

and the Intermountain Region before 

becoming Regional Forester for the 

Rocky Mountain Region in 1950. Two 

years later he moved to Washington and 

was appointed Chief in 1962. He experienced a decade of rapid change in the 

agency. One of Cliff’s accomplishments 

was helping to develop a long-range 

research program.

Forest Service Chiefs did not sit 

around in offices in Washington and 

depend on reports to learn what was 

going on. Most Chiefs maintained hectic 

travel schedules, visiting as many field 

units as possible to see first-hand how 

Lyle Watts as Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station Director. Was pipe smoking 

the mark of a forestry leader? Watts, 

McGuire, and Cliff all smoked pipes.

Forest Service Chief John McGuire (center) returned 

to where his career began three decades earlier when 

he visited the Intermountain Station in the 1970s. He 

met with Station Director Roger Bay (left) and Region 4 

Regional Forester Vern Hamre at Station Headquarters 

and held a family meeting for all employees in Ogden.

Chiefs and their top assistants often visited field units. This group was unusually 

high-powered. Visiting Priest River in 1912 were (left to right) Regional Forester 

William Greeley (Chief 1920-28), Tanner (first name unknown), David Mason, 

Ferdinand Silcox (Chief 1933-39), James Girard, M. H. Wolff, Chief Henry Graves 

(1910-20), and Mallory Stickney.
–59

operations were going and to personally 

deliver messages to employees. When a 

Chief visited headquarters sites such as 

Missoula or Ogden, he almost always 

presided over a “family meeting” 

attended by all employees in the area. 

Everyone was free to ask questions. The 

Station got its share of visits by Chiefs 

(see examples, chapter 14).

As places that played a role in the 

development of five Deputy Chiefs 

for Research—Clarence Forsling, 

George Jemison, M. B. Dickerman, Bob 

Buckman, and Jerry Sesco—and three 

Chiefs, the Intermountain Station and 

its predecessor organizations made significant contributions to Forest Service 

leadership through the years.

Intermountain Officially 

Arrives

The organizational plan for the 

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station was finally implemented on July 1, 1930, making it the 

eleventh of the 12 Stations called for in 

the McSweeney-McNary Act. Ogden 

was selected as the headquarters city 

because of the strong relationship established between research and national 

forest administration (Region 4) headquartered there, and because of the city’s 

location as a railroad transportation hub. 

Clarence Forsling was the first Station 

Director, which was not a significant 

change because he had been the director 

at Great Basin since 1922.

A Forest Service luminary, Charles 

Connaughton, was hired in 1930 as a 

temporary assistant compiler. He went 

on to become well known in natural resource research and management circles, 

serving as Director of the Southern and 

Rocky Mountain Stations and Regional 

Forester for the Southern, California, 

and Pacific Northwest Regions (Hartzer 

1981).

By 1931, the Station was expanding. 

The headquarters was firmly established 

in Ogden, Great Basin had become a 

Branch Station, and cooperative work 

continued at the U.S. Sheep Station 

in Dubois, Idaho. Plans were made to 

create a Boise Branch Station, primarily 

for watershed erosion and streamflow 

studies. A ponderosa pine experimental 

forest was planned for Idaho, and 

a promise made that a desert shrub 

experimental range would receive early 

attention. Two alternative sites were 

selected for both the ponderosa pine and 

desert units. Laboratory facilities were 

limited, so some discussion was held 

about a proposed central laboratory to 

service the various experimental forests 

and ranges.

The Station’s research program 

included studies in forest and range 

management, 

erosion, and 

stream flow, along 

with “biological 

investigations” 

dealing with pocket 

gophers and big 

game. It is not clear 

how the Station 

was involved in the 

biological studies, 

because they still 

were the responsibility of USDA’s 

Biological Survey 

at that time.

The Station staff 

numbered 12. Ray 

Price, who served 

as Director of the 

Rocky Mountain 

Station in Fort 

Collins, Colorado, in the latter years 

of his career, joined the Intermountain 

Station as a junior range examiner. Joe 

Pechanec signed on as a temporary employee. Pechanec, then a student at the 

University of Idaho, soon found himself 

fighting fires for most of the summer. 

He was selected for fire duty because he 

had three summers of experience as a 

lookout for the Salmon National Forest.

Pechanec started out as a forestry student, but decided he didn’t like that field 

because he thought forestry students 

seemed too concerned with figures and 

money and not enough with the plants 

themselves. He took all the botany and 

range courses he could, and left the forestry students to worry about the figures 

and money.

A half century after starting his career 

in range research, Pechanec clearly 

recalled the early days (Appendix A). 

Much later, he served as Director of 

the Southeastern Station in Asheville, 

North Carolina, and from 1962 to 1971, 

the Intermountain Station. A strong 

advocate of range research, he was one 

of the founders, and served as the first 

president, of the Society for Range 

Management. He also served for several 

years as editor of the Journal of Range 

Management.

The Committee 

Complains, but Advances 

are Made

As was the case with Region 1 to the 

north, in 1931 Region 4 still maintained 

an Investigative Committee that made 

suggestions for both research by Station 

scientists and administrative studies 

by Region 4 personnel. The Great 

Depression had resulted in curtailed 

regular funds and each expenditure 

had to be carefully justified. So the 

Investigative Committee, in the spirit of 

the times, suggested “that research expenditures be for the study of problems 

as will be directly useful to the public in 

meeting the problems of the day.”

The committee complained at 

its 1931 annual meeting that “some 

investigations are so drawn out that by 

the time results are obtained the purpose 

Charles Connaughton, who became a Station Director 

and Regional Forester, rested on the running board of the 

Intermountain Station’s “deluxe truck” on a snow survey 

research project in the old Idaho National Forest in 1931. 

Lyle Watts, who became Chief of the Forest Service, took 

the photo.
60–

of initiating the research is forgotten.” 

Another comment was “the path from 

the experimental plot to the stockman 

could be infinitely straightened and 

shortened.” These comments reflect the 

normal tension that existed then and 

continued to exist between the action 

and research components of the Forest 

Service. The prime questions being 

asked of research by ranchers were how 

to obtain seed of desirable forage plants, 

and how to seed depleted lands. These 

questions were answered by Station 

research findings in the years ahead.

Data processing had advanced to the 

point where punch cards were sorted 

by Hollerith machines (card sorters). 

These machines were invented to serve 

the needs of the U.S. Census, and soon 

found many other uses including data 

handling in the Forest Service. It’s not 

known when the Station obtained its first 

machine, but initially all Station data 

punch cards were sent to Washington for 

compilation.

C. L. Forsling’s enthusiasm for field 

days as a method for disseminating 

research results had proved to be justified. The biennial field day at the Great 

Basin Branch Station in August 1931 

drew more than 200 stockmen and range 

managers. It was important enough to 

attract U.S. Senator Reed Smoot of 

Utah, who addressed the group around 

an evening campfire.

It was a significant year for research 

methodology, too. The Ecological 

Society of America took the lead in 

convening the first major get-together 

of people interested in range research 

methods. Representatives from three 

Forest Service Experiment Stations, 

the Washington Office, the Bureau of 

Animal Industry, the Biological Survey, 

and seven universities and colleges attended (Annual Report, INT 1932).

Of direct importance to the western 

livestock industry and ultimately to the 

Forest Service and the Station’s range 

research program was passage of the 

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, placing 80 

million acres of public lands into grazing districts. Before the act, grazing on 

the public lands had been unrestricted, 

reducing the forage value of much of it 

to desert (Holmgren 1973).

Region 4’s Investigative Committee 

was still active in 1934 and they tried 

to do something similar to the Region 

1 Investigative Council’s classification 

of research. They established three 

categories: (1) Short studies to solve 

administrative problems, (2) long-term 

administrative studies, and (3) academic 

problems that require fundamental 

research. Station research related to 

timber stand improvement and erosion 

control was of particular importance to 

the Region as the staff planned work for 

their contingent of CCC men.

Some concern was expressed at 

the Investigative Committee’s annual meeting that information from the 

administrative studies and research was 

not fully disseminated throughout the 

Region...a comment with a familiar 

ring. Suggestions offered to deal with 

the concern were to mimeograph brief 

reports on research and administrative 

study results and to review research 

accomplishments at District Ranger and 

Forest Supervisor meetings (Annual 

Report, INT 1934).

New Deal Was a Good 

Deal for the Station

New Deal economic emergency 

public works programs created in an 

attempt to lift the nation out of the Great 

Depression had a tremendous positive 

impact on Intermountain Station facilities and programs.

As it did for the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station, the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) program 

beneffited the Intermountain Station. 

At Great Basin, CCC enrollees built 

an additional cottage, a mess hallbunkhouse, a garage-storeroom, and a 

power line, and also did landscaping and 

constructed fences. At the Upper Snake 

River Research Center, the “3C’s” built 

a four-room cottage, two-car garage, 

and a storehouse. All of the buildings 

had standard Forest Service “Ranger 

Station” designs. They were simple one 

and one-half- or two-story wood-frame 

structures, painted white, with green 

roofs.

Reed Bailey, who became an 

Intermountain Station Director, was 

hired in 1933 as an emergency program 

conservationist. Bailey served as 

Director longer than any other person—for 27 years from 1935 to 1962. 

Bailey found emergency program funds 

to be a big help, but they presented problems because of the uncertainty of the 

funding. Restrictive personnel policies, 

which accompanied the emergency programs, also created unjust inequalities in 

salaries. Nevertheless, morale was high.

When Bailey became Director, the 

Station staff included more emergency 

program employees than regular personnel. The Station had 25 Civil Works 

Administration (CWA) workers of 

whom 20 were called “computers,” 

allowing data compilation to be brought 

up to date (Annual Report, INT 1934).

Bailey’s appointment was a bit 

unusual because of his professional 

training. Unlike those who preceded and 

followed him as Director, he was not a 

1932

Intermountain 

Forest & Range

Experiment Station

Ogden Headquarters

Boise Branch Station

Coop Unit – U.S. Sheep Station

Great Basin Exp. Range

Great Basin Branch Station

Civilian Conservation Corps crews built 

badly needed research and housing 

facilities such as the End House shown 

under construction at Great Basin in 

1934. See “A New Role for Great Basin,” 

chapter 11, for a photo of the End 

House after it was restored for use by 

students nearly 60 years later.
–61

forestry or range specialist and had very 

little previous Forest Service experience. 

Bailey was a geologist and was serving 

as a Professor of Geology at Utah State 

Agricultural College (later, Utah State 

University) when he got the appointment 

as Station Director.

Years later, Chief Ed Cliff said that 

Bailey’s appointment “was one of the 

early recognitions by the Forest Service 

that soils and geology were important 

disciplines and had to be reckoned with 

in the management of rangelands on 

mountain watersheds.” Cliff also cited 

Bailey’s status as a Station Director in 

refuting assertions by critics that a person had to be a professional forester to 

reach the top levels in the Forest Service 

(Hartzer 1981).

Science Grows in the 

Boise Basin

New Deal programs facilitated 

expansion of the Station’s modest watershed and silviculture research programs 

in southwestern Idaho. The Boise Basin 

Experimental Forest was established in 

1933 on 3,540 acres within the Boise 

National Forest (Sloan and Steele 1996). 

A site at Idaho City became the hub of 

activities by Boise Branch Station employees after the Civilian Conservation 

Corps built facilities there.

Ten buildings were constructed at 

Idaho City using emergency program 

funds and CCC labor. From 1933 to 

1951, they provided office, lab space, 

and housing for scientists (and their 

families) who were assigned to conduct 

forest and rangeland research (Haupt, 

personal communication). The research 

program expanded considerably over the 

years, and tents were needed to house 

cooperators, visitors, and temporary 

employees.

The first silviculture studies after 

the experimental forest was established 

began in 1935 to evaluate different 

methods of selecting mature trees for 

harvest and the effects of remaining tree 

patterns on growth, reproduction, and 

undergrowth vegetation. Crews installed 

permanent plots for monitoring tree reproduction and undergrowth vegetation 

(Sloan and Steele 1996).

Later studies considered factors 

affecting germination, survival, and 

growth of young ponderosa pine 

and effects of climate on trees and 

undergrowth in ponderosa pine forests. 

Competition factors for planted and 

natural pine seedlings were investigated 

in 1937, followed by two studies of seed 

storage, viability, and germination for 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Sloan 

and Steele 1996). Subsequent research 

dealt with such varied aspects of stand 

management as root systems of trees and 

seedlings, porcupine feeding relationships with ponderosa pine, and thinning 

and pruning methods. Reed Bailey’s background as a geologist 

served him well as Station Director at 

a time when watershed research was 

gaining importance. On Research Hill

The Boise Branch Station area at Idaho City was known as “Research Hill.” Harold and 

Barbara Haupt moved there in 1949 when he was hired as a watershed scientist in the 

unit led by Paul Packer. They lived in “The Lodge.” This account of life on Research Hill 

was given by the Haupts in 2005.

The wood stove was 

a challenge, but 

Barbara eventually 

mastered it enough 

to bake cinnamon 

rolls. Aging plumbing 

and wiring and the 

monster furnace in 

the basement also 

provided episodes 

of discontent—

especially when 

Harold was away on 

assignment in Ogden.

Otherwise, we 

thought living on 

the hill was idyllic 

and a great place to 

raise our family. Ours 

and the Packer and 

Curtis (Jim) kids roamed freely all over the hill. The wives coffeed together and shared 

frustrations and pleasures. Potluck picnics and dinners were organized. Square dancing, 

bridge, and canasta provided social outlets during the winter.

A rare treat was a trip to Boise to shop and have a meal out. The women learned how 

to put on chains when it was necessary to make a trip into town without husbands. 

Pine Tree Club meetings for all Forest Service wives at a Boise downtown hotel were 

welcome nights out and some wives traveled lonely mountain roads to attend. Dinner 

and cards were features, and once we staged a comedy making fun of the all-toofamiliar, hunter-abandoned wife and family scenario.

A dormitory building constructed in 1933 on what was 

known as “Research Hill” at the Boise Basin Branch Station 

at Idaho City.
62–

Fred Renner had installed the “old 

Boise exclosures” at high, medium, and 

low elevations to determine the effects 

of grazing on the range in the area. The 

purpose was to examine 

the effect of livestock 

exclusion on erosion rates 

and secondary plant succession on sites suffering 

from soil loss and in some 

cases invasion by annual 

weeds. These exclosures 

were monitored yearly 

through the 1930s with the 

help of CCC labor, and 

periodically into the 1950s 

and 1970s by others.

Species selection and 

planting techniques for 

rangelands were a major 

Station emphasis in the 

1930s and 1940s. A.C. Hull 

was the first researcher assigned at the Boise Branch 

who was a range scientist, 

not primarily a watershed investigator. 

Hull established experimental plantings 

and worked on site preparation and 

cheatgrass invasion problems. He 

transferred to the newly formed 

Agricultural Research Service in 1954, 

as did several other Forest Service scientists who specialized in range reseeding 

(Shaw 1990).

Sediment problems were particularly 

serious at Arrowrock Reservoir and 

streams feeding into it because severe 

overgrazing had denuded lands in the 

area, allowing large amounts of eroded 

soil to enter the creeks and the Boise 

River. Several structures were built in 

1936 for research use at the Arrowrock 

Substation, 25 miles southeast of Boise. 

Studies there were concerned with 

streamflow and siltation measurements 

and natural and artificial revegetation 

throughout the Boise River watershed. 

Arrowrock was an active research site 

until the dwelling burned down in 1943 

(Smith 1983).

After the Arrowrock dwelling was 

destroyed, Station personnel were 

housed along with Boise National Forest 

staff in the Old Assay Office on Main 

During the summers of 1932 and 1933, 

Liter Spence, an instructor at the 

University of Idaho, was hired by the 

Station to map roots of common range 

plants in the Boise Basin. He mapped 

some 100 separate systems, several 

of which were more than 7 feet deep, 

with a lot of help from CCC workers 

(Holmgren 1984).

Large amounts of sediment that clogged Arrowrock Reservoir in the 

1930s came from places like this near the mouth of Case Creek where 

severe erosion left fence posts “floating in air” some 8 feet from the 

banks that previously supported them. Pioneer watershed scientist 

Fred Renner took this photo in the fall of 1929.
–63

Street in Boise. This building is now on 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Other office space in Boise probably 

was used at various times by Station 

people.

Harold Haupt said “the bottom fell 

out” of the research program at Idaho 

City when World War II began. The 

program was suspended and the work 

center was closed for the duration of 

the war, one of the casualties when the 

Intermountain Station suffered severe 

cuts in funding (Haupt and Haupt 2005).

After the war, the Station hired Jim 

Curtis, a University of Maine forestry 

professor, to revive the program. Curtis, 

a silviculturist, resumed the dormant 

studies and started new ones. Soon 

he was joined by watershed scientist 

Paul Packer, who launched intensive 

infiltrometer studies and developed a 

compact rainfall applicator for the work 

(see photo in “Meeting the Challenges,” 

chapter 10).

In 1951, the Station staff in southwestern Idaho was consolidated and 

moved to the Boise National Forest 

warehouses on Myrtle Street, which 

were remodeled and named the Boise 

Research Center. Later, the buildings 

were redesignated as the Boise Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory. With the change, 

the “Research Hill” buildings at Idaho 

City became much less necessary for 

Station work and they were eventually 

turned over to the Idaho City Ranger 

District.

The Boise warehouses had been built 

by the Works Progress Administration 

(WPA) in 1940. Although these buildings would not be a first choice for 

housing a research program, continuing 

modifications and improvements made 

the facility a usable low-cost research 

site.

After the Intermountain and Northern 

Rocky Mountain Stations merged in 

1954, watershed research received heavy 

emphasis at the new Station. Packer 

was assigned to open a new watershed 

research project in Montana. Haupt 

became Project Leader at Boise and Joe 

Kidd transferred from the Northeastern 

Station to assist him. Haupt left to set up 

a new watershed unit in Reno, but was 

back in 1961 as Project Leader when 

concerns over soil stability and sediment 

production in the Idaho Batholith came 

to a head (see “Sediment Spells Trouble 

for Salmon,” chapter 10).

The Station succeeded in gaining 

formal approval of the Tenderfoot Creek 

Experimental Forest in Montana as a 

watershed study site in 1961. However, 

serious problems with sediment in the 

Salmon River dictated that the Station 

direct most of its watershed research 

funding to the Idaho Batholith. Research 

at Tenderfoot Creek had to wait (see “A 

New Experimental 

Forest (Finally),” 

chapter 11).

Wildlife habitat 

studies also gained 

emphasis in the Boise 

Basin. A long-term 

cooperative agreement with the Idaho 

Fish and Game 

Department ran 

from 1949 through 

1973 and provided 

Pittman-Robertson 

funding for research 

to improve big game 

winter range. The 

work involved developing methods to 

establish bitterbrush 

and other shrubs, 

bitterbrush-insect 

relations, shrub utilization techniques, 

and methods for 

producing container-grown nursery 

stock. This research was conducted by 

Ralph Holmgren, Bob Ferguson, Justin 

Smith, Joe Basile, Dean Medin, and 

others.

Wildlife habitat research by scientists 

based at the Boise Lab continued until 

1984. Ferguson, Medin, and Steve 

Monsen were key participants. They 

were joined by Nancy Shaw, who 

began working on the shrub project in 

The Boise Lab buildings did not provide first-class laboratory or office space, but 

they served well for a half century. Demands developed for the land for other 

uses, and after complex negotiations, new facilities were acquired nearby and the 

staff moved into them in 2005.

Research in the Boise Basin showed that competing vegetation had to be removed for plantings or seedings to be 

successful. Where equipment could not operate, implements were developed such as this hoe for scalping plots 

to be seeded to bitterbrush for big game use in winter. 

The inventors of this tool were truly creative; it was made 

from a scoop shovel and a section of a cross-cut saw.
64–

1977. Monsen later transferred to the 

Shrub Lab in Provo, but continued to 

work in Idaho on the Bureau of Land 

Management’s range revegetation 

program (Shaw 1990).

Additional research especially 

important to the BLM started in 1959 

when Jim Klemmendson, later a 

professor in the University of Arizona 

Range Department, and Henry Wright, 

who became Chairman of the Range 

Department at Texas A&M University, 

began the Saylor Creek grazing studies. 

The research later was continued by 

Bob Murray and Roy Harniss, and 

some aspects of it were subsequently 

carried on by the Shrub Lab’s biology 

and restoration project.

Saylor Creek was a 4,200-acre BLM 

experimental area in Elmore County, 

Idaho, selected as typical of millions of 

acres of sagebrush-grass rangelands that 

had become infested by cheatgrass, an 

annual that is a fire hazard and not very 

useful for forage. The primary goal was 

to develop grazing systems that would 

encourage replacing cheatgrass with 

desirable perennial grasses and create 

ranges with greater forage production 

and protection against erosion.

The BLM built a headquarters that 

provided offices and living quarters; 

fenced 73 pastures, paddocks, and exclosures; and installed a weather station 

and scales for weighing livestock. The 

range managers also built corrals and 

a system to distribute well water to all 

pastures (Pechanec 1967).

How to deal with cheatgrass 

presented a difficult problem. Station 

scientists produced some help in four 

areas: (1) providing results from the 

original grazing systems research at 

Saylor Creek; (2) conducting research 

on trials of “green stripping,” a method 

of constructing fuelbreaks; (3) assisting 

in development and testing of equipment to reseed cheatgrass areas; and (4) 

developing improved plant materials.

Existing knowledge in these areas 

was summarized at two symposia, 

both of which had proceedings published by the Station in the early 

1990s. Proceedings—Symposium on 

Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, 

and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology 

and Management was sponsored by the 

Shrub Research Consortium and compiled by Durant McArthur and three 

cooperators. Proceedings—Ecology and 

Management of Annual Rangelands, 

was compiled by Steve Monsen and 

Stanley Kitchen.

The first proceedings included a 

discussion of green stripping and development of a disk chain that buried 

unwanted vegetation and distributed 

seed in one pass provided by BLM 

Greenstripping Specialist Mike Pellant 

at the symposium. The disk chain 

development was a cooperative project 

of the Station, BLM, and the Forest 

Service’s Equipment Development 

Center in Missoula. Pellant assumed a 

major role in developing the program 

for the second symposium. Both 

proceedings featured papers by many 

Station scientists and cooperators, 

including contributions from personnel of the Shrubland Biology and 

Restoration Project located in Provo 

and Boise.

Although research by scientists 

based in Boise continued at many other 

locations, it gradually was phased out 

in the Boise Basin Experimental Forest. 

No new studies were started in the 

experimental forest between 1971 and 

the early 1990s, and the last ones were 

short-lived (see “Boise Basin Research 

Regenerated, Briefly,” chapter 11).

Experimental Ranges 

Created

President Hoover, on February 1, 

1933 shortly before he left office, set 

aside by presidential proclamation 

55,000 acres from the public domain 

in west-central Utah, as an “agricultural range experiment station.” In 

1934, it became the Station’s Desert 

Experimental Range Branch. The 

experimental range was typical of the 

high-elevation, cold desert found in 

the Great Basin and used as livestock 

winter range. New Deal CCC and NIRA 

emergency program funds provided for 

construction of two dwellings, a mess 

hall/bunk house, office, deep well, barn, 

well house, two two-car garages, a water 

system, and an electric plant. Special 

facilities were necessary because the 

nearest town of any size was Milford, 

Utah, 48 miles to the east. Ely, Nevada, 

was nearly 100 miles away to the 

northwest.

More than 118 miles of fence were 

built at the experimental range using 

24,000 juniper fence posts hauled 60 to 

100 miles to the site. In the late 1990s a 

stack of unused fence posts remained at 

the range, apparently in good condition 

after years of exposure to the elements. 

Coils of barbed wire from the 

Pastures in the Saylor Creek Experimental Area provided Station 

scientists based in Boise with places to compare effects of various 

grazing systems on ranges invaded by cheatgrass.
–65

fence-building days, with labels intact 

and in perfect condition, were still stored 

in the warehouse. The dry desert climate 

had slowed the deterioration of both 

wood and metal.

Although other range research sites 

were established earlier, the basic sheep 

season and grazing intensity study, 

which continued for more than 70 years 

at the Desert Range, was probably the 

longest, continuous, specific grazing 

study in existence anywhere. Some 

results of early work at the Desert 

Range contributed to improving the 

basic foundation of much 

range research. One was a 

modification of plot sizes 

to put them in harmony 

with the wide spacing of 

desert vegetation. Another 

was demonstrating to 

ecologists that they should 

use statistical methods to 

obtain results from data 

that were not apparent 

to the eye (Clary and 

Holmgren 1982).

This period also saw 

activation of the Ruby 

Experimental Range Area 

near Wells in northeastern 

Nevada, and the Paradise 

Valley Experimental Range 

Area near Winnemucca in 

northwestern Nevada. Both 

typified the sagebrushwheatgrass ranges of 

northern Nevada, which 

at one time were choice 

grazing lands for both cattle and sheep. 

Studies on artificial reseeding of 

depleted range and range management 

investigations were conducted at both 

sites (Crafts 1938).

The Ruby area, on the north end of 

the East Humboldt Mountains, had been 

a forest administrative site—the Clover 

Ranger Station. The 80-acre site was 

withdrawn from public domain lands 

in 1908, the pasture was fenced, and a 

cabin was built. The cabin and fence 

were valued at $599 in 1921. By 1933 

the fence was considered unusable and it 

and the cabin probably were torn down. 

The Ruby area was then redeveloped for 

Station research use. The CCC built a 

dwelling and garage. One study site was 

a 2.2-acre fenced pasture, which was 

reseeded in the fall of 1940.

In 1961, the dwelling was moved to 

the Ruby Ranger Station. The garage 

was relocated to a warehouse compound 

in Wells in 1969 (Wilson, personal communication). Never formally designated 

as an experimental range, the Ruby area 

Buildings constructed in the 1930s at 

the Desert Range 

were typical Forest 

Service wood-frame 

structures.

Station researchers studied reseeding of depleted Nevada rangelands at the Ruby experimental 

area, which was seeded in 1940 and grazed by livestock for the next 6 years. The house and 

garage built with CCC labor for Station use are barely discernible in the far left-center of this 

1947 photo.
66–

became known as the Clover Creek 

Administrative Site, and was used as 

a horse pasture by National Forest 

personnel.

Paradise Valley, also 80 acres, was 

located at what was known as the 

Lamance administrative site, which 

was established by executive orders 

in 1914 and 1921 (Bailey 1955). 

Lamance was outside the boundary of 

the Humboldt National Forest, but the 

executive orders placed it under Forest 

Service jurisdiction. The Station used 

it for research in cooperation with the 

University of Nevada Agricultural 

Experiment Station through an agreement with Region 4.

A house and garage were built in 

1937 at Paradise Valley with CCC labor. 

Mature trees planted near the buildings 

were still there in 2004. In 1957, the 

two-story house was moved to serve as 

office space for the newly formed Reno 

Research Center.

The principal research feature at 

Paradise Valley appears to have been 

the large Cabin Creek exclosure. A 

fire in 1942 had nearly eliminated 

big sagebrush in the area, and, after 

reseeding, native grasses were able to 

hold off reinvasion by the shrubs where 

livestock were excluded. The Station 

turned the Paradise Valley area over to 

the Humboldt National Forest in 1956. 

It then was used as a pasture by Ranger 

District personnel (Wilson, personal 

communication).

Wisdom Flows from 

Watersheds

They were not the first watersheds to 

be studied by Forest Service researchers, 

and they certainly did not have catchy 

names, but Watersheds A and B at Great 

Basin were important pieces of real 

estate. There Arthur Sampson, Harold 

Croft, Clarence Forsling, and scientists 

who followed them conclusively proved 

the relationships between plant cover 

and erosion.

In 1995, Acting Intermountain 

Station Director Dick Krebill said the 

results of work at Watersheds A and B 

may have been “INT’s most major science contribution of all time” (personal 

communication). Under Sampson’s 

direction, Croft carefully examined the 

watersheds in 1912 to establish baseline 

conditions. Although observations 

continued for several decades, the first 

studies used controlled grazing to reduce 

ground cover (Steen 1998).

Results showed beyond question the 

need for maintaining certain minimal 

vegetation on high-elevation rangeland 

to prevent overland water flow, flooding, and erosion following typical 

high-intensity summer storms (Keck 

1972). This knowledge was the basis 

for the realization that range management was the key to solving watershed 

problems in many parts of the Interior 

West.

Watersheds A and B received more 

than 60 years of continuous observation 

and study, and climate records were 

maintained over the same lengthy time 

span. They were typical, small (11 and 

9 acres, respectively) high-elevation 

(10,000 feet) watersheds about 900 feet 

apart. At the lower ends of each area, 

stream gauges and sediment collecting 

basins were built in 1915 to measure 

surface runoff and sediment after storms.

When studies started in 1912, 

vegetation on Watershed A had been 

depleted by overgrazing. The scientists 

maintained this condition for 8 years 

by continuing to allow heavy grazing. 

Native grasses within the Cabin Creek 

exclosure thrived 

and resisted invasion by sagebrush 

following a fire and 

reseeding in 1941 at 

the Paradise Valley 

experimental area 

near Winnemucca, 

Nevada. The photo 

was taken about 

1948.

Concrete sediment catchment tanks at 

the low corner of Watershed A. Arthur 

Sampson observed as much as 50,000 

pounds of dry dirt and rock deposited 

after being washed down from the 

overgrazed, denuded 11-acre area by a 

single storm.

The eastern boundary area of 

Watershed A in 1970. Almost the entire 

watershed was covered by grass, forbs, 

and shrubs. When the study began in 

1912, vegetation here had been depleted to 16 percent cover.
–67

Watershed B initially had good plant 

cover, and it was maintained over the 

same time period by limiting grazing. 

During the 8 years, Watershed A 

produced five times as much storm runoff and sediment as Watershed B.

Starting in 1921, Watershed A 

was protected from grazing, and the 

vegetation recovered naturally. By 1946, 

conditions on both watersheds were 

similar. Then the study was repeated 

in reverse for 7 years. The overgrazed 

Watershed B produced four times 

more water run-off and 12 times more 

sediment that Watershed A. In 1952, 

Watershed B was artificially restored by 

contour furrowing and seeding. After 

that, it produced very little sediment 

(Keck 1972).

To the north, recurring floods in 

Davis County became an issue in 1923 

when six people (four Boy Scouts and 

a young married couple) were killed by 

a mud-rock deluge from Farmington 

Canyon. The flood also caused a 

shocking loss of property. It would be 7 

years, however, before much was done 

officially to make use of the wisdom 

gained at Watersheds A and B to prevent 

such catastrophes. Then a repeat disaster 

in Farmington Canyon triggered by 

torrential rain on relatively small, but 

steep, slopes caused mud-rock floods 

that carried boulders the size of houses, 

dug deep channels, and wrecked farms 

and homes (Croft 1981).

One reason Reed Bailey became 

Station Director was his service on 

a special study committee of Forest 

Service and university experts appointed 

by the Governor of Utah to recommend 

actions following the floods along the 

Wasatch Front. The study findings led 

directly to establishment of the Davis 

County Watershed, where some of the 

Station’s most notable research was 

conducted.

Plans for the Davis County 

Experimental Watershed and offices at 

Farmington designated as the Wasatch 

Branch Station were put into effect 

in 1934. The site was the scene of a 

massive research and management flood 

control project that included considerable local involvement.

Private lands in six canyons were 

purchased by individuals and local governments and turned over to the Forest 

Service. Private individuals put pressure 

on their congressional representatives 

to extend the boundaries of the Wasatch 

National Forest and purchase additional 

lands, and the protected area gradually 

was increased. One purchase was 10,400 

acres from the Farmington Land and 

Stock Company. It included a halfacre parcel known as the Rice Creek 

Canyon Field Station about 6 miles up 

Farmington Canyon. In 1939, a house 

was built there for the Station to serve as 

a dormitory (Wilson 2005).

The combination of results from 

research and administrative studies, 

plus the labor available from New Deal 

emergency programs, resulted in 65 

miles of terraces being constructed along 

contours of eroding slopes. The terraces 

were seeded to native plants and trees. 

Forty-five thousand Douglas-firs were 

planted along the terraces in the spring 

of 1935 (Annual Report, INT 1935).

According to Russell “Buss” Croft 

(1981), who headed the project for the 

Station for 17 years, there was a 

philosophical debate before the work 

could get under way. Floods had been 

well-documented along the Wasatch 

Front since 1912 and were known to 

have occurred earlier. Conventional 

wisdom was that these were “acts of 

God.” The notion that the mud-rock 

flows were due to “mistakes of man” as 

research had shown at Watersheds A and 

B at Great Basin was not yet universally 

accepted. In fact, a University of Utah 

professor and a representative of the 

Geological Survey on the Governor’s 

commission did not accept it. Croft said, 

“Neither of these men ever got very far 

off the highway or out of their automobiles in their investigation of the floods.”

The “mistakes of man” proponents, 

including Reed Bailey, won out. 

Rehabilitation work was carried 

forward by those who believed humans 

could take action to correct the causes 

of damage they had created by their 

actions.

Following his successful work 

at Davis County, Croft moved on to 

serve as the Director of Watershed 

Management for Region 4 for many 

years. The arboretum at Weber State 

University in Ogden is named in his 

honor.

The Davis County Watershed, 

within the Wasatch National Forest, 

eventually included 1,300 acres, about 

96 percent of it federally owned. Forest 

This building in 

Farmington Canyon 

housed Station 

personnel working 

at the Davis County 

Watershed. In 1975, 

the Station signed an 

agreement with the 

Davis County Sheriff, 

allowing his personnel to use the cabin 

as a substation. Ten 

years later the Station 

transferred the 

cabin to the Salt Lake 

Ranger District.
68–

Service managers eliminated grazing by 

domestic livestock on the west-facing 

drainages of this part of the Wasatch 

Mountains and instituted fire control 

programs.

As research tested and evaluated the 

effectiveness of contour trenching and 

reseeding, these techniques were applied on flood-source lands throughout 

the project area (DeByle 1996). The 

work was done by crews of Civilian 

Conservation Corps enrollees and Works 

Progress Administration laborers, who 

were paid 50 cents per hour, over a 

5-year period.

At the request of the Davis County 

flood committee, a CCC camp was set 

up at Woods Cross and men assigned 

there built a road to the head of Parrish 

Creek and did topographic mapping 

in addition to constructing contour 

trenches (Otis and others 1986). The 

WPA and CCC crews established 

stream gauging stations in four creeks 

and on most tributaries of Farmington 

Creek. Station researchers working 

from Farmington established a network 

of climatic stations and snow courses 

and installed a group of runoff-erosion 

plots at the head of Parrish Canyon. 

Data were gathered from many of 

these monitoring sites until the 1960s 

(DeByle 1996).

Station Foreman Harry Pledger 

pointed out some of the obstacles faced 

by work crews. The project area was 

largely unroaded at the start. Pack trains 

of seven to nine horses were used to 

transport lumber, reinforcing steel, 

cement, nails, food for the construction 

crews and their personal belongings 

from the mouth of Farmington Canyon 

to a camp near an old log cabin and to 

different job sites where weirs were built 

(Pledger 1980).

Pledger said work on the weirs was 

nearing completion in December of 

1941 when Croft and George Craddock, 

the Station’s Chief of Watershed 

Research, asked him to build a flume 

at the mouth of Farmington Canyon 

to be completed before early spring. 

Pledger pointed out that the men would 

be working in a dark area where cold 

winds blew constantly, and some of 

them would have to wade in water. He 

said the crews could complete the job in 

time providing the government would 

A single mud-rock flood in 1930 caused damage at the mouth of Parrish 

Creek in Davis County that exceeded $158,000, a substantial amount of 

money in those days. (Utah Historical Society collection)

Contour trenches were constructed (above) by CCC workers at the head of 

Ford Canyon in Davis County in 1934. The same area (below) as it appeared 

in 1945.
–69

furnish unlimited coffee and sugar and 

cream free of charge. Pledger argued 

that the men, most of whom were local 

farmers in the WPA program, would 

feel better and do better if they knew 

they could get a hot cup of coffee anytime they wanted it. Croft and Craddock 

checked the regulations, and responded, 

“Yes, go ahead. The coffee, cream, and 

sugar is OK.”

All the men decided to work. They 

started the job in January and finished 

it in plenty of time for spring runoff 

(Pledger 1980). After the flume job was 

completed and World War II started, 

the Davis County Watershed, as a 

“nondefense project,” lost its financing 

and construction was suspended for the 

duration.

DeByle (1996) said, “The success 

of the watershed rehabilitation program 

and accompanying research is selfevident; no floods have emanated from 

the treated areas since restoration even 

though intense summer storms continue 

to occur on what once were flood-source 

areas. Land treatments restored watershed stability and flood control.”

Before 1933, contour trenching had 

not been used extensively in North 

America to contain rainfall on steep, 

erodible slopes of mountain watersheds. 

After the successful experimental use 

on the Wasatch Front, many thousands 

of miles of trenches patterned after 

those at Davis County were installed on 

burned or overgrazed watershed lands 

in the United States and other countries 

(Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, undated tour guide).

Beginning in 1960, the major research emphasis at Davis County shifted 

to water yields. Studies of practices that 

might increase yields in semiarid territory without adversely affecting water 

quality were conducted for the next 2 

decades. This change in emphasis, and 

the closure of the Wasatch Research 

Center at Farmington, forced the end 

of data gathering on a long-term basis 

at most of the earlier network of stream 

gauges, weather stations, and runoff 

plots (DeByle 1996).

Construction resumed, however, on 

structures for the water yield studies. 

Work crews contour-trenched the top 

of Halfway Creek in 1964, gauged the 

Chicken Creek watersheds in 1965, and 

established other weather stations. A 

few selected monitoring stations from 

the old network continued to be used for 

water yield work, at the time conducted 

by Station scientists at the Logan Lab. 

This new research program resulted in 

46 publications by 1984. Earlier, Plant 

Ecologist Norb DeByle and Technician 

Ezra Hookano listed and summarized 

48 publications that had resulted from 

the flood control research (DeByle and 

Hookano 1973).

For nearly a half century, hundreds 

of scientists, land managers, and 

members of the public were told of the 

history of the Davis County Watershed, 

its rehabilitation, and the success of 

the research programs through many 

personal contacts, technical and popular 

publications (including one by Bernard 

DeVoto in Readers Digest), and numerous tours. DeVoto, who was born and 

grew up in Ogden, was a Pulitzer Prize 

winning historian and environmental 

writer in the 1920-50 period. Summer 

field trips were conducted almost 

weekly at the Davis watershed until 

the mid-1970s. The watershed became 

internationally known as an example of 

successful rehabilitation of abused land 

(DeByle 1996). A detailed auto tour 

guide featuring 16 stops was available 

to the general public.

Water quality and yield research 

ended in 1976, but some data continued 

to be gathered until 1981. The Davis 

County Experimental Watershed became 

inactive as a research site and was managed by the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest as a protected watershed area 

with limited recreational opportunities.

The know-how developed at Great 

Basin and Davis County was urgently 

needed in Idaho in 1959—the year of the 

Boise floods.

Station Construction Foreman Harry 

Pledger demonstrated in 1936 the 

depth of channel cutting in Whipple 

Creek in the Wasatch National Forest.

Station scientists had experimented with contour furrowing in Idaho, as on this 

320-acre experimental watershed in the Boise National Forest using a side-hill drill 

they developed. However, areas that flooded Boise City with mud in 1959 were too 

steep for furrowing to be effective. Terracing as developed in Davis County, Utah, 

was used to stabilize the slopes.
70–

Most Boiseans were unaware that 

over a period of years cheatgrass had 

replaced native vegetation on the overgrazed watersheds north and east of the 

city, providing a huge reservoir of fuel 

for wildfires. On August 3 the Lucky 

Peak fire started in all that fuel, burning 

9,000 acres in 24 hours. The fire was 

finally contained by 250 Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management 

firefighters, bulldozers, water tankers, 

and retardant drops from two converted 

B-25 bombers (Intermountain Region 

1959).

Two weeks later gentle rainfall 

started, but a sudden severe thunderstorm turned the welcome moisture into 

a torrent of mud that swept into Boise. 

In a single 10-minute period, the city’s 

weather station registered more than a 

quarter inch of rainfall, and it was probably greater high in the watersheds.

The mud flowed into the northeast 

section of the city in volumes sufficient 

to cause police to awake sleeping 

residents with loudspeakers and urge 

evacuation. Water carrying silt churned 

through the streets, flooded basements, 

destroyed merchandise in businesses, 

and damaged equipment and records, 

bringing normal activity to a standstill 

(Intermountain Region 1959). Total 

damage was estimated at more than a 

half million dollars.

Organizing to provide a remedy was 

a task in itself. More than 6,000 of the 

burned acres belonged to private individuals or the State of Idaho. Nearly 

3,000 were administered by the Bureau 

of Land Management. About 260 

were within the Boise National Forest. 

But the parties got together, built 

fences to restrict grazing, and started 

construction of a vast series of contour 

trenches using technology developed by 

Station scientists at the Davis Country 

Watershed.

A squad of Forest Service and BLM 

bulldozers carved trenches on more than 

1,500 acres above Boise. After reseeding, the contour system proved its merit. 

Never again did severe summer thunderstorms send mudflows into Boise.

The Forest Service produced a movie, 

When the Pot Boiled Over, which 

proved popular for many years with 

those interested in the wisdom Station 

scientists produced from watershed 

studies—fail to maintain adequate 

vegetation on high-elevation areas and 

the results can be disastrous and the 

remedies costly.

Range Remains Important

In 1935, Secretary of Agriculture 

Henry Wallace asked the Forest Service 

for a report on grazing. W. R. Chapline 

was one of 35 authors assigned to write 

the Western Range report prepared 

under the auspices of Assistant Chief 

Earle Clapp’s Division of Research in 

Washington. The report advocated the 

Forest Service managing all Federal 

ranges, raising the ire of Secretary of 

the Interior Harold Ickes and many 

stockmen (Steen 1976). Interior had 

established its Division of Grazing the 

same year. As the Division developed 

over time it merged with the General 

Land Office and became the Bureau 

of Land Management in 1946 (Steen 

1976).

period due to drought, range depletion, and the economic depression. 

Depending on location, 40 to 95 

percent of the feed supply for stock 

came from the public lands. The range 

research program emphases were (1) 

summer range—Great Basin Branch; 

(2) sagebrush-grass, spring-fall 

range—cooperative work at the U.S. 

Sheep Station; (3) winter range—Desert 

Branch; and (4) reseeding—Ogden and 

all branch locations.

The Old Headquarters—

An Ogden Landmark

The concept of a central laboratory 

facility in Ogden to serve the various 

field units became reality in the new 

headquarters building completed in 

1934. The structure had three principal 

laboratory rooms, a soil lab, and a small 

greenhouse on the roof. The building, 

designed as Station Headquarters and 

the Regional Office for Region 4, 

included a full basement and four floors. 

The Station initially occupied part of the 

third floor, all of the fourth floor, and the 

greenhouse.

The architectural design of the building was art deco, popular at the time, 

and the same style used for Ogden High 

School and the Municipal Building. 

Architects considered the Forest Service 

Building, Ogden High School, and the 

Salt Lake City Hall to be the three outstanding examples of art deco design in 

Utah (Kingsbury interview, 2004). The 

building served as Station Headquarters 

for a half century, first for the original 

Intermountain Station and later for the 

combined Intermountain and Northern 

Rocky Mountain Stations.

A great deal is known about events 

leading to the erection of the building 

and the details of its construction 

thanks to Regional Architect George 

Nichols, who before his retirement in 

1956 compiled a detailed report about 

the structure (Nichols unpublished). 

Nichols traced the history of efforts 

to obtain Federal construction funds, 

quoted newspaper accounts of progress, 

and included considerable detail about 

the design and materials used in 

construction. He attached 32 photos of 

1935

Intermountain 

Forest & Range

Experiment Station

Ogden Headquarters

Wasatch Branch Station

Boise Basin Exp. Forest

Boise Branch Station

Coop Unit – U.S. Sheep Station

Desert Branch Station

Great Basin Exp. Range

Davis County Exp. Watershed

Desert Exp. Range

Great Basin Branch Station

Range research was still the major 

part of the Station’s program. An 

estimated 1 million cattle and 5 million 

sheep in the Station’s territory depended 

heavily on public rangelands for their 

forage, although their numbers were 

down substantially from the 1930-35 
–71

various stages of construction to the 

report.

Several histories point out that the 

Forest Service regional operations, 

which included research in the early 

days, came to Ogden because of railroad 

connections. The fact that Ogden was a 

railroad center probably was the principal reason, but there were other reasons 

and some political horse-trading took 

place to ensure that the major offices 

stayed in “Junction City.” In 1906, the 

Forest Service was broken down into six 

Districts, with headquarters in Missoula, 

Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, 

San Francisco, and Portland. All but 

Salt Lake City continued as Regional 

Office locations for many years. The 

District 4 office was moved to Ogden 

in 1908 because the city was a railroad 

transportation hub, but also because Salt 

Lake City had higher living costs, lacked 

warehouse space, and had a labor shortage at the time (Intermountain Region 

1991).

The District 4 offices were in rented 

buildings in Ogden, and as the organization grew the main facility became 

inadequate. The District people were 

scattered at several locations in the city, 

and on November 1, 1930, 4 months 

after it became an independent entity, 

the Intermountain Station personnel 

moved out of the crowded main building 

into the Hotel Bigelow, later renamed 

the Ben Lomond Hotel, where they 

stayed until the Forest Service Building 

was completed.

A new building wasn’t a sure thing 

from 1928, when the Forest Service 

started design work, until 1932 when 

the site was purchased for $20,000. In 

1929 the Regional Forester wrote to the 

Washington Office requesting support 

for adequate housing to accommodate 

Region 4 administration, the “Branch 

of Research,” and the Ogden Supply 

Depot. One week later the Ogden 

Chamber of Commerce asked that a 

“proper official” be sent to the city to 

study the building needs of the Forest 

Service.

Senator Reed Smoot came to 

Ogden to confer with the Chamber of 

Commerce and Forest Service. Although 

pressed hard by two Chamber members, 

Smoot declined to promise anything 

specific about a new building. He did, 

however, state that the Forest 

Service was to stay in Ogden. 

In return for that promise, 

he said he would “exact 

support of Ogden people in 

securing a Veteran’s Hospital 

for Salt Lake City.” (Nichols, 

unpublished). Old time 

Ogden residents sometimes 

joked about the allocation of 

taxpayer-supported facilities 

between the two cities, “Salt 

Lake gets symphony hall, we 

get the reform school.” In 1929 

it appears that both cities got a 

good deal.

Bickering over better Forest 

Service facilities continued. 

The Treasury Department 

sent a representative to Ogden 

to study the situation. The 

owners of the building leased 

as a Regional Office tried 

to influence Treasury to buy 

their building. Consideration 

was given to including Forest 

Service offices in a remodeled 

Federal Building in Ogden. 

This was rejected, but the 

Federal Building project 

was given priority over the 

Forest Service needs. Another 

rejected plan was to include 

Forest Service offices in the Ogden Post 

Office building. The Ogden Chamber 

of Commerce continued to lobby for a 

separate, new Forest Service building. 

Finally, in 1931 word was received that 

the Federal Government had budgeted 

$300,000 for construction of a new 

building conforming to Forest Service 

specifications.

It almost happened that way. After 

construction bids were opened in 

Washington, DC and a contract was 

awarded, the National Lumbermen’s 

Association requested greater utilization 

of wood in construction of the building. The specifications were changed 

to include: (1) wood piling instead of 

concrete; (2) wood frames and sashes 

for first floor windows; (3) oak floors for 

all offices; (4) wood baseboards in all 

offices; and (5) wood “within the bounds 

of financial possibilities” for trim on the 

first floor.

The piling substitution caused a construction delay, according to an Ogden 

Standard-Examiner article reprinted 

by Architect Nichols. The Douglas-fir 

pilings were shipped from Washington 

and Oregon. They were 30- to 45-feet 

long, 8 inches in diameter at the bottom 

and 12 at the top. The first of 427 piles 

arrived within 10 days of the order, but 

then they had to be treated with creosote 

and have concrete caps and bases added, 

processes that took 6 weeks to 2 months.

The use of wood was a little unusual 

in a major government building, and 

this building had several other unusual 

features, most of which still existed in 

2004. The lobby was finished in golden 

travertine Utah marble, and the terra 

cotta entrance had white bronze doors. 

The exterior had a gray granite base, 

two-tone terra cotta walls, and included 

nearly 1 million bricks, which were 

produced by the Salt Lake Pressed Brick 

Company.

In 1933 the superintendent of the 

construction firm announced that a cornerstone laying ceremony would be held 

The last of 427 wood piles that support the 

Forest Service Building was driven on March 25, 

1933. Architect George Nichols’ report said the 

pile-driving machine attracted considerable attention. “There has been little pile driving in this 

vicinity, and while any number of unemployed 

men can tell you what a steam shovel looks like 

in operation, few could explain a pile-driving 

machine.”
72–

under the auspices of the Grand Lodge 

of Utah, Free and Accepted Masons. 

Apparently, it was not unusual in those 

days for the fraternal order to turn out 

for ceremonies involving construction 

of major public buildings. The Masons 

arrived complete with top hats and their 

ritual aprons. So did several hundred 

Ogden citizens who witnessed the laying 

of the granite stone. The following year 

when the building was dedicated, 3,000 

Ogdenites turned out to tour the structure. 

Forest Service people guided groups of 

visitors through the building from midmorning until well into the evening.

The finished building had 80 offices, 

a library, an assembly room, two elevators, and more than 53,000 square feet 

of usable space. The budget provided 

$300 for landscaping. When all the 

construction was finished, one thing 

remained to be done. The one-room 

shack used by the Treasury Department 

as an office for their construction 

supervisor was put up for bids and sold 

for $55.50.

In addition to being pretty fancy, 

the old building was solid. When Larry 

Lassen arrived from New Orleans in 

1983 as the new Station Director he 

held a “get acquainted” meeting with 

the two Assistant Directors located in 

Ogden and the five headquarters Group 

Leaders in a small conference room next 

to his office. About midway through the 

meeting the conference table started to 

vibrate something like Ouija boards are 

said to do. Lassen looked startled and 

asked, “What the heck is that?” Assistant 

Director Duane Lloyd smiled and 

calmly said, “Oh that’s nothing to worry 

about, Larry, just a little earthquake.” 

The headquarters staffers continued the 

meeting without further comment about 

the vibrations.

The earthquake that day was strong 

enough to cause the Federal Building 

two blocks away to sway. Employees 

there were evacuated because of 

concerns that aftershocks or another 

quake might bring the building down. 

The Forest Service Building did shake 

a little, but it didn’t sway, and Station 

Headquarters personnel stayed on the 

job. They were proud of the old building that day, as many Forest Service 

employees have been since 1934.

Field Day Concept 

Spreads

The field day concept first applied 

in Station territory at the U.S. Sheep 

Station had spread over the next 3 years 

to the Great Basin Branch and then to 

the Wasatch and Desert Branches. The 

Utah Agricultural Extension Service 

was involved in a cooperative way with 

staging these field days. Secretary of 

Agriculture Henry Wallace attended 

one at Great Basin that drew 350 to 500 

people.

The Desert Branch, despite its 

isolated location, was able to attract 

200 people, including the President of 

the University of Utah and Assistant 

Secretary of Agriculture M. L. Wilson, 

to one of its field days. Ralph Holmgren 

was still leading field day orientations 

there in the 1970s (see Appendix B). 

Much closer to population centers, 

the Wasatch Branch (Davis County 

Watershed), was able to draw Secretary 

Wallace three times, along with Forest 

Service Chief Ferdinand Silcox, 

Laying the cornerstone of Ogden’s 

Forest Service 

Building was an 

occasion for great 

pomp and ceremony in 1933.

The Forest Service Building completed in May 1934 housed 49 regular and 23 

temporary Regional Office employees and 21 regular and 25 temporary Station 

employees.
–73

Associate Chief Earle Clapp, the emergency civil works director, many other 

notables, and college classes (Annual 

Report, INT 1937).

Field days had dual purposes. One 

was to better acquaint the public, through 

attendance by community leaders, with 

the work being done by Station scientists. 

The other was to train managers. Bill 

Hurst, who became Deputy Regional 

Forester for Region 4 and later Southwest 

Regional Forester, reported attending a 

field day at the Benmore Experimental 

Area in Tooele Country, Utah, in 1952. 

The same year he and two other young 

rangers drove to the Desert Range for a 

field day attended by about 100 people, 

mostly livestock men and State and 

Federal employees from conservationrelated organizations (Hurst 2000).

Another Forest Service public 

information technique in which Station 

personnel participated was the trail ride. 

Hurst recounted joining a group of 70 

riders in Utah for a trip sponsored by 

the Cache Valley Riding Club. Station 

Director Reed Bailey participated and 

addressed the group on conservation 

issues at the evening campfire gathering. 

There was an annual ride to Wellsville 

Mountain, which included 100 riders in 

1949. Station Ecologist Linc Ellison was 

the featured speaker.

By the 1970s the trail ride concept 

had evolved into a bus ride. The Station 

participated with Regions 1 and 4 in 

annual “Deans Tours.” The trips, hosted 

by one of the Regions in alternate years, 

included deans and other prominent 

educators from natural resource schools. 

Station research pertinent to the area 

visited was included each year.

At first the Deans Tours primarily 

were “show and tell” events designed 

to acquaint the educators with resource 

management problems. In the last years 

before the tours were discontinued in 

the early 1990s, there was more give 

and take in the discussions, with the 

Forest Service personnel soliciting comments on the management and research 

programs. The tours usually lasted three 

to four days, providing a good chance 

for the participants to get to know each 

other and exchange a lot of information.

By 1938, the Station’s budget had 

reached $155,000; the next year it increased to $173,000. The 1939 research 

programs were organized into four divisions: (1) Forest management; (2) range 

investigations; (3) forest influences; 

and (4) range economics. Talk began 

of launching research into new areas, 

such as forest recreation, lodgepole pine 

silviculture, and cheatgrass control. At 

the time, wildlife research was still a 

function of USDA’s Biological Survey, 

which later became the core of Interior’s 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Annual 

Report, INT 1939).

The Station adopted a mission 

statement in 1940 that showed a strong 

commitment to resource improvement 

and use. It also reflected a concern for 

the poor conditions existing on some of 

the public lands, primarily rangelands. 

It read, “The aim of the Intermountain 

Station’s program is to develop methods 

of improving deteriorated resources, 

and utilizing resources once restored 

in ways that will enhance rather than 

lessen value” (Annual Report, INT 

1941).

Time Out for War

World War II dictated a reorientation 

of research programs to meet wartime 

needs. Emphasis at the Intermountain 

Station was given to increased food 

and fiber production, especially more 

meat, hides, and wool. Only parts of 

the regular research program continued. 

Those regular programs that had to be 

continued to prevent irrecoverable loss 

of past investments of time and money 

received priority. Most of the time was 

spent in compilation and analysis of data 

from past research and in war programs 

dealing with livestock operators and 

various government agencies.

For example, the Station worked 

with the Army Corps of Engineers 

in planning construction of military 

facilities in Utah. Water supply, flood 

control, and conservation measures were 

areas in which Station personnel could 

help. At the Ogden Arsenal, sand and 

dust-producing areas were holding up 

ordnance production. The Station helped 

there by introducing reseeding practices, 

Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. 

Wallace (left), Senior Forest Ecologist 

George Stewart (center), and Range 

Ecologist Ray Price examined experimental plantings at a Great Basin field 

day in 1935.

The concept of field days at the Intermountain Station originated at the U.S. Sheep 

Station, and the research orientations continued there for many years, including 

this gathering of stockmen and forest officers in 1938.
74–

and produced a handbook for the Army 

on soil stabilization and camouflage for 

war industries and military camps in the 

West.

New war-related industries such as 

a steel plant, ordnance plant, hospitals, 

and supply depots created water demand 

problems. Aside from industrial use of 

water, demands by a rapidly increasing 

population added to the problems. 

The population of some Utah counties 

doubled in 2 years. Ogden alone added 

27,000 workers to its labor force in 

1941-1942. (Annual Report, INT 1943).

Not only did the Stations lose staff 

as the war progressed, but funding also 

declined. At the Intermountain Station, 

the budget was 37 percent less in 1943 

than in 1939. Post-war planning started 

in 1943, when the war was a long way 

from over, and occupied an increasing 

amount of time by 1944 for the staff of 

21 still remaining.

Some research programs formulated 

back in 1942 were still being continued 

in 1944, including correlating unsatisfactory range-watershed conditions 

in the National Forests, sagebrush 

eradication, and work on the condition 

and trend of rangeland quality. A new 

range study was started at Benmore of 

methods to establish crested wheatgrass 

for range rehabilitation (Annual Report, 

INT 1945).

Early post-World War II hopes for 

research expansion at the Intermountain 

Station fared no better than at the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station. 

The slow expansion of Forest Service 

research was not restricted to the two 

western Stations, however. To counter 

this slow growth, Deputy Chief Vern 

Harper directed appraisals be made at 

all Stations regarding future directions 

and development. At the Intermountain 

Station, the appraisal indicated a need 

for a four- to five-fold expansion of the 

program (Annual Report, INT 1953).

While acknowledging the significant 

positive changes brought about under 

Harper’s leadership of research, Joe 

Pechanec believed that Harper wanted 

little help in developing programs, 

getting more funding, or for that matter 

really desired any help in any area. 

Harper offered strong “top-down” 

leadership. In any case, research 

programs started to grow, with Harper’s 

blessing, in the Lake States, South, and 

East through the political efforts of the 

Station Directors. Control got away 

from Harper, however, when the Station 

Directors realized they had a better 

chance of building programs through political end-runs than through the formal 

program development and budgeting 

process of the Forest Service.

One of the noteworthy changes at 

the Intermountain Station during this 

period was initiation of wildlife habitat 

research following a meeting of Station 

people with representatives of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Utah Fish and Game Commission. The 

three organizations sought to develop a 

cooperative effort in both management 

and research. The cooperative relationship between the Station and the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources at 

Ephraim remained strong for many 

years.

USDA’s Bureau of Entomology, a 

major cooperator with the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station and Region 

1, gave relatively little attention to 

forest insect problems in Intermountain 

Station-Region 4 territory until after 

World War II. At various times, the area 

that included southern Idaho, Utah, 

and Nevada was assigned to Bureau 

field labs at Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and 

Fort Collins, Colorado. However, entomologists seldom visited the territory, 

perhaps because of travel distances or 

a perceived lesser importance of forest 

resources and diversity and severity of 

insect problems.

Whatever the reasons for the neglect, 

the situation began to change in July 

1949 when Leslie Orr was transferred 

to Ogden from the Washington Office 

of the Bureau’s Division of Forest 

Insect Investigations. Orr was soon 

joined at what was dubbed the Ogden 

USDA Forest Insect Laboratory by Dick 

Washburn, shortly after Washburn graduated from Colorado State College (now 

University). Washburn was assigned to 

conduct activities in the Dixie National 

Forest in southern Utah involving study 

and control of the mountain pine beetle, 

then known as the “Black Hills beetle,” 

in ponderosa pine stands (Furniss, in 

preparation).

As was true in World War I, so many 

Station people entered the military 

in World War II that the personnel 

shortage was a factor in the research 

program being severely constrained. 

Station employees also answered 

the call during other military actions. 

Watershed scientist Harold Haupt 

enlisted in the Marines during World 

War II before he joined the Station, and 

stayed in the organization as a reservist. 

When the Korean War broke out, he 

was recalled to active duty as an officer 

and was away for 15 months.
–75

The Department of Agriculture 

announced a major reorganization 

in late 1953 that affected a number of 

agencies including the Forest Service. 

Among the changes was a merger of 

the Intermountain and Northern Rocky 

Mountain Stations, effective on January 

1, 1954. The combined unit was to carry 

the Intermountain Station name.

The reasons given for the merger suggested good things would happen, but 

they were very general. The announcement said that the merger “would reduce 

administrative costs and increase the 

amount of actual research on wildland 

problems.” The decision to merge the 

two organizations was recommended 

by the Chief of the Forest Service to 

the Secretary of Agriculture. Territory 

for the new Intermountain Station 

included northwestern South Dakota, 

eastern Washington, and a bit of eastern 

California as well as western Wyoming 

and all of Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and 

Montana.

Forest Survey and fire control and 

forest products utilization research, 

which had been at the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station, continued as important parts of the program of the new 

Intermountain Station (Annual Report, 

INT 1954). Forest Survey personnel 

were transferred to Ogden. The fire and 

utilization work remained in Montana.

The original reorganization plan 

was to transfer all Forest Service range 

research to the Pasture Branch of the 

Crops Research Division in the newly 

formed Agricultural Research Service. 

Deputy Chief Harper learned that the 

transfer had been proposed by the livestock industry to the new Secretary of 

Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, who was 

sympathetic. Harper suggested that only 

portions of range research that dealt with 

treeless areas be transferred.

the fallouts from the reorganization 

was the transfer of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station range research at Fort 

Keough to the ARS. Not long after the 

transfer, the Vigilante Experimental 

Range in the Beaverhead National 

Forest was disestablished.

A significant change brought about 

by the reorganization added two key 

research programs to Intermountain 

Station responsibilities. Forest insect 

studies, surveys of insect infestations, 

and technical aid programs to control 

insects were transferred from the Bureau 

of Entomology and Plant Quarantine to 

the Forest Service. Similarly, programs 

in forest diseases formerly carried out by 

the Division of Pathology in the Bureau 

of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural 

Engineering came to the Forest Service. 

The Intermountain Station was assigned 

responsibility for insect studies and infestation surveys throughout its territory, 

and also for research on blister rust and 

other diseases important primarily in the 

northern Rockies.

The Headquarters 

Question

One of the many questions had been 

where the new Station Headquarters 

would be—Missoula or Ogden? Reed 

Bailey, Intermountain Station Director 

at the time, had senior status as a longtime director, and was not in the best 

of health. In the merger arrangement, 

he was supposed to move to Berkeley 

to direct the California (later Pacific 

Southwest) Station. He did not want to 

go, and told Deputy Chief Harper he 

would not go. Harper didn’t want to lose 

him as a Station Director, so George 

C h a p t e r 8.

Merger and Change, 1954

1954

Intermountain 

Forest & Range

Experiment Station

Ogden Headquarters

Missoula Forest Fire Lab

Upper Snake River Research Center

Boise Basin Exp. Forest

Boise Research Center

Bozeman Research Center

Great Basin Research Center

Wasatch Research Center

Great Basin Exp. Range

Coram Exp. Forest

Deception Creek Exp. Forest

Desert Exp. Range

Priest River Exp. Forest

Inland Empire Research Center

Missoula Research Center

Most range research on the Great 

Plains, plus some studies of reseeding 

and control of undesirable species of 

range plants, was transferred from 

the Forest Service to ARS (ARS was 

the product of the old Bureau of Plant 

Industry plus parts of other organizations). The Forest Service was left with 

research on grazing management of 

forest and related ranges, range ecology, 

plant control by grazing management, 

and fire related to range (Steen 1998).

This was the start of a “treaty” 

between the Forest Service and the 

ARS delineating agency responsibilities 

for range research, a delineation that 

became a bit fuzzy over time. One of 
76–

Jemison, Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station Director, was sent to California 

instead. Bailey then decided he didn’t 

want to move to Missoula either.

One retired project leader recalled 

a meeting of Station personnel in 

Missoula, during which Bailey said 

he chose to have Station headquarters 

remain in Ogden because Missoula was 

too dominated by one organization—the 

Anaconda Company. Bailey’s rationale 

was interesting. Although the Anaconda 

Company was certainly a dominant 

factor in Montana politics and power, 

Missoula was also a Forest Service 

town In fact, if there was ever anything 

approaching a Forest Service “company 

town” it was Missoula. Perhaps Bailey 

simply chose to make the Anaconda 

Company the reason for not wanting to 

move.

Perhaps Bailey simply did not want 

to discuss what no doubt was a very 

important factor in the location of the 

Station Headquarters. Any plan to merge 

major Forest Service units required 

approval by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Secretary in 1953 was Ezra Taft 

Benson, an apostle and later president of 

the Mormon Church.

Benson was born and grew up in 

southeastern Idaho, an area with strong 

ties to Utah. In Washington, the Benson 

family maintained close social ties with 

Utah people, including Forest Service 

officials from the Beehive State (Hurst 

2000). It seems unlikely that Benson 

would have approved a plan that moved 

a major unit headquarters out of Utah 

unless there was a compelling reason to 

do so.

A Time of Adjustment

The USDA reorganization and related 

Station merger meant that 1954 was a 

year of adjustment. The announcement 

of the merger made in late 1953 had 

been met with mixed feelings. Each 

group that was combined had previously 

achieved a certain stature in its field 

and territory and was reluctant to be 

absorbed into a new organization.

A “Numbskull” (see chapter 13) 

turned over to the Intermountain Station 

by Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

Division Chiefs of the newly formed Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station gathered in March 1954 at Station Headquarters in Ogden. Pictured meeting in the Station Library were (left to right) Lincoln Ellison, Range; Walter M. 

Zillgitt, Forest Management; Irvin V. Anderson, Forest Utilization Service; Walter E. 

Mann, Administrative Officer; James C. Evenden, Forest Insect Research; Reed W. 

Bailey, Station Director; Jack S. Barrows, Fire; Harry W. Camp, Jr., Forest Economics; 

and George W. Craddock, Forest Influences.

A Slight Long Remembered

When Roger Bay was appointed Intermountain Station Director in 1974 he was 

stationed in the Washington Office. Before leaving for Ogden, he took advantage of the 

opportunity to introduce himself by visiting offices of the Senators and Congressmen 

representing the States in Station territory. Montana Senator Mike Mansfield, majority 

leader at a time the Senate was controlled 

by his Democratic Party, was one of most 

powerful politicians in the country. When Bay 

was ushered into his office, Mansfield’s first 

words were, “I hope you’re not thinking of 

pulling the rest of the research program out of 

Montana!”

Bay said the ensuing discussion revealed 

that Mansfield was unhappy because, as a 

junior legislator when the Republican Party 

controlled Congress in 1953, he had either 

not been consulted about the Northern Rocky 

Mountain-Intermountain Station merger, or felt 

he had been insufficiently consulted. The fact 

that the new Station headquarters was located 

in Ogden rather than Missoula galled the 

Senator 20 years after the event.

During his time as Station Director, Bay was 

diligent in maintaining contacts with Members 

of Congress. He often made visits with the 

Region 1 and Region 4 Regional Foresters. Bay 

said it was natural that the legislators usually 

showed the most interest in high-profile Forest 

Service management activities, and weren’t too aware of or interested in the research 

program. Mansfield, however, was an exception. He knew about Forest Service 

research and had a keen interest in what was happening with programs and facilities in 

Montana. He made sure he never was bypassed again (Bay interview, 2004).

Mike Mansfield was said to be one 

of the most powerful people in 

America when he presided over 

the U.S. Senate as majority leader. 

He had a keen interest in Station 

research facilities and activities in 

Montana (K. Ross Toole Archives, 

Maureen and Mike Mansfield 

Library, University of MontanaMissoula, 99-1743).
–77

personnel after the merger carried 

two bits of wry humor reflecting such 

attitudes. One said, “This wretched old 

skull may not be a sweet sight, but it 

is all NRM had when she gave up the 

fight.” The other proclaimed, “Old NRM 

Station has been laid to rest, but she 

left this old skull as a final bequest.” 

Both statements were dated January 

1954. The official outlook, cited in the 

Intermountain Station’s annual report 

(1955), was that the reorganization 

meant, “A better coordinated, more 

efficient, and better balanced research 

program.”

Among the stated merger advantages 

were less travel by the Station Director 

and the Division Chiefs; expansion of 

watershed research because work out 

of Missoula included the Columbia and 

Missouri River basins; and a strengthening of forest management research, 

including attack on the western white 

pine pole blight problem. Combination 

of local and regional approaches to 

research was perceived as the greatest 

benefit.

The Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station headquarters had been located 

in the Missoula Federal Building. With 

the decision to have the merged Station 

headquarters in Ogden, the facility 

was designated the Missoula Field 

Research Center. In addition to existing 

forest management research activity 

already in Missoula, room was made 

for the move of the former Bureau of 

Entomology Forest Insect Laboratory 

from Coeur d’Alene as it became part 

of the Station. The newly established 

Forest Fire Laboratory was also housed 

at the center. Although stationed in 

Missoula, the fire researchers continued 

to use Priest River as a field laboratory. 

Jack Barrows, who was serving as Fire 

Research Division Chief, was assigned 

to also head the fire lab.

Management styles were different 

at the two Stations, and this called 

for some adjustments. Chuck Wellner 

recalled specifically that as a Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station Center Leader 

he had the use of extensive discretionary funds, but Walt Mann, Assistant 

Station Director for Administration 

at the Intermountain Station, wanted 

much tighter control of funds by Station 

Headquarters (interview, 1993).

Beetles, Budworms, 

and Bushes Get Lots of 

Attention

Abolishment of USDA’s Bureau of 

Entomology and transfer of its forest insect investigation personnel to the Forest 

Service starting in late 1953 brought 

the first of what became a larger group 

of entomologists to the Intermountain 

Station. Several of the scientists played 

lead roles in forest insect research in 

the Interior West for the next 30 years. 

In the first change, Bureau scientists 

at Coeur d’Alene were assigned to the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station and 

those in Ogden joined the Intermountain 

Station staff. About a month later, when 

the merger of the two Stations took 

effect, new research units were formed 

and a series of personnel moves began.

Mal Furniss transferred from the 

Bureau of Entomology’s Berkeley 

(California) Forest Insect Laboratory to 

Ogden in October 1954. Les Orr moved 

from Ogden to the Southern Station at 

New Orleans, leaving Dick Washburn 

as the remaining entomologist from 

the Bureau’s Ogden Forest Insect Lab. 

Furniss and Washburn soon were joined 

by Walt Cole after he graduated from 

Colorado State University. While a 

student, Cole had worked for the Bureau 

of Entomology in California during 

summers as a member of insect survey 

and control crews.

Jim Evenden, who had supervised 

work at Coeur d’Alene for 37 years, 

served as Division Chief for Forest 

Insect Research for the Intermountain 

Station until he retired at the end of 

1954. The remaining staff members at 

the Coeur d ‘Alene insect lab, including 

Phil Johnson and Bob Denton, were 

transferred to Missoula by the end of 

1955 (Furniss, in preparation).

In 1957, Dave Fellin and Dick 

Schmitz made the first discovery of 

the larch casebearer in the western 

U.S. while driving from Oregon State 

University to Missoula for summer 

employment. Just south of Missoula, 

Schmitz asked Fellin what was causing 

fading (discoloration) of western larch 

foliage. Fellin, who was partially color 

blind, saw nothing wrong. However, 

they stopped and collected some foliage 

that had many case-bearing caterpillars 

feeding on the needles. After arriving in 

Missoula, Fellin and Schmitz presented 

the specimens to Johnson, who referred 

to eastern U.S. literature on larch defoliators and identified the insects. Johnson 

served as Project Leader at Missoula 

until he retired in 1969 (Furniss, in 

preparation).

Schmitz was hired at the Missoula 

lab to study the pine engraver beetle; 

he later moved to Moscow where he 

continued the work. Fellin also became 

a Station scientist at Missoula after he 

began a career in spruce budworm work 

with what became the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests. He started as a field 

entomologist on a survey team, and 

much of his early work revolved around 

massive DDT spray programs aimed 

at suppressing budworm populations 

(INTercom 4/4/85). Fellin, who was 

born and raised only 100 miles from 

Missoula, remained stationed there 

throughout his long career as a Station 

entomologist, making him a rarity in an 

era when Station scientists often were 

asked to move or were reassigned as 

budgets, program emphases, and units 

changed.

Denton began studies of the larch 

casebearer in 1957 at Missoula, and 

continued the work after he transferred 

to Moscow. Washburn participated in 

casebearer research after he transferred 

to Moscow from Ogden, but specialized 

in spruce budworm studies. Denton’s 

research at Moscow mainly involved use 

of introduced parasitic wasps, but also 

included testing nonpersistent 

Project Leader Phil Johnson zeroed in 

on a forest insect in 1962 at the new 

Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab.
78–

insecticides. In 1967, he and other members of the Moscow staff documented 

a nearly total collapse of the needlemining stage of the casebearer due to 

extreme hot, dry weather. Aided by this 

diminishment of the population, the 

various introduced and native parasites 

gained control and maintained casebearer populations to the point that it was 

thought of as “naturalized.” Its presence, 

if it existed at all on a particular tree, 

could only be noted by careful scrutiny 

(Furniss, personal communication).

In May 1955, Furniss and Cole 

were moved from Ogden to the Boise 

Research Center because of large 

outbreaks of the pine butterfly and 

western spruce budworm in southern 

Idaho. Furniss was entomologist in 

charge of spraying 1 million acres 

of forest land in a chemical control 

program that summer. It was the largest 

such project ever undertaken in Idaho 

(Furniss, in preparation). Cole received 

a USDA Superior Service Award for his 

performance in budworm and butterfly 

surveys, control efforts, and research at 

Boise (INTercom 4/5/84). The Station 

insect units had responsibility for 

surveys and technical supervision of 

control projects until 1961, when those 

functions were transferred to Regions 1 

and 4. Cole moved to Ogden in 1960 as 

Project Leader of a new mountain pine 

beetle research unit, which was destined 

to be the Intermountain Station’s last 

forest insect unit.

Furniss was assigned to Douglas-fir 

beetle research in 1956. He selected 

a study area on the South Fork of the 

Salmon River in the Payette National 

Forest, and until 1963 he and his family 

spent entire summers living in a building 

that had been constructed in the 1930s 

by CCC enrollees.

The building had no electricity or 

phone. Irene Furniss cooked on a wood 

stove that also heated water via a pipe 

leading into the firebox. A wringer washing machine was rigged to be operated 

by a gasoline engine. Lanterns fueled 

with white gas provided light, and a 

kerosene burning refrigerator cooled 

food (Furniss, in preparation).

Joe Basile, a wildlife biologist then 

with the Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, and Station Range Scientist Bob 

Ferguson were assigned to the Boise 

Research Center 

at the time Furniss 

worked there. At a 

coffee break, Furniss 

chided them about 

not including insects 

in their studies of 

why bitterbrush 

was dying or not 

regenerating on deer 

winter range in the 

Payette and Boise 

River drainages. 

He was challenged 

to participate, and 

discovered that a 

stink bug was feeding 

on seed in its juice 

stage, drastically 

lowering the amount 

of viable seed. An 

article that resulted, 

“Six-Legged Seed 

Eaters,” was published in the Fish and 

Game Department’s 

magazine. Shrub 

entomology eventually was made part of 

the research assigned 

to Furniss, and he studied insects on 

five genera of shrubs in the Northwest. 

He continued this work on willows in 

Alaska after retirement, sponsored by 

Forest Service Region 10 (Furniss, in 

preparation).

In 1963, Furniss transferred to the 

newly built Moscow Lab (see “Modern 

Labs Matriculate,” chapter 10) and 

enrolled in entomology graduate studies 

at the University of Idaho under the 

Government Employees Training Act. In 

1969, Johnson retired as Project Leader 

at Missoula and a new research unit 

was established at Moscow to conduct 

research on insects affecting forest trees 

and wildland shrubs in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. Furniss was named 

Project Leader.

Early work at the Coeur d’ Alene insect lab and at Ogden, Boise, Missoula, 

and Moscow laid a solid foundation for 

subsequent research by Station scientists 

that played a part in changing the way 

managers viewed insects and attempted 

to control them. Throughout the existence of the lab at Coeur d’Alene and 

in early years at Missoula, results of all 

phases of the work, including surveys, 

control supervision, and research, were 

summarized annually in typed reports. 

To preserve the records Denton, in 1959, 

listed 548 reports covering the years 

1915-58. Furniss later scanned copies 

and saw that they were deposited in the 

University of Idaho library.

In 1975, Johnson (as a volunteer 

in retirement) and Denton studied old 

survey records and reports and published 

a comprehensive review titled Outbreaks 

of the Western Spruce Budworm in the 

American Northern Rocky Mountain 

Area, 1922-1971. The volume, issued 

by the Station, was useful to forest 

historians as well as scientists working 

on budworm problems (INTercom

2/26/76). The same year, Furniss and 

his major professor at the University of 

Idaho, William Barr, authored a Station 

publication summarizing knowledge of 

43 insects that affected important native 

shrubs in the northwestern U.S.

The work summarized in these 

documents and other work by Station 

entomologists and cooperators helped to 

pave the way for radical shifts in Forest 

The Station’s forest insect research staff posed with visitors in front of the new Moscow Lab in 1963. Front, left to 

right, Dave Fellin (Missoula), Mal Furniss (Moscow), Dick 

Schmitz (Missoula), Walt Cole (Ogden). Standing, Bob 

Denton (Missoula), Division Chief Don Parker (Ogden), 

Station Director Joe Pechanec, and Project Leader Phil 

Johnson (Missoula.) Furniss recalled inviting the group to 

his home for the evening: “We had the entire crew up for 

dinner and drinks and afterward we played ping-pong in 

the basement. Parker and Pechanec were regular guys.”
–79

Service philosophy regarding insect 

control (see “Integrating Insects with 

Management,” chapter 11).

Work by Station research foresters 

and pathologists also contributed to 

great changes in how the “disease” 

part of Forest Insect and Disease 

Management was handled in the Forest 

Service. Blister rust was the disease 

most seriously affecting the most 

valuable timber in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains.

White pine blister rust was inadvertently introduced to North America from 

Europe as early as 1898 when infected 

pine seedlings were widely planted in 

the northeastern United States. In 1910, 

the rust arrived in Vancouver, British 

Columbia, on infected seedlings from 

France, and by 1923, it had begun to 

infect Idaho’s white pines. By the 1940s 

blister rust was epidemic, and millions 

of western white pines were dying 

throughout the Inland Northwest.

The rust is caused by a fungus 

(Cronartium ribicola) that lives part of 

its life on Ribes plants (gooseberries and 

currants) and the other part on white 

pine trees. This devastating pathogen 

needs both hosts to complete its life 

cycle (Fins and others 2001).

European pathologists and foresters 

had long known about blister rust and 

how to control it, but there were no 

important commercial stands of white 

pine in Europe. Cultivated Ribes were 

important crops. So in Europe, control 

was really out of the question, and the 

white pine was sacrificed to retain the 

Ribes.

In America, the situation was the 

reverse. Ribes was plentiful, mostly 

growing in the wild, and of little economic importance. The vast white pine 

forests of both the East and West, however, provided the basis for a thriving 

timber industry. The choice confronting 

American authorities when the first 

infected pine was discovered in New 

York State in 1909 seemed clear: Either 

remove Ribes in and near white pine 

stands while the disease was just becoming established, or face the ultimate loss 

of much white pine.

The Blister Rust Control Program 

was formed. Its membership, which 

included the Department of Agriculture 

from the start, waged a gigantic fight for 

70 years to protect the white pines of 

America from coast to coast. The program affected the lives of thousands and 

the economic development 

of countless communities. 

It was successful in many 

places, but in some it was a 

failure (Benedict 1981).

Early attempts to halt 

the spread of blister rust by 

eradicating Ribes within 

and near valuable white 

pine stands were successful 

in reducing infection in the 

Lake States. Eradication 

work began in Region 1 in 

1924 and lasted for more 

than 40 years. The first experimental work was in the 

Priest River Experimental 

Forest (see “Program and 

Headquarters Changes,” 

chapter 3). Results of Ribes eradication 

trials were considered encouraging 

(Benedict 1981).

Subsequently, thousands of young 

men were employed in the blister rust 

program. At its peak in 1936, the Ribes

eradication work involved 8,728 laborers and 125 camps. Many workers were 

enrolled in the Civilian Conservation 

Corps or were hired through other emergency employment programs. Many 

others who worked pulling bushes over 

the years were natural resource students 

who hired on during summers to earn 

money to further their educations. So the 

program had some positive effects for 

many people. Unfortunately, the positive 

effect on the western white pine was 

negligible.

Unlike the situation in the Midwest, 

difficult or inaccessible terrain in the 

mountainous West doomed the plant 

pulling to failure. Eradication crews 

consistently missed their goals. One 

camp foreman with eastern experience 

observed, “We miss more Ribes per 

acre than are pulled by the crews of 

the East” (Benedict 1981). Attempts at 

control with chemical sprays also were 

ineffective.

Region 1 gave up in 1968. A survey 

showed that even when only a few 

bushes per acre remained after an eradication attempt the proportion of pines 

infected was not significantly reduced. 

And even when eradication efforts met 

goals, mountain winds merely blew 

some rust spores to other areas a mile 

or more away. The conclusion was that 

Blister rust devastated stands of western 

white pine such 

as this one in the 

Clearwater National 

Forest. About half 

the prime pine 

stands were decimated in northern 

Idaho, northeastern 

Washington, northwestern Montana, 

and south-central 

British Columbia 

before resistant 

seedlings became 

available (Kingsbury 

1984).

Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees grubbed out 

Ribes along Merry Creek in northern Idaho in 1933.
80–

Ribes eradication was not economically feasible in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. In essence, Region 1 gave 

up on the white pine. Three major policy 

changes were made: (1) western white 

pine planting was discontinued; (2) thinning operations were to favor species 

other than white pine; and (3) salvage 

of white pine damaged by blister rust or 

bark beetles was accelerated. White pine 

had been abandoned, at least temporarily, in timber management (Hagle and 

others 1989).

However, pathologists and research 

foresters who were part of the control 

program did not abandon the western 

white pine. Through genetics research 

and a team approach to producing 

disease-resistant seedlings, they scored 

a notable victory in the struggle with 

blister rust to retain the white pine as 

a major species in Northern Rocky 

Mountain forests.

Bingham’s Team Turns the 

Tide

In the summer of 1948, representatives of organizations with an interest in 

controlling white pine blister rust met at 

the North Fork of the Clearwater River 

in Idaho. The eastern white pine workers 

chided the westerners for not having a 

western white pine rust resistance genetics program.

Dick Bingham, then a scientist with 

the Bureau of Entomology and Plant 

Quarantine, spoke up and said he was 

working on it. Actually, the “research” 

was being conducted in a window-sill 

box at his office in downtown Spokane. 

From this meager start, Bingham went 

on to lead a genetics research effort that 

was very successful (Hoff interview, 

1993).

In 1950, five USDA units, including the bureau, the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station, Region 1, the Pacific 

Southwest Station (California’s sugar 

pines also were being attacked), and the 

Office of Blister Rust Control began a 

long-term genetics project. There were 

no illusions about the difficulty of the 

problem. The program was planned 

to run until the year 2000. Bingham, 

Research Forester Tony Squillace, and 

Forest Geneticist John Duffield were 

in charge. They began by isolating 

individual rust-free western white pines, 

often lone survivors in stands that had 

been exposed to the disease for at least 

20 years (Kingsbury 1984).

The researchers suspected these trees 

were genetically resistant to blister rust, 

and tests proved the hunch was correct. 

When they bred the disease-free trees 

with each other, many of the seedlings 

resulting from the crosses were resistant 

to the rust.

Summer after summer, Bingham, 

Squillace, Duffield, and field workers 

scoured forests, traveling miles into the 

backcountry, looking for rust-resistant 

trees and then cross-breeding them. 

They literally wore out the bottom 

branches of some often-climbed trees 

as they covered pollinated cones with 

protective individual bags. During the 

25-year research project, the crews 

climbed well over 5,000 trees.

The bags were somewhat innovative. 

The cotton flour sacks in which field 

workers carried their lunches doubled as 

cone bags. “They were a never-ending 

surprise and delight,” Bingham said. 

“They were printed in a wide variety of 

brightly colored and imaginatively patterned checks, calicos, and floral designs 

for use by thrifty home seamstresses.”

Bingham’s appreciation of the art 

deco characteristics of the bags was 

a surprise to some. A Marine during 

World War II and a “no-nonsense” hard 

worker, he was known by colleagues 

to hate cowboy hats, striped overalls, 

shorts, and tennis shoes in the woods 

(Kingsbury 1984).

Beginning in 1957, using the most 

resistant seedlings from their crosses, 

Bingham and his colleagues established 

a breeding orchard on the University 

of Idaho campus. When they made 

controlled crosses between trees in the 

orchard and tested the seedlings, about 

66 percent of the offspring had no rust 

cankers after 2.5 years. That was good 

enough to ensure survival of adequate 

numbers of resistant trees in the field, 

although scientists continued research to 

improve the numbers of rust-free trees 

produced in the cross-breeding work.

The breeding orchard in Moscow 

began producing small seed crops in 

about 1970. In the 1980s, it was converted to a seed orchard and managed to 

produce large amounts of seed. The first 

major crop was generated in 1985. In its 

first 20 years of operation, the orchard 

produced some 10,000 pounds of seed 

(more than 200 million seeds). In 1999 

the orchard was renamed the R. T. 

Bingham White Pine Seed Orchard.

The research by Bingham and his 

colleagues, and the orchard they started, 

provided the foundation for ongoing efforts to increase rust resistance levels in 

white pine. By planting genetically improved, rust-resistant seedlings produced 

by regional tree improvement programs 

and managing the stands to promote 

high survival and growth, it became 

possible to restore western white pine 

to its native ecosystems. Management 

techniques available to maintain healthy 

white pine stands were described in a 

Station publication by Susan Hagle, 

Region 1 plant pathologist; Geral 

McDonald, a Station pathologist based 

in Moscow; and Gene Norby, retired 

silviculturist for the Clearwater National 

Forest (Hagle and others 1989).

By 1993, Region 1 was shipping 5 

million rust-resistant seedlings a year 

from its Coeur d’Alene Nursery. About 

another 5 million resistant seedlings 

were being grown in industrial, private, 

and Idaho State forest nurseries annually (Boyd interview, 1993). Although 

Forest Service planting programs 

Dick Bingham lifted white pine 

seedlings from a progeny test plot at 

Moscow during part of the genetics 

research program in the mid-1950s.
–81

began to decline as timber harvests 

declined, the application of blister rust 

genetics research results continued to 

be significant. Bingham estimated that 

the selective breeding program cost 

about $2 million compared to some $50 

million invested in traditional manual 

blister rust control work between 1926 

and 1967, achieving an impressive savings for present and future generations 

(Baker and others 1993).

One estimate was that Federal, State, 

industrial, and other organizations 

planted resistant seedlings on about 

250,000 acres in the Inland Northwest 

between 1976 and 1996. Much remained 

to be done, however. The acreage was 

only about 5 percent of the estimated 

5 million acres with potential to grow 

white pine in the region (Fins and others 

2001).

Despite the successes, both researchers and forest managers worried that 

new strains of the rust would develop. 

These concerns led researchers to pursue 

another line of studies where the question was how the fungus could be made 

to grow more slowly (Hoff interview, 

1993). Other problems were possible. In 

fact, Scientist Emeritus McDonald and 

Biological Technician Bryce Richardson 

of the Moscow Lab discovered two 

new alternate C. ribicola hosts in 2004 

(which may partially explain why the 

Ribes eradication program was not successful) .

Bingham retired in 1974. Ray Hoff, 

who had a 33-year career in genetics at 

the Station became Project Leader for 

the unit. Hoff studied many host-pest 

systems, and made major contributions to the success of the white pine 

blister rust research. In basic studies, 

he found 12 resistance mechanisms that 

protected white pine from blister rust 

or slowed the growth of the rust. Some 

mechanisms were controlled by single 

genes; others were controlled by many 

genes. Hoff was a leader in defining and 

putting into use a breeding program to 

incorporate multiple-gene resistance 

into western white pine populations 

(Ferguson 1994).

One of Hoff’s contributions came 

from what unit members called 

“Bingham’s Garbage Patch.” Bingham 

made tests of white pine progeny in the 

early 1950s near Elk River, Idaho. He 

moved rust-resistant seedlings from the 

test area to the arboretum in Moscow 

and abandoned the rest. Fifteen years 

later Hoff and McDonald visited the Elk 

River site and observed that some of the 

rust-infected, abandoned trees were still 

living. They turned out to be examples 

of “horizontal resistance” to blister rust.

Hoff took cuttings from the “garbage 

patch” trees and rooted them. The 

seedlings were taken to the Priest River 

Experimental Forest, where they were 

used to provide an additional mechanism 

in breeding rust-resistant white pine 

(Hoff interview, 2000).

In applied work, Hoff (with 

technician Dale Coffen) published 

Recommendations for Selection and 

Management of Seed Orchards of 

Western White Pine. He wrote another 

Station publication, How to Recognize 

Blister Rust Infection on Whitebark 

Pine, to help foresters cope with an 

increasing problem in important grizzly 

bear habitat. Hoff played an important 

role as a scientist in the genetics unit 

early in his career and as its leader following Bingham’s retirement.

After his retirement, Bingham wrote 

a detailed Station publication describing the program to which he devoted 

his professional career. The document 

(Bingham 1983) summed up the patient, 

meticulous work that was the basis for 

restoring a beautiful, useful tree species 

to western forest ecosystems. Bingham 

was elected a Fellow by the Society of 

American Foresters in 1978. He was 

awarded the society’s Barrington Moore 

Memorial Award in 1989 for leadership 

in forest genetics.

When asked how it felt to be involved in a project so long term that the 

scientists probably would never see final 

results of their labors, Bingham said, 

“I felt like any other forester. It was a 

job that needed to be done” (Kingsbury 

1984).

Hoff saw Bingham’s efforts differently, “He has done more than 10 other 

foresters would have done. He worked 

hard, both physically and mentally. He 

was the right person for the right time.”

Bingham didn’t stop working in 

retirement. He contributed 8 years of 

volunteer time with a fellow retiree, 

Clyde J. Miller, to compile a comprehensive plant index for the Seven Devils 

Mountains in the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area in Idaho (INTercom

4/18/85).

Each year the pair collected and 

identified native plants along a 60-mile 

stretch of the Seven Devils area above 

5,000 feet elevation. Their effort resulted 

in the most comprehensive list of native 

plants available for the area, numbering 

722 species, subspecies, or varieties. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

used the information to publish a 70-

page pamphlet describing the 210 most 

common plants for tourists visiting Hells 

Canyon.

An element of detective work and a 

whole lot of persistence were involved 

in compiling and verifying the plant 

list. Bingham combed through seven 

herbaria, reviewing more than 100,000 

plant specimens. He found more than 

2,700 individual specimens from the 

Seven Devils area. Bingham also reviewed field notes by 16 previous plant 

collectors dating back to 1899.

Range Is Rearranged

The USDA reorganization in 1954 

signaled the start of fundamental 

changes in range research at the Station 

that continued for many years. Although 

some of the finest achievements in range 

science were right around the corner, the 

range program began a process of consolidation and adjustment. Eventually, 

Project Leader Ray Hoff put squirrelproof mesh over whitebark pine cones 

as he worked to develop improved 

trees for planting projects in highelevation grizzly bear habitat where 

blister rust was killing large numbers of 

trees.
82–

the “range research” designation nearly 

disappeared, although the knowledge 

gained in the program was vital to “ecosystem research” that became dominant 

in much of the Station program.

Throughout the Intermountain Station 

territory its range research no longer was 

“the only game in town.” Universities 

had developed range research programs 

as their natural resource schools 

grew. The creation of the Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) changed part of 

the Stations’ traditional responsibilities 

and, coupled with reassignments of 

Forest Service research territories, ended 

the Station role in the Northern Great 

Plains altogether. There was much more 

competition for range research 

funding.

The Station responded to the challenges by adjusting units and personnel 

assignments and moving aggressively 

into cooperative arrangements with 

universities, State agencies, the ARS, 

the Soil Conservation Service, and 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

Fortunately, a strong group of range 

scientists was on hand to adapt the 

program to the new realities. Forty years 

of range research at the Station had 

produced substantial results, and the 

researchers put them to work to bring 

about important improvements in range 

management in the Interior West. Some 

of the positive change was inspired by 

Lincoln Ellison, who was the Station’s 

Division Chief for Range Research at 

the time of the reorganization.

Some budding environmentalists in 

the 1960s might have been surprised to 

learn that ecological science wasn’t invented then. Forest and range ecologists 

were prominent in Forest Service research 50 years earlier. Arthur Sampson 

was the first Forest Service range 

ecologist, but “Linc” Ellison might have 

become the greatest to study and attempt 

to define the complex interactions that 

take place in the natural environment. 

Ellison built on Sampson’s work and 

refined some of the principles (Tippets 

interview, 2004). Unfortunately, his life 

ended prematurely in 1958 when he was 

killed at the height of his career in an 

avalanche while skiing at Snow Basin 

near Ogden. He was 49.

Ellison earned degrees at the 

University of California at Los Angeles 

and the University of Minnesota. He 

concentrated on botany, but also included geology and biometry in his graduate 

studies. He served at the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station (1932-37), with 

his last post at Fort Keough but was best 

known for his work at Great Basin and 

the Intermountain Station. He has been 

recognized as one of the most influential 

individuals who succeeded in creating 

a high level of awareness about erosion 

tragedies within the Forest Service 

(Prevedel and others 2005).

In his first major scientific article in 

1937, Ellison pointed out the necessity 

for the populace to be in ecological 

balance with its environment. This was a 

theme he was to advance throughout his 

career. He was named Director at Great 

Basin in 1938, and moved to Ogden 

in 1945 to serve as Division Chief for 

Range Research for the Intermountain 

Station (Norman 2005).

Ellison completed many studies on 

the relationship between soil and vegetation and believed that reverence for the 

ecological balance was an economic, 

esthetic, and ethical obligation. His 

100-page monograph on subalpine vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau (Ellison 

1954) was considered a classic work. 

Perhaps his most notable contribution to 

range management was a publication on 

condition and trend that was still valid 

in 2005 (Mitchell and others 2005). He 

wrote many other publications related 

to the ecology and management of 

high-mountain watersheds. Almost a 

half century after Ellison’s death, his 

work was still being cited in sources as 

diverse as “Soviet Soil Science” and 

reports on the ecology of the steppes of 

Inner Mongolia (Prevedel and others 

2005).

At his inaugural address as president 

of the Utah Academy of Sciences, 

Hold That Pose, Linc

Most of the prominent individuals in the history of range management research at the 

Station were present for a photo of the Division of Range Research taken at a meeting 

in 1954 at Great Basin. Back row, from 

left were Linc Ellison, the division chief; 

Neil Frischknecht; Odell Julander; 

Selar Hutchings; Ralph Holmgren; and 

Tony Evanko. Front, same order, Perry 

Plummer, Jim Blaisdell, Walt Mueggler, 

Justin Smith, and Jack Schmautz.

Ellison had all the division scientists 

get together every summer for a 

field meeting (Mueggler, personal 

communication). Mueggler said, 

“Linc was (arguably) the foremost 

plant ecologist in the West, and a very 

inspirational leader who had a profound 

effect on my development.”

Always meticulous, Ellison took an abnormally long time setting up his antiquated 

camera to get things just right for this group photo. The slow process stimulated 

Holmgren to finally ask, “What do you do if you need to take a fast picture—like 

catching a stage of ecological succession?” (Blaisdell 1989).

Lincoln Ellison’s brief, but significant, 

career as a Station ecologist was commemorated by a simple monument 

atop Elk’s Knoll at Great Basin.
–83

Arts and Letters in 1955, Ellison said, 

“Survival rests not only on sound 

management; sound management itself 

rests on moral values. If we ignore or 

despise our environment, it will destroy 

us. If we reverently strive to understand 

our environment and our place in it, if 

we develop an attitude of respect and 

love for it, we have laid the groundwork 

for survival.”

The almost mystical attitude toward 

the environment was nearly matched by 

the reverence for Ellison often expressed 

by his colleagues and those who worked 

under his direction. Ellison’s family 

asked Range Scientist Perry Plummer 

and Technician Paul Hansen to spread 

Linc’s ashes on Elk’s Knoll and place a 

monument to him there. Hansen contributed to local Great Basin lore by stating 

that every time he later climbed up Elk’s 

Knoll a red-tailed hawk dove out of 

the sky and screeched at him. Hansen 

firmly believed the hawk was Ellison’s 

spirit watching over his favorite place 

(Stevens 1994).

More New Directions

The Department of Agriculture, 

having brought about significant 

organizational changes in 1954, was 

not through. In 1956, USDA had each 

agency prepare a 10-year research plan. 

Intermountain Station’s emphasis areas 

(Annual Report, INT 1956) were:

Guides for wise use of 

ponderosa pine lands

Understanding proper relationships 

of grazing use, erosion control, and 

water yield for mountain herb lands

Better management of western 

white pine and associated species

Management and utilization 

of lodgepole pine

Erosion control and forage 

improvement on sagebrushjuniper range

Improved guides for western 

larch/Douglas-fir management

Protection and management 

of interior Douglas-fir

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Silviculture and protection of 

Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir

Restoration of Sierra pine-brushlands

Management of aspen-fir stands

Grazing management and erosion 

control of salt-desert shrubs

Erosion control and forage production 

in southern desert shrublands

Richard McArdle, who had come 

from a Forest Service Research background, was Chief of the Forest Service 

at this time. McArdle, sensing the need 

for expanding research into forest recreation, asked long-time friend Sam Dana, 

Dean of the University of Michigan’s 

School of Natural Resources, to look 

into the possibilities and report his 

findings. The report, issued in 1957, 

called for establishing a forest recreation 

research staff. Not long afterward, the 

staff was established in Washington. 

This provided the basis for the Station’s 

entry into recreation research.

Arthur Roe, who had been engaged in 

forest management research at Missoula 

since 1946, was selected to head the 

Missoula Field Research Center. The 

center was charged with investigations 

of methods of harvesting, regenerating, 

and caring for the larch/Douglas-fir, 

spruce, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa 

pine timber types. High mountain range 

and watershed research was also planned 

for the unit (Annual Report, INT 1955). 

Elsewhere within the Station, heightened 

interest was given to forest genetics 

research and regeneration studies, and 

calls from the National Forests for improved mensurational aids were heeded.

Forest Survey, the inventory of the 

Nation’s standing timber resources, had 

begun in 1930; but by merger time only 

31 percent of the forested land in the 

eight States assigned to the Missoula 

unit had been covered. Much of the 

standing timber resources of Arizona, 

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, 

and Wyoming had not been inventoried. 

Most of the forested areas were in 

the unroaded mountains of Idaho and 

Montana and were difficult to reach. 

Improved inventory techniques using 

punch cards for compiling areas and 

volumes and adaptations of aerial photography technology developed during 

•

•

•

•

•

World War II gave promise of speeding 

up the survey process.

The beginnings of aerial photography 

in the Forest Service actually predated 

World War II. The first photos taken 

from an airplane in Region 1 were 

snapped in 1926. In 1936, Region 

1 hosted a national conference on 

aerial photography and explained the 

processes it had developed to do some 

phases of forest survey work from the 

air (Baker and others 1993). With the 

benefit of World War II technology, 

aerial photography techniques improved 

markedly, but it was one thing to take 

the photos and quite another to interpret 

them. Karl Moessner had a big impact 

on correcting the imbalance.

Moessner joined the Station’s Forest 

Survey unit in 1955 shortly after Survey 

was moved from Missoula to Ogden. 

According to Dave Born, who worked 

with him for many years, Moessner 

became the leading authority on 

photogrammetry in the Forest Service 

(interview, 2005). Moessner made basic 

research contributions to the art and science of obtaining reliable measurements 

from photography and also devoted 

considerable time to training others in 

photo interpretation.

Moessner had 9 years of experience 

working on National Forest staffs in 

the Lake States where he perfected 

methods for using aerial photos in fire 

planning, mapping, and trail location. 

Called to active military duty in 1942 

as a First Lieutenant, he served with the 

Army Air Corps in a photo intelligence 

unit. He later advanced to the rank of 

Lt. Colonel in the reserves. After the 

war, Moessner’s second assignment 

with the Forest Service was to head 

photo interpretation activities for the 

newly organized Forest Survey of the 

Central States. When the initial survey 

was completed, he transferred to the 

Intermountain Station where he worked 

until retirement.

Moessner developed methods 

for estimating the slope of terrain, 

tree heights, tree volumes, and 

even the depth of forest lakes from 

aerial photos. He also analyzed the 

effectiveness of various devices used 

in interpretation. Moessner, however, 

became best known for his efforts in 

training managers to use the techniques 
84–

of photo interpretation effectively. 

The centerpiece of this work was a 

training handbook, Basic Techniques in

Forest Photo Interpretation, published 

by the Station in 1960. It was widely 

used in several Forest Service Regions 

and by other resource management 

organizations.

Moessner was a staunch advocate of 

a “hands on” approach to training. In 

the introduction of the manual, he said, 

“Recent graduates and many experienced foresters have studied existing 

textbooks and manuals in the hope of 

learning how to use aerial photos effectively. These foresters may have varying 

amounts of working knowledge and 

experience with photogrammetry, but 

they have one thing in common—lack of 

success in learning techniques or skills 

by merely reading about them. Effective 

use of aerial photos is a skill that can be 

acquired only by practice.”

The manual outlined problem-solving exercises for the students and was 

liberally illustrated with landscape 

photo examples and photos of devices used for interpretation. Moessner 

sought to train engineers and other 

resource management personnel, as 

well as foresters, to use aerial photos 

for purposes other than mapping—to 

estimate timber volumes, do range 

and watershed reconnaissance work, 

and find the best locations for roads 

and trails. Although he was the sole 

author of the manual, he acknowledged 

contributions by Region 4 Engineering, 

Utah State University, the Central 

States and Northeastern Stations, and 

Intermountain Station personnel at the 

Boise Research Center.

Karl Moessner developed 

new techniques for aerial 

photo interpretation and 

taught resource managers how to use them 

effectively as a member 

of the Station’s Forest 

Survey staff.
–85

An event in the Soviet Union in 

1957 had a significant long-term 

influence on Forest Service research, 

marking the starting point for the greatest expansion period ever. In October, 

the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, a 

tiny satellite orbiting the Earth. It was a 

wakeup call that the United States was 

behind in the exploration of space; and, 

more ominously, behind in the development of weapons in the Cold War. The 

U.S. began a strong effort to strengthen 

the teaching of science and math within 

the educational system, and to increase 

the research capabilities of the national 

defense establishment inside and outside the Federal Government.

The Forest Service research program 

was a beneficiary of the Federal 

Government’s reaction to Sputnik. But 

it was a coat-tail effect stemming from 

Cold War concerns more than a heightened concern about natural resources. 

The environmental movement had not 

become a strong political force at the 

time.

Other factors were involved in 

this unprecedented period of growth 

of Forest Service research funding, 

facilities, and personnel. One of 

those was Senator John Stennis of 

Mississippi. Stennis, chairman of the 

Senate appropriations committee,was 

a timberland owner and thus had an 

interest in forestry. He realized both 

the increasing importance of forestry 

to the economy of the South and the 

potential of research to advance the 

forest products industry. As chairman 

of the appropriations committee he had 

the political power to see that Forest 

Service research funding increased, and 

he used it.

Harper’s Influence

Deputy Chief for Research Vern 

L. Harper was a major factor in the 

expansion of Forest Service research. 

Although some of his direction was 

controversial within the research 

organization, Harper responded to the 

heightened Congressional interest in 

research with a plan for expansion that 

was right for the times. The plan, calling 

for expanding research programs and 

building laboratories and other facilities 

as part of the Forest Service’s Program 

for the National Forests, was submitted 

to Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft 

Benson. Benson was a staunch conservative, interested in reducing government 

programs, yet he backed several funding 

increases for Forest Service research 

(Hartzer 1981).

