U.S.D.A. Forest Service: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bitterroot National Forest The University of Montana School of Forestry

Inside

• Past Five Years (p. 2)

• The “Spotlight”– Fire Research (p. 3)

• Sibling Projects (p. 4)

• The Bitterroot Controversy (pp. 10-11)

1999 Symposium Highlights

Five Years of Learning

On May 18-20, 1999, the Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project (BEMRP) held a symposium in Missoula, MT,

highlighting what has been learned during the past five years. The

project, begun in 1994, is a partnership among scientists, land managers and the public, which has been working in the Bitterroot and

nearby national forests to find ways of restoring ecosystems and

collaborating with communities. Scientists from the University of

Montana and Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), collaborating with Bitterroot National Forest and Northern Region managers,

have studied area fauna, historic and recent landscapes, and the local

social setting. They have used landscape modeling to predict the

consequences of land management choices and implemented demonstration treatments to learn how to restore and sustain diverse forest

structures and landscapes. Managers, members of the public, and

scientists have learned from one another at workshops, field trips, and

public meetings.

Program Leader Greg Jones (RMRS) and Human Dimensions

Chair Jane Kapler Smith (RMRS) co-chaired the 1999 symposium.

Planning committee members included Steve Arno and Helen Smith

(RMRS), Nan Christianson (Bitterroot Forest), and Bob Pfister and

Joan Brehm (University of Montana). Helen Smith planned and

coordinated a symposium field trip to four restoration treatment sites.

She is also compiling and editing the symposium proceedings, which

will be published in 2000.

Marcia Patton-Mallory (Deputy Director, RMRS) joined Greg

Jones in opening the symposium and welcoming over 140 participants. Clint Carlson, Program Leader from 1994 to 1997, reviewed

the project’s history in a presentation, “Why Partnership? Why Ecosystem Management? Why in the Bitterroot?” prepared jointly with

Leslie Weldon (Bitterroot Forest, 1992-1996). Perry Brown (Forestry

School Dean, University of Montana) gave the key note address,

“Sustaining People and Ecosystems in the 21st Century.”

Presentations highlighted

projects designed to protect old

growth, provide diverse habitat,

and sustain ecosystems. Presenters covered four research areas:

vegetation, wildlife, human dimensions, and landscape analysis.

Symposium participants toured

projects at four locations: Lick

Creek (ponderosa pine/Douglasfir), Larry Creek (riparian), Sawmill Creek Research Natural Area

(ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir

stringers within grasslands), and

Snowbowl (old growth ponderosa

pine/western larch/Douglas-fir).

Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Rodd Richardson and Greg

Jones co-hosted the “Information

Smorgasbord” poster session featuring 11 displays for the public in

Hamilton, MT after the field trip on the first day. A no-host “Poster

Session Reception” with 25 poster stations also took place in

Missoula later in the week.

Steve Arno (RMRS, retired) moderated symposium presentations

on forest vegetation, bird, and mammal populations. The Human

Dimensions section, moderated by Jane Kapler Smith (RMRS), featured presentations concentrating on understanding people and their

relationship to the ecosystem. Landscape analysis presentations,

moderated by Jim Chew (RMRS), focused on application of succession and planning models (MAGIS and SIMPPLLE), together with

the Ecosystem Diversity Framework, in landscape planning and

analysis. A final section, moderated by Jim Burchfield (University of

Montana), provided an overview of five other ecosystem management

research projects in the western United States: the Southwestern

Borderlands (Arizona and New Mexico), Great Basin (Nevada), Rio

Grande Basin (New Mexico), Front Range (Colorado), and Blue

Mountains of Oregon.

To wrap up the symposium, Jim Burchfield moderated a panel

discussion focusing on implications for future management. Panel

participants included

Greg Jones, Perry

Brown, and representatives of the five

other ecosystem

management projects.

Helen Smith, Symposium field trip

coordinator, shepherds participants

at Lick Creek Demonstration Forest.

Photo by Steve Slack.