It never hurts to be a good host 

for your boss, and Benson’s support 

of research may have been fostered 

somewhat by a lengthy summer vacation 

at Priest River planned and conducted 

by Station personnel. Priest River 

Superintendent James W. Hanover gave 

this account (Wellner 1976):

The experimental forest had the unique 

and pleasant experience of being ‘home’ 

for Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft 

Benson and his family for six weeks 

during 1957. The distinguished guests 

occupied the Lodge from July 2 to 

August 13. Secretary Benson’s summer 

at the forest enabled him to become 

familiar with Forest Service programs 

by means of extensive and local trips 

scheduled for him. The Secretary spent 

many hours relaxing and enjoying 

the station’s scenery and facilities.

Harper served on a committee with 

other USDA research administrators that 

produced a 1960 report, An Evaluation 

of Agricultural Research. It contained 

recommendations for changes in 

research direction and expansion within 

USDA. As part of these exercises, he 

prepared a list of suitable sites for Forest 

Service research laboratories, mostly located on university campuses, and gave 

it to Congress. The list became the basis 

for Congress, interested third parties, 

and the Forest Service to push a rapid 

expansion of programs and facilities. 

Forest Service research programs had 

doubled from 1954 to 1960 and doubled 

again by 1966, even using deflated 

C h a p t e r 9.

The Expansion Era

Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft 

Benson was ready for a ride on a horse 

loaned to him by Station personnel 

during a 6-week family vacation at 

Priest River in 1957 (Utah Historical 

Society collection).
86–

dollars. The latter period, especially, 

saw construction of many Forest Service 

laboratories (Storey 1975).

Yet another factor was the role 

Station Directors played in encouraging 

political support for increased funds and 

facilities. Federal employees are prohibited from lobbying, and as part of the 

executive branch of government they are 

obligated to support the President’s budget proposal to Congress. But answering 

questions was not only permissible, but 

required when Members of Congress 

were making the inquiries. The Station 

Directors provided information about 

funding needs to Congress directly or 

through third parties. This proved to be 

an effective technique in encouraging 

Congress to increase the research funding above levels recommended in the 

President’s budget proposal.

The research center concept, adopted 

beginning in 1946, was coming into 

serious question by the mid-1950s. 

Deficiences noted were some superficial research, some center leaders 

becoming too independent, and certain 

administrative tasks being duplicated 

unnecessarily at several places within 

a Station. Forest Service Research 

hired a consulting firm to examine the 

entire administrative structure. Among 

its many recommendations was one to 

continue the research center concept. 

Harper found that unacceptable. In a 

major decision, the Chief and Staff 

backed Harper, rejected the recommendation, and adopted instead a 

project-based system. Project Leaders 

emerged as the key people in accomplishing research objectives.

The project-based organizations 

allowed transfer of some administrative tasks to Station Headquarters and 

increased the depth of research. Also, 

geographic boundaries became less significant (Steen 1998). The adjustments 

took considerable time and were not 

greeted with enthusiasm by everyone.

Harper and his counterparts in the 

Agricultural Research Service and the 

Economic Research Service began 

to push for “man-in-the-job” peer 

review for the evaluation of scientist 

grades. This was an effort to evaluate 

scientists on the basis of their research 

accomplishments, rather than on their 

administrative responsibilities. The 

research grade evaluation guide that 

resulted treated Forest Service scientists 

more along the lines of university 

faculty than as traditional bureaucrats 

whose salary levels usually were based 

on organization size.

Before the Research Grade 

Evaluation System went into effect, 

the ability of a scientist to advance 

depended on willingness to transfer. 

Al Stage recalled being told when he 

was contemplating buying a home at 

Moscow that “you could figure on 3 to 

5 years at one place and then you’d be 

moving on” (Stage 2003).

Stage said the only way a scientist 

could advance was by gaining broad 

experience, presumably through several 

transfers, and then moving into research 

administration. The broad experience 

could qualify a person to become a 

research center leader. From there, a 

move was possible to the Washington 

Office or to Station Headquarters as a 

Division Chief.

Stage said, “With the advent of the 

Research Grade Evaluation System you 

could advance in place. You could get 

more money for doing the things you really loved to do—better....What it did is 

give individuals a lot more control over 

their destiny. It gave the administration a 

lot less control over who was where.”

Forestry Schools Grow

Relationships between the Forest 

Service and the university forestry 

schools were generally good at this time. 

The late ‘50s saw the start or expansion 

of natural resource research programs 

at many of the schools. The McIntireStennis Act provided federal funds 

for forestry research to the land grant 

universities based on a formula tied to 

the acreage of commercial forest land 

within their respective States. Formula 

funding of this sort tended to favor the 

schools in States with large forest acreages, and was not necessarily related to 

the research capability of the university. 

However, McIntire-Stennis funds were 

important for expanded research at the 

existing forestry schools, and for the 

initiation of research at a number of 

newly created forestry schools.

The expansion of natural resource 

research within both the Forest Service 

and the universities was greatly facilitated by passage of the Government 

Employees Training Act (GETA) in 

1958. This act provided an opportunity 

to send researchers back to graduate 

schools for further graduate or postdoctoral training. It proved to be a 

major step in upgrading the scientific 

skills of the Forest Service research 

staff. Even before passage of the act, 

Harper had pushed advanced training to 

the extent that about 10 percent of the 

research staff was involved in graduate 

education. These numbers peaked at 20 

percent in 1967, but fell to 5 percent 

in 1974 because nearly 75 percent of 

the professional research employees 

had advanced degrees by then (Storey 

1975). Thirty percent of those taking 

graduate training in 1962 did so under 

GETA. By 1974, 97 percent were under 

GETA.

Research expansion was coincidental 

with that of other Forest Service programs, particularly those in the State and 

Private Forestry (S&PF) arena. Research 

administrators had some concern that 

the build up of S&PF programs and the 

interest in those programs at the Chief’s 

level could make things difficult for 

research expansion. Some even thought 

funding for the S&PF programs could 

eventually exceed that for the National 

Forest System. While those situations 

did not come to pass, the concerns 

reflect the type of internal competition 

common in government agencies 

(Pechanec interview, 1993).
–87

The period of research expansion in 

the Forest Service was a period of 

unparalleled growth at the Intermountain 

Station as well. The growth included 

addition of major new facilities and the 

start of new research programs and expansion of others. By 1961, the Station’s 

forest economics research program had 

been expanded to include a multiple-use 

economics unit and a small recreation 

unit. A unit in Missoula devoted to 

wildlife habitat research was organized 

in 1962.

The growth was not uniform, 

however. By the mid-1960s support for 

the traditionally strong range research 

program began to decline gradually, an 

early warning of the unit consolidations 

and reorganizations that became necessary in the 1970s.

In Missoula, a major development 

came in 1958 when Congress appropriated funds for the Northern Forest Fire 

Laboratory. It was to be one of three 

regional forest fire laboratories planned 

for the Forest Service (the others were 

at Riverside, California, and Macon, 

Georgia).

On the national scene, 1960 saw 

passage of the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act. Its purpose was to formally 

state that the National Forests were to 

be administered for outdoor recreation, 

range, timber, watershed, and wildlife 

and fish purposes. Other laws provided 

for the mining of government-owned 

minerals on National Forest land. The 

Multiple-Use Act, although aimed at the 

National Forests, had a major carry-over 

effect on the Forest Service’s research 

program. It was an important event in 

the Forest Service’s development of 

policy (Steen 1976).

The need for a clearer legislative 

basis for Forest Service management 

was never more apparent than in Region 

4 when disputes erupted over managers’ 

attempts to improve range conditions by 

reducing the number of sheep and cattle 

permitted to graze on National Forest 

lands. Some in the livestock industry 

disputed the decisions by asserting that 

the Forest Service had no legal right to 

manage the lands. Such claims seemed 

a bit farfetched to most people in later 

years, but they were very real matters 

to be dealt with before passage of the 

Multiple-Use Act.

Research Helps Win 

“Range Wars”

In the late 1950s and early 1960s 

Forest Service range managers in 

Region 4 moved aggressively to cut the 

numbers of sheep and cattle permitted 

on National Forest grazing allotments 

where overuse was damaging the 

vegetation and causing serious erosion 

problems, especially in streamside areas 

and canyon bottoms. Point men in the 

struggles that ensued were the District 

Rangers and Forest Supervisors who 

had direct dealings with the cattle and 

sheep ranchers. They had the unwavering backing of Regional Forester Floyd 

Iverson and his staff. Station researchers 

played a smaller, but significant, support 

role.

Bill Hurst was Chief of the Division 

of Range and Wildlife Management in 

Region 4 during most of the period (he 

later became Regional Forester for the 

Southwestern Region). His memoirs 

(Hurst 2000) provide a first-hand account of the so-called “range wars.” 

Hurst said there were many problem 

areas throughout the four States in the 

Region. His recollections, however, 

mainly describe situations in Utah and 

Idaho.

Forest Supervisors made livestock 

reductions based on the situation in 

individual allotments, usually after a 

general announcement that adjustments 

were coming. A few were dramatic. 

Supervisor Clarence Thornock notified 

permittees in the Hobble Creek allotment of the Wasatch National Forest 

that their livestock numbers would 

be reduced 83 percent, adding to an 

already volatile range controversy in 

Utah. Twenty-percent reductions for 

Grantsville and Logan Canyon units 

caused opponents to assert that the 

Forest Service really didn’t know the 

carrying capacity of the lands and was 

merely guessing. The livestock industry 

vigorously disputed the reductions.

The Governor of Utah entered 

the fray, prevailing on the Utah State 

University School of Forestry to study 

the units in question. Academics 

were divided. Some sided with the 

livestock industry. Walter Cottam of 

the University of Utah, however, commended the Forest Service actions in 

public letters and speeches. Cottam had 

conducted personal research at Station 

experimental areas (see Appendix 

A), and was knowledgeable about 

other Station research. The Salt Lake 

Tribune supported the Forest Service 

editorially. The Deseret News, owned 

by the Mormon Church, supported the 

ranchers.

According to Hurst, who was a 

Mormon, the conflicts had a deep 

philosophical basis. Many of the stockmen believed that the pioneer people, 

the Mormons in Utah in particular, had 

tamed and subdued the wild lands and 

C h a p t e r 10.

Station Growth, 1955-1971
88–

thus earned a moral right to dictate their 

use. They did not accept government 

intervention. The Forest Service position 

was that National Forests did not belong 

to any one interest group and the lands 

should be managed for the common 

good of the people of the United States.

The Hobble Creek case was fought 

bitterly in the appeal and political 

arenas for 3 years. The Forest Service 

won a decisive victory when Secretary 

of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, who 

probably was under pressure from his 

fellow Mormon Church leaders to rule 

otherwise, upheld the original decision. 

The Grantsville and Logan Canyon 

reductions were sustained when the 

permittees decided to withdraw their 

case before an Appeals Board could rule.

The “range war” period featured 

many meetings with stockmen, politicians, and academics by Forest Service 

managers and scientists who explained 

and defended the service’s position. 

Hurst notes participation by Station 

scientist Selar Hutchings in several 

reviews of overuse situations. Station 

Director Reed Bailey hosted a meeting 

for Washington officials at Great Basin 

in 1958. Alexander (1987) includes 

a Station watershed specialist, Neil 

Frischknecht, in a list of expert witnesses who met with Mormon Church 

leaders in Salt Lake City in an attempt 

to convince them of the merits of the 

Forest Service position. To get background information, Hurst spent 5 days 

in 1959 reviewing alpine study plots 

with Weldon Shepherd, head of range 

research at the Station.

In the appeal of the Grantsville 

allotment reduction, lawyers for the 

permittees called in a number of experts; 

including John F. Valentine of the 

Extension Service, C. Wayne Cook, 

research professor in range management 

at Utah State, and L. A. Stoddard, head 

of the department of range management at Utah State. Regional Forester 

Iverson countered their arguments by 

citing research by Station Ecologist 

Linc Ellison, and the Forest Service 

ultimately prevailed (Alexander 1987). 

Regarding the total stock reduction 

program, Alexander states, “Research 

at the Intermountain Station and the 

introduction of more precise measures of 

condition and trend...provided the data 

Meeting the Challenges

Region 4 managers acknowledged “excellent studies” by Paul Packer that helped them 

prevail in controversies over range allotments in central Idaho in the late 1950s. It was 

not the last time Packer generated research results to help meet the challenge of public 

controversies.

In a long career at the Station, Packer recorded important accomplishments in 

developing watershed protection measures for range lands, establishing criteria for 

locating and designing logging roads to prevent stream sedimentation, and testing 

and applying techniques to reclaim mined areas. He worked at Great Basin, Boise, 

Missoula, and Logan from 1939 until he retired in 1980.

Sedimentation from 

forest road building in 

the fragile Boise Basin 

was a major concern 

and similar concerns 

later emerged in 

Region 1 National 

Forests. Packer 

brought science to 

bear on problems in 

both areas as Project 

Leader of watershed 

management research 

units at Boise from 

1951 through 

1955 and and then 

at Missoula until 

1962. He published 

several articles on 

sedimentation in 

the Boise Basin and 

in 1964 wrote a 

handbook, Guides for Controlling Sediment from Secondary Logging Roads, which was 

published jointly by the Station and Region 1. The manual was in a notebook format so 

it could be carried easily in a Forest Service uniform pocket.

Assistant Regional Forester Gordon Watts said, “Paul E. Packer of the Intermountain 

Station produced some particularly valuable recommendations for road construction 

on granitic soils. These recommendations were published and given broad distribution 

to Region 4 foresters and engineers, who put them to use on the ground” (Alexander 

1987).

Packer moved to Logan to lead watershed research, and in 1971 unit members 

developed a comprehensive proposal for a West-wide research program on 

rehabilitating surface-mined land (INTercom 3/25/76). It became a cornerstone of the 

Forest Service’s Surface Environment and Mining Program (See “Special Programs Bring 

Special Problems and Achievements,” chapter 11).

At Logan, Packer also functioned as a professor in the College of Natural Resources at 

Utah State University. He lectured, conducted seminars, and participated in teaching 

short courses for Federal and State agency personnel. Packer had been an Air Force 

pilot during World War II, and piloted his own plane for many years, including on some 

Station business trips (INTercom 3/25/76).

Station Watershed Scientist Paul Packer provided information that helped the Forest Service prevail in controversies 

over reducing grazing in the Idaho Batholith. Here, Packer 

checked infiltrometer equipment used to simulate rainfall 

in hydrologic studies at Wood Tick Creek in the Boise 

National Forest in 1947.

the Service needed to inaugurate the 

tougher corrective measures required.”

Shepherd journeyed to the University 

of Idaho with Hurst and others to 

explain the Forest Service position 

regarding grazing reductions. The 

Deans of the schools of Forestry and 

Agriculture decided to stay neutral in the 
–89

conflicts occurring in Idaho, although 

some individual faculty members 

backed the stockmen.

Sheep men using allotments in the 

Idaho Batholith were concerned because 

research there showed the soils could 

not stand the impact of grazing in many 

areas. Even those who admitted damage 

was unacceptable thought the Forest 

Service reductions were too severe. In 

a meeting of a public land committee 

in Boise, Hurst was taken to task by 

an agronomist for “trying to destroy 

one of Idaho’s great industries.” Hurst 

said, “I held firm and had the benefit 

of excellent studies by Paul Packer of 

the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station and those of Tom 

Phillips, range scientist on the Sawtooth, 

to back me up.”

Hurst believed that many desirable results followed the conflicts in 

Utah and Idaho in addition to gains 

in condition of the land. The greatest, 

he thought, was the mutual respect 

achieved between the livestock permittees and the Forest Service. He also 

cited as a benefit an atmosphere of cooperation that developed between Utah 

State University, the Extension Service, 

and the Forest Service. An example 

given was the start of a study in Logan 

Canyon by Utah State and the Station to 

address range suitability standards that 

had been disputed during the “wars.” 

Suitability standards had been one of the 

fundamental technical questions during 

the period of greatest conflict.

At the annual convention of the 

National Cattle Growers in Salt 

Lake City in 1962, a delegation from 

Arizona questioned the reliability and 

defensibility of the range suitability 

standards used by Region 4. According 

to Hurst, Arthur Findley, a Hobble Creek 

permittee, responded with something 

like, “If you don’t believe these Forest 

Service boys can defend their suitability 

standards, just get yourself $10,000 and 

go to court with them.” Findley and his 

associates had been there.

The Beef Was at Benmore

Research at the Benmore 

Experimental Area near Vernon in 

north-central Utah was a 

prime example of the kind 

of cooperation between 

the Forest Service and 

Utah State University 

that Bill Hurst saw as a 

beneficial outcome of the 

controversies over range 

management of the late 

1950s and early 1960s.

Benmore was a 3,200-

acre parcel in a 45,000-acre 

tract of land acquired by 

the Federal Government in 

1935 as part of the Central 

Utah Dryland Adjustment 

Project. Many such 

acquisitions were made 

in the Dust Bowl days of 

the Depression in attempts to return 

to productive use lands that proved 

unsuitable for crop agriculture and were 

abandoned. Benmore was earmarked as 

a research area from the start, although 

it never received an official designation as an experimental range. Studies 

were conducted there through several 

agreements between the research and 

management organizations.

The range was fenced and seeded 

to improved grasses during the late 

1930s. A series of attempts at dryland 

wheat farming had failed and the land 

was in poor condition. Dense brush 

stands occupied considerable acreage. 

It was a good place for research on how 

to convert abused land to productive 

spring-fall range. Nearby ranchers 

cooperated with Station and Utah State 

researchers in many studies.

Management varied over the years. 

The area was first under the jurisdiction 

of the Soil Conservation Service, and 

the Station established some research 

there in cooperation with SCS. In 1940 

research got under way formally through 

a cooperative agreement between SCS, 

the Forest Service, the Utah Agricultural 

Experiment Station, and the Bureau of 

Plant Industry. In 1954, the entire area 

was made part of the Wasatch National 

Forest. The Station assumed management responsibility for the research 

program and some of the maintenance 

at Benmore and it kept that role until the 

1970s, when administration was turned 

over to the Uintah National Forest. Utah 

State continued to use the area for a 

livestock breeding study after the Station 

ended its research work there.

Although some research at Benmore 

involved sheep, the emphasis was 

on cattle. One of the more intriguing 

studies, however, focused on sheep. 

A common way thought to improve 

Provo

Salt Lake City

Benmore

Experimental

Area

Rush Valley

I-15

Great Salt Lake

Utah Lake

American

Fork

36

73

Stockmen from 

the Benmore 

area worked with 

Station and Utah 

State researchers 

in checking and 

weighing cattle.
90–

rangeland at the time was to remove 

big sagebrush and replace it by seeding 

the area to grow crested wheatgrass. 

However, the wheatgrass stands were 

very vulnerable to reinvasion by sagebrush. Unless control measures were 

maintained, the brush became dominant 

and conditions soon returned to what 

they had been.

A 6-year study at Benmore showed 

that if the sagebrush density could be 

kept low, the seeded grass would continue to do well. Sheep maintained their 

weight in areas where sagebrush density 

was light, but lost weight where the 

brush was dominant. If sheep were put 

on the range in late fall before reinvading sagebrush became too dense, they 

did an excellent control job. Cattle failed 

completely to control the sagebrush. 

This resulted in a recommendation that 

cattle ranchers might maintain range 

in good condition if they used sheep as 

“brush controllers” (Forestry Research 

West Feb./75).

Many Station scientists conducted 

research at Benmore. The early scientists sometimes stayed there, although 

the headquarters consisted of an old 

farmhouse and several dilapidated 

outbuildings. Range Scientist Neil 

Frischknecht, whose career at the 

Station spanned 34 years, became 

closely associated with the work there. 

So did Utah State University researchers. The university personnel established 

permanent study plots in part of the 

Benmore area. The principal author 

of the report summarizing 40 years of 

research results at Benmore was a Utah 

State graduate student. Frischknecht was 

the co-author, and the Station published 

the document (Astroth and Frischknecht 

1984). The cooperators, including 

extension workers and Wasatch Forest 

staff, sponsored field days and training 

sessions at Benmore. Tours for range 

management students at Utah State 

made the site a regular stop.

Frischknecht was the senior author of 

14 publications covering a wide range 

of research results at Benmore, and he 

collaborated with others on many more 

reports. He was said to have loved the 

place and he resisted being transferred 

to other projects where his talents were 

needed, even after he had solved the 

major problems assigned to him at 

Benmore (Blaisdell 1989). 

He did leave for a few 

years to conduct mined 

land reclamation research, 

but couldn’t stay away. 

Frischknecht returned to 

Benmore as a volunteer 

after he retired to work on 

several projects in cooperation with Utah State. 

His retirement “hobby” 

was producing seed from 

improved plants on private 

land he owned at Vernon.

Frischknecht was 

a charter member of 

the Society for Range 

Management and an ardent 

supporter of the organization. He was named a 

fellow of the society in 1986. He was 

serving as newsletter editor for the Utah 

Section when he died at 71.

Developing the scientific basis for 

rehabilitation and management of 

abused dry rangelands, such as those 

at Benmore, was no simple matter. 

Preferred grasses and forbs had declined 

and shrubs increased beyond acceptable 

levels. Early experiences at Benmore 

and elsewhere showed that perennial 

grasses seeded into dense stands of 

sagebrush or cheatgrass failed to become 

established. The condition of the soil at 

seeding was critical, and this depended 

to a considerble extent on how and when 

the brush was removed.

Scientists at Benmore found answers 

to rehabilitation and management problems through a variety of studies of the 

vegetation, animals, and management 

systems. The results were documented 

in some 80 publications. The recommendations included:

Guidelines for deciding which 

lands to treat, what equipment to 

use in various situations, whether 

burning should be an alternative, 

and how long livestock should be 

kept off the area after treatment to 

allow new vegetation to establish.

Recommendations of the best 

methods of seeding, preferred grass 

species, and rates, times, and planting 

depths applicable to most areas in 

ecosystems similar to Benmore. The 

scientists recognized that no single 

•

•

approach would work in all areas, 

and much of the research pointed out 

variances from the recommendations 

that applied on rangelands with 

varying climate, soil, topographic 

features and vegetative competition.

Guidelines for managing the seeded 

rangelands, with emphasis on 

the spring season most important 

to livestock that often came off 

winter ranges in fair or poor 

condition. A rotational grazing 

system was recommended, and the 

recommendations even included 

advice on when to sell livestock.

Ways to control reinvasion of 

the rehabilitated rangelands 

by undesirable vegetation.

Recommendations for conducting 

rehabilitation work to minimize 

negative impacts on bird populations.

Guidelines on how to defer grazing 

to combat poisonous plants.

The Station ended its research activities at Benmore in a final cooperative 

agreement with Utah State. It resulted 

in the Astroth-Frischknecht publication 

summarizing results of 44 of years of 

studies. The last product stemming from 

the agreement was a self-guided auto 

tour brochure issued by the Cooperative 

Extension Service of Utah State. Printed 

in 1986, the guide was made available 

to range management and botany classes 

at Utah State and Brigham Young 

University, vocational-agricultural 

•

•

•

•

Range Scientist Neil Frischknecht determined cattle 

weight gains at Benmore in 1962 in one of his many 

studies at the experimental area in Tooele County.
–91

students in high schools near Benmore, 

the Farm Bureau, and the Cattlemen’s 

Association.

Although Station research was 

suspended, the message from Benmore 

explaining the benefits of sound range 

management and suggesting ways it 

could be achieved continued to go out.

Sediment Spells Trouble 

for Salmon

Serious concerns about management 

and use of areas with granitic soils in 

Idaho developed in the late 1920s as a 

result of reservoir sedimentation and 

damage to stream environments in the 

Boise and Payette River drainages. 

These concerns caused Great Basin 

Experiment Station scientists to begin 

studies in the drainages in 1928, shortly 

before the organization was renamed the 

Intermountain Station.

The river drainages are within the 

Idaho Batholith, a huge area that makes 

up almost one-fifth of the total land area 

of Idaho and extends into Montana and 

northeastern Washington. The main core 

area in central Idaho includes about 

16,000 square miles, making it nearly 

the size of West Virginia. It spans parts 

of six National Forests. The climate can 

be very dry in summer and very cold in 

winter. Much of the batholith features 

steep slopes and granitic rock covered 

by shallow soil prone to slide, wash, or 

blow away when disturbances strip away 

the vegetation (Forestry Research West

Feb./75).

Livestock grazing and mining were 

the major disturbances caused by 

humans before 1940 (Seyedbagheri and 

others 1987). The pioneering Station 

research helped Forest Service managers 

justify tighter controls over grazing. 

Some areas, particularly in the Boise 

and Payette National Forests, were completely withdrawn from management 

activities that had been demonstrated 

to cause severe erosion and sediment 

production. Over a period of years, the 

numbers of sheep and cattle permitted 

to graze were reduced considerably in 

other areas (see “Research Helps Win 

‘Range Wars,’“ this chapter). Mining 

activities, which were responsible for 

significant deposits of sediment and 

chemicals into the stream systems, declined gradually as ore deposits played 

out and prices for some metals declined, 

although rehabilitation in many areas 

was still needed decades later.

As happened throughout the West, 

timber harvesting and associated road 

building in National Forests expanded 

rapidly after World War II and these 

activities created a whole new round of 

concerns about erosion on the fragile 

lands. Key areas were drainages of 

the Clearwater River in Region 1 and 

the South Fork of the Salmon River 

in Region 4, with the latter getting the 

most attention. The South Fork system 

supported populations of resident fish, 

such as trout and char, and anadromous 

salmon and steelhead. Historically, the 

South Fork and its tributaries hosted 

Idaho’s largest population of summer 

chinook salmon. Populations that started 

to decline in the 1950s were in serious 

trouble later. The number of adult chinooks returning from the ocean to their 

spawning areas was estimated at about 

10,000 in the mid-1950s. The estimate 

in 1979 was only 250 fish (Seyedbagheri 

and others 1987).

Downstream influences of commercial and sport fishing and the presence 

of eight mainstream hydroelectyric 

dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers 

certainly contributed to anadromous fish 

population declines. But degradation of 

upriver spawning areas due primarily to 

new road networks required by loggers 

was a contributing factor. Questions 

about timber harvesting programs and 

practices within the batholith began to 

be raised within and outside the Forest 

Service.

The Station and Region 4 responded 

to the concerns in a small way in 

1958 by establishing the Zena Creek 

watershed study in the Payette National 

Forest. The early work was led by Ned 

Bethlahmy, watershed research unit 

Project Leader, and Research Engineer 

Rulon Gardner. Jim Curtis, Project 

Leader of the silviculture unit at Boise, 

planned studies to determine the limitations of hand-planting seedlings in areas 

with shallow soils that were too steep for 

machine planting. Joe Kidd, a hydrologist in the watershed unit, participated in 

the early studies.

The first studies were at Deep Creek, 

a sub-drainage of Zena Creek that had a 

series of small basins to catch sediment. 

Zena Creek is a tributary of the Secesh 

River, which flows into the South 

Fork of the Salmon River. Tailholt and 

Circle End creeks flow directly into the 

South Fork. Instruments were installed 

in Circle End and Tailholt Creeks to 

measure changes in streamflow and sediment production resulting from logging 

and roading (Craddock 1967). Circle 

End Creek was to be the undisturbed 

control. Much later, in 1996, most of the 

Circle Creek drainage (1,464 acres) was 

designated a Research Natural Area.

Payette Forest personnel prepared 

a large, long-term timber sale that 

included several roads in the Tailholt 

drainage. The sale called for various 

types of cuttings and using jammer and 

skyline logging equipment as specifed 

by the Station engineers. Previous 

Station research on effects of logging 

In much of the Idaho Batholith the 

granitic rock fractures and soil erodes if 

the thin protective vegetation mantle is 

removed.
92–

in the batholith had been confined 

to tractor skidding operations and 

single- and group-selection cutting on 

relatively gently slopes in the Boise 

Basin Experimental Forest. The jammer 

yarding system required roads spaced 

at about 200-yard intervals along steep 

slopes.

Craddock (1967) concluded later 

that (1) the logging system used in 

Zena Creek was not an ultimate answer 

for timber harvesting in the batholith; 

(2) some steep areas could be logged 

economically without watershed damage 

if the work was done carefully; and (3) 

some parts of the batholith were too 

fragile to be logged unless an aerial system could be devised to yard logs long 

distances without building roads.

Unfortunately, findings from Zena 

Creek came too late to avoid major 

problems. In 1962, Harold Haupt was 

the watershed unit Project Leader in 

Boise. He said:

The Payette National Forest had been 

logging in the South Fork for some 

time and red flags were showing up. 

A disaster was in the making. In 1962, 

an intense rainstorm swept in off the 

Pacific Ocean and deluged the South 

Fork. Erosion damage was so extensive 

that sections of roads were swept 

away...Our watershed project had 

installed a great number of small runoff 

plots on logging roads upon which we 

were testing a variety of restabilization 

techniques. These plots for the most part 

did not stand up under the fury of the 

storm. The next year (1963) we would 

reassess our entire effort in the South 

Fork (Haupt, personal communication).

The research reassessment resulted 

in many changes in the program at 

Zena Creek. When the timber sale was 

completed, Payette Forest personnel 

evaluated the total watershed and related 

conditions using a Channel Condition 

Classification Guide developed by Walt 

Megahan, Regional Hydrologist at the 

time, and data on sedimentation supplied 

by Kidd. In rethinking the program, 

Station administrators concluded that 

Zena Creek was only one small site 

in the larger problem area. Although 

data continued to be collected there 

for nearly 20 years, the program was 

expanded rapidly in other areas.

The Silver Creek Experimental 

Area created by the Station and Boise 

National Forest in 1961 was a key to 

considering the larger problem. The 

2,300-acre study site along a tributary 

of the Middle Fork of the Payette River 

was representative of much of the 

range of conditions found in the Idaho 

Batholith. Research data collected there 

ultimately provided a storehouse of 

information unparalleled anywhere else 

in the batholith. The research considered 

much more than erosion. Station 

scientists designed studies to learn how 

logging and attendant road construction affected cycling of soil nutrients, 

wildlife (including birds and small 

mammals), reforestation, streamflow and 

water chemistry, patterns of vegetative 

succession, and many other facets of forest communities (Noble 1980).

Field studies at Silver Creek were 

conducted on eight small, unlogged 

watersheds. Access roads were built 

in three watersheds. In one, accepted 

practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation were used. In the other two, 

newer, more progressive measures were 

used to reduce erosion. The first logging 

was done in 1976. Eventually, helicopter, skyline, and tractor logging systems 

were used and evaluated. Balloon 

logging was tried nearby from 1971 

through 1973 along the Middle Fork 

of the Payette River as a cooperative 

venture by the Station, Boise National 

Forest, and Boise-Cascade Corporation. 

Results were reported in publications by 

Station and National Forest 

personnel (Forestry Research West

Aug. /74). Some studies at Silver Creek 

ran through the 1980s. For example, in 

1989 Research Forester Kathy GeierHayes published a report on vegetation 

responses to helicopter logging and 

broadcast burning.

In 1964 and 1965 extreme natural 

events triggered an erosion and sedimentation disaster for fish habitat in the 

South Fork Salmon River. Heavy rains 

on snow caused massive amounts of 

sediment to move into the streams. As 

sediment production reached its peak 

historical level (162 percent of normal), 

anadromous fish production decreased to 

its lowest level, 20 percent of potential 

(Seyedbagheri and others 1987).

In 1965, Region 4 imposed a moratorium on logging and road construction 

on nearly 350,000 acres in the South 

Fork drainage, an area where a dense 

road network had been built to support 

an average annual timber harvest of 16 

million board feet. The area contained 

the majority of the spawning and rearing habitat used by anadromous fish 

in the South Fork system. The Region 

also started a watershed rehabilitation 

program and established a special study 

team located in Boise. The Station 

increased funding for its Boise research 

unit and stepped up work at Silver Creek 

and other smaller sites in the batholith.

The storms caused a significant number of landslides at Zena Creek. Gonsior 

and Gardner summarized results of a 

number of studies of road failures due 

to the slides and wrote a Station paper 

in 1971 that documented 11 recommendations they made to engineers and 

managers for future logging road construction they thought would minimize 

erosion. An evaluation also was made 

on the China Glenn Road in the Payette 

National Forest, which was constructed 

in 1970 to provide access to a salvage 

timber sale. It was the first road built 

since the 1965 moratorium and a major 

goal was to verify principles intended to 

minimize erosion problems.

Although no hard data were available, Gardner said “there is strong 

evidence that the effort to minimize 

environmental and esthetic impact 

produced good results.” He, Research 

Engineer Bill Hartsog, and Forest 

Planning Engineer Kelly Dye wrote 

Project Leader Jim Curtis checked the 

health of a planted ponderosa pine 

seedling at Zena Creek in 1965.
–93

a Station publication, Road Design 

Guidelines for the Idaho Batholith 

Based on the China Glenn Road Study, 

which presented eight principles the 

authors said “will usually produce good 

results for reducing road impacts in the 

batholith and elsewhere.”

In a nutshell, the inability to define 

in concrete terms the impacts of logging 

and associated road building was the 

problem requiring research in the Idaho 

Batholith. Walt Megahan, who became 

the watershed unit Project Leader in 

Boise in 1967, said, “It has been impossible to accurately predict the onsite and 

offsite effects of the environmental consequences, posing a crucial problem for 

the land manager. He is unable to define 

limitations to use, if and how management practices might be applied, and 

possible tradeoffs in the various uses and 

values, even though he is required to do 

so for environmental analysis reports.” 

Station scientists set about solving the 

quantification problem, and they were 

remarkably successful.

In 1972, Megahan and Kidd analyzed 

6 years of data from the Zena Creek 

logging study and concluded that skidding logs with tractors or by skyline or 

jammer systems was a relatively minor 

cause of sedimentation. The culprit 

was the road system, which increased 

sediment production an average of 750 

times over the natural rate for the 6-year 

period following construction. Reporting 

in the Journal of Forestry, the scientists 

recommended keeping road building to 

a minimum and avoiding erosion-prone 

areas. They followed up with a Station 

publication, Effect of Logging Roads on 

Sediment Production Rates in the Idaho 

Batholith, which explored in greater 

detail the relationship between roadbuilding and erosion (Forestry Research 

West Feb./75).

Megahan worked on many aspects 

of erosion in the batholith during his 

first few years in Boise, but he was best 

known for his model on time trends in 

erosion on disturbed slopes. Published 

by the Station in 1974, Erosion Over 

Time on Severely Disturbed Granitic 

Soils: A Model, was still widely used in 

the 1990s (Clayton 1991).

Megahan’s later research, including 

many studies at Silver Creek, expanded 

to deal with slope hydrology, subsurface 

flow, and sediment transport in streams. 

His reputation grew, and he was widely 

sought out in the national and international watershed science communities 

(Clayton 1991). Nevertheless, Megahan 

never forgot the needs of resource managers. In 1977, he published tables of 

geometry for low-standard roads, which 

could be used in situations where limited 

budgets precluded detailed engineering 

design or where engineering talents 

were unavailable. Using the tables, a designer could estimate the extent of slope 

alteration before road construction and 

evaluate potential watershed impacts 

(Forestry Research West Apr. /77).

The National Wildlife Federation 

honored Megahan in 1969 as “Forest 

Conservationist of the Year” for the 

State of Idaho. In 1988, he received a 

USDA Superior Service Award and the 

first Forest Service Chief’s Stewardship 

Award. The Stewardship Award cited his 

“exceptional job of working with staff 

and line officials to translate scientific 

principles and research findings into 

usable guides for ‘on-the-ground’ application” (INTercom 2/16/89).

Soil Scientist Jim Clayton joined 

the Boise unit in 1967, as the work 

on quantifying factors in erosion and 

sedimentation was getting into full 

swing. A cooperative study between 

Station scientists and Delon Hampton 

of Howard University was under way to 

identify basic physical, chemical, and 

hydrological properties of both soil and 

bedrock. From early data, Clayton and 

John Arnold, Batholith Liaison Officer 

for Region 4, developed a method for 

classifying the weathering and fracturing properties of granitic rocks. The 

technique, documented in a Station publication in 1972, helped identify areas 

where massive landslides might occur 

after roadbuilding or logging (Forestry 

Research West Feb. /75).

Clayton conducted studies of soil and 

bedrock properties and how they were 

altered by weathering in a variety of 

areas throughout the Idaho Batholith. He 

also published reports on soil development and nutrient cycling in forest 

ecosystems in the batholith, and the 

consequences of timber harvest, accelerated erosion, and fire on nutrients.

A Batholith Steering Committee set 

up in 1967 by the Station and Regions 1 

and 4 had identified research needs, including the work conducted by Megahan, 

Clayton, and others. The committee 

said studies to improve knowledge of 

the requirements of anadromous fish 

for food, spawning and resting areas, 

and the effects of “granitic” sediments 

on them were “urgently needed.” They 

pointed out that this work would require 

developing strong cooperation with the 

Idaho Fish and Game Department, and 

Project Leader Walt Megahan received 

an award in 1989 from Forest Service 

Chief Dale Robertson for his research 

in the Idaho Batholith that led to 

improved road building practices. 

Megahan was nominated for the honor 

by two Regional Foresters in addition to 

Station Director Larry Lassen.

Soil Scientist Jim Clayton developed 

methods to classify key properties of 

granitic rocks in research conducted at 

the Boise Lab in the early 1970s.
94–

that it called for the skills of a hydrologist 

and a fisheries specialist (Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 

1968). Megahan was the hydrologist, 

Bill Platts became the fisheries specialist 

when he moved to the Station in 1977 

after 10 years as the Idaho Zone Fisheries 

Biologist for Region 4, including work 

with the South Fork watershed rehabilitation team. Platts previously had worked 

for the Idaho Fish and Game Department, 

and he had close ties with personnel 

there.

Platts had conducted considerable 

research on anadromous fish habitat before he joined the Boise unit. From 1967 

through 1974 he wrote eight reports on 

results of habitat surveys and evaluations of sediment levels, movement, 

and damages in the South Fork. Survey 

data were gathered from 325 randomly 

selected sites in the river, 90 spawning 

areas, and numerous core samples of the 

river bottom. The work covered chinook 

salmon, steelhead, and other species 

(Seyedbagheri and others 1987).

After joining the Station, Platts 

authored or co-authored seven reports, 

papers, and publications covering 

sampling techniques, additional habitat 

surveys, effects of sediments, and 

invasive fish species in the South Fork 

and tributary streams. The addition of 

Platts and other fishery biologists to the 

staff at Boise was the start of a blending 

of the talents of biologists and watershed 

researchers that ultimately resulted in a 

single research unit directing its efforts 

to solving problems over large geographic areas (see, “Aquatic Science Moves 

into the Mainstream,” chapter 11).

Just as Silver Creek had become the 

primary research-administrative site 

for watershed work in Region 4, Horse 

Creek within the Nez Perce National 

Forest became a major area for watershed studies in Region 1. In 1984, after a 

tour by representatives of both Regions, 

the Station, and the Washington Office, 

a joint steering committee was formed 

to guide research at both areas. The goal 

of the arrangement was to apply results 

from studies at both locations to help the 

Regions strengthen forest planning and 

management of similar lands.

Hydrologist Jack King was a Station 

representative on the tour. He was 

well-acquainted with the research at 

Horse Creek. He had joined the Station 

in 1979 as a research hydrologist 

stationed at Moscow after serving as an 

Associate Professor at the University of 

Idaho. King’s research concentrated on 

developing and testing models to predict 

steamflow and sediment responses in 

Northern Rocky Mountain streams to 

logging and road construction. In what 

was a novel approach to technology 

transfer at the time, he presented road 

construction guidelines to managers 

in a video tape produced in 1986 (see 

“Publishing Firsts,” chapter 11). King 

transferred to Boise in 1988 and, when 

Megahan retired in 1991, became 

Project Leader of what had become the 

Soil and Water Management research 

unit (INTercom Mar. /91).

By that time, every National Forest 

with lands in and near the Idaho 

Batholith was using guidelines based 

on research by Station scientists (King 

1989). Although all involved realized 

that many refinements were needed, 

major advances had been made in gaining knowledge to maintain or improve 

fragile fish habitats.

In 1991, Hydrologist Carolyn Bohn 

and Megahan reported on conditions in 

the South Fork at a nonpoint source water 

quality monitoring workshop in Boise. 

They said results of remeasurements at 

study sites established 24 years earlier 

“demonstrated that a large amount of 

sediment, primarily sand-size, has moved 

out of the study area. The decrease in the 

volume of stored sediment suggests that 

the sources of sediment have stabilized 

to some degree, and that stream power 

has been sufficient to transport sediment 

out of the study area at a greater rate than 

new sediment has been supplied.”

Watershed Work Changes 

Course in the North

Although early research at Priest 

River focused on silvicultural and fire 

studies, some of the work in those areas 

contributed to the “forest influences” 

investigations that came to be known 

as watershed research. Over the years, 

valuable climatic and streamflow records 

accumulated for the experimental forest.

A disastrous Columbia River flood 

in 1948 caused the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station to establish a new 

Division of Flood Control Surveys. 

Austin Helmers moved to Priest River in 

November and he and several assistants 

worked around the clock to establish a 

network of weather stations and snow 

courses before winter set in. The snow 

studies program came to a sudden end in 

1952 when funds for flood control surveys were seriously curtailed. Data from 

the Priest River studies were analyzed 

and results were reported by Paul Packer 

after the Northern Rocky Mountain and 

Intermountain Stations merged.

Another emergency project was 

assigned to Helmers after the snow 

studies ended. It was an extension of 

contract research the Forest Service was 

conducting for the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers’ Waterways Experiment 

Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, on soil 

infiltration as a means to estimate the 

ability of Army vehicles to travel over 

terrain where muddy conditions made 

the going difficult. Scientists made studies at Priest River for a year before the 

emphasis shifted to soils in an area south 

of Spokane. The study ended in 1954 

(Wellner 1968).

Streamflow records were maintained 

for Benton Creek starting in 1938 and 

they and the 1948-52 snow study data 

provided a start for making it a model 

watershed. Harold Haupt transferred 

to the Moscow Lab in 1963 to start a 

new watershed management research 

program. He began basic studies at 

Benton Creek the next year with the 

goal of understanding the hydrology 

of a densely forested watershed with 

relatively stable soils.

A network of stations—climatic, 

snow, soil, streamflow, and sediment—

was established over the watershed 

to obtain data on factors affecting the 

hydrologic cycle. By 1968 there were 

13 different stations with a total of 58 

instruments. Measurements provided a 

data base for understanding the hydrology of Benton Creek and a framework 

for cooperative studies (Wellner 1968).

Haupt interested scientists at 

Washington State University and the 

University of Idaho in doing cooperative 

work involving several studies conducted over the next 10 years. During 
–95

that time, national events caused a rapid 

change in the watershed program. Haupt 

(personal communication) said the environmental movement created increased 

emphasis on water quality in land 

management. The new Environmental 

Protection Agency made a large grant to 

the Station to study the quality of water 

flowing from National Forest lands, and 

the Moscow project got a chunk of it.

The project hired chemist Gordon 

Snyder, who had a master’s degree in 

watershed science, to conduct analyses. 

A camper was converted into a mobile 

chemistry lab and mounted 

on a Station truck. Much 

of the work was summarized in a 1975 Station 

publication, Clearcutting 

and Burning Slash Alter 

Quality of Stream Water in 

Northern Idaho, by Snyder, 

Haupt, and George Belt, 

an associate professor of 

forestry at the University of 

Idaho.

The focus of watershed 

research in northern Idaho 

shifted to Horse Creek to 

deal with problems involving logging in the Selway 

and Clearwater River 

systems, which included 

anadromous fisheries. By 

1978 most of the work by 

Station scientists at Priest 

River had ended, although 

cooperative studies continued.

The Horse Creek administrative-research site was a cooperative venture of 

the Station, Nez Perce National Forest, 

and the University of Idaho where the 

research emphasis was on effects of 

building logging roads. It included a 

Main Fork basin where monitoring 

instruments were installed in 15 small 

watersheds. Roads were built to various standards in 11 of the watersheds. 

Clearcut logging in relatively small 

patches and tractor and skyline logging 

were specified in several sales arranged 

by National Forest personnel (King 

1989). As at Silver Creek, research 

results were produced at Horse Creek 

for many years.

The Fire Lab Fires Up

The Northern Forest Fire Laboratory 

was dedicated in ceremonies on 

September 12, 1960, by Forest Service 

Chief Richard McArdle. The main building housed offices and several small 

laboratories, plus two wind tunnels. A 

unique feature was the world’s largest 

controlled-environment combustion 

chamber used in forest fire research. 

It was a 120,000-cubic-foot chamber 

where burning experiments could be 

conducted under controlled temperature, 

humidity, and wind conditions.

The lab’s location at Johnson-Bell 

airport adjacent to the Forest Service’s 

Aerial Fire Depot promoted interaction 

with fire fighting personnel and the use 

of aircraft in experiments. The personal 

interactions were a strong feature of the 

program that benefited both research and 

management. The scientists did some 

very fundamental fire science research, 

yet they also produced applied research 

that could be integrated into management planning, and they often developed 

innovative approaches to transfer the 

knowledge they generated. Many served 

as trainers in fire management courses, 

and this personal contact made them part 

of the “fire community.”

Over the years, research at the fire 

lab formed the basis for technology 

used throughout the Station territory, 

the United States, and often the world. 

Some of the major developments were:

Infrared aerial scanning that detects 

and photographs wildland fires at 

night or through heavy smoke cover.

•

A “Pacific Pump” was used in 1938 at Benton Creek 

to provide water to control an experimental broadcast burn in studies of slash disposal. The Benton 

Creek drainage later was instrumented to make it a 

model watershed. (Gisborne collection, 98(vii): 662)

Bud Jeffers, dubbed “Mr. Horse Creek” 

by coworkers for his dedication to the 

research there, serviced a precipitation 

gauge at the study site.

In the 66-foothigh combustion 

chamber at the Fire 

Lab, temperature, 

relative humidity, 

and atmospheric 

pressure could 

be controlled 

and regulated for 

experiments such 

as this one in the 

early 1960s when 

researchers were 

measuring the 

spread and intensity of a model fire.
96–

Effective chemical fire retardants and 

specialized aerial delivery systems.

The National Fire Danger Rating 

System that measures and 

describes daily fire danger.

A fire behavior prediction system 

used for fire management planning 

by predicting how different types 

of fires are likely to develop.

Prescribed burning guidelines 

tailored to a wide variety of 

habitat and fuel conditions.

Basic inventories of fuel quantities 

and methods to predict them under 

various management systems.

Detection systems for lightning 

and meteorology aids to 

facilitate understanding of 

fire-weather relations.

Chemical detection and analysis 

techniques to identify components 

of fire emissions from various 

fuels and to define their effects.

The first full year of operation for 

the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory 

in Missoula was 1961. Studies of fire 

behavior and fire physics and engineering were under way, but the lab was far 

from being adequately staffed with the 

proper mix of scientific and engineering 

skills. Before the Lab was dedicated, the 

employment roster showed 15 regular 

personnel in fire research, including 

clerical staff. Only three scientific 

disciplines were represented. This was 

not the type of staffing Lab Chief Jack 

Barrows needed if the organization 

was to develop a fire research program 

that would be “helping to bring the full 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

strength of modern science to American 

forests” (Barrows 1963).

Shortly after the Lab opened, 

Barrows’ personnel list had expanded to 

27 positions. Seven jobs had been filled 

by new appointees, and six were waiting 

to be filled. A physicist, mathematician, 

two engineers, and several technicians 

specializing in electronics and instrumentation had been added to the skills 

mix. Barrows knew the right place to go 

to fill key vacancies—the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory (INEL) operated by General Electric Corporation 

near Idaho Falls. Fortunately for him, 

the INEL was a fertile source of talent 

because a number of scientists and 

engineers were being laid off with 

cancellation of the government’s 

nuclear-powered aircraft program.

Barrows succeeded in hiring Hal 

Anderson, Stan Hirsch, and Dick 

Rothermel. All three proved to be leaders 

at the Fire Lab and in Forest Service 

wildland fire research for years to come. 

Two INEL technicians arrived to bolster 

the staff. The first was Erwin Breuer. 

The second was Electronics Technician 

Merlin Brown, who moved from INEL to 

Los Alamos and then to the Fire Lab.

Anderson was a physicist whose 

work for General Electric was on 

thermal and nuclear instrumentation. He 

served as Project Leader for fire physics 

research at the Fire Lab from 1962 to 

1966 and of the fuel science unit from 

1966 to 1979. He then became team 

leader of the basic research section in 

the fire behavior unit concerned with 

fundamentals and system development. 

Anderson made many contributions to 

the understanding of basic mechanisms 

of how fire spreads throughout his career 

at the Station. His Station publication 

documenting extreme fire behavior in 

the 1967 Sundance Fire, was a landmark 

report still in demand more than 20 

years after it was published (INTercom

5/24/90).

Hirsch, an electrical engineer, started 

working on fire detection using infrared 

equipment (see “Seeing in the Dark,” 

this chapter). The adaptation of infrared 

techniques to forest fire detection and 

mapping was one of the most useful and 

beneficial pieces of research done at the 

Fire Lab. Rothermel was an aeronautical engineer who had an outstanding 

33-year career at the lab. His successes 

in developing models and methods for 

predicting fire behavior and getting the 

The Fire Lab’s location 

had several advantages, 

including an opportunity 

for high-tech cooperative 

work with the U.S. Weather 

Bureau. The bureau’s Point 

Six Radar Station, located 

on an 8,000-foot peak near 

the Missoula airport, 

transmitted signals via microwave to the airport and 

from there via coaxial cable 

to monitoring scopes in the 

Fire Lab.

Dedication of the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory in Missoula in 1960 fulfilled a 

dream of Harry Gisborne, Jack Barrows, and others of getting a first-class facility 

for wildland fire research.
–97

results applied brought him international 

recognition (see next section).

Barrows and his restructured Fire Lab 

staff set about using advanced technology in a research program designed to 

elevate effective and efficient wildland 

fire control to levels that would have 

pleased even the perfectionist Gisborne. 

Although Barrows was said by some to 

be concerned only with control, research 

on the use of fire to improve forest 

conditions was part of the program. In 

the years ahead, it was to become a more 

important part.

Rothermel Had the Right 

Formula

Dick Rothermel had a talent for 

systems analysis and problem solving. 

His research at the Fire Lab into the 

mechanisms of fire spread resulted in the 

model that became the cornerstone for 

fire behavior and rating systems used by 

managers world-wide.

Having a model carry your name, 

as “Rothermel’s Fire Spread Model” 

did from the time it appeared in 1972, 

is a high honor. But there was more 

to Rothermel’s 33-year career at the 

Fire Lab than a single development, no 

matter how important that one was. In 

addition to performing basic research, 

he worked diligently to make new 

knowledge useful to fire managers. He 

also led a unit whose members shared 

the same dedication to pursuing fundamental discoveries, packaging research 

results in sometimes novel ways, and 

teaching fire managers how to use the 

products. Rothermel interested a number 

of others in working on the fire spread 

model. For example, Physicist Bill 

Frandsen developed the theoretical base 

The Good Old Days?

The Fire Lab had a modern design and included a lot of high-tech equipment when it 

opened, but what was considered “modern” in 1960 might provoke a few chuckles 40 

years later.

Bobbie Bartlette started working at the Lab 

in 1968. In 2005, she said of the early days, 

“We measured fire spread rates with string and 

stop watches and did calculations on huge 

calculators with banks of number keys. It is 

astounding, thinking back, at how far we have 

come.”

As it did elsewhere within the Station, the 

culture at the Lab changed over the years as 

dramatically as did equipment and procedures. 

Bartlette recalled that when she first was 

employed all the women were required to 

wear dresses and most of the men wore ties. 

She was a short lady whose job caused her 

to climb up on chairs and counters to reach 

the tops of some of the equipment she used 

for fuel chemistry and heat content tests. 

Dresses were worn above the knee at the 

time, Bartlette was 18 years old, and she felt 

uncomfortable climbing up to operate the 

equipment when nearly everyone in the room 

was a man.

Bartlette asked for permission to wear “nice pants suits” at work. She got approval, 

but only on days when her work involved climbing! She was told if there were any 

complaints at all, she would have to return to wearing dresses. She was offered a longer 

lab coat (Bartlette, personal communication).

Bobbie Bartlette readied samples 

of fuels for analytical testing to determine their chemical properties 

at the Fire Lab in 1969. She started 

as a technician and moved up to a 

professional job at the Lab.

The Fire Lab was just 

the type of facility 

Jack Barrows wanted 

to bring modern 

science to bear on 

fire management 

problems.

Physicist Hal Anderson made adjustments at the Fire Lab’s control center 

in 1962. The functions of this impressive array of controls eventually were 

replaced by the keyboard at a single 

computer terminal.
98–

and equation based on the conservation 

of energy principle (J. Brown, personal 

communication).

Frandsen came to the Fire Lab in 

1967 from the Naval Weapons Center 

at China Lake, California, where he had 

been employed for 12 years in research 

on infrared detection systems and the 

effects of ultrasound on metals. At 

the Fire Lab, he conducted studies of 

the thermodynamics of fire. Frandsen 

developed one of the early programs that 

made it possible to use the fire spread 

model with a programmable calculator. 

He published the documentation in 1973 

in a Station technical report.

Rothermel earned a bachelor’s 

degree in aeronautical engineering at the 

University of Washington in 1953 and 

a master’s in mechanical engineering 

from the University of Colorado in 

1971. He served in the U.S. Air Force 

(1953-1955) as a special weapons 

aircraft development officer. After his 

discharge, he went to work for Douglas 

Aircraft as a designer and troubleshooter in the armament group. In 1957 

Rothermel moved to the nuclear aircraft 

propulsion department at the National 

Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, where 

Jack Barrows found him and added 

the young engineer to the staff of the 

brand-new Fire Lab. New staff members 

went through a learning experience. 

Rothermel described it in 1984:

...there was a sense of being 

overwhelmed, not only by all the 

unknowns of wildfire behavior, but 

also by how to use the new facility. 

There were at least two schools 

of thought in regard to the wind 

tunnels at the Laboratory: (1) bring 

in boxcar loads of fuel from all over 

the country for burning in the wind 

tunnels, and (2) weld the doors shut 

until we could develop a logical 

plan for the use of the facilities.

The researchers rejected both approaches, but they did work hard at 

understanding fire spread and adapting 

concepts of modeling and systems to 

the problems of forest fire prediction 

(Noble 1984). Rothermel, working 

closely with Hal Anderson, conducted 

fire experiments in the controlled laboratory conditions to test hypotheses he 

generated while observing and working 

on wildfires (Andrews and Frandsen 

1994). The process took 10 years, but 

the payoff was significant. Rothermel’s 

Station publication, A Mathematical 

Model for Predicting Fire Spread in 

Wildland Fuels, became one of the most 

frequently referenced documents in fire 

science history.

The model offered for the first time a 

system to evaluate rate of spread and fire 

intensity in surface fuels that account 

for more than 90 percent of all wildland 

fires. It was based on the philosophy that 

no fire measurements should be required 

to estimate the rate of spread. Estimates 

of spread rates were generated from 

prefire assessments of fuel, weather, 

and topography. The next decade of 

Rothermel’s career was devoted to 

learning how well the model would 

work in field conditions and interpreting 

the results for use by the “man on the 

ground” (Nobel 1984).

A key development came in 1977 

when Mechanical Engineer Frank Albini 

“let the genie out of the bottle” by 

using Rothermel’s model equations as 

the basis for nomograms (graphs) that 

were easily used to predict fire behavior. 

The nomograms described behavior 

of the leading edge of a surface fire. 

Managers could use them in the office 

or in the field to estimate 

forward rate of fire spread, 

intensity, flame length, and 

crown scorch height. Albini 

also developed FIREMOD, 

an early computer program 

to predict fire behavior and 

effects. He became internationally recognized as 

an authority on modeling 

wildland fire behavior.

In 1979, scientists at 

the Fire Lab made another 

significant advance when 

Research Forester Bob 

Burgan spearheaded development of a computer chip 

to estimate fire behavior 

based on Rothermel’s 

equations. Installed in a 

commercially available 

hand-held calculator, this 

bit of technology allowed 

fire fighters at an incident 

command post to plug in 

data about the fire and get back instant 

estimates of its future behavior. This 

was a valuable tool in helping a fire boss 

determine strategy for fighting the fire 

and what kinds and amounts of men and 

materials were needed.

Users of the calculator were required 

to take a course in how it worked at 

the Forest Service training center at 

Marana, Arizona. They were not given 

a chip until they successfully completed 

the course, so quality control was automatic. Improvements in the technology 

continued. In 1986, two new computer 

chips were developed, allowing both 

fire behavior and fire danger ratings to 

be estimated with hand-held calculators 

(Rothermel interview, 1993).

Another tool was designed to be helpful to fire behavior officers, who were 

assigned to management teams for large 

fires. Mathematician Pat Andrews and 

Rothermel developed charts to interpret 

characteristics of fire behavior. Using 

them, the behavior officer could get specific information about different sectors 

of the fire. The information could help 

determine where conditions would likely 

be good for direct attack on the fire, 

when air operations should be scheduled, 

and how personnel should be deployed 

for maximum safety (Noble 1984).

Dick Rothermel (left) and Electronics Technician 

Merlin Brown placed a battery of thermocouples 

used to record data in the base of a fuel bed before 

starting a combustion experiment in 1963 at the Fire 

Lab.
–99

Mathematical models to calculate fire 

danger or fire behavior require descriptions of fuel properties (fuel models). 

Having the correct fuel model is vital. 

So development of fuel models went on 

in tandem with work on behavior models at the Fire Lab. In 1982, Anderson 

summed up the research to that time in 

a publication presenting 13 fuel models 

in four groups, with cross-references to 

20 National Fire Danger Rating System 

models (Forestry Research West, Jan. 

/83).

The Station’s fire behavior scientists 

worked closely with managers for 

many years. When the first fire behavior 

officer course was organized at Marana 

the researchers were asked to develop an 

information package that could be used 

on the fire line and taught in 2 weeks. 

Rothermel said, “The course was very 

successful; however, some of the early 

material was so weak that the students 

should have chased all of us instructors 

off the base. Instead, their support 

encouraged us to improve the course” 

(Noble 1984).

One improvement was preparation 

of a manual, How to Predict the Spread 

and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires, 

which was authored by Rothermel and 

summarized 20 years of studies. The 

manual did not replace the training, but 

it served as a self-study text for those 

who could not attend the course and a 

reference for those who did. One course 

goal was to train key people who would 

train others, so a reference work was 

especially important.

Rothermel was good at explaining 

the complexities of fire behavior, 

and he did just that with publications 

describing two historic wildfires that 

occurred in the northern Rockies. 

Author Norman Maclean asked if 

Rothermel and Albini would use fire 

behavior prediction methods to answer 

several questions regarding the Mann 

Gulch Fire that had not been resolved 

completely in the 38 years following 

the tragedy. Rothermel with help from 

Rod Norum, a fellow fire scientist, set 

about analyzing the probable behavior 

of the fire and the movements of the 

crew during the last 20 minutes of the 

disaster. Norum, who was in excellent 

physical condition, sprinted up the 

Mann Gulch slope as the doomed firefighters had done. Rothermel assembled 

existing data to reconstruct the fire 

scene and analyzed the fire’s behavior. 

The result was a popular Station publication, Mann Gulch Fire: A Race That 

Couldn’t Be Won (Rothermel 1993).

This report was the first Forest 

Service Research serial publication 

posted on the agency’s internet site (see 

“Publishing Firsts,” chapter 11).

In 1988 severe crown fires in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area and elsewhere 

in the West drew national attention. 

Fires swept through almost a million 

acres in Yellowstone National Park and 

adjacent lands. Rothermel and Burgan 

represented the Forest Service on a team 

of six fire behavior experts (the others 

were with the National Park Service) 

assembled by the fire command at West Yellowstone 

to prepare quick estimates 

of how fires in and near the 

park would grow by the 

end of the burning season. 

Conditions limited normal 

data gathering, and in July 

and August unprecedented 

high winds and low humidity surprised the experts. 

Several major fires spread 

much farther and faster 

than predicted (Reynolds 

1989a).

Existing fire models 

were not directed toward 

crown fires, which are only 

a small percentage of all 

wildfires, although their 

effects are severe. Rothermel built on 

work of several other fire scientists and 

summed up the results in Predicting 

Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains, a 1991 

Station publication that gave managers 

methods to make calculations for running crown fires in fuels and weather 

conditions common in the northern 

Rockies.

Rothermel saw the Yellowstone 

conflagration as a call for accelerated 

research to develop methods of assessing extreme fire behavior. Methods were 

needed to predict occurrence, intensity, 

and spread rates; model behavior of 

large fires; and train fire behavior analysts to make predictions. After 27 years 

as Project Leader of the fire behavior 

unit, Rothermel gave up the administrative duties to concentrate on personal 

research characterizing extreme fire 

behavior and crown fire spread. The 

models were used with Geographic 

Information Systems to produce threedimensional maps of predicted fire 

spread (Andrews and Frandsen 1994).

Rothermel was showered with honors 

for his work. In 1981 he received a 

USDA Superior Service Honor Award. 

A decade later, he received a second 

superior service award, a feat matched 

by very few scientists in the history of 

Forest Service research. He credited 

work by members of the fire behavior 

unit (INTercom June/91). The National 

Association of State Foresters honored 

Rothermel for “outstanding service to 

A TI-59 calculator with a chip programmed by Fire Lab scientists proved 

useful for estimating fire behavior on 

the fireline in 1983.

Available fire behavior models did not describe 

crown fires like this one during the Mink Fire in the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest south of Yellowstone 

Park in July of 1988. Fire lab scientists developed 

new models to fill the void.
100–

fire management.” He and Research 

Applications Team Leader Bob Mutch 

received awards from the Chief of the 

Forest Service for their technology 

transfer work following the Yellowstone 

fires. The Marana Training Center 

recognized Rothermel’s fire behavior 

training leadership in 1981 with a $500 

cash award. USDA bid a lot higher 

than that. In 1992, the Department 

reviewed Rothermel’s performance and 

determined that his pay grade would 

be increased to the equivalent of GM16, roughly a Station Director level. 

Only 20 people in USDA had similar 

classifications.

On his retirement in 1994, 

Rothermel’s career was perhaps summarized best by two fellow scientists: 

“He has been a true leader among 

fire researchers, providing new ideas, 

challenging folks to work together in 

teams, and producing results useful to 

understanding and managing wildland 

fire” (Andrews and Frandsen 1994).

Pat Andrews—Reluctant 

“First Lady”

Pat Andrews became the Station’s 

first woman research scientist in 1975, 

but she declined to participate in making 

that fact widely known.

The Station newsletter editor spotted 

the Andrews appointment as a mathematician in the Fire Lab’s fire behavior unit 

on a routine list of personnel actions. 

The editor thought someone being “first” 

deserved a story and perhaps a news 

release, and phoned Andrews to get the 

details. What she got was a statement 

that Andrews was opposed to having any 

article printed. The editor went along 

with Andrews’ wishes, and the newsletter did not report the “first” until 17 

years later (INTercom June/92).

Andrews said she was not comfortable being the first woman scientist at 

the Intermountain Station. “I didn’t go 

out to break new ground,” she said. “I 

was just doing what I enjoyed.”

She began working in 1973 as a 

temporary physical science technician 

in the old fire physics unit, which later 

became the fire behavior unit. Andrews 

had a bachelor’s degree in mathematics 

and chemistry from Eastern Montana 

College and earned a master’s in 

mathematics and computer science at 

the University of Montana in 1973. She 

used her training in working with others 

in the unit to develop mathematical 

models, but concentrated her efforts on 

putting the models into forms easily 

understood and used by fire managers.

Managers used the products of the 

unit’s research as guidance in prefire 

planning, fire suppression, prescribed 

burning, and evaluating fire effects. 

The BEHAVE fire prediction system, 

a development with which Andrews 

was closely associated, became widely 

known and used in the wildland fire 

community. Use was worldwide; 

BEHAVE was translated into Spanish, 

Chinese, and other languages. BEHAVE 

got its first stern test in 1984 when it 

was used successfully to analyze the 

expected behavior of the North Hills 

Fire near Helena, Montana, when it 

burned into the Gates of the Mountains 

Wilderness. Hundreds of thousands of 

dollars were saved by the decision not to 

suppress the fire in the Wilderness when 

BEHAVE projections indicated the fire 

would cause no further problems. Such 

savings more than paid for development 

of the program (INTercom 6/13/85).

Andrews became leader of the 

behavior unit’s Applied Research Team 

in 1988 and advanced to Project Leader 

in 1992 when Dick Rothermel vacated 

the position to concentrate on personal 

research. She considered following 

Rothermel “an honor.” She received 

several top honors of her own over the 

years.

Much of the recognition Andrews 

earned was based on training efforts. In 

the early 1980s she trained fire managers 

and fire behavior officers in using a 

preprogrammed calculator to predict fire 

behavior. She, Rothermel, and fellow 

scientist Bob Burgan started a major 

technology transfer program in 1983. 

Andrews was in charge of the effort to 

gain approval to make BEHAVE a fully 

operational national system in the Forest 

Service. The three scientists, with help 

from others at the Fire Lab, designed 

and conducted specialized training 

sessions.

In the first sessions, trainees worked 

on 12 computer terminals simultaneously at different locations. Trainees 

eventually included people with a 

variety of fire management responsibilities from eight Forest Service Regions, 

the Bureau of Land Management, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park 

Service, National Weather Service, 

universities, and State agencies. The 

training was successful, and 

participants spread the word within 

their organizations.

In 1985, Andrews received a USDA 

Superior Service Award for her work 

with BEHAVE. Burgan also received 

a Superior Service Award at the same 

ceremony in Washington, an indication 

of the team approach taken in the behavior unit. Ten years later, Forest Service 

Chief Jack Ward Thomas presented a 

Superior Science Award to Andrews. In 

1990, Computerland magazine featured 

Pat Andrews was the first woman to 

earn a scientist appointment at the 

Intermountain Station, a distinction she 

did not want publicized.
–101

her as “The U.S. Forest Service’s 

Mathematician.”

The Station’s first lady scientist, 

given the opportunity, no doubt would 

have balked at being labeled “the” 

mathematician. She was always quick 

to credit the contributions of others, and 

spent no time resting on her laurels. In 

the late 1990s, Andrews was engaged in 

what she enjoyed doing, moving ahead 

with cooperative research on a computer 

tool to analyze historical fire danger 

and occurrence, computer architecture 

to aid integration of various simulation 

models, and a new program to simulate 

spread and behavior of prescribed 

natural fires.

Seeing in the Dark

Research on using infrared systems to 

detect and map forest fires started in 1962 

at the Fire Lab. The infrared 

research was dubbed Project FIRESCAN, 

with Electrical Engineer Stan Hirsch as 

Project Leader. Over 14 years Hirsch, 

Physicist Ralph Wilson, and technicians 

Forrest Madden and Dale Gable developed the basic tenets for using thermal 

infrared systems in fire management.

Some 20 years later, although 

improved by additional research, 

the basic systems developed by the 

Station scientists were employed by 

fire-fighting agencies worldwide. Using 

electromagnetic radiation to “see” 

through smoke, the dark, and various 

forest tree canopies was compared to 

“what radar means to air controllers and 

X-rays to doctors, dentists, and security 

checkers” (Warren and Celarier 1991).

The Station research built on 

knowledge gained by the military during 

World War II. The early research and 

development was done in cooperation 

with the Department of Defense Office 

of Civil Defense and the Defense 

Advanced Research Project Agency. 

Military aircraft and pilots were 

indispensable in making FIRESCAN 

successful. But the Forest Service 

systems, the only ones in the world 

known to be designed and developed 

specifically for fire detection and mapping, were products of the creativity and 

hard work of Hirsch, Wilson, and other 

individuals.

After the basic theory was established, a separate team headed by Bob 

Bjornsen was set up to develop fire mapping operational procedures. Bjornsen 

became the Forest Service director at the 

Boise Interagency Fire Center (BIFC), 

later renamed the National Interagency 

Fire Center. He was instrumental in 

establishing infrared operations as 

standard procedure, and equipment was 

installed in Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) aircraft 

(Rothermel interview, 1993). The BLM 

made especially good use of infrared 

techniques in Alaska, where it was 

responsible for fire protection in large, 

remote areas where surveillance on the 

ground was difficult or impossible.

The first test of airborne infrared 

mapping came early in Project 

FIRESCAN. In the fall of 1962, the 

scientists successfully mapped a 300-

acre controlled slash fire in the bottom 

of a deep canyon (Hirsch 1965). A 

temperature inversion occurred during 

the night, and most of the smoke was 

trapped in the valley when the infrared 

map was made the following morning. 

The smoke layer was about 2,000 feet 

deep, and people at the fire scene had 

to drive vehicles with headlights on 

to see through the smokescreen. The 

infrared image was unaffected, and the 

experiment confirmed that the newly 

developed theoretical information was 

correct.

Pat Andrews presided over a training fire in 1983 at Marana, Arizona, during part of 

the Fire Behavior Analyst course taught by Fire Lab scientists.

Project Leader Stan 

Hirsch (foreground) 

and pilot Stan 

Butryn with the U.S. 

Army’s Mohawk 

aircraft, which was 

used in Project 

FIRESCAN research.
102–

Wilson, who came to the Fire Lab 

in 1964 from the U.S. Navy Aviation 

Ordinance Department, made an early 

innovative contribution to the project by 

developing a dual polar image system 

(Warren and Celarier 1991). Later, 

modifications were made to the system’s 

scanner, which was an obsolete military 

device. During the first full test season, 

the system was operated in a Beechcraft 

AT-11 plane. However, the same aircraft 

also had to be used for fire detection 

experiments. To eliminate this conflict, 

a Forest Service Aero Commander was 

made available to the mapping team in 

1964 (Hirsch 1965).

Over 2 years, 42 fires ranging in size 

from 10 to 60,000 acres were mapped. 

Some were controlled burns, but most 

were wildfires. Missions were scheduled 

to provide information to the wildland 

fire managers at times it would be most 

useful in formulating control strategies. 

Interviews with fire managers revealed 

that the best time was midnight, and 

the ability of infrared systems to supply 

information then was one of its principal 

advantages over other systems.

In the early testing, information 

was either dropped directly to the fire 

camps from the aircraft, or delivered 

to the fire scene from a landing area 

by vehicle. Operational testing improved delivery as well as acquisition 

methods, although delivery remained 

a challenge. Still far from perfected, 

infrared fire mapping was turned over 

to the Forest Service fire 

control organization at 

BIFC in 1966. It was used 

immediately because it 

provided badly needed fire 

intelligence, and development continued.

Fire detection using 

infrared imagery was a 

more difficult problem 

than mapping. The 

technical roadblocks to 

detecting small fires in 

large areas were significant. 

Nevertheless, by 1970 

a very sophisticated fire 

surveillance system had 

been developed by Project 

FIRESCAN. Properly 

equipped aircraft were 

capable of patrolling 2,000 

square miles per hour 

and detecting small “hot areas,” with 

a high probability that they were fires 

(Warren and Wilson 1981). The system 

also had greatly improved fire mapping 

capabilities.

Hirsch was enthused. He was 

reported to have said (Spokane Daily 

Chronicle 1967) that about seven large 

aircraft with infrared detector equipment “could effectively patrol all of the 

Nation’s forests. They would cost a total 

of $2.8 million, and I believe they would 

save that much during their first year of 

operation.”

At the time, two planes were being 

operated by Project FIRESCAN in the 

Northwest. One was a Convair “flying 

laboratory” carrying several thousand 

pounds of equipment. It was designed to 

fly in the wake of thunderstorms and take 

infrared pictures of fires only minutes 

old. The other, smaller plane was used to 

record infrared images of larger fires.

The detection system was tested by 

Region 1’s Division of Fire Control 

in 1971 and 1972, but with marginal 

success. Improvements were made 

with help from Fire Lab personnel, 

and technical responsibilities were 

transferred to BIFC in 1974. The fire 

detection capability was made available nationally, but the military-based 

version using large aircraft saw limited 

use. This line scanning system was 

best used for detection in large areas 

and first-time large fire mapping. More 

flexible, less costly, systems came to be 

used to gather information needed for 

Electronic Technicians John Voth (left) and Dale 

Gable used an infrared sensor inside an aircraft in 

1971 to locate small forest fires, record the imagery, 

and identify a ground location with the interpreter’s 

map.

Physicist Ralph Wilson contributed 

fundamental concepts that helped in 

developing methods for using thermal 

infared systems to detect fires.

Research Forester Nonan Noste 

prepared a spot fire bed for an aerial 

detection test in 1962; the briquettes 

provided a hot coal bed during the test 

runs.
–103

quick decisions or to determine specific 

conditions.

Small forward-looking infrared 

(FLIR) systems became commercially 

available in 1979 (Warren and Celarier 

1991). They were designed to cover 

smaller areas, but produced clear images 

that could be recorded on standard VCR 

equipment. Hand-held FLIRs or units on 

simple mounts could be operated from 

helicopters or small aircraft. Thus, use 

Ferguson Describes His Advancement

One of the great success stories of personal advancement at the Station through educational programs was that of Dennis Ferguson, 

who started at the lowest employment level and became Project Leader of a large research unit at the Moscow Lab. In response to a 

request in 2004, and a little arm-twisting, Ferguson provided this description of his rise from card punch operator to research forester 

and Project Leader.

I graduated from the University of Idaho with a Business Administration degree in 1969; then served as a stenographer in the 

Army. After discharge, I returned to the University of Idaho to obtain a forestry degree, but the GI Bill wasn’t enough to meet living 

expenses. I saw an advertisement for a part-time job as a keypunch operator with the Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory. I knew 

keypunching was similar to typing and I knew I could type, so I signed up to take the keypunching test. I had never seen a keypunch 

machine before.

The test consisted of several pages of data entry for fictitious people’s names and social security 

numbers. Well, I’d just spent the last few years always typing names and social security numbers 

together on various military forms. I wasn’t the fastest person who took the test, but I was the most 

accurate. Because the Moscow lab did not have a keypunch machine that also verified, they chose 

accuracy over speed. In December 1973, I became a GS-2 Card Punch Operator at $2.73 per 

hour. I figured I’d be at the lab for a year or two.

School at the University of Idaho progressed in a surprisingly coordinated manner with work at the 

lab. I learned theoretical and practical knowledge at the university, which I applied at work. The 

tasks I performed at the lab reinforced the classes I took. My duties at the lab were expanded to 

include helping research foresters. I was able to qualify as a GS-3 forestry aid in 1974.

One day, I was talking with my supervisor, Ray Boyd, and told him that I really liked working at 

the lab and I wondered what I needed to do to get a permanent job as a researcher. He said, “Get 

a master of science degree.” So, I began working toward the M.S.; meanwhile, job opportunities 

opened up at the lab. In 1976, I became a GS-4 forestry technician. I completed the master’s 

degree in 1978 and was hired as a GS-7 forester, then was promoted to GS-9 in 1980.

In 1981, I achieved my goal of becoming a research forester. Meanwhile, both my co-workers and 

my previous advisor at the University of Idaho kept encouraging me to work on a Ph.D. I avoided 

the issue for several years, but came to a dead end when Dave Adams (my advisor for the master’s 

degree) was at the lab one day. He stuck his head in my office and said, “If you don’t come visit 

me about a Ph.D. program by the end of next week, I’m coming over here.” “Okay,” I thought, 

“I’m ready to work on a Ph.D.”

The Station was fully supportive of the Ph.D. program because the research was part of our 

mission. I attended classes and studied on my own time, and conducted the research as part of 

my regular duties. The Ph.D. was awarded in 1991. With the Station’s help, I had exceeded my 

expectations, and I settled in for many productive years of research.

Less than a year later, Ray Hoff stepped down as Project Leader and he nominated me as the new 

PL. The Station appointed me as Acting PL for a 6-month trial period. I guess I didn’t goof up too 

badly, because the appointment became permanent after 6 months. That was 12 years ago.

The opportunities to “earn and learn” at the Moscow lab have been fabulous. I earned a living and participated in exciting research. I 

learned a tremendous amount about forestry—both at the lab and at the University of Idaho. People always gave me the opportunity 

to grow. That’s the way it is at the Station.

Project Leader Dennis 

Ferguson got “right down to 

business” in 2001 as he measured very small trees and 

entered data in a computer. 

Use of hand-held computers 

in the field was one reason 

the Station largely stopped 

hiring people whose primary 

responsibility was data entry, 

the first job Ferguson had in 

1973.

of infrared technology moved forward as 

more options were introduced.

Raising the Education Bar

Joe Pechanec, who had left the 

Station for a stint on the range research 

staff in Washington, DC, and then 

went on to serve as Director of the 

Southeastern Station in Asheville, North 

Carolina, returned to the Intermountain 

Station in 1962 to replace Reed Bailey. 

Bailey had witnessed an amazing change 

in the scope and magnitude of the 

Station’s research programs and the start 

of development of many new physical 

facilities during his 27-year tenure as 

Station Director. He also had presided 

over a big change in the educational 

level of the Station’s personnel.
104–

Ten years before Pechanec took over 

as Station Director only 39 percent of 

Station scientists had master’s degrees 

or doctorates. By 1962, 71 percent had 

advanced degrees, 20 percent were 

Ph.D.’s, and 17 percent were taking 

graduate courses. Scientific disciplines 

within the Station workforce had 

increased from seven to 16. The benefits 

of the Government Employees Training 

Act were beginning to be realized.

The trend toward increased numbers 

of Ph.D.’s on the research rolls continued after Pechanec’s arrival. For the 

individuals who participated in education programs, the road to an advanced 

degree could be long and hard, but the 

rewards could be great. There were 

benefits to the organization, because the 

research required to earn the advanced 

degrees fit directly into the Station’s 

programs in most cases.

Modern Labs Matriculate

The Bozeman Lab was completed 

in 1962, the Moscow Lab was under 

construction, funds for the Logan Lab 

had been appropriated, and the Montana 

Congressional Delegation was busy 

paving the way for a new lab on the 

University of Montana campus. The 

physical plant of the Station was 

changing fast, and that helped to some 

extent with an emerging problem. 

The cost of research per scientist had 

doubled in the previous decade, and 

competition for well-trained scientists 

was acute. Costs of doing business continued to rise throughout Station history. 

The presence of modern laboratories on 

or near university campuses was helpful 

in attracting qualified scientists.

Bozeman and Lodgepole—Before 

the Bozeman Lab opened, the Station 

had established the Bozeman Research 

Center in 1960 at Montana State 

University for lodgepole pine research. 

Bozeman was in the heart of about 10 

million acres of small-stem lodgepole 

and rugged terrain covered with commercial-sized timber that was difficult 

to access. Resource managers were 

becoming increasingly concerned about 

damage to the forest environment and 

tree reproduction when conventional 

logging and transportation systems were 

used on steep slopes.

In Washington, DC, forest engineering research had been formally 

established with a staff (as a part of 

forest products research) and included 

in the Forest Service budget as a separate item for the first time. Montana 

State had a well-regarded engineering 

school, so locating the Intermountain 

Station’s first engineering unit there 

paved the way for cooperative studies 

to tackle resource problems in the 

surrounding area. H. M. Huckeby, 

Regional Engineer for Region 4, was 

appointed to head the Bozeman unit 

for the Station. A complex of buildings was planned, with the Lab as 

the centerpiece (Western Conservation 

Journal 1962). The complex was 

never fully developed at Bozeman, and 

engineering research later was moved 

to Moscow.

Establishing a Lab at Bozeman and 

starting the engineering research unit 

there required some rather delicate 

negotiations because officials in the 

School of Forestry at the University of 

Montana were concerned that development of a Station research program at 

Montana State might adversely affect 

development and expansion of Station 

programs in Missoula. Bozeman had 

somewhat of an inside track, because 

land grant universities generally were 

favored as sites for new Forest Service 

labs. Montana State was a land grant 

institution, the University of Montana 

was not. Politics also may have been a 

factor (Wellner interview, 1993). The 

Dean at the University of Montana was a 

Republican; his counterpart at Montana 

State was a Democrat. However the concerns arose, they had been sufficiently 

dealt with by 1961 to allow construction 

at Bozeman to proceed.

Early research at the new Lab included designing new equipment to harvest 

small-stem trees from steep slopes, 

together with related transportation 

systems. Studies also sought improved 

mechanical methods to improve timber 

stands, particularly in rugged country.

Among the more novel engineering 

studies was research on transporting 

wood chips in pipelines. The thought 

was that lodgepole pine could be 

chipped at remote harvest sites and 

moved via pipeline to established 

transportation networks. The Navy, 

with an interest in ship-to-shore loading 

rather than lodgepole pine, funded 

some of the work. Immediately after 

the Bozeman Lab was completed, the 

Initially, the Bozeman Lab housed Station engineering, silviculture, and range 

management research units. The Station role there gradually diminished and the 

Lab became home for units of three different agencies. The National Park Service 

unit’s mission was research on grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
–105

pipeline research started with Professor 

William Hunt of the Montana State 

Civil Engineering Department and 

Rulon Gardner, a Station research 

engineer, leading the way. The research 

went almost directly to the pilot stage. 

A 2,000-foot loop of 8- and 12-inch 

diameter pipe was laid and connected 

to a pump to form a prototype hydraulic 

woodchip pipeline.

Results were positive. Studies 

showed that the pipeline system could 

significantly reduce the costs of transporting large volumes of chipped wood 

residues to pulpmills or other processing 

or shipping points. There were no 

distance, terrain, or weather constraints. 

Tests showed that moving wood chips 

by hydraulic pipeline could reduce costs 

50 percent or more (Forestry Research 

West Oct./78).

Gardner presented the study results to 

an international symposium on transport 

and handling in the pulp and paper 

industry in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 

Despite his favorable report, the research 

was soon discontinued. A hydraulic chip 

pipeline was an interesting concept, but 

it was never developed on a commercial 

scale.

The lodgepole pine research thrust at 

Bozeman in the early 60s was timely. 

A substantial increase in timber cut 

had occurred in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains between 1952 and 1962 

as roads and mills were built and 

utilization standards within the forest 

products industry changed to create 

markets for smaller logs and species 

other than white and ponderosa pine. 

Among the Forest Utilization Service 

interests was the use of lodgepole pine 

from Montana as a source of wood for 

pulp and paper mills as far away as 

Wisconsin. Forest Service economics 

research was directed to update a 

national compilation of timber supplies 

last done in the 1952 Timber Resources 

Review.

When the research center in Spokane 

closed, part of the range research activity was transferred to Bozeman. The 

assignment was to conduct research on 

managing livestock and elk ranges in 

Northern Rocky Mountain grasslands. 

Former Spokane studies related to 

deer-elk compatibility with timber management were assigned to Missoula.

Genetics Breed Moscow 

Lab—Intermountain Station research 

on the University of Idaho campus 

originated in 1958 with studies of the 

genetic resistance of western white pine 

to blister rust led by Dick Bingham 

(see “Bingham’s Team Turns the Tide,” 

chapter 8). Bingham had observed 

phenotypical resistant white pines in 

nature, indicating that such trees might 

be inherently resistant to blister rust. 

To explore this possibility, he and his 

associates needed a few acres for a small 

office building and greenhouse, plus 

a larger area for a breeding arboretum 

(Ferguson 2004).

The university provided 40 acres 

for the arboretum near the WashingtonIdaho border and made land available 

for office and greenhouse space on 

south Main Street. The installation 

became the Northern Idaho Forest 

Genetics Center. Its presence made 

Moscow a logical place to relocate 

other units from the Spokane Research 

Center when Forest Service Research 

decided to discontinue research centers 

in favor of modern laboratories housing 

research work units. Approval to build 

a laboratory at Moscow came a year after the Genetics Center was established 

in 1958.

The Inland Empire Research Center 

was housed in a Forest Service fire supply warehouse in downtown Spokane. 

Despite concern by the Washington 

Office about possible opposition from 

the Spokane Chamber of Commerce, 

the move to Moscow appears to have 

been made without serious opposition. 

Working relationships already existed 

with the University of Idaho’s College 

of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range 

Sciences, and they were enhanced by the 

change. After the Spokane center was 

closed, the entire State of Washington 

was included in the Pacific Northwest 

Station’s territory.

One of the benefits of closing the 

research center at Spokane in favor 

of Moscow was access to the large 

mainframe computer at Washington 

State University in Pullman—just 8 

miles from Moscow. The move sped 

the transition from relying on punch 

card equipment in use since 1928. The 

mainframe could process large amounts 

of data, but it also eventually became 

obsolete. By the mid-1990s, personal 

computers on the desks of many Station 

scientists were more powerful than the 

mainframe at WSU was in the early 

1960s.

Al Stage reportedly was so excited 

about the new ability to use large computer capacity in his forest measurement 

research that he “chose to walk through 

Construction of a 2,000-foot hydraulic 

chip pipeline at Bozeman for cooperative studies by the Station and Montana 

State was near the halfway point in this 

photo.

When the groundbreaking ceremony 

for the Moscow Lab was held in 1962 

Dick Bingham made sure the dignitaries who participated had the right tools 

for the job.
106–

the new plate glass window [in the 

Moscow Lab], neglecting to take advantage of much easier access available 

through an open door” (Quantitative 

Analysis Unit 1995).

A lot of finishing touches were 

needed in preparation for the lab’s 

dedication in May 1963. Entomologist 

Mal Furniss recalled seeing Bingham on 

a tractor landscaping the grounds. Stage 

and others were out along Main Street 

putting up posts and rails for a fence that 

had been destroyed a few days earlier 

in a street expansion project (Furniss 

e-mail to Tonn, 2004).

The new Moscow Lab was home for 

five research units. Entomology was 

staffed by Furniss, who moved from 

Boise. He was joined later by Dick 

Washburn and others. Furniss occupied 

the “annex,” which had been the home 

of Bingham’s genetics laboratory. 

Furniss arranged to have his insectary 

trucked to Moscow from Boise. The 

driver had to let air out of the tires to 

clear the superstructure of the bridge 

across the Salmon River at Riggins.

Other units included watershed, 

staffed by Harold Haupt, who transferred from Reno; silviculture, staffed by 

Glen Deitschman, Ray Boyd, and Marv 

Foiles (who transferred from Spokane); 

and white pine genetics and pathology, 

staffed by Bingham and several others, 

including Jim Hanover, a geneticist and 

recent PhD graduate from Washington 

State University. Bingham had studied 

pathology, not genetics, at the University 

of Idaho. He was on a first-name basis 

with Dean Ernest Wohletz of the College 

of Forestry, which no doubt was an asset 

in developing the relationship between 

the Station and the University of Idaho 

(Furniss, personal communication).

Missoula Lab Leaves Downtown—

Early in 1967, Station employees moved 

from the Federal Building in downtown 

Missoula to the new Forestry Sciences 

Lab on the edge of the University of 

Montana campus. The building was on a 

2.6-acre site leased to the Station by the 

university for 99 years for one dollar a 

year. The university welcomed the lab, 

and so did Montana politicians. Senator 

Lee Metcalf gave the dedication address.

The Missoulian carried a story, 

“Forest Research Expanded,” that described the Forest Service rationale for 

moving research facilities to university 

campuses: “Research scientists depend 

not only on their own ideas and talents 

but on substantial and well-organized 

libraries, fellow scientists within their 

own disciplines, and 

scientists in associated 

disciplines.” The proximity 

to university facilities and 

faculty met the needs.

The new lab housed 

seven units. They included 

studies of the silviculture 

of western larch and 

Engelmann spruce, wildlife 

habitat, bark beetles and 

defoliators, and wildlife 

biology (in cooperation 

with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service). A new forest 

products marketing unit 

had recently joined the 

organization, and a wilderness research unit was 

proposed. The goal of the marketing 

unit was to identify customers for wood 

products that could be produced by 

Montana mills.

Everybody Wanted the Logan 

Lab—Dedicated in 1964, the Logan 

Lab was located on 3.5 acres of land 

leased to the Station by Utah State 

University. Initial construction costs 

were $300,000. The facility included 

the main building that housed offices, 

laboratories, and a library and conference room. Four greenhouses, a lath 

house, and an environmental growth 

chamber building were used for studies that required special controls for 

humidity, light, air circulation, and 

temperature. The program included 

The Moscow Lab 

provided modern 

facilities and 

easy access to 

cooperators at the 

University of Idaho. 

A major addition 

in 1991 increased 

the lab’s size to that 

shown here.

The Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab was close to 

University of Montana library facilities and the 

School of Forestry.

Market Analyst Bob Benson briefed 

visitors on the mission of the new 

wood products marketing research 

unit during an open house following 

the dedication of the Missoula Forestry 

Sciences Lab in 1967.
–107

research on watershed management, 

water yield improvement, forest insects, 

surface mine rehabilitation, and management of aspen forests and associated 

mountain grasslands.

As at most of the new laboratories, 

there were ambitious plans for major 

expansion in the future. The plans envisioned construction of another building 

of equal size to be linked to the original 

lab by a large wing. More greenhouses 

and a shop-storage building also were 

planned. As at most of the other new 

labs, the expansion plans never were 

fully carried out.

Former Station Director Joe 

Pechanec recalled that getting the 

Forestry Sciences Lab built in Logan 

was relatively easy because the Dean 

of the School of Natural Resources at 

Utah State University was in favor of it. 

Pechanec also credited Station Director 

Reed Bailey’s political skills and contacts with helping.

Provo Took More Time—A lab in 

Provo did not materialize so quickly. It 

was the last new Intermountain Station 

Lab to open—in 1975. First, Forest 

Service top management needed to be 

convinced of the need. Pechanec, Perry 

Plummer, and probably others worked 

on that. Deputy Chief for Research Vern 

Harper told part of the story in a 1985 

letter (McArthur 2001):

...I was doing a Research Inspection 

of the Intermountain Station (about 

1960)....One of the centers Director Joe 

Pechanec and I visited was the work 

on shrub research. After listening to 

the Project Leader’s (Perry Plummer’s) 

presentation and viewing some of the 

field experiments, I turned to Joe and 

said “maybe we ought to amend the 

Ten-year Research Program to include 

a new laboratory at Provo...featuring 

shrub research including genetics, etc.” 

Joe grinned broadly and said, “I hoped 

you would see justification for such a 

laboratory to be located on the grounds 

of Brigham Young University...” He 

further remarked, “I have outlined 

a speech which I can now cut short, 

giving a big pitch for the lab.”

Pechanec said that his predecessor, 

Reed Bailey, brought his political skills 

to bear at Provo to gain university 

approval for the lab. The Station hadn’t 

been getting sufficient funds to support 

research at the Desert Range. Bailey 

sought the aid of Roger Walker, who had 

worked for the Station in about 1933, 

and later held a high position with the 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in 

Washington. Walker, because he loved 

to teach, left ARS and became a soils 

professor at Brigham Young University 

(BYU) late in his career.

Walker pointed out to the university 

administration that, although BYU was 

a private institution of the Mormon 

Church with a strong interest in safeguarding its independence from any 

form of federal influence, the school 

would not be compromising its principles by having a Forest Service lab on 

the campus. Howard Stutz, a professor 

in the Department of Botany and Range 

Science at BYU, also worked hard in the 

cause of establishing a Station lab at the 

university.

The BYU administration was 

convinced and became a strong advocate 

for construction of the Shrub Lab with 

both the Washington Office of the Forest 

Service and Congress. That advocacy 

resulted in bi-partisan support for the lab 

by Utah’s Congressional Delegation.

The Shrub Sciences Laboratory 

almost was named the “Shrub 

Improvement Laboratory.” The plan 

was to call it that, and the metal letters 

to attach the name to the new building 

had been delivered. Range Scientist Neil 

Frischknecht objected. He suggested a 

different title was needed to reflect the 

broad scope of the research that would 

be conducted at the facility.

Frischknecht prevailed. Station 

Director Roger Bay presented the unused 

“Improvement” letters to Jim Blaisdell 

and Perry Plummer with a few humorous 

comments at a meeting held shortly 

after the Shrub Sciences Laboratory was 

dedicated (McArthur 2001).

Reno Gets a Better Deal—At the 

University of Nevada-Reno, a new 

director of the Nevada Agricultural 

Experiment Station wanted to get a 

range research program going, but 

wasn’t getting much support from his 

own people. Consequently, he began 

pressuring Bailey to establish a range 

research unit at Reno. A unit was started, 

but serious plans for construction of a 

Forest Service laboratory building were 

The Logan Lab was 

planned and built 

without the controversy or political 

intrigue that preceded other new 

facility construction 

in the 1960s.

The new laboratory 

at Provo was the 

only one in the U.S. 

to carry a “Shrub 

Sciences” label. 

From the start, the 

research program 

there involved extensive cooperation 

with other agencies 

and university scientists.
108–

never developed. What did develop was 

a major improvement in working space 

for the Reno unit.

In the spring of 1957, Harold Haupt 

was transferred from Boise to Reno to 

set up a new watershed project. Range 

Scientist Ralph Holmgren soon followed 

to take on the task of reviving the old 

Nevada range research program that 

had been dormant since World War II. 

The plan was to set up operations on 

the University of Nevada campus, but 

facilities were not immediately available. Haupt and Holmgren were given 

offices in make-shift rooms in a Toiyabe 

National Forest warehouse at 1350 E. 

2nd Street.

The situation improved modestly 

when the Station researchers occupied 

a two-story, wood-frame house that 

was moved from the Paradise Valley 

research area north of Winnemucca. 

Haupt said moving the building was an 

adventure:

The distance that the building had 

to be moved from Paradise Valley to 

Reno was 210 miles, most of it along 

the narrow, busy U.S. Highway 40. 

As the building very slowly rolled 

down the highway I held my breath. 

Occasionally along the way the moving 

crew had to carefully prop up power 

and telephone lines in order to let the 

building pass underneath. Except for 

a few impatient motorists, the whole 

precarious exercise came off without a 

hitch (Haupt, personal communication).

Haupt said that the structure soon was 

set on a foundation in the warehouse 

compound, and it served as the Station’s 

first office in Reno It was known as the 

Nevada Research Center until “center” 

designations were changed to “laboratory.” Nearly 2 years passed before the 

Station scientists finally moved across 

town into much better offices and a lab 

in the new Max C. Fleischman College 

of Agriculture building on campus.

Ivan Sack, Supervisor of the Toiyabe 

National Forest, was largely responsible 

for that move as well as having a place 

to move to. “Ivan was a very good friend 

of research,” Haupt said. “He was also 

very influential in Reno. For one thing, 

he served as a trustee of the Fleischman 

Foundation (that yeast built) and 

through his persistent urging had earlier 

convinced the other trustees to grant a 

considerable sum of money to construct 

the new Max C. Fleischman building.”

Retired Project Leader Dick 

Meeuwig, who led studies that concentrated on ecology and management of 

pinyon-juniper rangelands for many 

years, recalled that the university 

built the Knudsen Renewable Natural 

Resources Center on Valley Road in 

1967 or 1968. The Station unit moved 

into it, as did the Agricultural Research 

Service. This provided an opportunity 

for cooperative work by the two Federal 

groups that continued throughout Station 

history.

To Spray, or Not to Spray

By the end of 1963, the remaining 

work at Spokane, consisting of studies 

on direct seeding of western white 

pine and use of herbicides to manage 

vegetation, had been moved to Moscow. 

Attention to the herbicide trials was, in 

part, influenced by the public concerns 

stemming from Rachel Carson’s book, 

Silent Spring. Carson mounted an attack 

on the indiscriminate use of herbicides 

and pesticides, particularly in agriculture; but forestry also was affected. 

Although there wasn’t much support for 

herbicide research from the National 

Forests initially, the issue of massive 

chemical treatments in managing forest 

stands became a major factor in National 

Forest management, particularly in the 

Pacific Northwest.

Concerns about chemical use provided some unexpected financial help 

for the Station when research budgets 

were starting to tighten. Region 1 had 

been criticized in the press for using 

Agent Orange, a Vietnam War chemical 

defoliant, on 60,000 acres without any 

scientific basis showing it would aid 

in solving the regeneration problem 

on that area by suppressing unwanted 

vegetation. As a result, the Regional 

Silviculturist authorized spraying only if 

the project was cleared by Research.

To support the effort, the Washington 

Office allowed the Regions to use funds 

normally allocated to reforestation work 

to sponsor studies related to vegetation 

management. Those funds proved to 

be a great benefit to the work of the 

research unit (Boyd interview, 1993).

In the late 1960s, the issue of chemical treatments was so controversial 

that Neil Rahm, Regional Forester for 

Region 1, decided that no chemicals 

were to be used for vegetation 

This 1930s-style dwelling 

was moved 210 miles from 

Paradise Valley in 1957 

to house the Station’s 

Nevada Research Center.

1967

Intermountain 

Forest & Range

Experiment Station

Ogden Headquarters

Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab

Moscow Forestry Sciences Lab

Boise Basin Exp. Forest

Boise Forestry Sciences Lab

Bozeman Forestry Sciences Lab

Logan Forestry Sciences Lab

Northern Forest Fire Lab

Tenderfoot Creek Exp. Forest

Great Basin Exp. Range

Coram Exp. Forest

Deception Creek Exp. Forest

Desert Exp. Range

Priest River Exp. Forest

Reno Forestry Sciences Lab
–109

management. Undesirable vegetation 

was to be removed by hand instead. This 

put the Station’s vegetation management 

research unit into limbo. The unit was 

discontinued, although some of the 

ongoing herbicide research work was 

continued in other units at Moscow 

(Boyd interview, 1993).

Aha! The Wilderness 

Unit Discovers a Better 

Approach

A pair of “Aha moments” inspired 

the creation of the first Forest Service 

wilderness management research unit 

and one of the major accomplishments 

by scientists in the unit.

The first revelation was no real 

surprise. Station administrators must 

have quickly realized they were in a 

strong position to gain a wilderness 

research capability in 1966 when 

the Senate appropriations committee 

asked the Forest Service to develop a 

proposal for a unit. The Station had a 

new Forestry Sciences Lab in Missoula 

ready to house staff. Missoula was an 

ideal location for wilderness research, 

because 7.3 million acres of existing 

or proposed wilderness was nearby, the 

largest concentration of such areas in 

the contiguous 48 States.

The Station made a proposal, it was 

accepted, and the unit was established 

in 1967. It was to be the only Federal 

research unit focusing on wilderness 

management throughout the remaining 

30 years of Intermountain Station 

history. Bob Lucas moved from the 

North Central Station to serve as Project 

Leader. He soon was joined by George 

Stankey. The two social scientists 

embarked on a series of studies concentrating on the ecological as well as social 

problems involved in managing and 

protecting established Wildernesses and 

Primitive Areas (Noble 1976).

Ecological studies ranged from 

determining the impact of visitors and 

their horses on plants, soil, water, and 

wildlife to identifying processes of 

ecological change, such as wildfire, that 

affect the whole wilderness. Stankey 

made several studies over time about 

wilderness visitors’ attitudes toward 

wildfire that showed a strong trend 

toward more understanding and acceptance of fire’s natural role (Lucas, 

personal communication).

Lucas did a series of surveys of 

wilderness use and users that yielded 

baseline data for management studies. 

They described the amount, type, and 

distribution of use, and visitors’ characteristics, objectives, and knowledge and 

attitudes regarding wilderness conditions 

and management alternatives. Stankey 

conducted some similar research. 

Sometimes, conventional wisdom was 

disproved. For example, the studies 

showed there were far more hikers relative to horse use than had been generally 

thought. And there was far more day 

use relative to long overnight trips than 

managers supposed.

Lucas said the researchers at first 

were “trying to lay a foundation of 

general studies of visitors and develop 

better research methods for more 

detailed studies later.” He believed this 

“should provide the most relevant, helpful research in the long run and seems 

a better bet to us than crash programs 

dealing with individual ‘brushfire’ 

crises” (Noble 1976).

Much of the unit’s research was cooperative work, and a considerable part 

of that was with Sid Frissell, a professor 

at the University of Montana. Ecologist 

David Cole was another primary cooperator in the early years. For part of that 

time, Cole was employed by Systems for 

Environmental Management, a nonprofit 

group in Missoula specializing in natural 

resources research. He received a temporary appointment in the Station research 

unit in 1978, and achieved permanent 

status in 1987 (INTercom 12/8/88).

The revelation that led to what 

Lucas believed was the unit’s major accomplishment came in the early 1980s. 

The achievement was development of 

the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) 

system for managing wilderness recreational use. LAC “turned what had long 

been referred to as ‘carrying 

capacity’ into a practical management tool,” Lucas said (personal 

communication).

Lucas described how LAC was born:

With the benefit of hindsight, it is 

obvious that we were on the wrong track, 

asking the wrong question. We had lots 

of research that showed that type of 

use, user behavior, timing of use, and 

location of use was more important than 

amount. Finally, in one of those ‘aha!’ 

moments, several of us in the research 

work unit (George Stankey was maybe 

Project Leader Bob Lucas (standing) 

visited the Hilgard Basin area of the 

Gallatin National Forest with Australian 

scientist Peter Valentine and others in 

1981. Valentine spent 10 months with 

the wilderness research unit as a visiting scholar.

Wilderness unit scientists were in 

demand world-wide. Ecologist David 

Cole was in Torres Del Paine National 

Park, Chile, in 1997 as a member of a 

group giving a workshop on recreation 

ecology and parks management to 

the Chilean agency that managed that 

country’s national forests and parks.
110–

the first to see the problem in a new 

light, but he and I and several others 

brainstormed to develop the concept into 

a useful tool) realized that by defining 

acceptable conditions for different 

parts of the wilderness...managers 

could deal with the specific problem.

“The question was not, ‘How much use is 

too much?, but ‘What kinds of conditions 

should be protected as essential to 

wilderness?’ As soon as we focused on 

the needs of wilderness, the way to go 

was obvious,” Lucas said (Close 1988c).

The fundamental concept underlying 

LAC wasn’t new. “It was a form of management by objectives, I guess,” Lucas 

said. What was new was how the idea 

was developed into a system and applied 

to land management.

Cole described the development and 

importance of the LAC system:

Development of LAC involved extending 

various concepts advanced by team 

members and other scientists and 

integrating them in a framework that 

could be readily used by managers and 

planners. Since its development, LAC 

has been adopted in numerous situations, 

nationally and internationally, both within 

and beyond wilderness. It is hard to 

overestimate its influence on recreation 

planning. Its concepts (the focus on future 

conditions and the notion of acceptability) 

have influenced National Forest planning 

generally and have been adopted by 

other Federal agencies. In addition to 

North America, LAC is being used for 

park planning in South America, Central 

America, Africa, Europe, Australia, and 

Asia (Cole, personal communication).

The team summed things up in 1985 

in a Station publication by Stankey, 

Cole, Lucas, Frissell, and Research 

Forester Margaret Petersen. The Limits 

of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for 

Wilderness Planning presented a logical, 

nine-step approach managers could use 

to cope with increasing demands on 

recreational areas. The system allowed 

for public participation and made it 

easy to show wilderness users the 

steps taken in making decisions. Cole, 

Petersen, and Lucas followed up in 1987 

with Managing Wilderness Recreation 

Use: Common Problems and Potential 

Solutions, a Station publication that 

summarized information on alternative 

management tactics available for dealing 

with common problems.

Other important research by the 

wilderness management unit was 

work on the specific impacts caused 

by visitors. “David Cole did excellent 

research on the impact of recreational 

use on vegetation at campsites mainly, 

but also trails,” Lucas said. “He showed 

clearly that a little use caused a lot of 

impact and more use added relatively 

little to damage. Managers were making the situation worse by trying to 

disperse camping use widely. He also 

showed clearly that some vegetation 

types were more durable and resilient, 

recovering faster” (Lucas, personal 

communication).

Cole’s findings influenced management actions, and they also were applied 

to defining low-impact practices. A 

major result was Soft Paths: How to 

Enjoy Wilderness without Harming 

It, a book written by Cole and Bruce 

Hampton, senior staff instructor with 

the National Outdoor Leadership School 

in Wyoming. Soft Paths was the first of 

many books on low-impact practices. 

The principles and recommendations 

provided the foundation and curriculum 

for the “Leave No Trace” program, a 

cooperative endeavor of public land 

management agencies, non-governmental groups, and industry (Cole, personal 

communication).

The “Leave No Trace” program 

agreement was signed in 1991 by all 

the cooperators. National Outdoor 

Leadership School instructors became 

“headmasters” and the Soft Paths book 

and a video produced from it became 

aids to teach master instructors who 

in turn taught trainers to spread the 

concepts and techniques of low-impact 

use of the land (Tippets 1992a).

Not all work by the Station unit 

was adopted for general use. Lucas 

said, “Some great studies flopped on 

technology transfer. The wilderness 

travel simulation model looked like a 

very useful tool for planning trailhead 

use quotas and minimizing regulation. It 

would have complemented LAC nicely. 

It probably demanded too much data, 

and was ahead of its time. Computer 

phobia was still common in the Forest 

Service in the 1970s” (Lucas, personal 

communication).

On the 20th anniversary of passage 

of the 1964 Wilderness Act, INTercom 

(9/6/84) noted that the Station research 

unit had conducted studies in more than 

25 wildernesses in Montana, Idaho, 

Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, California, 

Minnesota, and North Carolina. By 

that time, Research Social Scientist 

Alan Watson had joined the unit. He 

specialized in research on characteristics 

of visitors and their expectations, and 

worked on several of the studies in 

States outside the Rocky Mountain 

area.

Although always a relatively small 

unit (Lucas and Stankey were the only 

full-time scientists for many years), 

the wilderness researchers had a great 

positive influence on management of 

millions of acres of wildlands. Part of 

the reason was a concentrated effort 

to work with a broad group of fellow 

scientists and resource managers. That 

started when the unit started, with 

participation in a 1973 symposium 

sponsored by the Forest Service in 

Seattle titled “Management Implications 

of Wilderness Research.” The gathering 

brought together managers, researchers, 

and environmentalists to discuss mutual 

Field personnel gathered data from 

visitors for many wilderness studies by 

Station scientists, but sometimes special arrangements were made to gather 

large amounts of information without 

having to make personal contacts.
–111

concerns for managing wilderness and 

the need for new and relevant information (INTercom 3/8/79).

At the symposium, the need for a 

compendium of existing knowledge 

was discussed, which led to a national 

Forest Service publication, Wilderness 

Management. The book was the first 

to specifically address the issues and 

problems applicable to lands managed 

by the Forest Service, National Park 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and Bureau of Land Management. 

Several years in preparation, Wilderness 

Management also served to synthesize 

most of the Station unit’s early accumulated knowledge in a useful 

package. Stankey had principal responsibility for preparation of four chapters. 

Lucas headed work on three others.

In 1984-85, Lucas and Stankey 

presented the unit’s research findings 

in a series of workshops for Forest 

Service personnel held across the 

Country. Both participated in sessions in the Southwest and Pacific 

Northwest Regions. Stankey served 

as an instructor at workshops in the 

other five regions. The unit’s 20 years 

of research results were blended with 

wilderness management knowledge 

from throughout the world at a 

1985 “National Wilderness Research 

Conference,” co-sponsored by the 

Station with Federal management 

agencies, The American Wilderness 

Alliance, and Colorado State and 

Oregon State Universities. Lucas 

compiled the proceedings, published 

by the Station in two volumes.

The first volume contained 70 

papers, including contributions from 

Taiwanese, Scottish, and Canadian 

scientists. The papers presented research results in nine subject areas. The 

second volume had 35 perspectives on 

wilderness values and states-of-knowledge for wilderness resources, user 

research, and future research directions. 

“The Wilderness Research Foundation,” 

a nonprofit organization to support and 

sponsor research was established at the 

conference, with Lucas as a member of 

the board of directors.

The conference information formed 

a basis for an upgrade of the Wilderness 

Handbook started shortly before Stankey 

made a major career change in 1987 

when he accepted a position in Australia 

with the New South Wales National 

Parks and Wildlife Service. He also 

taught in the Department of Leisure 

Studies at Kuring-gai College in Sydney 

(INTercom 4/2/87). Lucas finished 

his part of the handbook revision as 

a volunteer after retirement in 1989. 

The revision was issued by a private 

publisher.

Cole took over as unit Project 

Leader shortly before Lucas retired. 

He expanded the research into new 

geographic areas and started studies 

of the underlying reasons for conflicts 

between different types of wilderness 

users (INTercom 3/1/90). Cole handled 

the Project Leader duties until the unit 

became part of the inter-agency Aldo 

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute 

in 1993 (see “The Leopold Wilderness 

Institute,” chapter 11).

Tree Planting Success 

Soars

In the late 1950s and early 1960s demand for National Forest timber surged. 

As harvest levels rose in Regions 1 and 

4, reforestation became increasingly critical. Depending on natural processes to 

reestablish tree stands too often proved 

inadequate. Seedling survival rates historically had not been good, especially 

in Region 4 (see “Plantings Fail to Take 

Root,” chapter 4), and something had to 

be done to improve both production and 

survival.

A lot was done. Region and 

Station personnel worked together in 

many areas to bring about dramatic 

improvements.

Region 1 moved its nursery operations in 1969 from Savenac where short 

growing seasons had long hampered 

seedling production, to a more favorable 

site near Coeur d’Alene. There, Station 

scientist Ray Boyd (Moscow) conducted 

research on soil fumigation, seed sowing 

dates, and seedbed densities, and conveyed the results to nursery managers 

(Boyd interview, 1993).

Region 4 developed a new nursery 

at Lucky Peak near Boise, and by 1965 

it had the capability to produce 11 

million seedlings annually (Alexander 

1987). Station Project Leader Russ 

Ryker (Boise) launched studies similar 

to Boyd’s work, and his efforts helped 

Lucky Peak managers overcome several 

production and quality problems.

Other Station research resulted in 

guidelines for preparing planting sites 

and safe and effective methods of using 

fertilizers and herbicides to control 

weeds in nursery stock seedbeds. Ryker 

received a national award in 1980 for his 

role in the cooperative Western Forest 

Tree Nursery Herbicide Study, which 

resulted in registration of several chemical herbicides for nursery use.

Ryker, fellow Station scientist Bob 

Ferguson, and Ed Ballard, a Boise 

National Forest electronics technician, 

developed a portable oscilloscope that 

sent an electronic signal through plant 

tissue to determine dormancy of nursery 

tree and shrub seedlings. The shape of 

waves on a screen produced by the 

Research Social 

Scientist Alan 

Watson specialized 

in studies of the 

characteristics of 

wilderness visitors 

and their expectations.
112–

signals told whether the plant was 

actively growing, dormant, or dead. 

Personnel at Lucky Peak started using 

the equipment in 1974 to determine 

dormancy of planting stock before fall 

lifting. The developers wrote a Station 

publication describing the technology, 

Portable Oscilloscope Techniques for 

Detecting Dormancy in Nursery Stock

(Forestry Research West Oct./76). 

Nurseryman Frank Morby and Ryker 

wrote an article for Tree Planter’s Notes 

describing how seedlings lifted in the 

fall at the nursery had been successfully 

planted early the following spring.

Ferguson said in a 2005 interview, 

“We had a lot of fun testing all sorts of 

plants with the oscilloscope around the 

City of Boise.” Local lore was that the 

researchers even attached the electrodes 

to a telephone pole to ensure that the 

device was correctly determining that 

dead plants were indeed deceased and 

not merely “playing dead” in dormancy.

Improvements at the nurseries helped, 

but Regional and Station silviculturists 

recognized the importance of developing and putting into practice optimum 

methods for shipping, storing, handling, 

and planting seedlings. In Region 4, Al 

Dahlgren worked closely with Station 

researchers. He became known for pushing a “tender, loving care” approach and 

personally showing National Forest field 

crews how to properly handle and plant 

seedlings (Bryan Ferguson interview, 

2005).

Dahlgren wrote a guide to successful 

seedling storage in snow caches, which 

the Station published in 1974. Ryker 

and Morby helped the cause by writing 

a 1975 Station publication, Winter 

Storage and Packaging Effects on Lucky 

Peak Seedlings. Similar research and 

development work in Region 1 was 

summarized in a 1983 Station publication, Lifting, Storage, Planting Practices 

Influence Growth of Conifer Seedlings in 

the Northern Rockies, written by Boyd 

and Coeur d’Alene nursery personnel 

Stephen McDonald and Donald Sears. 

Station scientists later conducted studies 

in both Regions of the performance of 

containerized planting stock versus the 

bare-root seedlings the nurseries were 

producing.

Ponderosa pine is one of the most 

widely distributed and valuable pines, 

but by the 1970s many cutover areas had 

been invaded by brush or less desirable 

tree species (Forestry Research West

July/1975). Station scientists had a 

wealth of information to bring to bear 

on the problems. Research on ponderosa 

pine regeneration had started in 1911 

at Priest River and in 1928 in the Boise 

Basin. In 1973, the Station issued a 

state-of-the-art publication by Marv 

Foiles, silviculturist at Moscow, and Jim 

Curtis. Curtis preceded Ryker as Project 

Leader at Boise.

In Regeneration of Ponderosa Pine 

in the Northern Rocky MountainIntermountain Region Foiles and Curtis 

pointed out that healthy nursery stock 

and care in handling and field planting 

were essential, but they also said, 

“Selection of a proper seed source is an 

important first step in any reforestation 

effort.” The nature of a “proper seed 

source” could vary widely among different tree species. The quality of seed trees 

was always a factor, but considerations 

could include elevation, climate, habitat 

type, and distance from the planting 

area.

Geneticist Jerry Rehfeldt was a leader 

in defining optimum seed sources and 

advising managers on how to locate 

them. In one study, he developed seed 

zones for inland Douglas-fir that was the 

basis for a tree improvement program 

with the species based on eight zones 

and 300 superior trees within each 

zone (Noble 1978a). Rehfeldt wrote 

Station publications presenting seed 

transfer guidelines for Douglas-fir 

in northern Idaho, central Idaho, and 

western Montana. He also published 

seed transfer guidelines for western 

larch throughout the Northern Rocky 

Mountains.

Another study, with coworker Ray 

Steinhoff, had a surprising result. 

Rehfeldt and Steinhoff found that 

western white pine, in contrast to 

Douglas-fir, did not vary genetically in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains with 

geographical or habitat factors. Breeders 

of western white pine were delighted; 

they could concentrate on developing 

blister rust resistance and other desirable 

traits without concern about environmental adaptation.

Frank Morby, nurseryman at Lucky Peak 

Nursery, used a portable oscilloscope 

developed by Station scientists Bob 

Ferguson and Russ Ryker and Boise 

National Forest technician Ed Ballard to 

test seedling dormancy in 1976.

Seasonal employees 

planted container-grown 

Douglas-fir seedlings in 

1978 at Priest River for a 

study to determine if success rates would exceed 

those of bare-root stock.
–113

Rehfeldt also did basic research on 

genetic variability, and published frequently in scientific journals. He, Project 

Leader Ray Hoff, and others in the 

genetics unit at Moscow were interested 

in developing a variety of desirable 

tree traits, such as resistance to forest 

pests (INTercom 11/25/86). Growth rate 

improvement was also an objective. 

In his work with Douglas-fir, Rehfeldt 

found that a 30 percent gain in growth 

rate could occur when the fast-growing 

coastal variety was crossed with the 

hardier inland variety.

The genetics unit members extended 

their expertise into day-to-day operations when Regions 1 and 4 created 

regional geneticist positions. The first 

person to hold the job in Region 1, 

George Howe, was stationed with the 

Moscow unit for several months of 

training. Rehfeldt and Technician Pat 

Wells received letters of commendation 

from Region 4 for working with the 

regional geneticist in providing “excellent information and field assistance in 

developing the Region’s tree improvement and seed collection programs.” 

(INTercom 7/23/81).

The Intermountain and Rocky 

Mountain Stations made a contribution to tree improvement generally by 

agreeing to publish annual proceedings 

of the Intermountain Nurseryman’s 

Association. The Stations handled the 

task in alternate years.

Did the research and management efforts improve planting success? In 1971, 

the average first-year seedling survival 

rate in Region 4 was 70 percent, 

considered poor performance because 

survival generally declines in subsequent years (Bryan Ferguson interview 

2005). The average rate between 1979 

and 1983 improved to a very good 83 

percent, and in 1983 the Region reached 

the 92-percent level, putting it among 

the top Regions nationally. Alexander 

(1987) said Region 4 had become “enormously successful in its regeneration 

efforts.”

Despite successes, improvement 

work continued. Shortly before he 

retired in 1985, Ryker was selected as 

coordinator for a joint national program 

by Timber Management and Timber 

Management Research to set up a 

consistent, systematic method of 

management at the 11 Forest Service 

nurseries. The concept was that the good 

performances had depended heavily on 

the knowledge and skills of individual 

nurserymen, and there was a need to develop “corporate memory” for a unified 

approach to nursery operations.

Geneticists at Moscow continued to 

make major advancements in the science 

of reforestation. The understanding of 

adaptation of conifers to local environments was coupled with predictions of 

site-specific forest climates and theories 

of climate change. This enabled managers to determine which seed sources 

would be adapted to sites as climate 

change progresses. Rehfeldt and colleagues learned to predict how conifer 

species distributions would change over 

time and which seed sources would 

be adapted to changed climates in the 

western United States.

The Stamp of Quality

In 1967 the Station took a big step 

toward developing and maintaining 

high-level statistical efficiency and integrity throughout the research program. 

A Station Statistician position was created at Headquarters, and Chet Jensen 

moved from the Northeastern Station to 

fill the job.

The Station had statistical expertise 

in some units before Jensen’s arrival. 

Having the central position, however, 

freed the scientists from some review 

tasks and also made biometric expertise 

readily available to all research units. 

Jensen reviewed and approved publication manuscripts that included statistical 

analysis, worked with individual scientists to develop sound statistical designs 

for studies, and conducted personal 

research.

His personal work resulted in 

creation of MATCHACURVE, a 

technique used to portray the relations 

between interacting variables in complex biological and physical systems. 

MATCHACURVE was described in a 

series of Station publications, putting 

it into use world-wide. In 1978, the 

technique earned Jensen a USDA 

Superior Service Award for “pioneering 

and far-reaching efforts in the development and application of an advanced 

regression analysis technique that has 

greatly enhanced the analytical skills of 

scientists” (INTercom 6/8/78).

A Brazilian scientist cited his group’s 

use of MATCHACURVE to describe 

river level fluctuations in the Amazonian 

system (INTercom 9/9/76), and two 

Finnish researchers said they used 

the technique in a study to provide a 

long-term production model for growing 

stock. The Finns closed their letter with, 

“Our best thanks and congratulations to 

the founding father of the new revolutionary regression analysis techniques” 

(INTercom 10/30/75).

Jensen retired in 1980 after nearly 36 

years with the Forest Service. He was 

succeeded by Gordon Booth, a mathematical statistician with the Agricultural 

Research Service at Ames, Iowa. Booth 

headed what evolved into the Station’s 

Statistics and Computer Science Group 

for 14 years.

Booth was active in the American 

Statistical Association, and was elected 

President of the Utah Chapter in 1986. 

He served as the only Forest Service 

member on a national committee of government, industry, and university people 

seeking better use of statistical methods 

in studying such environmental issues 

Geneticist Jerry Rehfeldt (left) and 

Technician Pat Wells, shown here looking at variation in trees growing in a 

uniform garden at Priest River, played 

major rolls in improving planting stock 

and survival in Regions 1 and 4.
114–

as acid rain, stream contamination, toxic 

waste, and radiation (INTercom 9/1/88) .

In 1985, the Statistics Group, which 

then included Gayle Yamasaki and 

Charles Graham, extended its advisory 

function by starting a newsletter to better 

communicate with research personnel 

(INTercom 9/19/85). The newsletter emphasized areas that appeared frequently 

during reviews of manuscripts and 

study plans by the statisticians and also 

contained information on using statistics 

with personal computers, a relatively 

new area at the time.

Jensen, Booth, and their coworkers 

put the stamp of quality on a great many 

research products throughout a large part 

of Intermountain Station history.

Introducing Friendly Fires

Station scientists studied and 

advocated the use of fire in resource 

management from the very beginnings 

of the organization.

Julius Larsen studied fire behavior at 

Priest River as part of his early silvicultural research. At Great Basin, Arthur 

Sampson published his first report on 

the role of fire in aspen regeneration 

in 1916. Bob Marshall looked into the 

effects of wildfire on white pine regeneration in 1928. Joe Pechanec published 

the first treatise on the good and bad 

effects of fire in sagebrush ecosystems 

in 1944.

Station scientists were among the 

leading proponents of allowing wildfires 

to play their natural role in some ecosystems, a position that could be lonesome 

in an organization like the Forest 

Service with an historic bias for all-out 

fire control. But planned introduction of 

fire or tolerance of wildfire in certain circumstances, both forms of “prescribed 

fire,” eventually came to be seen as 

beneficial by resource managers and a 

growing segment of the general public.

Setting Friendly Fires—The Miller 

Creek and Newman Ridge studies, 

started in 1967 in the Flathead National 

Forest near Whitefish, Montana, were 

milestones in documenting the behavior 

and effects of prescribed burns. Before 

the 1960s, foresters almost exclusively 

used fire to dispose of tree tops and 

branches (slash) after logging. Research 

results at Miller Creek showed managers 

how to predict effects of fire on tree 

regeneration and the response of animals 

and other plants (Latham and others 

1998). This helped make prescribed 

fire acceptable as a professional tool in 

forest management, not just a way to 

eliminate logging residue.

The Flathead National Forest set 

aside 5,500 acres for studies at Miller 

Creek and a multidisciplinary team of 

scientists from seven research units 

worked closely with Ranger District 

personnel to locate plots and make 

measurements before, during, and after 

timber harvests and prescribed burning 

(Shearer and Wirt 1996). Sixty units 

on different slopes were marked for 

clearcutting and burning; most of the 

work was completed by fall 1968. In 

August 1967, a wildfire had burned 

through 13 units, providing a rare opportunity to compare regeneration and 

plant succession on similar areas burned 

naturally and by prescribed fire.

Most of the original studies ended in 

1974, but some research on plant 

succession extended through 1989. A 

general study combining succession and 

tree development investigations was 

planned to continue indefinitely. The 

plant succession research was an important part of a larger study spearheaded 

by personnel in the wildlife habitat 

research unit (see next section).

Similar research began at Newman 

Ridge near St. Regis, Montana, in the 

Lolo National Forest almost at the same 

time studies started at Miller Creek. 

The area covered was smaller—16 units 

were logged and burned—but the scope 

of the research was somewhat broader. 

The Newman Ridge studies were tied 

to preparation of a revised National 

Fire Danger Rating System and also 

included watershed effects and air quality considerations.

Fire Lab Chief Art Brackebusch was 

quoted in The Missoulian as saying, 

“This is the first time in the history of 

forestry research that such a comprehensive, integrated approach has ever 

been undertaken to provide the answers 

to pressing resource management 

questions.”

The apprehension within the Forest 

Service and the general public about the 

idea of deliberately starting a forest fire 

was addressed in reassuring statements 

Chet Jensen created 

MATCHACURVE, and many 

statisticians found the procedures useful.

Station personnel weighed water cans 

before and after a prescribed fire at 

Miller Creek. Differences in weight 

helped them calculate the energy released by the intense burn.
–115

by Sam Evans, Region 1 silviculturist 

who was a member of the steering committee for the Miller Creek-Newman 

Ridge studies. Evans said, “The decision 

of the Forest Service deliberately setting 

fires in a critical hot weather, high-burning-index period was not made lightly. 

The idea of the Forest Service going 

against Smokey Bear’s teachings was 

not passed over lightly. Still we needed 

information so badly that we had to take 

a real calculated risk to go ahead with 

the study during a period when we normally try to avoid fire” (Eggensperger 

1967).

There was a risk. A research fire set 

in mid-July at Newman Ridge escaped 

and burned about 90 acres of standing 

timber before Ranger District firefighters 

got it under control. The Forest Service 

headed off any controversy by sponsoring a “show me” trip to the area that 

included news media. Apparently, the 

explanations were successful in convincing any skeptics that the potential 

benefits of prescribed burning more than 

balanced losses should a fire get 

away.

Fire Lab scientists Bill Beaufait, 

Mike Hardy, and Bill Fischer summarized Miller Creek-Newman Ridge fire 

research results in a Station publication 

issued in 1977. Beaufait was the main 

coordinating scientist during the Miller 

Creek-Newman Ridge studies. He was 

primarily responsible for the study 

design and application of fire treatments 

(J. Brown, personal communication).

Prescribed fire research in western 

larch-Douglas-fir tree stands cut 

selectively was conducted elsewhere in 

Montana by Rod Norum. All the results 

eventually were available to managers 

as part of prescribed burning guidelines. 

In 1981, Watershed Scientist Norb 

DeByle compiled and wrote a Station 

publication, Clearcutting and Fire in the

Larch/Douglas-Fir Forests of Western 

Montana-a Multi-faceted Research 

Summary, which presented all the Miller 

Creek-Newman Ridge results to that 

time. It included contributions by 10 

Station scientists and three cooperators 

who conducted the studies.

Workshops and tours for resource 

managers provided a more personal 

approach to getting the research results 

into use. Twenty years after the 

research started, one workshop attracted 100 forest 

managers and wildlife and 

timber specialists from 

Federal and State agencies. Region 1 Ecologist 

Wendell Hann attended 

and commented on the 

value of the Miller CreekNewman Ridge work: “We 

have learned and applied a 

great deal from this study. 

Study results have helped 

guide our policies toward 

prescribed fire. Other 

information from this study 

is helping us manage timber from a multi-resource 

standpoint” (INTercom

7/23/87).

The basic timber management 

conclusion from the research was undeniable. In the extensive western larch 

forests of Montana, prescribed fire after 

clearcutting meant more seedlings established faster than if nothing was done, 

regardless of when the fires were set. An 

economy factor was involved; using the 

study results managers could avoid unnecessary planting costs by waiting for 

inevitable natural regeneration to take 

place. The wildfire that allowed unusual 

tree-growing studies also produced an 

interesting result for wildlife. It created 

hundreds of acres of redstem ceanothus 

and willow, and the food supply led 

to the highest density of moose of any 

place in the lower 48 States at Miller 

Creek (Tippets 1996a).

The research illustrated the advantages of Station-sponsored studies. “The 

ability to carry on this kind of long-term 

research is unmatched by anyone outside 

the Forest Service,” Station Director 

Larry Lassen said. “Universities can 

only take on 2- or 3-year studies. We can 

go over decades” (INTercom 1/8/87). 

Research at Miller Creek also was an 

early step in the evolution of utilitarian 

forestry to ecosystem management in 

which foresters placed more balanced 

emphasis on the nontimber parts of the 

ecosystem. The goal was to maintain 

forest health in the future (Tippets 

1996a).

In 1989, the Flathead National Forest 

designated Miller Creek as a demonstration forest and signed an agreement with 

the Station to protect the study areas and 

promote future research.

Miller Creek’s special features 

as a demonstration area were made 

available to educators and students on 

many levels. Research Silviculturist 

Ray Shearer teamed up with educators 

to produce two Station publications 

to enhance Miller Creek’s use as an 

outdoor classroom. One was a field 

guide complete with commentary on two 

self-guided tours (Latham and others 

1998). The other, with Bill Schustrom, 

a high school environmental science 

teacher, as senior author, was a guide for 

teachers designed as a supplement to the 

field guide.

The field guide was the product 

of a cooperative agreement by the 

University of Montana, the Station, and 

the Flathead National Forest. The agreement also resulted in a traveling exhibit, 

“Forest Born of Fire,” which was loaned 

to community and government groups. 

Peter Stickney, a Station plant ecologist, 

contributed results of long-term understory vegetation studies at Miller Creek 

to all the educational materials.

Miller Creek was not the only place 

where Station scientists conducted 

studies to show the role and utility of 

fire in Region 1 and 4 forests. Steve 

Arno and others in the fire behavior and 

forest ecosystems research units based 

in Missoula worked in many areas of 

the Station territory. Arno was a prolific 

author and became an authority on the 

role of fire in forests.
116–

In 1977 Arno led a major study to 

determine historical frequency, intensity, 

and influence of fire on stand structure 

and composition in various forest types 

in the Bitterroot National Forest in 

west-central Montana. It was one of 

the foundations of ecosystem research 

that became a major component of the 

Station program in the 1990s (see “The 

Ecosystem Approach Comes to Lick 

Creek,” chapter 11).

Arno and others dated nearly 900 

individual fire scars on living trees, and 

analyzed age classes of shade-intolerant 

trees attributable to fire. Results of the 

study showed that fire was historically 

a major force in stand development 

in all forest types, but its significance 

had decreased markedly since the early 

1900s, possibly because of organized 

fire suppression (Forestry Research West

July/77).

Monitoring Friendly Fires—In 

late August of 1973, Orville Daniels, 

Supervisor of the Bitterroot National 

Forest, told a fire crew boss to have his 

men pack up their tools and leave the 

site where a 1,000-acre wildfire was 

burning. “We’re not fighting this one,” 

Daniels said. “You’re in the White Cap 

Fire Management Area. Fires in this 

zone are not automatically put out” 

(Mutch 1974).

Daniels was watching over the first 

prescribed natural fire program in the 

National Forest System. The program 

was developed starting in 1970 in 

the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in 

Montana by Station and University of 

Montana scientists and forest personnel directed by Station fire researcher 

Bob Mutch and Dave Aldrich of the 

Bitterroot National Forest. The goal was 

to incorporate the natural role of fire 

into a new fire management plan for the 

Wilderness, starting with a 100-squaremile study area.

The area was divided into ecological 

zones and specific fire prescriptions 

were written for each zone. The 

prescriptions gave fire managers and 

dispatchers guidelines as to what could 

be done with different types of fires 

and when different options should be 

exercised. “Monitor the fire, but take no 

action,” was one of the options. There 

were constraints on the new policy, however. Providing for the safety of people 

and preventing major adverse effects 

from occurring outside the management 

area were overriding considerations 

(Forestry Research West July/75).

Such plans had been made earlier 

by other organizations, notably the 

National Park Service, and proposed 

for many years within the Forest 

Service. But the White Cap management scheme was a first for the Forest 

Service, and as such it was closely 

scrutinized. Its first test was easy to 

pass; its second was not.

A fire caused by lightning in 1972 in 

the shrubfield zone was the first to be 

handled under the new prescriptions. 

It was monitored, but allowed to burn. 

Four days after the fire started, an aerial 

patrol observed that it had gone out 

naturally. The final size was 24 by 24 

feet. This was the only fire in the study 

area during the year.

Extremely dry conditions prevailed 

in 1973, and seven fires were ignited by 

lightning in the study area, including 

the Fritz Creek Fire that eventually 

expanded to 1,200 acres. The prescriptions called for observing this fire, but to 

prevent its spread into a low-elevation 

timbered area. Part of the fire moved in 

that direction, and suppression actions 

were started there while the rest of the 

fire was allowed to burn. Part of the 

fire crossed White Cap Creek, starting 

another blaze that was suppressed. The 

Fritz Creek Fire burned for 43 days 

before being extinguished by fall rains.

Station scientists moved into the 

area to analyze effects of the fire on 

vegetation and wildlife, and to assess 

fuels, smoke, and opinions of people 

who witnessed the blaze. Thirty years 

later, Station scientists said they 

considered White Cap the most successful prescribed natural fire program 

in the National Forest System (Rocky 

Mountain Station 2004).

The White Cap study and others that 

followed, combined with a growing 

number of successful uses of prescribed 

fires set by foresters and range managers to improve natural environments 

resulted in a major Forest Service 

policy change in 1978. To that time, 

the “10 a.m. policy” was the order of 

the day. Basically, it mandated that any 

wildfire would be controlled as quickly 

as possible. The new policy, announced 

by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 

M. Rupert Cutler, said, “In the future 

some forest fires which start on National 

Forest System lands will be used for 

predetermined beneficial purposes rather 

than being put out immediately.”

Fire management activities were to 

be determined by objectives set forth in 

National Forest plans. Those 

objectives included improving timber 

stands and wildlife habitat and reducing 

the threat of large fires by preventing 

the accumulation of excessive amounts 

of fuel (Noble 1988). The early research 

efforts to explain the natural role of fire 

and its importance in ecosystems also 

led to a major organizational change in 

the Forest Service. The Division of Fire 

Control was changed to the Division of 

Fire Management. The implications of 

this name change were huge (J. Brown, 

personal communication).

Fire scars on western larch and ponderosa pine helped forest ecologists learn 

the natural history of fire occurrence. 

The scar shown here by Research 

Forester Ray Schearer indicated that 

frequent low-intensity fires created 

an open, park-like stand of old trees. 

Ecologist Steve Arno and associates dated nearly 900 individual scars on living 

trees to show the historic role of fire in 

the Bitterroot National Forest.
–117

Fueling Friendly Fires—Before 

prescribed fire of any type can be used 

effectively, fundamental knowledge 

of the nature of the fuels is needed. 

Without this knowledge in the form of 

“fuel models,” fire behavior models 

and the National Fire Danger Rating 

System could not operate effectively. 

Assembling the necessary knowledge 

and packaging it for use by managers 

was the job of the Station’s fire effects 

unit.

Jim Brown was a participant in 

changing the role of fire in the Station 

territory for three decades. He joined 

the fire effects unit at the Fire Lab in 

1965 and became Project Leader in 

1979. When he received a Superior 

Science Award from the Chief of 

the Forest Service in 1993, Assistant 

Station Director Dick Krebill said 

Brown was “the foremost wildland 

fuels person in the United States, and 

probably the world.” Brown was a forester who received a bachelor’s degree 

from the University of Minnesota, a 

master’s from Yale, and a Ph.D. from 

Michigan (INTercom Feb./93). He led 

what was at first a relatively small unit 

at the Fire Lab, but it was a very effective unit.

Arno provided ecological research 

skills, Research Forester Bill Fischer 

was a technology transfer leader, 

Meteorologist Arnold Finklin added 

climate data, Cam Johnston contributed 

computer skills, and Research Forester 

Kevin Ryan and Forester Dennis 

Simmerman worked on a variety of field 

studies.

The unit’s end products were field 

guides and computer information 

systems. Because of the emphasis on 

creating ways to package information 

for easy use, the researchers were 

referring to their unit as a “research 

and development” group in the early 

1980s, many years before Forest Service 

Research added “Development” to its 

official name. The nature of fire effects 

research involved many disciplines, 

so the unit worked with numerous 

researchers and land managers through 

agreements with a dozen universities, 

private firms, and public agencies.

Before he joined the Station, Brown 

did research on field measurement 

of fuel properties and he assumed 

responsibility for that work and fuel 

inventory research at the Fire Lab. An 

important summary of the research was 

the Handbook for Inventorying Downed 

Woody Material written by Brown 

and published by the Station in 1974. 

The information was incorporated in 

Forest Service management handbooks 

throughout the U.S., and the system 

became popular internationally. Station 

authors sometimes employed unusual 

methods to produce manuscripts (or to 

avoid the writing chore), 

but Brown’s writing 

environment for the 

handbook was unique. He 

was recovering from failed 

back surgery, and wrote 

the whole document while 

lying on the floor, the only 

position he was able to 

adopt at the time.

In 1976, Brown and 

Johnston developed a 

computer system to predict 

quantities of slash fuels 

based on characteristics 

of the crowns of Rocky 

Mountain conifers. In 

1981, Fischer made some 

of the key research results 

very user-friendly when 

he published Station 

photo guides for appraising downed woody fuels 

in Region 1. The next year, Brown, 

Johnston, and Forester Rick Oberheu 

widened the application by publishing 

the Handbook for Inventorying Surface 

Fuels and Biomass in the Interior West, 

a Station technical report.

Drawing on experience in the White 

Cap study and elsewhere, Fischer in 

1985 published an aid to wilderness 

managers developing new strategies for 

managing fire as a natural force. The 

Wilderness Fire Management Planning 

Guide, issued by the Station, presented 

concepts applicable nationwide. Because 

the whole area of wilderness fire 

management was relatively new and 

standard terminology had not been established, the report suggested common 

terms that were both logical and easy to 

understand (INTercom Apr./85).

The decline of aspen in the Interior 

West was a long-term problem. It got 

attention from Station scientists starting 

with Arthur Sampson in the early 1900s 

and later studies conducted by Norb 

DeByle, Walt Mueggler, Dale Bartos, 

and others. Other important research 

was done by scientists at the Rocky 

Mountain Station. The range researchers 

and the fire effects unit developed the 

scientific foundation for using prescribed fire in aspen management. Aspen 

stands are difficult to burn. Brown and 

Simmerman made a basic contribution in 1986 when they published 

Project Leader Jim Brown sampled 

and measured dead and down woody 

materials to establish fuel loading relationships.

Forester Dennis Simmerman evaluated fire effects 4 

days after a planned burn at Manning Basin in western Wyoming in 1981. Station research showed that 

the absence of occasional fire was one important 

cause of aspen trees being replaced by other vegetation on large acreages throughout the Interior 

West.
118–

“Appraising Fuels and Flammability 

in Western Aspen,” a Station report that 

told managers when and where they 

could burn to expect success within acceptable risk limits (Tippets 1991a).

Finding Friendly Fire Facts—The 

fire effects unit had a goal of developing “expert” computer systems that 

would give natural resource managers 

an easy and readily available means of 

accessing information regarding fire’s 

effects on specific wildland plants, plant 

communities, and associated wildlife. 

Brown said what became the Fire 

Effects Information System (FEIS) was 

developed when managers began to frequently suggest that the unit undertake 

specific research, and the scientists knew 

the information already existed. “We 

wanted to do more than just direct them 

to the literature,” Brown said (INTercom

5/26/88).

The information was scattered 

throughout many scientific reports, 

and some important facts were not in 

the scientific literature. The unit, with 

Fischer leading the effort, set out to 

develop a “fire effects encyclopedia” in 

1986 (INTercom 10/30/86).

Fischer explained the first step: 

“We’ve collected and summarized a 

great deal of scientific literature that will 

enable us to develop the ‘rules’ necessary to create an expert system.” The 

system was designed in cooperation with 

the University of Montana’s Computer 

Sciences Department. The Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) supported development of the prototype data base for 

a sagebrush ecosystem, which included 

information on 100 plants, 25 sagebrush 

cover types, and 25 wildlife species.

By 1988, the National Park Service 

signed on as another sponsor, the FEIS 

had expanded to include information on 

additional plants, and BLM personnel 

had gained considerable experience in 

using the system. The Station scientists 

began a test with Region 1 Forest 

Service employees, giving access and 

training to 50 resource managers and 

getting their opinions on the value of 

the system. Results were positive, and a 

training session was held for Region 4 

personnel.

At that time, Brown said, “the 

usefulness of the information system is 

much broader than just for fire effects 

applications. The information is so 

comprehensive that FEIS is a multidisciplinary tool of use to everyone working 

with vegetation management.” A Region 

4 trainee agreed. “Regardless of what 

hat I might be wearing, as a fire coordinator or as a silviculturalist, this system 

seems to have a lot of applicability,” he 

said (INTercom 5/26/88).

Many others saw the value of the 

FEIS, and it soon went national under 

the sponsorship of the National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group, which included 

the BLM, Forest Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

and the National Association of State 

Foresters. Forest Service employees 

could access the system through the 

agency’s standard computer network. 

Others could dial in through a modem. 

FEIS access methods were described 

in a concise pamphlet written by Bert 

Lindler, a Station editor, and circulated 

to thousands of fire personnel through 

the National Interagency Fire Center in 

Boise.

The brochure and other methods of 

publicizing FEIS were successful. In 

1992 more than 4,000 resource managers requested information on fire effects; 

about 500 of the requests were from 

agencies other than the Forest Service. 

Foresters, ecologists, wildlife biologists, 

and others were using the system to help 

plan prescribed fire, 

rehabilitate burned 

land, prepare fire 

management plans, 

and plan forest, 

range, and wildlife 

habitat improvement 

projects. FEIS had 

expanded to include 

information on 625 

plants, 35 wildlife 

species, one ecosystem, and 11 cover 

types. Expansion 

was continuing 

(INTercom Feb./93).

Fire effects 

scientists applied 

mathematical analyses and computer 

science to produce a 

model that provided 

another type of 

effects information to managers. The 

First Order Fire Effects Model could be 

used to predict fuel consumption, mineral soil exposure, tree mortality, smoke 

production, and other direct results of 

a fire for most ecosystems in the U.S. 

Software that worked on personal computers was distributed from the Fire Lab. 

A user’s guide to the model, written by 

Research Forester Elizabeth Reinhardt, 

Research Ecologist Bob Keane, and 

Brown, was published by the Station in 

1997 (Forestry Research West Sept./97).

Brown retired at the end of 1995. 

The fire effects unit that consisted of 

seven people when he joined it in 1965 

included 18 employees.

Bill Fischer showed Region 4 Ecologist 

Al Winward how to use the Fire Effects 

Information System at a workshop in 

1988.

The Fire Effects Information System developed by Station 

researchers gave land managers an easy way to get information needed to conduct prescribed burns that achieved 

desired results.
–119

Helping Elk Thrive

Expansion of the Forest Service 

research program that began in the 

late 1950s included establishment of 

wildlife habitat research units, but 

this development moved slowly. In 

1958, national reports for the first time 

included sections on “range and wildlife 

habitat research” (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 1958), not simply “range 

research.”

Although this implied that wildlife 

habitat studies had become widespread, 

for several years most of the research 

results reported in the sections pertained 

principally to domestic livestock, and 

only incidentally to wildlife. And wildlife other than big game animals rarely 

rated a mention. Forest Service national 

organizational directories did not include 

“wildlife habitat” in research division 

labels until 1962.

At the Intermountain Station, wildlife 

habitat research was cooperative work 

conducted by scientists employed by 

other agencies until Jack Lyon arrived 

in 1962 as Project Leader of the first 

research unit devoted exclusively to 

habitat research. Personnel in the new 

Missoula unit consisted of Lyon and 

Plant Ecologist Peter Stickney. Several 

years later, Wildlife Biologist Joe Basile 

was assigned to the project, although his 

office continued to be in Bozeman. The 

small staff and tight budgets required 

the unit to work in cooperative programs 

with resource managers, universities, 

and other agencies if meaningful 

research results were to be developed 

(Lyon, personal communication).

Lyon had bachelor’s and master’s 

degrees from Colorado State University 

in wildlife management and had worked 

for the Colorado Game and Fish 

Department as a research biologist for 

6 years in a pheasant habitat research 

program while completing work on a 

Ph.D. at the University of Michigan. In 

Missoula, it didn’t take him long to steer 

the new Station unit into elk habitat 

studies.

Although both elk and timber were 

high-value resources in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains, little research had 

been done to substantiate assertions 

that timber harvests either improved 

or damaged wildlife habitat. Both 

viewpoints were being expressed with 

growing vigor in the 1960s as timber 

harvesting accelerated in National 

Forests. Lyon said that a research 

program to resolve suspected elk 

and logging conflicts required (1) 

identification of the basic environmental 

requirements of elk; (2) identification 

of the environmental modifications 

caused by logging; and (3) assessments 

of the ability of elk to adjust to specific 

environmental modifications (Lyon 

1971). Forest modification obviously 

altered the vegetation that was needed 

for elk food and cover. In the northern 

Rockies, large areas had been severely 

disturbed by fire and Lyon and Stickney 

exploited that situation by starting a 

long-term study of plant succession in 

burned areas, some of them areas where 

logging had been followed by broadcast 

burning.

The goal was to generate plant 

succession data without the biases 

inherent in earlier succession research 

that sampled forest stands of varying ages in different locations. The 

previous studies failed to account for 

considerable variability caused by site 

differences and differences in the way 

plants colonized the disturbed sites. 

Stickney, later joined by Plant Ecologist 

Bob Campbell, recorded data from 55 

sites at five locations over 25 years. The 

locations were prescribed burn areas 

and wildfire areas—Miller Creek in the 

Salish Mountains, Newman Ridge in the 

Coeur d’Alene Mountains (see previous 

section), a Priest River area and the 

Sundance Burn in the Selkirk Range, 

and the Plant Creek Burn in the Sapphire 

Range. Lyon also published results of 

succession research for a prescribed fire 

area near Ketchum, Idaho (1971) and the 

Sleeping Child Burn in western Montana 

(1976).

Stickney presented data base 

information at intervals in Station 

publications, and he and Campbell 

updated results in a Rocky Mountain 

Station summary publication (Stickney 

and Campbell 2000). The publication 

was intended to provide plant succession 

data that could be applied to wildlife 

habitat and other wildland management 

problems. It also was designed to serve 

as a data source for scientists constructing forest succession and ecosystem 

models.

Plant succession research continued as part of the Rocky Mountain 

Station’s participation in the Ecosystem 

Management and Research Program 

in the Bitterroot National Forest (see 

“The Ecosystem Approach Comes to 

Lick Creek,” chapter 11). Predicting 

succession is especially important in 

planning rehabilitation of wildland areas 

following fires, making it possible to 

determine which sites need planting and 

seeding and which are likely to make 

satisfactory recoveries naturally.

In 1970, the Montana Cooperative 

Elk-Logging Study began. The study 

provided an umbrella research framework for six different organizations, 

Wildlife Biologist Jack Lyon became an 

authority on elk management with a 

combination of high-tech research and 

the ability to work effectively with many 

colleagues in universities and management organizations.

Ecologist Peter Stickney took readings 

at permanent plots in 1992 at Cora Road 

near Missoula as part of the wildlife 

habitat unit’s forest succession studies.
120–

with each pursuing individual studies 

that when combined provided a vast 

amount of information about elk, their 

habitat, and the effects of various 

types of timber harvests on them. The 

organizations were the Station, Region 

1, the Bureau of Land Management, 

the University Of Montana School of 

Forestry, the Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Plum 

Creek Timber Company.

Lyon played a lead role in the study, 

and administrators in the National 

Forest System and State wildlife 

management considered the results of 

his work to be extremely important to 

successful elk management in Montana. 

Lyon was involved in the study from 

start to finish (15 years), serving on 

the coordinating committee, planning and conducting relevant Station 

research, and helping to transfer results 

to resource managers. He provided 

important continuity as other lead scientists, funding, and active cooperators 

changed over the years.

The total study produced numerous 

findings and recommendations contained 

in some 80 publications, including 50 

professional papers (14 by Lyon) and 

13 graduate theses. Lyon was senior 

author of Coordinating Elk and Timber 

Management, published by the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

in 1985. The publication summarized 

results and included a series of recommendations and management guidelines. 

The bottom line was that elk and logging 

could co-exist if each was carefully 

managed.

Lyon said (personal communication) 

that the road density model for evaluating elk habitat effectiveness produced 

early in the study was “used by more 

people on more forests than anything 

else that came out of the Elk-Logging 

Study.” A Region 1 history (Baker and 

others 1993) said, “The years of study 

and interagency cooperation resulted 

in more knowledgeable and effective 

game management in the Northern 

Rocky Mountain area.” The history 

cited closure of designated forest roads, 

permanently or intermittently, on both 

public and private lands to provide security and cover to elk herds as important 

management actions inspired by the 

study.

Another duty occupied much of 

Lyon’s effort even as the elk-logging 

study was being planned and starting up. 

He was assigned to a team of specialists, including Paul Packer, a Station 

watershed scientist, and Jack Schmautz, 

a Region 1 range conservationist 

who had been a Station researcher, 

to review forest management in the 

Bighorn, Shoshone, Teton, and Bridger 

National Forests in Wyoming. The 

study was initiated by Regions 2 (Rocky 

Mountain Region) and 4, partly because 

of complaints about management, 

especially in lodgepole pine areas, by 

environmental groups and Senator Gale 

McGee of Wyoming, and partly because 

of concerns by officials within the Forest 

Service.

The study team’s 1971 report, Forest 

Management in Wyoming, revealed 

many problems. Clearcuts had often 

been too large, roads poorly designed, 

and attention to wildlife and esthetic values insufficient. The team recommended 

more attention to interdisciplinary and 

multiple-use values in planning timber 

management activities. In 1982, the 

study team reconvened, with the addition of three representatives of the State 

of Wyoming, to reexamine the situation. 

Their 1983 report indicated that all 

the National Forests had made some 

progress, but that improvements still 

were needed. The two reports served as 

catalysts for many management changes 

in Wyoming and elsewhere (Alexander 

1987).

Lyon said a cooperative effort he was 

heavily involved with starting in the 

mid 1980s “succeeded beyond all our 

expectations.” The Elk Vulnerability 

Symposium, hosted by the Montana 

Chapter of The Wildlife Society, brought 

400 participants to Bozeman in 1991. 

It was the largest gathering of wildlife 

professionals ever to assemble to 

discuss a single wildlife species (Lyon, 

personal communication). Lyon said the 

discussions encompassed all facets of 

managing elk populations as a joint 

venture between game managers and 

land managers, “establishing a benchmark in ungulate management.”

Symposium participants recognized 

a need to incorporate hunter behavior 

into planning, yet at the time information on that subject had been acquired 

almost solely through interviews. Lyon 

and Milo Burcham, research specialist 

at the University of Montana, led 

a study in the Garnet Mountains in 

western Montana to provide reliable 

data. During three fall hunting seasons, 

elk hunters were equipped with Global 

Positioning System recorders that 

showed the positions of the hunters 

through readings taken at 15-second 

intervals.

The data showed where and how 

long hunters traveled and, when correlated with other information, provided 

a solid foundation on which a hunter 

density and elk vulnerability model 

could be developed. Lyon and Burcham 

presented the study results in many 

meetings with managers and scientists 

and summarized them in a 1998 

Rocky Mountain Station publication, 

Tracking Elk Hunters with the Global 

Positioning System.

Another result of continued cooperative work was publication by the 

Station in 1993 of Elk Management in 

the Northern Region: Considerations 

in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions. 

In a novel approach to wildlife habitat 

research, Station scientists and cooperators tracked hunters by having the 

hunters carry global-positioning units 

in their backpacks while they stalked 

elk.
–121

Authors were Alan Christensen, 

Region 1 Wildlife Program Leader, 

Lyon, and James Unsworth, Principal 

wildlife Research Biologist for the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. The 

report carefully defined fundamental 

concepts to prevent their misapplication 

in forest plans. Although targeted to 

Region 1, the publication contained 

information useful to big game managers elsewhere (Forestry Research West

April/94).

Lyon’s expert status resulted in an invitation to write, with Rocky Mountain 

Station scientist Lorin Ward, the 

chapter on “Elk and Land Management” 

which was included in Elk of North 

America: Ecology and Management. 

This authoritative text was published 

by The Wildlife Management Institute 

in 1982. So much new information 

was produced by continuing research 

that Lyon and Christensen completely 

revised the chapter for inclusion in 

North American Elk: Ecology and 

Management, published in 2002 by 

The Wildlife Management Institute 

and the Smithsonian Institution as an 

extensively updated version of the 1982 

work.

Lyon was first author among seven 

scientists who produced another important state-of-knowledge publication 

in 1978. Effects of Fire on Fauna was 

issued as a national document by the 

Forest Service. Continuing research 

brought big changes in the knowledge 

recorded, just as it did for the elk ecology and management text. In 2000, the 

Rocky Mountain Station published a 

comprehensive revision, with Lyon as 

senior author of several sections and 

Ecologist Jane Kapler Smith (Fire Lab) 

serving as editor and leading the compilation effort.

In addition to plant succession and 

elk habitat and management research, 

the wildlife habitat project over the 

years was involved, either directly 

or peripherally, in studies of grizzly 

bears, caribou, wolves, and many other 

forest wildlife species. Lyon served 

on the Research Subcommittee of the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 

for several years and was influential in 

coordinating the overall program even 

when funding for this purpose was 

quite limited. Eventually, the wildlife 

unit was able to branch out to include 

small birds and old-growth forests in 

the habitat research program. Wildlife 

Biologist Sally Hejl conducted most of 

the research in this area from 1987 until 

she accepted a teaching position at Texas 

A&M University in 1998.

During Lyon’s 32-year tenure as 

Project Leader, the wildlife habitat unit 

gained a reputation for providing sound 

advice to managers, both general and 

specific. Region 1 in 1990 gave Lyon 

a Regional Forester’s Award for “sustained and consistently superior support 

to elk management on National Forest 

System lands” at a meeting of field wildlife biologists. The Montana Chapter 

of the Wildlife Society presented him 

with its “Distinguished Service Award” 

in 1993. In 1994, Lyon received an 

Honor Award from the Secretary of 

Agriculture.

Lyon decided in 1994 to devote fulltime to personal research and completing 

several manuscripts. He was succeeded 

as Project Leader by Len Ruggiero, who 

transferred from the Rocky Mountain 

Station. Ruggiero was an expert in pine 

marten ecology who brought first-hand 

experience in carnivore habitat research 

to the Missoula unit.

Mr. Plummer’s Opus

Most researchers would consider 

publication of a blockbuster reference 

book the “great work” of a lifetime, 

but for Perry Plummer it was only a 

milestone. Plummer’s true great work 

was a dazzling array of achievements 

as a scientist and research administrator 

during a 42-year career at the Station.

The milestone was Restoring Big 

Game Range in Utah (Plummer and 

others 1968), published by the Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Fish and Game. It was “the 

bible” of range restoration in the Interior 

West for three decades. Like most 

Plummer endeavors, the publication 

involved others. The other authors were 

Division of Fish and Game Biologists 

Don Christensen and Steve Monsen. 

Monsen later joined the Station, and 

was one of a group known to many as 

“Perry’s boys.”

The three were part of an integrated 

Federal and State work group lead by 

Plummer and located at Great Basin 

and Ephraim. As indicated by the title, 

their publication was largely based on 

research in Utah and geared toward 

reclamation in that State, but much of 

the advice was broad enough to be useful elsewhere.

The volume served land managers 

well. Although it had been out of print 

for several years, in 2004 there were still 

many dog-eared copies in offices and 

libraries in Utah and elsewhere around 

the West, according to Durant McArthur, 

another of “Perry’s boys.” McArthur 

also noted the work had been cited many 

times in peer-reviewed literature over 

several decades (foreword, Monsen and 

others 2004).

The partnership also served land 

managers well. Plummer already had enjoyed a full career in plant ecology and 

range improvement when he was asked 

to head cooperative work between the 

Station and Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (DWR) in 1954 (INTercom

Dec./91). The DWR had earlier approached the Station through Plummer 

with a request for assistance in finding 

ways to increase the carrying capacity of 

Utah’s winter ranges.

The “bible” of wildlife range restoration.
122–

The partnership thrived and expanded. And it got results beyond just 

feeding more deer. Utah’s elk herds have 

expanded dramatically in areas where 

the research results have been applied 

to range improvement. Reducing winter 

deer and elk movements onto alfalfa 

fields and to haystacks has reduced 

conflicts with private landowners. Deer 

mortality on highways has been reduced 

where deer once crossed at night to 

invade farms and ranches.

Plummer initiated studies of planting 

methods and equipment, as well as plant 

materials for range improvement. The 

team tested chaining, cabling, burning, 

disking, and pipe harrowing to find 

the best site-preparation techniques. 

Chaining has often been controversial on 

public lands, but Richard Stevens, one 

of the primary DWR teammates, said 

that environmental groups have never 

opposed wildlife habitat improvement 

projects that followed team guidelines 

(INTercom Dec./91).

Plummer is said to have had a favorite comment regarding research results: 

“If you can’t see it, it’s not there.” The 

cooperative work provided plenty to see. 

In the first 20 years, successful restoration programs had been completed on 

more than 120,000 acres within Utah. 

An important feature of the project was 

the unusually early use of results of the 

research. Treatments developed by the 

project were so successful that other 

public land managing agencies in Utah 

and neighboring States quickly adopted 

them or used them with only minor 

changes. DWR reports showed performance ratings completed for more than 

300 species of shrubs, forbs, and grasses 

after initial tests of more than 3,000 

species and variants (Keck 1972). The 

numbers of acres improved and plants 

screened mushroomed as the partnership 

endured and the years went by.

Plummer started his career with 

the Station in 1936 as a junior range 

examiner. He became Director of the 

Great Basin Station and later Project 

Leader for the shrub improvement 

and revegetation unit, which became 

the core of range restoration research. 

Plummer was a genial, soft-spoken 

man, and almost everyone knew him 

as “Perry.” Almost everyone. Plant 

Geneticist Durant McArthur, who 

considered Plummer his mentor, called 

him “Mr. Plummer.”

McArthur studied at the University 

of Leeds in England shortly before 

starting work at the Station. His supervisor there was a “Reader” who was 

addressed as “Mr.” as a sign of respect 

for a distinguished educator. “I always 

called Perry ‘Mr. Plummer’ because he 

deserved equal respect,” McArthur said 

(McArthur 1991).

McArthur believed Plummer’s finest 

work was as a teacher, showing others 

how to see everything in a given ecosystem and appreciate how the elements 

worked together. He was especially 

effective with individuals and small 

groups, but also established a wildland 

shrub biology class at Brigham Young 

University after the Shrub Lab started 

operations on the edge of the campus in 

1975 (McArthur 1992).

Plummer was a doer. He didn’t just 

ask his subordinates to get something 

done. He did it with them. McArthur 

said, “As a new Ph.D. I didn’t expect 

to be on the business end of a hoe, but 

then I didn’t expect my boss to be in that 

situation either.” Plummer was known 

to show up anywhere a work crew was 

located and pitch in to help with vigor 

and energy. He expected anyone working to do the same. McArthur recalled 

that Plummer often appeared at work 

sites at 11:30 or 4:30, oblivious to the 

impending lunch hour or quitting time.

In 1977, Plummer suffered a heart 

attack while on a plant-collecting trip in 

the Soviet Union. His legendary vigor 

was reflected in a letter from a hospital 

in the northern Caucasus Mountain area. 

“It was probably a mistake letting them 

put me here—I don’t think I was that 

bad off. The doctors here are extremely 

cautious. They say I move too fast and 

must slow down” (INTercom 9/1/77). 

Plummer was out of the hospital, back 

home, and back at work in just a few 

weeks.

Some exceptional thinkers are 

known to be absent minded on occasion. 

Station and DWR researchers led by 

Perry Plummer evaluated equipment 

such as the “Australian stump-jump 

plow” for preparing seedbeds on 

depleted rangelands. The plow’s disks 

could jump up to allow rocks and debris to pass underneath.

Perry Plummer (foreground) grabbed 

a shovel and helped technician Paul 

Hansen clear out a sediment tank after 

heavy summer storms at Great Basin 

(about 1940).

Perry Plummer in his office about 1975. 

He had no trouble finding the right 

document from the many surrounding 

him.
–123

Plummer remembered everything. 

Dave Prevedel, range conservationist 

for the Ferron Ranger District of the 

Manti-LaSal National Forest at the time, 

was amazed when he visited Plummer’s 

office in Ephraim in 1973. Prevedel said 

papers and books were piled from floor 

to ceiling, and Plummer occupied only 

a small u-shaped area in the middle of 

the clutter. “But when I would ask him 

a question,” Prevedel said, “he wheeled 

around in his swivel chair and grabbed 

the right document out of those piles 

to support his answer. He knew exactly 

where everything was” (Prevedel interview, 2005).

McArthur (1991) said Plummer had a 

prodigious memory. He could remember 

who, what, when, and why from years 

earlier. For example, he could recall a 

particular day, say June 24, 1957, and 

tell you where he was, who he was with, 

what they were doing, which plants were 

present, and other details.

Most people who labor in botany or 

associated fields would be delighted to 

have a plant named for them during their 

lifetime. Plummer had two.

‘Appar’ Lewis flax was the first of 

several plant releases made through a 

cooperative program of the Station, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, the Soil 

Conservation Service, and several State 

universities. The “App” in Appar stands 

for Plummer’s initials. Seeds of the 

flax became commercially available in 

1980. Grayia brandegei ssp. plummeri, 

a variety of spineless hopsage, was 

named for its discoverer—Mr. Plummer. 

McArthur (1991) observed that the two 

plants reflect the breadth of Plummer’s 

work in both pure and applied science. 

The flax is a showy cultivar discovered 

and tested by Plummer that had practical 

use in range rehabilitation and even 

gardening. The hopsage variety turned 

out to be new to science. Its practical use 

remained to be discovered.

Plummer wrote more than 80 

scientific publications in his career. He 

was a charter member of the Society for 

Range Management; served a term as 

president of the Utah Section, received 

the society’s Outstanding Achievement 

Award (1974) and the premier Frederic 

G. Renner Award (1976), and was 

named an SRM Fellow in 1977. In 1965, 

the Utah Wildlife Federation honored 

him as Conservationist of the Year. The 

Utah Chapter of the Soil Conservation 

Society of America gave him its 

Recognition Award in 1973. Plummer 

received a USDA Superior Service 

Award in 1969. Somehow, Plummer also 

found time to devote years of service to 

the Ephraim Library Board and the Utah 

Historical Society.

McArthur ended one of the two 

tributes he wrote after Plummer died in 

1991 at age 80 with this statement: “A. 

Perry Plummer was a giant among men. 

Speaking for the many scientists who 

consider ourselves as Perry’s boys, we 

are proud of our ties to him.”

Fire Danger Rating Goes 

National

A major milestone in fire research 

was reached when Harry Gisborne put 

together his first trial fire danger meter 

in the winter of 1931-32 (Wellner 1976). 

Gisborne’s first 10 years of research 

culminated in the meter. His work had 

included various fuel moisture studies, 

weather and lightning storm analyses, 

and determination of the key factors 

included in fire danger (Hardy 1977).

Gisborne’s fire danger rating system 

gained in sophistication and use in 

Region 1 for many years, but suffered 

general deterioration during World War 

II. Some fire-weather stations were no 

longer manned, instruments were not 

performing accurately, and weather 

observers were careless, or more often 

ignorant, about the proper way to measure and record events (Hardy 1977). At 

the urging of Gisborne, Region 1 Fire 

Control set up a program in 1947 to join 

with Gisborne and Jack Barrows in a 

concerted effort to upgrade the entire 

system. The U.S. Weather Bureau also 

was involved in the quest for increased 

accuracy.

In 1951, C. E. (Mike) Hardy, a 

forester with the Kaniksu National 

Forest, was assigned to spend a major 

part of his time coordinating the system 

upgrading. His work was supported 

jointly by Region 1 and the Station. 

Hardy spent most of the next 22 years 

of his career refining the system that 

Gisborne had inspired. The first major 

developmental stage that evolved was 

named the Intermountain Fire Danger 

Rating System. In 1952, it was rebuilt to 

incorporate cumulative effects as well 

as immediate effects of weather and 

interpret them for specific times, places, 

and fuels. By 1958, the Intermountain 

system included 303 fire weather 

reporting stations in Montana, Idaho, 

Nevada, Utah, northeastern Washington, 

and western Wyoming. Nine other local 

systems existed in the U.S. (Hardy and 

Brackebusch 1959).

The Forest Service’s Division of Fire 

Research began a development program 

to produce a single fire danger rating 

system that could be used by all fire 

managers in the U.S. The work was 

enthusiastically promoted by Jack 

Barrows while he was Chief of the 

Fire Lab. By 1965, most State and 

Federal fire management agencies 

were using the first new index—the 

spread index—in some form. A second 

research program started in 1968 at the 

Rocky Mountain Station, using the wind 

tunnels at the Fire Lab in Missoula. 

The goal was to produce a complete 

system that would include probability 

of ignition, evaluations of risk, rate of 

Tommie Thompson, Superintendent 

of the Priest River Experimental Forest, 

1928-37, is shown computing fire danger in 1935. Harry Gisborne created the 

first Fire Danger Meter 3 years earlier.
124–

spread, and rate of energy release (Noble 

1978b).

Using Rothermel’s fire spread model 

as a basis (see “Rothermel Had the 

Right Formula,” this chapter), the first 

National Fire Danger Rating System 

(NFDRS) was released in 1972. Five 

years later the NFDRS was being used 

by all Federal agencies and 38 State 

agencies charged with forest and rangeland fire protection.

Research continued to generate new 

knowledge of combustion physics, 

characteristics of fuels, and factors that 

influenced the occurrence of wildfires. 

Two years after the first NFDRS 

was released, the Forest Service and 

cooperators started a new program to 

update the system. The cooperative 

program channeled information from 

the Rocky Mountain and North Central 

Stations to the Intermountain Station’s 

NFDRS research unit at the Fire Lab. 

Project Leader John Deeming said the 

updated system released in 1978 could 

not have been developed by a single 

research group. In addition to the Rocky 

Mountain and North Central contributions, other Intermountain Station 

research units took part.

NFDRS changes were significant. 

Fuel models were increased from nine 

to 20. Effects of droughts were included 

for the first time, as were changes in 

daylight hours with the seasons. The 

accuracy of lightning fire predictions 

was greatly increased by including a 

new statistic. Users were better able to 

make adjustments based on local fuel 

and climate considerations. Deeming, 

Bob Burgan, and Jack Cohen authored 

Station publications containing basic 

instructions for applying and interpreting the system, one set for users of a 

newly developed computer program and 

one for those who used manual methods. 

Eleven regional teams including personnel from Federal and State agencies 

conducted training on use of the new 

system (Noble 1978b).

In the first summer of use, data from 

1,050 fire weather stations and 35 fire 

weather forecast offices throughout the 

Country were processed through the 

new computer system. More than 500 

additional data sets were processed 

manually. Despite the progress, the 

NFDRS was not working well in the 

eastern States. Burgan was reassigned 

to the Macon Lab in 1989 for a 2-year 

period to fix the problems. He did, and 

that earned him an Outstanding Service 

in Fire Management Award from the 

National Association of State Foresters 

and the Forest Service (INTercom

June/91). Deeming had earned the same 

award in 1978. Burgan, Deeming, and 

Cohen received cash bonuses from the 

Station for their work. Burgan returned 

to the Fire Lab in 1991 to work on 

another NFDRS improvement—using 

imagery from satellites circling the 

globe.

In the mid-1990s, the fire behavior 

unit at the Fire Lab was busy developing 

the next generation fire danger rating 

system. Combined with fire behavior 

forecasts, it was called the Wildland Fire 

Assessment System. The system was 

intended to use new technology and research results—satellite data, advanced 

weather modeling, and new fire models. 

The first phase of the project built on the 

existing fire danger system by adding 

multicolored maps of fire danger across 

the U.S. The maps depicted windspeed, 

temperature, precipitation, relative 

humidity, fire potential, a drought 

index, moisture content of large fuels, 

and an atmospheric stability index 

(Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations 1995).

Fire danger rating had progressed to 

the point where it was useful in many 

decisions made by fire managers. It was 

used to determine levels of preparedness before fire seasons started, where 

to locate suppression personnel and 

equipment, and which fire detection 

strategies to use. As a fire suppression 

tool, it guided selection of initial attack 

strategies. It became a factor in issuing 

public fire warnings, regulating public 

and industrial activities when fire danger 

is high, closing areas when necessary, 

and deciding when to field patrolmen to 

emphasize fire prevention.

Fire danger rating, although 

subject to constant improvement, had 

approached a level of sophistication 

beyond Harry Gisborne’s greatest hopes.

Thunder Joins Lightning 

at the Fire Lab

Although Project Skyfire came to 

an end as a special program in the late 

1960s, research on the characteristics of 

lightning and its relationship to wildfires 

continued at the Fire Lab throughout the 

rest of Intermountain Station history. 

Climatology, or weather science, was 

an integral partner of fire science and 

forestry and range science, as pioneer 

Station researchers recognized when 

they set up weather recording stations 

in the very first days of development of 

experimental areas at Priest River and 

Great Basin.

Project Leader Don Fuquay’s personal research emphasized atmospheric 

physics and electricity as it related to 

lightning and its ignition potential. He 

designed and built innovative scientific 

instruments and equipment, including 

special generators for cloud seeding 

experiments and systems for measuring 

lightning. Fuquay also did considerable research on electronics, and was 

a pioneer in the use of radar gear for 

detecting, tracking, and measuring 

lightning in storms. His work in this 

field was a major factor influencing 

construction of the first mountaintop 

radar in the Nation by the U.S. Weather 

Bureau (INTercom 9/23/76).

In 1967, Fuquay received the Society 

of American Foresters’ Barrington 

Moore Memorial Award for outstanding 

achievement in research contributing to 

Research Forester Bob Burgan with 

maps produced from satellite data that 

were used in improving the National 

Fire Danger Rating system.
–125

the advancement of forestry. He received 

a scientific achievement award in 1971 

from the International Union of Forestry 

Research Organizations.

Soon after Fuquay came to the fire 

research staff in 1958 he was joined 

by Meteorologist Bob Baughman, 

who had been with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers in Alaska. In 1976, 

Meteorologist/Physicist Don Latham 

joined the project. Latham had been 

teaching and doing research on atmospheric electricity at the University of 

Miami after earning advanced degrees 

in earth science at the New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and Technology.

The trio collaborated on a publication 

in 1979 that consolidated years of basic 

research results. A Model for Predicting 

Lightning-Fire Ignition in Wildland 

Fuels, issued by the Station, presented 

methods to correlate cloud and storm 

development with the expected amount 

of cloud-to-ground lightning. The model 

was based on a concept outlined by 

Fuquay several years earlier. Fuquay 

followed up with a publication providing 

guidelines for forecasting the number 

of lightning-fire ignitions under various 

weather conditions. Both 

products were incorporated 

into a major revision of 

the National Fire Danger 

Rating System. The scientists recognized that much 

remained to be done.

In the rugged terrain of 

the Inland West, locating 

the many summer lightning 

strikes and determining 

which resulting fires 

required control remained 

a difficult problem. 

Lookouts, pilots, and infrared techniques combined 

were less than perfect at 

doing the job. The Bureau 

of Land Management 

started using a system in 

1976 that offered promise 

for improving the situation 

and reducing costs. The 

system was made possible 

by a device that located 

lightning strokes. Latham 

reported on the system, 

first used in Alaska and 

then in the Great Basin, in 

a Station publication, Progress Toward

Locating Lightning Fires, issued in 

1979. He included detailed comments 

on what was needed to refine the 

system.

During the next 4 years, Latham and 

associates at the Fire Lab filled a big gap 

by developing computer programs and 

documentation reported in the Station 

publication, LLAFFS—A LightningLocating and Fire-Forecasting System, 

which Latham wrote. The system 

provided the means to more accurately 

locate probable fires and included a 

simple way to store data and transmit it 

to managers.

In another significant climatology 

development at the Fire Lab, Computer 

Specialist Cam Johnston recognized 

the usefulness of Remote Automatic 

Weather Station (RAWS) technology 

and developed a system to fit fire management needs. RAWS stations were 

portable, solar-powered, and needed 

no human attention for up to 6 months. 

Thus, they were ideal for recording and 

transmitting weather data from areas 

where access was difficult and no power 

lines existed.

RAWS stations beamed messages to 

satellites, which in turn could transmit 

information to personnel in fire “nerve 

centers” to keep them informed about 

temperatures, winds, precipitation, 

humidity and other factors at the remote 

site. RAWS data were especially useful 

initially in planning controlled burns, 

but during a Montana fire emergency 

personnel from the Station’s fire behavior unit and others used the system to 

supply fire bosses in the field with instant data about the wildfires they were 

working to control (INTercom 11/1/84).

The first Forest Service research 

into RAWS capabilities began in 1975. 

The Bureau of Land Management soon 

joined the research and development 

program. The first 10 RAWS stations 

were purchased and deployed in 1977.

The RAWS network evolved into 

a valuable interagency resource. By 

2002, all fire weather forecasters and fire 

managers in the 50 States were using 

the system to acquire essential weather 

data for use in the National Fire Danger 

Rating System, to predict behavior of 

Lightning causes most wildfires in the West, and its 

complexities were the subject of studies by Station 

scientists throughout the organization’s history.

Station researchers did early work 

in developing Remote Area Weather 

Stations that could feed climate data 

from remote locations via satellite to 

fire planning and management personnel.
126–

ongoing fires, and to plan the use of fire. 

There were 1,900 RAWS stations in operation. The list of participating wildfire 

management agencies had expanded to 

include the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and State 

agencies. Personnel in the Department 

of Defense and Department of Energy 

used RAWS in their work (Zachariassen 

and others 2003).

Latham was best known for his 

research on lightning ignitions. He also 

became a leader in the Forest Service 

in bringing “artificial intelligence” 

techniques to bear on natural resource 

problems. Latham’s ignition studies 

involved simulating lightning in the 

laboratory with an electric arc. A series 

of 40 large truck batteries were needed 

to provide power for the experiments. 

The system was designed by Latham to 

be driven by fiber optics and pneumatics, so the arc circuitry would not be 

dangerous to operators or spectators. 

It took 4 years to design and build the 

equipment. Technician Paul Sopko had 

the job of zapping a variety of fuels with 

simulated lightning bolts, at the rate of 

15 to 20 simulations per day. The study 

lasted a year. “If someone asks what I do 

for a living, I just say I make lightning,” 

Sopko said (INTercom 5/13/87).

Latham studied lightning for a 

living, and he introduced a new twist 

to the research by determining how 

large wildfires created thunderclouds 

and lightning. In 1992, New Mexico’s 

Langmuir Laboratory for Atmospheric 

Research gave him its annual award for 

research excellence for this work.

The thunder of giant airtankers taking 

off from western bases to drop retardant 

on hotspots or in front of advancing 

wildfires became a normal part of fire 

control efforts by the 1970s. Research 

by Fire Lab scientists in the suppression 

unit was an important part of making 

this form of aerial attack efficient and 

effective.

Early work at Missoula supported research at the Forest Service’s Riverside 

Lab in California, where studies of retardant delivery were centered. Missoula 

Lab tests involved chemical analysis 

of properties of various retardants and 

controlled experiments to determine 

effectiveness of the formulations in 

extinguishing fire or preventing ignition 

in common fuels.

By 1970, the entire Forest Service fire 

research program had become more sophisticated, and this maturity coincided 

with a bad fire year and a period of slack 

time for the aerospace industry’s military programs in California. President 

Richard Nixon, a native Californian, 

wanted to get military technology into 

use in civilian programs. So the Forest 

Service was ready and willing when The 

Aerospace Corporation in California 

proposed industry-government cooperation to develop a command and control 

system for deploying equipment on 

forest fires, using helicopters with 

night-vision equipment and high-altitude 

drops of fire retardant.

The result of this coming together 

of circumstances was the FIRESCOPE 

Program, developed by the Pacific 

Southwest Station. The Intermountain 

Station fire suppression unit, led by 

Project Leader Chuck George, became 

heavily involved in several aspects of 

FIRESCOPE. Retardant research had 

been moved in 1965 from Riverside to 

the Missoula Fire Lab (George interview, 1993).

The Fire Lab retardant work was 

organized into five study areas: formulation effectiveness, physical properties, 

corrosion effects on containers, delivery 

systems, and environmental impact. 

Numerous interrelated studies were 

conducted by other Forest Service 

scientists, private sector contractors, 

and State and Federal fire management 

agencies (Forestry Research West

Oct./76).

One of the most valuable research 

tools was a computer model designed 

by Honeywell, Inc. to meet Forest 

Service needs. The model was used 

to assess the fire control value of 

retardants in relation to various 

characteristics, such as droplet size, 

film thickness, salt content, concentration, and application amounts. The 

model was expanded to include ways to 

evaluate the “extinguish” and “retard” 

functions of retardant mixtures, and to 

relate them to delivery methods.

Assessing delivery systems was 

a major Station effort. An early test 

was made at Porterville, California, 

in 1970 using a modified Navy TBM 

torpedo-bomber. A large-scale test was 

made in 1975 at Chico, California. Both 

tests were made in cooperation with the 

California Department of Forestry. The 

field work at Chico tested an experimental aircraft tank and release system. 

The 2,000-gallon tank was instrumented 

to permit controlled experiments on 

the release of retardants and to note 

Don Latham (also known at the Fire 

Lab as “The Wizard”) explained how to 

put thunder and lightning into a mathematical model.

Fire Lab researchers studied the efficiency of various aircraft and the effects 

of different types of retardants and 

delivery systems in retardant drop tests, 

such as this one in 1983.
–127

changes that took place in the chemicals 

and their dispersion during drops. The 

scientists were able to regulate the size 

and duration of drop gate openings, the 

tank pressure, and the kinds of material 

drawn from any of the tank’s nine compartments. All were factors affecting the 

physical characteristics of the retardants 

upon release.

Aircraft drop heights and speeds, 

retardant paths, and retardant breakup 

were determined from photos taken with 

high-speed cameras. A ground crew collected retardant samples reaching some 

2,000 cups placed throughout the drop 

zone to measure retardant distribution 

and concentration.

Experience indicated that the 

environmental effects of fire retardants 

mainly concerned water quality, and 

thus fish and other aquatic life. A Station 

publication described a system for 

computing quick, general estimates of 

potential fish kills if retardants were 

released into streams during firefighting 

operations. The system gave managers 

a way to decide, before ordering a retardant drop, whether or not the immediate 

fire control need was great enough to 

warrant possible fish losses (Forestry 

Research West Oct./76).

In 1976, the scientists made their 

first venture into providing user guides 

for tanker aircraft when the Station 

issued Air Tanker Performance Guides: 

General Instruction Manual. It was 

written by two Honeywell employees 

and George. The suppression project 

made many refinements as research 

progressed, and by 1986 George and 

his associates had developed detailed 

guides for every aircraft used for 

retardant drops. George documented 

the work and provided a framework 

for future guide development in 1990 

when he authored a Station publication, 

Developing Air Tanker Performance 

Guidelines.

The guides contained a large amount 

of information. They included (1) brief 

descriptions of the aircraft, its retardant 

tank, and gating system; (2) recommended coverage levels for each of the 

National Fire Danger Rating System 

fuel models (there were 21 models at the 

time), charts showing retardant patterns 

for various types of drops and retardants 

and instructions on how to interpret 

them; (3) “best strategies” to use for specific coverages and line lengths; and (4) 

detailed tables of data used to develop 

the strategies. The researchers simplified 

use of the guidelines for tanker pilots 

and equipment operators by inventing 

a device that worked much like a traditional slide rule. The instructions for 

using a “retardant coverage computer” 

consisted of a single sentence.

In the mid-1980s, the research focus 

shifted to ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of retardant use. The stakes 

were high. Fire management agencies 

in the U.S. —the Forest Service, Bureau 

of Land Management, and California 

Department of Forestry were the largest—were using 20 to 25 million gallons 

of retardant annually. Costs for retardant 

alone were more than $15 million in a 

typical year. Considering delivery and 

base operations, annual costs ranged 

from $40 to $50 million (Prouty 1985).

The Station, National Forest System, 

and California Department of Forestry 

started a cooperative effort to improve 

cost effectiveness. It was dubbed the 

Operational Retardant Evaluation Study 

(ORE). At the same time, Forest Service 

Aviation and Fire Management set up 

a national committee (George was one 

of seven members) to determine which 

fire retardant chemical provided the best 

performance in relation to cost at every 

retardant base in the U.S.

ORE was an ambitious, long-term 

enterprise to collect enough data to 

Hundreds of cups collected fire retardant from test drops to provide data on coverage patterns and concentrations of the liquid in various parts of the drop area.

Chuck George prepared test materials 

in 1966 for research at the Fire Lab that 

screened and evaluated fire retardants.

Retardant coverage computers developed by fire suppression scientists 

allowed pilots and retardant system operators to quickly determine optimum 

release strategies for individual aircraft 

and fires.
128–

reconstruct the fire suppression history 

of particular fires and then provide very 

specific information on retardant effectiveness. An observer plane recorded 

the fire with both a color video camera 

and an infrared video system. A ground 

team, shuttled by helicopter into areas 

where retardant was recently applied, 

inventoried forest fuels, collected information on the amount and effectiveness 

of retardant, and recorded fire behavior. 

Air tanker crews allowed ORE team 

members to record plane speed and 

altitude when retardant was dropped, 

plus the amount, rate, and pattern of 

the retardant released. Recordings were 

made of all radio communications during suppression efforts.

As a byproduct, the research generated enthusiasm among fire managers 

to adopt infrared imagery, a product of 

other Fire Lab research, as a tool. With 

it, the scientists could “see” through 

dense smoke. They relayed the information to the managers, who were greatly 

impressed with the results.

On one occasion, by having cameras 

in the right place at the right time, the 

ORE team provided a service to 

firefighters in another way. The team 

had just arrived at a northern California 

fire when a fire burst forced a crew of 

firefighters to get under their shelters 

to escape the flames. The ORE video 

cameras captured the episode on film. 

The rare and dramatic footage was 

invaluable to investigators sent to study 

the situation. The film also was used in 

firefighter training (INTercom 9/17/87).

The ORE study started or inspired 

research in new areas. One was the 

pros and cons of using foam retardants 

rather than liquid chemicals. Another 

was using helicopters to deliver 

retardants. The Station’s suppression 

unit devoted several years of research, 

much by Chemist Cecilia Johnson, to 

evaluating the effectiveness of foams. 

Field trials were conducted through 

the ORE program. In 1992, the unit 

hosted a Helicopter Delivery Systems 

Performance Workshop, the first time 

that people representing all facets of 

Direct Suppression

Station scientists responsible for fire retardant research were in demand as consultants 

in many countries. In one case, Chuck George and Dave Blakely got a “too close for 

comfort” look at Australian wildfire.

George and Blakely were in Australia in 1983 as part of a special project to evaluate 

the effectiveness of large airtankers and compare their cost with that of conventional 

fire suppression methods. Aussie Fire Scientist Dave Packham invited the pair to dinner 

at his home in the brush-covered mountains near Melbourne. That afternoon, the main 

run of a wildfire enveloped the mud-brick house in flames. The heat was so intense that 

the beams in the ceiling caught fire. George, Blakely, and Packham and his wife spent 

the rest of the day fighting the fire to save the house from destruction.

Inspecting the damaged beams later, George equated the fire effects with those 

produced by atomic radiation. “You couldn’t get a hotter area than we experienced 

there,” he said (INTercom 5/12/83).

helicopter application of fire retardants 

had been together. Fifty helicopter 

manufacturers and operators, bucket and 

tank manufacturers, agency helicopter 

specialists, chemical suppliers, and fire 

managers from throughout the U.S. and 

Canada attended (INTercom May/92).

Also in 1992, the Chief of the Forest 

Service honored the entire suppression 

unit for achievements in “transfer of 

guides and specifications for using fire 

retardants to suppress wildfires.” In a 

letter, the Chief said members of the 

unit were an example of the kind of 

performance and leadership in technology transfer that he would like to see 

throughout the Forest Service.
–129

As Deputy Chief for Research, Vern Harper had developed an organization built around single-discipline 

research work units. Silviculturists were 

in one unit, hydrologists in another, and 

engineers in another, although all could 

be housed in the same laboratory.

Along with the change to research 

work units, Division Chief jobs were 

abolished and Assistant Station Director 

slots were established. Initially, the former Division Chiefs filled the Assistant 

Director positions. The Division 

Chiefs had been technically oriented, 

with personal research backgrounds 

in the subject matter of the area they 

supervised. The Assistant Directors 

supervised all research units in a geographic area. It was impossible for them 

to be technically competent in all the 

disciplines represented. Thus, top-level 

supervision became more general and 

the Project Leaders assumed the technical expert role.

Al Stage (interview, 2005) observed 

the changes during his 44-year career at 

the Moscow lab. He said that once none 

of the former Division Chiefs remained 

as Assistant Directors the approach had 

changed from organized, long-term 

research to a “self aggrandizement” 

situation in which Project Leaders 

could decide what the research program 

would be and channel studies to make 

individual scientists in the unit look 

good. During this era of transition, an 

individual scientist’s research program 

shifted from studies that were mainly 

assigned by supervisors to personal 

research that was mainly suggested by 

scientists as being high priority.

According to Chuck Wellner, Harper 

wanted the disciplinary problem 

orientation because the Washington 

Office had lost control of the budget 

process. Stations in the South and East 

had more political clout than those in 

the West because their States had larger 

Congressional delegations and more 

Congressmen in senior positions. The 

southern and eastern Station Directors 

were going outside the Forest Service 

and administration’s budget process, 

lobbying Congress directly or indirectly 

to build research programs. The western 

Station Directors weren’t averse to 

following the same practices, but their 

Congressional delegations were much 

fewer in number and didn’t have as 

much political clout.

At a 1971 inspection with Wellner 

in charge, the Station proposed an organization in which all disciplines would 

attack problems in a multidisciplinary 

approach. George Jemison, who had 

succeeded Harper, wouldn’t let Wellner 

make a presentation to the Washington 

Office research staffs on the proposed 

change. Instead, Wellner reported that 

Jemison said the Washington Office 

was going to tell the Stations how to 

organize to “save” research.

Wellner was disappointed, but far 

from defeated. Failing to get his ideas 

considered at the national level, he 

merely went ahead to establish “ecosystem management research” on a smaller 

scale at the Station—20 years before 

the Forest Service decided it was a great 

idea!

Chuck Wellner—Forest 

Science Visionary

Chuck Wellner was a far-sighted 

champion of high-quality forestry for 

more than 60 years. Over much of that 

time, he was many years ahead of most 

of his colleagues in forest science.

Wellner started his career as a 

member of a silvicultural field crew 

at Priest River in 1932. A graduate 

of the University of Idaho, he earned 

a M.S. degree in forestry at Yale 

University in 1938, Magna Cum Laude. 

Following 13 years of distinguished 

C h a p t e r 11.

New Approaches, 1971-1990

Chuck Wellner taking measurements 

in seedling survival 

studies at Priest River 

in 1932.
130–

silvicultural research with the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station, interrupted by 

2 years in the U.S. Navy, he became an 

administrator.

From its inception in 1948 until 

1958, Wellner was leader of the Inland 

Empire Research Center in Spokane. 

He then was Division Chief for Timber 

Management and Forest Disease 

Research at the Intermountain Station. 

In 1965 he became Assistant Station 

Director for research programs in the 

northern part of Station territory.

Wellner left his Assistant Director 

post in 1972 to create and coordinate a 

forest ecosystems research program for 

the Station at the Moscow lab. He retired in 1973, but worked for the next 25 

years virtually full-time as a volunteer 

with the Station and at the University 

of Idaho, where he was an Affiliate 

Professor of Forest Resources. Wellner 

was author or coauthor of some 60 

scientific publications, most concerning 

silviculture, protection, and management 

of Northern Rocky Mountain forests.

Wellner made the ecosystem program 

at Moscow a practical demonstration 

of his vision of how Forest Service 

research should be conducted. It 

was the Station’s first multi-project 

program (INTercom 5/12/77). Wellner 

established the research unit concerned 

with silviculture of cedar-hemlockgrand fir forests of the Northern Rocky 

Mountains as the program’s core unit. 

The silviculture unit’s mission included 

methods to inventory forest land and 

timber resources. Its members also 

sought better ways to measure, predict, 

and interpret effects of management 

practices on forest stands, and to apply 

the information to forest management 

planning.

The program combined efforts 

in forest insect, disease, watershed 

management, and genetic improvement 

as they applied to intensive management 

of the ecosystem. This meant active 

participation by five different research 

work units. Adding another dimension, 

the silviculture unit was one of the first 

in Forest Service Timber Management 

Research to fund studies of forest esthetics (Stage interview).

There was considerable participation 

by forest managers. Wellner had a pet 

saying about research results: “If it’s 

not already in practice because of your 

personal interaction with managers, 

it probably is not worth publishing” 

(Stage, interview). Wellner saw publications as documentation of something 

that already was tested and working.

When Wellner retired, Al Stage 

assumed responsibility for the program. 

It ran for 5 more years, until its charter 

expired and Station management chose 

not to renew it during a reorganization. 

However, the inter-unit cooperation 

at Moscow continued for many years. 

Years later, Stage said, “We came 

through with a product at exactly the 

time it was needed, something that 

doesn’t always happen in research. The 

reason that happened was what Chuck 

Wellner started—the multi-project 

program.” (Stage 2003).

Many of the program concepts, 

including the “core unit” idea, were 

included in the Forest Residues R&D 

program launched at the Station in 

1974 (see “Special Programs Bring 

Special Problems and Achievements,” 

this chapter). Wellner’s influence was 

important there, and also in subsequent 

R&D and RD&A programs in other 

areas of the Station. He also influenced 

the individual research units at Moscow, 

particularly the pathology unit, to move 

away from studies in narrow areas, such 

as individual diseases, to considering 

ecological problems.

Was Wellner’s program truly far 

ahead of its time? Two decades later, 

in the 1990s, the Forest Service started 

a national effort to promote a strategic 

planning process at each Station to 

emphasize multi-disciplinary research 

along with the more traditional “functional” research (Hamre 2005). The 

planning resulted in building research 

work units with interdisciplinary teams 

of scientists focusing on multifaceted 

problems facing resource managers. 

Each Station also established “ecosystem management” research specific to 

areas.

Rocky Mountain Station Director 

Denver Burns listed three advantages:

Synergy of scientists from different 

disciplines, universities, and 

management attacking complex 

issues, rather than individuals 

looking at pieces of problems.

•

Larger units with fewer Project 

Leaders, producing savings 

in paperwork and travel.

Limited funding and personnel 

focused more on problems of public 

resource management, and less on 

personal disciplinary interests.

“Ecosystem research” in 1994 

sounded a whole lot like what Chuck 

Wellner tried to present to Forest Service 

leadership in 1971. And it sounded very 

much like what he demonstrated to be 

effective at Moscow, starting in 1972. 

Ecosystem research was one of several 

areas in which he proved to be visionary.

Wellner was among the first to see 

that greater losses were being caused by 

forest insects and diseases than by fire. 

He also recognized that these problems 

were far from being adequately studied. 

In 1939, he helped initiate cooperative 

research with the University of Idaho 

on white pine blister rust, years before a 

campaign to curtail blister rust became a 

national priority. Wellner was the prime 

organizer of many programs that interlocked Federal, State, university, and 

industry efforts on forest pest problems 

(Lassen, personal communication).

Wellner was the first to recognize the 

value of Rexford Daubenmire’s habitat 

typing classification system as a basis 

for forest management prescriptions 

(Stage, personal communication). 

He was an enthusiastic supporter of 

habitat typing research throughout the 

inland West, and it became one of the 

Intermountain Station’s finest achievements (see next section).

Research supported by Wellner got 

done. He was a quiet, likeable gentleman, but he was persistent in pursuing 

his goals. Scientists who worked under 

his direction were motivated by the 

example he set and his insightful way 

of dealing with them. Wellner had 

tremendous dedication to quality work 

in every detail. Al Stage learned about 

that early in their relationship when they 

shared a room on a business trip. He 

said Wellner was up at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m., 

reviewing manuscripts, reading study 

plans and memos, and making notes. He 

was taking care of all the details before 

the main business of the day got started. 

Stage said one of Wellner’s other virtues 

as Division Chief and Assistant Director 

•

•
–131

was that he “took care of all the junk” 

that came down from higher levels, 

allowing the scientists to concentrate 

on their work. “We never saw it,” Stage 

said. “ADs who followed him passed a 

lot of it along to us.”

Wellner consistently and effectively 

provided training for scientists and others on project staffs under his direction, 

which greatly enhanced the effectiveness of the people (Pechanec, personal 

communication). He fostered creativity by allowing scientists to spend 20 

percent of their time studying things of 

particular interest to them. Entomologist 

Mal Furniss said this policy helped him 

get involved in applying knowledge of 

insects to research on shrubs (Furniss, 

personal communication). Furniss 

said he stretched the 20 percent limit 

occasionally, but nobody seemed to 

mind as long as the assigned work was 

accomplished.

Often recognized by his peers as a 

“forester’s forester,” Wellner carried his 

interest in advanced training into the 

formal education system. He worked 

with several professors at the University 

of Idaho to establish the Continuing 

Education in Forest Ecology and 

Silviculture program. Wellner served on 

numerous graduate committees and led 

instructional programs for silviculture 

students from across the Country 

(McMurray 2004).

The quiet little man could get excited, 

especially when the topic was one of 

his favorites. Long after Wellner retired, 

Station Director Lassen recalls visiting 

him in his home (Lassen interview, 

2005). After Wellner made breakfast, 

they set off on a trail leading to a potential Research Natural Area. Wellner 

thought the area had special importance 

because it represented an ecosystem 

where a benchmark was needed to help 

settle a forest management controversy. 

After they viewed the area, Wellner 

walked backwards down the trail, 

waving his arms all the way, while he 

lectured the Station Director on the 

importance of Research Natural Areas in 

general, and the one they had just seen 

in particular.

Wellner’s interest in establishing 

Research Natural Areas started early in 

his career. He contributed information 

in 1935 to the first RNA proposal in 

Region 1—Tepee Creek on Priest Lake. 

In 1937 he prepared establishment 

reports for the next three. The early 

work kindled a life-long passion for 

guaranteeing that pieces of land exist 

where researchers, natural resource 

managers, and students can examine untouched specimens of the ecosystem and 

compare them to areas that were similar 

before human activities intervened 

(Stolz 1986).

Through the years, the Forest Service 

established a few Research Natural 

Areas, the Bureau of Land Management 

recommended others, and the Nature 

Conservancy set aside several nature 

preserves. Despite Wellner’s prodding, 

the efforts were sporadic and seldom 

were people made available to do the 

work. When Wellner retired in 1973 

he realized that many prime ecosystem 

examples would be lost unless RNA 

designations were speeded up, and he 

started a crusade to accomplish that.

The first step was to arrange a gathering of some 60 experts and lay people in 

Boise to discuss the need for RNAs. The 

workshop was led by Station Director 

Roger Bay and John Ehrenreich, Dean 

of the University of Idaho College of 

Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. 

The participants formed the Idaho 

Natural Areas Coordinating Committee, 

with Wellner as chairman.

The coordinating group set up six 

technical committees, led by experts in 

aquatics, grasslands and shrublands, forests, alpine habitat, rare and endangered 

plants, and endangered animals. The 

committees tackled the details of the 

RNA project, classifying the natural diversity of Idaho, noting which elements 

reserved lands already encompassed, 

and which elements needed protection 

(Stolz 1986).

Wellner devoted the rest of his life to 

the program as an organizer, leader, and 

field worker. He visited hundreds of sites 

and wrote 120 establishment reports. 

Early in his work, Congress gave the 

program a big boost. The 1976 National 

Forest Management Act tied RNA 

establishment to forest planning (Tippets 

1990). By 1983, the Forest Service 

network of RNAs contained 148 areas 

representing more than 80 of 145 forest 

cover types recognized by the Society 

of American Foresters. Of those, 17 had 

been established in the previous 4 years. 

The Station, working with Regions 1 

and 4 was responsible for establishing 

11, or 65 percent, of the new additions 

(INTercom 2/3/83). The two Regions 

and the Station jointly funded a Program 

Manager position, filled by Angela 

Evenden. She worked closely with 

Wellner and the coordinating group and 

progress accelerated.

A 2001 Rocky Mountain Station 

publication cataloging proposed or 

established RNAs listed 226 areas on 

National Forest System lands in Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Utah, and western 

Wyoming. Wellner had been instrumental in identifying and nominating more 

than 200 of them. The total was far and 

away the largest in the Forest Service for 

any Station territory. The national total 

was 450.

Establishment of one area was 

especially gratifying to Wellner, and 

also an indication of his persistence. In 

1937, Wellner wrote an establishment 

report for a 982-acre tract in the Selkirk 

Mountains within the Priest River 

Experimental Forest. Although the 

Chuck Wellner in 

1990 with The Nature 

Conservancy’s Susan 

Bernatas after fording a stream in the 

Pony Creek Research 

Natural Area in the 

Payette National 

Forest.
132–

report was approved by Stephen 

Wyckoff, Northern Rocky Mountain 

Station Director, and Regional Forester 

Evan Kelley, it never reached the 

Chief’s desk for approval. Kelley did 

not submit the report, maintaining that 

RNAs didn’t need approval by the Chief 

(INTercom 5/15/86).

Wellner said he was unsuccessful in 

establishing RNAs in Region 1 during 

Kelley’s tenure, because the “very practical minded Regional Forester didn’t 

believe that RNAs were a high enough 

priority to bother the Chief about” 

(Tippets 1990). Nevertheless, Wellner 

got the job done eventually. In 1986, he 

wrote a new establishment record for 

the Selkirk Mountain area, saw that it 

was properly forwarded, and obtained 

approval from Forest Service Chief Max 

Peterson.

Wellner was honored frequently 

during his lengthy career with the Forest 

Service and as a volunteer. He received 

USDA Superior Service Awards in 

1962 and 1972, a rare double honor. He 

was elected a trustee of the Northwest 

Scientific Association in 1976. The 

Society of American Foresters elected 

him a Fellow in 1977. The Inland 

Empire Section of the society named 

him forester of the year in 1979. The 

University of Idaho College of Forestry 

made him an honor alumnus in 1982. 

The Nature Conservancy gave him its 

coveted “Oak Leaf Award” in 1984 for 

his RNA work.

In 1989, Wellner was recognized with 

a Chevron Conservation Award presented at a banquet in Washington, DC. He 

was one of 10 “citizen conservationists” 

recognized nationwide that year. The 

last sentence in a letter nominating him 

for the award said, “His contributions 

will serve society forever.”

To ensure that his name would 

forever be associated with a Priest River 

ecosystem that was one of his favorites, 

the Rocky Mountain Station and Region 

1 officially designated the Wellner Cliffs 

Research Natural Area in 2005. It was 

the only RNA of the more than 100 in 

Idaho to be named in remembrance of a 

person (London 2005).

A Better Way to See the 

Forest

The Station and Region 1 began a 

cooperative study in 1971 to extend 

habitat typing concepts to Montana. This 

was the start of a large team effort to develop ecological land classifications that 

was to command attention from many 

Station scientists and cooperators for the 

next 15 years. The cumulative results of 

the work were a major contribution to 

improving scientific resource management throughout the Station territory 

and beyond.

Rexford Daubenmire, a Washington 

State University botany professor, 

provided the concepts underlying the 

team’s work. Chuck Wellner promoted 

the program. Bob Pfister, Project Leader 

of the forest ecosystems research unit 

at Missoula, served as a key participant 

and coach for many others. Some 

of the more valuable team members 

within the Station were Bob Steele and 

Kathy Geier-Hayes (Boise), Steve Arno 

(Missoula), and Walt Mueggler (Logan).

Wellner said that before Daubenmire 

the forest classification system in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains from an 

ecological standpoint “was simply 

chaos.” He pointed out that several 

existing classifications were largely to 

regulate forests, help in planning timber 

sales, and define the timber supply situation (Wellner 1987). They were geared 

primarily to economic considerations, 

and did not reflect the capability of the 

land to produce a variety of resources.

Daubenmire created his habitat 

typing system in the early 1950s, and 

after a lengthy period of development 

and trials, used it to describe the forest 

vegetation of northern Idaho and eastern 

Washington in a 1968 Washington State 

University technical bulletin coauthored 

with Jean Daubenmire. The system 

proved valuable, and it served as a 

model for classification work throughout 

western forests (Noble 1977).

Daubenmire had close ties to the 

Station. He worked at Priest River on 

personal research in the 1950s and 

participated in cooperative research with 

the Station from 1961 until 1975. In 

1968, he mapped habitat types for much 

of the Priest River Experimental Forest, 

defining eight types and large areas of 

ecotones between the types (Wellner 

1976).

Habitat types are based on potential 

climax tree and undergrowth vegetation 

for given sites. The system classifies 

sites using the entire plant community 

as an indicator of environmental factors 

as they affect species reproduction, 

competition, and plant community development (Pfister 1976). Successional 

trends toward climax vegetation can 

usually be identified even in rather 

young stands. Thus, a given habitat 

type includes all land areas potentially 

capable of producing similar plant communities when the vegetation reaches 

climax, even though existing vegetation 

might be dominated by successional 

species.

Pfister was a disciple of Daubenmire. 

He joined the Station in 1961 as a 

research forester at Moscow and in the 

mid-1960s was assigned to help solve 

serious regeneration problems Region 

4 was having with spruce stands in 

southern Utah. Pfister concluded that 

the spruce forests needed to be classified 

on an ecological basis. He developed 

a habitat type classification of highelevation forests in Utah as his Ph.D. 

dissertation, working under Daubenmire. 

Wellner (1987) said of that work, “We 

were modestly on our way to developing 

a habitat type classification for forests of 

Utah.”

The Montana habitat typing project 

was the first such classification based 

Chuck Wellner admired an old-growth 

spruce in a Research Natural Area in 

central Idaho in 1991.
–133

on a large-scale reconnaissance study. 

It illustrated the huge amount of data 

gathering and analysis required to 

produce classifications covering broad 

areas. More than 1,500 forest stands 

in 10 National Forests were sampled. 

Developing the classification involved a 

progressive series of analyses by Pfister 

and his associates and included 4 years 

of field testing by land managers and 

researchers. Region 1 provided major financial assistance, and the University of 

Montana’s Forestry School and Botany 

Department provided administrative and 

technical support (Noble 1977).

The team defined 64 habitat types. 

The 1977 Station publication, Forest 

Habitat Types of Montana, that summarized the work included photographs 

of examples and a key that allowed 

foresters to identify types after minimal 

training. The authors were Pfister, 

Bernard Kovalchik, who became a timber management planner for the Helena 

National Forest, Arno, and Richard 

Presby, later biotic planning specialist 

for the Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests.

Properly trained personnel were 

essential to the success of habitat typing 

projects. Early efforts used graduate 

students or survey workers with little 

training to gather data. Resurveys of 

plots in Montana showed only about 50 

percent were classified correctly. This 

led to intensive training in the habitat 

type concept by university and Forest 

Service ecologists and the inclusion of 

habitat type classification in university 

courses (Wellner 1987).

Habitat typing gained general acceptance and spread throughout Regions 

1 and 4. Areas in northern Idaho 

originally typed by Daubenmire were 

resurveyed to fill gaps and adjust some 

descriptions.

Research Forester Art Roe and 

Entomologist Gene Amman were the 

first to base risk of mountain pine 

beetle infestation on habitat type. They 

surveyed many stands in the Teton and 

Targhee National Forests in Wyoming 

and Idaho and found that the highest 

probability of infestation was in the 

Abies lasiocarpa/Pachistima myrsinite

habitat type. The research was documented in a 1970 Station publication, 

The Mountain Pine Beetle in Lodgepole 

Pine Forests.

Bob Steele, silviculture Project 

Leader at Boise, led work from 1972 

to 1979 on habitat typing for upland 

forests in central Idaho and eastern 

Idaho-western Wyoming. Steele then 

launched studies of succession and 

management strategies for eight habitat 

types in central Idaho. He and Forester 

Kathy Geier-Hayes wrote the reports. 

The work was recognized as a major 

contribution to the understanding of the 

ecology of upland forest ecosystems and 

how people have influenced them (Sloan 

and others 1994).

By the late 1980s, an impressive 

number of habitat type classifications 

had been completed throughout the 

western United States. Most parts of the 

Station territory were covered, and the 

Bob Pfister conducted the first habitat 

typing in the Intermountain West that 

was based on a large-scale reconnaissance. He oversaw expansion of 

ecosystem classifications throughout 

the Station territory for 15 years.

A Modest Start for a “Best Seller”

A guide that started out very modestly in the late 1970s 

became one of the Station’s most popular publications. 

Back then, Forester Jonalea Tonn (Moscow) copied plant 

drawings from various manuals as handouts for summer 

field crews who needed to make accurate identifications 

of vegetation. After the northern Idaho habitat typing 

refinement project got under way, Patricia Patterson, 

a forester with the Clearwater National Forest, was 

assigned major 

responsibility 

for developing a 

field guide.

Patterson, 

Tonn, and 

Ken Neiman, 

Clearwater 

Forest ecologist who was co-leader of the 

habitat project, wrote Field Guide to Forest 

Plants of Northern Idaho. The guide was 

designed for use by people with minimal 

botanical training. It described nearly 200 

plant species having ecological indicator value 

in northern Idaho and included drawings and 

identification keys.

The guide was issued by the Station in April 

1985. Demand was heavy, and it was reprinted 

12 times for a total of more than 20,000 copies 

up to 2001. That year it became available on 

a disc (RMRS-GTR-118-CD) and no longer 

was in print. Users could print out sections of 

interest to take to the field, or view the guide 

on a lap-top screen if they were field-going 

computer users.

Forester Jonalea Tonn 

(center) used plant drawing copies for field crew 

training in northern Idaho 

before Field Guide to 

Forest Plants of Northern 

Idaho was published.

A “best seller” aided habitat typing 

work.
134–

Station had issued publications describing key areas. These included:

Forest Habitat Types of Northern 

Idaho: A Second Approximation, 

by Stephen Cooper, University of 

Montana; Ken Neiman, Clearwater 

National Forest; Steele; and David 

Roberts, Utah State University.

Coniferous Forest Habitat Types of 

Northern Utah, by Ronald Mauk and 

Jan Henderson, Utah State University.

Grassland and Shrubland Habitat 

Types of Western Montana, by Station 

Ecologist Walt Mueggler and William 

Stewart, a range conservationist.

Aspen Community Types of the 

Intermountain Region, by Mueggler. 

This classification was based on 

existing plant communities because 

of the ill-defined successional 

status of communities within 

the general aspen ecosystem.

Forest Habitat Types of Central 

Idaho, by Steele, Pfister, Russ 

Ryker, Project Leader of the 

forest ecosystems unit at Boise 

at the time, and Jay Kittams, 

forestry technician at Boise.

Forest Habitat Types of Eastern 

Idaho-Western Wyoming, by Steele, 

Cooper, David Ondov, a technician 

•

•

•

•

•

•

at the Missoula Forestry Sciences 

Lab, Roberts, and Pfister.

Coniferous Forest Habitat 

Types of Central and Southern 

Utah, by Andrew Youngblood, 

Region 4 ecologist, and Mauk.

By 1981, forest ecologists had 

been employed by every western 

Forest Service Region, and they were 

carrying habitat typing work forward. 

Station management believed that the 

research basis for habitat typing was 

well-established and enough National 

Forest personnel had been trained to 

continue with the application aspects of 

the development.

Station Director Bay and Assistant 

Director Thadd Harrington wanted 

Pfister to move to Moscow to lead 

silvicultural research there. Pfister 

declined, and instead left the Station 

and joined the University of Montana 

faculty. He was named Director of the 

Mission-Oriented Research Program. 

Pfister continued work on habitat typing, 

and in 2005 was involved in leading new 

developments in forest classification 

systems at the national level. Bay said 

Pfister “was a good fit for the university. 

He really did a fine job teaching and 

mentoring grad students in the forestry 

school.”

Pfister and other authors included 

some management implications in 

their classification summaries, but the 

original intention was to carry this much 

further with additional studies of plant 

succession within the habitat types and 

more complete assessments of management applications (Wellner 1987). This 

was done to some extent by Station 

researchers after Pfister left, although 

Wellner said the program lost much of 

the support needed to fully accomplish 

those objectives.

Steve Arno and Dennis Simmerman 

of the Fire Lab and Bob Keane, a 

cooperator at the time, wrote publications on succession in Montana forests. 

Bill Fischer, Biologist Anne Bradley, 

and Plant Ecologist Marilyn Crane, of 

Systems for Environmental Management 

in Missoula, compiled reports describing 

fire ecology based on habitat types in 

Montana. Jane Kapler Smith, forest 

ecologist at the Fire Lab, and Fischer 

•

described fire ecology based on habitat 

types of northern Idaho.