Symposium participants listen to a panel discussion moderated by Professor

Jim Burchfield, University of Montana. Photo by Brooke Thompson.
2

ECO-Report

Published by the

Rocky Mountain Research Station

P. O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 542-3248

Editor/Writer: Janie Canton-Thompson

The United States Department of

Agriculture, (USDA) Forest Service, is a

diverse organization committed to equal

opportunity in employment and program

delivery. USDA prohibits discrimination

on the basis of race, color, national origin,

sex, religion, age, disability, political

affiliation and familial status. Persons

believing they have been discriminated

against by USDA should contact the

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call

202-720-7327

The Past Six Years (1994-1999)

What events led to the origin of the Bitterroot Ecosystem

Management Research Project (BEMRP)? Former Program Leader,

Clint Carlson, and University of Montana Forestry School Dean,

Perry Brown provided an insightful overview in their remarks at the

1999 Symposium.

Carlson, Program Leader from 1994-98, chronicled project

history. Initially, the project grew out of a Forest Service initiative to

generate interest in ecosystems research. The Bitterroot National

Forest was an ideal site because its lower elevation forest types have

experienced 100 years of change due to fire exclusion and extensive

logging, together with housing and agricultural developments along

the forest boundary. Also, during the early 1990s, the Forest Service

began its “New Perspectives” forestry, an ecosystem management

(EM) initiative leading to establishment of the Lick Creek Research

and Demonstration Forest, a ponderosa pine restoration project.

This study, a cooperative effort between scientists at the University

of Montana and the Intermountain (now part of Rocky Mountain)

Research Station as well as Bitterroot managers, set the stage for

future collaboration. Moreover, the Bitterroot was known nationally

through the Bitterroot Controversy (see articles on pages 10-11),

which occurred in the early 1970s, and public interest has remained

high.

In 1994 the project, initially planned for five years, was begun

with the objective of conducting cooperative research on the

Bitterroot. It was organized around four dimensions of ecosystem

management: flora, fauna, people, and modeling. Four committees

linked to these dimensions have developed new studies, demonstration projects, public involvement efforts, and the project’s work

program. Collaboration among academicians, scientists, and

managers remains an integral feature. Each study has been allowed

to stand on its own with integration facilitated via linkage variables,

e.g., disturbance patterns or vegetation composition. This has

allowed the project to deal with broader generalities as well.

Over 40 studies have been funded, and much has been learned.

Vegetation studies have revealed the complex relationship between

forest vegetation and natural disturbances like fire. Researchers

have discovered creative ways of reducing tree density and better

means of controlling weeds. Other studies have profiled public

perceptions of forest management and how forest managers can

interact more effectively with stakeholders. Increased understanding

of forested habitat and mammal travel patterns has emerged. Earlier

shortcomings of forest planning models have been remedied by

adding a spatial component and identifying the necessary interactions

between Interdisciplinary

(ID) teams and landscape

models to insure their

successful use. Participants have also learned

which research questions

to ask for long term

planning. Through

interaction, managers,

scientists, and the public

have learned much about

cooperating for the good of

the forest ecosystem and

developed a knowledge

base enabling better EM.

 On a broader scale, we

have discovered the

tremendous impact of the

human dimension on forest

health and come to better

understand the politics of

restoring ecosystems. This

was the topic of Brown’s remarks to the Symposium. Researchers

have concluded tools must be developed for understanding and

working with the ever-changing human as well as biophysical

environment. Human societies are undergoing their own kind of

succession, and the Forest Service is shifting from forest management

by “experts” to “collaborative” management. A new populism has

made professional resource management expertise debatable and

even suspect. Likewise, an “enfranchisement of a plurality of

interests” spanning gender, ethnic, and income spectra has become

commonplace in natural resource decision making (see “Book

Corner” article by Brown on page 8). The information age has

revolutionized human interaction, permitting the use and abuse of

virtually unlimited information in all arenas, including natural

resources. We have learned our environmental problems are

complex, global and require incredibly sophisticated analyses and

treatments. We have learned that all kinds of knowledge are

important, including scientific, managerial, and common sense. We

have grasped the importance of dialoguing with groups who hold

diverse values. As the project enters phase two (see Jones article on

page 6), our learning will hopefully lead to application of more

appropriate treatments as we continue restoring ecosystems and all

things touched by them.

Graph of Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project publications and reports by year.

Clint Carlson, Bitterroot Ecosystem

Management Project Program Leader,

1994-1998. Photo by Jane Kapler Smith.
3

Field Trips Open and Close Symposium

The “Spotlight”...highlighting researchers at work:

“Fire all the way...”

Mick Harrington, fire effects research forester at the Fire

Sciences Lab, RMRS, developed an affinity for Western Montana

forests at an early age. A native Missoulian, Harrington has loved the

outdoors since childhood. Enrolling in the University of Montana, he

pursued forestry, motivated by his uncle, a career Forest Service

employee.

Mick obtained his first job with the Forest Service as a University freshman. That summer he served as a lookout on the Kaniksu

National Forest where he got his feet wet in fire, literally so, as it was

a rainy summer. Here, he participated in his first prescribed burn. He

realized that fire, appropriately used, was an effective tool. The next

summer Mick worked as a forestry aid where he participated in

prescribed burns and wildfire suppression. The next summer,

Harrington received an appointment at the Northern Forest Fire Lab,

Intermountain Research Station (later combined with RMRS). He got

in on the ground floor of some early, well-known fire research

projects, two of which are still ongoing. Mick’s interest in fire

blossomed, heralding a career in fire effects research.

Upon graduation, Harrington was drafted into the army, serving

in Germany. Following his discharge, he returned to the Missoula

Fire Lab and enrolled in graduate school. After receiving his degree,

he obtained a position in fire effects research with the Rocky

Mountain Research Station in Arizona. There he became involved in

the efforts to reintroduce prescribed fire in forests there. Mick also

assisted managers in resolving problems with fire application.

In 1987, Forest Service fire research was centralized, and Mick

found himself back in his hometown, again working with familiar

people and loving his work. Presently, Harrington and his wife,

Gwyn, are very involved in church activities, enjoy many outdoor

activities, and have a 19-year-old son.

“My love of the outdoors goes much beyond work. Our favorite

thing to do is go hiking in the forest. We just feel such a part of

creation that we long for our solitude in the forest!”

His own words best portray the philosophy that has guided him

By Jane Kapler Smith

RMRS, Fire Effects Research

BEMRP’s May symposium began and ended in the field. On

the first morning, 140 participants headed for Lick Creek, Larry

Creek, and Sawmill Creek Research Natural Area in the Bitterroot

National Forest. At Lick Creek, participants viewed results of

thinning and underburning to improve conditions for old and

second growth ponderosa pine and to increase grasses, forbs, and

shrubs in the understory. Ponderosa pine growth has improved,

willows have resprouted and been heavily used by elk, and some

bitterbrush seedlings have germinated. Participants learned about

effects of treatments and succession on the nitrogen cycle in

ponderosa pine forests.

Weeds and conifer proliferation in native grassland and

adjacent forested canyons concern managers at the Sawmill Creek

Research Natural Area. Presenters here described their goals for

reducing conifer regeneration and weeds and restoring the historic

vegetative structure. A walk through the grassland illustrated

suppression of native grasses and wildflowers by weeds and also

through his career:

“We have been given the position as stewards of the land. We

are in a position to utilize and enjoy natural resources, but that’s all in

the context of being caretakers of the land — not abusing it. Whatever we do that abuses and hurts the system will eventually hurt us so

whatever we do that’s good for the system is good for us too.”

Recapping his research experience, Harrington reflected on how

he has spent his entire career researching fire effects and methods to

reintroduce it.

“Fire, as many other natural disturbances, impacts all parts of the

forest system, and so it requires us to become familiar with other

parts of the system...because everything is connected.”

(Harrington’s current research projects are highlighted on pages 12

and 13.)

Research Forester Mick Harrington ignites fuels in an underburning treatment on the Bitterroot National Forest. Photo by

Kevin Ryan.

(continued on page 4)

1999 Symposium field trip participants convene for the hike to

Sawmill Creek Research Natural Area. Photo by Steve Slack.
4

In 1994, 15 ecosystem management (EM) projects were initiated

throughout the United States. Of these, Rocky Mountain Research

Station (RMRS), headquartered at Fort Collins, CO, has five ongoing

EM projects, including BEMRP. The 1999 BEMRP Symposium

featured presentations on each of BEMRP’s sibling projects —

Southwestern Borderlands, Great Basin, Rio Grande, and Front Range

Projects, together with the Blue Mountains Research Institute Project,

located at La Grande, OR and directed by the Pacific Northwest

Research Station. Examining BEMRP’s five siblings reveals their

unique and common characteristics and contributes to understanding

the essential characteristics of all EM-based projects.