In 1987, the Station lent support 

to habitat type use by cosponsoring 

with the University of Idaho a 3-day 

symposium, “Land Classifications 

Based on Vegetation: Applications for 

Resource Management.” Topics were 

chosen to highlight practical applications of ecosystem classifications as well 

as theoretical concepts. Daubenmire 

was the keynote speaker. Wellner, 

Pfister, Steele, and Arno were among 

those presenting papers. The Station 

published the proceedings, compiled by 

Dennis Ferguson, research forester at the 

Moscow Lab; Penny Morgan, an assistant professor at the university; and Fred 

Johnson, professor of forest ecology at 

the university.

Speakers at the symposium described 

uses of ecosystem classifications in 

evaluating wildlife habitat, rating 

livestock forage needs, fire management, 

setting reforestation standards, determining optimum systems to harvest trees, 

managing forest pests, and predicting 

special watershed management needs.

How important was the development of habitat typing? Ron Stoleson, 

retired Region 4 Director of Vegetation 

Management, provided his thoughts in 

2004:

In the late 1960s, the Forest Service in 

Region 1 began utilizing habitat typing 

to categorize land that up until then 

had been referred to on the basis of the 

dominant tree vegetation (spruce-fir 

type, ponderosa pine type, etc.). I was a 

District Ranger at the time and thought 

that this was a great step forward because 

its use required foresters to practice a 

lot of botany and to look at relationships 

between the many components of 

the environment, not just trees...

Development of the habitat type concept 

continued and it became an important 

tool, especially for silviculturists 

who could use it for prescribing 

land treatments based on a more full 

knowledge of the ecological components 

with which they were dealing. Other 

disciplines also found the concept helpful 

in making inferences about the suitability 

of land for various uses such as wildlife 

habitat and recreational potential.

I believe that the development 

and use of habitat typing has been 

one of the greatest professional 

Bob Steele, shown here identifying 

unknown plants from habitat type 

classification plots, made major contributions to understanding the ecology 

of forest ecosystems in central Idaho 

and western Wyoming.
–135

accomplishments by the Forest 

Service during my 42 years of service 

(Stoleson, personal communication).

Dr. Stage Made the Right 

Prognosis

Forecasting the future condition of 

anything as complex and dynamic as 

a forest area is a difficult business. Al 

Stage proved again and again that it was 

a business he was very good at.

Stage would tell you that the creation 

and constant improvement of the 

Prognosis Model for Stand Development 

was a teamwork operation. Members of 

the team who worked most closely with 

him would tell you that Prognosis was 

his concept, and the continuing improvements in the scope and utility of the 

model were in large measure the result 

of his leadership.

Bill Wykoff, who worked for nearly 

30 years in the unit Stage led at the 

Moscow Lab, said “...Al’s vision, his 

quiet but persuasive prodding and his 

firm grasp of biophysical, mathematical, 

and statistical concepts have served 

as a strong foundation for the system” 

(Wykoff 2002). Others in the unit wrote, 

“One of Al’s many contributions to the 

success of the work unit is the feeling 

of teamwork and cooperation that he 

instilled in each of the members of the 

project”(Quantitative Analysis Unit 

1995).

Stage built his own foundation for 

work on the Prognosis Model through 

a variety of experiences in forest 

management and research. He earned a 

bachelor’s degree in Forest Management 

After military service, Stage moved 

to the Station’s Inland Empire Research 

Center in Spokane where for 6 years he 

was a one-scientist forest mensuration 

project. He had an interest in measuring 

just about everything that was related 

to forest resources, and creating sometimes novel ways for others to make 

measurements. One of Stage’s early 

contributions was a method of calibrating and using one’s thumb as an angle 

gauge. He also developed the “Stage 

Gauge,” a circular slide rule that greatly 

facilitated calculations of tree height, 

marginal tree, and horizontal distance in 

the field. In the early 1960s, Stage was 

instrumental in introducing pointsampling methods to Forest Survey 

(Wykoff 2002).

Al Stage’s long experience at Moscow 

and Priest River gave him knowledge 

of many things, including the origins 

of the Numbskull Club of America (see 

chapter 13).

The Prognosis team in the mid-1980s (left to right) Dave Hamilton, Bill Wykoff, 

Nick Crookston, Bob Monserud, Dennis Ferguson, Al Stage, and Melinda Moeur.

Well before portable computing was 

possible, Al Stage 

developed the “Stage 

Gauge,” a circular 

slide device that aided 

foresters in making 

calculations in the 

field.

at the University of Michigan 1951 

and was hired by the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Station as superintendent of 

the Priest River Experimental Forest. 

The next year Stage completed a 

master’s program in Forest Ecology 

at Michigan. Through military service 

during the Korean War, he got a taste 

of measurement work as a member 

of a regiment making surveys in the 

Philippines.
136–

Stage resumed his education at 

Michigan in the 1960s, earning a 

master’s in Mathematical Statistics and a 

Ph.D. in Forest Mensuration. In 1962, he 

moved to the new Moscow Lab, gaining 

access to the mainframe computer at the 

nearby University of Washington. This 

was crucial to the success of large-scale 

forest measurement research and model 

development (Quantitative Analysis 

Unit 1995).

That year the Forest Service was 

engaged in a high-priority assessment 

of the Nation’s timber resources, and an 

important part of the effort was predicting future timber supplies. Assistant 

Station Director Chuck Wellner learned 

that large amounts of data from growth 

and yield research in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains were not being used, 

and he dispatched Stage to Washington, 

DC, to find out why. Stage joined the 

assessment team to get answers from 

first-hand experience. He found several 

reasons why existing data were not 

very useful for making forecasts. For 

example, the yield tables developed 

by research applied only to even-aged 

stands consisting of a single tree species, although most stands in the West 

included a variety of species and ages.

Stage conceived a new way to 

forecast the future condition of 

forested areas. He published the 

framework in 1973 as a Station research 

paper, Prognosis Model for Stand 

Development. As Project Leader for 

the Quantitative Analysis Research 

Work Unit at Moscow until 1995 when 

he retired, Stage recruited a cadre of 

scientists who participated in making 

the model more accurate, more versatile, 

and more accessible as the years went 

by, and it became a powerful tool for 

forest managers and planners (Prouty 

1987a).

The unit was best known for its work 

with Prognosis, but the mission was 

broader. It included virtually all aspects 

of ways to acquire samples and compile 

and analyze data to improve forest 

inventories. In the 1970s, the group 

became the core unit in the Station’s first 

multi-project program, which combined 

efforts in insect, disease, watershed, and 

genetic improvement research on mixedspecies timber stands in the northern 

Rockies (INTercom 5/12/77).

Prognosis had many strong points. 

It primarily used data acquired through 

normal Forest Survey inventories. It 

used habitat types, based on climax vegetation, as a major area descriptor (See 

“A Better Way to See the Forest,” this 

chapter). Several extensions represented 

insect/disease impacts, allowing managers concerned with these problems to 

estimate benefits of selected treatments 

(Noble 1982). Publications written by 

unit members described or provided 

user guidelines for many extensions and 

improvements in Prognosis. Some of 

these were:

User guides and reports by 

Research Analyst Nick Crookston 

on spruce budworm modeling, an 

event monitor, parallel processing, 

and a fire and fuels extension.

User guides and discussions of 

a regeneration establishment 

extension by Research 

Forester Dennis Ferguson.

Discussions of Prognosis variables 

and multipliers and modeling 

individual tree mortality by 

Research Forester Dave Hamilton.

A user guide to shrub and tree 

canopy extensions by Research 

Forester Melinda Moeur.

A user guide to a combined Prognosis 

and tussock moth outbreak model 

and a programmer’s guide to an 

optimization model by Research 

Forester Bob Monserud.

User guides to two major updates 

of Prognosis in 1982 and 1986 by 

Research Forester Bill Wykoff.

Along the way, modifications were 

made in Prognosis in reaction to suggestions by users, many of whom were 

trained in workshops conducted by 

Stage and his associates. There were 

many users. By 1985 Prognosis was being used in National Forest planning by 

Regions 1, 4, and parts of 6 (INTercom

3/21/85). Ten years later, 14 variants 

of the Prognosis Model were in use in 

all regions of the United States, and 

Monserud had worked with a colleague 

in Austria to produce “Prognaus,” 

proving that the unit’s modeling 

approach could be used to replace 

traditional European yield tables with 

•

•

•

•

•

•

a more advanced forecasting system 

(Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations 1995).

Stage and his unit members worked 

with hundreds of colleagues and 

cooperators in developing Prognosis. 

The Project Leader wrote more than 

75 research publications during his 

career, 50 of them coauthored with 

fellow scientists, on a wide array of 

topics. He presented papers before 

scientific audiences in many parts of the 

world. For his efforts, Stage received 

a Superior Service Honor Award from 

the Secretary of Agriculture in 1983. 

He also was named a Fellow of the 

Society of American Foresters and a 

Distinguished Alumnus by the School of 

Natural Resources at the University of 

Michigan.

In the early 1990s the Forest Service 

designated the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator (FVS) as its forecasting tool 

to integrate scientific knowledge of 

ecosystem components and describe 

current and future forest conditions at 

the same level of detail. The FVS is 

based on the Prognosis Model (Teck 

and others 1996). All the basic concepts 

outlined by Al Stage 20 years earlier 

were incorporated into FVS.

Administrative Changes

In 1971, Joe Pechanec retired as 

Station Director and was replaced by 

Robert Harris, also a former range 

researcher, who transferred from 

his post as Assistant Director at the 

Pacific Northwest Station. Harris 

left the Intermountain Station for the 

Station Director position at the Pacific 

Southwest Station in 1974, and later 

went to the Washington Office as an 

Associate Deputy Chief for Research.

Keith Arnold succeeded Jemison as 

Deputy Chief for Research in 1973 and 

took a new approach to Station administrative organization. The stated purposes 

were to enhance outreach to research 

users, better coordinate research planning, and improve technology 

transfer.

The new organization established an 

Associate Station Director (later called 

Deputy Director) position, created a 
–137

Planning and Applications Assistant 

Director (AD) job, and converted the 

Division Chiefs to Research Program 

AD’s and moved them to locations 

away from Station headquarters. The 

position of Division Chief for Station 

Management was renamed Assistant 

Station Director for Research Support 

Services. The plan was to pilot test 

the new organization at two Stations 

for several months; the Intermountain 

Station was one of the pilot locations. 

However, the trials never were carefully evaluated and the decision was 

soon made to go ahead with the new 

structure at all Stations.

The concept was that the Deputy 

Director would serve as an alter ego to 

the Station Director, taking over some 

of the day-to-day duties of Station 

management, which would allow the 

Director more time for outside contacts. 

The Planning and Applications AD 

was to aid in budget planning, develop 

technology transfer efforts, and serve 

as a liaison with the Chief’s Office on 

program planning and development.

Locating the Research Program ADs 

at field sites was supposed to foster 

Station ties to cooperators, research 

users, and the research projects. At the 

Intermountain Station, one program AD 

remained at the Ogden headquarters because the research sites in the southern 

part of the Station territory were nearby, 

as was the Region 4 headquarters. The 

other position was moved to Missoula, 

where the AD had close contact with 

Region 1 headquarters, the Station’s 

two labs there, and the University Of 

Montana School Of Forestry.

A national in-house study led to 

the changes. Station Directors were 

skeptical when the reorganization was 

proposed because research specialists 

would be reporting to generalists, but 

Arnold recommended the change. Chief 

John McGuire approved the recommendations, but attached the condition 

that Stations be given 4 years to comply. 

Years later, some personnel continued 

to express ill feelings about the changes 

(Steen 1998).

Deputy Chief Arnold also devised 

a Research, Development, and 

Applications (RD&A) Program concept 

designed to speed getting research 

results into use, particularly in critical 

situations. Although the Station had 

some experience with special programs, 

the advent of RD&A’s had a major 

impact on its operations.

Special Programs Bring 

Special Problems and 

Achievements

For most of the 10-year period that started in 1972, three 

special programs—Fire in Multiple-Use 

Management, Surface Environment 

An Extended Asian Adventure

What he thought would be a few trips to Taiwan in 1973 became a whole new way of 

life for Dave Born. Taiwan had not made an inventory of its substantial forest resources 

for 23 years, and Born was dispatched from Forest Survey to provide advice on how 

to conduct a new inventory and assessment. The initial trips and the program that 

developed were funded by a special Federal program.

It turned out that the 

Taiwanese wanted 

their survey designed 

from the bottom up. 

“I even wrote the 

necessary cooperative 

agreements for them,” 

Born said (interview, 

2005). Born’s first 

advisory visits to the 

island blossomed into 

technical supervision 

of a big operation. 

The Taiwan Forestry 

Bureau provided 

40 workers, several 

university professors 

were involved, and 

the Taiwanese Air 

Force supplied pilots for aerial reconnaissance.

Born’s program design and supervision work extended over 6 years, 1973-79. He 

alternated his office location, spending 3 months in Taiwan and 3 months in Ogden. 

In the process he learned to speak Chinese, although he said later, “I can speak some 

Chinese...not fluently, although I can cuss well.” Born said everything about his 

contacts with Taiwanese culture was enjoyable, although spending half of each year 

away from his family was not.

Born also coordinated work in Taiwan by Survey’s Gary Clendenen and John Kuilowski, 

Region 4 aerial photographer. Clendenen assisted with data collection procedures 

and computer programming. Kuilowski taught Taiwanese pilots how to maneuver 

to maximize aerial photography results and showed other personnel how to use the 

photos. Sometimes coordination tasks got a bit complex and outside the usual expertise 

of a research forester. The Taiwanese had no capability to process color and black-andwhite aerial photos, so Born found a U.S. company that contracted to help them set up 

a lab. Then he arranged to ship the first equipment and supplies through the American 

Embassy to speed up the process.

Because of the steep terrain, Born and his associates developed a unique sampling 

system and plot size scheme. The components had been described by university 

professors in the U.S. who Born knew, but had not been used before in a large-scale 

survey. The innovations worked well in Taiwan. The project resulted in a Chineselanguage publication, which included the inventory results and other data Born had 

summarized regarding forest characteristics and wood products.

Research Forester Dave Born (center) shared a meal in the 

1970s in Taiwan with staff leaders for the island’s forest 

survey project.
138–

and Mining (SEAM), and Systems of 

Timber Utilization for Environmental 

Management (STEM)—occupied 

prominent positions among Station 

activities. They and their impacts on the 

organization had several similarities, but 

there were substantial differences.

All were research and development 

programs, but the fire and SEAM 

programs included “application” in 

their designations. At the time, RD&A 

programs required national approval. 

R&D programs such as STEM did not. 

National approval of the RD&A program charters implied national control, 

and in fact such programs were subject 

to more inspection and guidance from 

Washington than were elements of the 

normal Station research program.

All three programs were geared to 

Station strengths. Experience in integrating fire research results into planning 

dated back to the 1930s when basic 

principles were established by Lloyd 

Hornby at Priest River and the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station. This type of 

work was carried on by Jack Barrows 

and passed to others at the Fire Lab. The 

SEAM program took advantage of a 

lengthy history of scientific achievement 

in range, watershed, and associated soils 

research at the Station; many of the 

principles could be applied to minedarea rehabilitation. The STEM program 

tapped into engineering and forestry 

studies that for 10 years had focused on 

ways to remove timber from steep, often 

fragile slopes with minimal negative 

environmental effects.

In the previous decade, cooperative 

research with universities and private 

organizations had expanded in most 

parts of the Station program. With it 

came experience in handling grants and 

cooperative agreements, special personnel matters, shared use of facilities, and 

cooperative publishing arrangements. 

This helped the Station accommodate 

the special programs. The advent of the 

programs, however, introduced some 

stresses and strains in administrative 

units. Often, they had to absorb bigger 

workloads without parallel increases in 

personnel because Station funding in 

general had entered a period of decline.

The SEAM Program came with 

ample funding. It was authorized by 

Congress and had a specific budget 

item for its operation. This proved to be 

both a blessing and a curse. The fire and 

STEM programs basically had to operate 

with regular Station funds—that was 

no blessing. No doubt there were hopes 

that successes would breed increased 

funding. There were successes, but no 

financial support materialized and these 

programs were discontinued when their 

managers retired.

One small difference was that the 

Fire in Multiple-Use Program, unlike 

SEAM and STEM, did not have an 

acronym. This may have put it in an elite 

category of endeavors that somehow 

avoided becoming ingredients in the 

“alphabet soup” of special government 

programs.

The Fire in Multiple-Use 

Management RD&A Program—The 

fire program took a completely different 

approach than that pursued in the old fire 

control planning efforts. “Our approach 

assumes that fire management exists to 

support land management programs,” 

Program Manager Jim Lotan said. The 

idea was to improve the capability of 

managers to integrate fire management 

into general land management plans and 

activities, considering fire as a way to 

meet objectives rather than a force to be 

controlled (Noble 1978c).

Lotan was an expert in the lodgepole 

pine-fire relationship, particularly 

through studies of lodgepole cone serotiny (serotinous cones need fire to open 

and disperse seeds) that earned him a 

Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. 

He was Project Leader of the silvicultural unit at the Bozeman Lab before 

assuming the RD&A manager duties.

The program was given its mission 

and goals by a policy panel that included 

research and National Forest administrators. The goals were: (1) to define the 

role of fire in forest and range ecosystems and enhance the manager’s ability 

to predict fire behavior and effects, (2) 

to develop techniques to meet the fire 

management needs of land managers, 

and (3) to apply fire management plans 

in selected demonstration areas (Lotan 

1979).

The program emphasized applying 

existing knowledge, not conducting new 

research. There was heavy manager 

involvement, and a network of scientists 

and managers outside the Forest Service 

was established. Work on defining the 

program started in 1973 at the Fire Lab, 

but Lotan was not assigned to lead it 

until 1974, so one problem was that he 

led an effort he had not participated in 

originating. Another was that it took 

some time for the physical scientists at 

the Fire Lab to adjust to the blending of 

the physical and biological sciences and 

scientists that the program required.

The program had to “borrow” personnel from existing Station research units 

in almost all cases, a situation with builtin difficulties. Despite the obstacles, 

the program had some excellent achievements and was successful in developing 

a greater appreciation for cooperative 

research among the various units at 

the Fire Lab and other units within and 

outside the Station.

By mid-1976, so many activities were 

going on that Lotan started a newsletter 

to keep those concerned abreast of 

developments. The first went to about 

1,000 people in the international fire 

community. Responses were good, 

and circulation ultimately expanded to 

nearly 2,000. “We want to inform our 

readers of the many activities of the 

program, and to alert them of possible 

ways that we can help them,” Lotan said 

(INTercom 8/26/76). Two activities were 

somewhat unusual.

Wildlife Biologist George Gruell 

joined the program in 1978 to plan and 

conduct studies of wildlife management 

and fire ecology. His research, done 

in a nontraditional way, resulted in 

publishing comparison photographs that 

showed graphically how fire influenced 

vegetation on forest and range lands.

The Fire in Multiple-Use Management 

RD&A Program had a logo, but did not 

have an acronym—perhaps putting it 

in a special category among Federal 

Government programs.
–139

Gruell’s first project was to compile 

an extensive photographic record of 

changes to the land in the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest in Wyoming, where he 

had served on the staff. He complemented a collection of “then” photos with 

“now” scenes and then selected 85 photo 

pairs that spanned 103 years of vegetation history. The result was a Station 

Research Paper, Fire’s Influence on the 

Wildlife Habitat on the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, Wyoming, a two-volume publication. The second volume 

discussed management implications 

of the vegetation changes (Kingsbury 

1981b).

Gruell refined and expanded his 

technique, and later authored Fire 

and Vegetative Trends in the Northern 

Rockies: Interpretations from 1871-1982 

Photographs. The document was a 

popular Station publication, and was 

considered significant in influencing 

thinking about the historical role of fire. 

Gruell also wrote several papers on the 

influence of fires started by Indians in 

the Interior West, a practice much more 

widespread than many people thought. 

This work also increased understanding 

about the role of fire in years past.

In 1994, some 15 years after Gruell’s 

photo comparison publications appeared, there was great renewed interest 

in them that continued for several years 

after The Forest Ecosystem Mangement 

Assessment Team led by Jack Ward 

Thomas issued its report describing an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment of Pacific Northwest forests. The 

report sparked intense interest in ecosystem management. Gruell’s documents 

finally were converted to electronic 

versions when demand eclipsed available printing funds (Kingsbury, personal 

communication).

Assembling and publishing bibliographies were standard practices in 

science, but the fire program took the 

concept further. Research Forester 

Alan (Pete) Taylor led development 

of FIREBASE, a system that provided 

technical information from wildland fire 

literature quickly and in a very usable 

form to anyone in the international fire 

community.

Like an annotated bibliography, most 

FIREBASE entries included digests 

of the base documents prepared by 

people knowledgeable about the subject. 

Unlike standard bibliographies of the 

time, all information was retrievable by 

computer and the system was dynamic. 

Its database could be constantly updated 

and corrected. FIREBASE included 

unpublished, as well as published, 

information and specialized training 

materials, some of them audio-visual 

items. When copyright or other regulations permitted, users interested in the 

original documents could receive copies 

on microfilm.

To get services, users merely needed 

to phone or write an access center, 

where an operator would search the 

computer file and send the pertinent citations and digests, usually within 3 days. 

Access centers were set up at Berkeley, 

Atlanta, Boise, and Washington, DC. 

International cooperation was handled 

by a United Nations agency. Other major 

cooperators in developing the system 

were the Bureau of Land Management 

and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

After it was developed by Taylor 

and others, FIREBASE was tested and 

evaluated for 2 years. It then attained 

full use as an approved Forest Service 

computer-assisted system with an operations center at the Boise Interagency 

Fire Center (Taylor and Eckels 1977).

Some other significant program accomplishments were:

Participation in various 

demonstration projects that 

showed managers how prescribed 

fire and tolerance of natural fire 

under preplanned conditions 

could meet management 

•

objectives (see “Introducing 

Friendly Fires,” chapter 10).

Creating guidelines for prescribed 

burning on rangelands primarily 

managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). This 

was facilitated in 1976 by the 

assignment of James Linne, a BLM 

resource specialist, as one of the 

three program team leaders. The 

guidelines were tested by the BLM 

in the Great Basin and northern 

and southern Great Plains.

Design, development, and evaluation 

of a fire management decision 

model. This work was headed 

by Team Leader Dick Barney.

Through a contract with a 

private research foundation, 

development of FORPLAN, a 

user-oriented simulation language 

that enabled field managers to 

access more complex computer 

systems using relatively simple 

terms. The system was evaluated 

by Lewis and Clark National 

Forest personnel in Montana.

Production of state-of-the-art fire 

effects and prescribed fire guides. 

Complementary work was done 

by Team Leader Bill Fischer, who 

described a new plan and report 

format in a Station publication, 

Planning and Evaluating Prescribed 

Fires...a Standard Procedure.

Station Director Larry Lassen announced termination of the program 

in 1984. He noted that assignments in 

•

•

•

•

Research Forester Alan 

(Pete) Taylor operated a multiple strip-chart 

analyzer in the Fire Lab’s 

meteorology laboratory in 

about 1962. The analyzer 

aided transcription of field 

data on lightning strikes. 

A decade later, Taylor led 

development of FIREBASE, 

a program to aid managers 

who wanted easy access 

to information about wildland fire.
140–

the RD&A program charter had been 

satisfactorily completed. Lotan moved 

to the Forestry Sciences Lab in Missoula 

and took on a special task to write three 

national handbooks before he retired 

(INTercom 10/4/84).

The STEM R&D Program—The 

Systems of Timber Utilization for 

Environmental Management program 

was chartered in 1979, but its foundation 

was laid 5 years earlier. In 1974, the 

Station had started the Forest Logging 

Residues R&D Program. Its objective 

was to investigate alternative timber 

harvesting practices that might produce 

more intensive, environmentally compatible timber utilization in coniferous 

forests.

The residues program, with Ron 

Barger as manager, conducted research 

in ecosystems common to the larch, 

lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir forests 

of Wyoming and Montana. Study sites 

were at the University of Montana’s 

Lubrecht Experimental Forest, an area 

in the Gros Ventre Ranger District of the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest, the SoloHemlock area in the Priest Lake Ranger 

District of the Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests, and at the Station’s Coram 

Experimental Forest (see “Learning 

about Larch,” chapter 6).

Many disciplines and cooperators 

were involved in the residue program 

work. Results were presented at a 1979 

symposium in Missoula, “Environmental 

Consequences of Timber Harvesting in 

Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forests,” 

and made available in a Station publication with the same name. The program 

was renamed and rechartered and STEM 

got under way, with Barger as Program 

Manager, and a quite different mission 

than the old program had.

The STEM program, headquartered 

in Missoula, was charged with providing 

managers with methods to use more of 

the under-utilized, small-diameter trees 

in the Northern Rocky Mountains, but 

with a major emphasis on environmental 

concerns. Watershed protection, wildlife 

habitat improvement, maintenance of 

esthetics, and insect and disease control 

were important to forest management, 

and STEM was to design specific timber 

harvesting recommendations to achieve 

nontimber goals. A dominant aspect of 

STEM was selection and development 

of field sites as demonstration areas, 

with each site representing a small-timber management problem typical of the 

forest in which it was located (INTercom

1/17/80).

The program was designed like a 

research umbrella, providing a special 

emphasis over several of the Station’s 

existing projects. It was never funded 

or staffed as a separate entity (Close 

1988a). STEM had three core units—

economics, with Erv Schuster as Project 

Leader; utilization technology, led by 

Mick Gonsior; and engineering technology, headed by Ed Burroughs. Later, 

Barger assumed dual roles as Project 

Leader of the utilization unit in addition 

to his Program Manager duties. All the 

work of the three units contributed to 

STEM goals. In other areas, the program 

served an integration function, combining results by core unit researchers with 

those of cooperating projects.

Barger used the economics unit to 

illustrate how STEM worked. “Take 

for example the research in the Forest 

Economics project on below-cost timber 

sales,” he said. “Erv Schuster’s excellent 

and widely publicized work is seldom 

thought of as directly linked to STEM, 

but the below-cost sale issue is at the 

heart of the problem with small-stem 

harvesting.” He also pointed out that 

through the economics unit, the Bureau 

of Business and Economic Research at 

the University of Montana produced 

several widely referenced works on 

product uses and the costs and availability of forest residues that were useful 

in meeting program objectives (Close 

1988a).

The STEM program started out with 

no species emphasis. All Inland West 

areas that included trees considered 

marginal, small-stem timber were 

included. But during early problem 

analysis, Forest Service managers in 

Regions 1 and 4 emphasized that their 

number one priority problem was clearly 

management of small, overstocked 

Branches and tops 

left after logging 

were chipped at 

harvest sites in one 

study sponsored 

by the Forest 

Logging Residues 

R&D Program in 

the early 1970s.

Research Forester Bill 

Fischer (left) and Program 

Manager Ron Barger 

discussed fire and utilization studies conducted 

by Station scientists at the 

University of Montana’s 

Lubrecht Experimental 

Forest during an educator’s 

tour in 1980.
–141

lodgepole pine stands. This gave STEM 

a focus, and Peter Koch’s arrival as a 

staff member in 1983 brought needed 

wood technology expertise to attack the 

problem (see “Peter Koch—Superstar,” 

this chapter). “His work soon became 

almost 50 percent of what STEM was 

about,” Barger said.

At the time the program started, 

foresters generally thought they had to 

clearcut lodgepole pine stands if they 

were to harvest them at all. But considerations involving wildlife, recreation, 

watershed, and other uses often made 

partial or intermediate harvesting methods a better choice. Lodgepole had only 

recently emerged as a bona fide timber 

tree, so little information about alternative harvesting methods was available. 

Barger said, “Managers needed more 

alternatives, and STEM set out to find 

them” (Close 1988).

They found the right harvesting 

prescriptions in the Station’s subalpine 

forest silviculture unit in Bozeman, 

which became a principal collaborator 

(See “Willkommen to High-Elevation 

Forestry,” this chapter). “This unit 

should have been with STEM since day 

one,” Barger said. “It just turned out 

to be one of those instances where our 

program needs and their research objectives meshed.”

Managers got to see results at 25 

field study sites in Montana, Utah, and 

Wyoming. The sites were selected to 

represent as wide an array as possible of 

stand age, tree size, and density within 

natural stands where trees were 3 to 

7 inches in diameter. National Forest 

personnel helped select the sites and 

arranged commercial logging operations based on research specifications. 

That approach made the local foresters 

well-aware of what was going on and 

resulted in lots of visitors to the areas 

on an informal basis, and also for field 

days sponsored by the program and the 

forests.

Involving the managers helped define 

precisely what they wanted from the 

studies. Using various harvest methods 

to achieve a combination of timberoriented and nontimber objectives 

raised economic questions of costs and 

benefits, at the time of harvest and in 

the future. STEM-sponsored research 

identified all objectives of concern and 

defined the costs and benefits associated 

with each. Barger was recognized in 

1976 with a USDA Superior Service 

Honor Award for his imaginative work 

in setting up the program to emphasize 

“technically, economically, and environmentally viable alternatives” useful to 

managers.

Like all formally chartered R&D 

programs at the time, STEM had an 

expiration date. Although its original 

5-year limit was extended once, it came 

to an end in 1986. Results and outlines 

of work that might continue within 

other frameworks were presented at a 

workshop attended by more than 100 

scientists and managers at Fairmont Hot 

Springs, Montana. The Station published 

a summary document, Management 

of Small-Stem Stands of Lodgepole 

Pine—Workshop Proceedings, compiled 

by Barger.

Although the many technical 

publications that resulted from STEM 

formed a foundation of knowledge to 

serve as a basis for future utilization 

work, Barger expressed regret about 

the program’s demise. “Five or seven 

years is just too short,” he said. “We 

don’t get the chance to benefit fully from 

what we learned. That’s a problem with 

every R&D program trying to come to 

an orderly conclusion. You may have 

arrived at the end, but the program is not 

yet completed. If we could just do one 

iteration of our field studies, we would 

unquestionably come much closer to 

defining the most promising harvesting 

systems and techniques” (Close 1988a).

Barger retired in 1987, ending a 

distinguished Forest Service career that 

began in 1948 when he was a lookout 

and firefighter in the Apache National 

Forest in Arizona. He immediately 

started working as a visiting professor 

at the University of Montana’s School 

of Forestry, where he was twice chosen 

Outstanding Professor of the Year by 

students. He died in 1993 of a heart 

attack, and the University of Montana 

Foundation established a scholarship 

fund in his name (INTercom June/93).

The SEAM RD&A Program—In 

the early 1970s there was a lot of interest in surface mining. More than 200 

million acres in the Interior West, much 

of it public land, was underlain by coal, 

phosphate, uranium, and oil shale deposits. There were additional vast deposits 

of more than 80 other minerals that 

could be mined economically. Energy 

demand was rising throughout the U.S.

Interest in the environmental effects 

of “strip mining” was growing, and 

although 60 percent of surface mining 

was occurring in the East, the potential 

for expansion was much greater in the 

less developed western areas. There 

was little doubt that many essentially 

agrarian communities in the West would 

experience both social and economic 

impacts as they changed from rural to 

industrial cultures and the governors of 

western States were concerned about 

that.

The Forest Service had started a small 

research program at the Northeastern 

Station in 1962 to develop methods of 

reducing or preventing damage to the 

environment and forest resources during 

surface mining operations and to restore 

values after mining. Results had been 

used by States in developing reclamation laws and regulations, and by the 

mining industry, National Forests, and 

the Tennessee Valley Authority to guide 

reclamation practices.

Studies of skyline logging systems in 

the Flathead National Forest, Montana, 

were part of the STEM program quest 

to find ways to harvest small-diameter 

timber efficiently without creating 

unacceptable impacts on the forest 

environment.
142–

Problems, especially in revegetation, were different in the West. So 

in 1972 the Forest Service completed 

planning for the Surface Environment 

and Mining Program to coordinate 

with many western research groups, 

land managers, and State and local 

government units. The goal was 

to develop and apply information 

to minimize environmental and 

socio-economic impacts from surface 

mining while providing needed energy 

sources and minerals (Bay, personal 

communication).

At its inception, SEAM was managed 

by the State and Private Forestry arm of 

the Forest Service. A small administrative staff was stationed in Billings, 

Montana. Several Program Managers 

supervised SEAM during its 9-year 

existence. The first, Jean Hassel, later 

became Regional Forester of Region 3. 

Research had a major role in SEAM, 

and the Station’s watershed (later 

renamed disturbed lands reclamation) 

unit at Logan was heavily involved from 

the start.

Project Leader Paul Packer wrote 

a Station publication issued in 1974 

that was to guide a large part of SEAM 

program work in Wyoming, Montana, 

and North and South Dakota, the 

four States that contained most of the 

Nation’s federally owned coal deposits. 

Packer classified 3,000 square miles 

into “rehabilitation-response units.” 

The areas included 22 surface coal 

mines. His work predicted rehabilitation success by area based on many 

factors. Rehabilitation Potentials and 

Limitations of Surface-Mined Land in 

the Northern Great Plains included detailed maps showing his ratings for 146 

areas in 36 counties with a description 

of pertinent ecosystems.

Another influential early publication 

was Revegetation on the Decker Coal 

Mine in Southeastern Montana by the 

four scientists in the Station unit, Gene 

Farmer, Ray Brown, Bland Richardson, 

and Packer. It gave early results of studies at the Decker Mine, which developed 

into one of the largest surface coal 

mines in the U.S. This research provided 

the knowledge necessary to establish 

rehabilitation demonstration areas open 

to industry and the public at the Stateowned site (Klade 1975).

In August 1975, the Station assumed 

responsibility for SEAM. The Program 

Manager continued to reside in Billings, 

but reported to the Station Director. The 

program by then had active projects in 

10 western States, and four reclamation 

demonstration areas were in operation, 

with two more planned. The work 

involved 10 universities, all the Forest 

Service western regions, State and 

other Federal agencies, and the mining 

industry (INTercom 8/21/75).

Although the Logan unit conducted 

or arranged for the bulk of the research, 

studies also were made by scientists 

at the Rocky Mountain and Pacific 

Southwest Stations. The Agricultural 

Research Service, at Mandan, North 

Dakota, conducted a SEAM-funded 

study of the chemical properties of 

overburden materials that affect water 

quality, plant establishment, and successful reclamation.

Obtaining seed for native plants 

was a problem in the West, and SEAM 

personnel worked with nurseries 

and Soil Conservation Service Plant 

Materials Centers to set up mechanisms 

for obtaining plant materials. In 1976, 

more than 50,000 containerized native 

shrubs were produced through this part 

of the program and shipped to various 

reclamation sites in the West. Shrub Lab 

scientists at Provo provided expertise for 

this development.

The Station added a new dimension to the research part of SEAM in 

1976 when Neil Frischknecht and Bob 

Ferguson were assigned to work as a 

special team studying revegetation of oil 

shale and coal spoils on semiarid lands. 

Sites were established for oil shale 

studies near Grand Junction, Colorado, 

and southwest of Vernal, Utah. The pair 

worked in cooperation with the Bureau 

of Land Management at the Alton Coal 

Mine in Utah, one of three places in the 

State where coal could be strip mined. 

Ferguson summed up the research 

results shortly after the SEAM program 

ended with two Station publications, 

Revegetating Processed Oil Shale in the 

Upper Mountainbrush Zone of Colorado

and Reclamation on Utah’s Emery and 

Alton Coalfields: Techniques and Plant 

Materials.

Most western surface coal mines 

were in alkaline soils, and the acid waste 

problems associated with coal mining 

in the East did not exist, but there were 

acid pollution problems associated with 

western mines producing metals in 

certain areas (Bay personal communication). Farmer addressed one aspect of 

the problem with a 1976 Station publication, Revegetation of Acid Mining 

Wastes in Central Idaho.

Mining sites at high elevations had 

special problems, and Brown discussed 

some of them in Revegetation of an 

Station researchers planted various seed mixtures and used different fertilizer, 

irrigation, and mulch treatments on study plots located on graded spoils at the 

Decker Coal Mine in southeastern Montana.
–143

Alpine Mine Disturbance: Beartooth 

Plateau, Montana, also issued in 1976. 

This topic was to receive continuing 

attention from Brown and other Station 

scientists after the SEAM program 

ended (see “Reclaiming the High 

Country,” this chapter).

A large area in southeastern Idaho 

holds one of the world’s richest known 

phosphate reserves, with more than a 

billion tons of recoverable minerals. 

The same area is known for its excellent 

wildlife habitat, especially for sage 

grouse, sandhill cranes, moose, elk, and 

cutthroat trout. Huge waste dumps result 

from the surface mining that extracts 

prosphate, and before the mid-1970s 

little was being done to reclaim mined 

areas (Kingsbury 1981a).

Station researchers began working 

with Caribou National Forest personnel 

to develop reclamation technology in 

1972, and the scope broadened under 

SEAM program sponsorship in 1974. 

Phosphate mining firms were very interested in the research, and were quick to 

begin restoring waste dumps located on 

public land once advice on techniques 

became available. Major projects were 

at the Ballard Mine (Monsanto Chemical 

Co.), where the Station research began, 

the Wooley Valley Mine (Stauffer 

Mining Co.), the Maybe Canyon Mine 

(Beker Industries), and the Conda and 

Gay Mines (J.R. Simplot Co.).

Two pressing, related problems had 

to be solved. One was erosion and mass 

instability caused by the steepness of 

waste dump slopes and pockets saturated 

by groundwater within the dumps. The 

other was how to revegetate the barren 

and nutrient-poor dump materials to restore wildlife habitat. 

Farmer used nuclear 

measuring devices 

and models to define 

instability problems 

and show miners how 

to properly construct 

waste dumps or rebuild existing dumps. 

Richardson, working 

with Station scientists at the Provo Lab, 

demonstrated how to 

apply revegetation 

research to prepare 

sites and plant vegetation that would do 

well on the sites.

Studies at 

the phosphate 

mines resulted in 

recommendations 

for revegetation 

techniques at other 

mining operations, including coal, heavy 

metals, oil shale, and barite. By 1981, 

more than 60 mines operating in the 

western United States had nearly 500 

people involved in reclaiming waste 

dumps (Kingsbury 1981a).

Shortly before Packer retired, he said, 

“I would like to look at a hill and not 

know whether it was mined or not.” That 

Station scientists established one of the SEAM demonstration projects at an abandoned gold mine in the Custer National 

Forest in Montana. The spoils were shaped, covered with topsoil, and seeded with native plants. Rubber sheets, buried 

under the surface, helped retain moisture and control acid drainage.

During a review of the Station research program, a 

revegetation plot at the Maybe Canyon phosphate mine 

in southeastern Idaho was checked by (left to right) a 

Caribou National Forest representative; Paul Packer, 

Project Leader of the mined-land rehabilitation research 

unit; Bob Buckman, Deputy Chief of the Forest Service for 

Research, Roger Bay, Station Director, and a representative 

of Beker Industries, the company mining the phosphate.
144–

became possible at many sites where 

the results of SEAM-sponsored research 

were properly applied.

Starting in 1977, the focus of SEAM 

application work shifted from setting 

up demonstration areas to developing 

other ways to transfer knowledge to user 

groups. One product was a computerized 

literature searching capability developed 

through a contract with a university. 

Another was MOSAIC, a photomontage system produced by Aerospace 

Corporation in California to accurately 

portray how such things as power lines, 

roads, and pipelines would look before 

any development started (Colling 1977). 

The system was used by landscape 

architects in several types of project 

planning.

With SEAM activity slowing in 1980, 

the major thrusts became to package and 

distribute results. A series of workshops 

were held in Denver where all program 

participants focused on relating the major SEAM areas of concern to planning. 

They provided material for user-oriented 

handbooks published by the Station the 

next year. The user guides were for vegetation, soils, hydrology, engineering, 

and sociology and economics (Forestry 

Research West Aug./80).

The entire Station research unit—

Packer, Brown, Richardson, Farmer, and 

technicians Bryan Williams and Michael 

Collins—received a USDA Superior 

Service Honor Award for the research 

work. When SEAM ended, the remnants 

of the research program were assigned 

to the Logan unit.

SEAM had been unique among Station 

special programs with Congressional 

funding as a separate budget item. During 

its first 2 years, the Program Manager 

reported to the Washington Office. There 

were advantages to that type of organization, but also drawbacks. It was always 

a battle to get research funds sent to the 

Forest Service units rather than to the 

various universities who wanted a piece 

of the action. Later, the visibility of the 

separate budget item made the program 

a target for Congressional cuts. Funds 

for SEAM gradually diminished and 

were eliminated in 1981. The danger of 

exposing an individual research program 

to specific Congressional cuts was a 

lesson somewhat painfully learned by 

the national Forest Service office and the 

Stations.

The Challenge of 

Managing Change

In the early 1970s the flowering 

of the environmental and civil rights 

movements signaled big changes to 

come throughout the Forest Service. 

By the middle of the decade, change 

was sweeping through the agency. The 

management arm started consolidating 

Ranger Districts and National Forests 

in a search for greater efficiencies, more 

specialists in fields such as landscape 

architecture and wildlife biology 

were hired, and “public involvement” 

programs were begun in efforts to find 

consensus support for projects and 

programs. Pressures grew to radically 

change the workforce by hiring and 

advancing more women and ethnic 

minorities.

The same pressures affected Forest 

Service research, and it also was hit 

with another serious problem. Research 

funding generally not only stopped 

growing, it began to shrink or hold level 

as expenses rose. This turned out to be 

a long-term trend. The expansion era at 

the Intermountain Station had ended and 

“good times” for research had not reappeared by the close of the century.

The Station’s last new major facility 

was opened in 1975 when the Shrub Lab 

was dedicated, despite the fact that some 

buildings still in use at several locations 

were more than 40 years old. Over the 

next 3 decades, the only improvements 

in Station facilities of any consequence 

The Most Popular Pub

The most popular serial publication in Intermountain Station history was a product of 

the SEAM Program. General Technical Report 35, Anatomy of a Mine from Prospect to 

Production, was first issued in July 1977. It was reprinted nine times. A total of 34,500 

copies were produced, and a revised version remained in demand in 2004.

Anatomy was first prepared in loose-leaf form 

in 1975 as an aid to Forest Service managers 

and other administrators with mineral area 

responsibilities. The material summarized 

legislation affecting mining, defined mining 

terms, and discussed basics of mineral 

exploration, development, and operations in 

the West. The guide was financed through the 

SEAM Program and prepared under direction of 

the Minerals Area Management Staff of Region 

4. It was written primarily by private mining 

consultants James H. Bright and Anthony L. 

Payne.

The guide quickly became popular with land 

managers in many State and Federal agencies, 

and was used often in training courses. 

Planners, environmentalists, and mining 

industry personnel sought copies. Educators 

from elementary through college levels 

requested copies for classroom use. In 1977, a revision was edited and published by 

the Intermountain Station, which had taken over responsibility for the SEAM Program. 

The document was updated again before a reprinting in 1983.

Several reprintings were funded by the Region 4 minerals staff. The 1995 edition was 

paid for by the Minerals and Geology Management Staff in the national office of the 

Forest Service. Throughout the publication’s history, combined efforts of Region 4 

and Intermountain Station personnel and consultants in other Forest Service Regions 

in reviewing and updating material resulted in bringing readers current minerals 

management information (adapted from the Foreword of the 1995 revision).
–145

were an addition to the Moscow Lab 

opened in 1991, some changes in 

interior laboratory space at the Fire Lab, 

construction of a greenhouse at Provo, 

and a bit of remodeling of the 1940s-era 

Boise Lab buildings that was primarily 

cosmetic. Several experimental areas 

were closed out or had Station use 

sharply curtailed mainly because funds 

no longer were available to maintain 

them.

As elsewhere in the Forest Service, 

personnel costs were up and were 

continuing to rise. Federal employee 

salaries historically had been low in 

comparison to private sector pay. When 

the Nixon administration came into 

office in 1968, reports were circulating 

that the gap was as much as 30 percent. 

Veteran employees recalled that reimbursements for travel expenses also were 

woefully inadequate.

In the late 1960s, employees were 

reimbursed a flat $16.00 per day for 

official travel expenses. Most people 

required to visit the Washington Office 

stayed at the Franklin Park Hotel, where 

the room rate was $13.00—the cheapest 

lodging anywhere near Forest Service 

Headquarters in the Department of 

Agriculture complex. The Franklin Park, 

a second-rate hotel later demolished, 

had two attractions. It served a hefty, 

although somewhat greasy, breakfast 

buffet for $1.00. A visitor could walk 

from the Franklin to headquarters, 

although it was a pretty good hike. After 

eating as much as possible and hiking 

to work, a traveler had the grand total 

of $2.00 remaining for food during the 

rest of the day and any miscellaneous 

expenses. Anything more came out of 

the employee’s personal pocket.

The Nixon administration had a 

policy of encouraging private sector 

people to enter government service, 

and to accomplish that it had to do 

something about the compensation 

problem. Civil Service salaries gradually 

were improved and so were expense 

reimbursements (the flat rate for room 

and meals was increased to $25.00 per 

day in 1969). Annual salary adjustments 

exceeded the inflation rate for several 

years, although most analysts believed 

the gap between private and government 

compensation was never fully closed. 

The compensation news was good for 

most employees, but the added costs 

of doing business posed a problem 

for top administrators who had fewer 

discretionary dollars to use in keeping 

programs running.

Thanks in part to Deputy Chief 

Arnold’s changes in Forest Service 

research Roger Bay faced plenty of 

challenges in 1974 when he succeeded 

Bob Harris as Station Director. The top 

staff had not had time to fully adjust to 

the new Deputy Director and Assistant 

Director roles and the demise of the old 

Division Chief system. RD&A and R&D 

programs were largely experimental, and 

the Station was involved in three major 

ones.

At about the time Bay arrived in 

Ogden, the Forest Service signaled its 

awareness of the growing environmental 

movement by producing a document 

labeled the “Environmental Program for 

the Future.” The program described action and research programs, highlighting 

18 areas of research emphasis for the 

next 10 years (Steen 1976). Most of the 

emphasis items involved some degree of 

change at the Stations. Adding in budget 

and workforce adjustments meant a lot 

of change was going on.

Bay was a special assistant to 

the Deputy Chief for Research in 

Washington when named Station 

Director, and before that assignment 

was a Branch Chief in Watershed 

Management Research. He had considerable early experience that perhaps 

gave him unusual insights useful in 

coping with the changes going on at 

the Station. His research expertise was 

in watershed and soils, important areas 

in the Station program. He had experience in the northern part of the Station 

territory as a forestry graduate of the 

University of Idaho. He knew about fire 

from a summer as a smokejumper in 

Missoula and also had worked on insect 

survey crews while a student. His first 

career job with the Forest Service was 

in timber sale administration with the 

Flathead National Forest.

One later experience turned out to 

be a perfect fit for the Station situation. 

While serving in Washington, Bay was 

appointed to represent USDA in an interagency group that worked with western 

States on coal mining and power project 

development impacts. Coincidentally, 

the Surface Environment and Mining 

Program was being developed to address 

Montana and Wyoming concerns. The 

SEAM concept meshed with interests 

of the group Bay was working with, and 

he was able to help the new program 

get through the Washington approval 

process. At the time he didn’t know he 

would be moving to the Intermountain 

Station and be given major responsibility for SEAM in the field. Bay said the 

contacts he made with State officials 

during the special Washington assignment were helpful later when dealing 

with Montana officials (Bay, personal 

communication).

At the Station, Bay personally initiated some new approaches to management 

and presided over others. He instituted 

a Director’s Advisory Committee of 

Scientists and Administrators, which 

included representatives from each lab 

and changed its membership annually. 

The committee had dual roles. Members 

were asked to advise Bay on specific 

Roger Bay responded to changing 

conditions in the 1970s with innovative management activities and a style 

that inspired confidence in subordinates. Bay was the third consecutive 

University of Idaho graduate to head 

the Intermountain Station, following 

Joe Pechanec and Bob Harris. The university’s College of Natural Resources 

named Bay 1994 Honor Alumnus for his 

career achievements and service to the 

school.
146–

Station issues. It also was a mechanism 

for employees to bring concerns to the 

attention of the Director without having 

to go through the traditional supervisory 

“chain of command.” The committee 

served as a communication link in 

another way. Meetings often included 

briefings by headquarters personnel on 

their areas of responsibility, information 

the committee members carried back to 

their home units.

Bay also started holding occasional 

staff retreats to help the Deputy and 

Assistant Directors become comfortable 

working together. These typically were 

2- or 3-day informal meetings away 

from Station Headquarters. There were 

some formal reports and agenda items, 

but most of the agenda called for open 

discussion of whatever was of interest to 

the participants.

One significant question was how 

the three Program Managers would fit 

into the organization. Bay made them 

de facto Assistant Directors. They 

attended monthly staff meetings with 

the Assistant Directors and had much 

of the same responsibilities and authority within their program areas as the 

ADs did for research units under their 

supervision.

Bay said one major change he tried 

to bring about didn’t work out. Other 

Stations had been successful in organizing “consortiums” to bring together 

university and government research 

expertise in coordinated programs. Bay 

tried to organize this type of effort with 

the Shrub Lab as a hub, but said the 

consortium idea just didn’t catch on.

Although Bay failed to get a shrub 

consortium started, his promotion of 

the idea paid off. Less than a year after 

he left the Station the Provo Lab announced formation of a Shrub Research 

Consortium consisting of the Station, 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Brigham Young University, and Utah 

State University to coordinate research 

on improving shrubs and their use on 

western rangelands.

During Bay’s tenure as Director, 

the Station formed a Civil Rights 

Committee whose members represented 

a cross-section of units and employment levels. The committee helped set 

employment and training goals designed 

to increase diversity in the workforce. 

Regular employee orientation sessions 

were instituted, and they helped create 

understanding between scientific and 

administrative personnel. Bay credited 

Bev Holmes (see “Bev Holmes—Ace 

Administrator,” chapter 12) with getting 

these activities started, but he gave them 

strong support (Bay interview, 2005).

Occasionally, Bay’s management 

style resulted in events probably not 

seen before or since at the Station. For 

example, after the retirement of George 

Gruschow, long-time Assistant Director 

for Administration, Bay called a meeting 

of the five Group Leaders who reported 

to the AD for Administration. He read a 

list of candidates to replace Gruschow, 

and asked each Group Leader what he 

knew about the person and if he would 

recommend the candidate for the job. 

Giving people a voice in selecting their 

own supervisor definitely was not standard Forest Service procedure! Bay had 

a special knack for making subordinates 

at all levels feel they were important, 

and exercises such as rating a future 

boss certainly made the raters believe 

they were part of the management team.

Giving Station personnel a voice 

in matters that directly affected them 

was a Bay characteristic that often had 

very positive results. Long-time Project 

Leader Al Stage recalled one year when 

a severe budget crunch threatened the 

entire research program. Rather than 

dictate percentage or individual cuts 

in research units, Bay called a special 

meeting of the Project Leaders and 

merely laid what the total cut was likely 

to be, where the Station stood in the 

national picture, and what was needed to 

maintain a viable program. The Project 

Leaders returned home, thought it over, 

and went out and raised funds from 

outside sponsors. Enough “soft money” 

was forthcoming to maintain the Station 

program that year (Stage, interview).

This was not the first time direct 

funding came to research work units 

from sources other than annual appropriations. The practice grew, however, 

as constraints on the “regular” research 

budget continued. Retired Assistant 

Station Director Keith Evans said 

in 2005, “The amount and level of 

‘soft dollars’ coming into the Station 

would surprise many. In later years, 

soft dollars set the priorities for the 

scientists. The Washington Office and 

Station Headquarters had very little 

influence on research direction. The 

research work unit descriptions became 

meaningless.”

Bay’s style was his own but it had 

some features of “participatory management,” “transactional analysis,” and 

other tactics advocated by management 

gurus of the time. It also included elements of “Total Quality Management,” 

which was widely heralded in government and industry circles some years 

later. Asked how he would characterize 

his approach, he said, “I just thought it 

was important to involve a lot of people. 

We didn’t have a name for it, we just did 

it.”

The P&A Training Ground

Four men—Otis Copeland, Ron 

Lindmark, Jerry Sesco, and Keith 

Evans—served as the Planning and 

Applications Assistant Director during 

Intermountain Station history. Although 

the job was not formally designated as 

a “stepping stone” to higher positions, 

with one exception, all advanced to 

more important administrative posts in 

Forest Service Research.

The exception was Copeland, the 

first of the P&A ADs, who was only 

2 years from retirement when the job 

was created in 1972. The principal 

reason P&A slots were established was 

a mountain of new work required by 

the Renewable Resources Planning Act 

and other Federal legislation mandating 

long-range natural resource planning. 

The timing, however, coincided with 

the change from Division Chiefs to 

Assistant Station Directors—Research 

at all Stations. The AD-Rs got more pay 

than the P&A ADs, and supervised a 

large number of personnel in research 

units. Evans called them “AD—Reals” 

(personal communication). P&A ADs 

usually had only secretarial help, no 

supervisory authority, and basically 

served as staff assistants to the Station 

Directors.

Copeland, a watershed scientist, 

had been a Division Chief. The other 

Division Chiefs got AD-R appointments. 

He “drew the short straw,” and became 
–147

the P&A AD. He was not happy about 

this turn of events, and wasn’t bashful 

about letting fellow employees know 

how he felt. Nevertheless, Copeland 

shared a trait common to all the 

Intermountain Station P&A ADs. He 

was an industrious person who got 

things done. He strongly supported 

the Station’s Surface Environment and 

Mining Program when it was brand-new 

and required a great deal of coordination 

with Forest Service Regions and other 

organizations. In 1975, the Utah Chapter 

of the Soil Conservation Society of 

America gave him its Merit Award for 

his work with SEAM.

Lindmark took over as liaison 

between the Station Director’s Office 

and the SEAM Program when he moved 

to the P&A job in 1974 from a post as 

Project Leader of the marketing research 

unit at the North Central Station. He 

recalled that the P&A position still was 

“relatively new and not well defined” 

(personal communication). During his 

tenure, Lindmark said two major activities consumed most of the P&A ADs 

time. Both were planning programs. 

One was responding to requirements of 

the Resources Planning Act, the other 

to a national/regional research planning 

activity conducted in cooperation with 

the Cooperative State Research Service 

and forestry schools. Lindmark said 

very little of his time was spent on work 

that could be considered “applications,” 

with perhaps the exception of arranging 

educator’s tours.

When Lindmark moved to the 

Washington Office in 1977 his first 

job was as an assistant to the Deputy 

Chief for Research, responsible for 

planning. Later he served as research 

budget coordinator. After a stint working as a Congressional assistant to 

Representative Ralph Regula of Ohio, 

he became Staff Director 

of Forest Environment 

Research. Lindmark said 

the common expectation for people going to 

Washington was that they 

would stay 2 years. “My 

2-year stay turned out to 

be 10,” he said. “A slow 

learner, I guess.”

Lindmark apparently 

learned well. In 1987 he 

was appointed Director of 

the North Central Station. 

He served in that position 

until retirement.

It was coincidental, but 

the next P&A AD followed 

right behind Lindmark 

during part of his career. 

Jerry Sesco became Project 

Leader of the marketing 

unit at the North Central 

Station when Lindmark left for Ogden. 

Some years later, after moving to the 

Washington Office, his second post there 

was following Lindmark as a staff assistant to the Deputy Chief for Research. 

Their appointments at the Intermountain 

Station were no coincidence, however. 

Station Director Roger Bay, who hired 

both men, said their strong backgrounds 

in economics were important to the 

planning part of the job that was emphasized at the time, and he believed their 

knowledge would put them in a good 

position to advance into future positions 

that required planning skills.

Sesco served 3 years as P&A AD. 

Like Lindmark, he said most of his 

time was spent on the “P” part of the 

job—long-range planning and budget. 

“The application part of the job never 

received the emphasis it deserved,” 

he said. “However, INT was a leader 

in establishing and operating RD&A 

programs, which were very successful. 

It was our feeling that a long-range 

cultural change needed to occur to 

get scientists to build closer relationships with users, especially National 

Forest System managers” (personal 

communication).

Sesco moved from Washington 

to the Southeast Station as an AD-R 

in 1984. He was appointed Station 

Director in 1986. In 1988, he moved 

back to Washington as Associate Deputy 

Otis Copeland was the first Planning 

and Applications Assistant Director at 

the Intermountain Station.

Ron Lindmark (standing) was involved 

in 1976 in some intense study of a 

planning document with (left) Forest 

Products Laboratory P&A AD Paul 

O’Connel and Professor Irv Holland of 

the University of Illinois. The exercise 

was part of a national/regional research 

planning program.

Jerry Sesco (left) returned to the Station in 1993 as 

Deputy Chief for Research to review the program 

and present awards, including one for Economics 

Project Leader Erv Schuster in recognition of 

Schuster’s work in assembling and analyzing rural 

development data for a national program.
148–

Chief for Research and after only 1 

month was appointed to the highest 

administrative position in Forest Service 

Research—Deputy Chief.

Evans was the third consecutive P&A 

AD to come from the North Central 

Station when he replaced Sesco in 1981. 

A wildlife biologist with a special interest in ornithology, he was Project Leader 

for range and wildlife habitat research at 

North Central’s unit in Columbia, MO. 

Planning continued to be an important 

part of the P&A job, but there was 

more balance as the national planning 

programs got less emphasis. Evans was 

involved more in budget formulation 

and technology transfer than his predecessors had been.

Evans said at some Stations there 

were conflicts between the P&A AD and 

the Budget Officer, but that wasn’t true 

in Ogden. “Carlos Elwood (the Budget 

Officer) and I got along real well,” he 

said. “I always referred to my part as 

‘funny money’ and worked on budgets 

before the appropriations committee 

passed their bill. As soon as the appropriations bill was passed and the money 

crossed to the west over the Mississippi 

River, Carlos took over and did a great 

job.” Elwood assumed the long-range 

budgeting work when Evans went to the 

Washington Office in 1985. The P&A 

position was not filled after Evans’ transfer (Evans, personal communication).

In the technology transfer phase of 

the job, Evans helped organize several 

important symposia. He also spent considerable time coordinating a “Research 

Needs Response Program.” This was 

an effort to solicit ideas directly from 

resource managers at all levels about 

what their most compelling problems 

were and which ones research should 

work on. This program was not a great 

success, and later was discontinued (see 

“Getting the Word Out—the Station’s 

Strong Suit,” this chapter).

Evans went to Washington after 

qualifying as a Congressional Fellow. 

He worked for then Congressman Dick 

Cheney and later Senator Malcolm 

Wallop, both of Wyoming. He also 

worked on the Forest Service Legislative 

Affairs Staff and served as a staff 

specialist in the Forest Environment 

Research office. Life in Washington 

could be hectic. During 4 years there, 

Evans lived in four apartments, held 

three positions, and occupied seven 

different offices (INTercom 11/9/89). He 

got his reward in 1989 when he returned 

to the Station as an “AD—Real,” supervising a large group of research units, a 

job he served in until retirement.

The P&A job at the Station proved 

to be an excellent transition position 

between scientist and research administrator roles. The P&A AD was a member 

of the Station’s executive team and 

participated in all the meetings where 

budgets, personnel, and other matters 

were discussed and decisions were 

made.

A Lot More to Survey

On the national scene, passage of 

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act (RPA) in 1974 

had important effects on the Forest 

Service. RPA called for the Service to 

make an assessment of natural resource 

needs every 10 years, and to produce 

a plan every 5 years to address those 

needs (West 1990). A significant amendment to RPA was passed in 1976, titled 

the National Forest Management Act. 

NFMA called for a comprehensive management plan for each National Forest. 

RPA had an impact on the Stations, 

but the planning effort required at each 

National Forest placed much greater 

demands on time and human resources. 

To many Forest Service employees, and 

perhaps the public, RPA and NFMA 

changed the Forest Service from a “doing” to a “planning” organization.

The Resources Planning Act created 

the original need for Planning and 

Applications Assistant Station Directors, 

and it created a lot more work for Forest 

Survey. The act broadened the inventory 

mandate to include not just commercial 

timberlands, but all forest land. In the 

Intermountain West this meant that vast 

areas of pinyon-juniper and other species considered noncommercial had to 

be included in Statewide surveys.

This task was difficult if not impossible with existing technology. Pinyon 

and juniper trees tend to have multiple 

stems and heavy branching. Traditional 

measurement methods could not provide 

accurate estimates of the volume and 

growth of these woodland types. The 

Station’s survey unit, working in coopKeith Evans supervised the original 

wilderness research unit as part of his 

job as an Assistant Station Director 

for Research. When the Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Institute opened in 1993 

Evans was on hand to present a commemorative T-shirt designed by the old 

unit’s David Spildie to Dorothy Bradley, 

Aldo Leopold’s step-granddaughter.

Dave Born and Dave Chojnacky of 

Forest Survey wrote several publications describing the segmentation 

technique for determining volume 

and growth of dryland trees and later 

refinements to the system.
–149

eration with Region 3 (the Southwestern 

Region) and Station scientists at Reno, 

solved this problem in the mid-1970s by 

developing a procedure for measuring 

these trees that involved segmenting the 

stems and branches and then computing 

estimates of volume and growth (Van 

Hooser, personal communication).

The procedures worked so well 

that the Pacific Northwest Survey 

Unit, based in Portland, used them for 

the inventory of the chaparral type in 

southern California and for the western 

juniper type in Oregon and Washington. 

During the 1990s, the Forest Service’s 

International Forestry Staff exported 

the Intermountain Station segmentation 

procedures to Sudan and Somalia, where 

they were successfully used to measure 

and inventory shrubby vegetation in 

those countries.

The unit developed useful new 

technology again when it was time to 

do a Statewide survey in Arizona, where 

mesquite is common. Mesquite was too 

dense to allow foresters to extract cores 

to measure growth, the usual method. 

Survey researchers developed a model 

to predict growth from other easily 

measured variables. Results were used 

to estimate wood volume growth for 1.2 

million acres of mesquite inventoried in 

Arizona.

The growth model was incorporated 

into the University of Arizona’s larger 

computer projection model for southwestern woodlands. Model information 

was requested by resource management 

agencies in Arizona, Nevada, New 

Mexico, and Texas. Because Arizona’s 

mesquite was one of 40 mesquite species distributed worldwide, there was 

considerable international interest in the 

model (INTercom Nov./92).

Family Fights Erupt

As pointed out earlier, over the years 

there sometimes were tensions within 

the Forest Service between Research and 

National Forest System personnel. On 

occasion, tensions escalated into clashes 

over situations in which scientific findings were at variance with prevailing 

management philosophy or actitivites. 

Two examples of unusual situations are 

described here to illustrate what could 

happen.

The Forest Service was embroiled 

in controversies in the 1970s. The 

environmental movement had added 

a new dimension to conflicts between 

people with differing viewpoints that are 

inherent in a multiple-use management 

program. The Forest Service was caught 

in the middle. Some criticism was leveled at the use of chemicals in programs 

to control insect pests or unwanted vegetation. A lot of criticism was directed 

at the quantity and quality of timber 

harvesting in the National Forests. 

Chief Ed Cliff said he welcomed the 

environmental movement but acknowledged that top Forest Service officials 

may have misjudged its power and 

effect...“The movement wasn’t new, but 

it certainly gained momentum and grew 

beyond all stretches of the imagination 

during the sixties” (Hartzer 1981).

One of the flaps in the early 70s 

pitted a Station researcher and a 

management specialist against several 

managers. Gene Amman, a research 

entomologist stationed in Ogden, and 

Bruce Baker, an entomologist with 

the Timber Management Staff in the 

Region 4 Regional Office, collaborated 

on a study of methods for controlling 

mountain pine beetles, including using 

chemicals (one method was to spray tree 

trunks with ethylene dibromide mixed 

into diesel oil). Amman and Baker concluded that the chemical treatments did 

not stop the spread of infestations. They 

wrote a paper intended for publication in 

the Journal of Forestry, and the manuscript went out for review by several 

scientists and managers. According to 

Amman (personal communication), the 

review process stimulated stiff opposition from National Forest managers in 

several Regions.

Amman visited Assistant Station 

Director Chuck Wellner and asked if 

Wellner thought the paper should be 

withdrawn. The usually mild-mannered 

Wellner got red in the face, banged his 

fist on the desk top, and exclaimed, “It’s 

the truth and by damn we are going to 

publish it!” The paper was published by 

the journal in April 1972.

Not long afterward, Amman got a 

call from the Office of Management 

and Budget seeking his comments 

about the study. Soon after that, forest-wide programs to control mountain 

pine beetles with chemicals were 

discontinued.

Amman said Attorney Dean Gardner 

of the USDA Office of the General 

Counsel told him of an unintended consequence of the study and publication. 

The Targhee National Forest in Idaho 

made a lodgepole pine sale in an area of 

beetle infestations to a timber operator 

with the stated purpose of protecting 

trees that would be left after the timber 

cutting. The operator didn’t complete 

the harvest, and the Forest Service sued 

him. The logger used the Amman-Baker 

study results in his defense, and won the 

case.

Amman said, “That is the way with 

science; some of it works for the Agency 

and some works against it.”

By 1974 national controversies 

over timber harvesting, particularly 

clearcutting, had escalated. It was just 

the right or wrong time (depending on 

one’s viewpoint) for the Intermountain 

Station to issue a timber supply situation 

report. It happened to be the time when 

huge amounts of data gathered over a 

10-year period for and by Forest Survey 

in its nine-State area of responsibility 

had been assembled, analyzed, and 

interpreted. The Station published the 

results in The Rocky Mountain Timber 

Situation, 1970, by Al Green and Ted 

Setzer.

Green was a veteran research forester 

who had multiple academic degrees, 

including one in economics. He had considerable experience in silviculture and 

regeneration research and had worked 

for several years as Superintendent of 

the Amana Experimental Forest in eastern Iowa. He was serving as Assistant 

Project Leader for Forest Survey, and 

in that capacity wrote or participated 

in writing many reports. Setzer had a 

wealth of experience in research work 

on timber removals and inventory 

planning and had been a forest manager 

and sawmill operator, also in the Amana 

Colonies.

Green was good with words. He was 

considered one of the best writers in 

the Station at the time. His writing was 

clear, usually interesting, and sometimes 

eloquent. Unfortunately, Green got a 

bit carried away in the situation report, 
150–

and the transgression slipped into print. 

Discussing the gap between timber 

cutting and reforestation, Green wrote, 

“If the current trend continues, the 2.7 

million acres (the acres that hadn’t been 

reforested after timber harvests) will 

blossom into more than 4 million acres 

of nonstocked land by 1980. To prevent 

this kind of galloping desolation would 

take a regeneration program about 

six times the magnitude of the 1970 

program.”

The statement was backed up by a 

lot of solid data and sound analysis in 

the report. Nevertheless, Station people 

soon learned that several National Forest 

System officials thought “galloping 

desolation” was a little bit extreme.

The Station issued a news release as 

it commonly did in those days when any 

publication was thought to be of interest 

to the public. A copy of the publication 

was mailed with each release. This topic 

indeed was of interest. The Denver Post

carried the story under a major headline 

across the top of page one. The Salt 

Lake Tribune, the Missoulian, and other 

newspapers displayed it prominently. 

Most of the backlog of unstocked acres 

was in Region 1, and a reaction came 

quickly after the Missoulian hit the 

streets.

A Regional Information Office staff 

man called Station Headquarters to find 

out how the story got into the media. 

After being informed about the news 

release, and reminded that an advance 

copy had been sent to his office, the 

Regional representative was asked if 

anybody was upset. He chuckled and 

said, “Well, for one thing the Director of 

Timber Management is muttering something about desolation and bouncing off 

his office walls like a ping pong ball.”

That no doubt was an exaggeration, 

but official protests to Station Director 

Bay soon followed. He turned the ruckus 

into a positive situation by dispatching 

Green and Setzer to Montana to explain 

the statistics and their conclusions in 

several meetings with timber management specialists and Forest Supervisors. 

Reports were that the meetings went 

quite well and most participants wound 

up agreeing that the publication was 

accurate.

Most of the time researchers and 

resource managers had excellent relations. Occasionally, there was a collision 

between researchers who believe they 

must maintain scientific objectivity and 

managers who took justifiable pride 

in doing a difficult job well. The 1974 

timber situation conflict illustrates one 

reason the Forest Service has maintained 

research as an independent branch within the organization since 1928. Had the 

Station been subject to Regional Office 

authority the forthright report probably 

would not have been published. Even 

if it had been issued, it almost certainly 

would not have been called to public 

attention by the Forest Service. Chief 

Cliff, incidentally, just before he retired 

strongly endorsed the continued separation of research and management in his 

final report to his boss, the Secretary of 

Agriculture (Hartzer 1981).

Willkommen to HighElevation Forestry

Silvicultural research at the Station 

started at the lower elevations where 

the most valuable timber grew. At 

Priest River, and later Deception Creek, 

studies of cutting methods and regrowth 

centered on western white pine. In the 

Boise Basin and in Montana, researchers 

were concerned almost exclusively with 

ponderosa pine. As the supply situation 

changed and demands grew, silviculture 

studies moved upward in elevation to 

include more species and outward to 

include values beyond commercial use 

for wood products. With the emphasis 

on subalpine forestry they eventually 

took on a decidedly international flavor.

Wyman Schmidt’s career at the 

Station spanned most of the changes. 

Some of his first research after he joined 

the silviculture unit in Missoula in 1960 

was on methods of cultivating Douglasfir Christmas trees, a forest product 

important in Montana that was usually 

grown at lower elevations. One of his 

last major activities before retiring in 

1994 was hosting an international workshop on ecosystems featuring subalpine 

stone pines—whitebark pine in North 

America and four similar species in Asia 

and Europe. Stone pines have little commercial value for forest products, but 

are of great ecological importance in the 

high-elevation areas where they grow.

In 1961, the Missoula unit added 

spruce to the lineup of tree species 

studied, and included the role of fire as 

a forest process. Silvicultural research 

came to Bozeman the same year with 

a new unit studying lodgepole pine. 

The units were combined in 1972, and 

about 4 years later added the spruce 

budworm-silviculture relationship as 

an area of interest, following Schmidt’s 

Project Leader Wyman Schmidt could 

dress the part as he hosted international exchanges of knowledge on 

subalpine tree species long neglected 

in the United States.
–151

appointment as Project Leader (see 

“Integrating Insects with Management,” 

next section). Ten years later non-commercial values and resources other than 

timber were being given more emphasis, and by the time Schmidt retired the 

unit had been renamed Ecology and 

Silviculture and included ecosystem 

management, landscape-scale vegetation 

modeling, and biocontrol of invasive 

plants.

Why did the original Montana 

unit survive and continue to be an 

important part of the Station research 

program with all the changes in 

organization and direction? Schmidt 

believed it was because of the integral nature of silviculture. He said, 

“Silviculture is the science and art 

of managing forests to meet resource 

needs. No matter the resource or 

management objective—be it esthetics, 

water, timber, wildlife, or recreation—

silvicultural practices are the driving 

force, the means used to achieve the 

desired end” (Prouty 1987).

Schmidt also believed in integrated 

attacks on research problems, and that 

involved cooperation with other Station 

units. Examples of silviculture unit 

members working with fire effects, 

mountain pine beetle, watershed, wildlife, and other researchers in many parts 

of Station territory appear throughout 

this history. Key unit members during 

most of Schmidt’s tenure were Research 

Forester Clint Carlson, Silviculturists 

Ray Shearer and Dennis Cole, Research 

Forester Ward McCaughey, Forester 

Jack Schmidt, and Biological Technician 

Leon Theroux.

With its members often working in 

different places at different times, how 

did the unit stay focused on its mission? 

“Each year we all gather to discuss the 

general thrust of our work. During the 

rest of the year there’s constant communication among the group. We jointly 

develop direction of our research, assign 

it to individuals, and then give them a lot 

of independence. I believe independence 

is essential to creativity, and that’s what 

research is all about,” Schmidt said 

(Prouty 1987).

McCaughey (personal communication) said he believed Schmidt’s 

management skills resulted in his greatest contributions to forest science and 

management. He said the Project Leader 

“did an outstanding job organizing, hosting, and compiling results of a number 

of important regional and international 

symposia.” Four proceedings compiled 

by Schmidt were issued as important 

Station publications.

The first, Future Forests of the 

Mountain West: a Stand Culture 

Symposium, assembled a vast amount 

of technical information about young 

forests that grew from the east slopes of 

the Sierra and Cascade Mountains to the 

high plains of the mountain west. It was 

published in 1988 following a gathering 

in Missoula of 300 scientists and forest 

managers at which 57 papers were 

presented.

Ecology and Management of Larix 

Forests: a Look Ahead showed the extension of the silviculture unit’s interests 

into international forestry by including 

many reports by scientists and managers 

from Europe and Asia as well as North 

America (see “Learning About Larch,” 

chapter 6).

When considerable interest developed in the decline of whitebark pine, 

Schmidt organized and hosted a 1989 

symposium focused on holistic management of high-mountain ecosystems in 

western North America where the pine 

was the predominant tree. The result 

was Proceedings—Symposium on 

Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology 

and Management of a High-Mountain 

Resource. The presenters included 

several Station scientists working on 

various aspects of problems in the highelevation ecosystems. For a variety of 

reasons, whitebark pines were declining 

in many areas.

Ray Hoff reported on work in 

identifying disease-resistant whiteback 

pines for use in developing seedlings to 

reforest burned or cutover areas. Ward 

McCaughey and Schmidt described 

studies on basic characteristics of whitebark pine ecology, including cone and 

seed development and several aspects 

of natural and artificial regeneration. 

Steve Arno and Bob Keane gave papers 

describing whitebark ecology and fire 

effects. Dale Bartos reported on the role 

of mountain pine beetles in whitebark 

areas. David Cole defined recreation 

impacts in high-elevation areas where 

whitebark was found.

Some of the Station research had 

a quick payoff when $300,000 was 

raised in a campaign by Country Living

magazine and the Arbor Day Foundation 

to plant new forests in areas damaged 

by the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Many 

burned areas were whitebark ecosystems 

and McCaughey helped prepare planting 

guidelines. The work improved planting 

success and reduced the cost of restoring 

the whitebark pine forests (INTercom

Jan./92).

Hoff and associates at the Moscow 

Lab provided some good news in 1995. 

They found a significant number of 

whitebark seedlings in the wild that 

were resistant to blister rust. They 

planned to create natural seed orchards, 

a move that would substantially reduce 

the time needed for whitebark pine to 

be restored to its role in high-elevation 

ecosystems (Intermountain and Rocky 

Mountain Stations 1995).

Only one of the 52 presenters at the 

1989 symposium was from Europe, 

but that one, Friedrich-Karl Holtmeier, 

Dead or dying whitebark pines signaled 

a problem in many 

high-elevation ecosystems.
152–

turned out to be a key associate in ventures that took high-elevation forestry 

research to new levels of international 

cooperation.

Holtmeier was a professor at 

Westfalische Wilhelms Universitat in 

Muenster, Germany. He and Schmidt 

developed a close professional relationship. One result was a gathering 

in Switzerland of 50 scientists from 

12 counties who exchanged findings on the world’s five stone pine 

ecosystems. The stone pines occupy 

vast areas in the Northern Hemisphere 

and protect important watersheds, are 

prominent esthetic features, provide 

wood products in some places, and are 

important to several wildlife species. 

The information exchange resulted in 

a document compiled by Schmidt and 

Holtmeier, Proceedings—International 

Workshop on Subalpine Stone Pines and 

Their Environment: the Status of our 

Knowledge (INTercom Dec./94).

Holtmeier and Schmidt set up an 

exchange program for students complementing their academic work with 

practical laboratory and field experience. 

For example, Bettina Gerlemann, a 

landscape ecology major from Germany, 

completed her “practicum” at the Coram 

Experimental Forest and the Bozeman 

Lab with guidance from members 

of the subalpine silviculture unit 

(INTercom Nov./90).

The research by Schmidt and 

his colleagues aimed at highelevation forest problems 

was important because past 

management techniques 

were mostly borrowed 

from sites that had better growing conditions 

and high sawtimber values. Schmidt 

and his associates had a major role in 

developing more advanced concepts, 

which grew from a foundation based on 

natural processes. Ecosystem management in high-elevation forests combined 

natural fire prescriptions with managed 

prescribed fire and carefully planned 

tree thinnings and harvests. The idea 

was to give primary consideration to regenerating forest areas or to leave them 

in a natural state when that was most 

appropriate (INTercom July/92).

The Montana Section of the Society 

of American Foresters honored Schmidt 

as “Forester of the Year” in 1989. The 

national group elected him a SAF 

Fellow the next year. In 1992, The 

Department of Agriculture gave him its 

highest recognition, an Honor Award for 

Superior Service, for his leadership in 

ecosystem management research.

Integrating Insects with 

Management

In 1972, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency announced that general use of the “miracle” pesticide DDT 

was no longer legal in the United States, 

ending nearly three decades of reliance 

on the chemical to control the spruce 

budworm and other forest defoliators 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1972). This action resulted primarily 

from the discovery of harmful effects 

on nontarget species such as eagles and 

fish. The national ban drove home the 

point that more effective and ecologically sound approaches to pest control 

were needed.

Station scientists had known that for 

some time, and several veteran entomologists could base their knowledge 

on personal experience with chemical 

spray programs. Among them were 

Dave Fellin, Mal Furniss, and Walt 

Cole, all of whom had supervised or 

participated in chemical control operations (see “Beetles, Budworms, and 

Bushes Get Lots of Attention,” chapter 

8). Statements such as the opening 

paragraph of the Station’s 1963 annual 

report’s section on insects showed the 

direction the program had taken:

Studies of forest insect populations and 

their behavior form the foundation of 

our research program on bark beetles, 

defoliators, and insects affecting 

regeneration. These studies emphasize 

the determination of factors that affect 

population changes. Development 

of methods of control by biological, 

cultural, chemical, or combinations of 

these methods will depend upon greater 

knowledge of population dynamics.

Knowledge of insect population 

dynamics was pursued by researchers 

at Moscow, Missoula, and Ogden. That 

knowledge was one of the key needs 

when USDA announced with some 

fanfare in the 1970s that its agencies, 

including the Forest Service, would 

henceforth practice “integrated pest 

management.” At first, quite a few 

people weren’t sure what that meant.

Thirty years later, the integrated approach still had a variety of definitions, 

although nearly all natural resource 

management organizations said they 

practiced it and educational institutions 

universally advocated its use. Several 

common threads run through the various definitions: (1) eradicating the pests 

is an unrealistic goal; they are part of 

the environment and the goal should 

be to keep populations at acceptable 

levels; (2) knowledge of the pest and 

its environment must be combined 

to determine which actions might be 

safe, effective, and economical; (3) all 

possible control methods and combinations of them should be considered; 

and (4) long-term solutions should be 

The relationship of a small bird—Clark’s 

nutcracker—whitebark pine forests, 

squirrels, and grizzly bears was 

described in reports presented in 

two symposia organized by Wyman 

Schmidt. The nutcracker was a primary 

disperser of whitebark seeds. Squirrels 

stored the seeds, and grizzlies found 

the caches and used the seeds as food 

sources. Research on this subject was 

a specialty of Diana Tomback, a Station 

cooperator who was an Associate 

Professor at the University of Colorado 

in the late 1980s.
–153

emphasized, especially for forest and 

range lands.

Station scientists played key roles in 

the journey toward that type of thinking 

from the days of the massive chemical 

spray programs. When Fellen retired 

in 1985 he said, “In the past we tried 

quick fixes with pesticides, now managers recognize the need for long-term 

management approaches. I’d like to 

think my work in the past 30 years has 

had something to do with this change in 

thinking” (INTercom 4/4/85).

As Project Leader at Moscow, 

Furniss conducted personal research and 

supervised a unit that worked on new 

approaches to control a variety of insects 

in diverse natural environments. He did 

extensive research and field testing on 

using pheromones to control insects.

Early in the discussions about 

integrated pest management, Cole was 

citing a “great need to integrate beetle 

control strategies into forest management practices” in talks at workshops 

and in publications (for example, Cole 

and Klade 1975). At the time, he and 

colleagues had acquired basic knowledge of beetle biology and developed 

several new control strategies.

Problems with research funding that 

materialized in the 1970s at the national 

level included the beginnings of large 

cuts for insect and disease studies. Partly 

to counter this trend, the Forest Service 

Research staff developed the “Three Big 

Bug” programs (gypsy moth, southern 

pine bark beetle, and tussock mouth) 

as a way of focusing efforts on major 

insect pests. To gain political support, 

universities were brought in as partners, 

along with USDA’s Cooperative State 

Research Service.

The “Three Big Bug” programs 

were successful in temporarily stemming the erosion of insect and disease 

research funds, helping build a working 

alliance of researchers between the 

Forest Service and the universities, and 

serving to improve the application of 

research results by forest managers. 

At the Station, budworm research was 

enhanced through participation in the 

Canada and U.S.A. (CANUSA) R&D 

program. This program was unique in 

that it involved several western Stations 

in addition to Canada.

Fellin started working in cooperation with the CANUSA program at its 

inception as a Team Leader within 

the Station’s Silviculture of Subalpine 

Forests research unit. The team 

included Research Forester Clint 

Carlson, Entomologist Chuck Tiernan, 

Forester Ward McCaughey, Biological 

Technician Leon Theroux, and several 

temporary and work-study employees.

The team gained somewhat unusual 

laboratory-office space in 1980. What 

had been known as “the old white 

matchbox” when it was built in 1957 

for $3,550 as a warehouse and garage 

was renovated and expanded to include 

an insectary in the 1960s. Starting in 

1978 it was again renovated and then 

moved to a site next to the Missoula 

Forestry Sciences Lab. Included in the 

work was a face lift featuring a new 

cedar-shingle roof and exterior siding. 

The small wood-frame structure became an attractive, functional research 

building (INTercom 4/24/80). The 

1978 renovations and move cost about 

$50,000, a small amount to develop a 

research facility. But by that time, the 

Station had very little money available 

to devote to facility improvements, and 

innovative approaches were a necessity.

The entomology-silviculture research 

integration at Missoula resulted in 

new knowledge being translated into 

silvicultural prescriptions that became 

cornerstones for integrated forest 

management in many areas (INTercom

July/92). The foundations for new 

Witness for the Defense (or was that the Prosecution?)

Becoming known as an expert can get a scientist involved in some unusual situations.

In 1983, Entomologist Dave Fellin published a detailed commentary on three decades 

of experience with attempts to control the spruce budworm with chemicals. He 

concluded that, overall, the spray programs 

had not controlled the budworm, changed the 

course of a major regional outbreak, or made 

any significant improvement in the budworm 

problem. The article also had a positive side, 

describing and commenting favorably on 

efforts to manage stands on nearly a million 

acres with long-term silvicultural treatments 

(Fellin 1983).

One result of the article’s appearance was an 

assignment as an expert witness-consultant in 

a lawsuit filed by Boise-Cascade Corporation 

against the Forest Service. The suit alleged that 

the Forest Service did not spray lands adjacent 

to Boise-Cascade property that had been 

sprayed, and it should have done so to make 

the company’s operation successful. Fellin 

appeared in court in defense of the Forest 

Service. The Forest Service won the case.

In a lawsuit in Region 3 (Southwestern 

Region), an environmental group sued the Forest Service because it did spray. Fellin 

got a subpoena to appear in Santa Fe to give a deposition. The issue was settled out of 

court. Had it gone to trial, Fellin (personal communication) said the same testimony 

he offered in defense of the Forest Service in Idaho would have been used against it in 

New Mexico.

Fellin’s experience and expertise meant he also was in demand for less unusual 

assignments outside the Station’s basic territory. He was selected to serve on 

several national task forces dealing with comprehensive programs of budworm 

research throughout the United States (INTercom 2/23/86). He also made important 

contributions as a member of a special team that recommended new management 

approaches for National Forests in Region 3.

Dave Fellin earned his reputation 

as a spruce budworm expert partly 

because he took his studies to the 

scene of the problems. Here he 

examined insect-infested foliage 

with a field microscope on the 

hood of his vehicle.
154–

management recommendations were 

laid by considerable research into the 

budworm’s relationship to its environment (Reynolds 1989b). The work 

included consideration of climate; tree 

and stand vigor; stand composition, 

density and structure; susceptibility to 

the budworm with acreage changes; and 

the historical role of fire.

CANUSA program interests in the 

budworm extended throughout most of 

Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and western 

Montana. Results were issued in a series 

of handbooks and other documents. 

One of the most comprehensive general 

publications was a national USDA handbook written by Carlson and William 

Wulf, Clearwater National Forest 

silviculturist. It reviewed the results of 

traditional management, which excluded 

fire, and discussed silvicultural systems 

that could result in healthier ecosystems, 

including using prescribed fires.

The Missoula team published many 

reports more specific to Montana 

and Idaho. One was a guide to rating 

budworm hazards, issued by Region 

1 (Reynolds 1989b). The researchers 

also helped produce models predicting 

budworm impacts on future tree stands, 

which were linked to the PROGNOSIS 

system developed at Moscow (Wykoff 

2002). In a somewhat unusual approach, 

Carlson worked with Brigham Young 

University professor Rex Cates on 

studies of interactions between tree foliage chemistry and the budworm. They 

found that several compounds inhibited 

feeding by the budworm (INTercom

Nov./92). Carlson, Fellin, Project Leader 

Wyman Schmidt, and other team members and cooperators appeared at many 

workshops and field tours to discuss 

and recommend silvicultural methods to 

control budworm infestations.

Although the budworm research 

team registered many successes, they 

were not sufficient to stop the erosion 

in forest insect program funding. When 

Fellin retired in 1986, he was the last 

Intermountain Station entomologist 

to be located in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains, ending staffing begun in 

1909 by the Bureau of Entomology.

Starting in 1972, Furniss field tested 

various bark beetle pheromones and 

proved the anti-aggregative effect 

of methylcyclohexonone produced 

by Douglas-fir beetles after mating. 

The discoverer of the pheromone had 

thought it to be an attractant. Furniss 

then conducted a cooperative 10-year 

research and development project 

that resulted in a controlled-release 

formulation of the pheromone and the 

technology for applying it by helicopter 

to prevent populations of beetles from 

developing in storm-damaged trees from 

which they generated outbreaks. Region 

1 personnel conducted a pilot test of the 

method in 1982. It was registered for use 

by the Environmental Protection Agency 

in 1999.

In 1974 during a trip in the Sierra 

Madre Mountains of northern Mexico, 

Furniss found the Douglas-fir beetle, the 

first documented case of its discovery in 

Mexico. Later, he described the population as a subspecies, named after his 

Mexican guide.

Furniss made many trips to Alaska 

and obtained numerous new records of 

bark beetles from that State. He fieldtested pheromones of the spruce beetle 

and larch beetle, and published the only 

information known on the biology of 

the “willow bark beetle” and the “boreal spruce beetle.” He also published 

the biology of a previously unstudied 

leafblotch miner, which infested vast 

areas of willow in the Yukon River 

drainages.

Furniss was a pioneer in making 

systematic studies of insects on wildland 

shrubs in the Northwest and Alaska. 

He was an author of a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service publication on the defoliator of curlleaf mountain mahogany in 

the Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge in 

Nevada. The publication was considered 

a classic, incorporating taxonomy, biology, and community ecology in a single 

document.

In the course of his research, Furniss 

collected and reared thousands of insects 

and associated organisms. Three organisms were named after him. After he 

retired, Furniss was appointed visiting 

Research Professor of Entomology at the 

University of Idaho. He presented seminars, conducted workshops on insect 

photography and bark beetle identification, and taught directed study courses. 

He also chaired the history committee 

of the Western Forest Insect Work 

conference and published six articles on 

early developments in American forest 

entomology. In 2002, Furniss published 

“A Field Guide to the Bark Beetles of 

Idaho and Adjacent Regions,” the only 

guide of its kind.

During the 1970s, the other entomologists at Moscow retired (Washburn and 

Denton) or transferred (Schmitz went 

to Ogden). The unit was discontinued 

when Furniss retired in 1982. His departure ended the continuous residence 

of a USDA forest research entomologist 

in Idaho that began in 1915 when Jim 

Evenden was assigned to work at Coeur 

d’Alene (Furniss, in preparation).

The mountain pine beetle was truly 

a “big bug” throughout Station territory 

and beyond. It lives with lodgepole pine 

on some 60 million acres, 13 million 

in the U.S. and 47 million in Canada. 

Periodic epidemics kill large numbers 

of lodgepole, and some ponderosa, 

pines. During epidemics, a single 

National Forest may lose more than 

a million trees per year. More than 3 

million lodgepole pines were killed in 

the Targhee National Forest in Idaho in 

1976 (Noble 1983).

Although the way the beetle shapes 

forest environments can be beneficial in 

some cases, depending on a landowner’s 

desires, it is devastating when forest 

Mal Furniss, shown here in 1976 examining a willow for insects, had a long 

and productive career at the Station 

after being transferred from the Bureau 

of Entomology in 1954.
–155

product production and esthetic values 

are primary interests. It was no wonder 

that holding beetle populations to a level 

compatible with productive lodgepole 

pine stands was a priority research and 

management problem throughout four 

decades of Station history. Starting 

in the early 1960s, the attack on the 

problems featured a strong cooperative 

program conducted by the Station and 

Regions 1, 2, and 4.

In the laboratory and in the field, 

entomologists and managers sprayed, 

trapped, counted, and reared the beetles, 

and harvested some lodgepole stands to 

learn how insect populations were affected by various cutting schemes. After 

sufficient knowledge was developed 

to recommend silvicultural treatments 

as control methods, the StationRegion partners established several 

demonstration areas to show the results 

to managers, especially to convince 

skeptics that partial cuts and thinnings 

could be effective.

Project Leader Cole was joined in 

Ogden by Technician Lynn Rasmussen 

and Entomologist Gene Amman. The 

trio worked together and with forest 

pest management personnel for many 

years to develop cutting and thinning 

strategies to reduce tree losses to 

beetles. Amman said an early study with 

Rasmussen and Bruce Baker, a Region 

4 specialist, helped guide the work 

toward silvicultural treatments. The trio 

compared lodgepole stands in the Teton 

and Targhee National Forests that had 

been treated with chemicals and stands 

without control measures. They found 

that the control methods weren’t doing 

much good (see “Family Fights Erupt,” 

this chapter).

That and other findings led the 

research unit to focus on the interaction 

of the beetles and lodgepole forests. 

Ogden research unit personnel and their 

cooperators made many field trials of 

various levels of thinning as beetle control measures. One partial cutting trial 

was made on 4,000 acres in Colorado 

administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management. Another took place in 

the West Yellowstone area of Montana 

in 1974. A third test was made in the 

Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming. 

Cole found the results encouraging, 

with tree losses in the partial cuts far 

less than in unharvested blocks of 

timber (Noble 1983). Cole and Amman 

published many findings over 15 years, 

and wrote three summary documents in 

the 1980s that were considered landmark 

publications. The three volumes issued 

by the Station covered the course of 

infestations, beetle population dynamics, 

and population sampling and monitoring 

under the general title, Mountain Pine 

Beetle Dynamics in Lodgepole Pine 

Forests.

Two pieces of research were instrumental in establishing Amman as an 

eminent pine beetle scientist. In 1977 

he and Region 1, 2, and 4 colleagues 

Mark McGregor, Don Cahill, and Bill 

Klein devised a Stand Hazard Rating 

System, which was used to assess 

lodgepole stand susceptibility to beetle 

infestations and substantial tree loss. 

The other major accomplishment was 

called a “serendipitous find” by Amman. 

He and Rasmussen were curious as to 

why beetles tended to concentrate on 

larger diameter lodgepole trees, and 

wondered if it was a result of stress. 

They discovered that the thicker bark 

was preferred by the beetles when laying 

eggs. After the beetles killed the trees 

with thicker bark, the insect populations 

declined (INTercom Jan./93). Amman 

related that discovery to the thickness of 

phloem, a layer just beneath outer bark, 

and to the density of egg galleries. He 

published a summary of the findings in a 

Station research paper in 1986. Amman 

was named Project Leader of the mountain pine beetle unit in 1984 after Cole 

retired.

Dick Schmitz had studied the 

biology of the pine engraver beetle at 

Missoula, clarifying that it produced 

two generations annually, an important 

consideration in formulating preventive management practices. After he 

transferred to Moscow, he assisted 

Furniss in pheromone studies involving 

the Douglas-fir beetle, and biological 

control of the larch casebearer. Schmitz 

transferred from Moscow to the Ogden 

project in 1976. He conducted several 

studies of mountain pine beetles using 

passive-barrier traps, which established 

the height above ground that most 

beetles traveled when moving through 

stands. Schmitz, McGregor, and Amman 

found that very few beetles traveling 

through thinned stands stopped to infest 

trees, compared to those infesting trees 

in unthinned stands. They theorized 

that the openness of the thinned stands 

interrupted pheromone communication 

among the beetles.

Walt Cole, Project Leader for the 

Ogden mountain pine beetle research 

unit, used a bow to shoot a nylon line 

over a lodgepole limb so that a passive 

barrier (unbaited) trap could be hoisted 

into the tree to trap flying beetles.

Gene Amman earned many honors 

for his research on the mountain pine 

beetle and its role in forest ecosystems.
156–

Amman earned a USDA Superior 

Service award in 1983 for his research. 

When he received the Utah Governor’s 

Medal for Science and Technology in 

1991, Station Director Larry Lassen 

said, “Dr. Amman’s research on the 

importance of tree age and development 

of thick inner bark tissues to beetle 

population dynamics resulted in a major 

scientific breakthrough. It reversed 

existing dogma that beetle epidemics 

were brought on by drought.” Amman 

also received the “Founders Award” 

from the Western Forest Insect Work 

Conference in 1994 for “his outstanding 

contribution to forest entomology in 

the West.” Conference members were 

entomologists from western Canada, 

the western U.S., and Mexico. When 

Jesse Logan took over as Project Leader 

shortly before Amman retired in 1992, 

he referred to Amman as “Mr. Pine 

Beetle” (INTercom Oct./92).

Logan presided over two changes 

in the research unit. The first was a 

move from Ogden to the Logan Lab 

(see “Co-locations,” chapter 12). 

The second was a shift in philosophy 

from “protection ecology” to one of 

“disturbance ecology,” which resulted 

in a change in emphasis from protecting 

particular commodities, such as timber, 

to one of seeking more fundamental 

understanding of how mountain pine 

beetles function within the ecosystem 

(INTercom Oct./92). Logan was no 

stranger to the unit or its work. He 

had been involved in modeling insect 

population dynamics and phenology, 

the timing of various life stages of the 

insect, for many years. Much of his 

work was conducted through cooperative agreements with the Station. He 

spent 4 years as an associate professor 

of entomology and forestry at Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and 10 years as a 

senior scientist at the Natural Resource 

Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State 

University.

Logan also had strong interests in applying advanced computer technology to 

resource management. As leader of the 

pine beetle unit he emphasized integration of complex ecological information 

with advanced technologies such as 

computer models, remote sensing, and 

data base management systems. An 

example of this type of work was a 

publication he authored in 

Environmental Entomology in 1988 that 

discussed applying “expert systems” to 

development of pest simulation models.

Although the “big bug” approach 

may have helped stem the decline in 

insect research funding, it certainly 

did not stop it. When Barbara Bentz 

qualified for a scientist position in 1992, 

she was only the second new scientist 

employed in the pine beetle unit in 

20 years (INTercom Jan./92). Bentz 

worked her way up to the scientist 

position, serving as a seasonal employee 

while completing academic work as a 

cooperative education student. Along 

the way to a doctorate, she gained 

academic distinction by being named to 

the National Deans List and appearing in 

“Who’s Who in American Colleges and 

Universities.”

Bentz published on attack dynamics 

of the mountain pine beetle, adding a 

new dimension to the earlier work by 

unit members on population dynamics. 

She and Logan also conducted novel 

studies on the role of temperature as a 

key factor driving phases of the beetle’s 

life cycle (Chojnacky 1994). Bentz and 

Logan alternated serving as Project 

Leader during the 1990s, allowing the 

scientist who was “out of office” a period of time to concentrate on personal 

research. Both researchers continued the 

unit’s traditionally strong commitment 

to technology transfer.

Getting the Word Out—

The Station’s Strong Suit

Perhaps it was seen as a duty based 

on tradition. Perhaps it was motivated by 

the attitude of Station leaders. Perhaps 

it was because the Station territory 

contained huge acreages of National 

Forest and other public lands. Whatever 

the reason or combination of reasons, 

if one characteristic distinguished the 

Intermountain Station from many other 

research organizations it was a strong 

emphasis on applied studies and technology transfer.

The Priest River and Great Basin 

Experiment Stations from their beginnings served as places where scientists 

helped train managers by explaining 

their research results, giving demonstrations, and showing the consequences of 

management alternatives at experimental 

plots. The first Priest River training 

school for Forest Rangers was held in 

1915. In 1919, while the Station was 

under District 1 administration, W. C. 

Lowdermilk, an Oxford scholar, was 

appointed liaison officer. His major 

responsibility was to interpret results of 

research and put them into practice by 

working with land managers, making 

him one of the first technology transfer 

specialists. Lowdermilk started the publication, Applied Forestry Notes, which 

was issued for many years by District 1 

(Wellner 1976).

Great Basin served as a training site 

for District 4 managers from the start. 

Field days that began in the early 1920s 

expanded the audience to include land 

managers from a variety of State and 

Federal agencies. Private individuals and 

companies were welcome throughout 

Station history to come to both Priest 

River and Great Basin to learn. Both 

sites were visited many times by forestry 

Barbara Bentz scaled a ladder to collect 

larvae and Jesse Logan recorded data 

in 1994 studies to learn how winter 

temperatures influence mountain pine 

beetle development.
–157

and range management students over the 

years.

The bias of early leaders toward 

working to solve local managers’ problems continued in more contemporary 

times. Commenting on the value of 

habitat typing research, retired Station 

Director Roger Bay said:

I always thought the project was one of 

several INT research efforts that were 

outstanding examples of the primary 

mission of regional research stations—

address the forestry problems within 

our local regions (not necessarily Forest 

Service regions). Sure, we had a few 

research studies going that addressed 

national or multi-regional problems 

too—like the Fire Lab, Forest Survey, 

Al Stage’s modeling (Prognosis), and 

the recreation research program, but 

the original concept of research stations 

was to solve resource problems in their 

respective areas. Of course, knowledge 

is not bound by artificial boundaries, 

so it was an extra bonus to see some 

research results being applied to national 

problems (Bay, personal communication).

Evidence of the emphasis on applied 

research and technology transfer shows 

up in publication records. In the 25 years 

(1972-1997) that General Technical 

Reports (GTRs) were published before 

the Intermountain-Rocky Mountain 

merger, the Intermountain Station 

ranked second among all Forest Service 

Stations. Its number of GTRs was 

exceeded only by the Pacific Northwest 

Station, a much larger organization in 

both personnel and funding.

Forest Service Research Stations 

ranked by number of General Technical 

Reports produced, 1972-1997:

Pacific Northwest 399

Intermountain 373

Rocky Mountain 299

Northeastern 241

North Central 194

Pacific Southwest 102

Southeastern 96

Southern 93

GTRs during the quarter century of 

interest included three broad categories 

of material—summaries of existing 

knowledge on a subject, also known 

as “state-of-the-art publications”; 

proceedings of symposia and workshops; 

and presentations of methods useful in 

solving management problems. They 

were not reports of results of individual 

research studies, which were published 

in other types of Station publications 

or in journals. Although we have no 

data for publishing in scientific journals 

over the same period, it is reasonable to 

assume that the Intermountain Station 

would not rank well in that category, 

which usually was reserved for reports of 

basic research studies. These could be of 

great importance to solving management 

problems in the long run, but they rarely 

had immediate application.

Traditional research publications 

were one way to transfer results, but 

they were far from the only mechanism 

used. At the Intermountain Station, 

publications written for nonresearch 

audiences, technology transfer specialists, what might be called “gadgets 

and gizmos,” information retrieval and 

circulation systems, and general public 

educational media all played roles in 

getting the word out.

The Reporters—Station public affairs specialists and editors often helped 

bridge what could be a significant gap 

between typical scientific writing and 

more easily understandable accounts 

presenting research programs and findings. When the information specialists 

authored such reports, they sent draft 

articles to the scientists involved for 

review to ensure accuracy. When the 

scientist was the author, the specialists 

offered advice and criticism to help 

get the material into formats that publications with broad readership would 

accept.

One publication that featured 

popularized accounts of both research 

programs and results was Forestry 

Research West, which was produced for 

25 years by the four western Stations. 

The magazine first appeared in 1973 as 

Forestry Research: What’s New in the 

West. The shorter title was suggested 

by Intermountain Station representatives at a 1974 coordination meeting in 

Berkeley. The coordination meetings 

sometimes did not produce perfect harmony. It took 5 years for the other three 

Stations to agree to the change.

Publication ceased after the 

September 1999 issue when the Pacific 

Northwest Station decided to withdraw 

its support, leaving the Rocky Mountain 

and Pacific Southwest Stations as the 

only participants. That caused the Rocky 

Mountain Station to discontinue the 

publication in favor of a new quarterly 

report, RMRScience (Fletcher, personal 

communication).

Forestry Research West was created 

by the Pacific Southwest Station, where 

early issues were edited, and prepared 

for printing. In 1976, Rick Fletcher 

joined the Rocky Mountain Station staff 

as a Public Affairs Specialist and took 

The original purposes of Priest River and Great Basin included serving as training centers for District Rangers and other managers. Here Director C. L. Forsling 

spoke to a group of Forest Supervisors at Great Basin in 1926.
158–

over as editor. Publishing duties also 

were shifted to Fort Collins. Typical 

issues contained a feature article 

highlighting a particular research area 

for each Station, plus a dozen or more 

announcements of publications thought 

to be of direct interest to managers. With 

few exceptions, material was written by 

public affairs specialists.

Copies were distributed by each 

Station. The primary audience was 

Forest Service managers, and copies went to every office west of the 

Mississippi down to the Ranger District 

level. Distributions also were made to 

other Federal agencies, State agencies, 

universities, and private organizations. 

Individuals who requested personal 

copies were added to mailing lists. 

Circulation totaled about 8,000 copies 

for most issues (Fletcher, personal 

communication).

A variety of other magazines and 

newsletters were used to good effect 

to communicate research results and 

management advice based on research. 

Within the wildland fire community, 

Fire Management Notes issued from 

Washington, DC was widely read by 

managers. Station scientists published 

frequently in it for many years, 

sometimes at the request of the editors. 

Western Wildlands, produced by the 

University of Montana, was a vehicle 

that covered a wide range of topics. 

Other favorites were Rangelands, 

American Forests, and the Journal of 

Forestry, which became a semi-popular 

magazine after Forest Science was created to carry technical papers of interest 

to members of the Society of American 

Foresters. Usually, Station scientists 

authored articles for these magazines, 

although public affairs specialists sometimes wrote submissions.

The TT Specialists—Commenting 

on technology transfer, retired Assistant 

Station Director Keith Evans said, “We 

had some real good TT people—the 

best probably being Kerry Overton” 

(personal communication). Being 

considered among the best was a high 

compliment—the Station had several 

outstanding technology transfer people.

Overton joined the fishery habitat 

unit at Boise in 1990 to work on developing, evaluating, and transferring 

technical tools to assist National Forest 

fishery biologists. He had 

for 20 years been a fishery 

biologist at the District, 

Forest, and Regional levels 

in Region 5 (the Pacific 

Southwest Region). His 

assignment at Boise was 

supposed to be short term. 

The idea was to bring 

a management person 

into the research unit 

temporarily and then have 

him return to the National 

Forest System to spread the 

word. Overton proved to 

be so valuable at Boise that 

the habitat unit kept him 

permanently (McIntyre, 

personal communication).