Siblings share common traits, whether in appearance or temperament, and so do BEMRP siblings. For example, EM projects are

interdisciplinary, integrating research on biophysical and human

ecosystem dimensions. All rely heavily on partnerships with public

and private groups whose interaction facilitates learning by all. EM

projects collaborate with a variety of interests, including state and

federal agencies, universities, private industries, private landowners,

environmental advocates, Native American tribes, and county

governments. All are strictly research oriented, having no authority

over National Forest management. Their research focus is

informed by input from their

partners, technical committees,

and governing bodies, which

function similar to a Board of

Directors. They disseminate information through tours, workshops,

papers, newsletters, and conferences. Knowledge quests are science

based, and research is accomplished by partnering with land managers to plan and apply treatments and measure responses. In virtually

all cases, computer-modeling aids landscape analysis. Research is

conducted on human as well as natural disturbances, and all attempt

to stay abreast of shifting public values. Restoration and

sustainability is the driving force behind all EM projects as scientists

strive to understand and learn about all facets of the ecosystems in

their project area.

Rio Grande Ecosystem

Management Research Project

The Rio Grande Ecosystem Management Research Project

focuses on the Middle Rio Grande

Basin between Cochiti Dam and

Elephant Butte Reservoir, New

Mexico. Although humans have

influenced Rio Grande ecosystems

for at least 12,000 years, these

systems have experienced significant

changes in their biophysical and

human components since the coming

of European settlers in 1540. Project

scientists are developing 1) ways to

sustain biophysical, cultural, and

socio-economic health and diversity

within “space- and resource-limited”

ecosystems and 2) methods for

detecting and recovering sensitive

species. Accomplishments to date include: 1) a comprehensive

environmental history of land changes beginning with American

Indian occupation (pre-1540), 2) a history of Basin irrigation, and 3)

an evaluation of historic socio-economic impacts of livestock grazing.

Emerging research priorities include: 1) understanding long-term

human influences on riparian ecosystems, 2) developing conflictresolution techniques to facilitate relationships between modern and

traditional land users, and 3) studying the growing conflicts between

species protection and rural economic uses.

Great Basin Research

and Management Project

The Great Basin Research and Management Project is a joint

effort with the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Located in Central Nevada, the project is unique among its siblings because it focuses on stream incision and riparian degradation, examining linkages developed over millennia. Scientists are discovering the interactive effects of climate change together with natural and human disturbances. In the arid Great Basin, riparian ecosystems

are scarce and highly valued for livestock forage,

recreation, agricultural water, and animal habitat.

Although these systems support most of the region’s

biodiversity, more than 50 percent are in poor ecological condition. Grazing, road construction, mining, recreation, and alteration of upland ecosystems

account for much system degradation. Since continuing climate changes influence the systems’

responses to human and

natural dis-turbances,

restoration and maintenance of riparian ecosystems re-quires an understanding of all factors.

Wood rat middens

(refuse piles) are playing

a unique role in determining the distribution

of certain plant species

and the climate changes

occurring over the past

11,000 years. Sampled

midden strata range from

100 to 8,900 years old.

It’s All in the Family –

Sibling Ecosystem Management Research Projects

showed increases in native plants after herbicide treatments. Visitors

to this area learned about the habitat needs of the tiny Flammulated

Owl, which requires a complex of old growth pine stands, grassy

openings, and Douglas-fir thickets for food and reproduction. Plans

for prescribed burning were described.

During a walk along the hillside above Larry Creek, participants

viewed old growth pines intermixed with cottonwoods, aspens, and

shrubs. This complex structure favors dozens of bird species. Fire

exclusion has promoted conifer encroachment, reducing the diversity

Symposium . . . (continued from page 3) for wildlife. At treatment sites, cutting and prescribed burning have

removed the dense grand fir understory that has developed in the

absence of fire. Biologists will monitor treatment effects on birds,

ungulates, and fish.

On the final afternoon, about 60 participants boarded buses

with their questions and sack lunches to visit the “Snow Bowl site,”

an old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand. This area

was thinned and underburned about a month earlier to restore

conditions for maintaining old growth and reducing wildfire hazard.

Researchers described their plans to measure treatment effects on

wildlife, understory vegetation, tree canopy, and soils.

Rio Grande River. Photo by

Deborah Finch.