Like other TT specialists at the 

Station, Overton developed and 

maintained many personal contacts with 

resource specialists and managers. He 

also wrote four GTRs on fish habitat 

conditions and inventory procedures 

(see “Aquatic Science Moves into the 

Mainstream,” this chapter). In 1993, 

Region 4 gave Overton a special award 

“for his role as the overall coordinator” 

in providing exceptional assistance 

to the Region’s anadromous fisheries 

program (INTercom May/93).

In at least one case, a TT process was 

developed that worked in reverse—the 

primary specialist was a National Forest 

System employee and the Station participants worked through him. In 1985, 

the Station and Region 4 set up a system 

to “put research results into the hands of 

people who need them most” that later 

was cited as a national model by the 

Forest Service’s Director of Minerals 

and Geology (INTercom 5/16/85). The 

Region 4 mining reclamation specialist, 

Ben Albrechtsen, traveled throughout 

the territory helping field personnel 

solve or mitigate problems. He kept a 

list of projects requiring the expertise 

of Station scientists in the mined-land 

reclamation unit at Logan. The Region 

paid travel expenses for the researchers 

when special consultation trips were 

required to solve the problems.

The partnership produced a document 

useful throughout Region 4 and other 

areas of the West. Albrechtsen and 

Gene Farmer, a former researcher at 

Logan, compiled a regional Reclamation 

Field Guide as a ready reference for 

field personnel. The guide included 

Forest Service reclamation policy and 

authorities, a logical sequence of events 

for managing the reclamation process, 

a summary of key principles, and a 

checklist of technical information to be 

applied to a project (INTercom 1/7/88).

If there was a perfect background 

for a TT specialist, Bob Mutch had it. 

He was one of the first employees when 

the Fire Lab opened in Missoula in 

1960. After several years in research, 

he became the fire management officer 

for the Lolo National Forest, where 

he served as a fire behavior officer on 

hot running fires and wrote several 

prescribed fire plans. He moved to the 

national office where he was assigned 

to State and Private Forestry. There 

he served as Program Manager of the 

Disaster Assistance Support Program 

and helped a number of other nations 

prepare to respond to natural disasters. 

He also worked with others to help 

Brazil establish a science-based program 

to manage wildfire. Mutch returned 

to the Fire Lab in 1991 as Research 

Applications Leader to “provide 

national and international leadership in 

transferring research results” (INTercom

June/91; Tippets 1994).

Mutch believed that the fire research 

TT process was unique because the 

most important research information 

was rapidly transferred to users through 

mandatory fire training courses. Often 

information was transferred and applied 

in the field by users before the first 

Technology Transfer Specialist Kerry Overton had 

a novel way to steer the conversation to fisheries 

habitat questions during lunch hours. The “fish” he 

carried was his lunch bucket.
–159

publication appeared about the new 

knowledge. During much of Station history, when a Fire Lab scientist was ready 

to introduce new information to the fire 

community the scientist did the initial 

training personally, while also getting 

comments on the research from students. 

Later the training role was shifted to 

others. Part of Mutch’s work before 

he retired in 1994 was to serve as an 

instructor, taking some of the pressure 

off scientists who were in great demand 

to participate in training.

Bill Fischer said (INTercom June/91) 

that Mutch’s outgoing personality and 

sincerity added to his qualifications. 

“The person he’s with at the time is the 

most important thing he’s dealing with,” 

Fischer said.

Fischer did some impressive TT 

work himself. A research forester at the 

Fire Lab, he devoted most of his time to 

transferring knowledge, an endeavor that 

often held few rewards for scientists. 

“You have to have a boss that will 

encourage you to do it and still call you 

a researcher,” Fischer said, crediting 

Project Leader Jim Brown for supporting his work (INTercom June/91).

Like Mutch, Fischer had a background in resource management. He 

spent 10 years with the Boise National 

Forest as a forester, resource assistant, 

and assistant fire staff officer. Mike 

Hardy hired Fischer to work at the Fire 

Lab in 1966, primarily because of his 

experience and understanding of the 

application of fire danger rating at the 

forest level (INTercom June/91). Fischer, 

however, made his mark later in the fire 

effects unit.

Some of Fischer’s most useful work 

was compiling three photo guides, 

issued as Station GTRs, which allowed 

fire managers and specialists to accurately estimate the amount of downed 

woody material in Montana and other 

Northern Rocky Mountain forests. The 

guides permitted an easy method to calculate fire potential, something that had 

been difficult or impossible previously 

where a variety of fuels were present 

(Forestry Research West Mar./83). They 

applied to all the forest cover types over 

a vast area. To help managers in other 

areas produce similar guides, Fischer 

wrote a Research Note describing the 

techniques used to determine the weight 

and size class distribution 

of the fuels and how to rate 

potential fire behavior for 

them.

Fischer’s best achievement, however, probably 

was his role in the design 

and development of the 

user-friendly Fire Effects 

Information System. The 

system saved managers 

writing fire prescriptions 

tremendous amounts of 

time (see “Introducing 

Friendly Fires,” chapter 

10). Primarily for his 

work on the system and 

bringing it into national 

use, Fischer received the Forest Service 

Chief’s Award for Technology Transfer 

in 1991. A second reason for the award 

was creation of the Wildland Home 

Fire Risk Meter, a device thought up 

by Forester Dennis Simmerman and 

Fischer. Unlike the high-tech fire effects 

system, the meter was a simple device 

with a wheel riveted to it. With it, any 

homeowner could assess the risk to his 

or her forest dwelling should a wildfire 

occur (INTercom June/91).

The technology for the meter had 

been around for a long time according 

to Fischer. He and Simmerman just put 

it in a package “a homeowner could 

relate to.” The meter was one in a group 

of gadgets Station researchers dreamed 

up over the years to relay information 

outside the constraints of the traditional 

publishing system.

Gadgets and Gizmos—Other sections of this history display a number of 

unusual creations by Station scientists 

that conveyed useful knowledge. Harry 

Gisborne’s early fire danger meter, the 

“Stage Gauge,” air tanker performance 

slide rules, and chips carrying fire 

behavior data into hand-held calculators 

were among them. Station leaders also 

were quite willing to employ unusual 

methods to call attention to results of the 

research program.

At a national meeting of Station 

Directors and Regional Foresters, 

Director Roger Bay introduced the handheld calculator concept in a light way. 

He presented t-shirts to Forest Service 

Chief Max Peterson and Associate Chief 

Doug Liesz that were imprinted with a 

photo of a TI-59 calculator, one of the 

machines that used the chip developed 

at the Fire Lab. Bay said he was presenting the shirts so that Peterson and 

Liesz would have a tool to “calculate 

fire behavior wherever they may be” 

(INTercom 8/14/80).

Bookmarks are used by many 

organizations to carry various messages. 

But, a wilderness message? Personnel in 

the wilderness research unit in Missoula 

and Public Affairs Specialist Liz Close 

came up with one in the 1980s that 

served three purposes. The bookmark 

introduced recipients to the unit’s work 

with a brief description of its mission. 

It also listed actions that readers could 

take to protect Wilderness, several based 

on research by Station unit members. 

The main purpose was as an incentive 

award to get people to complete research 

surveys in Region 1 and in Georgia, 

Texas, and Arkansas (Watson, personal 

communication).

In 1989, the bookmark was one of 

the items selected by those participating 

in the National Interagency Wilderness 

Management Forum in Minneapolis for 

inclusion in a National Wilderness Time 

Capsule. The activity was part of a celebration of the 25th anniversary of the 

Wilderness Act. The capsule was turned 

over to the Forest History Society for 

safekeeping until the 50th anniversary of 

the act (INTercom 10/12/89).

The Knowledge Brokers—In the 

early 1980s, the Intermountain Station 

operated an ambitious “Research Needs 

Bill Fischer showed off the Home Fire Risk Meter 

that helped him win a national award for technology 

transfer excellence (at left) in 1991.
160–

Response” program patterned after 

similar programs at other Stations. The 

idea was to have a formal mechanism 

through which resource managers 

and specialists in the National Forest 

System (NFS) at all levels could define 

problems that required research. The 

Research Needs Response system did 

not function well and was terminated 

after several years.

Keith Evans, who devoted considerable time to the system as the Planning 

and Applications Assistant Director 

said he got a lot of “research needs” 

responses from all NFS levels. However, 

most of the “needs” were not research 

needs at all, but information needs (personal communication). He also pointed 

out that the research program changed 

very slowly. If a manager identified a 

new need, researchers would have had 

to start working on it 10 years earlier to 

be able to make an immediate response. 

Evans said that when the Station 

Library started working closely with 

NFS and Bureau of Land Management 

personnel on needs identification and 

dissemination of appropriate information, the transfer process was much more 

successful.

The transformation of the library 

from a small, traditional collection in 

Ogden mainly filling needs of scientists 

that were not met at Labs to a technical 

information service with thousands of 

resource managers and specialists as 

clients started in 1978. Acting on the 

recommendation of a study team led 

by Alan (Pete) Taylor of the Fire Lab, 

the Station joined WESTFORNET 

(the Western Forestry Information 

Network). WESTFORNET was a 

geographic expansion of a network 

first operated at the Pacific Southwest 

Station (CALFORNET) to provide 

special library-based information to 

Forest Service employees and cooperators (INTercom 1/19/78). Centers were 

located at Berkeley, Seattle, and Fort 

Collins, in addition to Ogden.

The Ogden WESTFORNET center 

was designed to serve the Station and 

Regions 1 and 4. The Regions provided 

80 percent of the financing, and experience soon revealed that they received 

about that percentage of the services or 

more. Liz Close had become the Station 

Librarian just in time to face the 

challenge of setting up the 

new center.

The first two services 

were up and running within 

6 months of the center’s 

inception. Monthly Alerts, 

announcing new publications related to natural 

resources in the western 

States, went to all professional employees and 

supervisors in the Station 

and Regions 1 and 4. 

Typical early issues 

announced about 200 

items. Recipients mailed 

back order forms and 

received loan or retention 

copies. General Document 

Delivery allowed center users to order 

all other published materials they 

learned about in any manner. Document 

delivery was facilitated by a network 

of cooperating university libraries 

established by the centers over the years, 

and by connections to national sources. 

Customized literature searches were 

added later at the Ogden center, enabling 

clients to find documentation on almost 

any subject. Reference librarians also 

made the center a place where almost 

any question could be answered if the 

answer existed in some retrievable form.

WESTFORNET was a big success. 

A survey of activities at all centers after 

less than 2 years of operation showed 

8,000 people used the services in 1980. 

More than 100,000 requests were 

received for Monthly Alert items, and 

some 30,000 other documents were supplied. The centers made 1,600 literature 

searches and handled more than 5,000 

reference questions (INTercom 2/5/81). 

The survey showed that the information 

was heavily used for preparing environmental impact statements, staff papers, 

and other “reports requiring research 

information.”

Demand for services from the Ogden 

center grew rapidly. All four centers 

kept statistics on their service levels. 

Over a 10-year period starting in the 

mid-1980s, the Ogden operation led all 

centers in every category of service. In a 

record year during this period, the center 

provided 80,000 Monthly Alert items. 

The leadership role no doubt was due 

in large measure to Close’s willingness 

to make presentations about center 

services at Ranger Districts and Forest 

Supervisor’s offices throughout Regions 

1 and 4.

The library network expanded 

nationally. Soon after its start, a 

SOUTHFORNET Center was established. In 1985 the database, with 

funding by the Washington Office, 

went national. The network was 

renamed FS INFO. In 1987, Close 

moved to the Station’s Public Affairs 

Specialist job and Carol Ayer took over 

supervision of what had become FS 

INFO-Intermountain. Ayer had worked 

in Juneau, Alaska, where she managed 

the library that became FS INFO-Alaska 

and later set up the FS INFO-Central 

office in Washington, DC. By that time, 

the Ogden center had added to its services by providing training to database 

users and referrals to experts (INTercom

Mar./93).

Despite continued high demand for 

services, the network came full circle 

with central office activities delegated 

out of Washington and funding concerns 

causing myriad adjustments throughout 

the system. In 1994, central database 

operations moved to Region 8 (the 

Southern Region), although the national 

office agreed to fund the operation. 

Shortly after the Intermountain-Rocky 

Mountain merger, Ayer was named 

supervisor of the libraries and associated 

information center activities in both 

Ogden and Fort Collins. The national office cancelled its funding for the Region 

8 staff in 1999, resulting in closure of 

Carol Ayer showed a resource manager how to 

access the FS INFO database at a 1990 Region 4 symposium in Saint George, Utah.
–161

the central processing unit and transfer 

of the database to the new Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. Ayer in 

effect became the leader of the national 

library network.

The Educators—Many 

Intermountain Station employees 

were strong supporters of educational 

programs at all levels, evidenced by 

activities ranging from designing tour 

routes and brochures for school-age 

groups and the general public to numerous teaching activities in classrooms 

from grade schools to universities. 

Given their historic interest in using a 

variety of TT methods, it’s no surprise 

that Fire Lab personnel came up with 

some novel approaches to helping 

educators meet their goals.

While Bob Mutch was the technology 

transfer leader at the Fire Lab, he and 

Dave Tippets, Station Public Affairs 

Specialist, created a “Living with Fire” 

educational computer game for use in 

the visitor center at the Aerial Fire Depot 

in Missoula. The game puts a player in 

the place of a fire manager. It was based 

on research and tools developed for 

real-world fire management, and recommended for people ages 10 and up. After 

Wayne Cook took over TT duties at 

the Lab he updated the exhibit material 

and put it on the internet so it became 

accessible world-wide. “Living with 

Fire” also was made available on a disk 

with other materials for FIREWORKS, 

another educational innovation based on 

fire science.

FIREWORKS was designed by 

Ecologist Jane Kapler Smith and 

Biological Science Technician Nanka 

McMurray. A program intended for 

students in grades 1-12, it addressed 

five main themes: (1) fire behavior; (2) 

characteristics that enable plant and 

animal populations to survive fire; (3) 

forest history, especially related to fire; 

(4) change in forests over time; and (5) 

human safety and fire management. 

FIREWORKS featured ponderosa, 

lodgepole, and whitebark pine forests 

and was delivered in a trunk full of educational materials for hands-on learning. 

The curriculum linked each activity 

to national educational standards so it 

could be used as a prototype for 

wildland fire education in many geographic areas.

The first version of the curriculum 

was released in 1997. In 1998, Smith 

and McMurray received the Forest 

Service Chief’s Award for Conservation 

Education for developing FIREWORKS.

More general educational work by 

Station people was typified by Forest 

Survey Computer Programmer Shirley 

Waters, who earned a special award in 

1992 during Public Service Recognition 

Week for her work in career education 

programs. Waters gave more than 50 

presentations to some 1,500 students 

ranging from first grade through high 

school. Her goal was to expose the 

youngsters to career options available 

in the Forest Service, with emphasis on 

science and math.

Waters served as the Forest Service 

representative for the “Expanding Your 

Horizons” career program, sponsored 

by the Utah Math and Science Network 

for women. In addition to her own 

programs, she arranged and coordinated 

appearances by 10 other speakers. She 

also participated in the “Great American 

Teach-in” sponsored by one of the local 

school districts, and in the American 

Indian Math and Science Camp in 

Montana.

“I preface my presentations with my 

feelings about being prepared for life 

with additional education and career 

options,” Waters said. “I let them know 

that I had the best of both worlds when 

I worked part-time for 15 

years. I could continue my 

career with opportunities 

for growth yet it allowed 

me additional time to spend 

with my young family.”

Waters’ demonstrations 

included equipment used to 

collect tree data. She also 

let students experience 3-D 

aerial photography, and 

said this resulted in comments like “cool,” “totally 

rad,”, and “awesome.” 

The students located their 

school on maps and also 

got to observe bark beetle 

specimens in different 

stages of development 

(INTercom Feb./92).

INTercom Makes the 

Connection

The Intermountain Station launched 

an employee newsletter in 1975. 

Apparently, it was the only one 

published on a regular basis by the organization or its predecessors. Newsletters 

were common within the Forest Service 

and elsewhere; the Station’s was 

designed to be a little different. It was 

brief—a single sheet of paper printed 

on both sides. It appeared often—every 

two weeks, skipping one issue only in 

December each year during the holiday 

season. Although the stated goal was “to 

keep employees in nine far-flung locations up-to-date on news of the Station” 

(INTercom 1/9/75), the founders of the 

newsletter hoped it also would help in 

getting research results to users.

The first issue went to all Station 

employees and a few copies were sent 

to each Forest Service Region and 

Station. Soon, Regions 1 and 4 agreed 

to forward copies to Regional Office 

staffs and Ranger Districts. Circulation 

jumped from about 300 copies in 1975 

to nearly 700 in 1979, and it grew after 

that as other resource management 

organizations were added to the mailing 

list. In addition to the usual personnel 

news, INTercom carried announcements 

of new Station publications, descriptions 

Shirley Waters used both “show and tell” and handson demonstrations to interest students in careers in 

science.
162–

of new studies and special programs, 

and, when space permitted, small feature 

stories about Station administrators and 

researchers. These items were intended 

to acquaint managers with the work of 

the Station on a continuing basis. Phone 

calls and notes from resource managers 

and staff people were evidence that this 

approach was somewhat successful 

(Noble, personal communication).

The earliest issues appeared with a 

temporary title, “INT News.” The first 

issue announced a contest to “select 

a permanent, sprightlier name.” The 

prize, a dinner for two, was paid for with 

personal funds donated by the Research 

Information staff. The response to the 

contest was good, including a surprise, 

long-distance entry from an employee 

of the Pacific Southwest Station in 

Berkeley. The April edition announced 

that Renee Ingram, who worked in 

Administrative Services at Station 

Headquarters, had won the contest with 

her suggestion, INTercom. Pete Taylor 

at the Fire Lab submitted 22 entries, and 

the contest judges decided he deserved a 

reward for effort. They gave a $10 prize 

to Taylor.

INTercom lived for 21 years. The 

final issue was in December 1995. 

The content evolved, partly because 

the editors periodically asked readers 

what they wanted to have included. In 

mid-1990 a radical change was made 

when the newsletter was converted to a 

monthly magazine format. Pages were 

added, more photos were included, and 

issues often had a central theme. Toward 

the end of its life, INTercom sometimes 

ran as many as 16 pages. When Denver 

Burns became acting Station Director 

he chose to discontinue INTercom and 

replace its internal communication 

functions with Director’s Notes, an 

electronic newsletter produced in Fort 

Collins.

Delpha Noble was the first INTercom

editor. The publication had five subsequent editors—Mike Prouty, Liz Close, 

Fran Reynolds, Dave Tippets, and Dave 

Stalling—between the time Noble retired and its demise in 1995. Throughout 

this period, Louise Kingsbury was a 

major contributor of articles and she 

also served as editor at times when 

the public information job was vacant. 

Design and layout became increasingly 

sophisticated; Deborah Renteria and 

Joyce Stoddard handled those chores.

In 1993 while Tippets was serving 

as editor, INTercom was one of two 

newsletters in the Forest Service to 

win the “Associate Chief’s Award for 

Outstanding Internal Communications.” 

Twenty-five newsletters were entered in 

the competition. As a prize, Associate 

Chief George Leonard granted $5,000 

to the Intermountain Station to be used 

by the publishing staff for “any official 

work relating to your ongoing employee 

communications work.” (Leonard, personal communication). Even considering 

inflation, it was a pretty good return on 

investment for the staff that put up $30 

of their own money in 1975 to help get 

INTercom started.

50 Years of Noble Service

Delpha Noble never missed a 

deadline in the 10 years she held the 

INTercom editor post. That remarkable 

record is a reflection of the dedication 

and perseverance Noble displayed 

during a career that, with a few interruptions, spanned 50 years.

Ed Noble, Delpha’s husband who 

retired as branch chief of watershed 

management in Region 4, was District 

Ranger at Leadore in the Salmon (Idaho) 

National Forest in 1948. In a 1985 

interview (Alexander 1987), he recalled 

Delpha’s role as an unpaid “official 

collaborator” for the District and later 

at the Malta Ranger District, Minidoka 

National Forest, from 1950 to 1955. 

“If you couldn’t type and your wife 

couldn’t type, you were in trouble,” he 

said. Wives were “classed as collaborators, which entitled them to no pay, but 

since they did have regular appointment 

papers they could get a license so they 

could drive the government equipment.” 

Delpha, Ed said, “would run the District, 

answer the phone and the radio,” while 

he was out on week-long pack trips. If 

a fire broke out, she would “get some 

people to go fight the fire.”

Delpha Noble confirmed her 

husband’s recollections some years later 

(personal communication). “After I 

passed the required government driving 

test I could go with Ed into the field, 

pulling the horse and trailer, to a site on 

the District where he would establish 

a base camp. He would then take 3 or 

4 days riding ‘Old Red’ to places inaccessible by vehicles. Later in the week 

I would drive the truck to his campsite 

and pick up him and ‘Old Red’ to drive 

back to the Ranger Station. I also did 

most of his clerical work; I was a much 

better typist than he. Because he was in 

the field so much during the summer, I 

INTercom evolved from a single-sheet, 

chatty newsletter to a magazine-style 

publication with a central theme for 

each issue.

Retired from Station employment, 

but still on the job conducting writing 

workshops, Delpha Noble returned to 

the Station in 1993 as a volunteer to describe her days as a ranger’s wife during 

a Women’s History Month celebration.
–163

got acquainted with many ranchers and 

others who would come to the office 

for permits or information while he was 

gone.”

“My collaborator duties continued 

during our 4 years at Malta,” Noble said. 

“After our first child was born Ed would 

switch tasks with me. I would work in 

the office, typing allotment plans and 

reports, while he stayed in the house 

taking care of our daughter. I enjoyed 

my ‘unpaid’ duties. The designation 

gave me the opportunity to be included 

in Ed’s work and to learn more about the 

Forest Service as well.”

Noble switched from a “no pay” 

Forest Service collaborator to a “low 

pay” regular employee in 1969. Her experiences illustrate the obstacles in those 

days to a woman getting employment 

and moving up the career ladder. Noble 

brushed up on her secretarial skills, and 

carried her manual typewriter to the 

State Employment Office to take the 

required test. After the test, the supervisor told Noble she was the first person 

ever to get 100 percent on the spelling 

segment, and her typing accuracy was 

very high.

“She then proceeded to tell me I 

would have a hard time getting a job 

because of my age,” Noble said. “For 

heavens sake, I was only 46.” The 

test supervisor also said employment 

was unlikely unless Nobel “knew 

somebody.”

Noble couldn’t work in the Regional 

Office in Ogden, because Ed was employed there and the Forest Service had 

iron-clad rules against spouses working 

in the same organization. But she did 

“know somebody,” so she went to see 

George Gruschow, Assistant Station 

Director for Research Support Services, 

who took her to the publishing unit 

where clerical help was needed. She was 

hired on a part-time basis, which was 

fine with her because she could be home 

in the late afternoons when her children 

got back from school. She was eligible 

for a GS-5 appointment according to 

her test results, but the Station offered 

only a GS-3 at the lowest salary step. 

A few years later, Noble said she asked 

Grant Mortensen, the head of Personnel 

Management, why that was done. “Well, 

Delpha,” he said, “We didn’t know what 

you could do.” And during the first day 

on the new job when Noble was reading 

proofs with Editorial Assistant Ruth 

Reed said, “Oh, you can spell.”

Five years later Noble reached the 

GS-5 level she probably should have 

started at. About that time the Station 

established a Public Information 

Specialist position targeted as a GS-11 

under a relatively new program known 

as “Upward Mobility.” People in those 

types of jobs could get periodic promotions provided they performed well 

at each succeeding level of difficulty 

as more responsibilities were added. 

Noble applied for the job and got it. She 

progressed on schedule to the GS-7 and 

GS-9 levels, but her advancement stalled 

for months when the normal time came 

for the promotion to GS-11. She finally 

decided to practice the assertiveness she 

preached as the Station’s first Federal 

Woman’s Program Coordinator. She 

went to an Assistant Station Director 

and complained. She soon got the 

promotion.

The Federal Woman’s Program 

task was an “other duty as assigned.” 

Working with coordinators in Regions 

1 and 4, Noble planned and conducted 

programs in Ogden and Missoula. “I 

stressed that women should prepare 

themselves for any opportunities that 

might come up,” she said. If ever a 

philosophy was based on experience, 

this one was.

Noble retired briefly in 1984. A few 

months later, a Region 

4 representative phoned 

and asked if she would be 

interested in conducting 

some writing workshops. 

“Some” turned into 46 

sessions during the next 14 

years, several as far away 

as Oregon and Washington 

State. Noble was asked to 

expand the standard course 

curriculum furnished 

by the Forest Service’s 

Washington Office. She 

developed material, including a workbook, which 

added a full day to the 

workshops. Noble retired 

again when she adjourned 

the last workshop in 1998. 

It was almost exactly a 

half century after her first 

unpaid assignment to occasionally “run 

the District” for the Forest Service.

Major Program Shifts

The Station moved aggressively 

in the 1970s to change the research 

program in several important areas. 

Some adjustments were motivated by 

declines in funding in traditional parts 

of the program. Other changes began 

moving the Station in the direction of 

ecosystem work that was to become the 

new standard for Forest Service research 

in the 1990s. Among significant changes 

were those in pathology and engineering 

units, and throughout the Station in 

traditional range research.

Emphasis shifts occurred in the 

Moscow forest pathology unit in the 

1970s and 1980s. The movement away 

from studying individual problems such 

as white pine blister rust organisms 

toward situations as well as organisms 

was significant. Of the shift to addressing ecological problems instead of 

singular “bad guys,” Project Leader Al 

Harvey said, “Up to the mid-1970s, if 

you had suggested controlling root rot of 

Douglas-fir by aggressive management, 

you’d have been laughed out of the 

room.”

The Organic Team—Harvey and a 

group of Moscow Lab researchers and 

Project Leader Al Harvey (left) guided the pathology 

research unit in Moscow to an ecosystem approach 

that showed how forest management practices 

could combat tree diseases.
164–

cooperators dubbed “The Organic Team” 

started taking an ecological approach in 

1973, and nobody was laughing by the 

mid-1980s when their work had become 

widely accepted and applied.

The team included Russ Graham, 

Deborah Page-Dumroese, Jonalea Tonn, 

and Terrie Jain, all of the Moscow 

Lab; Michael Larsen from the Forest 

Products Lab; and Martin Jurgensen of 

Michigan Technological University. The 

interdisciplinary group demonstrated 

the importance of keeping large woody 

material on the forest floor to preserve 

habitat for mycorrhizae and maintain 

healthy microbial processes in forest ecosystems. Their work showed 

the importance of soil microbes to 

forest productivity and sustainability 

(INTercom May/92).

The research monitored effects on 

soil quality of timber harvesting, different wood utilization levels, and different 

fire intensities. During summers, many 

graduate students from Michigan Tech 

were involved, taking soil samples, 

analyzing the layers, and counting microscopic fungal root tips in thousands 

of cores (Graham 2004).

It was a radical break from traditional 

forestry when the team’s research results 

convinced foresters to leave 10 to 15 

tons of slash on the ground after logging. The team’s guidelines for slash 

disposal were incorporated into almost 

all forest plans in Regions 1 and 4, and 

began to appear in forest plans in other 

western regions by the early 1990s.

Because of the diversity of Rocky 

Mountain forest ecosystems, the amount 

of organic debris needed for forest 

health varied greatly. The team refined 

its studies, and in the 

mid-1990s provided guidelines tailored to specific 

ecosystems. For example, 

in ponderosa pine forests of 

Arizona they recommended 

leaving 5 to 13 tons per 

acre, in contrast to 25 tons 

recommended for hemlock 

forests of northern Idaho to 

feed the soil (Intermountain 

and Rocky Mountain 

Stations 1995).

Plant pathologists at 

Moscow took a different 

tack in attempting to 

find ways to mitigate 

detrimental activities of 

Armillaria, a fungus that 

attacked roots and killed 

many trees in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. In some 

places the problem was a 

full-blown epidemic.

One action was to gather information 

on the occurrence and effects of the 

fungus. This resulted in an extension 

of the “Prognosis Model” developed 

by mensurationists at the Moscow Lab. 

That gave managers a way to predict the 

probability of infection in different types 

of stands under different management 

strategies.

The broader problem required 

considerable basic research. Pathologist 

Geral McDonald said of Amillaria, “We 

thought we knew more about it than we 

do.” He devoted much of his work to 

better understanding the characteristics 

of the organism. McDonald succeeded 

in isolating four species active in the 

Inland West, including two suspected 

of being the chief damage agents. The 

goal was to produce new knowledge of 

ecosystem patterns and responses and 

integrate it into broad-based models 

that could guide forest management 

(Close 1988b).

Engineers Seek Stability—For 15 

years the Station’s engineering research 

unit at Bozeman had featured logging 

equipment evaluations and studies of 

timber harvesting systems in steep terrain. That changed in a fundamental way 

early in 1976. Ed Burroughs was named 

Research Forester Terrie Jain took soil 

samples as part of interdisciplinary 

research by the “Organic Team.”

Research Forester Russ Graham inspected a study 

plot where coarse woody debris was left after timber harvesting to ensure long-term productivity and 

the health of the soil.

Surrounded by Petri dishes, Plant 

Pathologist Geral McDonald showed 

the growth of Amillaria isolates.
–165

Project Leader of a new work unit operating at Bozeman and Logan concerned 

with alleviating physical and hydrologic 

impacts of surface mining activities. The 

old unit was deactivated a few months 

later (INTercom 1/29/76).

Funds for surface mining research 

soon began to diminish, however, and 

the engineering unit shifted its program 

to focus on slope stability problems, 

forest road construction techniques, and 

related watershed research. It became 

the only one of five engineering research 

units in the Forest Service not 

studying timber harvesting equipment 

and systems (Prouty 1986).

Burroughs’ unusual background 

related directly to the new research mission. He had a forestry degree from the 

University of Montana and also earned 

bachelors and masters degrees in civil 

engineering at Montana State University. 

After working as a research engineer 

at Missoula, Moscow, and Oxford, 

Mississippi, he completed a Ph.D. 

program at Colorado State University 

in watershed management. Burroughs 

then worked for the Bureau of Land 

Management in Oregon for 4 years as 

a hydrologist in the State Office. While 

with the BLM, he and two associates 

wrote a 100-page technical bulletin, 

Slope Stability in Road Construction, 

which presented guidelines for location 

and construction of stable roads in forested areas of western Oregon and northern 

California (INTercom 10/21/76).

Personnel in the engineering technology unit worked in three broad areas: 

(1) Developing techniques to reduce 

costs and environmental impacts of 

road construction; (2) devising methods 

to estimate road surface erosion and 

ways to deal with the problem; and 

(3) developing a planning framework 

to evaluate landslide hazards (Prouty 

1986). Cooperators included the civil 

engineering and geology departments at 

the Universities of Idaho and Montana, 

the Nezperce National Forest, the 

Region 1 engineering staff, and the 

Station’s watershed research unit at 

Boise.

Burroughs strongly believed that 

the unit mission was focused on urgent 

road engineering problems affecting the 

National Forests, but was concerned 

that Bozeman was not close to areas 

most in need of the research findings. 

In response to this concern, the unit 

was moved to Moscow in 1985. It then 

was closer to road and slope stability 

problems related to the granitic soils of 

Idaho forests and also closer to Pacific 

Northwest forests where slope stability 

was a problem and logging and associated roadbuilding were major activities.

Forest road-building goals and 

methods had changed by the 1980s in response to cost and environmental impact 

concerns. Low-impact roads that fit the 

terrain, minimized resource damage, and 

kept construction costs down were the 

new standard. The lower standard roads 

were being built with backhoes rather 

than bulldozers, but the Forest Service 

system for estimating costs was still 

based on production rates for the larger 

road-building equipment. The Station 

researchers made new production studies and devised new cost equations for 

Regions 1 and 4. The equations allowed 

National Forest engineers to more accurately estimate road costs during the 

timber sale planning process. The new 

cost information was computerized and 

made available service-wide through the 

standard system used at the time, and 

later on widely available minicomputers 

and programmable calculators (Noble 

1993).

Predicting sediment production from 

surface erosion was facilitated by using 

a “rainulator” to simulate rainfall. The 

“rainulator” was a complicated sprinkler 

system that allowed scientists to quickly 

compare the effect of a known amount 

of precipitation at a known intensity on 

a variety of road surfaces and designs. 

Project Leader Ed Burroughs searched 

for a fire-induced hydrophobic soil 

layer in 1991 in one of the many types 

of research the engineering technology 

unit conducted.

Station research engineers collected sediment washed off a burned hillside plot 

by an artificial rain simulator in 1995 as part of a study in the Boise River drainage.
166–

Data from it and studies of road segments where instruments were installed 

to measure natural precipitation led to 

computer programs that displayed effectiveness and costs of various erosion 

control methods (Prouty 1986).

Research Engineer Rod Prellwitz, 

Geologist Carol Hammond, and 

University of Idaho cooperators developed systems to identify and predict the 

stability of soil for use in planning. The 

concept was to avoid landslides that 

often occurred when forest roads were 

incorrectly located. Prellwitz trained 

engineers, soils scientists, and hydrologists in Forest Service Regions 

1, 2, 5, and 6; the Federal Highway 

Administration; State agencies; the 

BLM; and private firms in use of 

the system to rate slope stability and 

landslide hazards. He was nominated for 

a national technology transfer award for 

his efforts (INTercom 6/21/90).

In the mid-1980s, the engineering technology unit became heavily 

involved in the national Water Erosion 

Prediction Project (WEPP). This relationship was to continue throughout the 

balance of Intermountain Station history 

and beyond. WEPP was conceived by 

Agricultural Research Service and Soil 

Conservation Service scientists who 

wanted to develop a large database that 

would enable them to model hydrologic 

response, sediment detachment, and 

sediment transport for a wide range of 

conditions. The Forest Service and BLM 

joined the program as cooperators, and 

Burroughs was the first Forest Service 

Research representative to serve on the 

program’s core team.

Being a part of WEPP allowed the 

Forest Service to provide technology 

for estimating runoff and sediment 

yield from forest road-building, timber 

harvesting, and wildfire areas to the 

national system and also was an opportunity to have the Soil Conservation 

Service perform all lab work associated 

with characterizing soils. Data were collected nationwide by the Moscow unit 

and other WEPP participants, and the 

Federal agencies made results available 

to all (INTercom 3/5/87).

Working within a national framework 

could produce benefits for local National 

Forest managers. One was documented 

in a 1989 Station publication, Reduction 

of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads, by 

Burroughs and Jack King of the Boise 

watershed research unit. The researchers 

used national and local study results to 

provide recommendations for improvements in guides developed earlier to 

predict sediment yields in Regions 1 

and 4.

In 1990, Burroughs and other members of the WEPP core team received 

a USDA Superior Service award. 

Burroughs was honored for providing 

a family of models that estimated sediment production from disturbed forest 

sites. Burroughs died unexpectedly in 

November 1991 of a heart attack while 

visiting the Logan Lab. He was replaced 

as Project Leader of the engineering 

research unit by Bill Elliot, who 

continued the alliance of engineering 

and watershed researchers and the work 

within the WEPP framework.

A 2-year study on roads in the 

Willamette National Forest in Oregon 

by Research Engineer Randy Foltz, 

Hydrologist Ben Kopyscianski, 

Engineering Technician Serita Barrietua 

and several cooperators produced one of 

the more novel results to be introduced 

into WEPP models. The researchers 

measured sedimentation generated by 

logging trucks on four road segments 

when the trucks had normal and reduced 

tire pressures.

Foltz said that trucks with reduced 

tire pressure created only about half 

as much runoff and sediment as those 

with normal pressure. This information 

could be used for any truck with a 

Central Tire Inflation system, which 

allowed tire pressure adjustments from 

inside the cab. It was particularly 

useful where managers could specify 

pressure in areas where sediment 

runoff could have significant impacts 

on stream quality and related fisheries 

(INTercom May/93).

The Central Tire Inflation technology 

was not widely adopted because of costs 

and complexity. The reasons for the 

reduced erosion, however, led to a new 

understanding of road erosion processes. 

Reduced tire pressures led to less rutting. This finding led to the conclusion 

that any practice to minimize rutting will 

reduce road erosion, including the use of 

high-quality gravel, frequent blading, or 

seasonal road closures.

During his tenure in Moscow, 

Burroughs advocated construction of an 

indoor rainfall simulator. A simulator 

eventually was built at the Moscow 

site. It was completed in 1994, and has 

provided research support for National 

Forest System and timber industry 

personnel as well as Station scientists. 

To recognize Burroughs’ enthusiasm for 

his work and the simulator facility, the 

building was named the E. R. Burroughs 

Engineering Laboratory and dedicated 

during 40th anniversary ceremonies 

for the Moscow Lab in 2003 (Elliot, 

personal communication).

In 1996, engineering unit personnel 

made a major contribution to another 

national project when they teamed up 

with a long list of National Forest and 

Regional geotechnical engineers to 

produce three giant reference works 

for geologists and engineers trying to 

answer difficult questions about slope 

stability. The reference works, published 

by the Forest Service’s Washington 

Office Engineering Staff, were divided 

into sections for those who needed 

theoretical background and managers 

who were working on specific problems 

(Tippets 1996b).

The national WEPP model was 

subject to constant improvement through 

introductions of new data. By the late 

1990s more than 200 scientists had participated in its development. Elliot and 

Computer Programmer/Analyst David 

Hall of the Moscow unit provided up-todate forest user information in 1997 in a 

Station publication titled Water Erosion 

Prediction Project (WEPP) Forest 

Applications. They told potential users 

how to obtain the model, run various 

versions, and make modifications to 

describe local situations. The authors 

acknowledged research contributions 

by Foltz, Research Engineer Pete 

Robichaud, and Research Hydrologist 

Charles Luce (Boise) to determining 

forest soil erosion processes and soil 

erodibility.

Validations Prove Invalid—The 

early 1970s saw USDA pushing programs of expanded red meat production, 

a short time before health groups began 

advocating less red meat consumption to 

reduce incidences of heart disease. The 

Forest Service, trying to be responsive 

to USDA, produced a report under the 
–167

leadership of Bob Rummel, director of 

range in the Washington Office, entitled, 

Range Resources—A Forest- Range 

Environment Study. It was commonly 

known as the FRES report (ForestRange Task Force 1972).

FRES used a linear program model 

of all grazing resources of the U.S., 

including management procedures, 

outputs, and where money could be 

spent to increase forage for cattle while 

maintaining environmental quality. Tests 

or “validations” were to be held in eastern Oregon, the South, and in the Great 

Basin part of the Intermountain Station 

territory. The Station badly needed 

an infusion of funds into its range 

management research program. Units 

were being consolidated and missions 

changed. Project Leader Walt Mueggler 

moved from Bozeman to Logan in 1973 

to head a new research unit focusing on 

mountain herb, brush, and aspen ranges. 

This signaled the end of range research 

in Bozeman.

Station management requested 

the transfer of Warren Clary, a range 

scientist at the Southern Station, to plan 

how the Station could contribute to the 

“validation” effort in the Great Basin. 

In 1977, about $8 million was supposedly available on the national scene, 

and Station Director Bay thought the 

Intermountain Station could get about 

$2.2 million of the total. The money 

never materialized, however, and the 

proposal faded away. Clary, who was 

supposed to become assistant program 

manager for the validation work, instead 

replaced Ralph Holmgren as Project 

Leader of the salt-desert shrub research 

unit at Provo after Holmgren retired.

Clary made plans to shift work from 

salt-desert shrub studies to bolster the 

Great Basin FRES “validation,” for 

which there were no funds. Region 4 did 

have some money available, however, 

and was willing to assist. That led to 

work in the Fishlake National Forest 

at Oak Creek, Utah, to “validate” the 

effect of pinyon-juniper removal on 

forage production for livestock and deer. 

However, two fairly large range fires 

caused the Oak Creek work to change 

into a fire rehabilitation and revegetation 

study. Initiation of the “validation” work 

marked the time when salt-desert range 

studies became a secondary emphasis 

item at the Provo Lab.

Reclaiming the High 

Country

The Surface Environment and Mining 

Program (SEAM) expired in 1981, but 

disturbed land reclamation research 

continued as an important part of the 

research program for the remainder of 

Station history. The research component 

of SEAM was assigned to the Mine 

Spoil Reclamation unit in Logan, whose 

members had conducted the bulk of 

SEAM research since the special program began in 1972.

Under the SEAM umbrella, the 

Logan unit had been a team operation 

(see “Special Programs Bring Special 

Problems and Achievements,” this 

chapter). It continued to be. However, 

the personnel changed, the teams were 

smaller, and the work focused increasingly on high-elevation areas. Plant 

Physiologist Ray Brown was a member 

of almost all the teams, served as Project 

Leader for many years, and continued 

his involvement as a volunteer after 

retirement. From the start, Brown’s 

research emphasized plant-soil-water 

relations and reclamation of disturbed 

alpine areas.

The availability of water and its 

movement through soil and plants 

obviously was important in arid and 

semi-arid western areas at lower elevations. It was equally important in alpine 

areas where landscapes featured sparse 

and stunted vegetation and persistent, 

strong winds dried the soil and plants. 

Brown’s early research in the use and 

design of thermocouple psychrometers, 

devices for measuring soil and plant 

water potential, made him an expert on 

this type of equipment. Psychrometers 

that included modifications proposed 

by Brown were widely used in the 

environmental sciences and adopted by 

several private firms for commercial 

use. There were plenty of places to use 

the devices.

About 7.5 million acres, or 12 

percent, of the alpine tundra in the 

West had been disturbed by 1970. 

Disturbances ranged from obvious scars 

left by mining operations to the effects 

of domestic sheep trailing to summer 

ranges. Disturbances caused by hikers 

and campers were becoming a growing 

concern. Keeping the alpine ecosystems 

healthy is important. The high 

The McLaren mine provided a good place for Station scientists to locate a large 

reclamation demonstration area and reference areas in the New World Mining 

District in southern Montana near the corner of Yellowstone National Park. This 

photo was taken looking northward toward Fisher Mountain (10,300-ft elevation).
168–

mountains trap and store water for 

thousands of lowland farmers and city 

dwellers. When alpine watersheds 

deteriorate, the whole hydrologic 

system below them can come unraveled 

(Tippets 1991b).

Rehabilitation posed difficult 

problems. The alpine areas have short 

growing seasons and rocky and shallow 

soils. They experience low temperatures 

and high ultra-violet radiation, in addition to high winds. Reestablishing 

vegetation takes relatively long periods 

of time. However, Brown and associates 

in the SEAM program observed early 

in their work that there was no evidence 

that alpine environments were hostile to 

organisms that had adapted to them.

The Beartooth Plateau near the northeastern corner of Yellowstone National 

Park in Montana was an excellent place 

to study alpine disturbances and reclamation methods. There, past exploration 

and surface and underground operations 

in the New World Mining District 

had created numerous disturbed sites. 

Disturbances included road construction 

areas, drilling sites, exploration holes, 

trenches, mining camp sites, and abandoned copper, silver, and gold mines.

As part of the SEAM program, 

Brown and his associates in 1976 started 

a long-term study at the McLaren Mine, 

an abandoned gold, copper, and silver 

mine. Surface operations had removed 

all vegetation and topsoil from about 35 

acres. Also planned as a demonstration 

area, the research site was relatively 

large. At the time, most knowledge 

about revegetation and surface reclamation of high-elevation mines was based 

on small-scale research plot studies. 

Both relatively undisturbed areas and 

piles of mine spoils were nearby.

The scientists studied effects of 

shaping and contouring, mine spoil 

amendments, seeding, mulching, transplanting, fertilization, and various repeat 

treatments. All were compared to reference areas. In the 1970s and early 80s, 

Brown worked closely with Hydrologist 

Bob Johnston. They were first and 

second authors of 15 papers reporting 

progress in the study or presenting 

results from parts of it. Range Scientist 

Jeanne Chambers joined the Logan unit 

in 1982 and concentrated on studies of 

vegetation establishment. She published 

23 papers reporting results of her work 

and was a co-author with Brown and 

other individuals of 10 more.

Chambers’ studies combined laboratory experiments with field work on the 

Beartooth Plateau. She used a growth 

chamber, cold room, and greenhouse to 

determine germination requirements and 

responses to fertilizers of alpine plants. 

At the demonstration site, Chambers 

compared the biology of plants found on 

the disturbed areas to those growing in 

undisturbed communities. She meticulously followed the life history of each 

individual plant found in a series of plots 

and recorded how each plant responded 

to a variety of treatments (Intercom

5/28/87)

Chambers was seeking ways managers could create “safe spots” for seed 

germination and how they could boost 

the chances of seedling survival. She 

found several. Mulching was critical and 

fertilization was needed on extreme disturbances where all the native soil was 

lost (Tippets 1991b). Fall planting at the 

same time natural seeding occurred also 

was necessary.

Where motorized equipment could be 

used, recommended planting operations 

and treatments were relatively easy to 

accomplish. In remote places, such as 

Wilderness, reclaiming disturbed areas 

was another matter. However, Logan 

unit personnel tried several techniques, 

and their work proved that successful 

revegetation can be accomplished on 

small scales entirely with local materials 

and hand labor.

At many abandoned sites, mining 

wastes containing toxic chemicals have 

been exposed to weathering, creating 

material bearing little resemblance to 

natural soils. Such material often is 

concentrated in the form of spoils and 

tailings. Erosion from these areas can 

result in acid, metal, or other chemical 

contamination of down-slope plant 

communities and aquatic ecosystems. 

Analysis skills were needed. Mike 

Amacher joined the Logan unit to 

Jeanne Chambers demonstrated during 

a 1990 tour that plants would grow well 

on disturbed alpine sites when mulch 

and fertilizer were used in the establishment process.

Project Leader Ray 

Brown (left) and Gallatin 

National Forest Geologist 

Sherm Sollid held a 

chart showing proposed 

new mining activity and 

reclamation plans near 

the McLaren mine in 

the New World Mining 

District. Taking his turn 

as a presenter to representatives of industrial 

firms, environmental 

groups, and interested 

individual citizens was 

Allan Kirk, Noranda 

Exploration Company 

geologist.
–169

provide them. Specially designed, solarpowered instrument systems were used 

to collect materials for analysis.

Throughout the 22 years of research 

at the New World Mining District site, 

Brown, Johnston, Chambers, and other 

Logan personnel hosted hundreds of 

visitors to show results of the techniques 

they tested and describe conclusions 

reached in the various individual studies. 

After Brown retired, he, Amacher, Walt 

Mueggler, and Janice Kotuby-Amacher, 

director of the Soil Testing Laboratory 

at Utah State University, wrote a Rocky 

Mountain Station publication (Brown 

and others 2003) that documented what 

the visitors had been shown and told for 

many years.

The general conclusion was that only 

by restoring natural ecosystem form 

and functioning could disturbed alpine 

sites be successfully reclaimed. The 

authors provided 10 principles to guide 

alpine area restoration based primarily 

on research at New World, but said they 

believed them to be equally applicable 

to similar disturbances throughout the 

West where managers want to restore 

natural plant communities.

Although the New World site 

received major attention from the Logan 

scientists for more than two decades, 

they worked in many other places. In 

1988, Chambers published a report 

on native plant establishment at an oil 

drilling pad site in the Uintah Mountains 

in Utah. Brown and Johnston provided 

guidelines for revegetating disturbed alpine rangelands. From 1972 until 1997, 

Logan unit personnel conducted studies 

at 36 surface mining sites in the West, at 

high and low elevations. All the studies 

ultimately resulted in specific guidance 

for managers who sought ways to restore healthy plant communities to areas 

where human or natural disturbances 

had upset the normal environmental 

balance.

Revising the Revision

When Larry Lassen went to the 

Southern Station in New Orleans as its 

first Associate (Deputy) Director in 1974 

under the new administrative system, he 

wasn’t sure how to operate and neither 

were the AD’s (personal communication). After about a year, the Station 

Director was assigned to a national systems review team, which required long 

periods of travel away from the Station. 

Lassen then took care of the day-to-day 

Station business for nearly a year.

When Lassen became Director of the 

Southern Station in 1976, he thought 

three program AD’s would be a better 

use of manpower than two program 

AD’s and a Deputy Director. He 

presented this plan to the Washington 

Office, and it was approved. Lassen 

also thought locating the AD’s away 

from Station Headquarters diminished 

opportunities to fully use them for staff 

work. He observed, for example, that 

a monthly staff meeting with the AD’s 

often used up the better part of three 

days with travel time and information 

sharing. Lassen reasoned that if the AD’s 

were located at headquarters travel time 

for monthly meetings would be nil and 

each AD would be more aware of events 

throughout the Station, so little briefing 

time would be needed at each meeting.

Lassen was convinced that staff 

meeting time could be reduced to a few 

hours and focused on decision making. 

He also believed that locating the AD’s 

away from headquarters diminished 

flexibility in assigning research units to 

them and fostered a parochial interest in 

portions of the total research program. 

As the opportunities arose, the Southern 

Station AD’s were relocated to Station 

headquarters, and the former Deputy slot 

was filled by a third program AD.

When Lassen came to the 

Intermountain Station as Director in 

1983 he brought along his beliefs about 

how to organize Station administration for maximum effectiveness, but 

he encountered a different situation. 

The Intermountain Station had a 

Deputy, Carter Gibbs; a Planning and 

Applications AD, Keith Evans; and a 

program AD, Duane Lloyd; located at 

headquarters. Program AD Dick Krebill 

was in Missoula, as were Program 

Managers Ron Barger and Jim Lotan. 

Barger and Lotan had responsibilities for 

their operations similar to those of program AD’s and also attended monthly 

and other staff meetings.

Lassen found that he and Gibbs 

worked well together, so no effort was 

made to eliminate the Deputy position. 

The two special programs were designed 

to have limited lives. Their major objectives had been achieved by the time 

Barger and Lotan retired, so the manager 

jobs were abolished and the remaining 

work was transferred to the program 

AD areas. Krebill was asked to move to 

Ogden at a time of his choosing, and he 

did.

Later, Evans left for a Congressional 

Fellowship in Washington and Gibbs 

took over the Planning the Application 

AD assignments in addition to his 

regular duties until he retired in 1988. 

Lassen did not move to fill the Deputy 

position, but let the vacancy stay in 

the approved organizational structure. 

This was fortunate because a short time 

later AD Lloyd suffered a serious back 

injury from a fall and his ability to travel 

was limited. He was appointed Deputy 

Director, a role that required little travel 

and one he fulfilled very well. About 

the same time, Evans finished his fellowship and subsequent assignments 

with Legislative Affairs and the Forest 

Environment staffs in Washington and 

returned to Ogden to take Lloyd’s place 

as a program AD. When Lloyd retired in 

1991, Lassen abolished the Deputy position in favor of a third program AD slot. 

The job was filled by Dean Knighton.

In retrospect it sounds much like musical chairs, but not long before Lassen 

Deputy Directors often filled in for the 

Station Director, as Carter Gibbs (right) 

did as he entertained Forest Service 

Chief Dale Robertson during a visit by 

the Chief to Station Headquarters.
170–

retired in 1992 he finally had the Station 

management arrangement he had sought 

first at the Southern Station, and then at 

the Intermountain Station.

Peter Koch—Superstar

All the notable scientists in Station 

history made their mark through lengthy, 

productive careers in the Great Basin 

or Northern Rocky Mountain areas or 

by early work at the Station that led to 

bigger things elsewhere. All but one. 

Peter Koch established himself as a 

research all-star in the South and came 

to the Station only in the last years of his 

Forest Service career.

Koch was a Montana native reared 

in a Missoula family of over-achievers. 

His father, Elers Koch, was a pioneer 

forester. Elers first worked as one 

of Gifford Pinchot’s “young men,” 

mapping boundaries for what became 

National Forests in California and the 

Interior West. Later, he designed new 

fire-control strategies and equipment. He 

served the last 20 years of an illustrious 

career as Assistant Regional Forester 

for Timber Management for Region 

1, and took great pride in his role in 

establishing the Savenac Nursery and 

many tree plantations on burned areas 

(Koch 1998).

Was Peter as great an achiever as 

his father? Yes, according to Jack Ward 

Thomas, writing in the foreword to Elers 

Koch’s book about his life:

I spent some thirty years as a research 

scientist for the Forest Service before 

becoming chief of the agency. During 

those years my ambition was to become 

as good as our top scientist, a goal I 

never achieved. That scientist was Dr. 

Peter Koch, son of Elers Koch. Elers 

Koch’s legacy was not limited to his own 

achievements in progressive naturalresource management but included 

those of Peter Koch as well. It would 

be difficult to do better in either case.

Peter graduated from Montana State 

College at Bozeman in 1942 with a B.S. 

degree in mechanical engineering. He 

later earned a Ph.D. in wood utilization 

at the University of Washington. Before 

starting his Forest Service research 

career, Koch managed a New England 

sawmill, owned a consulting engineering 

firm, and served as an associate professor at Michigan State University.

In the South, good growing conditions, level terrain, changes in land use, 

and closeness to newly developing markets plus technological advances have 

made this region home to a large segment of the lumber and pulp and paper 

industries. This was not always the case. 

While structurally strong, southern pine 

lumber was prone to warp and was more 

difficult to nail than western softwoods. 

Gluing problems prevented its use as 

structural plywood, and the lack of a 

good pulping process limited its use for 

paper and hardboard.

Following World War II, many saw 

the potential for forest industry expansion in the South. Large corporations 

such as Georgia-Pacific, Weyerhaeuser, 

and International Paper were acquiring 

major forest land holdings there. New 

processing plants didn’t appear overnight, however. One of the drawbacks to 

industrial development was a paucity of 

knowledge and processing technology 

for the southern tree species. Powerful 

southern Congressional leaders, including Senator Ellender of Louisiana, took 

note of that and channeled money to 

the Southern Station to start a Forest 

Products Utilization Unit.

Enter Peter Koch. In 19 years of 

Forest Service research work in the 

South he wrote three major reference 

books, published 175 technical papers, 

and invented several processes widely 

used by the forest products industry. He 

became known as the leading authority 

on processing southern woods.

In 1972, Koch wrote Agricultural 

Handbook 420, Utilization of Southern 

Pines, which became a widely used 

reference for foresters, industrial developers, and wood technology students. 

The text and illustrations covered 1,675 

pages in two volumes.

Before leaving the Southern Station 

for the Intermountain Station in 1982, 

Koch repeated his southern pine publishing feat by writing the manuscript for 

Utilization of Handwoods Growing on 

Southern Pine Sites. The landmark publication was printed as an Agricultural 

Handbook in 1984 and later reproduced 

by the Government Printing Office. It 

consisted of three volumes and was sold 

by the GPO for $75 a set.

Because Koch was hired to start 

a utilization research program from 

scratch at the Southern Station, he had 

the opportunity to chart his own course 

in a way seldom available to a Forest 

Service scientist. His was one of a handful of “pioneer units” in Forest Service 

Research. Establishment of these units 

was initiated by Deputy Chief Vern 

Harper to develop whole programs to 

support the efforts of a single outstanding scientist who worked essentially 

without supervision (Steen 1998). Koch 

designed the laboratory, acquired 

the exact equipment he wanted, and 

handpicked the staff. His location at the 

Alexandria Forestry Center in Louisiana 

put him in a good position to coordinate 

activities with managers. The Kisatchee 

National Forest and Southeastern Area 

of State and Private Forestry also 

had offices there. His experience as a 

sawmill manager provided him with 

Peter Koch at the 

Forestry Sciences 

Lab in Missoula with 

his manuscript on 

southern hardwoods 

utilization boxed 

and ready to ship to 

Washington for printing. The boxes held 

7,000 typed pages and 

1,500 illustrations, 

which in printed form 

became 4,000 pages in 

three volumes.
–171

valuable insights that facilitated communication and cooperation with industry 

people.

Koch’s personal characteristics, not 

favorable circumstances, were what led 

to his success. He was totally focused 

and dedicated to his work. Koch singlemindedly moved his various projects 

forward, and he thought everyone else 

should move Koch projects ahead of 

others. He hung elaborately crafted 

wooden signs from the laboratory ceiling inscribed with the mission statement 

as constant reminders to all employees 

of what they were there to do.

When he finished his voluminous 

southern pine utilization manuscript 

Koch built special wood boxes to hold 

it, put them in a pickup truck, and drove 

to Washington, DC to deliver the manuscript to the Forest Service publications 

office. And a short time later when he 

learned the unopened boxes were still 

in a Washington hallway, he phoned 

the Station Director to see if pressure 

could be exerted to “get those people 

moving.”

In the 1970s Forest Service Research 

adopted new approaches for compensating outstanding scientists. The idea was 

to provide premium pay for individual 

scientific achievement rather than limiting the top salary grades to those who 

supervised organizations. Researchers 

could draw higher salaries than their 

Project Leaders. A very few scientists 

were awarded “super grades.” Peter 

Koch was among the elite. He was 

awarded a grade equal to the Station 

Director. Before he left the Southern 

Station he received another increase and 

was drawing more pay than any Station 

Director in the Forest Service.

At the Intermountain Station, Koch 

was assigned to the STEM (Systems of 

Timber Utilization for Environmental 

Management) R& D Program at the 

Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab. He 

began working to do for lodgepole 

pine what he had done for the southern 

pines. Lodgepole grows on hundreds 

of thousands of high-elevation acres 

in the northern Rockies, far from commercial markets. Many of the stands 

are stagnated or infested with mountain 

pine beetles. Access often is difficult 

and management options are limited 

when the trees attract mainly firewood 

cutters and small mills making lowquality studs or shaping timbers for log 

buildings.

Koch set out to determine whether 

lodgepole pine had other industrial 

potential, including chip and fiber production and as a major energy source. 

He launched a 10-year cooperative 

research study with the Canadian 

government to characterize the physical, 

mechanical, and chemical properties 

of lodgepole. The species has a broad 

range, and Koch sampled trees from 

northern California into the Yukon 

Territory to discover whether lodgepole 

characteristics change with latitude 

or elevation, and with tree diameter 

(INTercom 1/10/85).

He ran out of time to complete his 

lodgepole studies as a Forest Service 

employee, deciding to retire on the 

last day of 1984, but he didn’t run 

out of energy. Before leaving Federal 

service he helped make arrangements 

for the utilization program to continue 

under a cooperative agreement with 

the University of Montana School 

of Forestry. He also launched a new 

enterprise as President of Wood Science 

Laboratory, Inc. in Corvallis, Montana.

In 1996 the utilization program paid 

dividends just as Koch had envisioned 

when he returned to Montana. The 

Forest Products Society published 

Lodgepole Pine in North America (Koch 

1996), a three-volume reference describing the species’ characteristics, forest 

values, processes to convert logs to 

products, and major potential products.

Koch received many honors for his 

work. One was an honorary doctorate 

conferred by the University of Maine. 

He got a USDA Superior Service Award 

in 1968, and the research unit he headed 

at the Southern Station received another 

one in 1973. He was elected president 

of the Forest Products Research Society, 

serving in 1972 and 1973. In 1974 he 

was named a Fellow of the International 

Academy of Wood Science, and later 

was made a Fellow of the Society of 

American Foresters. The University of 

Idaho designated him a Distinguished 

Affiliate Professor.

High Hopes Come 

Crashing Down

In the early 1980s the Station engineering unit at Bozeman played a role 

in plans for use of an airship that looked 

like something right out of a science 

fiction movie.

The research engineers entered into 

a cooperative agreement with Montana 

State University to conduct pretests 

for log transport operations by the 

Two years after he retired Peter Koch 

was trying to interest western Montana 

wood products firms in a new concept 

to use small-diameter lodgepole pine 

in combination with flakeboard to produce I-beam joists. Testing was done 

on this machine at the University of 

Montana.

The Heli-Stat during a hover test at 

Lakehurst, New 

Jersey. It crashed 

there on July 1, 1986 

after completing a 

series of tests.
172–

Heli-Stat, the world’s first full-sized, 

heavy-load, vertical-lift aircraft. The 

Station-University agreement provided 

for as much pretesting as possible so that 

evaluation trials of the Heli-Stat could 

be run efficiently (INTercom 8/6/81). 

The pretests focused on efficient methods of collecting and bunching logs in 

rugged terrain for pickup and transport 

by the airship. They involved creation 

of computer models and programs for 

simulating and selecting appropriate 

prebunching activities.

The Heli-Stat prototype was built 

for the Forest Service under a U.S. 

Navy contract. It was assembled from a 

surplus Navy dirigible and four surplus 

helicopters. The concept was to combine 

the buoyancy of the dirigible with the 

dynamic lift ability of the helicopters 

into a single hybrid airship that could 

move heavy loads of logs from steep 

slopes in fragile, inaccessible areas to 

yarding sites with minimum environmental impact and relatively low costs.

The dirigible, when inflated with helium to its full 1-million-cubic-foot size, 

was 343 feet long, making it the largest 

aircraft in the world at the time. The 

famous Hughes “Spruce Goose” flying 

boat wingspan was 320 feet (Piasecki 

Corporation 2005). The builder said 

even bigger versions of the Heli-Stat 

might be produced in the future to carry 

payloads ranging from 60 to 200 tons, if 

the prototype performed well in trials.

The trouble was it didn’t perform 

well; it crashed.

According to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (report 

NYC86FHD01), the Heli-Stat had just 

completed a hover test flight successfully at Lakehurst, New Jersey, on July 

1, 1986 when disaster struck. The tests 

were ended that day when a power loss 

was noted in one of the helicopters. A 

shift in the wind threw the airship out 

of control as it was about to moor after 

landing, and the pilot tried to lift off. A 

shimmy developed. The four helicopters 

broke off and fell to the ground. The 

Heli-Stat was destroyed. One pilot was 

killed, three were seriously injured, and 

one received minor injuries.

The safety board determined the 

probable causes of the accident were 

inadequacies in the design and performance of several pieces of equipment. 

No contract was issued for another 

prototype.

Although the Heli-Stat was lost, 

the research was not. Engineers at the 

Pacific Northwest Station used the 

Intermountain results in a cooperative 

program with two Forest Service 

Regions, three universities, and an aerospace firm to develop a computer model 

useful in analyzing other aerial logging 

systems, primarily helicopter logging. 

The work considered log weights, sizes, 

landing areas, access for workers, and 

many other factors (Forestry Research 

West Apr./87).

Chemists Formulate New 

Fire Analyses

Chemists played important roles in 

fire science at the Station, but for many 

years they were few in number and 

worked in units dominated by other 

disciplines. Charlie Philpot did the first 

chemistry work, followed by cooperative studies led by Fred Shafizadeh of 

the University of Montana faculty (J. 

Brown, personal communication). In 

1985, there were only two chemists at 

the Fire Lab—Ron Susott in the fire 

behavior unit and Cecilia Johnson in the 

suppression unit. That changed dramatically over the next 2 years.

The Forest Service announced a major consolidation and redirection of the 

Forest Fire and Atmospheric Sciences 

Research program. For the Fire Lab, 

the new arrangement meant much more 

emphasis would be put on chemistry. 

The plan was to close down fire research 

at Macon, Georgia, and redistribute 

programs and personnel (INTercom

7/24/86).

The Fire Lab established a new 

Fire Chemistry Research Work Unit. 

Assistant Station Director Dick Krebill 

said, “Members of the Fire Chemistry 

RWU will be conducting fundamental 

research aimed at determining chemical characteristics of wildland fuels, 

clarifying the chemical processes of 

combustion, and predicting byproducts 

emitted under various types of combustion. Our goal is for the unit to serve as a 

national center for fundamental 

information on combustion and emissions” (INTercom 9/3/87).

Employees affected by the 

reorganization were given directed 

reassignments. Thirteen were transferred 

to Missoula—nine from Macon, two 

from Lansing, Michigan, and two from 

Flagstaff, Arizona. Unfortunately, 

only two scientists accepted the reassignments and neither one stayed in 

Missoula for long. So the Station had 

a new unit with ambitious plans, but 

almost no personnel to carry them out.

The staffing problem was resolved 

rather quickly. Susott transferred into 

the new unit, Electronics Engineer Ron 

Babbitt moved from the Bozeman Lab, 

and recruiting began to fill other 

positions. Darold Ward was named 

Project Leader early in 1988. Ward was 

a scientist with the Pacific Northwest 

Station in Seattle who had worked in fire 

research for 20 years. He had degrees in 

forestry from the University of Montana 

and was awarded a Ph.D. in fire science 

by the University of Washington in 

1979.

Ward led an aggressive program 

that featured working on large-scale 

experiments with many cooperators, 

often internationally, and focusing on 

major public issues such as deforestation 

and air pollution. Babbitt and Susott 

played important roles in designing new 

Electronics Engineer Ron Babbit adjusted instruments used to measure 

combustion products in 1989.
–173

hardware and software used in field 

work as well as at the Fire Lab.

One of the first important international ventures had Ward traveling 7,000 

miles in 3 weeks while working with 

the Brazilian government to collect 

smoke samples from deforestation 

burning in the Amazon River Basin. The 

research was prompted by a presentation 

given by Ward at the National Center 

for Atmospheric Research. It interested a National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) scientist, and 

the two developed a pilot study to measure particles and gases released during 

burning in the Amazon (INTercom

10/12/89).

The study involved collecting samples by flying an aircraft through smoke 

plumes downwind of individual fire areas. Ward later had the samples analyzed 

at the Oregon Graduate Research Center. 

Results were included in several publications by Ward and others after review 

at a workshop sponsored by NASA and 

the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ward had brought the sampling 

equipment from the Fire Lab in 11 

pieces of luggage. It took 3 days to get it 

through Brazilian customs. He installed 

the instruments in a Brazilian government plane. Samples were taken at fires 

in a gold mining area and agricultural 

settlement areas where deforestation was 

proceeding “on a tremendous scale” and 

in a savanna area that was being burned.

“Basically,” Ward said, “there was 

smoke everywhere...there were smoke 

plumes all over the place.” By the start 

of the rainy season, which ended the 

burning, he had collected 80 canisters of 

gas and “background air” samples.

In the summer of 1989, the still-small 

fire chemistry unit and members of the 

fire behavior unit embarked on a study 

that required extensive preparation, 

coordination, and data analysis. Ward 

and others at the Fire Lab had worked 

with a team of Canadian scientists for 

several years to plan the “International 

Crown Fire Experiment” to take place in 

the Northwest Territories.

More than 30 Canadian and 

American scientists studied massive fire 

characteristics at a large prescribed burn 

near Chapleau, Canada. Both groups 

wanted to study large-fire dynamics and 

the resulting smoke emissions. Also of 

interest were the mechanisms involved 

in creating fire-induced winds. The U.S. 

Defense Nuclear Agency was interested 

in the studies, and funded American 

participation. The agency wanted to 

better understand the potential for 

“nuclear winter,” which could be created 

by emissions in a nuclear war. Ward’s 

unit coordinated work by the American 

scientists participating in the project 

(INTercom 10/26/89).

Babbitt and Susott spent weeks 

designing and building instruments 

to measure and analyze the products 

of combustion, including gases and 

particulates. They transported the equipment in boxes by van to Canada, where 

they mounted their devices on 40-foot 

towers in the study area. Meteorologist 

Don Latham installed anemometers to 

measure the velocity of the convection 

column that would result from the fire. 

He also measured differences in electrical charges between the earth’s surface 

and the clouds created by the fire. The 

massive fires, ignited over 2 days, 

spread rapidly. The intense heat created 

cumulous clouds and Latham recorded 

six lightning discharges from one fire, 

which caused 2 inches of rain to fall 

downwind.

Five fixed-wing aircraft and four 

helicopters were involved in the studies. 

“There was so much going on that we 

had to be careful about coordinating 

flight patterns,” Ward said. Following 

the experiments, the Station hosted a fire 

review to discuss results of the many 

tests. The participants assembled later to 

prepare a composite report.

Two complex problem areas—firefighter and community health and safety 

related to wildfires—drew the attention 

of the fire chemists in the early 1900s 

and continued to do so for many years.

Injuries and illnesses among 

wildland firefighters were a significant 

problem. During the 1988 Yellowstone 

fires, more than 30,000 medical visits 

were made by firefighters, of which 

12,000 involved respiratory conditions. 

More than 600 of the firefighters 

with respiratory problems required 

subsequent medical care. The long-term 

health effects were not known and the 

relationship between smoke content and 

health-related problems had not been 

identified. A Congressional committee 

called for action, and one result was 

a research plan prepared by Johns 

Hopkins University and the Station 

chemistry unit. Results of the studies 

were made available to help fire managers position personnel for maximum 

safety (Tippets interview, 2005).

During the historic 1994 fire season, 

chemistry unit personnel installed instruments in an aircraft that allowed them to 

measure smoke emissions from several 

different fires, the impact of smoke on 

local communities, and dispersion of the 

smoke in the atmosphere. The system 

was based on the one used by Ward in 

Brazil.

Ward, Babbitt, and Chemist 

Lynn Weger made measurements in 

Montana’s Bitterroot Valley, on the 

Idaho-Montana border, and in northern 

California. The airborne system was 

used for many fires in Montana, Idaho, 

and Oregon. One result was the knowledge that, although emissions from 

wildfires had characteristics similar to 

those from prescribed fires, the emission 

concentrations were much higher in 

wildfire smoke. This was important, 

considering later emphasis on the 

tradeoffs involved in increasing planned 

fires to decrease fuels that contributed 

Instruments mounted on 40-foot towers were activated by heat sensors and 

measured gases during three phases of 

combustion in large-scale cooperative 

fire chemistry research in Canada.
174–

to large wildfires (Intermountain and 

Rocky Mountain Stations 1995).

Wei Min Hao, a chemistry professor 

at the University of Montana, was a frequent cooperator with the fire chemistry 

unit before he accepted a position with 

the unit. He worked in three interrelated 

areas: (1) health impacts of smoke emissions from biomass fumes, (2) regional 

air pollution from forest and grassland 

fires, and (3) global effects of emissions 

from biomass burning. Hao’s involvement in global emissions research 

started in 1986 when he worked at the 

Max Planck Institute for Chemistry 

in Germany. He majored in chemistry 

in college in Taiwan, but switched to 

environmental chemistry for master’s 

and Ph.D. degrees at the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology.

To earn his Ph.D., Hao worked on 

fossil fuel combustion in power plants. 

He said most plants used the same type 

of boiler, so similar gases were produced. With biomass fires the situation 

was much more complicated. A complex 

array of fuels and meteorological and 

environmental conditions determine the 

emissions levels (INTercom 2/16/05). 

Hao became Project Leader of the 

Station’s fire chemistry unit after Ward 

retired.

Long-Term Desert Range 

Work Completed

After 50 years of continuous research 

at the Desert Experimental Range 

(DER), Station management announced 

in 1984 that a primary part of the work 

at the southwestern Utah site was 

completed.

“We’ve succeeded in our search 

for the proper use of the salt-desert 

shrubs by sheep on winter ranges,” said 

Assistant Station Director Duane Lloyd. 

“Now we have the opportunity to shift 

emphasis from there to other high-priority research such as studies of riparian 

habitats.”

The 87-square-mile DER continued 

to be maintained as a scientific preserve 

and was made available for future 

studies, including work by qualified researchers from the academic community. 

Research conducted at the Desert Range 

included studies of disturbance and 

successional processes, rodent ecology, 

pronghorn biology and management, 

soil crust ecology, and bird and mammal 

population dynamics.

“We’ll also continue sheep grazing 

at the DER to demonstrate the effects 

of different grazing treatments,” Lloyd 

said. The DER historically played an important role as a demonstration area for 

ranchers, land managers, and students. 

Established in 1933, the DER served 

as a central study site to help solve the 

problems of misuse and damage from 

grazing that were occurring on millions 

of acres of salt-desert shrub rangelands 

in the Intermountain West (INTercom

9/20/84.

In 1972, the southern end of the DER 

was designated as a Research Natural 

Area. And in 1977, the UNESCO Man 

and the Biosphere Program picked the 

DER as a Biosphere Reserve, joining it 

to a worldwide network of specialized 

ecosystems set aside for conservation, 

research, and education. It was the only 

cold-desert Biosphere Reserve in the 

Western Hemisphere.

Controversies Inspire 

Riparian Research

Interest and controversy regarding 

riparian areas (land adjacent to streams, 

lakes, seeps, and springs) with respect to 

water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat, 

and livestock grazing had been building 

What Project Leader Warren Clary called the “unofficial dedication” of the 

Desert Range as a Biosphere Reserve was attended by (l. to r.) Gale Wolters, 

Washington Office; John Kinney, Superintendent of the Desert Range; Duane 

Lloyd, Assistant Station Director, and Clary. Kinney built the monument to 

hold the bronze plaque received from UNESCO that commemorates the 

biosphere designation.

Chemist Lynn Weger checked an instrument Station scientists used to sample 

gas and particulate emissions from 

prescribed fires.
–175

for years in the Intermountain West. 

Controversies started to develop in the 

1960s in Arizona at lower elevation sites 

where bird populations in riparian areas 

were diminishing. Within the Station’s 

territory, the conflicts were strongest 

in Idaho, primarily involving livestock 

interests and environmental advocacy 

groups, but anglers concerned with 

stream water quality had also entered the 

debate.

Not much scientific knowledge about 

riparian areas was available, although 

management and use conflicts in them 

were of critical importance. Although riparian areas and their associated streams 

made up less than 2 percent of the 

western landscape, they were a valuable 

segment of lands, particularly public 

lands, in the Interior West. The areas 

provided important habitat elements 

for 70 percent of the wildlife, including 

more than 50 percent of the neotropical 

migrant birds. The associated streams, 

totaling 283,000 miles on National 

Forest and Bureau of Land Management 

lands, provided immense recreational 

resources.

Grazing conflicts with other values 

in riparian areas had escalated into a 

hot topic by 1984. Assistant Director 

Duane Lloyd thought the Station could 

introduce some science-based knowledge into what was becoming a debate 

based more on emotion than fact. This 

led to the move of Warren Clary, Dean 

Medin, and John Kinney from Provo to 

the Boise Lab. Their previous assignments had been tied to salt-desert range 

research, most of which the Station had 

concluded at the Desert Experimental 

Range.

A new unit at Boise, with Clary 

as Project Leader, was formed to 

conduct studies on stream and riparian 

ecosystems. Emphasis was given to 

studying the response of riparian areas 

to grazing, the structure of riparian plant 

communities, and wildlife relationships 

to riparian areas.

Clary concentrated his work on grazing issues and management. Wildlife 

Biologist Medin made studies of small 

birds and mammals. Botanist Nancy 

Shaw soon transferred to the new unit 

to conduct research on ecology of 

sensitive plants, and Fisheries Biologist 

Bill Platts joined the unit for studies of 

fishery responses to grazing and other 

disturbances. Others worked in the 

riparian unit at intervals until most of 

it was absorbed in the mid-1990s into 

a large integrated unit concerned with 

watershed processes and aquatic ecology 

(Clary, personal communication).

The fisheries research built on a 

foundation laid by 10 years of studies 

by Platts in the Salmon River Drainage 

in Idaho. After establishing plots in 

Nevada, Idaho, and Utah, he studied 

what happened to fish populations when 

riparian areas were damaged. His work 

provided hard evidence that livestock 

grazing, road construction, timber 

harvests, and mining in riparian areas 

often reduced the capacity of streams 

to produce fish. Of special concern 

were sites within the headwaters of the 

Columbia River system that were critical 

spawning and rearing areas for salmon 

and steelhead (Prouty 1987). Platts and 

coworkers started studies at 10 such 

sites in 1977 in the Boise and Sawtooth 

National Forests. The areas were 

characteristic of meadow ecosystems in 

the Idaho Batholith (Forestry Research 

West, Oct./77). One result was a 1978 

Station publication, Rearing of Chinook 

Salmon in Tributaries of the South Fork 

Salmon River, Idaho, by Platts and Fred 

Partridge, a biological technician.

Another early result of Platts’ 

research was development of a method 

to integrate streams and their fisheries 

into the Land Systems Inventory, at the 

time a major tool for planning and decisionmaking for National Forest lands 

(Forestry Research West May/80). The 

method could be applied to most streams 

in large areas of the west. Details were 

presented by Platts in a 1979 Station 

publication, Including the Fishery 

System in Land Planning.

In 1983, Platts, Hydrologist Walt 

Megahan, and Wayne Minshall, a 

professor of zoology at Idaho State 

University, made an important 

contribution to improving accuracy in 

evaluating stream habitats when they 

published Methods for Evaluating 

Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions,

a Station technical report. Before that, 

most methods in use had not been 

tested to determine their validity in 

describing conditions. In 1987, Platts 

and 11 other authors, including Station 

Statistician Gordon Booth and Botanist 

Steve Monsen, issued a refinement in 

the methodology work, Methods for 

Evaluating Riparian Habitats with 

Applications to Management.

Density and Biomass of Trout and 

Char in Western Streams, published by 

the Station in 1988, presented the first 

compilation of trout population characteristics in the western United States 

(Forestry Research West, Sept./88). 

Platts and Biological Technician Mike 

McHenry assembled and analyzed fish 

census data from 313 streams in six 

ecoregions of the West. The data showed 

significant differences among regions.

There also were significant differences in the vegetation in riparian areas. 

No two were the same. Shaw used her 

botanical training to help develop new 

information on sensitive riparian plant 

species. She developed techniques for 

handling and planting woody plants such 

as willow, cottonwood, and alder that 

could help rehabilitate damaged riparian 

areas (Prouty 1987c).

Revegetation techniques proposed 

by unit members were designed to help 

stabilize streambanks, to provide shade 

and shelter for wildlife, and to furnish 

desirable amounts of organic matter to 

the streams. Shaw summed up her work 

and the situation in the west in a proceedings paper published in 2000, Plant 

Materials for Western Riparian Areas.

Economist Fred Wagstaff worked 

part-time in the riparian unit. He provided an economic focus to the problem 

of sorting out competing uses. Wagstaff 

studied the cost effectiveness of various 

management practices and techniques. 

He addressed such questions as, “How 

many added recreation days of fishing 

justify the expense of fencing a stream?” 

(Prouty 1987c).

Medin’s studies with the riparian 

unit concentrated on nongame bird and 

small mammal populations and ecology. 

He published Station research papers 

on populations in grazed and ungrazed 

areas in Idaho and northeastern Nevada 

(Forestry Research West/Dec./90; Nov. 

91).

In 1991, Medin and Clary introduced 

a new focus to the riparian work when 

they published Bird Populations in and 

Adjacent to a Beaver Pond Ecosystem 

in Idaho, a Station paper. The study 
176–

showed that beaver pond ecosystems 

with willows provided habitat for 

three times the number of birds that 

were found in nearby riparian areas 

without willows. Bird diversity also was 

much higher (Forestry Research West, 

Apr./91). They followed up with another 

report showing similar differences for 

small mammals.

Wildlife Biologist Victoria Saab 

added another dimension to the riparian 

studies when she joined the unit in 1989. 

Her specialty was neotropical birds, and 

her work was conducted in both riparian 

areas and burned pine-fir forests. For 

reasons not fully understood, a third of 

Idaho’s migratory land birds were experiencing declining populations (Tippets 

1994a).

Habitat along the South Fork of the 

Snake River provided a good outdoor 

laboratory for Saab to study both 

grazing and recreational effects on neotropical birds. Some large patches had 

no grazing and little recreational impact. Other sites were heavily grazed, 

and some near the river were heavily 

used by recreationists. Saab also studied the impact of grazing intensities 

on the birds in their winter homes in 

Belize, Central America. In 1992 she 

published five scientific papers on the 

results of the work, and co-authored 

two others.

The research in burned forest 

areas got started in a big way in 1994 

when the Station and Boise National 

Forest began long-term studies on bird 

responses to different fire conditions 

in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests. 

Saab and fellow biologist Jon Dudley 

summarized the findings in 1999 in a 

Rocky Mountain Station publication.

In riparian areas, the kinds and 

amounts of various activities often were 

in dispute and long-term monitoring 

was required to clear up the mysteries. 

Clary and John Kinney used time-lapse 

photography to show where livestock 

were spending their time (Fletcher 

1999a). One of the key studies was 

made along Stanley Creek in the 

Sawtooth National Recreation Area in 

Idaho.

Clary said, “We used time-lapse 

photography to document the positions 

of cattle within several pastures. A total 

of 10 to 23 days of picture sequences 

were obtained per pasture.” He said 

measures typically used in range 

management would not have determined the proportions of time spent 

by the cattle on one site compared to 

the others. Kinney and Clary wrote a 

Rocky Mountain Station research note, 

published in 1998, that described the 

techniques in detail.

Clary and Bert Webster, a Sawtooth 

National Forest staff officer, summed 

up results of the photo studies and 

other initial riparian grazing research in 

a major Station publication, Managing 

Grazing of Riparian Areas in the

Intermountain Region, issued in 1989. 

It provided guidance for planning grazing of riparian areas to reduce stream 

pollution and other impacts. Many of 

the recommendations were applicable 

beyond the Intermountain Region 

(Forestry Research West Jan./90).

In the foreword to the publication, 

Region 4 Regional Forester Stan Tixier 

said, “The application of these basic 

concepts along with riparian standards 

and guidelines in a Forest Plan will 

achieve the desired objective of healthy 

riparian systems.”

Range Scientists Round 

Up the Knowledge

In the early 1980s, Station administrators and representatives of 

cooperating universities, stockmen’s 

associations, and range management 

agencies stepped on the accelerator 

of four vehicles designed to speed up 

application of the results of decades of 

range research. Three took off almost 

immediately. The fourth required many 

Wildlife Biologist Victoria Saab released 

a yellow warbler caught and banded 

in a riparian forest area along Idaho’s 

Snake River.

Scientists in the riparian research unit used time-lapse photography to study 

concentrations of cattle in five parts of this meadow that had different types of 

vegetation.
–177

years to design and build, but it was a 

first-class product once completed.

The task was to round up 

research findings scattered through 

myriad scientific journal articles 

and publications and to summarize 

the information in formats readily 

usable by western ranchers and land 

managers. Comprehensive publications 

were planned for (1) sagebrush-grass 

ranges, (2) salt-desert shrub ranges, (3) 

vegetation and livestock studies at the 

Benmore experimental area, and (4) 

range improvement and use of shrubs 

(INTercom 1/7/82).

Fortunately, the Station was able to 

get special funding for the project from 

the Four Corners Regional Commission, 

one of five Federal commissions formed 

to aid regional development in economically distressed areas. The commission 

wanted to enhance agricultural and natural resource values in parts of Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah where 

the results of work by Station scientists 

and cooperators were most applicable.

Station Project Leaders Warren Clary 

and Art Tiedemann (Provo) coordinated the work, but it was a cooperative 

venture. The Utah Department of 

Agriculture, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Utah State University, and 

various Station units made contributions. The target was to complete all 

four manuscripts by May 1982 and 

publish them by December of the same 

year. That proved doable for one, almost 

practical for two others, and enormously 

optimistic for the fourth.

The first product, a Station publication issued in October 1982, reflected 

the amount of information that was 

distilled into the management guides. 

The authors of Managing Intermountain 

Rangelands—Sagebrush-Grass Ranges 

based their document partly on a bibliography published some years earlier by 

the Station. The bibliography included 

1,250 publication citations. The management guide was written by Jim Blaisdell, 

who had recently retired as an Assistant 

Station Director, Bob Murray, a range 

scientist for many years with the Station 

and later the Agricultural Research 

Service, and Durant McArthur, a plant 

geneticist at Provo who later became 

Project Leader for shrub improvement 

research.

Because of the large number of 

sagebrush species and plant associations 

involved, no attempt was made to create 

individual management prescriptions for 

each. Instead, general guides and sources of detailed information were given, 

so managers could use the knowledge 

to plan improvement or maintenance 

of conditions in local situations. The 

publication concluded with 41 summary 

statements.

Managing Intermountain 

Rangelands—Salt-Desert Shrub Ranges

appeared as a Station publication in 

spring 1984, following the same general 

format but with more specific advice 

because the nature of the lands covered 

made that possible. It was written by 

Blaisdell and Range Scientist Ralph 

Holmgren, and was based largely on a 

half-century of research at the Desert 

Experimental Range. The authors concluded that although desert ecosystems 

are fragile and easily disrupted by 

improper use, “under good management 

deterioration can be reversed, conditions can improve, and areas in good 

condition can remain so under grazing 

use.”

This guide, with current material added, replaced two out-of-print 

manuals written by Selar Hutchings and 

George Stewart in 1953 and Hutchings 

in 1954 that had been useful to managers 

for three decades. Hutchings conducted 

some of the first 

research at the Desert 

Range at the start 

of what became a 

45-year career in 

range research and 

management.

Blaisdell also 

had a lengthy career, 

most of it at the 

Station. During his 

35 years with Forest 

Service research 

he participated in 

and managed range 

research programs 

that included studies 

in all the land and 

vegetation types 

included in the accelerated application 

project. An Idaho 

native, Blaisdell 

earned a bachelor’s degree in range 

management at Utah State University, 

a master’s at the University of 

Idaho, and a Ph.D. in plant ecology 

at the University of Minnesota. He 

became Assistant Station Director for 

Continuing Research in 1972 and served 

in Ogden until his retirement. In that 

position he supervised Station research 

at Logan, Ogden, Provo, Reno, and 

Boise and was the principal liaison with 

Region 4 managers.

The third management guide was 

issued in December 1984 (Astroth and 

Frischknecht). See “The Beef Was at 

Benmore,” chapter 10, for an account 

of the research history and study 

results summarized in the publication. 

Preparation of this guide and a complementary program to extend the results 

to a broad array of users was directed 

by Kendall Johnson of the Utah State 

University Range Science Department.

The fourth publication evolved into 

something quite different from the three 

summary management guides. To say 

it took a little longer to produce would 

be one of the great understatements in 

Station history. It missed the publication 

target date by 22 years.

At first glance the plan appeared 

to be to produce a replacement for 

Restoring Big Game Range in Utah, 

which had been the guide for range 

reclamation since it appeared in 1968 

Sheep thrived on well-managed salt-desert lands at the 

Desert Experimental Range. So did the livestock owners. 

On lands managed as Station researchers recommended, 

net profit per ewe was twice as high as when traditional 

practices were followed. Results were similar when cattle 

began to outnumber sheep as the principal domestic 

livestock on this type of rangeland.
178–

(see “Mr. Plummer’s Opus,” chapter 

10). However, the concept from the start 

was to create a document with broader 

scope. What emerged was a massive 

reference work. Station Botanist Steve 

Monsen (Provo) and Richard Stevens, 

wildlife biologist with the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, were team leaders for the compilation effort. Later, 

Botanist Nancy Shaw (Boise) became 

the third compiler.

When the work started in 1982, 

Stevens said, “We expect to bring 

together all the data on range restoration 

and improvement research that has 

been done in the past 30 years, and 

incorporate it in the report.” Ultimately, 

this goal was met.

As a starting point and to provide an 

interim document, the Station, Region 

4, and the Bureau of Land Management 

sponsored two symposia, one at Twin 

Falls, Idaho, and another at Elko, 

Nevada. The combined proceedings 

was compiled by Monsen and Shaw 

and published by the Station in 1983 as 

Managing Intermountain Rangelands—

Improvement of Range and Wildlife 

Habitats.

When Restoring Western Ranges 

and Wildlands finally appeared as a 

Rocky Mountain Station publication 

(Monsen and others 2004) it presented 

the technical subject matter in detail 

with many illustrations and included 

general descriptions of rangelands in 

the Intermountain West, the history of 

range and wildlife habitat restoration 

efforts, and pertinent research history. It 

was an encyclopedia of range restoration 

knowledge rather than a condensed 

management guide, although specific 

management guidelines were included. 

Fifteen authors prepared 29 chapters. 

The printing bill, a cost shared by 

several sponsors, was $67,000.

Development of the publication took 

a long time for a number of reasons. 

McArthur recounted the major ones in 

a foreword. The compilers doubled as 

authors of major sections and they had 

many other demands on their time. A 

shift in revegetation philosophy toward 

holistic landscape management required 

much new writing and rewriting. The revegetation emphasis changed completely 

from heavy reliance on exotic plants to 

using native species, demanding more 

reworking throughout the text. Monsen 

and Stevens both retired before the work 

was finalized, leaving it to Shaw to 

handle compiler duties near the end of 

the work.

An army of people were involved in 

the production. In addition to the chapter 

authors, McArthur named 36 individuals 

who researched information, compiled 

and processed data, reviewed draft material, and edited, designed, and laid out 

the document.

Throughout the process it often 

seemed that publication was imminent, 

but then a new development extended 

the time frame. Research Information 

editors began to be told as early as 1985 

that a completed manuscript would be in 

their hands “very soon.” McArthur had 

christened the work the “Gold Book,” 

to distinguish it from Plummer’s work, 

which had a green cover. So many delivery promises were made, that one day 

someone in the publishing unit observed 

that if the manuscript ever arrived it 

probably would be gold plated. As the 

size and scope of the document evolved, 

so did the nicknames. After several years 

of delivery promises, McArthur and the 

editors decided the value had increased 

enough to rename it the “Platinum 

Book,” and around l995 it became the 

“Iridium Book.”

At first, the publishing people were 

worried that the researchers preparing 

the manuscript might be offended if they 

heard about the nicknames. But by the 

time Nancy Shaw arrived in Ogden in 

2004 to put the finishing touches on the 

Iridium Book everybody involved, in 

the Labs and in the publishing unit, was 

calling it that. Did it turn out to be that 

valuable? Some knowledgeable people 

thought so. It won the Rocky Mountain 

Station award as the Best Technology 

Transfer Publication of 2004. It also was 

a hit with the managers it was designed 

to serve. As soon as the publication was 

announced orders flowed in from all 

over the West.

Shaw recalled a string of nights and 

weekends spent working to finalize 

the document. Its publication was one 

of several major achievements during 

her career. In 1989, she was the first 

woman and first Station employee 

to serve as president of the Idaho 

Section of the Society for Range 

Management. She received a national 

SRM Outstanding Achievement Award 

in 2000 for “significant contributions 

to the science of range management as 

it relates to seed biology and seedling 

establishment of important desert and 

wetland plants.”

McArthur, a scientist not given to 

dispensing undeserved accolades, said, 

“I believe that the materials presented 

The range restoration reference 

compiled by Steve Monsen, Richard 

Stevens, and Nancy Shaw contained a 

wealth of information on useful species, such as the perennial small burnet 

being inspected by Monsen in a deer 

winter range improvement area above 

Sanpete Valley in Utah.

Botanist Nancy Shaw, who finalized the 

“Iridium Book” manuscript, checked 

forb seedlings in an experimental planting at Lucky Peak Nursery near Boise.
–179

in a ‘how to, what with, and why’ manner will be timely and relevant for land 

managers and students in rehabilitation 

and restoration of degraded western 

wildlands for years into the future.”

Preparation of another landmark 

reference work in which Station people 

played an important part also occurred 

in the mid-1980s. It was not part 

of the application acceleration plan 

funded partially by the Four Corners 

Commission, but it served the same 

purpose for a fifth large segment 

of rangeland in the Interior West. 

Aspen: Ecology and Management in 

the Western United States, issued by 

the Rocky Mountain Station in 1985, 

summed up decades of research results 

by Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

scientists and many cooperators.

The research resulted from a 10-

year cooperative endeavor by the two 

Stations. Norb Debyle, an ecologist 

at the Logan Lab, was senior editor. 

Twenty-one authors contributed material; most were with the two Stations.

The publication was the first 

comprehensive document of its type to 

focus exclusively on aspen in the western United States (Forestry Research 

West Mar./86). DeByle and Bob 

Winokur, the junior editor located at 

Rocky Mountain Station Headquarters, 

included the latest available information 

to provide state-of-knowledge management guidelines. Knowledge gaps also 

were indicated so that the document 

could serve as a foundation for needed 

new research.

The push in the 1980s to analyze 

and consolidate results from years of 

range research by hundreds of scientists 

throughout the Interior West resulted 

in five documents that provided a 

sound scientific basis for rangeland 

improvement and management on 

many millions of acres of public and 

private land.

The Sages of Sagebrush

Sagebrush commanded the attention 

of several generations of Intermountain 

Station scientists. In 14 States and parts 

of Mexico and Canada, sagebrush grows 

on more land than any other plant. 

West of the 100th meridian, sagebrush 

constitutes the single most common type 

of ecosystem.

Regarding the shrub, especially big 

sagebrush, as a rival of the grass that 

fattened their livestock, westerners spent 

most of a century plowing, chopping, 

chaining, spraying and burning it with a 

vengeance (Tippets 1992). Despite the 

best efforts of many people, sagebrush 

refused to be eradicated. However, much 

of what was said to be an 800-mile sea 

of sagebrush that the pioneers encountered was fragmented into relatively 

small patches by human developments 

and changes in its environment brought 

on mainly by human activities (Welch 

2005).

Through about two-thirds of Station 

history, the Forest Service was oriented 

toward commodity production. In both 

World War I and II, the marching orders 

were to do everything possible to help 

ranchers and farmers produce beef and 

wool to support the war efforts. That 

meant replacing “brush” with more desirable forage wherever possible. Although 

research was severely curtailed during 

war years, Station scientists did what 

they could to support that approach. At 

other times up to the 1970s, maximum 

production of livestock forage was a 

goal, even though environmental concerns got more consideration. Most of the 

range research at the Station supported 

forage production objectives.

Station Director Joe Pechanec participated in some of the first formal research 

on effects of burning on sagebrush (see 

Appendix A) and was senior author of a 

summary of knowledge titled Sagebrush 

Control on Rangelands, which was 

published by USDA in 1965. Perry 

Plummer, long-time leader of Station 

research on shrubs was the second 

author. The opening paragraph of the 

publication said:

Sagebrush control brings about major 

increases in grass production on millions 

of acres of western range. Getting rid 

of competing sagebrush and restoring 

a good stand of forage plants through 

natural or artificial seeding enables 

ranges to supply forage for more sheep 

and cattle, and is helpful in improving 

watersheds. In effect, new range is 

created on large areas, making possible 

a superior plant cover on adjoining 

ranges by better grazing management.

But the thinking began to change. In 

1975, Plummer said, “It is interesting 

to note that for decades farmers have 

considered sagebrush and many other 

shrubs as a nuisance to be cleared off the 

land so grass could be planted. We now 

know that many of these are much more 

nutritious than grass. The time may 

soon come when farmers will plow the 

grass under to plant sagebrush” (Noble 

1978d).

In the early 1970s, scientists who 

soon were to occupy the new Shrub 

Sciences Lab in Provo started to collect 

seed from what appeared to be genetically superior sagebrush parent plants. 

The seeds produced plants grown in a 

uniform garden to allow the researchers 

to identify real genetic variations among 

the 23 different species. A major goal 

was to develop a “super sagebrush” that 

might help combat the invasion of western ranges by undesirable cheatgrass. 

The genetics program also had other 

goals, depending on which desirable 

characteristics, such as palatability to 

big game animals and livestock, needed 

to be developed or enhanced (Tippets 

1992).

Station scientists became strong 

advocates of the idea that sagebrush 

Ecologist Norb DeByle inspected aspen 

sprouts in 1991at the Manning Basin 

study site in Wyoming 10 years after a 

prescribed burn designed to regenerate the species. DeByle was senior 

editor of a major reference work on aspen published by the Rocky Mountain 

Station in 1985.
180–

had great value in western ecosystems, 

although its characteristics could be 

improved. Durant McArthur became a 

leading proponent of that view when 

he joined the Station in 1972. Other 

key members of the Shrubland Biology 

and Restoration unit for many years 

were Botanist Stan Kitchen, Ecologist 

Susan Meyer, Geneticist Stewart 

Sanderson, Plant Physiologist Bruce 

Welch, Plant Pathologist David Nelson, 

Ecologists Burton and Rosemary 

Pendleton, Botanist Nancy Shaw, and 

Botanist Steve Monsen. Shaw worked 

at the Boise Lab throughout her career; 

Monsen spent 13 years at Boise and 20 

in Provo.

The scientists saw beauty as well as 

utility in sagebrush and other shrubs 

and had no qualms about making their 

views known. “I’m a sagebrush hugger 

myself. I love sagebrush,” McArthur 

told a reporter (Siegel 1996). Welch 

espoused the value of sagebrush as 

shelter and food for wildlife, including 

the sage grouse, smaller birds, and a 

variety of mammals. In a summary of 

his views developed during a 36-year 

career, Welch (2005) said that many 

range management practices applied to 

big sagebrush ecosystems over the years 

had not been based on sound science. 

A good part of the shrubland research 

unit’s mission was devoted to providing 

managers with a better understanding 

of sagebrush ecosystems so they could 

make better-informed ecosystem management decisions.

Meyer’s research on seed collection 

and germination for native plants was 

geared to solving some fundamental 

problems in restoring healthy plant 

diversity to large plant communities. “A 

lot can go wrong when you’re seeding 

native plants,” she said. “The seeds are 

generally collected by hand from wild 

plants, so quality is inconsistent even 

though the cost is relatively high. Seeds 

may or may not germinate, may or may 

not become established” (Reynolds 

1990).

Meyer found differences in germination patterns within shrub species that 

account for the success of some seedings 

and the failure of others under similar 

circumstances. Such understanding 

makes it possible to select seeds for a 

planting site that have the best chance of 

producing healthy plants. Her work may 

have great importance in developing 

ecosystems that will resist invasion by 

cheatgrass (Tippets interview 2005).

Monsen had an unusual combination 

of ecological insights, knowledge of 

plant materials, and the ability to be 

involved in the nitty gritty of range 

rehabilitation. In 1990 he was honored 

as Range Manager of the Year at a joint 

Idaho-Utah meeting of members of 

the Society for Range Management. 

McArthur, who had become Project 

Leader by then, said, “Steve advises 

resource managers, departments, mining 

companies, government and commercial 

nurseries, engineering firms, and others 

working in related fields. He can solve 

many rehabilitation questions with a 

phone call or two” (INTercom 1/18/90).

Speaking at a national Society for 

Range Management meeting, a BLM 

manager paid tribute to Monsen’s technology transfer abilities in an unusual 

way. Somewhat to the surprise of the 

audience, the manager was extolling the 

virtues of a complex computer simulation program that was supposed to help 

him make management decisions. He 

concluded with, “If I could hire Steve 

Monsen, this program would be worthless. However, they keep sending me 

range conservationists from Delaware 

and New Jersey” (Evans, personal 

communication).

What the plant improvement work 

in the Provo unit could mean can be 

illustrated by development of ‘Hobble 

Creek’ big sagebrush. The genetically improved low-elevation mountain 

sagebrush was released in 1987 for commercial use after 15 years of research 

and evaluation. Some 186 selections of 

big sagebrush were tested in cooperation with the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources before ‘Hobble Creek’ was 

found to be most preferred by wintering 

mule deer, while also ranking high in 

preference by wintering domestic sheep. 

It exceeded typical winter forage values 

in several important respects (Forestry 

Research West Apr./87). Using ‘Hobble 

Creek’ to replace existing vegetation 

could convert sagebrush ecosystems 

from perceived liabilities to assets at 

many sites.

The shrub improvement work 

required cooperation with the Soil 

Conservation Service (later the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service) and 

often universities, as well as work with 

State wildlife agencies. The NRCS 

could test proposed new varieties at 

several locations, as could the universities. Once release was completed, 

breeder plants and foundation seeds 

were maintained at the NRCS Plant 

Bruce Welch participated in pioneering 

work at the Shrub Lab to test improved 

forms of sagebrush for areas where 

they benefitted wildlife and the range 

ecosystem.

Ecologist Susan Meyer recovered sagebrush seeds from a study plot in 1990. 

Her research aimed to solve fundamental problems in using native plant seeds 

to create healthy range ecosystems.
–181

Materials Center at Aberdeen, Idaho. 

Seed usually was made available 

through NRCS Districts, university 

Agricultural Experiment Stations, and 

crop improvement associations. Thus, 

when ‘Hobble Creek’ was ready for 

wide use, mechanisms were available to 

make that possible.

In 1986, at least part of Plummer’s 

forecast a decade earlier about the future 

of sagebrush came true. The Bureau of 

Land Management plowed some land 

where grass (the undesirable cheatgrass) 

was dominant and planted ‘Hobble 

Creek’ sagebrush as a way to replace 

the highly flammable grass. At about the 

same time, seed of improved sagebrush 

began to be included in seed mixtures 

used to revegetate rangelands.

Showing that the work of geneticists 

is never done, however, scientists 

at Provo later discovered a type of 

Wyoming big sagebrush, known as 

‘Gordon Creek,’ that contained genetic 

material making it superior to ‘Hobble 

Creek’ at a wide range of sites with low 

precipitation (Forestry Research West

May/93).

McArthur led the genetics research. 

Long-time colleague Shaw said in 2005 

(personal communication), “His greatest 

contributions have been in increasing 

our understanding of the landscapedominating subgenus Tridentatae 

of Artemisia (the sagebrushes), but 

he has also done extensive work 

with Chenopods and members of the 

Rosaceae family (other important western shrubs). His recent efforts include 

studies of hybrid zone theory and native 

forb genetics. Little was known about all 

of this before Durant came along.”

The geneticist produced a three-part 

series of Station publications in the 

1970s that reviewed and synthesized 

available knowledge about the characteristics and hybridization in shrubby 

species of the chenopod (saltbush), 

rose, and sunflower families. The documents immediately were in demand by 

scientists and managers throughout the 

West. Also early in his career at the 

Station, McArthur completed classic 

studies of the cytogenetics, hybridization, evolution and distribution of 

several other shrub species (INTercom

1/4/90).

By 2005, McArthur had authored or 

co-authored more than 400 publications, 

the most known to have been produced 

by any Intermountain-Rocky Mountain 

Station researcher. His huge body of 

work may have made him the most productive scientist in the history of Forest 

Service Research (he was continuing to 

make contributions when this history 

was written).

The depth and scope of McArthur’s 

work was as impressive as the number 

of documents. He published frequently 

in well-regarded scientific journals, 

assembled numerous proceedings and 

contributed papers to them, wrote 

accounts of the history and meaning of 

rangeland research, produced “stateof-the-art” documents, and created 

chapters in books (Hild and Shaw 2004). 

Some of his publications were abstracts 

co-authored with novice scientists who 

needed a helping hand in becoming 

established.

The Least Among Us

The desert tortoise isn’t graceful, it isn’t pretty, and it isn’t particularly lovable, but it is a 

part of our world. In the 1990s it was in danger of leaving us.

The tortoise was threatened because of increasing human use of its limited habitat. 

Scientists at the Shrub Lab helped out in cooperative efforts to find what was needed to 

preserve the tortoise. They analyzed plants and soil at three Mojave Desert sites that are 

tortoise habitat to get baseline data on foods necessary to the animal’s survival (Forestry 

Research West Sept/94). Project Leader Durant McArthur, Geneticist Stewart Sanderson, 

and Bruce Webb of Brigham Young University, described the research and presented 

their findings in a 1994 Station publication, Nutritive Quality and Mineral Content of 

Potential Desert Tortoise Food Plants.

Major work by Station cooperators went into 

reviewing all existing knowledge about the 

tortoise. The Station published the results 

in 1995 in a reference work. Desert tortoise

(Gopherus agassizii): Status-of-Knowledge 

Outline with References was easy to use and 

included recommendations to land managers. 

This knowledge and the considerable 

experience at the Station in restoring depleted 

rangelands were combined to help guide 

vegetation restoration projects by the Bureau of 

Land Management where tortoise habitat had 

been destroyed or seriously altered (INTercom

Dec./94).

The research covered every aspect of how to 

maintain and enhance homes for one of the 

creatures among us that could not continue to 

exist without our help.

The threatened desert tortoise 

stayed in our world with some 

help from Station scientists (Photo 

by Todd Esque, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources 

Discipline).

Durant McArthur compiled an impressive list of achievements during a long 

career at the Station that continued after the Intermountain-Rocky Mountain 

merger.
182–

McArthur was named Project Leader 

of the shrub research unit in 1983, 

replacing Art Tiedemann who moved to 

the Pacific Northwest Station. Shortly 

before that, Tiedemann announced formation of a Shrub Research Consortium 

consisting of the Station, Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, Brigham Young 

University, and Utah State University. 