Robin Tausch discussing the results of meadow

restoration research at one of the yearly field

tours. Photo by jeanne Chambers.
5

The Blue Mountains Natural Resource

Institute differs from BEMRP’s other

siblings in some respects. Formed in 1990,

the Institute grew out of a grassroots effort

by local citizens concerned with declining

forest conditions in northeastern Oregon and

southeastern Washington. Citizens requested

research to help land managers plan for and

implement forest restoration. Working to

enhance the ecologically sound, sustainable,

economic and social benefits derived from

natural resources, the Institute approaches

resource issues in a unique way. Project

leaders initially determine whether an issue

is value- or knowledge-based. If value

driven, researchers conduct discussion

forums, permitting a variety of interests to

share their perspectives on forest health. If

it is a knowledge question, scientists gather

existing information and disseminate it

through tours, workshops, seminars, papers,

and conferences. If knowledge remains

lacking, the Institute collaborates with partners

to conduct new research. An adaptive

approach informs all Institute activities. For

example, researchers have partnered

with citizens and land managers to

plan, apply, and measure the effects

of alternative fuel treatments in Blue

Mountains National Forests. Project

leaders point out that sound technical

information is useful only when the

public supports an objective and

methods used to accomplish it. In

this case, Oregon State University

scientists, commissioned by the

Institute, surveyed public acceptance

of alternative fuel reduction methods,

learning that respondents broadly

support both thinning and prescripBlue Mountains Natural Resource Institute

Streamwork in a Blue Mountains riparian area, La

Grande, Oregon.

tion fire but prefer the latter. With this social

information in hand, project leaders can

interpret ecological results in a more

meaningful context.

Southwestern Borderlands Project

The Southwestern Borderlands EM project is located in SE

Arizona and SW New Mexico, encompassing nearly a million acres of

relatively unfragmented landscape. It supports exceptional biological

and geographic diversity, particularly in terms of natural plant

communities – from semi-desert grasslands and woodlands to mixed

conifer forests. Developing methods of restoring natural processes

and sustaining the health and productivity of plant communities is

critical to preserving local rural economies and social structure. The

project’s work can be extended to adjacent areas of Mexico. International regional conferences on the Borderlands have been held in

collaboration with University of Arizona and University of Sonora,

Mexico. Scientists are synthesizing existing knowledge on the

following: 1) the role of human and natural disturbances on plant

communities, 2) wildlife, 3) pre- and early history, and 4) watershed

research. An annotated bibliography for the Madrean biogeographical

province (available on the RMRS web site) is being created. They are

also developing a

comprehensive

landscape

inventory and

monitoring system

useful to both

researchers and

land managers,

including creation

of a geo-referenced archive of

research records at

the Santa Rita

Experimental

Range, the oldest

such station in the

U.S. Finally,

researchers have

defined specific

studies (cultural,

fire, vegetation,

archeological, and riparian) and

field experiments to provide information critical

to sustaining rural economies and Borderlands

landscapes.

Colorado Front Range

Ecosystem Management

Research Project

The Colorado Front Range Ecosystem Management Research

Project addresses ecosystem management issues generated by a

rapidly growing human population, complex fragile biophysical

communities, and diverse socio-economic systems. Stretching north

to south along the east face of the Front Range lie the metropolitan

areas of Fort Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo. Much

of this area includes extensive wildland-urban interface forests

(predominantly ponderosa pine). Scientists at the Manitou Experiment Forest have constructed fire history records dating back to the

1200s and discovered old growth stands containing many 400+-yearold trees. Researchers are also collecting ponderosa seedling

establishment data in order to develop viable prescriptions for

increasing stand fire resistance. Improving forest health along the

Front Range requires reducing catastrophic disturbance risks,

including wildfires and bark beetle infestation, in ways that are

effective and acceptable to humans. Researchers have developed a

unique hierarchical model of collaborative ecosystem management,

which incorporates public interests and desires into the decisionmaking process since resource management is a human action,

motivated by human desires, and driven by human values.

Held

Values

Social

System

ASSIGNED VALUE

ACTIONS 

Bio physical System

CONTROL

INFORMATION

The Hierarchical Model of

Collaborative Resource Management

View across Cottonwood Basin

reveals the Maverick Prescribed

Burn area located in the southern

Peloncillo Mountains of southeastern Arizona and southwestern

New Mexico. Photo by Gerald

Gottfried.

View of Pikes Peak from the Manitou

Experimental Forest Lodge in Colorado. RMRS

Headquarters are located in Ft.Collins, CO.