Consortium activities were described 

as (1) improvement and development 

of shrub plant materials; (2) methods of 

seeding, planting, culture, and management of shrubs in natural settings; and 

(3) assisting with publishing and disseminating research results (INTercom

9/15/83).

Tiedemann was replaced as consortium chairman by McArthur. In 20 years 

under McArthur’s guidance, membership 

expanded to include 24 Federal, State, 

university and private research organizations operating in all areas of the West. 

Research results had been summarized in 

12 comprehensive symposium proceedings published by the Intermountain 

and Rocky Mountain Stations, one was 

being processed, and a 14th was planned. 

McArthur and other members of the 

shrub unit were involved in planning and 

compiling all of them.

McArthur received many honors 

for his work. They included Superior 

Scientist and Distinguished Scientist 

awards from USDA, the Rocky 

Mountain Station’s Eminent Scientist 

Publication Award, an Outstanding 

Achievement Award from the Society 

for Range Management, and a 

Distinguished Service Award presented 

by members of the Shrub Research 

Consortium. The article describing the 

consortium award said he “served an 

inspirational role for many young scientists”...and had been one “who devoted 

endless hours to interagency cooperation 

and is always willing to consult with 

managers on specific shrubland management issues” (Hild and Shaw 2004).

McArthur and others who labored 

in the shrub biology and restoration 

unit shared a larger honor. They could 

travel widely and see that they had 

played a part in retaining and improving 

ecosystems in the West that by nature’s 

rules were shrublands, and that of all 

the shrubs, sagebrush was king (Tippets 

1992b).

Two (Happy) People, One 

Paycheck

Far more experiments fail than succeed in research, but the Station scored 

100 percent on the success meter with 

workplace arrangements in the 1980s 

that were well ahead of their time.

In a first for the Station, Char Houska 

and Maureen Meisner shared a single 

job as secretary/typist for the fire 

effects research unit at the Fire Lab. One 

worked Monday and Tuesday of one 

week and Wednesday through Friday the 

following week, and then they switched 

the schedule. So each put in 40 hours 

during a 2-week pay period, and the 

office always had a secretary.

The arrangement, which was called 

“highly productive” and “successful 

beyond my expectations” by Project 

Leader Jim Brown, started in 1983 when 

Houska said she wanted to spend more 

time with her 19-month-old daughter, 

and proposed she share the job with 

another person. Brown said, “Why not?” 

A job share arrangement was a somewhat revolutionary idea, but Personnel 

Management found a way and Meisner 

was chosen from an employment roster 

to be the other half of the workplace 

duo.

Both women were enthused about 

job sharing and committed to making it 

work. Houska had more time to be with 

her child and Meisner was better able 

to pursue her passion for 

sports activities (INTercom

7/7/83).

“We’re not traditional...nothing is set in 

stone,” Ecologist Burton 

Pendleton said when he 

joined Ecologist Rosemary 

Pendleton as a permanent 

part-time scientist at the 

Provo Shrub Lab in 1989. 

The Pendletons had been 

working as a family team 

for a dozen years.

Rosemary earned her 

Ph.D. first because she had 

an opportunity to enter 

a cooperative education 

arrangement and get a good 

job with the Station. Her 

research emphasis was 

on the genus Grayia in the chenopod 

family of desert shrubs. Burton followed 

with a Ph. D. dissertation on Atriplex, a 

different genus in the same plant family. 

Along the way son Brian and daughter 

Caitlin joined the Pendleton family.

The Pendletons did not share the 

same job, but they shared the equivalent 

of a single paycheck. Rosemary worked 

48 hours in an 80-hour pay period 

and Burton worked 32. They devoted 

Not often seen in each other’s company, Char 

Houska (left) and Maureen Meisner did get together 

occasionally to compare notes. They capably shared 

a job at the Fire Lab in 1983.

Rosemary Pendleton showed colleague 

Burton Pendleton evidence of heterodichogamy in a species of hopsage. 

She discovered the rare and significant 

reproduction phenomenon during her 

research at Provo.
–183

most of their time to separate research 

studies, with only occasional overlap. 

Burton said one benefit of the arrangement was the time he could spend with 

the children at home, forming a close 

relationship few fathers who worked 

full-time could enjoy.

When asked if there was a problem 

taking the job home at night and “talking shop,” both Pendletons expressed 

surprise at the question. “It’s nice to 

collaborate,” Burton said.

“We enjoy bouncing ideas off each 

other,” Rosemary said, describing how 

fellow scientists had family members 

who often volunteered to work at the 

Provo Lab without pay, and considered 

it a benefit rather than a problem to be 

able to integrate family and professional 

lives (INTercom July/90).

Boise Basin Research 

Regenerated, Briefly

The Boise Basin Experimental 

Forest from its establishment in 1933 

until 1971 had 

been the scene of 

numerous studies 

that revealed the 

best ways to harvest 

and regenerate 

ponderosa pine. 

The research results 

formed the basis 

for management of 

the most important 

commercial timber 

species in central 

Idaho.

Apparently, the 

belief developed that 

little new information was likely to 

be generated and no 

new studies were 

started after 1971, 

although data 

continued to be taken 

from some study plots. In the late 1980s, 

with emphasis on ecosystem research 

growing throughout Station territory, 

there was a realization that more could 

be learned at Boise Basin. A blend of 

follow-up and new research was established; the work was closely coordinated 

with the Idaho City Ranger District.

The emphasis was on studies of how 

various shade densities affect planted 

tree seedlings on harsh sites, historical changes in tree stands, continued 

monitoring of 1933 transects, and 

creating demonstration areas related 

to ecosystem management and forest 

health. Many field tours of the 

demonstration areas were given to various interest groups (Sloan and Steele 

1996).

Research Foresters John Sloan and 

Kathy Geier-Hayes designed studies and 

Ranger District personnel administered 

timber sales and other actions. It proved 

to be a good partnership. Sloan said 

several studies required thinning or 

harvesting so they helped the District’s 

timber sale program. The experimental 

forest had good access, and administrators liked working in the area. The 

District silviculturist said, “We like 

being close to the research.”

Acting Project Leader Warren Clary 

said, “The Forest Service went through 

a phase of trying to divest itself of 

experimental forests. But now in these 

days of ecosystem management and 

global warming concerns...we need 

the continuity in data” (INTercom

Oct./94).

Acting Project Leader Warren Clary (left) and Research 

Forester John Sloan discussed a lightning scar on an oldgrowth ponderosa pine in the Bannock Creek Research 

Natural Area, which is within the largest of three units in 

the Boise Basin Experimental Forest.

Smart Seeding

In the early 1990s, studies by scientists at 

the conifer ecology and regeneration unit 

and others at Boise dispelled some old 

myths and showed how to reduce the high 

costs of applying grass seed to large burned 

areas.

Catastrophic, stand-destroying fires had 

been common for decades in ponderosa 

pine-Douglas-fir forests and seeding exotic 

grasses to stabilize soils became common 

practice. The Station scientists showed 

that native shrubs and grasses were welladapted to surviving wildfire and would 

out-perform the exotics in providing 

vegetative cover where seeding was 

needed. Thus, seeding should be limited to 

areas where native vegetation was sparse 

before the fire.

The researchers advised managers that 

routine aerial photographs could be used to 

show where seeding was needed (Intercom

Nov./92). Because it had become a 

common practice in rehabilitation projects 

to apply the seed by helicopter, which was 

efficient but expensive, reductions in the 

amount of flying time required were big 

cost-savers.

Applying grass seed by helicopter 

to help stabilize burned areas 

became common practice in the 

early 1990s. Station scientists made 

recommendations to make the 

practice more beneficial and costeffective.
184–

The experimental forest survived, but 

the silvicultural research unit did not. 

A year after Clary’s statement, Station 

management closed the silviculture unit 

at Boise. Sloan and Geier-Hayes found 

employment in the National Forest 

System. Scientific supervision of the 

forest was assigned to Research Forester 

Russ Graham at Moscow, who also was 

in charge of research at Priest River and 

Deception Creek.

Publishing Firsts

This history has reported complaints 

through the years that it took too much 

time for research results to get from 

scientists to users. The publication 

process was usually said to be the main 

culprit. A lot of barriers to speed are 

involved in scientific publishing—variable efficiency of the authors, review 

times that are difficult to control, editing 

and manuscript processing delays, and 

printing firms whose policies require 

premium pay to get priority service. 

The many human factors involved make 

setting productivity standards difficult. 

Nevertheless, attempts have been from 

time to time to define satisfactory time 

frames for editing and production work.

The Intermountain Station engaged 

in such an exercise in the mid-1980s. 

The publications staff defined “turnaround times” for the total time it 

took to process manuscripts and also 

“production times” for page layout, 

typesetting, proofing, and printing when 

those operations were required (Destito 

1989). In 1983, average turnaround was 

16 months and production time was 

10 months. By 1988 the average times 

had been drastically reduced and staff 

representatives went to a national meeting of Station information people and 

asked if anyone had times better than 5.3 

months for turnaround and 2.7 months 

for production. No one spoke up.

So the Station people proclaimed 

themselves holders of the record for 

publishing efficiency within Forest 

Service Research. No one who saw the 

figures or heard explanations of the 

definitions ever disputed that claim. 

Record or not, the improvement in efficiency at the Intermountain Station had 

been dramatic. Yet the publishing staff 

by 1993 had broken their own record for 

turnaround times nine times and bettered 

the production record seven times. It’s 

possible other Stations were doing as 

well and merely didn’t keep records, 

so the Intermountain Station may not 

really have been “first” in publishing efficiency. But it could claim several other 

indisputable publishing firsts.

Going Video—Video cameras were 

a fairly new development in the 1980s. 

The Forest Service was among those 

organizations that envisioned a variety 

of uses for the new audio-visual tool. 

Many units, especially National Forest 

Supervisors Offices, were soon equipped 

with video players, although few 

acquired equipment to make tapes for 

several more years.

Before the advent of video, Regional 

Offices, Stations, National Forests, and 

research labs had more or less (mostly 

less) elaborate libraries of motion 

picture films having to do with natural 

resources. Some were produced by the 

Forest Service. Each library usually had 

only one or a small number of copies of 

each film. They most often were loaned 

to employees, but the Regional Offices 

and some other units filled orders from 

the general public. Most units did little 

or nothing to publicize the availability of 

films. When video tapes became available they were added to the existing film 

libraries.

Research Forester Bland Richardson, 

who worked at the Logan Lab in the 

mined lands reclamation unit, showed 

up at Station Headquarters in 1984 with 

a video tape consisting of scenes he 

had filmed. It was a 15-minute color 

production titled Before a Single Grain 

of Dirt is Removed. Focusing on sites 

in the Bridger-Teton National Forest as 

examples, the narrative described five 

surface mining reclamation principles 

that applied to all sites. It also discussed 

differences between the “watershed 

protection” and “native plant” schools 

of thought on the best ways to reclaim 

mined lands.

Richardson was a good photographer, 

and there were no problems with the 

quality of his video. The question was 

how to get copies to mine developers 

and land managers. The Station information people decided the best way was 

to treat it just as they would a paper 

publication—advertise its availability as 

widely as possible and get a copy to anyone who ordered it. The video was listed 

in the normal quarterly announcement of 

new publications, which had a mailing 

list of about 7,000 people interested in a 

wide variety of research results. It also 

was announced in INTercom.

The announcements offered copies 

on loan. Orders were handled by the 

publications distribution clerk. With 

each tape was a note advising the recipient that the item was public information 

and they were encouraged to duplicate 

it and keep and use the copy. The first 

dozen “loaners” went out quickly. The 

Station simply ordered more. People 

generally were good about returning the 

loan copies, usually within 2 weeks, and 

if one wasn’t returned a replacement 

was ordered. Thus, seldom was anyone 

put on a waiting list, and if they were it 

wasn’t for long.

This was the first known instance of 

a Station advertising an audio-visual 

production as a publication. The practice 

continued at the Station and several 

video tapes served as important communication devices.

Audio-Visual Specialist Gene 

Colling joined the Station in about 1986, 

providing in-house production skills for 

Bland Richardson was the first to produce a video at the Station to transfer 

technology. He also showed revegation 

research results at field demonstration 

sites, such as this one at the Decker 

Coal Mine in Montana, established in 

the 1970s.
–185

videos. Colling created The Horse Creek 

Study, which featured an interview with 

Station scientist Jack King. King’s remarks were targeted to forest engineers, 

hydrologists, and managers involved in 

road planning. The recommendations 

were designed to foster construction 

practices that minimize erosion.

In 1988, the Station advertised 

Stalking a Forest Killer, also produced 

by Colling. It showed how research 

develops new knowledge to combat 

mountain pine beetle epidemics, pest 

management specialists test and transfer 

techniques, and managers apply control 

strategies. Colling relied heavily on 

information from entomologists Walt 

Cole and Gene Amman. Technology 

had advanced once again, and the 1988 

video was made available in the old 

three-quarter-inch style and also in 

the quarter-inch format that was coming into vogue and soon became the 

standard.

Colling moved on and eventually 

joined the Region 1 information staff. 

But his association with the Station 

was renewed when he produced Fading 

Gold—The Decline of Aspen in the West, 

a 12-minute video showing the extent 

that aspen stands were being 

replaced in western landscapes 

and giving recommendations 

on what could be done about 

it. Most of the information 

came from Dale Bartos, Project 

Leader of the Restoration of 

Disturbed Ecosystems research 

unit at the Logan Lab. Bartos 

sponsored the production. 

Although several cooperators 

also supplied information, most 

of the video’s content was based 

on research done in the Station’s 

aspen research unit, which was 

discontinued in 1984.

Fading Gold won a prestigious award in 2000. It took first 

place in the Video/Public Affairs 

Section of a competition sponsored by the National Association 

of Government Communicators. 

Bartos traveled to Denver to accept the 

award. Videos on tape now are rapidly 

being replaced by compact disks (CDs 

and DVDs) as technology races ahead. 

Will future readers of this history ask, 

“What the heck was a CD?”

Going Electronic—In January 

1987, the Intermountain Station scored 

another first in Forest 

Service Research when it 

issued an electronically 

produced publication (a 

so-called “desktop publication”). It was a modest 

effort, a two-page research 

note written by Jack Lyon 

(Lyon 1987), but it was the 

first formal report created 

by computer at a Station 

or in the national research 

office. The subject matter 

was appropriate because 

Lyon’s note discussed how 

to use a personal computer 

to evaluate elk cover. That 

coincidence was purely 

accidental. The publishing 

“first” was not.

The Station publishing 

unit had been getting 

ready to “go electronic” 

for several months. 

Without much computer 

expertise of their own, 

but armed with advice 

from Wally Deschene, a 

computer “wizard” at Missoula, and 

Grant Mortensen, an avid home computer user who was Operations Group 

Leader at Station Headquarters, the 

staff had acquired a Macintosh computer that could be hooked up to the 

only laser printer at the headquarters. 

Mortensen connected the equipment 

and the publishing production people 

made a few trials of creating type and 

doing crude layout work, but nobody 

felt ready to produce even a small 

publication with the new processes. 

Those processes became commonplace; 

publishers and individuals used them 

world-wide and new technology 

provided capabilities undreamed of in 

the 1980s.

The conversion process speeded up at 

the Station for what should be acknowledged as a wrong reason. Vince Dong, 

long-time editor at the Pacific Southwest 

Station (PSW) in Berkeley visited 

Ogden to compare notes about publishing systems with the Intermountain 

Station people. In the midst of the 

discussions, Dong casually mentioned 

that PSW was gearing up to issue an 

electronically generated publication, 

and it probably would be the first in the 

Forest Service research community. 

After he left, the Intermountain Station 

people decided that if someone was going to be first it might as well be them. 

The Lyon note appeared several months 

before the PSW publication.

Dale Bartos (foreground) used video as only one 

tool to transfer knowledge about aspen ecosystem 

management. Here he was participating in a field 

training session on the Montpelier Ranger District 

of the Caribou National Forest.

Visual Information Specialist Deborah 

Renteria (seated) showed features of the 

Station’s first “desktop publishing” system to 

Station Director Larry Lassen (front), Deputy 

Director Carter Gibbs, and Ruth Hyland.
186–

There apparently were no hard feelings at PSW. Dong remained a valued 

colleague and friend for many years. 

And a short time after the publishing 

“first,” a computer specialist at PSW 

told the Intermountain Station people 

how to solve a vexing problem in 

translating material generated by the 

computer system most widely used 

in the Forest Service to the Station’s 

publishing equipment. That was a 

breakthrough, and acquisition of a 

better laser printer was another because 

some quality had been sacrificed in 

Station publications when the change 

to computer production first was 

made. The change to creating type by 

computer instead of contracting with 

commercial typesetters as had been 

standard practice saved the Station 

about $30,000 annually (Destito 1989).

Being first can carry penalties. For 

some 2 years after they got into electronic publishing the Station people had 

to devote considerable time to briefing 

visitors about the process and giving 

presentations at meetings in various 

places. So much time was devoted to 

teaching that the regular publishing 

work suffered. This was temporary 

and worthwhile “for the good of the 

Service,” however, and perhaps it was 

only a fitting penance for the somewhat 

unprofessional “one-upmanship” that 

took place in 1987.

Going Online—The Station scored a 

first for the Forest Service in 1994 when 

it made a publication available to readers online. Mann Gulch Fire: A Race 

That Couldn’t Be Won (Rothermel 1993) 

was the first formal Forest Service publication that an Internet user could read 

on his or her computer screen. Editor 

Bert Lindler handled the technical work 

and made arrangements to make the 

document available through the Forest 

Service’s national home page. Stations 

and Regions did not yet have their own 

home pages. The announcement also 

told those who wanted a “hard copy” of 

the publication how to get one.

Group Leader Louise Kingsbury said 

there was some opposition within the 

Station when Lindler proposed creating 

the on-line document. The criticism was 

that time shouldn’t be wasted on new 

technology that probably was “just a 

passing fancy.” She told Lindler to go 

ahead. By the end of 2005, the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station had more 

than 500 publications available online 

through its home page, including some 

produced by the Intermountain and 

Rocky Mountain Stations before their 

1997 merger. The Station also joined 

others in making some reports available as CDs only, or as CD versions of 

printed copies that also were available.

The on-line documents, videos, and 

CDs were frowned on by some in research, according to Kingsbury, because 

paper publication was the “tradition.” 

She and her supervisor, Assistant Station 

Director Dean Knighton, proposed to 

the Station Director and the other ADs 

that these “nontraditional” forms should 

be considered publications and should 

even be given equal weight with paper 

documents by promotion panels and 

in annual Station attainment reports. 

Top management was amenable, and 

by about 1995 the unconventional 

“publications” were recognized for those 

purposes.

The nontraditional formats became 

so well accepted that some publications 

appeared solely on the Internet or as 

CDs, yet were assigned publication 

series numbers. Kingsbury observed 

that because of budget cuts dating from 

the mid-1990s those were the only ways 

some research units could afford to 

publish some reports. “I see the 1980s 

‘forefathers’ as having paved the way 

for the acceptability of alternatives in 

the research and user communities that 

ultimately have led to wider audiences 

throughout the world at a fraction of the 

cost,” she said.

Exploring the Past to See 

the Future

Forest Service research in Nevada 

has a lengthy history, but it always was 

a small presence in a huge Great Basin 

land area. The focus changed from 

ways to increase forage production, 

to range management and watershed 

studies, to considering multiple uses of 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, and finally to 

ecosystem approaches.

The first known mention of Nevada 

research is a 1912 reference to studies 

of sagebrush-grass rangelands in the 

northern third of the State. This work 

probably consisted of administrative 

studies by District 4 (later Region 4) 

personnel. The Station apparently assumed responsibility for this research 

in the 1930s, but the work was later 

discontinued and the experimental areas 

were returned to National Forest administration (see “Experimental Ranges 

Created,” chapter 7). The Station had no 

units in Nevada during World War II and 

for a dozen years thereafter.

When Station research returned to 

Nevada in 1957, the emphasis was on 

watershed studies as well as range management work. Harold Haupt led the 

watershed work. In 1959 and 1960 the 

unit concentrated on studying effects 

of rain-on-snow floods along the east 

side of the Sierra Nevada. Small runoff 

plots were installed at Dog Valley, 

California. Haupt, with help from Ralph 

Holmgren, used a modification of the 

infiltrometer developed earlier by Paul 

Packer for research in the Boise Basin 

to simulate rainfall during winter. The 

studies showed how runoff changed 

rapidly from clear to muddy water 

when the cushioning effect of snow 

was gone, and how good vegetative 

cover reduced soil loss (Haupt, personal 

communication).

When Haupt left Reno, the two 

emphasis areas were handled by one 

unit. A single unit at Reno was the norm 

until the 1990s, and during much of that 

time it was headed by Project Leader 

Dick Meeuwig. Meeuwig retired in 1983 

after 34 years of Federal service, but 

continued his career with the University 

of Nevada-Reno.

Although the staff at Reno was 

small through the years, the research 

problems were many and complex. 

The work came to be focused on the 

pinyon-juniper type, because it was 

poorly understood, inadequately defined, 

and often misused. Pinyon and juniper 

grew on more than 11 million of the 17 

million acres of the Great Basin. Studies 

in cooperation with the University of 

Nevada sought a useful classification 

of pinyon-juniper lands, which did 

not lend themselves to habitat type 

classifications. There was no method 

to measure the biomass of pinyon and 

juniper. Working with the Station’s 
–187

Forest Survey unit, the Reno scientists 

helped develop one (see “A Lot More to 

Survey,” this chapter).

The Reno unit worked with many 

cooperators on a wide range of problems. 

University of Nevada-Reno scientists 

were major collaborators, but studies 

also were conducted with researchers 

at Utah State, Oregon State, Brigham 

Young, Colorado State, and New Mexico 

universities, the Rocky Mountain 

Station, the Agricultural Research 

Service, and land management agencies 

(Miracle 1985). Meeuwig and associates, 

including Range Scientist Bob Ferguson, 

started much of the cooperative work. It 

was expanded when Rich Everett took 

over as Project Leader in 1983.

In 1986, existing scientific and 

management information and viewpoints 

were brought together at a West-wide 

pinyon-juniper conference in Reno 

sponsored by the University of Nevada, 

the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations, and the Bureau of Land 

Management. Everett was the steering 

committee chairman and compiled a 

proceedings published by the Station 

early the next year. The document 

included comprehensive information 

on paleobotany, inventory and classification, synecology, silviculture, 

fire responses, economics, plant-water 

relations, woodland conversion, range 

management, wildlife habitat, hydrology, and nutrient cycling (Forestry 

Research West Dec./87)

The conference proceedings and 

other sources served as a basis for a 

state-of-the-art Station publication 

in 1988 that presented principles to 

help resource agency personnel more 

fully understand and better manage 

the pinyon-juniper woodlands. The 

author, Ray Evans, was a long-time 

cooperator who had just retired from 

the Agricultural Research Service after 

a 32-year career as an ecologist and 

range scientist. Management of PinyonJuniper Woodlands was used as source 

material for several workshops held to 

provide managers and specialists with an 

intensive update on the art and science 

of land management in the extensive 

woodland type (Forestry Research West

Nov./88).

Everett moved to the Pacific 

Northwest Station in 1989, and Robin 

Tausch was appointed Project Leader. 

Tausch, a paleobotanist, brought a new 

emphasis to the unit. He had been a 

cooperator with the Station researchers 

as an assistant professor of range ecology at the University of Nevada-Reno, 

so paleobotany was not a new subject 

area for the unit, but it assumed more 

prominence in the program. Fascinating 

research that unlocked secrets of climate 

and vegetation changes going back 

30,000 years in time became a centerpiece of the work at Reno.

Tausch and Biologist Cheryl Nowack 

devoted major amounts of time to 

analyzing fossilized material in woodrat 

middens (materials preserved by wastes 

at nest sites). The middens preserved 

a record of ecological history because 

the woodrats, also known as packrats, 

collected all sorts of items including 

bits of vegetation that could be dated 

and analyzed by advanced laboratory 

techniques (Tippets 1993a).

What seemed to be such fundamental 

and pure science had potentially 

revolutionary implications for resource 

management. The records assembled 

by the scientists at Reno showed that 

plant communities in the Great Basin 

were constantly changing to adapt to 

changing climate, and never stabilized 

at what was thought of as a climax stage 

of succession. The continual change 

idea challenged a concept that had been 

central to range ecology for nearly a 

century.

Tausch said, “We need to be managing for a successional process on a 

landscape basis that will sustain the 

ecosystem.” He explained that resource 

managers needed to continue to monitor 

ecosystems locally, but their data should 

be interpreted over both time and space 

on a regional basis. Scientists needed 

to help managers by learning how to 

fit climate change into the equation 

(Tippets 1993a).

The research showed that changes 

in Great Basin plant species within 

communities reflected past changes in 

climate. Each species responded differently to environmental change. Some 

plants migrated more than 3,000 feet in 

elevation and 50 miles in distance, while 

others remained in the same location for 

the entire 30,000-year period studied. 

This history suggested to managers 

that the vegetation was better able to 

adapt to change than had been assumed 

(INTercom Nov./92). The ultimate goal 

of the unit was to devise meaningful 

Project Leader Robin Tausch processed 

DNA from juniper fossils to gain new 

knowledge about how plant communities adapted to 30,000 years of climate 

change in the Great Basin.

Project Leader Robin Tausch and 

Biologist Cheryl Nowack visited a 

woodrat midden that contained thousands of years of ecological history 

preserved in one rock chimney.
188–

methods to restore and manage Great 

Basin ecosystems and watersheds that 

had often been abused in the past.

Research geared toward meeting 

the same general goal, but with a new 

emphasis on ecosystems principally 

influenced by streams, began in 1993 

when the Station established the Great 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project at 

Reno with Ecologist Jeanne Chambers 

as Team Leader. The project took an 

interdisciplinary research and management approach to gathering information 

on the underlying processes that are the 

foundation of watershed and riparian 

ecosystems to provide approaches for 

their management and restoration. It was 

unique in including time scales dating 

back 8,000 years, back to 1860 settlement days, and back to 1994.

The research was conducted in 

cooperation with the Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest. It included development of a demonstration area by Station 

researchers that showed responses to 

large-scale burning in pinyon-juniper 

ecosystems that were used to guide fuels 

and fire management work in Great 

Basin woodlands (Rocky Mountain 

Research Station 2005).

These and other results of the first 10 

years of the ecosystem research were 

included in a 320-page book edited by 

Chambers and colleague Jerry Miller 

that was published in 2003. Great 

Basin Riparian Ecosystems: Ecology, 

Management, and Restoration won the 

Rocky Mountain Station’s annual Best 

Scientific Publication Award.

Aquatic Science Moves 

into the Mainstream

The 1990 establishment of a new 

fisheries research unit at Boise was the 

start of increased emphasis on aquatic 

science, an emphasis that continued 

through the balance of Intermountain 

Station history and beyond. Previously, 

fish research had been part of the work 

of the riparian research unit.

The new unit, titled Enhancing 

Fish Habitats, initially was staffed by 

Project Leader Jack McIntyre, Fisheries 

Biologist Russ Thurow, and Biological 

Technician Rodger Nelson. The goal 

was to investigate the characteristics of 

fish habitats and define techniques for 

improving them. McIntyre emphasized 

the need to learn about ecological 

relationships and habitat fragmentation 

(INTercom 6/7/90).

McIntyre had 26 years of research experience in fish population biology and 

aquatic ecology. After completing Ph.D. 

requirements at Oregon State University, 

he went to work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Before joining 

the Station, he served as leader of the 

Population Ecology Research Section of 

the National Fishery Research Center in 

Seattle.

Thurow had spent 13 years with the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game and 

2 years with the Washington Department 

of Fisheries, studying salmonid ecology 

with emphasis on salmon, native trout, 

and steelhead. Nelson had been with the 

Station for 12 years, working primarily 

with Bill Platts on livestock and fish 

habitat relationships as part of the soil 

and watershed research group. The unit’s 

first studies were of habitat relationships 

for native trout, char, and salmon species 

that were showing alarming population 

declines and were listed as threatened or 

endangered.

Scientific information was sparse on 

the requirements of many of these species and population estimates were not 

very precise. One of the reasons for this 

lack of knowledge was the complexity 

and diversity of habitats that migratory 

salmonids used during their life cycles, 

making compiling data about them 

time-consuming and challenging (Jensen 

1993). Technological advances provided 

new opportunities to study fish and their 

habitats, and personnel in the new unit 

used many of them and added a few 

innovations of their own.

The researchers used direct underwater observation (snorkeling) to count 

populations and tagged fish with radio 

transmitters that could be remotely 

tracked with transceivers. They also 

used freeze-core sampling of spawning 

habitats to determine their physical 

makeup, and used video cameras to define riparian environments and describe 

damaged areas.

In the “videography” work, crews 

made photo measurements of stream 

width and depth, bank stability, and 

vegetation at predetermined points. 

They produced records for streamside 

zones where livestock grazing or other 

activities were present, and also in 

zones where the activities were not 

taking place. The process resulted in 

stream profiles—scientific descriptions 

of the streams based on factors such as 

bank stability and width-to-depth ratios 

(Jensen 1993).

Technology Transfer Specialist 

Kerry Overton (see “Getting the Word 

Out—the Station’s Strong Suit,” this 

chapter) joined the unit a few months 

after it was formed. He saw videography 

as an effective tool to transfer complicated information to policy makers in an 

understandable form. Overton reasoned 

that the film records allowed natural 

resource managers to see what the scientists were trying to explain, helping them 

set policies that would have beneficial 

effects and be scientifically defensible.

One important innovation by the 

scientists at Boise was development, 

Fish habitat studies 

using “videography” recorded the 

main elements of 

a stream environment—stream depth, 

width, and bank 

condition—at predetermined sample 

points in the Salmon 

River drainage.
–189

in collaboration with Station physical 

scientists and Agricultural Research 

Service workers, of the “Salmonid 

Spawning Analysis” computer model 

in 1992. It linked with other models 

created by the Corps of Engineers and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide 

a more complete understanding of environmental factors in the nests (redds) 

where salmonids deposit their eggs.

Integrated research by fisheries and 

physical scientists (Jack King and Jim 

Clayton) confirmed that the salmonids 

remove fine sediment from redds when 

they construct their nests, but fine 

sediments may accumulate again while 

eggs are developing, reducing oxygen 

available to the eggs. The computer program, installed in the Forest Service’s 

national system, helped biologists and 

managers estimate how much sediment 

is detrimental to fish survival (Forestry 

Research West Nov./92).

Although considerable work had 

been done earlier in efforts to standardize fishery inventory procedures, a new 

“Columbia River Basin Anadromous 

Fish Habitat Management Policy 

and Implementation Guide” required 

much more. Overton and his staff 

responded to the challenge with studies 

to develop and evaluate a standard core 

set of inventory procedures usable by 

Ranger District and National Forest 

biologists and sensitive enough to detect 

sometimes small differences in 

fish habitat quality caused by 

management activities.

Results were transferred to 

biologists through numerous 

presentations, training sessions, and personal contacts 

(INTercom Nov./92). Refined 

procedures were summarized 

in a 1997 Station publication, 

R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain 

Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat 

Standard Inventory Procedures 

Handbook. Authors were 

Overton, fellow Station biologists 

Sherry Wollrab and Mike Radko, 

and Bruce Roberts, who coordinated inventory work for the 

two Regions. The research and 

transfer efforts were continued by 

the Rocky Mountain Station until 

2004, when a national inventory procedures database was 

developed. It contained the procedures 

developed by the Boise researchers 

(Overton, personal communication).

Unit personnel also developed 

Desired Future Condition (DFC) values 

for streams. This research defined what 

fish habitat natural conditions would be 

so that biologists and managers would 

have a catalog of reference conditions. 

During the DFC research, personnel 

from the Station and two Regions 

completed surveys of more than 80 

streams that had not been substantially 

influenced by human use (Intermountain 

and Rocky Mountain Stations 1995).

The DFC information was presented 

in a Station publication by Overton, 

McIntyre (in retirement as an Emeritus 

Scientist: see—”The Volunteers,” this 

chapter), and three other members of the 

fisheries unit—Robyn Armstrong, Shari 

Whitwell, and Kelly Duncan. Users 

Guide to Fish Habitat: Descriptions 

that Represent Natural Conditions in 

the Salmon River Basin, Idaho was still 

in use 10 years after it was issued in 

1995 to set baselines for good habitat 

conditions used in planning and making 

environmental assessments (Overton, 

personal communication).

Although the methodology and DFC 

handbooks were developed over several 

years, the research was put to use almost 

immediately. Training for biologists and 

field crews in the inventory procedures 

started in 1992. Every member of the 

fisheries unit received a special award 

from Region 4 in 1993 for “providing 

crucial technical and logistical support 

for the development and implementation 

of fish habitat inventory methodology 

and Desired Future Condition values 

for anadromous streams” (INTercom

May/93).

Ecologist Danny Lee came to work 

with the unit in 1991 from Resources for 

the Future. He helped broaden the program to include pursuit of useful models 

for assessing probabilities of extinction, 

quantitative methods for assessing 

impacts of land use on important habitat, 

and tools to facilitate environmental 

decision making.

Unlike anadromous fish, bull trout 

spend their lifecycle in fresh water. But 

like many anadromous species, the trout 

was of concern to managers. It was 

considered a “sensitive” species by the 

Forest Service—at risk and a candidate 

for special protection (Chojnacky 1995). 

Fisheries Biologist Bruce Rieman 

emphasized bull trout studies when 

he joined the Boise unit in 1992 after 

17 years of management and research 

experience with the Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Rieman played a lead role in gathering and analyzing existing knowledge 

about the bull trout and worked with 

Thurow and several university research 

teams to develop new information. In 

1993, he and McIntyre wrote a Station 

publication, Demographic and Habitat 

Requirements for Conservation of the 

Bull Trout, which summarized the 

most important knowledge about the 

species and analyzed it using the latest 

principles of conservation biology and 

metapopulation dynamics available 

at the time. The scientists outlined 

concepts needed to develop strategies 

that would minimize the risk of bull 

trout extinction (Forestry Research West

Apr./94).

The researchers used radio telemetry 

to study bull trout habitat use, movement patterns, and mortality. They 

also assessed population distribution 

in fragmented habitats. Unit personnel 

made extensive use of snorkeling as a 

technique to nondestructively sample 

salmonid populations, including the bull 

Fisheries Biologist Russ Thurow used telemetry equipment to pick up signals from a 

radio tag implanted in a trout during a demonstration of the technique.
190–

trout, as they developed and tested methods for monitoring at-risk species.

Thurow wrote a Station publication 

issued in 1994, Underwater Methods for 

Study of Salmonids in the Intermountain 

West, which outlined procedures for estimating salmonid abundance and habitat 

use and provided criteria for identifying 

and estimating the size of fish under water. Thurow encouraged development and 

use of standardized procedures to survey 

trout and salmon populations in the 

Intermountain West (Chojnacky 1995).

That year, Thurow, Biologist John 

Guzevich, and other Station scientists 

started new studies to compare the 

efficiencies of day snorkeling, night 

snorkeling, and electrofishing in making 

censuses of salmonid populations. The 

goal was to develop sampling protocols 

that could be applied to determine 

what method to use and the sampling 

effort required to achieve desired levels 

of accuracy. The unit also began to 

emphasize research in which the biologists worked with physical scientists in 

attempting to link watershed features 

to the location of critical fish habitats 

(Chojnacky 1995).

The new research thrust played a part 

in an ambitious inter-agency program 

that dominated work by the Station unit 

from 1994 to 1999. The Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project was 

launched by a presidential directive. 

Several Federal agencies teamed up to 

develop an ecologically sound, scientifically based strategy for managing 75 

million acres of land administered 

by the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management. The basin covers 

an area in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

western Montana, and northern Nevada 

that is about the size of France. Two 

questions were posed: (1) What are the 

ecological and socioeconomic trends 

and conditions in the basin? and (2) 

What land management strategy would 

most effectively improve the trends 

and conditions? The first question was 

assigned to a Science Integration Team. 

It included hundreds of scientists and 

specialists from Federal agencies and 

the larger science community (Cole and 

Quigley 1997).

Rieman, Lee, and Thurow were 

assigned to the Aquatic Science Team 

with lead responsibility for evaluating 

the status of fishes across the entire 

Columbia River Basin. Lee became 

a co-leader with Jim Sedell from the 

Pacific Northwest Station for the entire 

aquatic effort. Members of the Boise 

unit worked with hundreds of biologists to collect data, then summarized 

and analyzed it. The results were the 

most comprehensive assessment of 

fishes ever attempted for the interior 

Columbia River basin or anywhere 

in the National Forest System. The 

efforts contributed new insight into the 

processes structuring fish populations at 

very large scales.

The work included a novel collaboration with ecologists who specialized 

in wildlife research. Important areas 

of convergence and divergence in the 

conditions of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems were shown. From this, a series 

of management themes were developed 

and used to define the implications for 

management across the basin.

Initial analysis work was completed 

in 1996, and a series of publications 

documenting the work was issued that 

year and in 1997. The task turned to 

helping managers define alternatives 

and measure the consequences. The 

scientists provided data and analysis 

that created a framework for analyzing 

alternatives presented in Environmental 

Impact Statements issued in 1998-99.

The association of biologists and 

physical scientists (hydrologists and 

geomorphologists) in the consolidated 

Boise unit turned out to be its future. 

McIntyre retired in 1994. Following 

retirements in other units, Warren Clary 

served as Acting Project Leader for a 

combined unit that included the old 

riparian project, the watershed project, 

and the fisheries project at Boise. After 

Clary retired in 2000, a combination of 

major elements of the units was formalized and Soil Scientist Jim Clayton 

served as Project Leader until he retired 

in 2002. Rieman then was appointed 

Project Leader of a consolidated unit 

that included personnel from the old fish 

habitat and soil and watershed units. The 

emphasis on aquatic science was formalized in 2004, when the Rocky Mountain 

Station renamed the Boise facility the 

Aquatic Sciences Laboratory.

A New Experimental 

Forest (Finally)

Every old cowboy knows it takes 

time to properly break in a tenderfoot, 

but Tenderfoot Creek took longer 

than most. In 1961 it became the last 

experimental area in the Station territory 

formally dedicated to research. Then it 

didn’t even start its training period for 

30 years.

When the Tenderfoot Creek 

Experimental Forest, 9,125 acres 

within the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest near Great Falls, Montana, was 

established as a site for forest watershed 

research there were big plans for its use. 

However, in the early 1960s after building roads to potential stream monitoring 

sites in the experimental forest, the 

Station diverted watershed research 

Fisheries researchers extracted a 

sample of gravels 

within a redd using 

a tri-tube “freeze 

coring” technique. 

The study helped 

determine the relationship of sediment 

to fish survival.
–191

funding to the Idaho Batholith where 

erosion from unstable granitic soils was 

threatening valuable salmon spawning 

areas.

A few surveys were completed 

at Tenderfoot Creek, but no formal 

research studies were established. The 

situation changed in the early 1990s. 

In 1991 the headwaters of Tenderfoot 

Creek, a pristine watershed featuring 

even-aged lodgepole pine, proved to be 

an ideal location to launch new research 

on ecosystem processes and functions 

(Forestry Research West Oct./93).

The experimental forest included 

small areas of wet meadows and grassy 

slopes scattered throughout expansive 

lodgepole forests at 6,000- to 8,000-foot 

elevations. Tenderfoot Creek drains 

into the Smith River (a tributary of the 

Missouri River), a well-known blue-ribbon trout stream also used extensively by 

recreationists for floating (McCaughey 

1996). The forest provided high-quality elk habitat, and easy access from 

Great Falls made it a popular hunting 

area. Tenderfoot Creek was the only 

experimental forest on the east slope of 

the northern Rockies.

The Station’s subalpine silviculture 

unit located at Bozeman and Missoula 

was made responsible for research 

supervision in the 1980s. The small 

research unit had many other responsibilities, but Project Leader Wyman 

Schmidt and Research Forester Ward 

McCaughey, who was appointed manager of Tenderfoot Creek in 1988, began 

the process of installing hydrologic and 

climatic instrumentation, starting ecological studies, and gathering baseline 

data in the early 1990s.

“We’re trying to see 

what Mother Nature has 

given us” Schmidt said in 

1993 during an ecosystem 

management tour. He said 

it would take several years 

to understand the existing 

natural ecosystem well 

enough to experiment with 

alterations. Part of the 

understanding was work 

by U.S. Geological Survey 

scientist Mitchell Reynolds, 

who mapped the geology of 

the area and described the 

drainage pattern.

Thanks to various cooperators, 

Tenderfoot Creek became a state-ofthe-art watershed monitoring area. Phil 

Farnes, a retired Soil Conservation 

Service snow survey supervisor, joined 

the project through an agreement with 

Professor Kathy Hansen of Montana 

State University. Farnes spent two 

summers installing monitoring equipment and supervising installation 

of flumes, precipitation gauges, and 

recording stations. Two snow telemetry 

(SNOTEL) stations, installed by the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

in 2001, were designed for satellite 

communication, so in winter months 

researchers at Bozeman and Missoula 

could record climate data without leaving the laboratory.

Field research facilities included 

SNOTEL weather stations at a highelevation site in the Onion Park 

Research Natural Area and at a 

low-elevation site at Stringer Creek, 

and eight sites for collecting snow and 

rainfall data (McCaughey 1996). Three 

flumes were installed in 1996, bringing 

the number of data collection locations 

to 10 permanent flumes and one channel gauge.

Baseline data gathering at Tenderfoot 

Creek involved work by other Station 

units and several cooperators. Working 

with McCaughey, crews assigned by 

Hydrologist Jack King (Boise) collected 

data on stream channel characteristics. 

Fisheries Biologist Jack McIntyre, also 

located at Boise, had crews collect 

baseline data on fish habitats.

Additional baseline data included information from vegetation classifications 

and surveys, soil surveys, a 400-year 

fire history survey, stream sediment 

and water quality analyses, migratory 

bird surveys, and a census of fish in 

Tenderfoot Creek conducted by the 

Research Forester 

Ward McCaughey 

worked on an 

electronic recorder 

for a weather station installed in 

the Onion Park 

Research Natural 

Area at Tenderfoot 

Creek.

Phil Farnes explained water monitoring 

stations for Station Research Forester 

Mike Cole (right) and others during 

a 1993 field day at Tenderfoot Creek 

Experimental Forest.
192–

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks.

When sufficient baseline data 

were assembled so the scientists were 

confident that experimental forest management practices could begin, Kings 

Hill Ranger District personnel became 

partners in testing ecological impacts 

of various management tactics. Special 

care was given to detect any ecosystem 

changes that would have unacceptable 

impacts on the Smith River (INTercom

Oct./93).

The primary management practices 

were thinning and prescribed burning. 

Studies determined effects on the 

reproduction of understory vegetation, 

growth of non-thinned trees, snow accumulation, forest fuels, water production, 

sedimentation, water quality, stream 

channel characteristics, fish habitats, and 

also on insect populations and behavior. 

Other research measured effects of 

prescribed fire and establishment of noxious weeds within burned and unburned 

areas (Rocky Mountain Research Station 

2004).

Because Tenderfoot Creek was 

representative of vast areas of forests on 

the eastern slopes of the Northern Rocky 

Mountains, research there was expected 

to build the foundation for ecosystem 

management over a large area.

Tough Guys (and Gals) Do 

Research

Certainly, a few tenderfeet showed up 

now and then on the rolls of employees, 

but if anyone thought the majority of 

the Station’s population consisted of 

bookish, timid souls they were thinking 

about some other research organization. The Intermountain Station and its 

predecessor organizations counted many 

tough guys in the ranks of researchers, 

administrators, and support people. And 

once the gals got a chance to do field 

work they proved to be tough enough to 

handle any jobs the men could do.

Early-day Athletes—Arthur 

Sampson, the first director of the Great 

Basin Station was a first-rate, and very 

versatile, athlete. At the University of 

Nebraska in the early 1900s he trained 

as a long-distance runner, and also 

earned letters in track as a sprinter. He 

won gold medals in the 440, 880 and 

mile relay track events for Nebraska 

in 1904, 1905, and 1906. After graduation, Sampson won gold in races at 

the Walla Walla (Washington) County 

Fair in 1908, George Washington 

University in 1909, and Johns Hopkins 

and Georgetown Universities in 1910 

(Parker 1967).

Sampson also boxed and wrestled, 

and once broke the record time for 

sprinting to the top of Pike’s Peak in 

Colorado. While at Great Basin he 

wrestled professionally at county fairs 

and often entered boxing rings as “The 

Utah Kid.” In his 10 years at Great 

Basin one part of his daily exercise 

routine was reported to be tossing a 

heavy medicine ball over the headquarters’ flagpole. The flagpole was 70 feet 

high. The medicine ball, on display 

at the Great Basin Environmental 

Education Center museum, weighs 15 

pounds and is 35 inches in circumference. In later years Sampson competed 

in horseshoes against all comers, 

including his students at the University 

of California, and was said to be able 

to hold his own right up to his death at 

age 82.

When not competing, Sampson was 

an avid sports fan. While on his honeymoon, he left his bride with a former 

student and rushed to the nearest radio 

in Globe, Arizona, to spend the evening 

listening to the broadcast of a World 

Championship heavyweight boxing 

match.

ù

During Bob Marshall’s time as a 

scientist at Priest River in the 1920s he 

was known as the “Rocky Mountain 

Greyhound” for his rapid and lengthy 

hikes through the back country of 

Montana and northern Idaho. He had 

developed a fast hiking pace as a youth 

in sprints to the top of Adirondack peaks 

in his summer home area in New York, 

showing an early flair for scientific study 

by meticulously recording his times and 

the distances covered (Glover 1986).

The steeper Rocky Mountains failed 

to slow Marshall’s gait, even when he 

was carrying 70 pounds of equipment. 

His normal recreation on Sundays after 

a week of field work was a 40-mile hike. 

Arthur Sampson stepped into the ring 

against local boxers as “The Utah Kid.”

Bob Marshall’s idea of a vacation was to 

fill the days with long hikes carrying a 

heavy pack, like the one he was toting 

here in 1937 on a visit to the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota.
–193

Those who have enjoyed the traditional 

20-mile hike during basic training in the 

U.S. Army know that it took a full day 

and left the participants with just enough 

energy to pitch a tent and go to bed.

While located at Priest River, 

Marshall devoted as much spare time 

as possible to exploring remote areas, 

always at his customary rapid pace. 

Glover (1986) published a statement by a Bitterroot National Forest 

employee recounting how Forest 

Service personnel observed Marshall’s 

expeditions. The phone was ringing 

frequently at the West Fork Ranger 

Station, but the weather was clear and 

calm so apparently the calls weren’t 

related to fires or fire danger. The puzzled visitor asked the Forest Ranger 

what was going on, and he said, “Oh, 

these telephone calls are coming in 

from lookouts and other people in the 

forest who have made a wager on the 

time which Bob Marshall will be getting in from a 40-mile hike which he 

started early this morning. He is due 

here...some time around dark.” The 

story doesn’t say who won the bet.

ù

Ray Price started his career as a field 

assistant at Great Basin in 1931, and 

later served many years as Director 

of the Rocky Mountain Station. 

Subordinates and colleagues probably 

were reluctant to start any serious arguments with Price. He was a member 

of the University of Utah All-Century 

Football Team, who was a very tough 

guy and looked the part.

Price warmed up for his athletic 

career at Utah with a year at Weber 

College (now Weber State University) in 

Ogden. There he led an undefeated football team as a blocking halfback, punter, 

and place kicker. He also was the center 

on the basketball team and threw the 

discus and javelin and “did a little high 

jumping” in track. Because baseball was 

not a collegiate sport at the time, Price 

went off-campus to play third base in the 

local Commercial League.

On Price’s first day at the University 

of Utah in 1928, he encountered a 

husky classmate sporting a black eye. 

Price learned that the young man was a 

member of the freshman football team, 

and the varsity players customarily used 

the frosh as “sparing partners.” Later, 

Coach Ike Armstrong said, “The varsity 

bounced the freshman about, but when 

Ray Price came, he bounced the varsity 

about!”

Price bounced a lot of people around 

as a halfback-fullback and kicker on 

Utah varsity teams that were undefeated 

in 1929 and again in 1930, when he 

was captain. Playing both offense and 

defense, he was all-conference both 

years and was an honorable 

mention All-American in 

1930, at a time when the 

national honor squad was 

dominated by easterners. 

The 1930 team outscored 

eight opponents by a 

combined point total of 350 

to 20.

Ed Cliff, who was to become Price’s boss as Chief 

of the Forest Service, was 

an opponent in Price’s last 

football game (see “Hail 

to the Chiefs,” chapter 7). 

Cliff played guard for the 

Utah State team. Price’s 

team won, 41-0. Years 

before that game, Jim 

Evenden, pioneer entomologist in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains, captained 

the Oregon State University football 

team in 1914.

The Toughest Guys—It’s said that 

most smokejumpers volunteer for the 

job because of the adventure and excitement inherent in parachuting out of 

elderly aircraft into steep, rocky country 

often featuring dense stands of trees that 

are not ideal landing spots. That could 

be the easy part. Putting out wildfires 

with only the tools you carried to the 

site is hard physical labor, and being 

faced with a long mountain hike to get 

back for another jumping assignment 

probably detracts a bit from the thrill of 

the experience.

Nevertheless, there usually are long 

waiting lists to sign up for smokejumping and many jumpers come back year 

after year. As a group, the smokejumpers 

form a subculture within the Forest 

Service. They keep track of each other 

through their own national organization, 

show up in large numbers for reunions, 

and, much like the U.S. Marines, 

exhibit a special pride in having shared 

a rigorous experience. Joining a research 

organization might not seem to be a typical smokejumper goal, but a half dozen 

of them worked at the Intermountain 

Station.

Bob Mutch, who served as research 

applications leader at the Fire Lab from 

1991 until he retired on 1994, was in 

the first rookie class of smokejumpers 

to train at Missoula’s Aerial Fire Depot 

Before starting his research career at 

Great Basin, Ray Price was one of the 

all-time great football players at the 

University of Utah. He also earned letters for three years as a center on the 

basketball team.

Bob Mutch celebrated his smokejumper background when he returned to the Station in 1991 

by posing with a Ford Trimotor, the same kind of 

airplane from which he made his first jump in 1954.
194–

in 1954. His squad leader was Martin 

Onishuk, who later became a technical 

publications editor at the Station.

At Onishuk’s retirement party, Mutch 

told a humorous story about how the 

editor “saved my life” by preventing an 

ill-advised leap from the plane during 

a smokejumper flight. Despite Mutch’s 

light approach to telling the tale, it was a 

true story.

For obvious safety reasons, standard 

policy was to dispatch no less than two 

jumpers to a fire. In the fall of 1953 

many small fires erupted in Montana. 

Most were started by campfires 

abandoned by hunters. There was a 

shortage of jumpers because many had 

returned to school. Smokejumper Frank 

Fowler wrote an account of his surprise 

at being assigned to jump alone on a 

backcountry fire (Fowler 1995). He 

noted that Martin Onishuk made a solo 

jump the same day.

After Mutch retired in 1994, his slot 

at the Fire Lab was filled by Wayne 

Cook, who may hold the record for longevity as a smokejumper among those 

who worked at the Station. Technology 

Transfer Specialist Cook was a jumper 

for 19 seasons, from 1977 through 1995. 

When asked why he stuck with the arduous job so long, Cook laughed and said, 

“Guess I’m just a slow learner.”

Bill Carver, business manager for 

Station operations in Missoula for 

many years, also had several seasons of 

experience as a smokejumper. Former 

Station Director Roger Bay said Carver 

once told him that the 1949 fire season 

included a close call. Carver was on 

the jump list and ready to board the 

plane headed for the Mann Gulch Fire 

when he was pulled out to help pack 

parachutes (Bay interview). Twelve of 

the 15 jumpers who made the flight died 

in the flames at Mann Gulch or of burns 

shortly after the fire.

Bay, who was Station Director for 

9 years starting in 1974, was himself 

among the elite firefighters. He spent the 

summer of 1952 while a student at the 

University of Idaho as a smokejumper 

based in Missoula.

Ross Parry, a computer specialist at 

Station Headquarters in Ogden in the 

early 1980s, spent six summers as a 

smokejumper. He started at Missoula 

in 1958 while a student at Utah State 

University. Parry became a high school 

teacher, but left teaching in 1961 and 

on a visit to Missoula said he would be 

getting a year-round job and would have 

to give up smokejumping because he no 

longer would have summers free. To his 

surprise, he was offered a year-round 

job as a squad leader. He then served 

as a smokejumper foreman in 1962 and 

1963.

Parry had about “30 seconds of 

fame” while a jumper. He made a cameo 

appearance in a film, “A Fire Called 

Jeremiah,” which was shown several 

times on “The Wonderful World of 

Disney,” a popular television program 

in the 1960s. “It took them about half a 

day to get me on for about 30 seconds,” 

Parry said of his experience as a television star.

The Tough Gals—There were plenty 

of strong women in the early days of 

Station history, but they were relegated 

to supporting roles. Many lived with 

their researcher husbands in forest 

settings such as Priest River and Great 

Basin. They raised families, a physically 

demanding job in itself in those days, 

and also were known to take on such 

tasks as tending livestock and serving as 

the second person on a survey chain.

Women were not late in entering 

traditionally male natural resource occupations because of a lack of interest. 

Many were involved in the conservation 

movements during the early 1900s 

that led to the formation of the Forest 

Service, but they primarily stuck to 

traditional social activities. The lack of 

voting rights limited women and frustrated them greatly in political matters 

(INTercom Mar./93). All of that changed 

in American society, and it changed at 

the Intermountain Station.

As a group, Forest Survey (later 

Forest Inventory and Analysis [FIA]) 

field crews were the Station’s “tough 

guys.” Survey crew members shared the 

joys, and the aches and pains, of climbing mountains in Idaho, wading through 

spruce bogs in Montana, and hiking 

in the shimmering heat of Arizona 

deserts—and avoiding rattlesnakes, 

scorpions, and bears along the way. 

Some plots were so remote it took a full 

day to get to them.

At the end of what was often a long 

day, crews returned to camp for a meal, 

limited recreation opportunities such as 

Roger Bay became a smokejumper 

in 1952 and Intermountain Station 

Director in 1974.

The wife of an early Station researcher 

sighted in a rifle at Great Basin in 1915, 

probably in preparation for a hunting 

trip.
–195

tossing Frisbees, and a night in a 25-foot 

travel trailer shared by two people. 

Every few weeks the crews moved the 

camp to a different location (Reynolds 

1992). No doubt influenced by traditional Forest Service culture and perhaps 

believing that women would not tolerate 

the working and living conditions, the 

Station’s Forest Survey unit did not 

assign a woman to a field crew for the 

first 40 years of its existence. When it 

finally did, the assignment was treated 

as a joke.

Shirley Waters, a computer programmer at Survey headquarters, became 

the first female crew member in the 

early 1970s. She said she had been 

“jokingly accusing” her supervisors of 

discrimination because no women were 

in field jobs. A crew member working in 

South Dakota left for another job shortly 

before the end of the field season, so 

Survey sent Waters to fill in for 2 weeks 

because the supervisor didn’t want to 

hire a new person that late in the year. 

Waters was given a hard hat covered 

with flower stickers and told that Survey 

management expected to hear “no more 

talk about discrimination.”

“It was all in fun, and I really enjoyed 

the experience and learned a lot,” the 

substitute crew member said (Waters, 

personal communication).

It wasn’t long before women no 

longer had to chide Survey management 

about discrimination; they became part 

of management. Renee O’Brien, in 

1978, was the first woman to get a regular Survey crew assignment. After her 

start as a crew member, O’Brien continued her education to earn a master’s 

degree, and advanced to become lead 

ecologist with FIA.

Other women soon joined field 

crews and several advanced into 

important research positions. Gretchen 

Moisen started working in the field, 

later earned a Ph.D., and became head 

of the FIA Techniques Research and 

Development Team. Moisen gained a 

reputation as an expert in geospatial 

science and gave many presentations 

worldwide. Tracey Frescino worked 

on the team led by Moisen after starting with field work while earning a 

master’s degree. A forester, Frescino 

made significant contributions to the 

Forest Service’s national fire management program.

The pioneering female crew members 

started a trend that continued through 

the remainder of Station history. In 

a 1982 photograph 25 percent of the 

crew members were women. By 1997 

when FIA became a Rocky Mountain 

Research Station unit through the 

Intermountain-Rocky Mountain Station 

merger, about 35 percent of field workers were women. In 2004 the gender 

ratio was 50-50.

It was a 50-50 deal for Michael and 

Andrea Wilson when they both started 

careers with Forest Survey in 1985 

as crew members. The Wilsons had 

just graduated from Northern Arizona 

University with degrees in forestry 

when they landed a job working on the 

Arizona statewide inventory. They were 

newlyweds, and spent their honeymoon 

in the luxurious confines of a Forest 

Survey trailer. Both started as GS-4 

temporary employees.

The Wilsons worked on surveys in 

Arizona, Montana, Idaho, and Utah. 

Michael was promoted to a Supervisory 

Forester position in charge of scheduling 

and coordinating the work of all crews. 

Andrea advanced to a quality-control 

job with responsibilities for training 

crew members, ensuring information 

accuracy, and writing and editing field 

manuals (Reynolds 1992). In 2001 

Andrea was one of the top analysts in 

FIA, but left the Station because of 

nepotism rules when Michael advanced 

to the top job—Program Manager. He 

later was named an Assistant Director at 

the Rocky Mountain Station.

And Many Others—Many Station 

people had physical jobs, from climbing 

lofty trees to collect samples to snorkeling in mountain streams to survey 

aquatic conditions. Others whose work 

was done in an office or laboratory 

setting had backgrounds as athletes or 

engaged in demanding sports in their 

free time. Some examples are given 

here.

ù

Entomologist Dave Fellin ran 40 to 

50 miles every week in his spare time 

just to stay in shape. He was a frequent 

competitor in races in the Missoula area 

and finished first in various age classes 

over many years. Nineteen years after 

Fellin retired he continued to work out 

at the fitness center at the University Of 

Montana nearly every day.

ù

Range Scientist Walt Mueggler’s 

entire family (his wife and six children) 

were athletic and competitive. Daughter 

Laura was the top U.S. finisher in the 

15K cross-country ski race in the Winter 

Olympic Games held in Lillehammer, 

Norway. She got her early training 

skiing through canyons with Walt. As 

Renee O’Brien became the first woman 

to be a full-time Forest Survey crew 

member in 1978, more than 40 years 

after Survey began operations.

Andrea and Michael Wilson spent their 

honeymoon in a Forest Survey trailer in 

1985; they joined an inventory crew in 

Arizona 3 days after they were married.
196–

part of a family tradition, the Olympian 

issued a challenge to Walt to climb the 

Grand Teton, tallest peak in the range. 

Walt met the challenge, taking the technical route to the top, at the tender age 

of 65 (INTercom Jan./Feb./1994).

ù

Research Forester Clint Carlson 

(Missoula) ran the Boston Marathon in 

1986 in 3 hours and 5 minutes, good 

enough to earn an invitation to compete 

again the following year.

ù

Plant Geneticist Durant McArthur 

was said to be such a fierce competitor 

that a few employees declined to play 

in informal basketball games held after 

hours at Project Leader meetings in the 

early 1980s. They were concerned about 

injury if forced to battle McArthur for 

a rebound. At the age of 64, McArthur 

was still playing basketball in a church 

league in Provo.

ù

Range Scientist Roy Harniss was 

one of several Station people who pursued mountain climbing for recreation. 

Harniss climbed most of the major 

peaks in Washington State, including several trips up Mount Rainier. 

Over many years, he climbed in the 

Teton and Wind River Mountains of 

Wyoming, and in Idaho, Oregon, Utah, 

and Canada. In 1960 Harniss scaled 

Mount McKinley, the highest peak in 

North America, in a party of eight. The 

climb took 14 days. Another eight days 

were needed to get off the mountain because of storms. At the time, less than 

300 climbers had reached the summit 

of McKinley.

Harniss served as a National Ski 

Patrol volunteer for 35 years at Taylor 

Mountain in Idaho, Beaver Mountain 

in Utah, and Hurricane Ridge in 

Washington. In 1990, he joined the 

Clallam County fire department in 

Sequim, Washington, as a volunteer firefighter/emergency medical technician. 

Harniss also served as a volunteer for 

the American Red Cross during national 

and local disasters. The duties took him 

to Florida in the aftermath of hurricanes, 

to Iowa following tornados, and to 

Louisiana and Washington to help deal 

with problems in flooded areas.

After climbing for 13 days, Assistant 

Station Director for Research-North 

Ralph Klawitter also reached the summit of Mount McKinley. He made the 

ascent on July 13, 1979. By that time, 

some 500 men and women were trying 

to conquer the mountain each year. 

About half made it to the top.

Entomologist Walt Cole was a 

member of a mountain climbers search 

and rescue unit while studying for an 

advanced degree in Colorado. He scaled 

many of Colorado’s 53 peaks that have 

more that 14,000 feet of elevation.

ù

Dave Stalling served the Station as 

a public affairs specialist in Ogden, 

but he also served as a sergeant in the 

U.S. Marine Corps. He was a reservist 

during his time working at Station 

Headquarters, but he had seen plenty of 

rugged action earlier. While on active 

duty with the Marines, Stalling took part 

in special missions in remote parts of 

the world as a member of a Force Recon 

unit, including serving during the first 

Gulf War. Before becoming a photojournalist, he had been a dishwasher, 

ditch-digger, tree surgeon, and lifeguard 

(INTercom Oct./92)

ù

Sometimes Station people were 

forced to “tough it out” by unusual 

circumstances. In the 1990s, retired 

entomologist Mal Furniss was working 

as a contractor studying willow insects 

throughout a vast area of Alaska. He 

awoke one morning while camped 

beside the Niukluk River to discover a 

grizzly 200 feet away looking at him and 

poised to come across the river and see 

what suited his taste.

Furniss decided his best course of 

action was to pretend the bear was a 

spooky horse that he needed to settle 

down with a low, steady, constant voice. 

He said, “It went on quite a while 

and I don’t remember much of the 

conversation except that I told him he 

was a good boy and should just stay 

there. He apparently didn’t know what 

to make of it and I gradually got my 

stuff aboard my raft, never stopping 

talking in reassuring tones, and paddled 

away downstream like you know what” 

(personal communication).

ù

It was pretty common for field-going 

Station people to battle the elements in 

their work, but Research Forester Russ 

Graham did something uncommon. He 

lived with a crippling disease, multiple 

sclerosis, throughout most of his career. 

Despite gradually diminishing physical 

abilities, he blossomed as a forestry 

scientist. In this battle, Graham was the 

clear winner over MS.

Graham started with the Forest 

Service fighting fires and working on 

vegetation survey crews. He became a 

researcher in 1975 at age 26. The next 

year he experienced the first MS symptoms, slight pain in his eyes and blurred 

vision. Two years later the symptoms 

came back with more severity. His doctor thought MS was probably the cause, 

but counseled that a full, active life 

might be possible. It was for 10 years. 

Graham completed a Ph.D. program, 

made business trips throughout the U.S. 

and Canada, learned to fly, skied for 

recreation, and jogged daily with friends 

and coworkers.

He noticed in 1988 that one leg was 

tiring faster than the rest of his body 

during his usual 4- to 5-mile daily runs. 

This time, MS was the official diagnosis. 

Public Affairs Specialist Dave Stalling 

didn’t actually attack bears with knives, 

but he performed some pretty tough 

duties with the U.S. Marines. This 

photo was part of a class project for 

Stalling at the University of Montana 

School of Journalism.
–197

His jogging activity slowed, and finally 

stopped. He often tripped and experienced loss of balance. He spent most 

of the 1990s learning to adapt to MS, 

although his career with the Station was 

in full swing throughout the decade.

As Graham’s strength and balance 

diminished, he acquired a variety of 

canes. One was a collapsible model 

that fit in a suitcase for traveling. He 

fashioned another out of sections of 

plastic pipe. Its threaded sections could 

be changed so he could walk on forest 

slopes and sidehills. By the mid 1990s, 

he needed a cane for all activities, and 

had dress canes, party canes, work 

canes, and novelty canes. He also had 

to give up driving vehicles with manual 

transmissions, but found sports cars with 

automatic transmissions just as much 

fun.

Adjustments were more than physical. “I was no longer able to do the male 

thing,” Graham said. “That is lift that 

box, cut firewood, or even mow the 

lawn. I needed to ask people to lift my 

suitcase from the turnstile at the airport 

and open the door for me.... 

Instead of being a leader and 

teacher in the woods I had to stay 

on the road and watch.”

Graham had to depend on 

a co-worker to be his eyes and 

hands in much of his work. 

He found this discouraging in 

many ways, but it also made 

his working relationships with 

others much stronger. He became 

a better communicator and 

more creative in finding ways to 

participate in field activities. By 

1998 he was using an all-terrain 

vehicle and arm crutches to get 

around in the forest. Two years 

later he even went hunting with 

a friend in Canada’s Northwest 

Territories.

After a problem getting 

through Denver International 

Airport alone in 2000, Graham 

began to use a wheel chair or 

a motorized scooter, and he 

found his independence was 

restored. He could no longer do 

some things, but his working 

life became even busier. With a 

four-wheeler, he could get into 

forests for tours, especially at 

Priest River where he served as scientist-in-charge. He chaired numerous 

committees and spent more time 

producing research documents. 

Graham’s goal was to produce more 

than 200 publications by the time he 

retired.

“Life can take you through rough 

times,” he said, “but adapting and having 

a positive attitude can make it all worthwhile” (Graham, unpublished paper).

A New Role for Great 

Basin

The Great Basin Experiment 

Station headquarters site was reborn 

in 1993, with a new name and a new 

environmental education mission for the 

future directly linked to its conservation 

purpose of the past.

Station and National Forest System 

officials, educators, cooperators, and 

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch combined 

forces at an August dedication ceremony 

to christen the new operation high in the 

mountains east of Ephraim as the Great 

Basin Environmental Education Center. 

The 10 old buildings, some dating back 

to the origins of the Intermountain 

Station in 1912, would once again hear 

the echoes of youthful voices.

Years earlier, generations of scientists and their families lived at Great 

Basin, forming the foundation of what 

became the science of range management. All told, nearly 50 scientists 

worked at the location, compiling data 

and comparing their research results 

with those of the researchers who 

preceded them. Some 200 publications 

emerged. Resource managers and researchers from around the world came 

to study, changing the way people everywhere viewed rangelands. Globally 

focused scientists found that 80 years of 

data assembled at Great Basin provided 

a rare source of material for assessing 

effects of global warming (Kingsbury 

1997).

Snow College manages GBEEC. 

That arrangement had its beginnings 

in 1989 with an agreement between 

Still going strong a quarter century after he 

experienced the first symptoms of multiple 

sclerosis, Research Forester Russ Graham, 

with Rocky Mountain Station Director Marcia 

Patton-Mallory, briefed Congressman Mark 

Udall (right) and Pike-San Isabel National 

Forest Fire Management Officer Ted Moore 

at the Manitou Experimental Forest on results 

of the Hayman Fire Study. Graham led a team 

of 60 scientists and resource managers from 

throughout the U.S. that examined how the 

largest wildfire in Colorado history behaved 

and what its effects were on the natural and 

social environments.

The voices of youth 

once again were 

heard at Great 

Basin.
198–

the college and the Forest Service to 

convert the Great Basin buildings into 

an education facility. A formal, greatly 

expanded, partnership went into effect 

3 years later. It included the college, the 

Utah Division of State History, Ephraim 

City, Sanpete County, the Intermountain 

Station, and the Manti-LaSal National 

Forest. There also were informal partners, including the Society for Range 

Management and the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, whose researchers 

at Ephraim had long worked closely 

with scientists at Great Basin. The old 

buildings needed plenty of rehabilitation, and work on them went ahead in 

tandem with development of the education program.

Great Basin always was a popular 

place to visit, and nothing had changed. 

The first small group of students moved 

in and completed course work for college credit before the dedication took 

place, and even before the new paint 

had dried on the old headquarters. Well 

before the site was ready for heavy 

concentrations of visitors, Snow College 

was turning down requests from a 

variety of conservation 

organizations wanting to 

hold meetings there.

The Station and Snow 

College worked together to 

create a museum in the old 

office and laboratory building. The museum featured 

a restoration of what the 

office probably looked like 

during the 1920s, when the 

occupant was Arthur W. 

Sampson, first Great Basin 

Director.

The museum provided a look at the lives 

of researchers of the 

past, a slice of Forest 

Service history seen in 

no other location in the 

United States (Kingsbury 

1997). Sampson’s desk is 

on display. In one corner 

are skis that a technician 

used in the 1930s to reach 

a nearby creek to measure 

snow. There also is a 

special vegetation mapping instrument called a 

pantograph. The museum 

proved to be a favorite place for visitors, 

especially groups of school-age children. 

Outside was another favorite place, a 

trail leading to a weather station, a series 

of active beaver ponds, and a tennis 

court used by Civilian Conservation 

Corps men for recreation while they 

lived in tents and constructed the newer 

Great Basin buildings in 

the 1930s.

Visiting groups could 

arrange to get a first-hand 

view of life at Great Basin 

in the 1930s and see some 

legendary range scientists 

as young men with their 

families. Ray Price started 

working at Great Basin in 

1931 as a field assistant. 

He rapidly rose up the 

scientific ranks and became Director of the Great 

Basin Station by 1935. 

Price made home movies. 

His son, Dr. Richard R. 

Price of Salt Lake City, 

edited the old black and 

white 8 mm films and 

created a video tape, which he donated 

to the GBEEC. Dr. Price, who lived at 

Great Basin as an infant and was a range 

aid there in 1953, maintained the family 

connection in other ways. He provided 

GBEEC with a number of artifacts, photos, books, and papers from his father, 

and also made financial contributions to 

the center (personal communication).

The video is a delight for anyone 

interested in Great Basin history. It 

shows CCC men in Bavarian costumes 

dancing with young ladies (probably 

from Ephraim) on the tennis court. The 

cook is seen vigorously ringing the dinner bell that still calls guests to meals. 

Scientists and their families, dressed in 

their “Sunday best” are shown at a social 

gathering, and a few scenes show the 

families using the site as a base camp 

for hunting expeditions in the late fall, 

probably after they had moved their 

households to Ogden for the winter. The 

gallery of scientists shown in the 1937 

film is impressive. Perry Plummer (see 

“Mr. Plummer’s Opus,” chapter 10) 

lived in the old “Director’s House” at 

the time. Several of his children are said 

to have become expert tennis players 

through hours of practice on the Great 

Basin court (Tippets, interview 2004). 

Station Director Reed Bailey appears in 

several scenes. Noted Forest Ecologist 

George Stewart was present with his 

family. Ray Price and his family lived in 

the “West House.”

Price’s scientific achievements 

provide an example of the importance 

Veteran Station and Region 4 personnel and friends 

turned out at the GBEEC dedication to help Snow 

College and the Forest Service decide what history 

should be captured in the museum. Outside the 

museum building were (top, left to right) Larry 

Lassen, Interpretive Specialist Phil Johnson, Public 

Information Specialist Dick Pine, Mont Lewis, (bottom, left to right) Blanche (Mrs. Perry) Plummer, 

Albert Antrei, Jim Blaisdell, and Hap Johnson.

Biologist Richard Stevens, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources scientist, tried out Arthur Sampson’s 

desk and phone in the new museum at the Great 

Basin Environmental Education Center. Stevens 

participated for many years in cooperative research 

with Station scientists.
–199

of the early work at Great Basin. With 

Stewart and R. H. Walker, he authored 

a national Department of Agriculture 

Bulletin on procedures for reseeding 

intermountain range lands. It appeared 

in 1939. Sampson had started pioneering studies in attempts to correlate 

plant growth with season, climate, and 

other variables. With fellow ecologist 

Edward McCarty, head of the Botany 

Department at Riverside (California) 

Junior College and a summer employee 

of the Station, Price continued the 

research and they published results 

documenting carbohydrate and growth 

characteristics of range plants in 1942. 

Part of this work was done in the laboratory at Great Basin.

David Costello and Price in 1939 

published results of long-term studies 

that provided an answer to one of the 

persistent questions of the time: When 

is range ready for early season grazing? 

They confirmed several of Sampson’s 

earlier conclusions, but added a significant discovery on the importance of 

the date of snowmelt to range readiness 

for early grazing (Keck 1972). The 

scientists found that given a 10-year 

average date for snow disappearance and 

the current year’s deviation from that 

date, one can predict with surprising accuracy the dates when plant growth and 

important development will start. This 

and other indicators of range readiness 

developed at Great Basin were subject to 

error, but they were great improvements 

over rule-of-thumb estimates used previously. Before the importance of range 

readiness to maintaining range health 

was established, livestock followed the 

receding snowbanks to the top of the 

Wasatch Plateau, seriously damaging the 

vegetation.

Price went on to enjoy success as a 

research administrator. He moved from 

Great Basin to the Washington Office, 

where he was a Senior Forest Ecologist 

in the Division of Range Research. 

He then was appointed Director of 

the Southwestern Station in 1942, and 

became Director of a greatly enlarged 

Rocky Mountain Station in 1953 when 

it and the Southwestern Station were 

combined. Price held that position until 

he retired in 1971. As a volunteer in 

retirement he wrote a history of those 

two Stations, spanning the time from 

1908 until 1975 (Price 1976).

At Great Basin, the historic buildings 

occupied by Price and his colleagues 

came to the end of their service as 

Station facilities in 1989. In announcing 

the closure of the facilities, Deputy 

Station Director Duane Lloyd said, “In 

the early days researchers needed to live 

at the Great Basin Station during summers to gather data. Since then, research 

programs have changed, and much of 

our work is conducted in other parts 

of the Station territory. Also, scientists 

today have better transportation, so the 

buildings are not needed for present or 

anticipated research (INTercom 6/22/89).

Regarding the structures, Lloyd said, 

“Unfortunately, these are old buildings 

that do not meet health and safety 

standards. It would take a lot of money 

(the estimate was $750,000) to make 

the facilities suitable for occupancy, and 

current budgets are better used for conducting active research.” Lloyd voiced 

hopes that a partnership could be formed 

with an organization able to restore, 

preserve, and manage the facilities. That 

came about perhaps sooner than Lloyd 

envisioned as Snow College became 

the lead organization. Renovating the 

buildings was not an easy task, but the 

college was able to use its own crews 

for considerable work and was in a 

better position than the Forest Service 

to arrange for low-cost work by city and 

county departments.

“The biggest headaches came in trying to meet Forest Service engineering 

specifications, Federal preservation 

guidelines, and a tight construction 

schedule,” said Steve Peterson, a Snow 

College professor who was the first 

director of the new GBEEC (Kingsbury 

1997).

Among the challenges were finding 

the right paint color for roof shingles, 

replacing worn-out fixtures, rewiring, 

insulating, installing new plumbing, 

and stabilizing the buildings’ main 

structural elements. Renovation was one 

thing; incorporating some fundamental 

changes to meet the needs of the site’s 

new education purpose was another.

Three main buildings—the Lodge, 

the Palmer House (named after a plush 

Chicago hotel by summer employees 

who stayed there years earlier), and the 

South House—needed quick attention 

so teachers and students could begin 

their environmental studies as soon as 

possible. The South House, a small Cape 

Cod building, became a dining hall for 

large groups with a kitchen, an upstairs 

dormitory, and handicap-accessible 

bathrooms. Renovation went smoothly 

until Snow College officials proposed 

attaching a large redwood deck to the 

back, about the same size of the South 

House itself. Historians urged a smaller, 

more compatible deck or detached patio. 

The deck finally went up, with the historically minded saying, “Well, at least 

it can’t be seen when you’re standing in 

front of the building.”

Converting the Palmer House 

from a three-car garage into usable 

lecture space posed the problem of 

how to maintain the exterior door and 

appearance of a garage while securing 

the inside of the building against the 

weather. This and other problems 

eventually were solved. As the improved 

facilities became available, Snow 

College was able to grant requests for 

their use. Up to 1997, gatherings were 

held at GBEEC by the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, a six-county 

economic development group, the State 

Board of Education, Forest Supervisors 

of the National Forests in Utah, the Salt 

Lake Astronomical Society, Manti High 

School, the Utah Audubon Council, the 

Utah Native Plant Society, and many 

other groups.

Research by Station scientists and 

cooperators did not stop at Great Basin, 

The End House, built by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in 1933, was restored to its original appearance for use 

in Great Basin Environmental Education 

Center activities.
200–

only the headquarters buildings changed 

in name and use. The 4,600 acres of 

experimental range land surrounding 

the building compound included many 

active research sites.

Some historic sites were saved in 

1990 when a team of 109 volunteers 

from the Manti-LaSal National Forest, 

the Society for Range Management, the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the 

Bureau of Land Management, the Soil 

Conservation Service, Brigham Young 

University, and the Station combined 

forces at the Great Basin Experimental 

Range to preserve some of the oldest 

range research sites in the world. The 

first exclosures dated back to 1912.

Chain saws roared and the chips flew 

as the volunteers sawed and chopped 

the notches to fit logs together into new 

grazing exclosure fences, replacing old 

structures designed to protect study sites 

from sheep and cattle. After the heavy 

logs fit properly, sledge hammer-swinging scientists, college professors, and 

engineers pinned them in place with 

huge spikes, using the same primitive 

skills and tools used to construct the 

original protective barriers 78 years 

earlier.

Botanist Steve Monsen, who organized the project, described the value of 

the long-term study data collected over 

70 years with the aid of the exclosures. 

“What better place to learn about the 

potential of vegetation changes resulting 

from global climate change?”

By 1989 the old log-and-block 

exclosure fences were so rotten and 

dilapidated it became obvious that 

after one more winter’s snow load 

some would not have enough fence left 

standing to keep livestock out. Neither 

the Manti-LaSal National Forest nor the 

Station had funds to replace the fences. 

So Monsen and Joel Frandsen, president 

of the Utah Section of the Society for 

Range Management conspired to rebuild 

the oldest exclosures with volunteer 

forces.

After two days of concentrated labor 

five exclosures stood completed, ready 

to defend the research sites from the 

onslaught of thousands of domestic 

sheep already trailing toward their high 

summer range (INTercom July/90).

Visitors to Great Basin could learn 

about some of the more significant 

research and the ecology of the area 

without entering a building, or even venturing into the headquarters compound. 

A well-signed auto tour up Ephraim 

Canyon introduced the vegetation zones 

at different elevations and described 

key research sites. A tour guidebook 

provided additional details of the history 

and meaning of the research. The information was authentic. Perry Plummer, 

one of the leading authorities on research on the experimental range, wrote 

the text. The guide was produced for the 

60th anniversary of Great Basin in 1972 

(McArthur, personal communication).

Albert Antrei was another authority 

on early events at Great Basin. He also 

came to be recognized for his work as 

an historian in Ephraim and Sanpete 

County. Antrei graduated from Colorado 

State University in forestry and went 

to work at Great Basin in the 1930s. 

He fell in love with a Sanpete girl, and 

when the Forest Service tried to transfer 

him against his will he rebelled, married 

the girl, and started another career as a 

teacher. He retired as Superintendent of 

Schools in nearby Manti. At the GBEEC 

dedication he commented on the nonscientific aspects of the presence of Great 

Basin in Ephraim Canyon:

From the very beginning of the 

establishment of the Station it was to 

become clear that not all the effects of 

locating a scientific research site near 

Ephraim were going to be scientific. 

If you have a certain number of 

healthy young men on one side of a 

forest boundary, and there is an equal 

number of healthy young women on 

the other, you have the makings of 

what has to be acknowledged in casual 

gobbledygook, ‘a basic social situation.’

The Station’s young men were all inept at 

cooking and bottle-washing, and to take 

care of such chores, as well as to perform 

the art of a little mothering-at-large, in 

1936 there was Annie Bartholomew (the 

Great Basin cook) to advise the field 

technicians on matters of social conduct 

and who the girls were in Ephraim. 

More complete rundowns of such social 

weight were also available from the 

State’s road grader, Lew Christensen.

Antrei closed his speech at the 

GBEEC dedication with a tribute to two 

friends, one who worked there so many 

years he might have been considered 

a local citizen, and one who definitely 

was:

I wish at least two more people were here 

today to share with us the significance 

of this optimistic event. I wish Perry 

Plummer were here to flavor this 

moment, for of all the natural scientists 

who have contributed to the knowledge 

revealed here Perry contributed almost 20 

Moving heavy logs 

for exclosures at 

Great Basin required 

teamwork. Station 

Director Larry Lassen 

(second from left) 

carried his share of 

the load.

Visitors to the Great Basin area were 

invited to take a self-guided tour to see 

how ecological studies provide valuable information for management of 

lands in various elevation zones.
–201

percent of the publications in his 33 years 

as Director, or Project Leader, of the 

Station. I also wish Paul E. Hansen were 

here. Paul was not a university trained 

man; Paul was a graduate of Ephraim 

High School. He opened and closed the 

Station with the seasons and was the one 

who came up in the winters to shovel 

the tons of snow off the Station roofs, 

repair winter breakage, and incidentally 

record such winter data as was needed on 

snow depths and snow water contents. 

Between Paul and the Station a kind of 

special relationship developed, some 

kind of alpha and omega, beginning 

and end. Let me say out loud and just 

for Paul: ‘Everything’s okay, Paul!’

The Volunteers

Although the large number of 

volunteers working on a single project 

when the Great Basin exclosures were 

rejuvenated was unusual, volunteer work 

at the Station was not. From the very 

earliest days when employees donated 

money to help erect the buildings at 

Priest River, volunteerism was a part 

of life at the Intermountain Station and 

its predecessor organizations. When 

research program expansion slowed or 

stopped and funding started to dry up in 

the 1970s, more than program redirection and new cooperative approaches 

were required to do the jobs that needed 

to be done. Volunteers were needed 

more than ever before, and they were 

welcomed not only by the Station, but 

throughout the Forest Service.

Some asked to help, and some were 

asked to help. Some did great things, 

and some did small things. But all were 

valuable. Several outstanding examples 

of volunteer work were noted earlier in 

this history. This section describes some 

additional activities of volunteers to 

provide an idea of what they did and the 

spirit with which they did it.

Some volunteers came from afar 

to help. In 1978, Rigoberto Romero, a 

native of Honduras, spent 3 months as 

a volunteer at Boise gathering data on 

erosion and sedimentation in the Idaho 

Batholith. He applied the knowledge 

on returning to his native land, were 

he was responsible for directing a 

program of erosion and sedimentation 

control on mountain slopes (INTercom

11/9/78). The Station enlisted 12 young 

men and women in the summer of 

1982 as part of a national program for 

volunteers in various Forest Service 

fields. Two, Bob Rhoads and Melanie 

Foran, both from New York State, 

were featured in an INTercom article 

(10/28/82). They worked with Bureau 

of Land Management personnel in a 

cooperative inventory of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands in Utah and Nevada. Dwane 

Van Hooser, Project Leader for Forest 

Survey, estimated a cost savings of at 

least $40,000 from their work.

A Lifetime of Service

Paul Hansen worked at Great Basin full-time and later on a part-time and contract basis 

for 44 years. When he finished his career as an employee, he promptly signed up as a 

volunteer to continue taking care of the research site he loved.

Richard Stevens, Wildlife Biologist with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

worked with Hansen for many years. He said Hansen’s great love was the Great Basin 

Station, and he “did it all” as a tireless worker 

(Stevens 1994). Hansen’s work included opening 

and closing the Station in spring and fall, building 

catchment basins for the famous watersheds A and 

B, repairing fences, collecting data, cooking, going 

to town for supplies, and helping to establish study 

plots. Hansen was said to know where every study 

plot was located, when it was established, where the 

data and maps were stored, and who worked on the 

study.

Hansen “retired” in 1972. For the next 10 years 

he worked full time at Great Basin, 6 to 9 months 

a year for Utah Wildlife Resources and the rest of 

the year as a part-time or contract employee of the 

Intermountain Station. His volunteer agreement 

covering the next 3 years allowed him to open and 

close the Great Basin facilities as he had done most 

of his adult life and to care for experimental areas 

without compensation.

Stevens said, “Everyone wanted to work with Paul. If 

the assignments for the day were to clean toilets with 

Paul or collect plants with someone else, all of us 

young students hoped we could be assigned to work 

with Paul.”

Great Basin played a part in almost all of Hansen’s 

life. His father worked there as a technician when 

Arthur Sampson was the first director. In 1991, his 

granddaughter, assisted by Station Ecologist Susan 

Meyer, completed a high school science fair project with data collected at Great Basin. 

Hansen died in 1993 at 84. He was buried in his 1950s’ Forest Service dress uniform 

with a juniper stem pinned to his lapel.

Technician Paul Hansen was 

tall, strong, ready to work, 

and full of good humor in 

1936, 8 years after starting 

his career at Great Basin and 

nearly 40 years before he 

completed it as a volunteer.

Volunteer Brian Parks spent his summer vacation helping Station scientists 

collect data in the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness. In this case, “tree hugging” 

served the purpose of providing a very 

approximate measurement of the diameter of a large whitebark pine.
202–

The Station’s work with Regions 1 

and 4 in designating Research Natural 

Areas was widely acclaimed. Much of 

the progress was attributed to a huge 

amount of volunteer work by Chuck 

Wellner, but he was not alone in donating considerable time to the RNA cause. 

“The truth of the matter is, our program 

would be going nowhere if it wasn’t for 

the tireless efforts of National Forest 

System volunteers and personnel from 

The Nature Conservancy,” said Assistant 

Station Director Duane Lloyd (INTercom

4/16/87).

Volunteers ranged from the very 

young to seasoned veterans. Among 

the youngest was Tim Murray, whose 

mother, Nancy, worked in Operations 

at Station Headquarters. At age 14, 

Tim had donated 184 hours over two 

summers as a volunteer working in the 

mailroom and the library and publications sections of Research Information. 

He once even helped out in the Federal 

Building snack bar by running the cash 

register (INTercom Oct./94). In 1986, 

the Station had 20 formal volunteer 

agreements with spouses and children of 

present or former employees (INTercom

3/6/86).

Important volunteer work by veteran 

personnel was carried out in many 

program areas:

Ray Boyd continued to 

work completing vegetation 

management studies at Moscow 

for several years after he retired 

as a research silviculturist.

Retired after 30 years as an 

entomologist, Dave Fellin continued 

to work at the Missoula Forestry 

Sciences Lab, winding up several 

long-standing projects and studies.

At Provo, Ralph Holmgren, Perry 

Plummer, and Neil Frischknecht 

periodically volunteered their time 

and expertise in range management 

research at the Shrub Sciences Lab, 

Great Basin, the Desert Experimental 

Range, and the Benmore 

Experimental Area after they retired.

Following 33 years of service, retiree 

Ray Hoff (Moscow) continued to 

work as a volunteer identifying 

disease-resistant whitebark pines 

in a program to develop seedlings 

•

•

•

•

that could be used to regenerate 

forests decimated by blister rust.

Mont Lewis, who retired as a 

range staff officer in Region 4, 

worked every day for a quarter of a 

century as a volunteer maintaining 

the Station herbarium in Ogden 

or collecting plants in the field 

(Mitchell and others 2005).

It would be difficult to choose among 

Wellner, Lewis, and Walt Mueggler 

in any contest to name an all-time 

volunteer champion. Fifteen years after 

his official retirement date Mueggler 

still worked a few hours most days at 

the Logan Lab. After “retirement,” he 

authored or coauthored nine publications 

and reviewed or edited many manuscripts for others. In 2004, the Rocky 

Mountain Station honored Mueggler for 

contributing more than 40,000 hours 

of volunteer time. Mueggler (personal 

communication) said of his volunteer 

work, “At 78, I am beginning to think 

seriously about giving it up.” However, 

a year later he was still on the job.

All volunteers earned the same 

pay—none. They could be reimbursed 

for travel expenses if their supervisor authorized travel as a necessary part of the 

task at hand. Thus the Station often benefited from the efforts of talented people 

•

at little or no cost. That changed slightly 

for a select group in 1994. Mueggler and 

Wyman Schmidt were named the first 

Emeritus Scientists at the Intermountain 

Station (INTercom Oct./94). Mueggler 

had been working for several years in retirement as a volunteer in the Disturbed 

Land Reclamation Project. Schmidt 

had recently retired as Project Leader 

of the Subalpine Silviculture Project at 

Bozeman and Missoula.

The honorary “emeritus” title 

was granted at or after retirement to 

scientists who had given significant 

service and agreed to continue with a 

line of research that would benefit the 

Station. Emeritus appointments, usually 

for 2 years, enabled retirees to complete 

and publish specified research, mentor 

or advise other scientists, enhance the 

continuity of long-term studies, and 

support formal and informal cooperation 

with other scientists and institutions 

outside the Station. The Station agreed 

to provide a specified level of funding, 

support services, and office and laboratory facilities. In special situations, the 

Station Director could extend the term 

of an emeritus agreement. However, 

many of the scientists stayed on the job 

as unpaid volunteers for years after their 

agreements expired.

Individuals in addition to Mueggler 

and Schmidt listed as Emeritus 

Scientists in Station records from the 

start of the program through 2004 were 

Warren Clary, Boise; Jim Clayton, 

Boise; Jack King, Boise; Jack Lyon, 

Missoula; Geral McDonald, Moscow; 

Jack McIntyre, Boise; Jerry Rehfeldt, 

Moscow; Ray Shearer, Missoula; Al 

Stage, Moscow; and Bill Wykoff, 

Moscow.

The Ecosystem Approach 

Comes to Lick Creek

In 1993 the Forest Service was 

looking for places to start ecosystem 

management and research projects, and 

Lick Creek was a natural. Changes in 

the 3,500-acre area northwest of Darby, 

Montana, had been monitored since 

1909. An experienced and talented 

multi-disciplinary team was available to 

develop and demonstrate management 

Retired Project Leader Walt Mueggler 

contributed more than 40,000 hours of 

volunteer time at the Logan Lab.
–203

approaches that would consider a whole, 

natural system, how it functioned and 

how human activities would affect it and 

be influenced by its condition.

Just a year earlier, the team had 

won a “New Perspectives” award 

from the Chief of the Forest Service 

for noteworthy performance in land 

stewardship and collaboration among 

managers, researchers, and educators. 

The team included members from the 

Station, University of Montana, and the 

Bitterroot National Forest. Station personnel were from Bozeman, Missoula, 

and Moscow. (INTercom May/93). “New 

Perspectives” was a fuzzily defined 

Forest Service initiative. Although it 

seemed to imply significant change, 

the concept was never fully understood 

inside or outside the Service, and most 

of the activities consisted of meetings 

and attempts at planning that failed to 

result in concrete action (Lyon, personal 

communication). The initiative faded 

away and died about 2 years after it was 

launched.

At the Station, however, “new 

perspectives” activities did serve to 

set the stage for a successful move 

into the broad concept of ecosystem 

management and research. Wildlife 

research unit Project Leader Jack Lyon 

and Research Forester Clint Carlson 

wrote an “ecosystem management” 

proposal featuring the Lick Creek area. 

The plan went to the national office for 

consideration in a competitive grants 

program. It was rated the best of many 

proposals, and resulted in funding to 

support the cooperative managementresearch program in the Bitterroot 

National Forest that was to continue 

through the balance of Station history 

(Lyon, personal communication).

In addition to Lyon and Carlson, key 

Station participants in the planning and 

early conduct of the program included 

Steve Arno and Mick Harrington of the 

fire effects unit, Wyman Schmidt of the 

subalpine silviculture unit, Russ Graham 

of the silviculture and genetics unit, and 

retiree Bob Benson. Others joined the 

team later.

The researchers had a lot of background information to work with. The 

first timber sale was made at Lick Creek 

in 1906. It was the first large ponderosa 

pine sale in Region 1, and is said to have 

been given personal direction by Forest 

Service Chief Gifford Pinchot. Photos 

were taken in 1909 at 13 points in and 

near the sale area. The photopoints were 

located and permanently marked in the 

1920s and photos were taken thereafter 

during each decade. Results of 88 years 

of change were displayed and analyzed 

in a Station publication (Smith and Arno 

1999).

The publication was an update of an 

earlier report (Gruell and others 1982) 

in which the authors concluded that 

trends in Lick Creek vegetation were 

increasing the chances of severe wildfires, changing the composition of the 

forest from ponderosa pine to Douglasfir, and causing declines in wildlife 

habitat. To reverse these trends, the authors recommended periodic prescribed 

fires of low intensity in conjunction 

with partial cutting and thinning. To 

evaluate the recommendations, Station 

and National Forest personnel made 

a series of carefully designed studies 

of various cutting and underburning 

methods applied at different times of 

the year and under different moisture 

conditions.

The goal was to determine how best 

to return the tree stands to structures that 

were sustainable and consistent with 

historical fire occurrence in the Lick 

Creek area. Results were expected to 

define cutting methods combined with 

prescribed burning that would maintain 

healthy multi-aged stands of ponderosa 

pine and set an example for management 

of millions of acres of similar forests 

elsewhere in the western U.S.

The task was not easy. Arno said 

at the time the studies started, “Fuels 

have accumulated, trees may be 

experiencing growth stagnation related 

Research Foresters Clint Carlson (left) and Steve Arno showed 

a group of journalists a cross section of a ponderosa pine from 

the Lick Creek area. The large fire scar at the base of the tree 

revealed a 300-year history of frequent, light surface fires that 

maintained a community of open, park-like timber with a grassy 

understory.
204–

to overstocking and lack of sufficient 

nutrient cycling, and fine roots may 

be growing close to the soil surface 

and thus be vulnerable to fire damage. 

Invasive non-native plants are established and likely to increase with any 

disturbance.”

Despite the problems, the ecosystembased management methods applied at 

Lick Creek produced an array of mostly 

positive changes. Some of the negatives, 

such as declines in esthetic quality and 

some bird species shortly after the treatments, were thought to be temporary 

(Fletcher 1999b).

All the evidence indicated that before 

the 1900s forests in the Lick Creek area 

consisted of open park-like ponderosa 

pine with a grassy understory containing 

scattered shrubs and occasional thickets 

of Douglas-fir. The forests were maintained by low-intensity, slow-burning 

wildfires—either caused by lightning or 

ignited by Indians who wanted healthy 

habitat for the game they hunted. The 

fires killed most new, small trees but 

caused little damage to the old-growth 

ponderosa pine. The absence of fire 

created stands of dense, stagnant trees 

susceptible to insects, disease, and large, 

intense destructive fires. The researchmanagement goal at Lick Creek was 

to return the area to conditions that 

reflected presettlement times (INTercom

August/1993).

The studies were so successful in 

developing information to help understand the consequences of management 

strategies that the original 5-year charter 

of the Ecosystem Management/Research 

Demonstration Area project was extended several times and expanded into 

new areas of the Bitterroot Forest. Arno 

said he believed small-scale, ecosystembased projects conducted over several 

years fit Forest Service capabilities well 

and would be acceptable to the public.

“However,” Arno said, “the scale of 

treatment needs to be greatly expanded 

to restore and maintain any substantial 

part of the ponderosa pine forest.... 

There is a real need for large-scale restoration treatments, including prescribed 

burning.” He cautioned that, because of 

excessive stocking of mid-sized trees 

in ecosystems like Lick Creek, simply 

returning fire without preparatory tree 

cutting would either be ineffective or too 

destructive (Fletcher 1999b).

The ecosystem area actitivy expanded 

in 1995 when Station scientists launched 

an interdisciplinary and multi-functional 

cooperative effort with local partners to 

plan and develop ecosystem management in the 39,400-acre Stevensville 

West Central Analysis Area of the 

Bitterroot National Forest. New research 

was started there to determine area-wide 

habitat needs of fauna such as cavity 

nesting owls, small mammals, small 

carnivores, migratory birds, and aquatic 

organisms. Scientists from the Fire Lab 

started studies to probe deeper into understanding fire-dependent plant ecology 

(Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations 1995).

The Station also added economic 

analyses and computer modeling to the 

research mix. Studies by Station economists and colleagues at the University of 

Montana showed that the combination 

of thinning and prescribed fire would 

add considerably to the value of wood 

products in the future. The computer 

modeling produced a prototype showing 

managers what was likely to happen to 

vital streamside areas if improvement 

treatments were applied. The public 

communication part of the project 

was carried out through field trips, 

workshops, written reports, and information on an internet site (Solorzano and 

Kapler Smith 1998).

A summary of the concepts used in 

the Bitterroot Ecosystem Management 

Research Project, ecological changes 

that had taken place, and some of the 

initial findings was included in a 1996 

Station publication, The Use of Fire in 

Forest Restoration. The document, edited by Colin Hardy and Arno, reported 

on a technical section of the annual 

meeting of the Society for Ecological 

Restoration. It quickly became one of 

the top five most-requested research 

publications in Station history (Rocky 

Mountain Research Station 2005).

Hardy became Project Leader of the 

Station’s fire effects unit. Arno, a prolific 

writer on fire effects during his 30-year 

career at the Station, continued to carry 

the banner of “restoration forestry” after 

his retirement. He wrote two books. 

The first, Flames in Our Forest with 

Steven Allison-Bunnell, was a look at 

the historic role of wildfires in western 

forests. Mimicking Nature’s Fire, with 

Carl Fiedler, a forestry professor at the 

University of Montana, discussed how 

“restoration forestry” could emulate natural forces to improve forest structures.

Research Forester Mick Harrington 

collected samples of duff, twigs, and 

vegetation at Lick Creek to monitor 

moisture contents at various stages before, during, and after burning the area. 

The information helped determine the 

effects of fire on the vegetation.

Roger Hungerford, research forester 

with the fire effects unit, placed a thermocouple near a bitterbrush plant at 

Lick Creek. Thermocouples monitored 

temperatures around and within the 

root crowns of plants during burning.
–205

The Leopold Wilderness 

Institute

“The richest values of wilderness lie 

not in the days of Daniel Boone, nor 

even in the present, but rather in the 

future,” said Aldo Leopold, namesake of 

the organization established in Missoula 

in 1993 to develop and apply knowledge 

needed to improve management of 

wilderness and other natural areas for 

the benefit of future generations.

The Leopold Institute was formed 

from the Station’s Wilderness 

Management Research Work Unit, 

which had provided national leadership 

in wilderness research since its formation in 1967. The Institute occupied the 

building used for many years by Station 

administrative people in Missoula, next 

door to the Forestry Sciences Lab where 

the predecessor wilderness unit had been 

housed.

The old wilderness unit had done 

a great deal of cooperative work with 

other agencies and organizations and 

was not limited to research in the local 

area, but the Institute took the concepts 

of cooperation and national mission to a 

higher and more formal level. A year after the Chief of the Forest Service signed 

the charter authorizing the Institute, an 

agreement was signed by the Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Park Service, and National Biological 

Survey (later incorporated into the U.S. 

Geological Survey) to cooperate in “the 

development and implementation of the 

Institute.” The five agencies also established a Wilderness Steering Committee 

to identify research needs, set priorities, 

pursue funding, and serve as a liaison 

group between the agencies.

At first, operation of the Institute 

was directed by the Washington Office 

of the Forest Service with the Station 

responsible for administrative support only. In 1996, the Forest Service 

transferred responsibility for all Institute 

operations to the Intermountain Station, 

and this responsibility passed to the new 

Rocky Mountain Research Station when 

the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations merged the next year.

In 1999 the five Federal agencies 

established the Interagency Wilderness 

Policy Council, composed of senior 

managers from each agency, to improve 

coordination and management of the 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System. The Leopold Institute provided 

support to the council, including briefings and updates on research activities. 

Research representatives of the Forest 

Service and Geological Survey serve on 

the council.

The Leopold Institute went through 

a process of development and maturation to become a true interagency unit 

addressing the full breadth of social and 

natural science issues to provide the basis for wilderness stewardship across the 

50 States. Director David Parsons said 

significant events in the process included 

stationing a Geological Survey scientist 

at the Institute and arranging annual 

transfers of funds from the Bureau of 

Land Management and Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1996 (personal communication). Since then, the Institute added 

a fire ecologist to the staff and hired a 

Research Application Program Leader 

to focus on the delivery and application 

of new knowledge to management and 

policy makers.

Parsons’ appointment reflected the 

interagency sponsorship of the Institute. 

He had been a research biologist for 

more than 20 years with the National 

Park Service. If there was any suspicion 

that the Institute would be dominated 

by the Forest Service, it was dispelled. 

Parsons had a broad background in 

wilderness science, including work 

on visitor impacts, fire ecology, forest 

ecology, and air pollution effects. 

He also had experience coordinating 

interdisciplinary teams of scientists and 

managers, which would prove useful in 

directing an interagency operation.

Aldo Leopold was a prime mover 

in the designation of the first Forest 

Service wilderness in 1924, and a 

champion of the national movement to 

preserve areas with important natural 

qualities regardless of ownership or 

agency management responsibility. He 

no doubt would have applauded the 

Leopold Institute’s mission: “To provide 

scientific leadership in developing and 

using the knowledge needed to sustain 

wilderness ecosystems and values.”

The Aldo Leopold Institute was dedicated in 1993 in true interagency fashion. Observing as Dorothy Bradley, Aldo Leopold’s 

step-granddaughter, cut the ribbon in front of the building on the 

University of Montana campus were (left to right) Park Service 

Rocky Mountain Region Director Robert Baker, Forest Service 

Deputy Chief for Research Jerry Sesco, Forest Service Chief Dale 

Robertson, Bureau of Land Management Director of Recreation 

and Wilderness Frank Shnell, and Fish and Wildlife Service 

Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife David Olsen.
206–
–207

Under the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, major changes occurred that had impacts on all of Forest 

Service research. Funding was being 

reduced, which caused unit closures, 

some scientists were transferred to units 

that did have funds, and morale was affected at many locations (Bay, personal 

communication).

At the same time USDA was being 

criticized by some members of Congress 

and the press for having too many 

offices performing the same or similar 

administrative tasks. Although aimed 

primarily at the agricultural agencies 

exclusively serving farmers and ranchers, the criticism spilled over to the 

Forest Service. As a result, Chief Max 

Peterson began looking at the various 

field units for opportunities to combine 

administrative offices. Station Director 

Bay and Regional Forester Stan Tixier 

were asked to prepare a proposal for 

combining administrative activities in 

Ogden.

Although both the Station 

Headquarters and the Regional Office 

were located in Ogden, they were in 

different buildings a few long blocks 

apart. The Station was housed in the 

Forest Service Building at 507 25th 

Street; the Regional staff was in the 

Federal Building at 324 25th Street. Bay 

and Tixier prepared a report with a range 

of combination alternatives (INTercom

1/20/83). The change approved by Chief 

Peterson combined the human resources 

(personnel management), administrative 

services, information systems, human 

rights and services (civil rights), and 

fiscal and public safety staffs. They 

became known as “common services” or 

“combined services” units. Employees 

of the human rights and services staff 

were on the Station rolls; the others 

were Region 4 employees. The budget 

staff remained strictly a Station function 

because of its crucial nature to Station 

management. The other administrative 

units in the two organizations, the information staffs, were not changed, and 

the Statistics Group remained as it was 

within the Station.

The arrangement worked fairly 

well, but required adjustments. In some 

instances, the Station and Region had 

different policies, so those differences 

had to be observed by the new combined 

services staffs. To meet the Station’s 

needs, the common service staffs were 

required to initiate and take actions, 

because the research units at the labs had 

little administrative capability. This was 

a new experience for the staffs because 

their role in the Region was largely 

one of oversight and consultation for 

the administrative staffs of the various 

National Forests.

Elsewhere, the Pacific Northwest 

Station and Region 6 in Portland, 

the Rocky Mountain Station and the 

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in 

Fort Collins, and the Pacific Southwest 

Station and California Region (Region 

5) in Berkeley and San Francisco 

worked out their own approaches to 

combining administrative staffs. The 

arrangement in Ogden seemed to work 

as well or better than any of others. The 

Station people tried hard to make the 

staffs feel that they were an integral part 

of the Station as well as the Region. The 

Staff Directors reported to the Assistant 

Station Director for Administration in 

addition to the Deputy Regional Forester 

for Administration. Both prepared the 

annual performance appraisal for each 

common service unit director.

Beverly Holmes, Assistant Station 

Director for Administration at the 

time, made quite sure that the Staff 

Directors understood their obligations 

to serve both the Station and Region. 

To the credit of the staff personnel, 

most seemed to want to make the new 

arrangement work smoothly.

Bev Holmes—Ace 

Administrator

Beverly Holmes was just the person 

to make the transition to combined administrative services work well. She had 

experience working with or supervising 

all of the administrative units.

Holmes came to the Station in 1974 

as a Personnel Management Specialist. 

She had worked for 6 years at the 

National Indian Training Center operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at 

Brigham City, Utah, where she served 

as Administrative Officer and Acting 

Center Director. She moved up the 

administrative ladder with the Forest 

Service at a fast pace, broadening her 

experience at every step. In 1975, 

Holmes was named Leader of the 

Station’s Operations Group, a post in 

which she supervised and coordinated 

activities of Personnel, Budget and 

Finance, and Administrative Services 

units. She also took on an extra duty 

as a Career Counselor, which put her 

in touch with a variety of employees 

throughout the organization.

Two years later Holmes moved to the 

Washington Office as a staff assistant 

to the Deputy Chief for Research. Part 

of that assignment was coordinating 

administrative procedures between 

Research and the National Forest 

System. While in Washington, Holmes 

also chaired the Forest Service’s Civil 

Rights Committee, a duty that continued 

when she returned to the Station as a 

Program Analyst in 1979.

C h a p t e r 12.

Consolidations and a New Station
208–

The Program Analyst slot was a 

new position at the Station, reporting to 

Assistant Station Director for Planning 

and Applications Jerry Sesco. Holmes 

analyzed a variety of programs, provided advice to top management, and 

also served for a time as Acting Group 

Leader for Research Information.

In 1983 Holmes was named 

Assistant Station Director for Research 

Support Services. She was the first 

woman to reach this level in Forest 

Service Research. The job was to 

direct all Station fiscal, personnel, 

information, and administrative services 

activities. The job title was changed 

in 1987 throughout the Forest Service 

to Assistant Station Director for 

Administration.

The Forest Service faced a major 

problem in the 1980s after a class-action 

lawsuit filed by an employee at the 

Pacific Southwest Station was settled 

through agreement in a Federal Court 

to a consent decree. The lawsuit had 

charged sex discrimination in employment. The decree had many provisions 

designed to correct underrepresentation 

of women in job classifications traditionally filled by men. Complying with all 

the requirements was a daunting task for 

the Forest Service.

Holmes was called on to play a 

key role in resolving matters with an 

appointment as Special Assistant to 

the Forest Service’s Deputy Chief 

for Administration. She reported to 

Washington, but was located in San 

Francisco because the consent decree 

applied to California operations where 

the Forest Service had several thousand 

personnel.

In 1991, with consent decree 

activity winding down, Holmes was 

named Deputy Regional Forester for 

Administration for the Pacific Southwest 

Region (Region 5). She was the first 

woman, and first ethnic minority, to 

reach this level in the history of the 

Forest Service. When the Deputy 

appointment was made, Holmes also 

was appointed to the Senior Executive 

Service. She was the first Deputy for 

Administration in the Forest Service to 

qualify for Senior Executive status.

Before Holmes retired, all consent 

decree actions were completed. 

Compliance had taken nearly 20 years, 

millions of dollars, many personnel 

changes, and for Holmes, a lot of stress. 

She said the award she received for her 

work, signed by the President, was nice 

and had a healthy check attached, which 

“almost paid for the headaches, ulcer, 

and medications” that came with the job 

(Holmes, personal communication).

A native of Oklahoma, Holmes was 

a member of the Cherokee Indian Tribe. 

She was a strong advocate of civil rights 

throughout her career. During much of 

her time at the Intermountain Station 

she performed extra duties dressed in 

traditional tribal clothing giving orientations on Indian culture and expectations 

for Forest Service employees.

This work and her professional 

administrative activities earned many 

awards for Holmes throughout her career. She was named Federal Woman of 

the Year for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

in 1973, received a Career Excellence 

Award from the Western Women’s 

Career Forum in 1983, and was the Utah 

YWCA’s Woman of the Year in 1986.

Co-locations

Shortly after the common services 

units began operating in 1983, Roger 

Bay moved to Berkeley as Pacific 

Southwest Station Director. Bay was 

replaced by Larry Lassen who was 

Southern Station Director in New 

Orleans. After several months of operating with a majority of the administrative 

staff located in a building two blocks 

away, Lassen decided to move Station 

Headquarters to the Federal Building 

and to complete the co-location process 

in 1984.

The move wasn’t quite as simple as 

it might seem. It required the Ogden 

Ranger District, which had been located 

in the Federal Building for years, to 

“trade places” with part of the Station 

staff by relocating to the Forest Service 

Building. The Regional Office had to 

vacate the remainder of the second floor 

in the Federal Building to accommodate 

the Station people, and the entire area 

had to be remodeled.

USDA’s Office of the General 

Counsel, whose lawyers worked mainly 

with the regional people and seldom 

had business with the Station, stayed 

where it was, two blocks away from the 

Regional Office. Forest Survey stayed 

in the Forest Service Building, which 

became a Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

but expanded into space vacated by the 

headquarters personnel. The Station’s 

mountain pine beetle research unit 

stayed where it was in the old building.

A common reaction of bureaucracies—perhaps most large 

organizations—is to attempt to solve 

problems by reorganizing. Combining 

administrative units in the same or a 

Bev Holmes in 1983, the first woman 

to reach the Assistant Station Director 

level in the Forest Service.

Bev Holmes in tribal clothing for a 

Station orientation program.
–209

nearby city was a typical approach to 

the perceived problem of high administrative costs. No detailed analyses 

were attempted to show if cost savings 

would be made. Back-of-the-envelope 

estimates, however, showed little if any 

monetary savings. Victory was claimed, 

nonetheless, by demonstrating to the 

successively higher layers within the 

bureaucracy that “cost-saving actions” 

had been taken.

A small committee of Station and 

Region 4 people had been appointed to 

study the situation and make recommendations shortly before the final decision 

to move Station Headquarters supposedly was made. As chairman, I reported 

to Lassen and Regional Forester Stan 

Tixier that the committee had been 

unable to define any cost savings that 

would result from the co-location. In 

fact, I had been told that the move was 

expected to cost about $90,000 (the 

funds came in a special allocation from 

the Washington Office), and it was likely 

that costs would exceed any financial 

benefits. Lassen and Tixier thanked the 

committee for its work, went to another 

room to confer, and reappeared in a few 

minutes. They announced their decision 

to make the move and said there were 

important factors other than costs to be 

considered.

Another co-location action took 

place at Logan in 1986. The lease 

on the building housing the Logan 

Ranger District of the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest had expired in 1985. 

The Station’s lab on the Utah State 

University campus was less than full 

after the demise of the aspen research 

unit in 1984. During the peak years from 

1965 to 1969, there were 15 scientists at 

the Lab; by 1989 there were only five.

The national emphasis on combining 

units appeared to present a welcome 

opportunity. After a period of disruption 

for remodeling, the eight-person Ranger 

District staff moved into the Lab, which 

housed the Station’s mined-land rehabilitation research unit. It proved to be 

somewhat less than an ideal situation.

The co-location caused concern by 

the university that the Forest Service 

was closing out its research activity 

on campus and substituting a National 

Forest Ranger District in its place. That 

fear had to be put to rest. A negative for 

the District was that the location was 

away from U.S. Highway 89, the main 

public access to the National Forest 

via Logan Canyon. Negatives for the 

Station were the disruption and noise 

associated with public visitors requesting permits or travel information, or 

engaging in other activities not related 

to research. The co-location did provide 

the Washington Office with another 

“score” in reporting cost-cutting success 

to USDA. Whether the public was better 

served or money saved was never rigorously analyzed.

The event that paved the way for 

the politically motivated co-location, 

termination of the aspen research unit, 

itself had a political twist. After the staff 

was told that the unit would be abolished 

several individuals approached members 

of the Utah Congressional delegation 

about keeping the project alive. The 

legislators investigated, and were told 

“we knew everything we needed to 

know” about aspen. The Senators and 

Congressmen thus did not support 

continuation of the unit.

Staff members, most of whom had 

been transferred to Logan when older 

range or watershed research units were 

abolished or reorganized, again had 

their work and lives disrupted. Walt 

Mueggler and Norb DeByle fared best; 

they were allowed to stay in Logan 

until they retired. Roy Harniss retired 

immediately. Bob Campbell was transferred to the wildlife research project 

in Missoula. Dale Bartos was moved to 

the mountain pine beetle unit in Ogden, 

only to be moved back to Logan in 

1997. He had resumed working on aspen studies in 1993, and was officially 

reassigned from the mountain pine 

beetle project to the reclamation project 

on Jan. 1, 1998. (Bartos, personal 

communication).

Funds for construction of a new 

Ranger Station building at the mouth of 

Logan Canyon were made available in 

1993. By this time, co-location pressures 

had subsided, and the Station used the 

space vacated by the District to house 

The Region 4 staff moved to the Ogden Federal Building when it was completed in 

1975. Station Headquarters, the mountain pine beetle and forest survey research 

units, and USDA’s legal staff then were sole occupants of the Forest Service 

Building. Station Headquarters personnel moved to the Federal Building in 1984.

Remodeling at the Logan Lab over a 

2-month period was extensive in preparation for locating the Logan Ranger 

District in the building, a change that 

didn’t work out very well.
210–

the mountain pine beetle research unit, 

which was moved from the Forest 

Service Building in Ogden. It was a 

fortuitous situation for all concerned, 

and gave the entomological unit staff the 

opportunity to interact with university 

faculty and students.

No, It’s Not the IRS

While some Station units adapted 

to new configurations, the organization 

also was getting used to new names. 

Late in 1984, Director Lassen and his 

staff reviewed unit names. One change 

was made quickly. The official name of 

the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory was 

changed to Intermountain Fire Sciences 

Laboratory. The announcement said 

research advances had made the old 

name inappropriate:

“Over the years, research there has 

expanded to include behavior, effects, 

and control of fire in rangelands as well 

as forests. There have been substantial 

advancements in the fundamental sciences of chemistry, meteorology, and 

ecology as well as increased sophistication in the concepts, development, and 

application of models in behavior, 

effects, and control. Also, research on 

wilderness fire management critical to 

implementing wilderness fire policy 

is beginning at the lab” (INTercom

1/24/85).

With no fanfare, and no official 

approval by Washington, the entire 

organization started using the name 

“Intermountain Research Station” in 

1985. It began to appear on publications 

in April. Considerable time passed 

before the Chief’s office endorsed the 

change.

On August 15, 1990, more than 5 

years after the Station started using 

the new name, Lassen issued a letter 

(1200 files) to all employees that said: 

“For some time we have been seeking 

approval to change the Station name. I 

am pleased to announce this change has 

been approved by the Chief’s office. 

Effective immediately the Station’s 

name is officially ‘Intermountain 

Research Station’.”

Approval may have taken a long 

time, but imitation was swift. The 

largest western Station announced it 

was shortening its name from “Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station” to “Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.” The announcement said, “The 

name change follows by several months 

a similar change at the Intermountain 

Research Station” (INTercom 8/22/85). 

Over the next several years every 

Station but one made the change. The 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station did not change until 

1997 when it and the Intermountain 

Research Station merged.

At least one reaction to the appearance of the more concise Intermountain 

Station name was negative. Shortly 

after the first newsletter carrying 

the new name went out, a Missoula 

employee called Research Information 

in Ogden. After a few comments about 

the general intelligence level of people 

in the headquarters, the complainer 

said something like, “Don’t you people 

realize the acronym for Intermountain 

Research Station is IRS?” The caller 

was not completely satisfied when told 

the official short form had not changed. 

It remained INT.

In 1990, Lassen included comments 

about the name change in a talk to new 

employees about Station history: “The 

problem was the Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station was 

just too big a mouthful for most people 

outside—and quite a few inside—the 

Forest Service to get right. I believe 

the final straw was a letter addressed to 

me at the Intermountain Forest Ranger 

Experiment Station. And, I can tell you 

there are absolutely no rangers available 

to experiment on or with.”

The Director concluded the talk with 

an observation about the short version: 

“If this is more than you want to remember about the Intermountain Research 

Station, please do remember that our 

short-hand abbreviation is INT not IRS. 

That is one bit of name confusion we 

can do without.”

The official Station name change 

announcement included a notice that 

four administrative units—Budget and 

Research Agreements, Human Rights 

and Services, Operations, and Research 

Information—were changed from 

“Branch” designations to “Staff.” Their 

heads had been Group Leaders, but now 

would be titled Staff Directors.

This change was made because the 

combined services administrative units, 

except for Human Rights and Services, 

were headed by Staff Directors, usually 

with several Group Leaders reporting to 

1990

Intermountain

Research Station

Ogden Headquarters

Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab

Provo Shrub Sciences Lab

Moscow Forestry Sciences Lab

Boise Basin Exp. Forest

Boise Forestry Sciences Lab

Bozeman Forestry Sciences Lab

Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab

Logan Forestry Sciences Lab

Ogden Forestry Sciences Lab

Tenderfoot Creek Exp. Forest

Great Basin Exp. Range

Coram Exp. Forest

Deception Creek Exp. Forest

Desert Exp. Range

Priest River Exp. Forest

Reno Forestry Sciences Lab

Intertwined peaks representing 

“Intermountain” came into use as a 

Station symbol in 1988. A variation of 

it was adopted by the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station after the 1997 merger.
–211

them. With the other four administrative 

units headed by Group Leaders, the 

“pecking order” wasn’t in good order, 

and the title changes were made to 

help the units interact smoothly. When 

Denver Burns became Acting Director 

of the Intermountain Station several 

years later, he promptly changed the 

titles back to Group Leader (Kingsbury 

interview, 2004).

The Last Picture Show

In the late 1980s it became customary for the Station to issue pictorial 

organization charts showing the Director 

and Assistant Directors and the heads 

of research and administrative units. 

The charts were used in new employee 

orientation packages and available to all 

Station and Region 1 and 4 employees 

who wanted a copy for reference. The 

charts usually were revised annually, but 

the frequency varied somewhat depending on how many changes had taken 

place since the previous issue.

The November 1991 chart was the 

last one produced. In the summer of 

1992 the Forest Service announced the 

impending merger of the Intermountain 

and Rocky Mountain Stations, creating a 

temporary acting Station Director situation at Intermountain. Later in 1992, the 

Clinton administration embarked on a 

“Reinventing Government” program led 

by Vice President Al Gore, which caused 

considerable apprehension among 

employees about the future. Responding 

in 1994 to pressure to reduce costs, the 

Forest Service announced opportunities 

for early retirements and offered cash 

incentives.

Throughout the Forest Service the 

number of employees taking advantage 

of the early retirement program 

exceeded any official estimates. 

The Intermountain Station was no 

exception. Quite a few of the Station 

retirements were unit heads who tended 

to have many years of service, allowing 

them to leave without significant financial hardship. Several unit realignments 

and consolidations also were pending.

By October 1994, nine of the leadership positions shown on the 1991 chart 

were filled by individuals “acting” 

as the unit head and two were vacant 

(INTercom Oct./84). INTercom published 

a chart with names and no photos, and 

stated, “Faces have changed from the 

1991 organization chart, but it’s impossible to fill in with permanent new ones, 

at this point!”

The Final Merger

In 1992, USDA agencies were 

under some pressure to reduce Senior 

Executive Service (SES) positions. 

Because Intermountain Station Director 

Lassen and Southern Station Director 
212–

Tom Ellis had announced impending 

retirements, an opportunity to eliminate 

two SES positions by merging Stations 

was present. Forest Service Chief Dale 

Robertson decided to propose merging 

the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

and Southern and Southeastern Stations. 

His proposal was announced in August.

Before Lassen’s retirement, he had 

arranged for an interim rotating acting 

director system with the three research 

program assistant directors sharing the 

job. After 18 months, Rocky Mountain 

Station Director Denver Burns was 

named to take on the additional assignment of acting director for the 

Intermountain Station. The merger 

was not finalized until 1997, so the 

Intermountain Station was to be led by 

an acting director for a total of 5 years. 

This time lag put headquarters personnel 

in limbo. To their credit, although a 

few did object to the merger through 

their congressional representatives, the 

Intermountain Station Headquarters 

personnel, who had the most concerns, 

generally went ahead with their work as 

best they could.

The impediments to the merger were 

many. Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election and replaced Secretary 

Madigan with Mike Espy, a former 

Democratic Congressman 

from Mississippi. With 

this change, the decision 

to combine the Stations 

was put on hold. In 1993, 

Chief Robertson was fired 

and replaced by Jack Ward 

Thomas, a Forest Service 

wildlife scientist stationed 

at the Pacific Northwest 

Station’s Le Grande, 

Oregon, lab. Evans said he 

urged Thomas, a wildlife 

research colleague, to either 

cancel the merger or push 

it through because of the ill 

effects of the uncertainty 

that prevailed (personal 

communication). Neither 

action was taken, probably 

because the Forest Service 

soon was totally involved 

in a “reinvention” analysis 

that included possible 

realignments of Regions 

and Stations.

After 18 months of study, the Secretary 

of Agriculture approved a “Reinvention 

Plan” for the Forest Service. The plan 

redrew Station and Region boundaries, 

and reduced Stations by one and Regions 

by two. Each new administrative unit had 

a research unit with the same boundaries. The “Intermountain Region,” with 

headquarters in Ogden, was to include all 

of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah and eastern 

Washington and Oregon. The “Northern 

Plains Region,” with headquarters in 

Denver, incorporated all of Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, 

and North and South Dakota. Basically, 

the philosophy underlying this plan 

was opposite the thinking behind the 

Intermountan-Rocky Mountain merger 

proposal. It aligned administration and 

research completely, rather than creating 

the situation that eventually came about 

in which a single Station spanned four 

Regions.

Plans to change the Forest Service 

structure through realignments and 

consolidations were nothing new. A 

plan containing many elements of the 

“reinvention” proposal was announced 

in 1973. It was killed by Congressional 

opposition. The strongest opposition 

that time was said to have been from 

Montana Senator Mike Mansfield.

The reinvention plan was announced in detail in a Burns’ letter to 

all Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Station employees on December 7, 1994 

(reproduced in INTercom Dec./94). 

Burns said implementation plans were 

to be developed by September 30, 1995, 

and at that time his job would revert to 

leading a single Station. He also pointed 

out that members of Congress were 

being briefed and many questions could 

be expected. He was correct. Members 

of Congress prevented the plan from 

being carried out. Apparently, its demise 

put the Intermountain-Rocky Mountain 

merger back on the table. Several developments once again delayed it.

As the months of interim acting directors in Ogden stretched into years, the 

uncertainty created a difficult time for 

many employees, especially for those 

at Intermountain Station Headquarters. 

The headquarters employees were not 

involved in any “what if” planning, 

which might have given them a feeling 

that they shared ownership in plans to 

make the merger work smoothly when it 

finally came about.

In 1993, the Forest Service had attempted to relieve some of the employee 

anxiety, and probably also to soothe 

the Utah Congressional delegation, 

by taking an action perhaps unique 

in the history of unit consolidations 

within the Service up to that time. 

Every administrative employee in the 

Ogden Headquarters received a letter 

signed by Chief Robertson assuring 

them that they would not be forced to 

move or suffer loss of grade or pay as 

a result of the proposed consolidation 

(INTercom Apr./93). The letter did 

say that job reassignments, with appropriate training, might be necessary if 

employees chose to remain in the Ogden 

area. When Denver Burns was named 

Acting Director of the Intermountain 

Station later in the year, he stated 

that the Chief’s letter to the Ogden 

employees remained valid (INTercom

Nov./Dec./93).

The Forest Service kept its word for a 

long time. Eight employees who received 

Robertson’s letter in 1993 were still 

stationed in Ogden at the close of 2004. 

There were 52 employees in the Ogden 

headquarters in 1992 when Robertson 

announced his consolidation plan.

Assistant Station Directors (left to right) Keith Evans, 

Dick Krebill, and Dean Knighton rotated assignments as Acting Station Director for 18 months after 

Larry Lassen retired.
–213

The 1996 Federal Government fiscal 

year began without a passed appropriations bill as the Republican Congress 

and Democratic President battled over 

the budget. Continuing budget resolutions ran out twice, closing down the 

entire Federal Government on both 

occasions. Finally, an appropriations bill 

was passed in May, 1996. The budget 

uncertainties played a part in stalling 

the merger of the Rocky Mountain and 

Intermountain Stations.

Another impediment to the merger 

was concern by the Utah Congressional 

delegation and other groups over the loss 

of Intermountain Station Headquarters 

in Ogden. The Congressional delegation 

was particularly sensitive to any threat 

of Federal job loss in Utah because 

Defense Depot Ogden had been picked 

for closure and Hill Air Force Base 

was threatened with closure. Research 

user groups feared that a merger would 

diminish the responsiveness of a merged 

Station to their needs. As the 1997 fiscal 

year appropriations bill wound its way 

through Congress, Senator Bob Bennett 

of Utah, who served on the appropriations 

committee, put a hold on the bill while 

it was still in committee. The Station 

merger, however, was a minor matter in 

the context of the entire bill and the holding action was withdrawn to allow the 

appropriations bill to go forward.

With the way apparently cleared for 

the merger, yet one more impediment 

stalled the change. Chief Thomas retired 

late in 1996 and was replaced by Mike 

Dombeck, a one-time Forest Service 

fisheries biologist who had gone on to 

become the acting chief of the Bureau of 

Land Management. Some of Dombeck’s 

first actions as Chief were to replace 

the Deputy Chiefs with people of his 

own choosing. While these personnel 

changes were being made, the merger 

again was put on hold.

In May 1997, Burns announced 

that the merger had been finalized 

and the two Stations began taking 

the steps needed to become one. The 

merged organization was named the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Headquarters were in Fort Collins. The 

large Forest Inventory and Analysis unit 

and a small service center, including a 

library, publishing services, and several 

administrators, remained in Ogden.

When Assistant Director for 

Administration John Destito retired 

2 years after the original merger announcement, he had both favorable and 

unfavorable comments about the idea 

(INTercom Summer/94). “I know people 

have seen the consolidation as major 

impacts, particularly for the individual 

and families,” he said. “But frankly for 

the agency it’s a healthy way to create a 

better organization. In the Forest Service 

as a whole, we have too many field 

offices, buildings, and administrative 

processes that dilute too much money 

away from research and management of 

natural resources.”

“The initial decision on consolidation was poorly handled,” Destito said. 

“The first mistake was that INT was 

not allowed input. Second is that the 

decision as I see it was political to show 

Congress and the Department that we 

were making some attempt to downsize. 

The lesson is that as we move forward 

on change, we need to make decisions 

on the basis of meeting the mission of 

the Forest Service and then keep all 

parties informed of their roles in the 

transition.”

Jerry Sesco, former Intermountain 

Station Planning & Applications 

Assistant Director who was Deputy 

Chief for Research when the merger 

was proposed, said “the merger of the 

Stations was inevitable.” (personal 

communication). “The decline in Forest 

Service Research budgets in real terms 

is as evident today as it was when the 

INT/RM and SE/SO mergers took 

place,” he said. “Facilities and equipment continue to need maintenance or 

replacement. The mergers of SE/SO 

and INT/RM seemed to be the most 

feasible due mainly to the compatibility 

and similarity of research programs. 

Forest Service Research labors under the 

handicap of being a small program in a 

very large organization whose primary 

mission is not research, but management 

of the National Forest System.”

Sesco said that early in the merger 

planning process “it was obvious that if 

we were going to be successful we had 

to minimize the impacts on employees...thus, we prepared the Robertson 

letter. Every employee would have a 

job and we would handle the merger 

through voluntary transfers and 

attrition. The meetings I held with SO 

and INT employees advising them of 

the proposed changes were two of the 

most difficult meetings of my tenure as 

Deputy Chief.”

Regardless of how one views the 

advantages and disadvantages of the 

merger, a major step in the evolution of 

Forest Service research was taken. The 

new Rocky Mountain Station territory 

covered the western United States from 

the Great Plains to the Sierra Nevada 

and from Canada to Mexico. It encompassed four National Forest System 

Regions—Regions 1, 2, 3, and 4—which 

include about half of the total National 

Forest acreage in the United States.

Boise Basin Exp. Forest

Tenderfoot Creek Exp. Forest

Great Basin Exp. Range

Manitou Exp. Forest

Coram Exp. Forest

Deception Creek Exp. Forest

Desert Exp. Range

Fraser Exp. Forest

Priest River Exp. Forest

1997

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Fort Collins Headquarters

Albuquerque Forestry Sciences Lab

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Res. Center

Ogden Service Center

Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab

Provo Shrub Sciences Lab

Moscow Forestry Sciences Lab

Rapid City: SD School of Mines & Tech.

Boise Forestry Sciences Lab

Bozeman Forestry Sciences Lab

Flagstaff Forestry Sciences Lab

Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab

Laramie Forestry Sciences Lab

Lincoln Natl. Agroforestry Center

Logan Forestry Sciences Lab

Ogden Forestry Sciences Lab

Reno Forestry Sciences Lab
214–
–215

Throughout the history of the Intermountain Station and its 

predecessor organizations employees 

often worked long hours, donated their 

skills and sometimes personal funds to 

perform extra duties, and served as volunteers, benefitting the research program 

and their communities. Of course, not 

everyone served with unusual dedication, but many individuals did. All in all, 

it was a hard-working outfit.

Despite the emphasis on productivity, the Station at times was a 

fun-loving organization. Two major 

awards—The Most Constructive Turk 

and the Numbskull—were unique. 

Personnel enjoyed getting, giving, and 

discussing them. Party and farewell 

event agendas usually were about 5 

percent serious business and 95 percent 

fun. The ratio was reversed in the 

organization’s newsletter. Almost all of 

it was serious, but a joke was slipped 

in now and then. Typical workdays 

were like that, too.

The Most Constructive 

Turk

Although sometimes “The Most 

Constructive Turk Award” involved 

an element of humor, it had a serious 

purpose. At annual Project Leader 

Meetings (formally, Management Team 

or Leadership Team Meetings) all past 

recipients of the award would pay attention to who said what. If anyone had 

made a true statement that was somewhat courageous, but perhaps ill-advised 

or “politically incorrect,” the “Turks” 

could vote to designate the speaker who 

uttered the audacious comment as a new 

member of the group.

New Turks received two plaques 

they could display until the next Turk 

was selected. The first featured a wellworn stirrup and the inscription: “The 

Man Who Tells the Truth Should Have 

One Foot in the Stirrup—Old Turkish 

Proverb.” The second plaque displayed 

the names of all award winners and 

the date and meeting site where the 

honor was earned. And it was an honor; 

Turks usually displayed the plaques 

prominently in their offices and were 

quite proud to have been recognized as 

a “Young Turk,” the designation often 

used for brevity.

The original Young Turks were 

members of a Turkish nationalist reform 

party whose leaders led a revolt against 

the autocratic sultan Abdul Hamid II. 

They succeeded in deposing Hamid and 

drove him into exile in 1909. The reform 

movement began in the 1890s with formation of secret societies of progressive 

university students and military cadets. 

They operated secretly of necessity; 

the sultan and his police dealt harshly 

with anyone who openly criticized the 

regime. In about 1908, “Young Turk” 

began to be used as a nickname for any 

brash young usurper. It subsequently 

passed into general usage throughout 

much of the world. This bit of history 

probably inspired the Station award, 

which suggested that those who speak 

the truth in the wrong place or at the 

wrong time should be ready to get out of 

town fast.

The Station’s award was retired in 

1995 at the direction of Station management. The plaques are on display at the 

Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory. 

They were on a wall outside the office 

used by Emeritus Scientist Al Stage, the 

first Constructive Turk. Discontinuance 

of the award, which was an incentive 

for personnel to present and debate 

divergent viewpoints, was viewed by 

many as signaling a major negative 

change in Station culture (Stage interview, 2005).

The reasons Turks were selected were 

not recorded in any formal way, thus 

some are lost to us. Those that follow 

were derived largely from newsletter 

accounts or recollections by Turks who 

could be contacted.

C h a p t e r 13.

Not In The Line Of Duty

The Turks, with the meeting place and date of each award, were:

Al Stage Ogden, Utah 1967

Jim Lotan Burley, Idaho 1969

Garry Routledge Ogden, Utah 1980

Dick Klade Missoula, Montana 1983

Mike Prouty Ogden, Utah 1985

Erv Schuster Reno, Nevada 1986

Larry Lassen Park City, Utah 1989

Roy Sidle Sun Valley, Idaho 1990

L. Jack Lyon Jackson, Wyoming 1991

Dwane D. Van Hooser Ogden, Utah 1993

Sally Hejl Albuquerque, New Mexico 1994
216–

Al Stage—The Moscow Project 

Leader’s recollection was that he 

received the initial award because of his 

questioning attitude during a “how to do 

it” mock employee development interview that was part of an annual meeting. 

Watershed Scientist Ned Bethlamy was 

acting as the “supervisor,” and taking 

the whole exercise quite seriously. Stage 

was the “employee” being interviewed. 

Stage made several caustic observations 

about the whole process being “much 

ado about the wrong problem,” thus 

earning the Station’s first honor for 

forthright statements.

Dick Klade—My recollection is 

the honor was bestowed after I said 

there was no reason whatever that the 

Assistant Station Director for Research 

Support Services (my supervisor) should 

review my performance because the 

ASD had no understanding of my work 

as Research Information Group Leader. 

This could have been dangerous as 

well as ill-advised. The ASD, who was 

present, was Dave Blackner, who played 

tackle on the Brigham Young University 

football team in college. Blackner 

was a big man in more ways than one; 

he never mentioned the comment or 

seemed to hold it against me.

Mike Prouty—According to an 

INTercom article (4/30/85) written by 

Public Affairs Specialist Prouty, and 

therefore somewhat suspect, he earned 

the honor “for having the audacity to use 

better slides than the Station Director” 

and “telling it like it is, and with enthusiasm.” Those comments were attributed 

to Al Stage; the article implies that Jim 

Lotan also made comments, but said, 

“The text of Lotan’s remarks has been 

lost.” Prouty’s report claims Dick Klade, 

last holder of the award, was barred 

from voting for the new winner by 

Stage and Lotan on grounds he was not 

objective.

Erv Schuster—Schuster, Project 

Leader of the Economics Research Unit, 

became a Turk for making irreverent 

remarks about how research administrators could improve their performance 

when he was supposed to be describing 

the work of his unit. The vote was 

unanimous among the Turks present 

(Stage, Lotan, and Klade), according to 

an INTercom (5/1/86) account. Schuster 

said in 2003 he didn’t recall too much 

about the specifics, but thought his 

statements had to do with budgets and 

Station overhead, or hiring quotas.

Jack Lyon—According to INTercom

(Apr./91), Wildlife Habitat Project 

Leader Jack Lyon “proudly displayed 

his most Constructive Turk Award 

given to him for his comments about 

the latest (Forest Service) national 

initiative.” The implication was that 

the comments were not complimentary, 

a fact probably not lost on Associate 

Deputy Chief Tom Hamilton, who was 

in the audience.

Dwane Van Hooser—Van Hooser 

was the Forest Survey Project Leader 

in 1993 when he chose 

to declare in the midst of 

a discussion of obstacles 

to hiring more women 

for scientific leadership 

positions that “every time 

we have a good opening, 

some unqualified veteran 

is blocking the roster (the 

official list of those deemed 

qualified for the job by 

Civil Service authorities).” 

He overlooked the fact that 

perhaps as many as threefourths of the people in the 

audience were veterans and 

many of them probably had 

been selected from rosters 

for their first jobs with 

the Forest Service. Three 

of the four Turks present 

were veterans; the decision to honor Van 

Hooser was not difficult.

Numbskull!

One of the legendary awards at the 

Station began at Priest River in the 

midst of the Great Depression and was 

conferred regularly on sometimes unsuspecting individuals for 60 years.

In 1931, Morris Huberman drove a 

Priest River car up Benton Creek to the 

end of the road to recover some tree 

seed that had been placed in the duff 

nearby to determine how long the seed 

would remain viable. In turning around, 

he worked the car crosswise of the road 

with the rear against the cut bank and 

the front wheels at the very edge of the 

steep fill slope. Not an inch was left in 

which to maneuver. On the 3-mile walk 

back to headquarters for help Huberman 

found an old bleached animal skull 

to which he tied a string. He hung the 

skull from his neck as he stood before 

Superintendent J. B. Thompson and 

explained why the car needed to be rescued. So was born the Numbskull Club 

of America, Parent Chapter No. 0.0001 

(Wellner 1976).

Before the Numbskull Club was 

discontinued in the 1990s by Station 

management because it was said to 

be “put-down humor that was out 

of fashion,” (Van Hooser, personal 

communication) the original chapter 

inspired creation of at least three 

other chapters, and 65 people had 

their names inscribed on four different skulls. Of the rapid expansion of 

the club Wellner (1976) said, “Soon 

exploits that ordinarily were deeply 

hidden or denied were offered (usually 

by ‘friends’) as proof of eligibility 

for membership in the Numbskull 

Club. A horse’s skull was needed to 

accommodate names of the growing 

membership. Although standards for 

eligibility were raised, there never was 

a dearth of eligible people.”

Two new chapters were formed 

in the mid-1930s. One was “Chapter 

No. o.oo1” established at Deception 

Creek Experimental Forest near Coeur 

d’Alene in 1935. The first chapter 

president, Kenneth Davis, performed in 

Dwane Van Hooser (right) looked a little 

apprehensive after I presented the Turk 

plaques to him in 1993.
–217

the finest tradition of the club to earn 

an award.

Davis was outfitting the newly 

established Deception Creek facility, 

and the U.S. Army was ridding itself 

of old World War I gear. The Army 

issued long lists of property that could 

be had by other Federal agencies for the 

mere payment of shipping charges. To 

dollar-poor Forest Service researchers, 

the lists were like free candy to a child. 

Our hero elatedly spotted and checked a 

paper cutter on a list from an Army base 

in New Jersey. Weeks later he received 

a frantic call from the Station’s administrative assistant in Missoula informing 

him that she was trying to stop a railroad 

flatcar loaded only with a 4,000-pound, 

power paper cutter to save on the freight 

bill. She was unable to stop the shipment 

in Missoula, and the car rattled on to 

Spokane. The paper cutter, a monstrous 

piece of equipment, was unloaded at 

the Forest Service warehouse (Wellner 

1976). It was definitely not the desk-top 

paper cutter Davis had envisioned.

Davis rounded up some buddies, 

drove to Spokane, and with pipes as rollers unloaded the flat car and deposited 

the cutter on the Forest Service warehouse dock. There it sat for some time. 

Later, the warehouse sent the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station a bill for 

storage. When Davis asked the Director 

what to do about the bill, the reply was, 

“Just like in a hotel, you don’t pay the 

bill, they keep your luggage!” (Stage, 

personal communication). Thus, the 

warehouse acquired a giant paper cutter.

Davis’ name was carefully inscribed 

on the whitened skull of a horse. A charter for a new Numbskull chapter was 

prepared, rolled, and placed in the skull, 

which was tenderly wound with several 

rolls of toilet tissue, boxed, and mailed 

collect from Priest River to Deception 

Creek. In response, Davis wrote, “I 

am deeply insensible to the honor of 

receiving Charter No. o.oo1...It is 

indeed incomprehensible that my wholly 

insignificant and puny efforts should 

merit the recognition of such masters in 

the great field of Numbery.”

A small skull got its first inscription of a deserving member name in 

1935. This skull honors the members 

of Chapter 0.0002, Missoula. A fourth 

skull, complete with horns, is inscribed 

with names of 19 people whose exploits 

gained membership in Chapter 0.00001, 

Ogden.

Following its involuntary retirement, 

the skull of the original club was put on 

display in the office-laboratory building 

at Priest River. It is accompanied by a 

framed document listing the members 

In 1992 Bob Denner was 

Superintendent of the Priest River 

Experimental Forest and also had the 

honor of being custodian of the first 

Numbskull Club skull.

(nine inscriptions were illegible). The 

Forest Inventory and Analysis unit 

in Ogden, which as Forest Survey 

traditionally presented awards for the 

two clubs, safeguarded the Missoula and 

Ogden chapter skulls. The status of the 

Deception Creek skull and any others 

that may have been created is unknown.

Club officers were good at composing fanciful certificates awarded to 

new members, but they weren’t big on 

keeping records. A sampling follows 

of exploits gleaned from old files or 

provided in 2004 by retirees or Rocky 

Mountain Station employees with long 

memories.

ù

An early “Numbskull” at Priest 

River, said to have been George 

Jemison, complained bitterly about how 

hard it was to row a boat nearly all the 

way across Chase Lake after sudden 

thunder, lightning, and rain motivated a 

quick departure from the water. When 

the other occupants pulled the boat on 

shore, they noticed that the anchor had 

been out throughout the journey.

ù

One researcher, probably Lyle 

Watts, was working with a crew on the 

west side of the Priest River. On the 

way, they had to go through a gate. 

Returning home, Watts stopped at the 

gate and the crew members jumped 

out of the back of the pick-up to open 

it. Watts drove through and forgot to 

stop on the other side. He didn’t miss 

the crew until they arrived back at the 

office some time later. In a similar 

Ken Davis ordered a 

4,000 pound paper cutter by mistake in 1935 to 

become the first president of the Numbskull 

of America chapter at 

Deception Creek. The 

note on the photo reads: 

“Chief numb of all the 

skullers; supreme o’er all 

the rest; a monument of 

steel his deed—the very 

best.”
218–

incident, an absent-minded Northern 

Rocky Mountain Station Director 

(seven Directors were honored for 

“numb” acts over the years) promised 

to take a researcher from Priest River 

back to headquarters in Missoula. He 

blithely drove away alone, stranding 

the scientist at Priest River, 210 miles 

from home.

ù

Forest Survey personnel needed to 

be schooled in first-aid techniques in 

case of accidental injury on trips to 

backcountry sampling sites. Research 

Forester Bill McClain scheduled a training class at Red Cross headquarters in 

Ogden in 1982. He then gave the wrong 

date to Survey crewmembers. About 30 

showed up for the class. Not a single 

Red Cross instructor appeared.

ù

Fire Lab Project Leaders Darold 

Ward, Jim Brown, Dick Rothermel, 

and Chuck George shared an award 

in 1989 for “excellence in decision 

making by committee.” The quartet was 

operating as a group led by the Project 

Leader who was serving as the Station 

Director’s representative at the time. The 

committee was empowered to approve 

modifications in lab space.

Ward decided he needed an elevator alongside the combustion tower 

flume hood so he could install air 

sampling equipment. An elevator was 

bought and installed. Then it was 

discovered that a set of steps had to 

be constructed to get to the elevator. 

Because the steps were awkward and 

unsafe, a hole was cut in the floor of 

the combustion room so the elevator 

could descend farther, thus eliminating 

the need for the steps. Brown said, “It 

was a huge mess. We blamed Darold 

for the bulk of it.”

ù

The Survey unit put Scott Travis in 

charge of the logistics of getting the 

crews, trucks, trailers, and equipment to 

northern Idaho to start the statewide inventory. After all the crews, trucks, and 

trailers arrived, Travis realized he had 

failed to include the equipment needed 

to take measurements. Survey had to 

hire a charter plane to fly the equipment 

from Ogden to Idaho.

ù

One early Station administrator was 

known to be a “dapper” dresser, always 

wearing a long-sleeve shirt and coat and 

tie. He insisted that all the researchers 

in his unit dress similarly when working 

in the laboratory. He earned entry into 

the annals of numbskullery by sending 

a memo to the safety officer that said, 

“Get the word out to researchers who 

are out in the woods using a chain saw 

to be sure to either tuck their necktie 

under their shirt, or to use a strong tie 

clip, so as to not engage the necktie in 

the chain.” For the rest of his career, the 

administrator was said to have received 

comments from throughout the Station 

asking how many researchers he had 

seen lately working in the woods wearing a tie.

ù

Alan Green (Forest Survey) returned 

to Ogden from Missoula immediately 

after a major snowstorm blanketed the 

parking lot at the Salt Lake City airport. 

The Government vehicle he had taken to 

the airport was not to be found, so Green 

phoned his wife who picked him up 

and brought him back to Ogden. Green 

filed an official report stating that the 

Government car was missing—

probably stolen. A day or so later the 

snow melted and the car was found sitting in the airport parking lot right where 

Green had left it.

ù

Roger Bay merited a skull inscription 

and certificate from the Ogden chapter 

for being “numb enough” to accept an 

appointment as Station Director at the 

Pacific Southwest Station. The presenters implied that being Director at PSW 

just was not quite as “grand and glorious” a position as being the Director of 

the Intermountain Station.

ù

The Numbskull Club provided an 

opportunity to poke fun at supervisors 

without much fear of retaliation, and 

in some cases the members may have 

exaggerated the circumstances of situations to justify conferring the honor. 

That appears to have happened in 1980 

when Assistant Station Director Jim 

Blaisdell was initiated into the Ogden 

chapter with this certificate:

For being such an inspiration to other 

researchers, administrators, supervisors, 

and supervisees in dedication to his 

work, excellence at time management, 

and efficient use of scarce research dollars, to wit:

Frequently driving to the 

Salt Lake City International 

Airport to attend meetings and 

returning without catching the 

plane (that left the airport the 

same time he left the office);

Having slept through all but 

10 minutes of the last 49 staff 

meetings and two GMR’s (general 

management reviews);

Scheduling Friday-Monday 

semi-monthly meetings in Reno, 

Nevada, even when his work unit 

staff there were all on vacation.

Accompanying the certificate was a 

photo of Blaisdell wearing waders and 

taking a nap on the hood of a Forest 

Service vehicle. No information accompanied the photo to describe where the 

administrator was at the time or what he 

was doing there.

ù

Survey provided an expert plant 

identification service to field crews. 

If crewmembers found a plant they 

couldn’t identify, they sent it to 

Ogden where botanists would make a 

determination. Frank Angele sent in a 

mysterious plant in 1987. It was poison 

ivy.

ù

Lest anyone think Numbskull 

winners were really losers, the cast of 

characters who were “numinated” over 

the years included some very talented 

people. Angele, for example, earned 

a cash performance award from the 

Station Director the same year he failed 

to recognize poison ivy for “exceptional 

performance as the camp supervisor 

for the New Mexico forest survey.” 

One of the most honored scientists in 

Forest Service history, Harry Gisborne, 

shared a “numb” award with two 

others. Gisborne was said to delight in 

discovering “goofs” by visitors to Priest 

River that merited club membership, and 

sometimes changing the facts a bit to 

make an award plausible (Hardy 1977).

a)

b)

c)
–219

George Jemison, one of the researchers who shared the award with Gisborne, 

later became Deputy Chief for Research. 

Jemison earned not one, but two, 

Numbskull awards. Lyle Watts became 

an early member of the Priest River 

chapter. He recovered from the honor 

to become Chief of the Forest Service. 

Ken Davis, the first Numbskull winner 

at Deception Creek, became Dean of 

the Forestry School at the University 

of Montana, and later served as Dean 

at the University of Michigan and Yale 

University (Stage, personal communication). The awards were coeducational; 

seven women were listed as winners.

At the Intermountain and Northern 

Rocky Mountain Stations, the lessons 

to be learned from the “numbskulls” 

were that even the best performers err 

now and then, and it was important not 

to take oneself too seriously. Ken Davis 

kept a constant reminder. He still had the 

1930s photo of the 4,000-pound paper 

cutter he ordered by mistake on his 

office wall in 1952, when Al Stage was 

his research assistant at the University of 

Michigan (Stage, interview).

Fairies and Farewells

Holiday and retirement parties were 

premiere social events through most of 

the Station’s history. Christmas parties 

staged by Headquarters personnel were 

coat-and-tie and party-dress affairs, 

usually formal dinners or luncheons. 

They lasted several hours and featured 

carol singing and sometimes ingenious 

programs of variable quality. Retirement 

parties, minus the carols of course, 

also were well-organized and attended. 

Employees at labs arranged similar 

events. Both types of parties sometimes 

were held as joint affairs with other 

units. In 1975, INTercom (11/28) carried this report titled “Holiday Parties 

Ahead:”

Plans are being made for annual 

Christmas parties throughout the Station. 

Employees at the Missoula FSL will 

gather Dec. 6 for dinner and dancing 

at the Longhorn. Missoula Fire Lab 

personnel have set Dec. 19 as the date 

for their party, with details to be worked 

out. The SEAM group (Billings) has 

been invited to join the Custer National 

Forest party on Dec. 6 at the Rod and 

Gun Club. The Station’s Boise people 

are planning a luncheon; the Bozeman 

FSL reports things “still in the early 

planning stage.” Our source in Moscow 

announces that they plan to join Palouse 

Ranger District personnel for dinner 

and dancing at the Elks Club on Dec. 

6. Ogden, Provo, Logan, and Ephraim 

employees and local retirees will meet 

Dec. 18 at the Elks Lodge, Ogden.

Over the years the nature of the 

parties changed. New forms of entertainment appeared, single-parent families or 

families with both parents in the workforce became more common, and people 

generally complained of not having 

enough time to get things done. In the 

new environment, potlucks and informal 

lunches or presentations at scheduled 

“break times” became more common.

In 1979, personnel at the Fire Lab 

made a complete change when they 

started a “Christmas Family” project 

rather than holding a holiday party 

(INTercom 1/11/79). Pat Andrews, chairman of the Lab’s Welfare Committee, 

reported that groceries, gifts, and cash 

were delivered to the home of Mrs. Ann 

Perkins in Missoula a few days before 

Christmas to bring holiday cheer to her 

and her five children. Cash donations 

and profits from candy and soft drink 

machines at the Lab provided funds for 

this and other welfare activities.

When Station Headquarters employees and retirees attended a Christmas luncheon, such as this one at Ogden’s Mansion House in the early 1970s, they dressed 

for the occasion. Here, Assistant Station Director George Gruschow (left) chatted 

with Carolyn Keck. Carolyn’s husband, Wendell (next to her) was retired and in the 

process of writing a history of the Great Basin Station as a volunteer.

Christmas party programs could feature 

all sorts of hijinks. Ed Cnare, Branch 

Chief for Publications and Information 

Services, may have been discussing 

something about cleaning up manuscripts.
220–

Change on the party front probably 

was inevitable. But some of those 

old-time parties sure were fun! Anyone 

who saw Ira Menacker as a “Sugar Plum 

Fairy” leap into the arms of Bob Fischer 

never forgot the experience.

The fairies gave two performances. The first was at a rather 

novel Christmas Party held in 1979 

in the basement of the Forest Service 

Building. Each unit stationed there 

presented a skit. Forest Survey brought 

down the house when the fairies 

performed. Their costumes and choreography were provided by Survey staff 

member Melissa Van Meeteren, who 

drilled the fairies in the appropriate 

dance steps. In true Broadway style, 

the fairies presented their director with 

roses after the successful “opening 

night” performance.

Several years later Mike Prouty was 

appointed chairman of the Christmas 

party committee. The story goes that 

he approached Survey people about 

staging “The Return of the Sugar Plum 

Fairies.” They wouldn’t agree unless he 

participated. He did, and also talked his 

friend Curt Peterson into donning the 

pink tights of a “fairy.”

According to Peterson, practices were 

frequent and intense (personal communication). “It was overkill,” Peterson 

said. We practiced all the time in the 

basement of the building. We even had 

a dress rehearsal right before the program.” Peterson said there was at least 

one justification for practice sessions, 

however, “Menacker was pretty nervous 

about the whole thing.”

The “Return of the Sugar Plum 

Fairies” was staged at the Mansion 

House restaurant in Ogden for an appreciative luncheon audience of employees, 

retirees, and their families. It was a great 

success, although there is no indication 

that the fairies ever performed again.

ù

During a program to say farewell just 

before Station Headquarters was moved 

from the Forest Service Building to the 

Federal Building in Ogden, Research 

Information personnel unveiled some 

startling statistics. It took 11 months to 

move two blocks, some 7 months longer 

than it took early settlers to walk from 

Missouri to Utah pulling handcarts filled 

with all their possessions. The assumption was that the possessions included 

the pioneers’ office equipment. Had the 

move been to Hooper, a small community southwest of Ogden, it would have 

taken 22 years, an entire career for a 

typical moving coordinator. Knowing of 

my fondness for the old building, Larry 

Lassen displayed a photo showing my 

reaction to news of the move—a portrait 

of an enraged gorilla.

ù

When a hearty laugh rang out across 

a crowded room, Station people knew 

Wyman Schmidt had appeared to spread 

good cheer. Schmidt devoted much of 

his spare time to song—with “The Chord 

Rustlers,” a Bozeman men’s group, and 

to a barbership quartet that sang at local 

functions. A lead tenor, Schmidt started 

singing in barbershop groups as a teenager. While serving in the U.S. Air Force 

during the Korean War, he frequently was 

assigned to Special Services to provide 

entertainment at military bases throughout the United States (INTercom 5/6/76). 

When Station people held meetings in 

Bozeman or Missoula, Schmidt often 

arranged a performance by barbershop 

singers as an after-hours activity. The 

tables were turned when he retired in 

1994. A barbershop quartet serenaded 

him at the party.

ù

Public Information Specialist Delpha 

Noble was visibly upset when she heard 

that a news release she had written 

had caused the Region 1 Director of 

Timber Management to “bounce off 

his office walls like a ping pong ball” 

(see “Family Fights Erupt,” chapter 11). 

Nobel calmed down after being assured 

by her supervisors that she had done a 

good job and the offensive words were 

not hers. Years later at her retirement 

luncheon, one of the “gifts” bestowed 

on Noble was a shoebox filled with ping 

pong balls.

“Sugar Plum Fairies” (left to right) Ron Tymcio, Curt Peterson, Mike Prouty, Bob 

Fischer, Greg Bernu, Bill Dunning, Dave Chojnacky, and Tom Pawley. Peterson was 

the Station’s Civil Rights Director, Prouty was the Public Information Specialist, 

and the other lovely fairies worked in the Forest Survey unit in Ogden.

Ira Menacker (with wand) and Bob 

Fischer cavorted to the music of the 

Nutcracker Suite as they warmed up 

for the highlight of a Sugar Plum Fairy 

performance—when Menacker leaped 

through the air into Fischer’s arms. The 

wand had a pin as its tip that Menacker 

used to pop the balloons that were an 

important part of the fairies’ costumes.
–221

ù recognizing the greatest scientific contribution of the new retiree was two blocks 

of wood, which of course could be used 

to annihilate even the most fearsome 

insect pest.

ù

When long-time Technical 

Publications Editor Martin Onishuk 

retired in 1991 Erv Schuster presented 

him with the “Iowa State Prediction 

Wheel.” The economics unit Project 

Leader claimed the wheel proved that 

Onishuk’s predictions during breaks at 

the Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab had 

invariably been wrong (Klade 1991). 

And when the Station newsletter published an account of the party, the editor 

skipped the traditional photo approach 

and published a cartoon on a certificate 

recognizing Onishuk for “relentless efforts to eradicate arcane obfuscation.”

Harry Gisborne reacted adversely 

when the idea of having a morning and 

afternoon break on official time was put 

to Northern Rocky Mountain Station 

employees on March 3, 1949. Gisborne, 

known to be extremely dedicated to 

his work and demanding of his subordinates, said, “I would like to suggest 

that our Division of Fire Research avoid 

the practice of ganging up for a coffee 

period. That leads to excessive noise and 

confusion which definitely interferes 

with work by all those in adjacent offices and which does cause unfavorable 

public comment” (Hardy 1977).

According to Project Leader Dennis 

Ferguson of the Moscow Lab (personal 

communication), “Coffee breaks at the 

Lab used to be real interesting. Often 

we’d get into discussions about science 

that led to some good cooperation and 

insightful comments. Nowadays people 

only attend coffee breaks when something special is going on, or on Friday 

mornings, because we have donuts on 

Fridays.”

Ferguson’s comments could 

be applied to all Labs and Station 

Headquarters once flexible work 

schedules became the norm, and even 

“work at home” arrangements were 

possible. Set break times became a thing 

of the past. That was too bad in a way, 

because the breaks gave people a chance 

to get to know fellow employees on all 

levels in an informal atmosphere, many 

exchanges related to work occurred, 

and often some humor was injected into 

otherwise tedious days on the job.

Project Leader Jack King displayed one 

of several posters specially made for a 

novel “holiday party” to honor the end 

of a fiscal year at the Boise Lab.

Some people will go to almost any 

lengths to find a reason for a little party, 

but personnel at the Boise Lab may 

have taken the prize. They sponsored 

an informal “New Years” observance 

at the end of a fiscal year. Among the 

highlights were displays of posters 

representing various paperwork hassles 

known to try the patience of Federal 

employees.

ù

When Alan Green (Forest Survey) 

retired after more than 40 years of service, long-time associate Ted Setzer said 

Green “wasn’t old enough for tributes,” 

but stories were all right. Setzer related 

that during one of Green’s early years in 

the Forest Service he chartered a plane 

to drop heavy rolls of barbed wire to 

be used to fence study plots, because 

he “wanted to avoid carrying all that 

weight all that distance on his back.” 

According to Setzer, Green’s talent for 

“bombing” study plots was recognized 

in Washington, DC, causing him to be 

transferred there to work on a project 

funded by the CIA. Asked to comment 

on the Setzer story, Green said, “It’s 

mostly all lies” (INTercom Mar./91).

ù

Some retirement party humor was 

used so often it nearly became a requirement. A retiring entomologist usually 

was labeled an “old bugger” sometime 

during the proceedings. A standard gift 

Martin Onishuk was recognized with a 

cartoon for 18 years at the Station during which he edited more than 46,000 

manuscript pages.

Give Us a Break

Once upon a time Station personnel 

were required to appear for duty at 8 

a.m. and stay on the job until 5 p.m., 

five days a week. Anybody who wanted 

to could take a 15-minute break at 10 

a.m., another at 3 p.m., and an hour for 

lunch at noon. The researchers, however, 

were notorious for working all sorts of 

strange hours, often many more than 

required, and ignoring most of the rigid 

attendance requirements. But almost 

everybody who was not working in the 

field showed up for the breaks.

Not all in Station history liked the 

idea of breaks. Pioneer fire researcher 

AD for Administration John Destito 

(right) seemed serious, but no one 

else did, during this break outside the 

Station Director’s office that coincided 

with a Halloween costume day. The 

revelers were (left to right) Lynda Aoki, 

Nancy Murray, Ava Antonich, Irene Voit, 

and Larry Lassen.
222–
–223

This sampling of events great and small is intended to provide insights 

into changes in programs and key 

personnel at the Intermountain Station 

during the last years before its merger 

with the Rocky Mountain Station. The 

items also include achievements by 

Station people not mentioned elsewhere, 

and how they were recognized by others. 

Examples of special activities at work 

and in community and international 

service also are presented. Almost all 

1975-1995 items are from the INTercom

newsletter; a few are from news 

clippings. The last entries are from 

“Director’s Notes,” issued electronically 

by the Station Director’s office.

Jan. ’75 —Plant Ecologist Steve Arno 

(Missoula FSL) received the Director’s 

Award for Publications Excellence from 

the National Park Service for his book, 

Discovering Sierra Trees.

Station employees topped their goals 

for giving to the Combined Federal 

campaign with 80 percent participation 

and 167 percent of the dollar goal.

Perry Plummer (Ephraim), Bob Pfister 

(Missoula FSL) and Marv Foiles and 

Glenn Deitschman (Moscow) were 

among 100 scientists who contributed 

to Seeds of Woody Plants in the United 

States, published by the Department of 

Agriculture.

Feb. ’75—Economist Denny Schweitzer 

(Missoula FSL) developed a slide 

show titled Forest Service Research in 

Montana. It was available for others to 

duplicate and use.

Mar. ’75—Range scientist Joe Basile 

was appointed to the Library Board by 

the Mayor of Bozeman.

Apr. ’75—Bob Mutch (Fire Lab) was 

reelected to the board of trustees of the 

Target Range School District.

May ’75—Wood Utilization Specialist 

Dave Lowery (Missoula FSL) returned 

from a 2-year Peace Corps assignment 

during which he developed a graduate 

program for the University of Chile.

Local newspapers reported community 

service by three Station people. Dean 

Rogers (Logan) was recognized for 

6 years of promoting a conservation 

education program in schools, Steve 

Monsen (Boise) assisted in a program 

to plant big game forage near Emmett, 

Idaho, and Phil Barker (Logan) was 

named chairman of a Cache Valley 

committee whose goal was to plant 

20,000 trees during the year.

June ’75—Employees at the Missoula 

Forestry Sciences Lab began a trial of 

“Flexitime” work schedules, the first in 

the Station.

Ed Wicker (Moscow) was named Project 

Leader for research on biology and 

management of diseases in Northern 

Rocky Mountain forests.

July ’75—Food and Agricultural 

Organization Fellows from Nicaragua 

and Thailand toured the Fire Lab 

with Alan Taylor as part of a fire 

management study sponsored by the 

United Nations.

C h a p t e r 14.

A Quick Trip Through the Last Two Decades

Glenn Deitschman was senior author of five sections in “Seeds of Woody Plants 

in the United States,” a handbook produced by USDA in 1975 that was translated 

into several languages and reprinted many times. Deitschman joined the Station at 

the Inland Empire Research Center in Spokane in 1963 as leader of a new project 

on silviculture of western white pine and associated species. He continued to lead 

the unit after it was moved to the Moscow Lab until he retired in 1976.
224–

Aug. ’75—Chuck George was 

named Project Leader for fire control 

technology research at the Fire Lab.

Oct. ’75—John Deeming was named 

Project Leader for research on the 

National Fire Danger Rating System at 

the Fire Lab.

Nov. ’75—About 350 people attended 

the dedication ceremony and open 

house to mark the opening of the Shrub 

Sciences Laboratory in Provo.

Ted Setzer’s mother and several other 

relatives were featured in a National 

Geographic article about Iowa’s Amana 

Colonies (a photo of Mrs. Setzer was 

the cover scene). Ted (Forest Survey) 

was Director of the Amana Department 

of Forestry, whose operations included 

a sawmill and 8,000 acres of hardwood 

forest, after he graduated from Iowa 

State University in 1958.

Dec. ’75—Director Roger Bay hosted 

Congressman Max Baucus (D-Montana) 

on a tour of Station research facilities 

in Missoula. Dick Rothermel, John 

Deeming, Hal Anderson, and Jim Lotan 

gave briefings.

Roy Brown, an African-American 

student at Weber State College, joined 

the Station in Ogden as a business 

management trainee. Program enrollees 

could become eligible for regular 

employment if they successfully 

completed work assignments.

Jan. ’76—Perry Plummer (Provo) 

returned from a 3-week trip to the 

Soviet Union where he worked with 

Agricultural Research Service personnel 

laying the groundwork for an exchange 

of information about native plants 

between the Soviets and the U.S.

Feb. ’76—Don Fuquay (Fire Lab) 

was awarded a Ph.D. by Colorado 

State University. Bob Murray (Reno) 

received a Ph.D. from Washington State 

University.

Mar. ’76—Forest Service Chief John 

McGuire presented a cash award to 

fisheries biologist Bill Platts (Boise) 

for outstanding work on the national 

Resources Planning Act project.

Bob Mutch (Fire Lab) returned from 

Hawaii where he was a member of a 

team developing a fire management plan 

for Volcanoes National Park.

Apr. ’76—Project Leader Jack Lyon 

(Missoula FSL) was featured on the TV 

program “Helena Outdoors” discussing 

elk behavior related to logging in forest 

areas.

May ’76—Dave Fellin (Missoula FSL) 

finished first in the 45 to 54 age group 

in a 7-mile race from Milltown to 

downtown Missoula. Bob Benson and 

Dick Schmitz also competed.

June ’76—The Priest River Youth 

Conservation Corps camp opened for 

10 boys and 10 girls, ages 15 through 

18, who lived, worked, and studied at 

the camp Monday through Friday for 

8 weeks. It was the first YCC camp in 

the Nation to be established at a Forest 

Service research site.

July ’76—Dave Lowery (Missoula 

FSL) was named chairman of the Inland 

Empire Section of the Forest Products 

Research Society.

James Hanover, a forestry professor 

at Michigan State who had been a 

scientists at Moscow (1956-1965), 

developed a new tree in honor of the 

bicentennial, the New York Times 

reported. The “American Spruce” was 

created by cross-breeding red, white, 

and blue spruces.

Aug. ’76—Director Roger Bay planted 

a Douglas-fir seedling in a ceremony at 

University Center Mall at the University 

of Montana. The seedling was grown 

from a seed that was taken to the moon 

in 1971 on the Apollo 14 mission.

More than 200 people, including four 

former Directors, attended 3 days of 

events celebrating the 65th anniversary 

of the founding of the Priest River 

Experiment Station.

Sept. ’76—Dick Barney (Fire Lab) was 

awarded a Ph.D. by the Department of 

Forestry, Michigan State University.

John Host (Missoula FSL) was named 

to the newly formed Missoula County 

Board of Adjustment for a 2-year term.

Oct. ’76—The Coram Experimental 

Forest and Desert Experimental Range 

were among the first biosphere reserves 

to be recognized by the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO). Biosphere 

reserves are protected as samples of the 

world’s major ecosystem types through 

UNESCO’s “Program on Man and the 

Biosphere.”

Lenore Rios (Ogden) was named 

Coordinator of the Station’s SpanishSpeaking Program, a part of the total 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

program.

Brigham Young University leased 

27 acres of land at the foot of “Y 

Mountain” to be used for plant studies 

by Station scientists at Provo.

Nov. ’76—Frank Albini (Fire Lab) 

returned from a 3-week visit to the 

Leningrad Forestry Institute, Russia, 

where he consulted with scientists 

involved in systems analysis approaches 

to fire operations.

The Christian Science Monitor carried 

a feature story, “Sagebrush—old villain 

now a friend,” that described work at the 

Shrub Lab and quoted plant geneticist 

Durant McArthur.

Feb. ’77—Bill Fischer (Fire Lab) was 

named chairman of the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Section of the Society of 

American Foresters.

Bronze plaques were installed to 

permanently record selection of the 

Coram and Desert Range experimental 

areas as biosphere reserves.
–225

Apr. ’77—AD Jim Blaisdell and Jack 

Ward Thomas of the Pacific Northwest 

Station presented a prospectus for 

research at the first national forum on 

“The Wild Horse and the Western Public 

Land” at Reno.

Region 1 issued a User’s Guide 

to Debris Prediction and Hazard 

Appraisal, written by John Puckett and 

five Fire Lab scientists—Frank Albini, 

Jim Brown, Dave Bunnell, Bill Fischer, 

and Ken Snell. The Regional Director 

of Fire and Aviation Management said 

if techniques in the guide are properly 

used, management of forest residues in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains would 

be improved significantly.

May ’77—Project Leader Mal Furniss 

(Moscow) returned from Mexico where 

he presented a paper on the Douglas-fir 

beetle at a meeting of the Entomological 

Society of Mexico and participated 

in fieldwork in the mountains of 

Chihuahua.

June ’77—Hedri Hadri of the Soil 

Conservation Office, Ariana, Tunisia, 

visited Ogden, Logan, and Provo 

to discuss range, soil, and water 

conservation practices with Station 

scientists.

July ’77—Deputy Director Con Schallau 

announced he was leaving the Station 

to become Project Leader for regional 

economic research at the Pacific 

Northwest Station lab in Corvallis.

Aug ’77—Fisheries Biologist Bill 

Platts (Boise) and AD Jim Blaisdell 

attended the first meeting of the Western 

Anadromous Fish Habitat Research 

Program in Juneau, Alaska.

Sept. ’77—A report showed that young 

people from Youth Conservation Corps 

camps in southern Idaho contributed 

hundreds of hours over the summer to 

Station fish habitat studies on the South 

Fork of the Salmon River.

Carter Gibbs was named Deputy 

Director, moving from an AD position 

at the North Central Station. Gibbs 

previously served at the Southern 

Station and in the Washington Office, 

where he was responsible for leadership 

of nationwide research programs 

concerned with ecology, silviculture, 

and management of hardwood forests.

Oct. ’77—John Host (Missoula 

FSL) was in charge of arrangements 

for Montana Logging Association 

workshops that focused on cost control 

for independent loggers.

Nov. ’77—Station units began hiring 

enrollees in the new Young Adult 

Conservation Corps program; 38 young 

people were expected to be assigned to 

research activities.

Entomologist Chuck Tiernan (Provo) 

worked with residents of Springville, 

Utah, to transplant native shrubs 

and trees to the city’s Heritage Park 

arboretum.

Jan. ’78—George Stankey (Missoula 

FSL) was chairman of a special task 

force developing a rating system for 

evaluating wilderness quality in a major 

phase of the Forest Service’s national 

Roadless Areas Review and Evaluation 

(RARE II).

Feb. ’78—Botanist Steve Monsen 

(Provo) supervised trial seeding and 

planting of shrubs selected for a major 

revegetation program on the Snake 

River Plains in southern Idaho. A 

cooperative program of the Station, 

Bureau of Land Management, and Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, the 

work was designed to produce a tenfold 

increase in the number of ring-necked 

pheasants in the area within a few years.

Mar. ’78 —A half-hour telecast from 

Idaho Falls featured Project Leader Walt 

Cole (Ogden) discussing research aimed 

at reducing losses of lodgepole pine to 

mountain pine beetles.

June ’78—Ecologist Steve Arno 

(Missoula FSL) nominated or conominated three of the trees—Arizona 

alder, subalpine fir, and subalpine 

larch—listed in the American Forestry 

Association’s 1978 National Register of 

Big Trees.

The Idaho Statesman featured 

Soil Scientist Jim Clayton (Boise) 

in a column titled “Portrait of a 

Distinguished Citizen.”

July ’78—Dick Schmitz (Ogden) was 

awarded a Ph.D. by the Department of 

Entomology, University of Idaho.

Aug. ’78—The Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game recognized Wildlife 

Biologist Dean Medin (Boise) for 

his work in helping to evaluate and 

develop a big game population computer 

simulation program.

Dwane Van Hooser of the Forest 

Resources Economics Research Staff 

in Washington, DC, was named Project 

Leader of Forest Survey.

Seventy land managers, educators, and 

industry representatives met for 2 days 

at Coeur d’Alene to learn of progress 

made since 1974 when the Station and 

the University of Idaho accelerated their 

cooperative program of research on 

intensive timber culture.

Oct. ’78—Walt Cole (Ogden) was 

coordinator of a program to help Laotian 

refugees adjust to life in the U.S. 

Phoukkanh Salenthone, who had been 

interred in a refugee camp for nearly 

2 years in Cambodia, was living with 

the Cole family while he worked and 

learned English.

Project Leader Walt Megahan (Boise) 

taught a course in forest hydrology at 

the Forest Ecology Institute, San Vito, 

Italy, during a technology exchange trip 

to four European countries.

Nov. ’78—Monsour Mohammadi and 

seven associates from Iran visited the 

Fire Lab as part of a 5-month tour to 

learn about American forestry, especially 

fire management.

Lyle Cooper (Moscow) and his family 

lost all personal belongings in a fire in 

their rented home. Plant Pathologist 

Neil Martin provided a house for the 

Coopers and donations of furniture, 

clothing, food, and $800 cash, including 

$300 from the Fire Lab, poured in from 

Station people.

Jan. ’79—John Deeming, former 

Project Leader for National Fire Danger 

Rating System research at the Fire Lab, 

received the “Outstanding Service in 

Fire Management Award,” the highest 

honor available to wildfire managers, for 

his work at the Station.

Feb. ’79—The magazine of the J. R. 

Simplot Company, Simplot World, 

said, “With the valuable assistance of 

(Paul) Packer and his colleagues (Bland 

Richardson and Bryan Williams) we’re 

having increasingly better success 

in reclamation work.” The article 
226–

recognized “outstanding work” by the 

Logan researchers at phosphate mines in 

southeastern Idaho.

Mar. ’79—Electronics Engineer John 

Warren (Boise) received an award for 

work with Bureau of Land Management 

personnel at the Boise Interagency Fire 

Center in developing and testing use of 

remote automatic weather stations.

Apr. ’79—Bruce Welch (Provo), 

chairman of the Civil Rights Committee, 

reported that the Station was successful 

in meeting most of its minority and 

women employment targets for fiscal 

year 1978, although the targets were 

modest.

May ’79—Art Tiedemann, scientist 

with the Pacific Northwest Station at 

Wenatchee, was appointed Project 

Leader for shrub improvement work at 

Provo.

June ’79—Ed Archuleta (Ogden) 

received a Presidential Citation 

during Vietnam Veterans Week for his 

“continued service to community, State, 

and Nation.”

July ’79—Liz Close (Ogden) was 

elected secretary of the Forestry/Forest 

Products Section of the Special Libraries 

Association.

Oct. ’79—Idaho forest managers began 

using a new tool, a manual titled Photo 

Series for Appraising Thinning Slash 

in North Idaho, coauthored by Wayne 

Koski of the State’s Department of 

Public Lands and Bill Fischer (Fire 

Lab).

Nov. ’79—Roger Bay established 

the “Director’s First Annual Physical 

Fitness Award” by announcing he would 

provide free coffee break treats for 

the Lab whose people had the lowest 

average blood pressure during a Stationwide fitness check.

Employees at Station Headquarters 

pledged 141 percent of their goal for 

the Northern Utah Combined Federal 

Campaign and 61 of 69 employees made 

contributions.

Jan. ’80—Chuck Hepner as Woodsy 

Owl and Paige Ballard as Smokey Bear 

charmed youngsters at the Latah County 

Fair in Moscow.

Mick Gonsior (Missoula) was named 

Project Leader for research on wood 

utilization in the Intermountain West.

The quarterly issue of Recent Reports 

listed 55 new Station publications, 

the most ever. In the first month the 

list was out, the Research Information 

Group received 3,596 requests for 

31,169 publication copies; after that the 

distribution clerks stopped counting.

Feb. ’80—Al Harvey (Moscow) was 

named Project Leader for research 

on forest diseases in the central and 

northern Rocky Mountains.

Thadd Harrington of the Southern 

Station was named AD for ResearchNorth, to be located in Missoula. He 

succeeded Ralph Klawitter, who retired.

Barney Coster, Program Manager 

of SEAM since 1978, was named 

Supervisor of the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest in California.

Mar. ’80—Deputy Director Carter 

Gibbs, R-4 Regional Forester Vern 

Hamre, and Forest Service Chief Max 

Peterson held a news conference in 

Salt Lake City in conjunction with 

Peterson’s visit to the national workshop 

on Management of Western Forests and 

Grasslands for Nongame Birds.

Ray Shearer, Ward McCaughey, Chuck 

Tiernan, and Clint Carlson (Missoula), 

and Wyman Schmidt and Dennis Cole 

(Bozeman) gave a seminar for 100 

Bureau of Indian Affairs foresters at 

Polson, Montana, on factors affecting 

management of subalpine forests.

Project Leader Art Tiedemann (Provo) 

accepted a 3-year appointment to the 

editorial advisory board of Forest 

The J. R. Simplot Company’s first success in revegetating a phosphate mine waste 

dump, at the Maybe Canyon Mine in southeastern Idaho, was based on research 

by the Logan reclamation unit in the 1970s.

Senior Enrollee Porfirio “Sandy” Padilla 

filled an order for publications at Station 

Headquarters in 1980, a banner year 

for document announcements and 

requests.
–227

Science, technical journal of the Society 

of American Foresters.

Meteorologist Arnold Finklin (Fire 

Lab) received a Special Service Award 

from the National Weather Service for 

many years of keeping daily records at a 

weather station located in his home.

Apr. ’80—Four Station scientists—Russ 

Ryker, Bob Steele, Norb DeByle, and 

George Schier—were selected as “best 

qualified experts in their fields” to be 

instructors for Region 4’s program for 

certification of silviculturists at Utah 

State University.

May ’80—Biological Technician John 

Woo (Moscow) and his wife Helen 

created a surprise highlight for a 

delegation from the People’s Republic 

of China when they provided special 

delicacies and used a traditional serving 

set at a “tea break” they hosted for the 

visitors.

Range Conservationist Sherel Goodrich 

(Provo) discovered a new plant species 

during field studies on the Toiyabe 

Range in Lander County, Nevada. The 

curators of Brigham Young University’s 

herbarium named the plant for 

Goodrich—Cymopterus goodrichii.

Fred Shafizadeh, a cooperator in several 

Station studies, received the University 

of Montana’s first Distinguished 

Research Award for his work in wood 

chemistry.

June ’80—Kathy Seyedbagheri, a 

participant in the cooperative education 

program at the Station, received the 

“Outstanding Senior” award from the 

Department of Watershed Science, Utah 

State University.

July ’80—Four German Air Force 

specialists visited the Fire Lab to learn 

how U.S. fire fighters use fixed-wing 

aircraft and helicopters in control work.

Hydrologist Gene Farmer (Logan) 

was appointed to a committee of the 

National Academy of Sciences that was 

charged with reviewing practices needed 

to ensure safe and environmentally 

sound disposal of spoils from mining 

operations.

Aug. ’80—Gene Amman (Ogden) 

presented a paper on mountain pine 

beetle-lodgepole pine interactions at the 

International Congress of Entomology 

in Kyoto, Japan, which was attended by 

2,200 entomologists from throughout 

the world.

Director Bay and Regional Foresters 

Tom Coston (Region 1) and Jeff Sirmon 

(Region 4) hosted 30 leading natural 

resource educators from eight States on 

a tour focused on “Fire Management in 

the 1980s.” Jim Lotan (Missoula) was 

chairman of the planning committee, and 

14 Station scientists and administrators 

participated.

Sept. ’80—The Fire Lab celebrated its 

20th anniversary and the 75th birthday of 

the Forest Service with an open house 

and special program coordinated with 

similar activities at the Aerial Fire Depot 

in Missoula.

Oct. ’80—While John Woo (Moscow) 

was training Rodolfo Campos, 

entomologist with the University 

of Chapingo, Mexico, in uses of 

the electron microscope, the two 

discovered an anatomical feature that 

helped identify a species of bark 

beetle of major concern to Mexican 

foresters.

Group Leader Tom Baugh and 14 

members of the Research Information 

staff received awards for record 

production of publications and technical 

information services.

Nov. ’80—George Stankey (Missoula 

FSL) was named a Senior Lecturer 

of the Natural Resources Group at 

Canberra (Australia) College and was to 

leave soon for the 2-year assignment for 

which he would draw on his experiences 

with the Station’s wilderness research 

unit.

The College of Forestry at Colorado 

State University reprinted and used 

as a textbook a Station publication, 

Environmental Consequences of 

Timber Harvesting in Rocky Mountain 

Coniferous Forests.

Feb. ’81—Gene Farmer (Logan) was 

named Project Leader of the mined-land 

reclamation research unit.

O’Hara Creek, 7,000 acres in the Nez 

Perce National Forest, was the first 

large, relatively undisturbed stream 

area in Idaho designated as a Research 

Natural Area. The area featured beaver 

colonies, wet meadows, and notable 

cascades and waterfalls.

Mar. ’81—An article in the Toronto 

Star told Canadian readers of the 

place of sagebrush in western ecology; 

it included several quotes by Plant 

Geneticist Durant McArthur who was 

Library Technician Ruth 

Hyland (second from 

left) took Station library 

services into the field in 

1980 as she acted as interpreter between Region 1 

foresters and visitors from 

Chile. Hyland was fluent 

in Spanish and Portugese. 

During World War II, she 

used her skills to break 

codes and translate documents as a cryptographic 

specialist with the Office of 

the Chief Signal Officer in 

Washington, DC.

Rodolfo Campos (left) and John Woo 

worked at the scanning electron microscope at Moscow.
228–

contacted by the newspaper at the Provo 

Shrub Lab.

Apr. ’81—Mathematician Pat Andrews 

(Fire Lab) served as a member of the 

steering committee for the HOST 

program, an effort to improve all aspects 

of client and visitor contact at the 

Station.

Scientists Frank Albini and Don Latham 

(Fire Lab) were awarded a U.S. patent 

for their invention of an improved 

housing for data storage disks.

An IBM Displaywriter, one of the most 

sophisticated word-processing systems 

available, was delivered to Station 

Headquarters. All field locations were to 

get similar units by mid-September.

June ’81—Station scientists at Bozeman 

hosted Adamma Okwu, who was 

studying at Yale University with support 

by the Nigerian Federal Department of 

Forestry.

Sept. ’81—The National Academy 

of Sciences appointed Walt 

Megahan (Boise) to a 3-year term 

on the hydrology committee of its 

Transportation Research Board.

Oct. ’81—The Station sponsored 

workshops in northwest Wyoming for 

managers from three Forest Service 

Regions and State forestry personnel 

from Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming 

to discuss research results applicable to 

high-elevation lodgepole pine forests.

The Station and Uinta National Forest 

sponsored a tour for managers featuring 

discussions of research on Gambel 

oak and the forest’s 

management policies 

for the species.

Project Leader Gene 

Farmer (Provo) 

participated in a 

National Research 

Council study of 

regulations for 

reclaiming surfacemined coal lands.

Nov. ’81—Fisheries 

Biologist Bill 

Platts (Boise) was 

elected Second 

Vice President 

of the American 

Fisheries Society, 

the first Forest 

Service employee 

to hold the position. 

Platts automatically 

became president of 

the society in 1984.

The Wasatch 

Audubon Society 

(Ogden) announced election of AD 

Keith Evans to the board of directors 

and Assistant Resource Analyst 

Dennis Collins (Forest Survey) as vice 

president.

Dec. ’81—Physical Science Technician 

Bob Schuette (Fire Lab) was named Air 

Crewman of the Year by the Montana 

Army National Guard for his work as a 

helicopter crew chief.

Jan. ’82—Faced with a bleak budget 

year, Director Bay 

advised employees 

that to conserve funds 

Station management 

would give full 

consideration to requests 

for voluntary leave 

without pay or voluntary 

changes to lesser hours 

of duty.

Feb. ’82—Mechanical 

Engineer Frank Albini 

(Fire Lab) gave a paper 

at a Navy Department 

conference attended by 

400 people interested 

in ways to improve fire prevention and 

control systems on ships.

Mar. ’82—Plant Physiologist Bruce 

Welch (Provo) accepted a 3-year 

appointment as an associate editor of the 

Journal of Range Management.

Photos by Mal Furniss (Moscow) took 

first and second places in the outdoor 

recreation category and a second in the 

scenic group in a contest sponsored by 

Idaho Wildlife, official magazine of the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Apr. ’82—Eighteen employees moved 

into the Missoula Administration 

Building, formerly the Missoula Federal 

Credit Union Building, just west of 

the Forestry Sciences Laboratory. 

The change was made to relieve 

overcrowding at the Fire Lab and 

consolidate administrative people in one 

place.

AD Keith Evans was appointed an 

associate editor of the Journal of 

Wildlife Management.

May ’82—Project Leader Dwane Van 

Hooser (Forest Survey) was one of 

a group of eight to receive a USDA 

Superior Service Award for preparing a 

comprehensive report on timber supplies 

Silviculturist Mike Cole pointed out the effectiveness 

of stand culture in young lodgepole pine forests to 

Adamma Okwu, a visiting student from Yale University.

The Station acquired the Missoula Administration 

Building in 1982. Personnel initially assigned there 

were AD Thadd Harrington; Dorothy Dryden and Janet 

Johnson, AD’s office; Martin Onishuk and Bryan Owen, 

research information; Gayle Yamasaki, statistician; Steve 

Cooper, Bryan Steel, and Mike Sweet, silviculture research 

unit; and Dallas Summerfield, Dorothy Walker, Erma 

Jorgenson, Pat Boyer, Pat Courchene, Eileen Neill, Darlene 

Betz, Marilyn Harris, and Gail Hallesy, research support 

services. The building later housed the Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute.
–229

in the U.S. as a special assignment to 

meet requirements of the Resources 

Planning Act.

John Emerson, Supervisor of the 

Flathead National Forest, wrote, “As 

a result of Bob Lucas’ help with trail 

traffic counters and cameras, and 

subsequent analysis of the data, the 

Lewis and Clark, Lolo, and Flathead 

managers now have the best traffic data 

we have ever had for the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness.”

Brian van Wilgen, research officer in the 

South African Department of Forestry, 

began a 5-month working visit to the 

Fire Lab.

June ’82—Dick Krebill, AD at the 

Rocky Mountain Station in Tempe, 

Arizona, agreed to become AD-North, 

located in Missoula, in mid-August. He 

replaced Thadd Harrington, who retired.

Bill Fischer, Ron Prichard, and Steve 

Arno (Fire Lab) authored articles 

in a special issue of the Missoulian 

describing wildland fire history, costs, 

and ways homeowners could protect 

themselves and their property. More 

than 100,000 people received copies of 

the issue.

Project Leader Walt Megahan, Jim 

Clayton, and Gary Ketcheson (Boise) 

conducted a tour of the Silver creek 

watershed research area for hydrologists 

from the National Council of the Paper 

Industry, Potlatch Corporation, and 

Georgia-Pacific.

July ’82—Members of the Station’s 

Fire Control Technology unit (Fire 

Lab) participated in field tests of a 

new retardant delivery system for a 

helicopter owned by the Los Angeles 

County Fire Department.

Oct. ’82—The national Research 

Accomplishments Report included five 

Station contributions: (1) Alternative 

designs reduce impact of forest roads; 

(2) managing ecological impacts at 

wilderness campsites; (3) reducing cattle 

grazing and fish habitat conflicts; (4) 

small trees play a big role in the Great 

Basin; and (5) fire as a management tool.

Nov. ’82—An article on the front 

page of USDA, the Department of 

Agriculture’s employee newsletter, 

described the life-saving assistance Ray 

Brown (Logan) and other Station people 

gave at the scene of a serious auto 

accident in Montana in August.

Dec. ’82—Wood Scientist Peter Koch 

and retiree Mike Hardy, former Project 

Leader for fire control research at the 

Fire Lab, were elected Fellows of the 

Society of American Foresters for 

“outstanding service to forestry.”

Feb. ’83—Bev Holmes was named 

Assistant Director for Research Support 

Services, replacing Dave Blackner, who 

transferred to Region 4 as Director of 

Personnel Management.

Region 4 gave Liz 

Close (Ogden) a cash 

award for “outstanding 

service implementing the 

WESTFORNET technical 

information system in the 

Intermountain Region.”

Mar. ’83—Project Leader Russ 

Ryker (Boise) was honored 

as Forester of the Year by the 

Intermountain Section of the 

Society of American Foresters 

“for his efforts in applying 

research findings to practical 

forest management.”

Apr. ’83—Geneticist Durant 

McArthur (Provo) said “Rincon” 

fourwing saltbush, a superior 

strain of a shrub native to the 

Intermountain West, soon 

would be available for use in 

soil stabilization and rangeland 

seeding programs, climaxing 24 

years of cooperative research by State 

and Federal personnel.

Research Forester Steve Arno (Fire Lab) 

was elected chairman of the Northwest 

Scientific Association.

June ’83—The spring issue of Women 

in Forestry, a magazine published 

by the University of Idaho college of 

Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences, 

had an article by Forester Jonalea Tonn 

(Moscow) describing her research 

activities, including an evaluation of 

commercial thinning in a western white 

pine plantation.

Aug. ’83—Deans and professors from 

major western colleges and universities 

and National Forest System officials 

examined elk habitat-logging and other 

issues during an Educators Seminar 

jointly sponsored by Regions 1 and 4 

and the Station.

Sept. ’83—A field demonstration by 

Forest Survey personnel of what they 

do and why was a highlight of an 

orientation in the Jackson, Wyoming, 

area for Station Headquarters 

employees.

Durant McArthur (Provo) was named 

Project Leader for research on shrub 

improvement and use in revegetation.

Walt Megahan (pointing) and associates 

at the Boise Lab gave many briefings 

at the Silver Creek study area in the 

Boise National Forest for managers 

and researchers concerned with sound 

management practices in areas having 

highly erodible granitic soils.

Russ Graham (center) and Bill Wykoff (right) 

of the Moscow Lab explained silvicultural 

studies in progress and development and 

uses of the Prognosis Model for Ray Housley, 

Deputy Chief, National Forest System, during 

an Educators Seminar stop at Deception Creek 

Experimental Forest.
230–

Oct. ’83—The first experimental burn in 

Glacier National Park took place under 

the watchful eyes of Project Leader 

Bruce Kilgore (Fire Lab) and cooperator 

Ron Wakimoto of the University of 

Montana’s School of Forestry.

Nov. ’83—Fire protection agencies 

adopted a wildland fire hazard 

classification for the Sierra Front 

in Nevada, much of it based on the 

BEHAVE system developed at the Fire 

Lab. The classification was the first step 

in an interagency plan to reduce the 

risk of fire damage following serious 

wildfires in 1981.

Jan. ’84—Chuck Hepner, research 

technician at the Moscow Lab, was 

appointed Superintendent of the Priest 

River Experimental Forest, replacing 

Cal Carpenter who retired.

Feb. ’84—Seven Station scientists coauthored chapters in a revised national 

publication, Silvicultural Systems for the 

Major Forest Types of the United States, 

a highly regarded reference book.

May ’84—During a 2-day visit to 

Ogden, Forest Service Chief Max 

Peterson praised the Station’s halfcentury-old Davis County Watershed 

project and Entomologist Walt Cole’s 

work with control of the mountain pine 

beetle.

The National Science Foundation 

awarded a grant to the Station 

and Brigham Young University to 

assess possibilities of using rubber 

rabbbitbrush, a common western shrub, 

as a commercial source of rubber and 

industrial chemicals.

Acting on a nomination by Gallatin 

National Forest Supervisor Dave Garber, 

Associate Chief Dave Unger presented 

the 1984 National Minerals Management 

Award to Plant Physiologist Ray Brown 

(Logan) for his frequent efforts and 

successes in technology transfer.

June ’84—A self-described “Forest 

Service brat,” Ann Baker joined the 

Station as Administrative Officer for the 

Missoula units. Ann’s father worked on 

a Ranger District and her husband had 

worked in three Forest Service Regions.

Director Lassen told Ogden 

Headquarters employees that a decision 

had been made to move to the Federal 

Building in Ogden if funding became 

available to make the change.

Project Leader Rich Everett (Reno) was 

awarded a Ph.D. in range ecology and 

soils by Oregon State University.

July ’84—With 2 months remaining 

in the fiscal year, authors had sent a 

record number of manuscripts (267) to 

Research Information for editing and 

processing.

Nov. ’84—Research Forester Steve Arno 

(Fire Lab) was named Small Woodlot 

Tree Farmer of the Year by the Montana 

Tree Farm Committee for being “out in 

front, practicing his profession on his 

own land, and setting an example for 

Montana’s small woodlot owners.”

An agreement with the Nevada Division 

of Forestry allowed Project Leader 

Rich Everett (Reno) and University of 

Nevada cooperators to use inmates of 

the State prison to thin tree stands and 

test several ways to dispose of logging 

slash in a study near Carson City.

Dec. ’84—The Intermountain and 

Pacific Northwest Stations combined 

their insect collections at LaGrande, 

Oregon, forming probably the largest 

sample of insects in the West. The 

enlarged collection promised to be an 

important information and identification 

resource for students and scientists.

Feb. ’85—Jim Clayton (Boise) was 

awarded a Ph.D. in soil science by 

Oregon State University.

Six crews from Forest Survey 

began gathering data for the first 

comprehensive statewide analysis of 

Arizona’s wood resources.

Mar. ’85—Commercial quantities of 

seed for two improved grass species—

Ephraim Crested Wheatgrass and Paiute 

Orchardgrass, which originated with 

research at Great Basin—were available 

for the 1985 planting season thanks 

to development work led by the Soil 

Conservation Service.

Apr. ’85—Project Leader Bruce Kilgore 

(Fire Lab) left the Station for a position 

with the National Park Service as Chief 

of the Division of Natural Resources and 

Research in the western regional office 

in San Francisco.

May ’85—AD Duane Lloyd received a 

National Public Service Award from The 

Nature Conservancy for “helping create 

a model system for public and private 

cooperative efforts to inventory and 

designate Research Natural Areas.”

Bill Platts (Boise) began a 3-month 

assignment to help Alaska Fish and 

Game Department biologists identify 

critical king salmon rearing areas on the 

Kenai River.

AD Keith Evans was one of 26 Federal 

executives selected as Congressional 

Fellows in a national competition for the 

1985-86 program.

Sylvan Christensen (Great Basin), who 

was enrolled longer than any other 

person in the Green Thumb Program in 

the Intermountain area, was honored at a 

ceremony conducted by Utah Governor 

Norm Bangerter observing Older 

American Month. The Green Thumb 

Program was sponsored by the National 

Farmers Union and funded by local, 

State, and national agencies.

June ’85—Chris Risbrudt, Director of 

Policy Analysis for the Forest Service, 

Ray Brown checked 

climate data at the 

McLaren Mine reclamation research and 

demonstration site. 

He earned a national 

award in 1984 for 

his achievements 

in transferring his 

research results to 

others.
–231

said Below-Cost Timber Sales: Analysis 

of a Forest Policy Issue, by economists 

Erv Schuster and Greg Jones (Missoula 

FSL) was widely distributed and quoted 

before and during Congressional 

hearings on below-cost sales.

Project Leader Wyman Schmidt 

(Bozeman) presented a seminar to the 

Salish-Kootenai Tribal Council on 

silvics of major trees on the Flathead 

Indian Reservation. The Council 

directed activities of Bureau of Indian 

Affairs foresters who conducted an 

aggressive timber harvesting program 

for the tribe.

July ’85—Research Forester Clint 

Carlson (Missoula FSL) was elected 

president of the Montana Academy of 

Sciences.

Research Engineer Mick Gonsior 

(Bozeman) received a national Inventor 

Incentive Award for his work leading to a 

Department of Commerce patent license 

for a traction-driven logging system.

Aug. ’85—The Station led all other 

Forest Service Stations and all but one 

Region with a 9.4 percent increase 

in the number of new Savings Bond 

subscribers signed up during the 1985 

campaign.

The New York Times (“Computer 

Helps Battle Forest Fires”) and the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s 

Technology Review (“Fighting Fires 

With...Computers”) featured research at 

the Fire Lab via interviews with Project 

Leader Dick Rothermel, Mathematician 

Pat Andrews, and Meteorologist/

Physicist Don Latham. The MIT article 

hailed the BEHAVE system developed 

at the Lab as a “breakthrough.”

Oct. ’85—A delegation of Chinese 

scientists and administrators, guided 

by “Wagonmaster” Mike Prouty, spent 

2 weeks touring facilities throughout 

the Station territory. Prouty said 

the dedication of the visitors was 

remarkable, citing an occasion when 

they stood, oblivious to the conditions, 

in mud and a driving rain while they 

peppered Geral McDonald and Ray Hoff 

with questions about genetics research.

WESTFORNET personnel said response 

time for literature searches had been cut 

from 10 days to same-day service for 

clients who had access to Data General 

computers.

Budget Officer Carlos Elwood (Ogden) 

received an award for developing an 

automated information system that 

became a model for other Stations and 

Regions in the Forest Service.

Research Forester Ray Shearer 

(Missoula FSL) was awarded a Ph.D. 

in forest ecology by the University of 

Montana.

Research Forester Dave Chojnacky 

(Forest Survey, Ogden) was awarded a 

Ph.D. in forest biometry by Colorado 

State University.

Nov. ’85—Entomologist Dave 

Fellin completed a 2-year task force 

assignment by providing documentation 

for half the team’s management 

recommendations to control outbreaks 

of spruce budworm in the Southwest 

Region.

Jan. ’86—The Station-Region 4 Forest 

Service Women’s Association in Ogden 

raised $600 in donations to help flood 

victims employed in West Virginia by 

the Monongahela National Forest and 

Northeastern Station.

Grant Mortensen, chairman of the 

Station’s Automated Data Processing 

Committee, said, “Electronic 

communication may eventually involve 

time and attendance 

reports, requisitions and 

purchase orders, travel 

authorizations, and 

numerous standard requests 

and reports.”

Budget Officer Carlos 

Elwood said a national 

compilation of data 

showed the Station had 

the lowest State Worker’s 

Compensation costs of any 

Region or Station, which 

he attributed to “both good 

management and good 

luck.”

Feb. ’86—Rita Kennedy 

(Ogden) was named 

Hispanic Employment 

Program Manager of the 

Year by the Utah program 

council.

Mar. ’86—Ecologist Rosemary 

Pendleton (Provo) was awarded a Ph.D. 

by Wayne State University.

Research Forester Kevin Ryan (Fire 

Lab) was awarded a George E. Bright 

Memorial Fellowship in Forestry by the 

University of Montana, where he was 

enrolled in a Ph.D. program.

May ’86—The Station, in cooperation 

with Region 4, installed an exhibit in 

Ogden’s Union Station Museum that 

described links between Forest Service 

and railroad history and the missions of 

the Station and Region. The museum 

was getting about 20,000 visitors 

annually.

Liz Close (left) briefed (left to right) Idaho State 

Forester Stan Hamilton, Region 4 Director of State 

and Private Forestry Dave Graham, Toiyabe National 

Forest District Ranger Mike King, and Region 4 

Office Management Assistant Nancy Wright on 

WESTFORNET technical information services during 

a tour of Station Headquarters that was part of a 

State Foresters/Forest Service coordination meeting 

in 1986.

Shirley Hanson, Director of the Union 

Station Museum in Ogden, admired the 

Station-Region 4 exhibit showing Forest 

Service-railroad connections.
232–

June ’86—The School of Forestry at 

the University of Montana made a text, 

Weather and Climate of the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness, by Arnold Finklin 

(Fire Lab) required reading for students 

in the Advanced Fire Weather course.

WESTFORNET-Ogden reported filling 

orders for 12,176 technical information 

items during June, the most ever in one 

month.

Aug. ’86—A large group of Station 

people, their families, and distinguished 

guests assembled at Priest River to 

celebrate the 75th anniversary of the unit 

as a major center for research in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains.

Sept. ’86—An article in Forest 

Industries magazine described 

engineering research work at Moscow 

to find ways to improve forest road 

construction that were cost-effective yet 

limited adverse environmental effects.

Station and Region 4 personnel staged 

a “Freedom Fest” for 125 patients at 

Ogden’s Stewart Rehabilitation Center 

that allowed the guests to enjoy a day 

outdoors in an Ogden Ranger District 

Campground.

Oct. ’86—Project Leader Jim Brown 

(Fire Lab) and Forester Dennis 

Simmerman explained that a new 

publication, Appraising Fuels and 

Flammability in Western Aspen: A 

Prescribed Fire Guide, gave managers 

information needed to use controlled fire 

to maintain aspen stands.

Nov. ’86—The National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group, which had a 

warehouse and order-taking operation 

at the Boise Interagency Fire Center, 

approved a fourth publication by Station 

scientists for printing as a training 

aid, making the material available 

to the international fire management 

community while conserving Station 

funds by eliminating the need to reprint 

popular items.

Jan. ’87—In the first of a series of 

seminars for employees at Station 

Headquarters, Research Forester Ray 

Shearer (Missoula) described how 20 

years of research at Miller Creek and 

Newman Ridge in Montana helped 

make prescribed fire acceptable as a 

professional tool in forest management.

Research Forester Jack Schmidt was 

named “Sailor of the Quarter” for the 

Naval Reserve Facility in Missoula 

for his work as a command career 

counselor.

Mar. ’87—Project Leader Ed Burroughs 

(Moscow) told Station Headquarters and 

Region 4 personnel of work by his unit 

as part of the Water Erosion Prediction 

Project, which included scientists with 

the Agricultural Research Service and 

Soil Conservation Service.

AD Dick Krebill and Soil Scientist Jim 

Clayton (Boise) helped prepare a longterm research program proposal on the 

effects of global climate change in the 

United States.

Apr. ’87—George Roether, Region 4 

Director of Timber Management, wrote, 

“The cooperation, expert assistance, and 

general helpfulness of Jerry Rehfeldt, 

Pat Wells, and Ray Hoff to the Regional 

Geneticist in the development of a 

tree improvement program is greatly 

appreciated.”

Director Lassen kicked off the Station 

Leadership Team Meeting in Moscow 

by stating, “We are a results-oriented 

organization, and I make no apology for 

that. Our product is new knowledge...

We’re not just another government 

bureau processing paperwork.”

Project Leader Chuck George (Fire 

Lab) agreed to provide technical advice 

over a 2-year period to British designers 

developing a state-of-the-art fire 

retardant delivery system.

July ’87—Range Scientist Jeanne 

Chambers (Logan) was awarded a Ph.D. 

by the Utah State University Department 

of Biology-Ecology.

Aug. ’87—Vinh N. Lu, a Vietnamese 

refugee employed at the Bozeman 

Lab in the work-study program while 

he studied electrical engineering at 

Montana State University, became 

a citizen of the United States at a 

ceremony in Butte.

Oct. ’87—More than 450 people from 

27 States and two foreign countries 

attended a Missoula symposium 

conceived and organized by Bill Fischer 

and Steve Arno titled “Protecting People 

and Homes from Wildfire in the Interior 

West.”

Nov. ’87—Ralph Nelson (Fire Lab) was 

honored with the Southeastern Station’s 

Research Award for 1987 for work he 

completed there on movement of water 

through wood as it relates to fire. The 

award went to one individual each year 

judged by peers to be doing particularly 

high-quality scientific research.

Gene Farmer (Logan) transferred to the 

Region 4 Minerals Area Management 

Staff where he was to assist personnel in 

four Forest Service Regions with special 

problems in mined-land reclamation.

Dec. ’87—At a Station family meeting 

in Ogden, Deputy Chief for Research 

John Ohman said, “We aren’t being 

encouraged to consolidate offices as 

A sprinkler system slightly larger than 

the one in many backyards was used by 

Station scientists to simulate rainfall as 

part of studies to accurately describe 

erosion processes on forest roads.

French scientist Jean Levieux (right) 

inspected a pheromone attraction 

trap for mountain pine beetles with 

Entomologist Dick Schmitz during a 

technology exchange visit in 1987.
–233

we were a few years ago. We will still 

look for possibilities that promise real 

savings, but in most cases reducing the 

number of units isn’t worth the political 

battle of trying to get it done.”

Feb. ’88—Project Leaders Wyman 

Schmidt (Bozeman) and Gene Amman 

(Ogden) gave a seminar at Forest 

Service national headquarters titled 

“Silvicultural Prevention of Insect 

Outbreaks;” the topic was one of 10 

selected from 120 nominations by field 

units.

Apr. ’88—Researchers at the Shrub Lab 

in Provo donated 1,000 surplus plant 

specimens to the Ogden Nature Center 

and local Boy Scouts took on the job of 

planting them throughout the center’s 

127-acre grounds.

June ’88—Ray Brown, Jeanne 

Chambers and retiree Bland Richardson 

(Logan) were part of a team cited 

by Region 4 for developing the 

Intermountain Region Reclamation 

Field Guide, a booklet “that will be 

of continuing benefit in the review of 

reclamation plans.”

Aug. ’88—Argentinean sheep ranch 

manager Alejandro Paz Braun, who read 

about Shrub Lab work on improved 

plants in Rangelands magazine, spent a 

week with Provo scientists supported by 

an Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship, 

a program that worked to forge 

international linkages through people.

Under a new experimental program, 

Station employees could contribute 

vacation days to coworkers with medical 

or family emergencies who lacked leave 

time to deal with the problems.

Sept. ’88—Technical Information 

Officer Carol Ayer said that, although 

much work needed to be done, the FS 

INFO bibliographic database could 

now be accessed directly by employees 

through Data General.

Project Leader Bob Lucas (Missoula 

FSL) presented nine pages of 

testimony before the Congressional 

Subcommittee on National Parks and 

Public Lands, which was conducting 

hearings on National Forest Wilderness 

management.

A vacationer wrote to Forest Survey 

expressing thanks for actions by crew 

member Mark Konop when their family 

vehicle ran out of gas, stranding them 

10 miles east of Billings, Montana. 

Konop refused compensation after, on 

his own time, obtaining a can of gas and 

following the family into Billings to be 

sure they were all right.

Project Leader Jim Brown (Fire Lab) 

discussed how fire ecology and fire 

control affect forests on a Public 

Broadcasting System television 

program, Forest Health: the State of the 

Nation’s Forests.

Research Engineer Rod Prellwitz 

(Missoula FSL) was selected as the first 

Forest Service representative to serve on 

the steering committee for the Northwest 

Geotechnical Workshop, an annual 

event sponsored by the Federal Highway 

Administration to update geologists 

and engineers on new road-building 

techniques.

Oct. ’88—Employees at the Bozeman 

Lab and 75 guests celebrated the 25th

anniversary of the Lab with an open 

house, tree planting ceremony, and 

banquet speeches.

John Destito, Group Leader in Region 

4 Personnel Management, was 

named Assistant Station Director for 

Administration, replacing Bev Holmes 

who moved to national headquarters 

as Forest Service Consent Decree 

Coordinator.

Nov. ’88—Project Leader Warren Clary 

(Boise) started work with a Sawtooth 

National Forest staff officer to develop 

“best management practices” for grazing 

in riparian areas in Region 4.

Dec. ’88—Deputy Director Carter Gibbs 

was designated to coordinate Forest 

Service research activities in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area in cooperation with 

the National Park Service, a program 

given impetus by the severe wildfires in 

the area throughout the summer.

Jan. ’89—An open house celebrating 

the 25th anniversary of the Moscow Lab 

featured four major accomplishments: 

(1) Development of blister-rust resistant 

western white pine; (2) creation of 

the Prognosis Stand Development 

Model; (3) contributions to improved 

knowledge of pathology and silviculure 

for many Northern Rocky Mountain 

tree species; and (4) finding new 

methods for controlling the Douglas-fir 

beetle.

Feb. ’89—Project Leaders Jim Brown 

and Dick Rothermel (Fire Lab) fielded 

questions at a press conference in San 

Francisco before presenting papers 

at a symposium on “Fires and Fire 

Management in Yellowstone National 

Park.”

Mar. ’89—Technical Information Officer 

Carol Ayer said all Intermountain and 

Northern Rocky Mountain Station serial 

publications were being added to the FS 

INFO database; the next step would be 

adding all journal and other publications 

by Station scientists.

Hydrologist Jack King (Boise) and Rhey 

Solomon, Washington Office Water 

Resources Program Manager, became 

known as “King Solomon” after helping 

select conservation and rehabilitation 

measures for slopes above Tiberias on 

the shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel 

in a program sponsored by the United 

Jewish Fund.

May ’89—A Station proposal for 

monitoring recovery processes after 

natural areas are disturbed was one of 

only 16 selected by the Forest Service 

for funding under the new Research 

Challenge Cost Share Program. The 

Nature Conservancy matched the 

Federal funds.

Alejandro Paz Braun (left) and Durant 

McArthur examined vegetation on a 

field trip near Logan. Braun took home 

10 improved plants for a revegetation 

trial at his sheep ranch in Patagonia, 

Argentina.
234–

June ’89—Approval of two new 

Research Natural Areas in the Kaniksu 

National Forest of northern Idaho 

brought to 69 the number of RNAs 

designated following Station proposals. 