Photo by Wayne Shepperd.
6

As we turn the calendar to Y2K, the Bitterroot Ecosystem

Management Research Project (BEMRP) embarks on the second year

of its new 5-year charter. In these five years our mission is to

strengthen the scientific theory and practice of managing Rocky

Mountain ecosystems at the landscape level in the context of social,

economic, and ecological opportunities and constraints. We’ve

adopted five objectives to implement this mission:

1. Understand and manage changes within the landscape by

developing and integrating vegetation, fauna, and aquatic

information. Understanding these relationships provides much of the

basis for ecosystem management. We have learned lots about

disturbance dynamics of historical ponderosa pine and pine-mixed

conifer forests and how to apply different silvicultural and burning

prescriptions to restore a semblance of natural conditions and

processes at the stand level. We now shift to evaluating impacts of

landscape-level treatment options on native vegetation, exotic weeds,

and fauna. We are also changing the focus from low-elevation, dry

sites to disturbance dynamics of mid- and high-elevation forest types.

Finally, research will address the historical range of variability and

dynamics of riparian areas, as well as associated faunal relationships.

2. Increase the efficiency of landscape analyses and assessments,

adaptive management, and monitoring by developing integrative

models. Implementing ecosystem management involves conducting

assessments at various scales and analyzing management alternatives.

When viewed at multiple scales, processes of landscape change

become difficult to analyze without modeling. Additionally, models,

because they require specific data relating to specific processes,

inform us which data are most useful to gather and the level of

precision at which these data will be

useful. Future research will 1) investigate

data problems associated with landscape

analysis, 2) propose and test possible

solutions, and 3) increase integration of

landscape change measurements with

aquatic systems, wildlife, and social

objectives. Other efforts will address

data problems associated with landscape analysis and streamline the

use of landscape models to make them easier and cheaper to apply.

3. Propose and test potential solutions to social, administrative,

and environmental barriers to implementing ecosystem management. Much has been learned about ecosystems, natural processes,

Greg Jones, left, Program Leader, Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project, discusses restoration in Sawmill Creek Research

Natural Area with field trip participant, Vince Novotny. Photo by Steve

Slack.

“A Look to the Future”

Greg Jones, Program Leader

RMRS, Bitterroot Ecosystem Research Management Project

BEMRP’s future promises a rainbow of new studies and knowledge.

Photo by Milo Burcham.

and forest health, but there are still too few examples of putting what

we’ve learned into practice on the ground at scales that effectively

address restoration needs. First, national forest managers and

researchers will identify, describe, understand, and prioritize barriers

to implementing ecological treatments in

the Bitterroot River watershed. Next,

research will be used to enhance understanding of barriers, if necessary. Then,

possible solutions will be examined in a

cooperative effort involving national

forest managers, researchers, and the

public.

4. Explore collaborative management across landscapes of

diverse ownerships and land-use classification. Many important

ecosystem processes and relationships transcend ownership boundaries. For example, efforts to improve stream conditions must cross

ownerships to be most effective. Needed are effective techniques,

approaches, and tools for facilitating collaborative management with

willing partners across ownerships and land use classifications.

Collaborative planning research will 1) review results from past

collaborative management efforts across ownerships and land-use

classifications, including a review of literature and local efforts; 2)

identify and assess issues that transcend ownership boundaries in the

Bitterroot Valley; and 3) propose and facilitate collaborative assessment of one or more selected areas.

5: Develop and assess techniques for technical communication

among researchers, managers, and the public. Communicating

research results has been emphasized in past BEMRP efforts. Some

approaches have been successful, but often the audience was limited

or timing slower than desired. Techniques are needed to rapidly

communicate what we learn to a diverse group of interested parties:

managers, landowners, scientists, interest groups, and the general

public. We will identify promising approaches to information transfer

and examine how well these approaches address communications

needs for interdisciplinary, collaborative research and management.

A literature review, together with studies of other organizations and

emerging technologies, will provide potential models.

...our mission is to strengthen the

scientific theory and practice of

managing Rocky Mountain ecosystems...
7

Agencies Within Communities, Communities Within Ecosystems

Jane Kapler Smith, RMRS, Fire Effects Research

Agencies operate as part of social systems, which operate as part of

ecosystems. Social systems have components and organization, just as

ecosystems do. Like ecosystems, social systems change constantly,

have limits to the change that can be survived, and are sometimes

unpredictable!

If people have plenty of scientifically-