The Forest Service had 201 RNAs 

nationally; the Station was by far the 

leader in numbers.

July ’89—Soil Scientist Jim Clayton 

(Boise) raised $450 for the American 

Cancer Society, more than enough to 

get him out of a cell during a fund raiser 

known as “Jail and Bail.”

Aug. ’89—Ecologist Steve Arno (Fire 

Lab) and Steve Barrett, a cooperator, 

received a $37,000 grant to develop a 

detailed fire history of the upper Lamar 

River drainage in Yellowstone National 

Park.

Sept. ’89—Station scientists Walt 

Megahan and Bob Steele (Boise) and 

Jim Brown (Fire Lab) were on a team 

planning a $1 million rehabilitation 

project following large fires over the 

summer in the Boise National Forest.

Nov. ’89—Station researchers hosted 

field tours at Priest River, Coram, and 

Deception Creek Experimental Forests 

in Idaho and Montana following the 

Society of American Foresters national 

meeting in Spokane.

Professor Fan Weicheng visited the Fire 

Lab and said he planned to use it as a 

model for establishment of a National 

Fire Science Laboratory in the People’s 

Republic of China.

A large group of employees, retirees, 

and special guests marked the 25th

anniversary of the Logan Lab with a 

rededication ceremony featuring Paul 

Packer and Norb DeByle describing 

research activities over the years and 

recalling the cast of characters who 

participated.

Jan. ’90—Con Schallau, former Station 

Deputy Director, left the Forest Service 

to join the American Forest Resources 

Alliance as chief economist.

Botanist Steve Monsen (Provo) was 

named Range Manager of the Year 

at a joint meeting of the Utah and 

Idaho chapters of the Society for 

Range Management for “his unusual 

commitment to helping range managers 

put scientific knowledge to practical 

use.”

Mar. ’90—A crew of five “heavy 

haulers” from Forest Survey supervised 

by foreman Bill McLain salvaged 

thousands of dollars worth of 

publications after a broken pipe flooded 

basement storage areas in the Ogden 

Federal Building with 3 feet of water. 

Despite the good work, publication 

losses amounted to $15,000.

June ’90 —Station scientists Anne 

Bradley and Bob Campbell provided 

technical assistance to a group that 

produced a poster illustrating the 

role of fire in nature and a book of 

education activities for teachers to use in 

instructing junior high school students.

July ’90—Technical Information 

Officer Carol Ayer and the staff of 

FS INFO (Ogden) received an award 

from Director Lassen for “maintaining 

and expanding the unit’s position as 

the number one provider of technical 

information among the 10 centers in the 

Forest Service.”

Aug. ’90—The Boise Interagency Fire 

Center offered two new publications 

by Fire Lab scientists for sale: The 

Fireline Blaster’s Guidebook, by Dick 

Barney and cooperator Bud Clarke, 

and the Weather Station Handbook—an 

Interagency Guide for Wildland

Managers, by Arnold Finklin and Bill 

Fischer.

Nov. ’90—Computer Systems Analyst 

Wally Deschene (Missoula) received a 

national award for converting complex 

mathematical software to the Data 

General system and training more than 

300 Forest Service employees in its use.

Dec. ’90—Research Forester Bob 

Monserud (Moscow) returned from 

Austria after completing an assignment 

with the Biosphere Dynamics Team, an 

international group creating a computer 

model to show what would happen to 

the earth’s vegetation if the amount 

of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 

doubled.

Mar. ’91—Project Leader Roy Sidle 

(Logan) was named Associate Editor of 

the Journal of Environmental Quality

shortly before leaving for a 9-month 

assignment to work on a hydrological 

research project with Japanese scientists.

The Society for Range Management 

gave Botanist Steve Monsen (Provo) its 

Outstanding Achievement Award at the 

annual convention in Washington, DC, 

for “developing and promoting sound 

range management practices.”

May ’91—John Daigle, outdoor 

recreation planner in the wilderness 

research unit (Missoula), coordinated 

the Station’s first Native American 

Education Program, a cooperative 

venture with Salish Kootenai College, 

Region 1, and the University of 

Montana.

Sept. ’91—Dean Knighton, Watershed 

Research Group Leader with the 

national Forest Environment Research 

Staff, was named an Assistant Station 

Director for Research.

The Society of American Foresters at 

its annual convention in San Francisco 

gave Wildlife Biologist Bret Tobalske 

(Bozeman) its top award for his poster 

presentation on bird populations in 

logged and unlogged forest areas.

Station employees donated more 

than 350 hours of their vacation time 

(one donated 70) to Virginia Veals of 

Research Information, who missed 

nearly 4 months of work because of 

serious illness.

Electronics Engineer Ron Babbitt explained to students how the Fire Lab’s 

combustion chamber is used to study 

fire chemistry during part of the Native 

American Education Program in 1991.
–235

Oct. ’91—Crews finished an addition to 

the Moscow Lab that expanded office 

space by 50 percent, allowing scientists 

and engineers who had been housed in 

surplus Job Corps trailers for 20 years 

to join the rest of the staff in modern 

facilities.

Nov. ’91—Natural Areas Program 

Manager Angela Evenden (Missoula), 

whose position was jointly funded by 

the Station and Region 1, was elected 

to the Board of Directors of the Natural 

Areas Association.

Dec. ’91—The Station and the Navajo 

Nation signed a cooperative agreement 

that resulted in 12 forestry aids and 

technicians from the Navajo Reservation 

being employed by Forest Survey during 

the 1992 field season.

Jan. ’92—Project Leader Al Stage 

(Moscow) was a co-recipient of the 

1991 Award for Research Excellence 

from the national Forest Insect and 

Disease Research staff for his role in 

producing a model of behavior, effects, 

and impacts of root diseases in western 

coniferous forests.

Feb. ’92—Station Headquarters 

personnel celebrated Native American 

Awareness Week with speeches and 

music, concluding the program by 

watching traditional Indian dancing, and 

then joining in for a friendship dance.

April ’92—The Station donated a 

dozen historic weather measurement 

instruments to the National Forest 

Service Museum. Ed Heilman, 

secretary-treasurer of the museum, said 

it was “the first significant donation 

from the research side of the Forest 

Service.”

May ’92—Ray Brown (Logan) was 

named Project Leader of the disturbed 

land rehabilitation unit, and was given 

a “Numbskull” award for accepting the 

job.

June ’92—Led by Ava Antonich, 

Budget and Research Agreements, 

Ogden employees conducted a weekend 

“Take Pride in America” project, 

removing debris from the Ogden River 

and its banks.

Angela Evenden, manager of the most 

successful Research Natural Area designation program in the Forest Service, 

studied flora in the Aquarius RNA in 

the Clearwater National Forest in 1991.

Technicians Kevin Yazzie and Rosita 

Denetso worked for Forest Survey in 

1991 under a cooperative agreement 

between the Navajo Nation and the 

Station designed to add diversity to the 

Station’s workforce and help Navajo 

youth gain experience and education in 

natural resource fields.

Leading the Parade

Forest Survey Program Manager Dwane Van Hooser and his wife Susie received a 

“Points of Light” award from USDA in 1992 for their 10 years of community service as 

parade masters for Ogden’s Pioneer Days Parade. The parade was the focal point for 

the city’s biggest annual civic celebration. The 

1991 parade included 170 entries (INTercom

May 1992).

An editorial in the Ogden Standard-Examiner

said, “When there was a slight faltering in the 

sponsorship of the parade...it was Van Hooser 

who stood tall and agreed to be the chairman. 

Far too often, we fail to laud those who are 

responsible for successes that have enormous 

community benefit and are only possible 

because of the dedication of individuals to 

civic duty.”

Dwane and Susie worked with a cadre of 

other volunteers from Elks Lodge No. 719 

to make the parade happen. As Pioneer Day 

approached each year, the team worked 

lengthy shifts to prepare for the event. Several 

Forest Survey people played key roles in the 

parade’s success over the years. Al Green 

wrote the script and served on the committee 

for 7 years. Deloris Holly was committee secretary for 2 years, and then the job was 

taken over by Karen Charlton.

Van Hooser went on to serve on the central committee for 4 years, including terms 

as vice-chairman in 1993 and chairman (1993-94). He then was appointed by the 

Governor of Utah to serve on the Statewide Sesquicentennial Celebration Coordinating 

Committee.

Dwane Van Hooser led the way for 

years in Ogden’s biggest civic celebration to earn a “Points of Light” 

award, a community service honor 

instituted by President George H. 

W. Bush.
236–

July ’92—Ogden employees celebrated 

Asian/Pacific American week with a 

“luau and learn” lunch in the park and 

several other activities.

Aug. ’92—Norman Maclean’s novel, 

Young Men and Fire, much of which 

was based on information from Fire Lab 

scientists Dick Rothermel, Frank Albini, 

and Bob Burgan, made the best seller 

list of the New York Times.

Oct. ’92—More than 40 Station people 

participated in a “Research Rendevous” 

at Priest River, an event designed to 

provide intensive orientation to research 

and administrative activities for new 

employees.

Nov. ’92—A special issue of INTercom 

highlighted research accomplishments 

for the year in a 16-page edition with 

sections titled Ecosystem Management, 

Global Climate Change, Forest Health, 

Wilderness Management, Fisheries, 

Wildlife, Watershed Management, 

Fire Management, Forest Products and 

Harvesting, and Forest Inventory.

Dec. ’92—Project Leader Jack King 

(Boise) participated in a national 

watershed teleconference sponsored by 

the University of Maine, and broadcast 

simultaneously from Orono and 

Corvallis, Orgeon.

The INTercom editor noted that Station 

full-time employees included 110 

women (42 percent of the workforce). 

Thirteen were research scientists and 17 

were in other professional positions.

Apr. ’93—On a tour financed by the 

World Bank, five Chinese fire control 

managers visited the Fire Lab to review 

the research program.

May ’93—Research Forester Russ 

Graham (Moscow) shared a national 

award for his contributions to a report 

titled “Management Recommendations 

for the Northern Goshawk in the 

Southwestern United States,” which 

was published by the Rocky Mountain 

Station.

June ’93—Research Foresters Bob 

Burgan and Roberta Hartford (Fire 

Lab) produced a Station publication 

with a self-study computer disk to show 

resource managers how to monitor the 

condition of vegetation using space 

satellite imagery.

July ’93—The Station, American 

Forests magazine, University of Idaho, 

Boise Cascade Corporation, the Society 

of American Foresters, and the Boise 

National Forest sponsored a Forest 

Health Symposium in Boise to review 

information relevant to forest health and 

ecological issues.

Dec. ’93—The Forest Service Women’s 

Association (Ogden), which included 

Station and Region 4 personnel, raised 

$5,000 for Primary Children’s Hospital 

with a “Christmas fantasy” creation at a 

Festival of Trees event held in Salt Lake 

City.

Ogden personnel (seated, left to 

right) Dave Kimbrough, Operations 

Group Leader; Eddie Morris, Human 

Resources Combined Services Unit; 

and Bert Lindler, Research Information, 

compared notes during the 1992 new 

employee orientation at Priest River 

as Project Leader Al Stage looked 

on. Stage was superintendent of the 

experimental forest, 1954-56, in his first 

full-time assignment at the Station.

A Tree with a Different Twist

Forestry Technician Pat Wells wanted “to 

see if I could learn something.” He did, and 

the result was a patent awarded in 1993 for 

a new genetic variation of Douglas-fir, the 

‘Torquis’ variety. The tree looked nothing 

like the stately Douglas-firs that grace 

many acres of western forests. It was a low, 

twisted ornamental with a personality all its 

own.

Wells spotted the “mother tree” for his new 

variety in a test planting while pursuing 

his regular duties with the Moscowbased silviculture and genetics research 

unit. He invested a lot of personal time 

in developing the variety, but the patent 

acknowledging Wells as the inventor of the 

ornamental belonged to the public. That 

was just fine with Wells. He said, “I didn’t 

do it to make a million.” The only reward 

Wells said he wanted was to see the value 

of the tree recognized, and for commercial 

producers to be licensed to produce the 

ornamental for people to enjoy. Pat Wells usually worked with 

trees that grow straight and tall, 

but the Patent and Trademark 

Office recognized him for “inventing” a twisted dwarf Douglas-fir 

variety. Here he inspected a 

‘Torquis’ Douglas-fir growing 

at the Priest River Experimental 

Forest nursery.
–237

Jan. ’94—With security provided by 

the Venezuelan National Guard, Project 

Leader Ray Brown (Logan) led a team 

of scientists that recommended ways to 

restore lands devastated by unregulated 

mining.

May ’94—Twenty Station employees 

accepted a “Voluntary Separation 

Incentive” and retired, part of a large 

contingent that made 1994 one of 

the years of greatest change in Forest 

Service history.

Aug. ’94—With the retirement of 

Project Leaders Bob Steele (conifer 

ecology and regeneration) and Jack 

McIntyre (aquatic ecology), Warren 

Clary was appointed acting Project 

Leader for all four research units 

at Boise, which included studies of 

fisheries, riparian areas, watersheds, and 

forest ecology.

Sept. ’94—Resource managers called for 

help throughout the summer when more 

than 60,000 wildfires burned nationwide 

and many Station employees responded 

by volunteering for special assignments 

ranging from administrative jobs to 

smoke monitoring and rehabilitation 

planning.

The Station and Utah State University’s 

College of Natural Resources 

established a new Center on Disturbance 

Ecology to coordinate activities between 

Logan Lab scientists and counterparts at 

the university.

May ’95—The Forest Service adopted 

the Timber Sale Planning and Analysis 

System developed by the Station’s 

economics research unit in Missoula for 

use nationally in economic analyses of 

timber sales.

June ’95—Research Forester Melinda 

Moeur was named Project Leader of the 

Quantitative Analysis research unit at 

Moscow, replacing Al Stage who retired 

after 44 years of Federal service.

In cooperation with Regions 1 and 4, 

the Station sponsored camps for youth 

designed to encourage careers in math 

and science; the camps were located on 

the Flathead Indian Reservation and in 

the Fishlake National Forest.

Sept. ’95—Almost the entire staff 

of the Shrub Lab helped host the 5th 

International Rangeland Congress held 

at Salt Lake City in which more than 

600 scientists and range managers from 

70 countries participated.

Nov. ’95—After learning of needs at 

Soviet hospitals while working there 

to build an international vegetation 

model, Mensurationist Bob Monserud 

(Moscow) and his wife, Leslie 

Morehead, arranged to ship 14 tons of 

medical supplies from the U.S. to the 

Soviet Union.

Mar. ’96—The Rocky Mountain and 

Intermountain Stations held a joint 

leadership team meeting in Fort Collins.

May ’96—Jim Haskell, a former Region 

4-Intermountain Station Director 

of Information Systems was named 

Assistant Director for Administration of 

the Rocky Mountain Station.

Assistant Director Dean Knighton 

traveled to Washington, DC, with 

Acting Station Director Denver Burns 

for a series of visits with Congressional 

representatives.

June ’96—Forest Service Chief Jack 

Ward Thomas said at a joint meeting 

with Station and Region 4 employees 

in Ogden that a Congressman told him, 

“We demand predictable outputs.” 

Thomas replied, “The Forest Service 

could do that if the weather remained 

stable, there were no insect and disease 

problems, budgets were stable, models 

work, no appeals, no lawsuits, no new 

species listed, and no elections.”

July ’96—Acting Station Director 

Denver Burns predicted the 

Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations would be consolidated by Sept. 

30, “in keeping with my record of only 

being wrong once a year on this topic.”

Melinda Moeur, a member of the 

Quantitative Analysis unit at Moscow 

for 15 years, became Project Leader in 

1995.

Station Scientist Bob Monserud (in hat), helped unload medical supplies at a 

hospital in the Soviet Union. Monserud learned of the scarcity of supplies from 

Bioclimatologist Nadja Tchebakova (gesturing, far right).
238–

Sept. ’96—The Intermountain and 

Rocky Mountain Stations issued 1995 

research highlights as a combined 

publication.

Oct. ’96—The Station began receiving 

comments on services, publications, 

and the research program via “customer 

service cards” distributed to all who 

visited or received information through 

the mail.

Jan. ’97—Don Latham was appointed 

Project Leader of the fire behavior unit 

at the Fire Lab, replacing Pat Andrews 

who decided to devote full time to her 

personal research.

Mar. ’97—The President’s budget for 

fiscal year 1998 contained a $102,000 

reduction for the Station.

“Director’s Notes” said that since 

October 1992, the number of research 

employees in the Forest Service had 

dropped from 2,628 to 1,989.

Apr. ’97—Ecologist Jeanne Chambers 

(Reno) provided testimony to the 

Nevada State Engineer regarding stream 

flow levels necessary to sustain essential 

streamside vegetation in Monitor Valley 

in the Toiyabe National Forest.

May ’97—The Intermountain Research 

Station-Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station merger was 

formally announced on May 7. The new 

organization would be known as the 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, with 

headquarters in Fort Collins, Colorado.
–239

Interviews were not recorded. In most cases, text based on interviews was sent to the person who provided the 

information for review and correction before it was finalized.

Conducted by Larry Lassen:

Bingham, Richard T., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Boyd, Raymond J., retired Intermountain Station scientist, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Carpenter, Cal, retired Superintendent, Priest River Experimental Forest, Intermountain Station, Moscow, ID 1993.

Clary, Warren P., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Boise, ID, 1993.

George, Charles W., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Missoula, MT, 1993.

Graham, Russell T., Research Forester, Rocky Mountain Station, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Harvey, Alan E., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Hoff, Raymond J., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Pechanec, Joseph F. retired Intermountain Station Director, Boise, ID, 1993.

Stage, Albert R., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Wellner, Charles A., retired Intermountain Station Assistant Director, Moscow, ID, 1993.

Conducted by Dick Klade:

Bay, Roger R., retired Intermountain Station Director, Bozeman, MT, 2004.

Born, J. David, retired Research Forester, Forest Survey, Intermountain Station, Ogden, UT, 2005.

Cook, Wayne, Technology Transfer Specialist, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT, 2005.

Evans, Keith E. retired Intermountain Station Assistant Director, 2005.

Ferguson, Bryan, Regional Silviculturist, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT, 2005.

Ferguson, Robert, retired Intermountain Station Range Scientist, Boise, ID, 2005.

Jensen, Chester E., retired Intermountain Station Statistician, Ogden, UT, 2005.

Kingsbury, D. Louise, retired Group Leader, Publishing Services, Rocky Mountain Station, Ogden, UT, 2004

Lassen, Laurence E., retired Intermountain Station Director, Ogden, UT, 2004 and 2005.

Meeuwig, Richard O., retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Reno, NV, 2005.

Mueggler, Walter F., retired Intermountain Station Plant Ecologist, Logan, UT, 2005.

Parry, Ross, retired Computer Specialist, Intermountain Station and Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT, 2004.

Peterson, Curt, Director of Civil Rights, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT, 2004.

Prevedel, David. Information Systems Specialist, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT, 2005.

Stage, Al, retired Intermountain Station Project Leader, Moscow, ID, 2005.

Tippets, David, Public Affairs Specialist, Rocky Mountain Station, Ogden, UT, 2004 and 2005.

Van Hooser, Dwane D., retired Program Manager, Forest Survey, Intermountain Station, Ogden, UT, 2004.

Waters, Shirley, Computer Programmer, Forest Inventory and Analysis, Rocky Mountain Station, Ogden, UT, 2004.

Conducted by Dave Tippets:

Evanko, Tony, retired Intermountain Station Range Scientist, 2005.

Lindsey, Virgil, retired Ennis District Ranger, 2005.

Ryan, Mike, Archeologist, Beaverhead National Forest, 2005.

Thomas, Jack Ward, retired Chief, U.S. Forest Service, 2005.

Interviews
240–

Full citations for all Station publications mentioned in the text can be 

easily found through links at the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station web page 

(www.fs.fed.us/rm). The page also 

provides links to research unit information. Most of the units include lists of 

additional publications by scientists who 

worked in the area of interest. For brevity, this reference list is largely limited 

to entries showing the sources of statements included in the text of this history 

and publications that contain additional 

background information for those who 

want to more fully explore the history of 

a particular topic.

Alexander, Thomas G. 1987. The rise 

of multiple-use management in the 

Intermountain West: a history of 

Region 4 of the Forest Service. FS399, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 

4. 267 p.

Amman, Gene D. 2005. Chuck Wellner 

anecdote. [unpublished] n.d. 1 

leaf. On file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Andrews, Pat; Frandsen, Bill. 1994. 

Rothermel declares his career under 

control. INTercom. Summer:10.

Annual Reports: These reports are filed 

by date in one section of the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station Library, 

Ogden Service Center, Ogden, UT. 

They were issued in various formats 

with different types of authors. Some 

were prepared by early Experiment 

Station Directors, some by District 

Investigative Committees, and the 

later ones with the Northern Rocky 

Mountain and Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Stations as 

corporate authors. For brevity in text 

citations, these abbreviations are 

used: UES, Utah Experiment Station; 

GB, Great Basin Experiment Station; 

PR, Priest River Experiment Station; 

INT, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station; and NRM, 

Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station.

Antrei, Albert. 1971. A western phenomenon. American West. (8)2:47.

Antrei, Albert. 1993. Community 

perspectives on the Great Basin. 

INTercom. September: 7-9.

Arnold, Keith R.; Dickerman, M. B.; 

Buckman, Robert E. 1994. View from 

the top. Durham, NC: Forest History 

Society. 365 p.

Astroth, Kirk A.: Frischknecht, Neil C. 

1984. Managing intermountain rangelands—research on the Benmore 

Experimental Range, 1940-84. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-175. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 44 p.

Bailey, Reed W. 1955. [Letter to Chief, 

Forest Service]. May 25. 6 leaves. 

On file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Barrows, J. S. 1957. Project Skyfire. 

In: Proceedings, Western Forestry 

and Conservation Association, 45th 

Annual Forestry Conference: 62-64.

Barrows, J. S. [and eight others]. 1957. 

Project Skyfire. In: Final Report of 

the advisory committee on weather 

control—volume 2. Unnumbered 

reprint. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station: 105-125.

Barrows, J. S. 1963. Forest fire science. Journal of the Natural History 

Society of Minnesota. 14(4): 18-25.

Baker, Robert D.; Burt, Larry; Maxwell, 

Robert S.; Treat, Victor H.; Dethloff, 

Henry C. 1993. The National Forests 

of the Northern Region, living legacy—FS-500. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 348 p.

Bay, Roger R. 1976. [Letter to Doug 

Crowley, c/o Congressman Gunn 

McKay] July 18. 3 leaves. On file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Benedict, Warren V. 1981. History of 

white pine blister rust control—a personal account. FS-355. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 47 p.

Bigler Cole, Heidi; Quigley, Thomas 

M. 1997. Understanding the big 

picture: the Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project. 

Forestry Research West. July: 2-12.

Bingham, Richard T. 1983. Blister 

rust resistant western white pine for 

the Inland Empire: the story of the 

first 25 years of the research and 

development program. GTR-INT146. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 45 p.

Blaisdell, James P. 1989. I remember...Society for Range Management, 

Utah Section Newsletter, Provo, UT. 

December: 7-9.

Boyd, Raymond J., Jr. 1960. Deception 

Creek Experimental Forest. [unnumbered leaflet]. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 6 p.

Brown, Ray W.; Amacher, Michael 

C.; Mueggler, Walter F.; 

Kotuby-Amacher, Janice. 2003. 

Reestablishing natural succession on 

acidic mine spoils at high elevation: 

long-term ecological restoration. Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-41. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 49 p.

Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara 

H., tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of 

North America. Vol. 1, conifers. Agr. 

Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 675 p.

Chapline, W. R. 1967. Research with the 

Forest Service (1907-1921). Journal 

of Range Management. 20(6):347.

Chohlis, John. 1980. The wide and 

colorful range of Fred Renner. 

Rangelands. 2(2): 47-50.

References
–241

Chojnacky, Cindy. 1994. MPB may 

use “antifreeze” to survive the cold. 

Forestry Research West. November: 

1-4.

Chojnacky, Cindy. 1995. Researchers 

track the bull trout. Forestry Research 

West. August: 12-15.

Clary, Warren P.; Holmgren, Ralph C. 

1982. Desert Experimental Range: 

establishment and research contribution. Rangelands. 4(6): 261-264.

Clayton, James L. 1991. Megahan 

retires from Boise FSL. INTercom. 

March: 4.

Close, Elizabeth. 1988a. A STEM 

supporting small timber utilization. 

Forestry Research West. June: 6-13.

Close, Elizabeth. 1988b. Alarming 

Armillaria: a problem in the Inland 

West. Forestry Research West. 

September: 1-5.

Close, Elizabeth. 1988c. Managing 

to keep wilderness wild. Forestry 

Research West. November: 11-15.

Cole, W. E.; Klade, R. J. 1975. Black 

beetles and green trees. [unnumbered 

publication]. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Colling, Gene. 1977. SEAM—technology takes on surface mining problems. 

Forestry Research West. April: 1-4.

Craddock, George W. 1967. Zena 

Creek logging study evaluation 

report. [abstract]. In: Seyedbagheri, 

Kathleen A.; McHenry, Michael L.; 

Platts, William S. 1987. An annotated 

bibliography of the hydrology and 

fishery studies of the South Fork 

Salmon River. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT235. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. p. 6.

Crafts, Edward C. 1938. [mimeo]. 

Experimental ranges and other range 

research centers of the Forest Service. 

Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southwestern Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 14 p.

Croft, A. Russell. 1981. History 

of development of the Davis 

County Experimental Watershed. 

Unpublished document on file at: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden, UT. 42 p.

DeByle, Norbert V. 1996. Davis 

County Experimental Watershed. 

In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; Friede, 

Judy L. (compilers). Experimental 

forests, ranges, and watersheds in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains: a 

compendium of outdoor laboratories 

in Utah, Idaho, and Montana. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT -334. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station:7-14.

DeByle, Norbert V.; Hookano, Ezra Jr. 

Research related to the Davis County 

Experimental Watershed: an annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

INT-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 16 p.

Destito, John. 1989. Research information: recognition for the publication 

section [recommendation for award]. 

October 10. 1 leaf. On file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden Service Center 

Library, Ogden. UT.

Eggensperger, K. A. 1967. Study tests 

fire as management tool. St. Regis, 

MT: Sanders County Ledger [issue 

not shown].

Ellison, Lincoln. 1954. Subalpine 

vegetation of the Wasatch Plateau. 

Ecological Monographs. 24: 89-184.

Fellin, David G. 1983. Chemical insecticide vs. the western spruce budworm: 

after three decades, what’s the score? 

Western Wildlands. 9(1): 13-19.

Ferguson, Dennis. 1994. Ray Hoff retires. INTercom. January-February: 6.

Ferguson, Dennis. 2004. Moscow 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory. 

Celebrating Natural Resources. 21(1): 

17. [University of Idaho, College of 

Natural Resources].

Fins, Lauren; Byler, James; Ferguson, 

Dennis; Harvey, Al; Mahalovich, 

Mary Frances; McDonald, Geral; 

Miller, Dan; Schwandt, John; Zack, 

Art. 200l. Sta. Bull. 72. Return of 

the giants: restoring white pine 

ecosystems by breeding and aggressive planting of blister rust-resistant 

white pines. Moscow, ID: University 

of Idaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Experiment Station. 20 p.

Fletcher, Rick. 1999a. Monitoring 

riparian meadows using time-lapse 

photography. Forestry Research West. 

April: 1-4.

Fletcher, Rick. 1999b. Historical 

changes in a managed ponderosa 

pine forest. Forestry Research West. 

September: 10-13.

Forest-Range Task Force. 1972. The 

nation’s range resources—a forestrange environmental study. Forest 

Resources Report 19. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 147 p.

Forestry Research West. First issued 

as Forestry Research: What’s New in 

the West, this magazine included feature articles showing authorship and 

anonymous notices of publications 

and new programs. The notices are 

referenced in text by publication date.

Fowler, Frank. 1995. A fall fire in 

Marion Meadows. In: Davies, 

Gilbert W.; Frank, Florice M., eds. 

Memorable forest fires: stories by 

U.S. Forest Service retirees. Hat 

Creek, CA: HiStory ink Books: 

144-154.

Furniss, Malcolm M. 2003. Forest 

entomology in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains: 1909-1917, as reflected 

in the correspondence between 

Josef Brunner and A. D. Hopkins. 

American Entomologist. 49(2): 

102-111.

Furniss, Malcolm M. [in preparation] 

History of forest entomology in the 

Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

areas, 1901-1982. 28 p.

Gisborne, H. T. 1929. A forest fire explosion. The Frontier. 10(1): 13-16.

Glover, James M. 1986. A wilderness 

original: the life of Bob Marshall. 

Seattle: The Mountaineers. 323 p.

Glover, James M.; Glover, Regina B. 

1986. Robert Marshall: portrait of 

a liberal forester. Journal of Forest 

History. 30 (3):112-119.

Graham, Kathleen L. 2004. History of 

the Priest River Experiment Station. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-129. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 71 p.

Graham, Russell T. 2002. Living, 

working, traveling, and playing with 
242–

multiple sclerosis. Unpublished 

paper on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library, Ogden, UT. 

6 p.

Gruell, George E.; Schmidt, Wyman C.; 

Arno, Stephen F.; Reich, William 

J. 1982. Seventy years of vegetal 

change in a managed ponderosa pine 

forest in western Montana—implications for resource management. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-130. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 42 p.

Guth, A. Richard; Cohen, Stan B. 

1991. A pictorial history of the U.S. 

Forest Service, 1891-1945, Northern 

Region. Missoula, MT: Pictorial 

Histories Publishing Co. 230 p.

Hagle, Susan K.; McDonald, Geral I.; 

Norby, Eugene A. 1989. White pine 

blister rust in northern Idaho and 

western Montana: alternatives for 

integrated management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-261. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 35 p.

Hall, Marcus. 2001. Repairing mountains: restoration, ecology, and 

wilderness in twentieth-century 

Utah. Environmental History. 6(4): 

574-601.

Hamre, R. H. 2005. Changing times at 

the Rocky Mountain Forest & Range 

Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-146. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 66 p.

Hardy, Charles E. 1954. Sticks measure 

fire danger. Western Conservation 

Journal. 11(1): 16-17, 28-30.

Hardy, Charles E. 1977. The Gisborne 

era of forest fire research. Completion 

report, Contract No. 12-11-204-

1. Missoula, MT: University of 

Montana, Forest and Conservation 

Experiment Station. 110 p.

Hardy, Charles E. (Mike). 1983. 

The Gisborne era of forest fire research—legacy of a pioneer. FS-367, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 71 p.

Hardy, Charles E. (Mike). 1999. The 

fourteenth victim? Unpublished draft 

text on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library. 5 pages.

Hardy, Charles E.; Brackebusch, 

Arthur P. 1959. The Intermountain 

Fire Danger Rating System. In: 

Proceedings, Society of American 

Foresters. 1959 San Francisco: 

133-137.

Hartzer, Ronald B. 1981. Half a century 

in forest conservation: a biography 

and oral history of Edward P. Cliff. 

Unpublished document prepared for 

the History Section, USDA Forest 

Service, Washington, DC. On file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library. 322 p.

Hild, Ann L.; Shaw, Nancy L. 2004. 

Shrub Research Consortium: distinguished service award honoring E. 

Durant McArthur. In: Hild, Ann L.; 

Shaw, Nancy L; Meyer, Susan E.; 

Booth, D. Terrance; McArthur, E. 

Durant, comps. Proceedings: Seed 

and soil dynamics in shrubland ecosystems; 2002 August 12-16; Laramie 

WY. Proc. RMRS-P-31. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 4-6.

Hindley, C. Earl; Brown, James E.; 

Scherick, Edward R.; Curtis, Paul; 

Forrest, Jimmie. 2000. A photographic history of vegetation and stream 

channel changes in San Juan County, 

Utah. Supported by San Juan County, 

Charles Redd Foundation, and Utah 

State University Extension: 2-3.

Hirsch, Stanley N. 1965. Airborne 

infrared mapping of forest fires. Fire 

Technology. 1(4):288-294.

Holmgren, Ralph C. 1973. The desert 

experimental range: description, 

history, and program. In: Arid 

Rangelands—Proceedings of the 

Third Workshop of the United 

States/Australia Rangelands Panel; 

1973 March 26-April 5; Tucson, AZ: 

18-22.

Holmgren, Ralph. 1984. Root systems 

of important range plants of the Boise 

River watershed. Unpublished document on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Hurst, William Daly. 2000. A life 

recalled: memoirs of William Daly 

Hurst. [publisher not shown]. 832 p.

INTercom. A newsletter published by 

the Intermountain Station. Issues 

are on file in the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station Library, Ogden 

Service Center, Ogden, UT. Text 

citations identify the issue referenced 

by date.

Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Stations. 1995. Interior West research 

highlights ’95. [unnumbered]. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain and Rocky Mountain 

Research Stations. 30 p.

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station Press Release. 

1954. November 26.

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station Press Release. 

1958. February 16.

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 1968. A research 

program for the Idaho Batholith. 

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Aquatic Sciences Laboratory, 

Boise, ID.

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. [undated]. 

Your tour of the Davis County 

Experimental Watershed: an example 

of land abuse, rehabilitation, and 

watershed research.

Intermountain Region. 1959. When 

the pot boiled over: the Boise, 

Idaho Floods, 1959. A story of fire, 

storm, destruction, and cooperation. Ed. Series 7. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region. 11 p.

Intermountain Region. 1991. Forest 

Service—an 83-year Ogden resident. 

Intermountain Reporter [special edition] Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region; June/July: 29.

Jain, Theresa B.; Graham, Russell T. 

1996. Deception Creek Experimental 

Forest. In: Schmidt, Wyman 

C.; Friede, Judy L. (compilers). 

Experimental forests, ranges, and 

watersheds in the Northern Rocky 
–243

Mountains: a compendium of 

outdoor laboratories in Utah, Idaho, 

and Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT 

-334. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 

45-50.

Jensen, Becky. 1993. “Videography” 

used to study fish habitats. INTercom. 

February: 7.

Keck, Wendell M. 1972. Great Basin 

Station—sixty years of progress in 

range and watershed research. Res. 

Pap. INT-118. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 48 p.

King, John G. 1989. Streamflow 

responses to road building and 

harvesting: a comparison with the 

equivalent clearcut area procedure. 

Res. Pap. INT-401. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 13 p.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1981a. Giving 

the land back to nature. Forestry 

Research West. March: 10-12.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1981b. 

Bridger-Teton’s fire and habitat history: a photographic study. Forestry 

Research West. June: 7-9.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1984. New beginning for the western white pine. 

American Forests. 90(12): 30-61.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1991a. Prophet 

and pioneer fire scientist Harry T. 

Gisborne. INTercom. June :2-3.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1991b. Arthur W. 

Sampson: father of range management. INTercom. December: 6-7.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1992. Participants 

from around the globe gather in 

Whitefish for larch symposium. 

INTercom. December: 1-3.

Kingsbury, Louise. 1997. Building a 

future from the past: Great Basin 

Environmental Education Center. 

Utah Preservation. Vol. 1: 60-65.

Klade, Dick. 1975. Surface mining 

poses problems. Forestry Research 

West: 10-11.

Klade, Dick. 1991. Onishuk trades 

pencil for fishing pole. INTercom. 

November: 8.

Koch, Elers. 1998. Forty years a forester: 1903-1943. Missoula, MT: 

Mountain Press. 206 p.

Koch, Peter. 1996. Lodgepole pine in 

North America. Madison, WI: Forest 

Products Society. 3 vols. 1,096 p.

Krueger, Myron E.; Biswell, Harold 

H.; Heady, Harold F. 1968. Arthur 

William Sampson, Forestry; 

Berkeley CA. [Online}. Available: 

http://dynaweb.oac.cdlib.org:8088/

dynaweb/uchist/public/inmemoriam/

inmemoriam1968/@Generic_Book 

Review. [October 2004].

Lassen, Laurence E. 1985. [Letter to Ed 

Zern, Chevron Conservation Awards]. 

December 13. 2 leaves. On file at: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Latham, Penelope A.: Shearer, Raymond 

C.: O’Hara, Kevin L. 1998. Miller 

Creek Demonstration Forest: a forest born of fire. A field guide. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-7. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 68 p.

Laycock, William A. 1990. History of 

range management research at the 

U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, 

Dubois, Idaho. [unpublished document]. On file at: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Leonard, George M. 1993. [6140/1690 

letter to Acting Station Director, 

INT]. October 27. 1 leaf. On file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden, UT.

London, Bill. 2005. Late ‘Forest Service 

legend’ gains agency recognition. 

Lewiston Tribune. July 14.

Lotan, James E. 1979. Integrating fire 

management into land-use planning: 

a multiple-use management research, 

development, and applications program. Environmental Management. 

3(1):7-14.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1971. A cooperative 

research program: effects of logging 

on elk in Montana. [unpublished 

report]. 12 leaves. On file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden Service Center 

Library, Ogden, UT.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1987. HIDE2: evaluation 

of elk hiding cover using a personal 

computer. Res. Note INT-365. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 2 p.

Maunder, Elwood R. 1978. Early Forest 

Service research administrators: 

interviews with Verne Lester Harper, 

George M. Jemison, Clarence L. 

Forsling. Santa Cruz, CA: Forest 

History Society. 367 p.

Maclean, Norman. 1992. Young men 

and fire. Chicago: The University of 

Chicago Press. 301 p.

McArthur, E. Durant. 1991. One 

of Perry’s boys remembers Mr. 

Plummer. INTercom. December: 1-4.

McArthur, E. Durant. 1992. In memoriam—A. Perry Plummer (1911-1991): 

teacher, naturalist, range scientist. 

Great Basin Naturalist. 52: 1-10.

McArthur, E. Durant. 2001. The Shrub 

Sciences Laboratory at 25 years: 

retrospective and prospective. In: 

McArthur, E. Durant; Fairbanks, 

Daniel J., comps. Proceedings: 

Shrubland ecosystem genetics and 

biodiversity: proceedings; 2000 June 

13-15; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-21. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 3-41.

McArthur, E. Durant. 2005. History of 

the Great Basin Station. In: Prevedel, 

David A.; McArthur, E. Durant; 

Johnson, Curtis M. Beginnings of 

range management: an anthology 

of the Sampson-Ellison photo plots 

(1913-2003) and a short history of 

the Great Basin Experiment Station. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-154. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. p. 50-59.

McCaughey, Ward M. 1996. Tenderfoot 

Creek Experimental Forest. In: 

Schmidt, Wyman C.; Friede, Judy 

L. (compilers). Experimental 

forests, ranges, and watersheds in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains: a 

compendium of outdoor laboratories 

in Utah, Idaho, and Montana. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT -334. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station: 101-108.
244–

McMurray, Sue. 2004. The U.S. 

Forest Service: a legacy of 

partnership. Celebrating Natural 

Resources.[University of Idaho, 

College of Natural Resources] 21(1): 

8-9.

Miracle, Len. 1985. A long look at P-J 

woodlands. Forestry Research West. 

January: 5-7.

Mitchell, John E.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; 

Patton-Mallory, Marcia. 2005. 

Back to the future: Forest Sevice 

rangeland research and management. 

Rangelands. 27(3): 19-28.

Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; 

Shaw, Nancy L., comps. 2004. 

Restoring western ranges and 

wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-136. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 3 volumes. 904 p.

Morrison, John. 1968. Infrared spotting 

of fires studied for region’s forests. 

The Associated Press [article filed 

from Missoula].

Mutch, Robert W. 1974. “I thought 

forest fires were black!” Western 

Wildlands. 1(3): 16-22.

Nichols, George L. 1956. Our building: a record of events and facts of 

interest. Unpublished report on file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain 

Region, Ogden, UT. 67 p.

Noble, Delpha. 1976. Wilderness—a 

research challenge. Forestry Research 

West. April: 11-13.

Noble, Delpha. 1977. Classifying 

Montana’s forests. Forestry Research 

West. October: 5-8.

Noble, Delpha 1978a. Genes and 

greener forests. Forestry Research 

West. January: 5-8.

Noble, Delpha. 1978b. An updated 

National Fire Danger Rating System. 

Forestry Research West. April. 1-3.

Noble, Delpha. 1978c. Fire RD&A 

program: research-land management link. Forestry Research West. 

October: 5-7.

Noble, Delpha. 1978d. The Shrub 

Sciences Laboratory—one of a kind. 

Forestry Research West. July:15-17.

Noble, Delpha. 1980. Silver 

Creek—field laboratory in the Idaho 

Batholith. Forestry Research West. 

November: 4-7.

Noble, Delpha. 1982. Prognosis: fortune-teller for forest stands. Forestry 

Research West. June: 1-3.

Noble, Delpha. 1983. The liquidator of 

lodgepole pine. Forestry Research 

West. September: 12-15.

Noble, Delpha. 1984. Predicting wildland fire behavior. Forestry Research 

West. August: 6-10.

Noble, Delpha. 1988. Honing fire to 

a precision tool. Forestry Research 

West. August. 12-15.

Noble, Delpha. 1993. Estimating road 

construction costs quickly and accurately. Forestry Research West. 

March: 9-10.

Norman, Liane Ellison. 2005. Lincoln 

Ellison: Director, Great Basin Branch 

Experiment Station, 1938-1945. 

Pittsburgh, PA: Smoke and Mirrors 

Press. 40 p.

Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 1946. 

News Release. August 7.

Otis, Alison T.; Honey, William D.; 

Hogg, Thomas C.; Lakin, Kimberly 

K. 1986. The Forest Service and the 

Civilian Conservation Corps: 1933-

42. FS 395. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 219 p.

Parker, Kenneth W. 1967. Arthur W. 

Sampson—pioneer range scientist. 

Journal of Range Management. 

20(6):346-347.

Pechanec, Joseph F. [n.d.] My first 

half decade in range research. 

Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden Service Center 

Library. 3 p.

Pechanec, Joseph F. 1967. [Letter with 

draft report to Chief, Forest Service]. 

May 5. 16 leaves. On file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden Service Center 

Library. Ogden, UT.

Pechanec, Joseph F. 1988. [Letter to 

Charles R. Hatch, University of 

Idaho] December 5. 3 leaves. On file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Personal communications consisted of 

letters, e-mails, and review comments 

on individual manuscript segments 

received by the author. All are on file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Ogden Service 

Center Library, Ogden. UT.

Pfister, Robert D. 1976. Land capability assessment by habitat types. 

In: Society of American Foresters. 

Proceedings: America’s renewable 

resource potential—1975: the turning point; 1975 national convention: 

312-325.

Piasecki Corporation. 2005. Homepage 

of the Piasecki Corporation. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.piasecki.com/

pa-97/htm [2005, January 4].

Pisani, Donald J. 1992. Forests and 

reclamation, 1891-1911. In: Steen, 

Harold K., ed. Origins of the National 

Forests: a centennial symposium. 

Durham, NC: Forest History Society: 

237-258.

Pledger, Harry W. 1980. Some history 

about Farmington Canyon forty-five 

years ago. Unpublished document 

on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library, Ogden, UT. 

4 p.

Plummer, A. P.; Christensen, D. R.; 

Monsen, S. B. 1968. Restoring big 

game ranges in Utah. Publ. 68-3. Salt 

Lake City: Utah Division of Fish and 

Game, 183 p.

Prevedel, David A.; Johnson, Curtis M. 

2005. Beginnings of range management: Albert F. Potter, first chief of 

grazing, U.S. Forest Service, and 

a photographic comparison of his 

1902 forest reserve survey in Utah 

with conditions 100 years later. 

R4-VM 2005-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region. 94 p.

Prevedel, David A.; McArthur, E. 

Durant; Johnson, Curtis M. 2005. 

Beginnings of range management: 

an anthology of the SampsonEllison photo plots (1913-2003) and 

a short history of the Great Basin 

Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-154. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 60 p.
–245

Price, Raymond. 1976. History of Forest 

Service research in the central and 

southern Rocky Mountain regions 

1908-1975. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-27. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 100 p.

Prouty, Mike. 1985. How much retardant is enough? Forestry Research 

West. April: 1-4.

Prouty, Mike. 1986. Quantifying 

conventional wisdom—forest road 

research. Forestry Research West. 

June: 10-14.

Prouty, Mike. 1987a. Prognosis revisited. Forestry Research West. August: 

5-9.

Prouty, Mike. 1987b. Silviculture research in forests of the Inland West. 

Forestry Research West. December: 

1-5.

Prouty, Mike. 1987c. A new program for 

riparian research. Forestry Research 

West. April: 7-10.

Quantitative Analysis Unit. 1995. 

Quantitative analysis team pays 

tribute to Al Stage. INTercom. July/

August: 2-3.

Renner, F. G. 1936. Conditions 

influencing erosion on the Boise 

River watershed. Tech. Bull. 528. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 31 p.

Reynolds, Frances. 1989a. Yellowstone: 

fire prediction’s greatest test. Forestry 

Research West. June: 10-14.

Reynolds, Frances. 1989b. Turning the 

tide of spruce budworm infestation. 

Forestry Research West. October: 

5-8.

Reynolds, Frances. 1990. The challenge 

of restoring native ranges. Forestry 

Research West. April: 8-11.

Reynolds, Frances. 1992. Bears 

and bugs: all in a day’s work for 

Forest Service couple. INTercom. 

December: 5.

Rocky Mountain Research Station 

(1999, February 24). Homepage of 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.rmrs.com [2004, 

September 22].

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

2005. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station 2004 research accomplishments. Unnumbered publication. 

97 p.

Roth, Dennis. 1984. The national forests 

and the campaign for wilderness 

legislation. Journal of Forest History. 

28(3): 112.

Rothermel, Richard C. 1993. Mann 

Gulch Fire: a race that couldn’t be 

won. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-299. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.

Rowley, William D. 1985. The launching of wildlands research in the Great 

Basin. In: Proceedings, Society for 

Range Management Annual Meeting; 

1985 February 10-14; Salt Lake City, 

UT: 20-23.

Russell, Bert, ed. 1984. North Fork 

of the Coeur d’Alene River: Oral 

History Series Book No. 3. Harrison, 

ID: Lacon Publishers. 440 p.

Schmidt, Wyman C.; Friede, Judy L. 

(compilers) 1996. Experimental 

forests, ranges, and watersheds in 

the Northern Rocky Mountains: a 

compendium of outdoor laboratories 

in Utah, Idaho, and Montana. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT -334. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 118 p.

Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy 

J. (compilers) 1992. Ecology and 

management of larix forests: a look 

ahead. 1992 October 5-9; Whitefish, 

MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT319. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 

521 p.

Schmittroth, Louis. 1998. Homepage of 

the Montana Vigilantes Organization. 

[Online]. Available: http://www.

montana-vigilantes.org/ [Accessed 14 

March 2005].

Seefeldt, Steven S.; Laycock, William 

[In preparation]. The United States 

Sheep Experiment Station: shedding light on rangeland ecosystems 

and their management. Dubois, ID: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S. 

Sheep Experiment Station.

Seyedbagheri, Kathleen A.; McHenry, 

Michael L.; Platts, William S. 1987. 

An annotated bibliography of the 

hydrology and fishery studies of the 

South Fork Salmon River. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-235. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 27 p.

Shaw, Nancy L. 1990. Selected/greatly 

abridged rangeland research history—Intermountain Research Station, 

Boise lab. Unpublished paper on file 

at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Aquatic Sciences 

Laboratory, Boise, ID. 8 p.

Shearer, Rayond C. 1996. Coram 

Experimental Forest. In: Schmidt, 

Wyman C.; Friede, Judy L. 

Experimental forests, ranges, and 

watersheds in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains: a compendium of outdoor 

laboratories in Utah, Idaho, and 

Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR334. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 

73-80.

Shearer, Raymond C.; Kempf, Madelyn 

M. 1999. Coram Experimental 

Forest: 50 years of research in a 

western larch forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-37. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 66 p.

Shearer, Raymond C.: Wirt, R. Steven. 

1996. Miller Creek Demonstration 

Forest. In: Schmidt, Wyman 

C.; Friede, Judy L. (compilers). 

Experimental forests, ranges, and 

watersheds in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains: a compendium of 

outdoor laboratories in Utah, Idaho, 

and Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT 

-334. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 

93-99.

Shepherd, W. O. 1962. Proposal to disestablish the Vigilante Experimental 

Range, Beaverhead National Forest, 

Montana. Unpublished document 

on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

Service Center Library, Ogden, UT.

Siegel, Lee. 1996. Shrub huggers. The 

Salt Lake Tribune. August 1: B1,6.

Sloan, John; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen; 

Smithman, Linda. 1994. Bob Steele 
246–

moves on after a productive career. 

INTercom. Summer: 12.

Sloan, John; Steele, Robert. 1996. 

Boise Basin Experimental Forest. In: 

Schmidt, Wyman C.; Friede, Judy 

L. Experimental forests, ranges, and 

watersheds in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains: a compendium of outdoor 

laboratories in Utah, Idaho, and 

Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR334. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 

39-44.

Smith, Elizabeth M. 1983. History of 

the Boise National Forest 1905-1976. 

Boise, ID: Idaho State Historical 

Society. 166 p.

Smith, Helen Y.; Arno, Stephen F., eds. 

1999. Eighty-eight years of change 

in a managed ponderosa pine forest. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-23. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 55 p. and 

14 photopoint pages.

Solorzano, Lucia; Smith Kapler, Jane. 

1998. Ecosystem management in the 

Bitterroots. Forestry Research West. 

April: 13-20.

Spokane [WA] Daily Chronicle. 1967. 

Fires provide tests for new device. 

September 6.

Stage, Albert R. 2003. Comments at 

the 40th anniversary celebration 

of the Moscow Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, October 17. [electronic 

transcription from tape recording] 

On file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, ID.

Steen, Harold K. 1976. The U.S. Forest 

Service: a history. Seattle: University 

of Washington Press. 356 p.

Steen, Harold K. 1991. The beginning of 

the National Forest System. FS-488. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 37 p.

Steen, Harold K. 1998. Forest Service 

Research: finding answers to conservation’s questions. Durham, NC: 

Forest History Society. 102 p.

Stevens, Richard. 1994. Paul Ephraim 

Hansen. INTercom. January/

February: 4-5.

Stickney, Peter F.; Campbell, Robert B. 

Jr. 2000. Data base for early postfire 

succession in Northern Rocky 

Mountain forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-61-CD. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 21 p. plus electronic data sites color photos, tables, 

and figures.

Storey, Herbert C. 1975. History of 

Forest Service research. Development 

of a national program. Unpublished 

manuscript on file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, History Unit, Washington, 

DC. 132 p.

Taylor, Alan R.; Eckels, Karen L. 1977. 

FIREBASE: transferring fire information. Forestry Research West. July: 

13-16.

Teck, Richard; Moeur, Melinda; Eav, 

Bov. 1996. Forecasting ecosystems 

with the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

Journal of Forestry. 94(12): 7-10.

Tippets, David. 1990. Preserving 

research natural areas. Forestry 

Research West. December: 10-16.

Tippets, David. 1991a. Acid test for new 

perspectives. Forestry Research West. 

November: 1-5.

Tippets, David. 1991b. Healing the high 

country. Forestry Research West. 

April: 1-6.

Tippets, David. 1992a. Soft Paths: a 

partnership for wilderness. Forestry 

Research West. September: 1-6.

Tippets, David. 1992b. Building better 

bushes. Bugle. 9(1): 47-57.

Tippets, David. 1993a. Prehistoric past 

provides clues for the future. Forestry 

Research West. May. 1-6.

Tippets, Dave. 1993b. With the help of a 

few “ghosts” the Great Basin Station 

is born again. INTercom. September: 

5-6.

Tippets, David. 1994. Fire research applications leader Bob Mutch retires. 

INTercom. Summer: 13.

Tippets, David W. 1996a. Western larch: 

flames, sunlight, and soil. Forestry 

Research West. May: 13-19.

Tippets, David. 1996b. Slope stability: 

more is less. Forestry Research West. 

September: 1.

Tippets, David; Anderson, Val Jo. 1991. 

Partnership preserves historic range 

research sites. Rangelands. 13(3): 

121-124.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1959. 

Report of the Chief of the Forest 

Service, 1958. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 39 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 1990. Strategic plan for the 

90’s: meeting research challenges. 

1990. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 13 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station and 

Manti-LaSal National Forest. 1972. 

[n.d., but known to have been issued 

in 1972] Auto Tour: Great Basin 

Experimental Range. Unnumbered 

pamphlet. 28 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Manti-LaSal National 

Forest. 1994. A photographic study 

using comparative photographs from 

1902-1992. 128 p.

USDI. 1984. 50 years of public 

land management, 1934-1984. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 27 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

1972. DDT ban takes effect. Press 

release, Dec. 31 [available at www.

epa.gov].

Wasser, Clinton H.; Reid, Elbert H.; 

Smith, Arthur D. 1987. A history of 

the Society for Range Management, 

1948-1985. Denver: Society for 

Range Management. 75 p.

Warren, John R.; Celarier, Doris N. 

1991. A salute to infrared systems 

in fire detection and mapping. Fire 

Management Notes. 52(3): 3-18.

Warren, John R.; Wilson, Ralph A. 1981. 

Airborne infrared forest fire surveillance—a chronology of USDA Forest 

Service research and development. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-115. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Welch, Bruce. 2005. Big sagebrush: a 

sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, 

and puddles. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRSGTR-144. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 210 p.
–247

Wellner, Charles A. 1976. Frontiers 

of forestry research—Priest River 

Experimental Forest, 1911-1976. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 148 p.

Wellner, Charles A. 1987. Classification 

of habitat types in the western United 

States. In: Ferguson, Dennis E.; 

Morgan, Penelope; Johnson, Frederic 

D., comps. Proceedings—land 

classifications based on vegetation: 

applications for resource management; 1987 November 17-19; 

Moscow, ID. Gen Tech. Rep. INT257. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 

7-21.

Wellner, C. A.; Foiles, M. W. 1951. 

What to see...and where to find it on 

the Deception Creek Experimental 

Forest. Misc. Pub. 2. Missoula, MT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 72 p.

Wellner, C.A.; Watt, R.F.; Helmers, 

A.E. 1951..What to see and where 

to find it on the Priest River 

Experimental Forest. Misc. Pub. No. 

3. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 86 p.

West, Terry L. 1990. Research in the 

USDA Forest Service: a historian’s 

view. In: Proceedings of Third 

Symposium on Social Science in 

Resource Management; 1990 May 

18; College Station, TX: Texas A&M 

University. 15 leaves.

West, Terry L. 1992. Centennial miniseries of the Forest Service. FS-518. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 72 p.

Western Conservation Journal. 1962. 

Research slated on small stemmed 

forests in Intermountain Region. 

March-April: 28.

Williams, Gerald W., compiler. 

1993. USDA Forest Service 

Chiefs (Foresters) 1905-present. 

Unpublished document on file at U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden Service Center 

Library, Ogden, UT.

Wykoff, William R. 2002. Al Stage. 

John Bell & Associates Inventory and 

Cruising Newsletter. Issue 59, July: 

1-3.

Wyckoff, William: Hansen, Katherine. 

1991. Settlement, livestock grazing, and environmental change in 

southwest Montana, 1860-1990. 

Environmental History Review. 

15(winter): 45-71.

Zachariassen, John; Zeller, Karl; 

Nikolov, Ned; McClelland, Tom. 

2003. A review of the Forest Service 

remote automated weather station 

(RAWS) network. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-119. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculature, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 153 p.
248–

The Depression was on, Federal 

budgets had been cut, and the 

Federal Junior Range Examiner exam 

was not to be given in 1932 as my 

graduation from the University of Idaho 

neared. Job prospects were horrible! 

Even so, a few months before graduation 

exercises I was offered a temporary job 

as field assistant in range research with 

the Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, if 

I could report early in May. Forestry 

School Dean F. G. Miller understood 

and with his blessing and assurance that 

my diploma would be mailed, I headed 

for Ogden. It’s odd; I’ve never missed 

those graduation exercises!

My assignment was to the spring-fall 

(sagebrush) range project. G. D. “Pick” 

Pickford, a graduate of Iowa State, 

was the excellent project leader. The 

challenge faced by this project was staggering. Knowledge was minimal about 

sagebrush ranges, how to manage grazing on them, and methods for improving 

them. Range conditions were deplorable. 

Most of these ranges were in public 

domain with no management.

Very little research was under way. 

Much of it was in the Intermountain 

Station’s program begun in 1923 at 

the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in 

cooperation with the Bureau of Animal 

Industry. The program included research 

on season and systems of grazing, 

range readiness, and ecology of the 

sagebrush type. But staffing was only 

one researcher part time, yearly, for the 

first 8 years.

In 1930 Pickford began research in 

Utah with a study along the Wasatch 

Front of effects of the prevailing heavy 

grazing and promiscuous burning. He 

found serious damage. In 1932, after I 

joined the project, we continued 

collecting information in Utah. We established a series of 10-acre exclosures 

and open-grazed plots and took initial 

records on them. The objective was to 

determine the floristic composition of 

these samples of the sagebrush type and 

then follow rate of recovery. Then funds 

ran out in midsummer.

The summer range research at the 

Great Basin Station near Ephraim had 

some slack. I went there to work for 

Raymond Price, Leader. Kenneth W. 

Parker and Irwin “Hap” Johnson were 

two other field assistants. We mapped 

quadrants and browse plots and estimated plant density on major plots. By 

the last of September funds here, too, 

ran out.

Luckily the spring-fall project 

employed me for a month to help in 

establishing an exciting new study on 

sagebrush burning. Pickford, Selar 

Hutchings, leader of the winter range 

project, and I laid out exclosures, plots, 

and quadrants called for by the study 

plan and took initial records on them in 

the early fall of 1932.

The Station, State Forester of Idaho, 

and the Fremont County Woolgrowers’ 

Association had jointly agreed to a 

major cooperative, several-year study. 

The Woolgrowers’ spring-fall range on 

public domain and leased State lands 

north of St. Anthony, Idaho was covered 

by extremely dense sagebrush. They 

knew that on occasion fire had resulted 

in at least temporary relief. They were 

excellent cooperators, did the burning 

and deferred the area from grazing for 1 

year after burning.

By that time several emergency 

programs had begun. Some contributed 

substantially to the conduct of research 

as well as to jobs. During the next year 

I was involved in three examples. In 

mid-summer 1933 I was assigned to a 

new CCC camp west of Milford, Utah. 

CCC’s were constructing fences, buildings, and other facilities needed on the 

newly established Desert Experimental 

Range. My assignment as foreman, 

with a crew of North Carolina and 

Utah boys, was to establish a 23-mile 

belt transect, 4 chains wide, from the 

northeast side of Pine Valley to the top 

of Indian Peak. Along this transect we 

mapped vegetation types, inventoried 

vegetation, dug and mapped soil pits, 

and mapped shrub root systems. This 

provided the basis for analysis of biotic 

and edaphic factors associated with 

different salt desert shrub vegetation 

types.

This was really exciting and also a 

challenge to get the best from the CCC 

enrollees. They were great even in the 

Appendix A.

Pechanec Remembers His Early Days in Research

By Joseph F. Pechanec

Joe Pechanec served as Intermountain 

Station Director, 1962-71.
–249

heat of August and on those days when 

camp cooks sent out bread and mustard 

sandwiches for lunch! But the job also 

was stimulating because it provided the 

opportunity to make the acquaintance 

of range men at the CCC camp. Perhaps 

best of all was the opportunity to meet 

Dr. Walter Cottam, University of Utah 

plant ecologist, who was conducting 

ecological studies and assisting in plant 

identification on the Experimental 

Range. His attire on many summer days 

was only shorts and boots with a jacket 

nearby to hold pencils, hand lens, etc. 

It was a revelation to see what would 

be ordinarily thought of as a sedate 

professor striding across the desert in 

shorts. By October, after we had finished 

18 miles of the transect, I was sent to the 

Great Basin Station.

At the Great Basin Station, with 

a crew of CCC boys, I was to dig, 

clean, and bottle in alcohol roots from 

geranium, slender wheatgrass, mountain 

brome, and some other species that had 

been clipped to different intensities 

and at different dates during spring and 

summer. This was a major study being 

conducted by Dr. E. C. McCarty from 

Riverside, California, in cooperation 

with the Forest Service. The objective 

was to determine food storage regimens 

in range plants and factors affecting 

them including defoliation. Dr. McCarty 

pioneered food storage research. His 

findings did much to aid understanding 

range plant reactions to grazing.

By November the Station had 

received funds to establish a 20-person 

Civilian Works Administration crew in 

Ogden to compile all scientific data that 

had accumulated in range, watershed, 

and silviculture projects for years. Some 

of the records were taken by Sampson 

and Forsling during their early days at 

the Great Basin. We had some extremely 

good people but they were completely 

unskilled in the subject matter, the type 

of work, or the sophisticated Monroe 

and Marchant calculators we had. We 

made good headway and for once in the 

Station’s history it could be said that 

the routine compilations had been completed and data were ready for analysis. 

This also may have been the last time!

Early in 1934 funds for this emergency project ran out. The Junior Range 

Exam had been given early the previous 

fall and I had an appointment with the 

spring-fall project together with a cut 

in salary mandated by the Roosevelt 

Administration for all Federal employees. In April I happily headed back to 

the Sheep Station with a crew of four 

field assistants to complete scheduled 

data collection on management and 

climate and plant growth studies, and 

to make the first remeasurements of 

Fremont County burning project plots.

Fremont County areas burned in 

1932 were a startling revelation! Waving 

seas of grass without brush obstructions 

showed why most sheepmen wanted to 

burn. It made us wonder why bureaucratic reluctance to approve burning was 

so stiff. There were spots of bad wind 

erosion but it was not general. Fire just 

had to be bad! There must be a joker 

somewhere.

During 1935 we began to see 

problems. We were able to study some 

other areas burned in 1932 in Fremont 

and Clark Counties that did not result 

in waving seas of grass. They also had 

a tremendous number of sagebrush 

seedlings and some bad erosion. 

Promiscuous grazing and trailing 

seemed to be responsible. We needed 

to know whether we could repeat the 

success of the 1932 burn. It was decided to burn another large area having 

somewhat different vegetation and soil 

conditions and where we would have 

better control of grazing. A 640-acre 

area of big sagebrush on the Sheep 

Station range was selected and burned in 

August 1936.

The start of a major set of range 

reseeding experiments at and near the 

Sheep Station was an urgently needed 

addition. This was part of the Stationwide range reseeding project begun in 

1935. Substantial emphasis was to be 

placed on depleted sagebrush ranges.

While we were engaged in seeking 

knowledge about sagebrush ranges from 

1932 to 1936 some very significant national events took place that would have 

far reaching effects on management and 

improvement of ranges generally and 

the future of sagebrush-grass ranges in 

particular. These would also affect our 

research program, our cooperation, and 

our clientele.

Establishment of the Soil 

Conservation Service brought strong 

technical assistance and the benefits of a 

strong nursery and range reseeding division to private rangeland owners in Soil 

Conservation Districts. Establishment 

of the Grazing Service (Bureau of Land 

Management) was a major forward step 

toward placing public domain rangelands under management and improving 

range conditions. Creation of the 

Agricultural Adjustment Administration 

with its range program provided incentive payments and technical assistance 

to private rangeland owners. The Forest 

Service and Indian Service expanded 

their range programs materially. All of 

these Federal agencies began recruiting 

range-trained men and the universities 

responded quickly both in training and 

research.

These were extremely interesting 

years. Whatever we had in research 

was eagerly sought by men anxious 

for knowledge. And we learned from 

them. I’m glad I was there! (Pechanec, 

unpublished paper).

A CCC spike camp at 

Great Basin, 1936.
250–

Before I first worked in a research organization in 1968 my perception 

of scientists probably mirrored the general public view. Scientists were deadly 

serious people who wore white coats 

and spent endless hours studying mysterious phenomena. They were important 

people, but humorless and sort of dull. 

The “mad scientist” or “absent-minded 

professor” types were entertaining, but 

most people thought they existed only 

in the movies or as characters in comic 

books; they didn’t represent reality.

So far, I’ve yet to meet a mad scientist. But I have encountered a number 

of researchers who might be considered 

real characters, unusual people who 

were perhaps a bit eccentric. Most of 

them were delightful. Not the least of 

these characters was Ralph Holmgren.

Ralph worked for many years at the 

Desert Experimental Range, a remote 

outpost some 300 miles southwest of 

Ogden. The range is 48 miles west of 

the nearest community, Milford, Utah. 

Research there focused on the effects 

of grazing on dry-land vegetation, 

which covers millions of acres in the 

Interior West. Before my opportunity 

to visit him at his desert home in 1976, 

Holmgren was known to me largely by 

reputation.

Coworkers said Ralph liked the 

Desert Range so much that he disliked 

leaving the place and even spent his 

vacation time there when he took annual leave. He often was referred to as 

“the old sheepherder.” One rumor was 

that Ralph had a pet antelope at the 

range. He was said to be a genial man, 

somewhat shy, whose habits were a bit 

unusual. The unusual part was confirmed 

on one occasion when I encountered him 

checking into the Ramada Inn in Ogden 

before attending a meeting at Station 

Headquarters. Ralph’s luggage consisted 

of two shopping bags. The man carrying 

his belongings in bags was of average 

size, deeply tanned from hours under the 

desert sun, and had a twinkle in his eye.

Dispatched to the Desert—Any 

formal records of my visit to the Desert 

Range are long gone, and trying to recall 

events that happened nearly 30 years 

ago is a chancy business. However, one 

thing is certain. I never was sure why I 

was sent there. Either Station Director 

Roger Bay or Assistant Director Jim 

Blaisdell told me to go. The mission 

was something vague about “helping 

Holmgren get some writing done,” and 

also “working with him” on a visit by 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

range managers. “Work with him” is 

an assignment often made by Forest 

Service managers when they are keeping 

a commitment to send help, but really 

don’t know what the problem is. Like a 

good soldier, I went.

My visit was in late June of 1976; 

the weather was dry and it was hot. The 

trip began very early in the morning to 

allow for a brief lunch stop in Milford 

and get me to the destination early 

enough in the afternoon to help Ralph 

that day with whatever I was supposed 

to help him with. As I progressed down 

State highways on the 6-hour drive 

from Ogden the temperatures got hotter, 

signs of human habitation were fewer, 

and vegetation became more and more 

sparse.

People who are not impressed with 

the beauties of desert shrubbery and 

an empty landscape might call the 

area encompassing the Desert Range 

“desolate.” I won’t go that far, but must 

admit the surroundings are somewhat 

less than lush. The entry road passed 

between two stone pillars. A buzzard 

was perched atop one of the pillars when 

I went through. That turned out to be of 

no significance, much to my relief.

Appendix B.

A Few Days with Ralph at the Desert Range

By Richard J. Klade

The stone pillars at the Desert Range entry were impressive, with or without a roosting buzzard.
–251

Incidentally, I learned later that 

the pillars were made of Warm Point 

Quartzite, a rock found near the Desert 

Range. They were built by CCC men 

during the 1930s, as were the buildings, 

fences, and roads.

Working With Ralph—A young 

man who was a student at Brigham 

Young University (BYU) employed for 

the summer directed me to the building 

where Holmgren was to be found. He 

was seated at a desk in a second-floor 

loft, with pencil in hand, ruefully contemplating a stack of papers that looked 

like a publication manuscript. Aha, we 

were going to work on the first part of 

my assistance assignment.

Ralph’s answers to a few discrete 

(I hoped) questions about problems 

he might be having with the writing 

didn’t pinpoint much of anything. If he 

had a problem, it probably was the one 

faced by most authors at one time or 

another—reluctance to apply one end of 

the anatomy to a chair and start the other 

end concentrating on the job at hand. 

We chatted for a while about writing in 

general, and I pointed out several times 

that I was willing to help with anything 

he wanted.

“Well,” said Ralph, “we’ll have 25 

BLM guys coming in tomorrow. A few 

are from the Nevada State Office, but 

most are from Districts in Utah and 

Nevada. We’ll spend the whole next day 

on a tour of our study plots. Some of the 

Districts are pretty far away; so a few 

are staying over two nights. We need to 

get things ready.”

My first (and actually only) assistance 

task was moving mattresses. Ralph, the 

BYU student, Range Technician John 

Kinney, and I carried them from a pile 

on the second floor of a storage building 

to various other buildings in the Desert 

Range complex. There were only 24. 

When concern was expressed about how 

25 BLM guests, plus me, were going to 

sleep on 24 narrow mattresses, Ralph 

just shrugged and said, “Oh, things like 

that always work out.”

He then announced, “We need to get 

some provisions. Come on, we’ll take a 

ride over to the store.”

Although several government 

vehicles were parked in the complex, 

we got into Holmgren’s personal car. 

My recollection is it was a brand-new, 

white, Chevrolet sedan. With all the 

windows rolled down, we took off 

toward the west at a pretty fast clip. It 

was mid-afternoon, and no doubt the 

temperature was in the 100s. We drove 

for quite a while, finally stopping at a 

dilapidated general store. A rough looking guy attired in worn out jeans and a 

dirty underwear shirt was the only clerk. 

He was a big fellow, and I envisioned 

talking him into hauling the boxes of 

food we were about to buy out to the car. 

By then, I was almost as sweaty as he 

looked, and there was no way I wanted 

to do anything physical.

We walked around in the store for a 

while. Ralph bought two-dozen cookies 

and a six-pack of beer. We left.

The Journey Back—At what 

seemed like about the midpoint in the 

drive back to the Desert Range, Ralph 

asked if I was interested in historic sites. 

When I said I certainly was, he said, 

“Good, there’s a ranch just ahead that 

has a family graveyard that dates back to 

early settlement days around here. We’ll 

drop in on them and I’ll show it to you.”

We veered off the highway to the 

right onto a dirt road, drove about a 

half mile, and pulled up in front of a 

large ranch house. No one was home. 

“That’s OK,” Ralph said. “They won’t 

mind if we just go ahead and look at the 

headstones.”

Well, they apparently did mind if 

people tramped through their graveyard. 

A “chicken wire” 

fence about nine feet 

high surrounded the 

plot. A formidable 

padlock secured the 

gate. It’s a guess, but 

Holmgren was probably about 55 years 

old. I was in my 

30s and in reasonably good shape, I 

thought. He went up 

and over that fence 

in a flash. I struggled 

up, and with Ralph 

tugging at me from a 

perch on the inside, 

more or less fell into 

the graveyard. The 

several dozen tombstones were, indeed, 

interesting. Getting 

out was easier than getting in. The fence 

had some 2-by-4 cross braces on the 

inside that made the climb up easy.

We finished the return trip to the 

Desert Range without incident. Passing 

through the area where vehicles were 

parked, I expressed surprise that Ralph 

would take his new personal car (now 

thoroughly coated with dust) instead of 

a government rig. “None of them have 

been running for a while,” Ralph said. 

“Our guys are taking parts out of two of 

them to see if they can get that one over 

there going.”

I then asked if air conditioning wasn’t 

available when Ralph bought his Chevy. 

Gesturing toward a small pile of hoses, 

tubes, and miscellaneous metal parts 

near one of the disabled government 

vehicles, he said, “Oh, it came with it. 

I’ve never liked it in my cars—took it 

out right away.”

The next question concerned the pet 

antelope. “She should be around about 

this time,” Ralph said, “We’ll run out 

and see her.” We drove a short distance 

past the buildings and parked in an 

area facing a gentle hill. “There she 

is,” Ralph said. Sure enough, a young 

pronghorn stood part way up the rise.

Ralph called out, “Annie, come 

here.” The antelope didn’t move. He 

cupped his hands and yelled, “Come 

here, Annie.” Nothing happened. He 

jumped up on the hood of the Chevy 

and yelled louder, “Annnneeeee.” There 

Desert Range Superintendent John Kinney showing a 

small visitor how Annie responded to a sugar cookie treat. 

The little girl was a member of a family driving by on the 

nearby highway. They spotted the antelope and Kinney, 

stopped, and the daughter got a first-hand introduction to 

wildlife.
252–

was no movement on the hillside. Ralph 

turned to me and said, “Heck, that’s not 

Annie.”

For the benefit of doubters, and I 

was one, there really was a pet antelope 

named Annie at the Desert Range. John 

Kinney, who served at the range for nine 

years, had a picture of Annie on the wall 

of his office in Boise in 2004. He says 

she was quite tame and liked to nibble 

on sugar cookies provided by the staff.

It was starting to get dark and we 

headed for the kitchen. The BYU 

student, Kinney, and a fourth resident, 

Don Beale, a Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources researcher, were there. Beale 

was doing a study of antelope. He also 

was the cook.

After dinner, Ralph took me to 

another room in the dwelling and 

showed me a bed he said I was welcome 

to use during my stay. He then went off 

somewhere, and wasn’t seen again until 

the next morning. I went back to help 

the kitchen crew clean up and see if they 

would comment on a few of the day’s 

minor mysteries. They enlightened me.

Kinney and the student said it was 

really good luck that Beale was there to 

cook. They said Ralph hated to cook, 

and if nobody was around to do that 

chore he lived mainly on oatmeal cookies. The BLM guests were bringing their 

own grub, so the “provisions” we had 

gone to get were just Ralph’s personal 

supplies.

Ralph had given me his bed. That gift 

concerned me in view of the impending 

mattress shortage. Where was he going 

to sleep? The crew said it was no problem at all. “He’ll probably just stay up 

all night reading. He does that a lot.”

The Guests Arrive—Breakfast was 

just after sunup. Beale laid out a good 

spread and the five of us consumed it 

all with gusto. As we ate, the “regulars” 

had a lively discussion of whether or 

not it was going to rain that day. That 

was interesting, because average annual precipitation at the Desert Range 

compound is about six inches, and half 

of that is snow in winter months. Rainy 

summer days probably are causes for 

great celebration. When the weather 

topic was exhausted, I asked Ralph if he 

had worked in other places. “I worked 

up in Idaho for a while,” he said, “but 

the trees made me nervous.”

The BLM 

managers arrived at 

intervals throughout 

the day. Ralph 

greeted them and the 

student and Kinney 

showed them to 

their mattresses. The 

guests took over the 

kitchen and made 

lunch. We did the 

neighborly thing 

and helped them eat 

it. They were good 

cooks and we no longer had a kitchen, so 

we also helped them 

consume the dinner 

they made that night. 

At least some of us 

did; Ralph wasn’t 

seen at lunch or dinner.

In mid-afternoon, one of the Utah 

District guests hurried up to Ralph and 

said he was terribly sorry but he just got 

a radio message about a bad accident 

back in his unit. He had to leave right 

away to take care of the crisis, and 

couldn’t possibly return for the field 

day. After he left, Ralph glanced at me 

and said, “Well, I guess that makes 

twenty-four.”

A Day on the Range—The next day 

we temporarily reoccupied the kitchen 

for another breakfast at daybreak. Once 

again, the discussion topic was the 

chance of rain interfering with the day’s 

activities. The BLM men started appearing, we left, and they made breakfast 

and cleaned up the kitchen. That took a 

while, but it was still pretty early when 

all the guests were assembled outside 

waiting for business to get under way.

The field day got off to a somewhat 

rocky start. Ralph ambled out to face the 

group. He was wearing wrinkled work 

pants, well-worn hunting boots, a floppy 

bucket hat, and a patterned shirt. The 

shirttail was hanging out. He launched 

into a rambling, somewhat disjointed 

welcome and orientation talk. The 

BLM managers fidgeted around a little 

and seemed unimpressed. One near me 

was overheard to mutter, “This is our 

expert?”

The Desert Range is divided into 

some three dozen study pastures that 

have been grazed in various controlled 

ways, most by sheep, a few by cattle. 

Within the pastures are fenced exclosures. Inside them the vegetation has 

been allowed to grow with no disturbance by large animals. So researchers 

have been able to compare the effects on 

plants of various grazing systems, or no 

grazing, and also study plant succession 

over many years.

As our group started walking toward 

the first pasture on the agenda, a young 

manager pointed to a shrub, and said 

something like, “Oh, there’s ______, 

_____” (He spouted a Latin scientific 

name). Ralph stopped the group. He 

said, “No, that’s _______, ______, 

_______, ______.” (He identified the 

plant by the correct scientific and common names). Holmgren then reeled off 

about a dozen scientific and common 

names of plants that grow at the Desert 

Range, pointing out several that were 

in our immediate vicinity. For each, he 

added information on plant associations, 

forage values, and growth characteristics. Anyone who had been unimpressed 

with our field day leader was converted 

right then and there.

Respect turned to awe throughout a 

very long day as Ralph expounded on 

the meaning of what we were seeing at 

exclosure after exclosure. He gave the 

results of studies on seasons of use, rotation systems, watering techniques, and 

herding and handling animals, sprinkling 

in management recommendations. The 

Ralph Holmgren explained how to apply findings from research at the Desert Range to BLM range managers during 

the field day, June 22, 1976.
–253

managers hung on his every word. There 

obviously was very little Holmgren 

didn’t know about the results of 40 years 

of research at the Desert Range. And he 

described things in terms the BLM men 

obviously understood.

Number, please—Most of the guests 

drove off for home after dinner that 

night. After the stragglers left in the 

morning, our little group settled in for a 

relatively late, and leisurely, breakfast. 

Of course, an argument soon erupted 

about the chances for rain that day. Well, 

enough was enough. I finally interrupted 

and said something like, “You guys are 

just pulling my leg. There’s about as 

much chance of rain today as there is it 

will snow.”

Soon thereafter it rained for two 

or three minutes. Ralph just smiled, 

touched my arm, and pointed at the 

raindrops on the kitchen window.

Ralph went off somewhere and 

while we were doing the dishes the 

conversation turned to the telephone on 

the kitchen wall. It was the type now 

found only in museums. I learned it was 

on a party line, and anybody could listen 

in on conversations. The Forest Service 

built and maintained the line, so among 

the duties of John Kinney was acting as 

manager of the local phone company. It 

wasn’t a very big company; it served the 

Desert Range and one other customer, a 

ranch. The line ran 48 miles to a school 

in Milford. Signals were rings like “two 

shorts and a long.”

During my visits to the kitchen, 

whenever one signal rang no one answered. My guess was the calls were to 

the ranch house where we had inspected 

the family graveyard. But it seemed 

strange that everyone would be gone for 

several days from a working ranch that 

looked like a big operation. That wasn’t 

it, the breakfast crew said. “That’s our 

ring. Ralph hardly ever answers it. He 

says it’s usually just somebody in Provo 

or Ogden wanting some fool thing or 

other.”

Spending a few days at the Desert 

Range was not one of the major events 

in my life, but it comes to mind fairly 

often. Whenever I have occasion to 

munch on an oatmeal cookie it reminds 

me of Ralph Holmgren—competent 

scientist, good host, gentleman...and a 

real character.
254–

Index

A

Aerial Bombing Project 51

B-29 Superfortress 51

P-47 Thunderbolts 51

Air Tanker Performance Guides 127

Albini, Frank 98, 224, 228, 236

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research 

Institute 228

Amacher, Mike 168

Amman, Gene 133, 149, 155, 185, 227, 

233

anadromous fish 189

Anatomy of a Mine 144

Anderson, Hal 96, 224

Andrews, Pat 98, 100, 219, 228, 231

Angele, Frank 218

Antonich, Ava 221, 235

Antrei, Albert 23, 198, 200

Archuleta, Ed 226

Armstrong, Robyn 189

Arno, Steve 115, 132, 151, 203, 223, 

225, 229, 230, 232, 234

Arnold, Keith 136

Arrowrock 57, 62

artificial intelligence 126

Ayer, Carol 160, 233, 234

B

Babbitt, Ron 172, 234

Bailey, Reed 34, 60, 67, 73, 75, 88, 103, 

107, 198

Baker, Ann 230

Baker, Fred 25

Ballard, Paige 226

Barger, Ron 140, 169

Barker, Phil 223

Barney, Dick 139, 224, 234

Barrietua, Serita 166

Barrows, Jack 15, 51, 77, 96, 123

Bartlette, Bobbie 97

Bartos, Dale 151, 185, 209

Basile, Joe 63, 78, 119, 223

Baugh, Tom 227

Baughman, Bob 125

Bay, Roger 44, 76, 107, 131, 145, 157, 

159, 194, 218, 224, 226

Beartooth Plateau 168

Beaufait, Bill 115

BEHAVE 100, 230

below-cost timber sales 140

Benmore Experimental Area 73, 89

Benson, Bob 106, 203

Benson, Ezra Taft 75, 76, 85, 88

Bentley, Elton 39

Benton Creek 94

Bentz, Barbara 156

Bernice Experimental Forest 33

Bernu, Greg 220

Bethlahmy, Ned 91

Betz, Darlene 228

Bingham, Dick 80, 105

Biosphere Reserves 44, 174, 224

Blackner, Dave 229

Blaisdell, Jim 2, 26, 82, 177, 198, 218, 

225

Blakely, Dave 128

blister rust 33, 36, 38, 50, 79, 80, 130

Bob Marshall Wilderness 19

Boeing 53

Bohn, Carolyn 94

Boise Basin Experimental Forest 61, 

92, 183

Boise floods 69

Boise Lab 63

Booth, Gordon 113, 175

Born, Dave 83, 137, 148

Boyd, Ray 41, 103, 106, 111, 202

Boyer, Pat 228

Bozeman Lab 104, 233

Brackebusch, Art 17, 54, 114

Bradley, Anne 134, 234

Bradner, Mel 42, 48

Breuer, Edwin 96

Brewster, Donald 11

Briggs, Steve 4

Brown, Jim 41, 117, 159, 218, 225, 232, 

233, 234

Brown, Merlin 96

Brown, Ray 142, 167, 229, 230, 233, 

235, 237

Brown, Roy 224

Brunner, Joseph 9

Buckman, Bob 38

bull trout 189

Bunnell, Dave 225

Burgan, Bob 98, 100, 124, 236

Burns, Denver 162, 212, 237

Burroughs, Ed 140, 164, 232

Bush, Vannever 48

C

Callaham, Bob 49

Campbell, Bob 119, 209, 234

CANUSA 153

Carlson, Clint 44, 151, 153, 203, 226, 

231

Carpenter, Cal 230

Carver, Bill 194

Central tire inflation technology 166

Chambers, Jeanne 168, 188, 232, 233, 

238

Chapline, W. R. 10, 70

cheatgrass 64, 73

chemical analysis 96

chemical treatments 108

chemistry 172

chip pipeline 105

Chojnacky, Dave 148, 220, 231

Clapp, Earle 10, 15, 31

Clarke-McNary Act 10

Clary, Warren 167, 174, 175, 177, 183, 

190, 202, 233, 237

Clayton, Jim 93, 189, 190, 202, 225, 

229, 230, 232, 234

Clendenen, Gary 137

Cliff, Ed 57, 61, 149, 193

Close, Liz 159, 160, 162, 226, 229

cloud seeding 17, 52

Project Skyfire 53

Cnare, Ed 219

Coffen, Dale 81

Cohen, Jack 124

Cole, David 109, 151

Cole, Dennis 151, 226

Cole, Mike 228

Cole, Walt 3, 77, 152, 185, 225, 230

College Work-Study Program 5

Colling, Gene 184

Collins, Dennis 228

Collins, Michael 144

Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project 190

Colville, Frederick 7

Connaughton, Charles 59
–255

Cook, Wayne 161, 194

Cooper, Lyle 225

Cooper, Steve 228

Copeland, Otis 146

Copeland Report 18

Coram Experimental Forest 33, 39, 42, 

152

Costello, David 199

Coster, Barney 226

Cottam, Walter 87, 249

Courchene, Pat 228

Craddock, George 55, 68

Croft, Harold 66

Croft, Russell 67

Crookston, Nick 136

crown fire spread 99

Curtis, Jim 61, 91, 112

Cutler, Rupert 116

D

Daigle, John 234

data processing 60

Daubenmire, Rexford 132

Davis, Helen 48

Davis, Ken 42, 216

Davis County Watershed 4, 67, 230

Deans Tours 73

DeByle, Norb 69, 115, 117, 179, 209, 

227, 234

Deception Creek Experimental 

Forest 39, 229

Deeming, John 124, 224, 225

Deitschman, Glenn 106, 223

Denetso, Rosita 235

Denner, Bob 4, 217

Denton, Bob 77

Deschene, Wally 185, 234

Desert Experimental Range 64, 174, 

177, 250

desert tortoise 181

Desired Future Condition 189

desktop publishing 185

Destito, John 213, 233

DeVoto, Bernard 69

Dickerman, M. B. 38

Division of Forest Fire and Atmospheric 

Sciences Research 49

Dombeck, Mike 17, 213

Douglas-fir tussock moth 48

Dryden, Dorothy 228

duff hygrometer 16

Duncan, Kelly 189

Dunning, Bill 220

E

economics research 204

ecosystem classifications 134

ecosystem management 151, 192, 203

ecosystem research 202

educational programs 161

Elk Vulnerability Symposium 120

Elliot, Bill 166

Ellison, Linc 73, 82

Elwood, Carlos 148, 231

engineering research 164

Evanko, Tony 45, 47, 82

Evans, Keith 146, 158, 160, 169, 212, 

228, 230

Evenden, Angela 131, 235

Evenden, Jim 10, 36, 48, 77

Everett, Rich 187, 230

exclosures 22, 57, 62

expert systems 156

F

Farmer, Gene 142, 158, 227, 228, 232

Fellin, Dave 77, 152, 195, 202, 224, 

231

Ferguson, Bob 63, 78, 111, 142, 187

Ferguson, Dennis 103, 134, 136, 221

Fernow, Bernard 7

field days 26, 27, 60, 72, 156

Finklin, Arnold 117, 227, 232, 234

FIREBASE 139

fire behavior 98, 117

fire danger meter 16, 123, 159

fire danger rating 123

Fire Effects Information System 118, 

159

Fire in Multiple-Use Program 138

Fire Lab 3, 54, 124, 227

fire retardant research 52

fires

1910 12, 13

Mann Gulch 17, 54, 99

FIRESCOPE 126

fire spread 97

fire visibility meter 16

fire weather stations 16

FIREWORKS 161

Fischer, Bill 115, 117, 134, 139, 159, 

224, 226, 229, 232, 234

Fischer, Bob 220

fisheries research 175, 188

fish habitat 94, 158

Flint, Howard 51

foam retardants 128

Foiles, Marv 106, 112, 223

Foltz, Randy 166

Ford Trimotor 51

Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act 148

forest ecologists 134

forest esthetics 130

Forest Inventory and Analysis 2

Forest Products Laboratory 8

forest products marketing 106

Forestry Research West 157

Forest Survey 2, 31, 37, 39, 48, 75, 83, 

136, 148, 157, 187, 194, 201, 218, 

229, 230

Forest Utilization Service 48, 50, 105

Forest Vegetation Simulator 136

Forsling, Clarence 26, 27, 66

Fort Keough 37, 41, 45

Fort Missoula Experimental Range 34

Four Corners Regional 

Commission 177

Frandsen, Bill 97

Frescino, Tracey 195

Frischknecht, Neil 82, 88, 90, 107, 142, 

202

FS INFO-Intermountain 160

fuel models 99, 117

fuel moisture indicator sticks 50

Fuquay, Don 53, 124, 224

Furniss, Mal 77, 106, 131, 152, 225, 

228

G

Gable, Dale 101

Gardner, Rulon 91

Geier-Hayes, Kathy 92, 132, 183

General Electric Corporation 96

General Electric Research 

Laboratory 53

General Technical Reports 157

geneticists 25

genetics 25, 44, 50, 80, 113

George, Chuck 126, 128, 218, 224, 232

Gibbs, Carter 169, 185, 225, 226, 233
256–

Gisborne, Harry 5, 14, 33, 40, 48, 51, 

123, 218, 221

Gonsior, Mick 140, 226, 231

Goodrich, Sherel 227

Government Employees Training Act 

86, 104

Graham, Charles 114

Graham, Russ 41, 164, 184, 196, 203, 

229, 236

Graves, Henry 8

grazing allotments 87

grazing exclosures 22, 62

Great Basin Environmental Education 

Center 197

Great Basin Experiment Station 1, 24, 

156, 197

Greeley, William 26

Green, Al 149, 218, 221

green stripping 64

Green Thumb 5

Gruell, George 138

Gruschow, George 146, 163

Guzevich, John 190

H

habitat type classification 27, 130, 132, 

157

Hall, David 166

Hallesy, Gail 228

Hamilton, Dave 136

Hammond, Carol 166

Hanover, James 85, 106

Hansen, Paul 4, 83, 201

Hao, Wei Min 174

Hardy, Colin 204

Hardy, Mike 2, 15, 115, 123, 159, 229

Harniss, Roy 64, 209

Harper, Vern 74, 85, 107, 129, 170

Harrington, Mick 203

Harrington, Thadd 134, 226, 228

Harris, Marilyn 228

Harris, Robert 136

Hartford, Roberta 236

Hartsog, Bill 92

Harvey, Al 163, 226

Haskell, Jim 237

Haupt, Harold 61, 74, 92, 106, 108, 186

Hejl, Sally 121, 215

Heli-Stat 171, 172

Helmers, Austin 94

Hepner, Chuck 226, 230

Hirsch, Stan 96, 101

Hoff, Ray 81, 103, 113, 151, 202, 231, 

232

Holmes, Bev 3, 146, 207, 208, 229, 233

Holmgren, Ralph 63, 72, 82, 108, 167, 

177, 186, 202, 250

Honeywell 126

Hoo Hoo Club 49

Hookano, Ezra 69

Hopkins, Andrew 9

Hornby, Lloyd 15, 42, 51

Horse Creek 94

Host, John 224, 225

Hough, Franklin 7

Houska, Char 182

Huberman, Morris 216

Hull, A.C. 62

Hungerford, Roger 204

Hutchings, Selar 82, 88, 177, 248

Hyland, Ruth 185, 227

I

Idaho Batholith 91, 191

indicator species 22

infrared systems 95, 101

Ingram, Renee 162

Inland Empire Research Center 49, 105, 

130

insect control 79

insect population dynamics 152

integrated pest management 152

Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee 121

Interagency Wilderness Policy 

Council 205

INTercom 162

Intermountain Fire Sciences 

Laboratory 210

Intermountain Nurseryman’s 

Association 113

Intermountain Station territory 3

International Crown Fire 

Experiment 173

International Larix Arboretum 44

J

Jain, Terrie 164

Jardine, Jim 22

Jemison, George 15, 38, 39, 75, 129, 

217

Jensen, Chet 113

Johnson, Cecilia 128, 172

Johnson, Hap 198, 248

Johnson, Janet 228

Johnson, Phil 48, 77

Johnson Flying Service 52

Johnston, Bob 168

Johnston, Cam 117, 125

Jones, Greg 231

Jorgenson, Erma 228

K

Keane, Bob 118, 134, 151

Keck, Wendell 2, 219

Kempff, Gerhardt 12, 19

Kennedy, Rita 231

Ketcheson, Gary 229

Kidd, Joe 63, 91

Kilgore, Bruce 230

Kimbrough, Dave 236

King, Jack 94, 166, 185, 189, 191, 202, 

221, 233, 236

Kingsbury, Louise 162, 186

Kinney, John 4, 174, 175, 251

Kitchen, Stan 180

Klade, Dick 215

Klawitter, Ralph 226

Knighton, Dean 169, 186, 212, 234, 237

Koch, Peter 141, 170, 229

Konop, Mark 233

Kopyscianski, Ben 166

Korstian, Clarence 25

Kotok, Ed, Jr. 48

Kotok, Ed, Sr. 48

Krebill, Dick 66, 117, 169, 172, 212, 

229, 232

L

land utilization projects 45

Langmuir, Irving 52

larch casebearer 77

Larsen, Julius 12, 114

Lassen, Larry 72, 156, 169, 185, 198, 

200, 208, 215, 220

Latham, Don 125, 173, 228, 231, 238

Laycock, Bill 2

Leave No Trace 110

LeBarron, Russell K. 49

Lee, Danny 189

Leopold, Aldo 205

Lewis, Mont 198, 202

Lick Creek 34, 202

Liesz, Doug 159
–257

lightning fire research 53

Limits of Acceptable Change 109

Lindler, Bert 118, 186, 236

Lindmark, Ron 146

Lloyd, Duane 72, 169, 174, 175, 199, 

230

Logan, Jesse 156

Logan Lab 106, 156, 209, 234

logging systems 92

Lotan, Jim 138, 169, 215, 224

Lowdermilk, W. C. 156

Lowery, Dave 223, 224

Lucas, Bob 109, 233

Luce, Charles 166

Lyon, Jack 119, 185, 202, 203, 215, 224

M

Maclean, Norman 17, 99, 236

Madden, Forrest 101

Mann Gulch Fire 17, 54, 99, 186

Mansfield, Mike 15, 54, 76, 212

Marshall, Bob 5, 18, 114, 192

Martin, Neil 225

MATCHACURVE 113

McArdle, Richard 19, 83, 95

McArthur, Durant 121, 177, 180, 181, 

227, 229, 233

McCaughey, Ward 151, 153, 191, 226

McDonald, Geral 80, 164, 202, 231

McGuire, John 57, 137, 224

McHenry, Mike 175

McIntyre, Jack 188, 191, 202, 237

McLain, Bill 234

McMurray, Nanka 161

McSweeney-McNary Act 31, 37, 55

Medin, Dean 63, 175, 225

Meeuwig, Dick 108, 186

Megahan, Walt 92, 175, 225, 228, 229, 

234

Meisner, Maureen 182

Menacker, Ira 220

Meyer, Susan 180, 201

Miller Creek 114, 119

mined-land reclamation 158

Missoula Administration Building 228

Missoula Federal Building 14

Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab 153

Missoula Research Center 49

Moessner, Karl 83

Moeur, Melinda 135, 237

Moisen, Gretchen 195

Monaco, Tom 5

Monsen, Steve 63, 121, 175, 180, 200, 

223, 225, 234

Monserud, Bob 135, 136, 234, 237

Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging 

Study 119

Montford Creek Natural Area 40

Morris, Eddie 236

Mortensen, Grant 163, 185, 231

Moscow Lab 4, 106, 233, 235

Most Constructive Turk Award 215

mountain pine beetle 36, 74

Mueggler, Walt 26, 82, 117, 132, 167, 

169, 195, 202, 209

multi-disciplinary research 43, 114, 130

multi-project research 130

Murray, Bob 27, 64, 177

Murray, Nancy 202

Mutch, Bob 116, 158, 161, 193, 223, 

224

N

National Fire Danger Rating System 2, 

96, 117, 124, 125, 127

National Forest Management Act 148

National Grasslands 45

National Interagency Fire Center 53, 

101

National Wilderness Time Capsule. 159

National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group, 232

Nature Conservancy, The 131, 202, 233

Neill, Eileen 228

Nelson, David 180

Nelson, Ralph 232

Nelson, Rodger 188

Nevada Research Center 108

New Deal 39, 45, 47, 57, 60, 64

Newman Ridge 114, 119

New Perspectives 203

New World Mining District 167

Nixon, Richard 126

Noble, Delpha 162, 220

nomograms 98

Northern Forest Fire Laboratory 87, 95

Norum, Rod 99, 115

Noste, Nonan 102

Nowack, Cheryl 187

Numbskull Club of America 216

O

O’Brien, Renee 195

O’Hara Creek 227

Oberheu, Rick 117

Odell, Julander 82

Ogden Federal Building 209

Ogden Station Headquarters 70

oil shale studies 142

Onion Park Research Natural Area 191

Onishuk, Martin 194, 221, 228

online publishing 186

Operational Retardant Evaluation 

Study 127

Orr, Leslie 74, 77

Overton, Kerry 158, 188

Owen, Bryan 17, 228

P

Packer, Paul 61, 89, 94, 120, 142, 186, 

225, 234

Padilla, Porfirio 226

Page-Dumroese, Deborah 164

paleobotany 187

Paradise Valley Experimental Range 26, 

65

Parker, Ken 248

Parry, Ross 194

Parsons, David 205

pathology 163

Patton-Mallory, Marcia 197

Pawley, Tom 220

Pearse, Ken 56

Pechanec, Joe 2, 26, 56, 59, 103, 107, 

114, 179, 248

Pendleton, Burton 180, 182

Pendleton, Rosemary 180, 182, 231

Petersen, Margaret 110

Peterson, Curt 220

Peterson, Max 132, 159, 207, 226, 230

Pfister, Bob 132, 223

pheromones 154

Philpot, Charlie 172

Pinchot, Gifford 7, 203

pineless belt 25

Pine Tree Club 61

pinyon-juniper research 186, 201

pioneer units 170

Piquette Creek Experimental Forest 34

plant succession 22, 114, 119, 134

Platts, Bill 94, 175, 224, 225, 228, 230

Pledger, Harry 68

Plummer, Blanche 198

Plummer, Perry 2, 5, 83, 107, 121, 202, 

223, 224

pole blight 50

policy, 10 a.m. 16, 116
258–

Potter, Albert 10, 22

predicting rainfall 16

Prellwitz, Rod 166, 233

prescribed burning 96, 114

prescribed natural fire 116

Price, Ray 59, 193, 198, 248

Price, Richard 198

Prichard, Ron 229

Priest River Experiment Station 1, 11, 

156

land ownership 34

model forest 12, 13

ranger training school 12

primitive areas 36

Prognosis 135, 154, 157, 229

project-based organizations 86

Project FIRESCAN 101

Project Skyfire 53, 124

Prouty, Mike 162, 215, 220, 231

publication process 184

Q

Quirante, Ollie 6

R

radio telemetry 189

Radko, Mike 189

rainulator 165

“range wars” 87

Rasmussen, Lynn 155

recreation research 73, 83, 157

Reed, Ruth 163

Rehfeldt, Jerry 112, 202, 232

Reinhardt, Elizabeth 118

Remote Automatic Weather 

Stations 125

Renewable Resources Evaluation 2

Renner, Fred 55

Renteria, Deborah 185

research grade evaluation guide 86

Research Hill 61, 63

Research Information 2, 184

Research Natural Areas 35, 131, 202

Research Needs Response Program 

148, 159

Resources Planning Act 147

retardant delivery 126

Reynolds, Fran 162

Ribes 13, 33, 41, 50, 79

Richardson, Bland 142, 184, 225, 233

Richardson, Bryce 81

Rieman, Bruce 189

Rios, Lenore 224

riparian area research 174

Robertson, Dale 205, 212

Robichaud, Pete 166

Roe, Art 83, 133

Rogers, Dean 223

Roosevelt, Theodore 6, 7

Rothermel, Dick 96, 97, 100, 218, 224, 

231, 233, 236

Routledge, Garry 215

Ruby Experimental Range 65

Ruggiero, Len 121

Russell, Charles 56

Ryan, Kevin 117, 231

Ryker, Russ 111, 134, 227, 229

S

Saab, Victoria 176

Sampson, Arthur 5, 21, 22, 66, 114, 

192, 198

Sanderson, Stewart 180

Savenac Nursery 13, 25, 170

Saylor Creek 64

Schaefer, Vincent 52

Schallau, Con 225, 234

Schier, George 227

Schmautz, Jack 47, 82, 120

Schmidt, Jack 43, 151, 232

Schmidt, Wyman 43, 150, 154, 191, 

202, 220, 226, 231, 233

Schmitz, Dick 77, 225, 232

Schuette, Bob 228

Schuster, Erv 140, 147, 215, 221, 231

Schweitzer, Denny 223

season-of-use grazing trials 26

seedling survival 111

seed transfer guidelines 112

Senior Community Service Employment 

Program 1

Sesco, Jerry 59, 146, 205, 208, 213

Setzer, Ted 149, 221, 224

Seyedbagheri, Kathy 227

Shaw, Nancy 63, 175, 178, 180

Shearer, Ray 43, 115, 151, 202, 226, 

231, 232

Shepherd, Weldon 88

Shrub Lab 4, 107, 122

Shrub Research Consortium 182

Sidle, Roy 234

Silcox, Ferdinand 19

Silver Creek study area 92, 229

Simmerman, Dennis 117, 134, 232

Sloan, John 183

slope stability 165

Smith, Jane Kapler 121, 134, 161

Smith, Justin 63, 82

smokejumpers 17

Snell, Ken 225

Snow College 197

snow survey research 56

snow telemetry (SNOTEL) 191

Snyder, Gordon 95

South Fork of the Salmon River 91

Squillace, Tony 80

Staff Directors 210

Stage, Al 3, 86, 105, 129, 135, 146, 202, 

215, 235, 236, 237

Stalling, Dave 162

Stankey, George 109, 225, 227

statistical techniques 26

statistics 65, 113

Steel, Bryan 228

Steele, Bob 132, 227, 234, 237

Steinhoff, Ray 112

Stevens, Richard 122, 178, 198, 201

Stewart, George 26, 177, 198

Stickney, Peter 115, 119

Stoleson, Ron 134

Stuart, Robert 36

subalpine forestry 150

Sugar Plum Fairies 220

Summerfield, Dallas 228

super grades 171

Surface Environment and Mining 

Program 142, 145, 147, 167

surface mine rehabilitation 107

Susott, Ron 172

Sweet, Mike 228

Systems of Timber Utilization for 

Environmental Management Program 

140

T

Tausch, Robin 187

Taylor, Pete 139, 160, 162

Taylor Grazing Act 41, 60

Tebbe, Charles 17, 48

technology transfer 157

Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest 

63, 190

Terrell, Tom 36

thermocouple psychrometers 167

Theroux, Leon 151, 153

Thomas, Jack Ward 139, 170, 212, 225, 

237

Thompson, Tommie 123
–259

Thurow, Russ 188

Tiedemann, Art 177, 182, 226

Tiernan, Chuck 153, 225, 226

Tippets, Dave 161, 162

Tobalske, Bret 234

Tonn, Jonalea 133, 164, 229

Travis, Scott 218

trenching 69

Tymcio, Ron 220

U

U.S. Range Livestock Experiment 

Station 34

U.S. Sheep Station 26, 47, 59

Upper Snake River Center 26

Upward Mobility 163

V

Van Hooser, Dwane 2, 215, 225, 228, 

235

Van Meeteren, Melissa 220

Veals, Virginia 234

video 184, 188, 198

Vigilante Experimental Range 42, 46

visibility meter 16

Voth, John 102

W

Wagstaff, Fred 175

Wahlenberg, W. G. 13

Walker, Dorothy 228

Wallace, Henry 70

Ward, Darold 172, 218

Warren, John 226

Washburn, Dick 74, 77, 106

Water Erosion Prediction Project 166

Waters, Shirley 161, 195

watershed research 23, 50, 63, 94

A and B 23, 66

Arrowrock 57, 62

Benton Creek 94

Davis County 67

Horse Creek 94

Zena Creek 91

water yield studies 69

Watson, Alan 110

Watts, Lyle 57, 217

Weger, Lynn 173

Weidman, Robert 13, 32

Welch, Bruce 180, 226, 228

Wellner, Chuck 2, 5, 49, 129, 132, 136, 

149

Wells, Pat 113, 232, 236

western spruce budworm 48, 78

WESTFORNET 160

whitebark pine 151

Whitwell, Shari 189

Wicker, Ed 223

wilderness areas 35

wilderness research 4, 109

Wilderness Society, The 19

Wildland Home Fire Risk Meter 159

wildlife habitat research 27, 43, 63, 74, 

119

Williams, Bryan 144, 225

Wilson, Andrea 195

Wilson, Michael 195

Wilson, Ralph 101

wind tunnels 98

Wollrab, Sherry 189

Woo, John 227

Works Progress Administration 

(WPA) 63, 68

Wykoff, Bill 135, 202, 229

Y

Yamasaki, Gayle 114, 228

Yazzie, Kevin 235

Z

Zena Creek 91

Zon, Raphael 8, 11

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, protection, 

and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to 

meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and State 

agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, 

industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, 

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land 

reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering 

technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and 

forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, 

and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 

Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in 

all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political 

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper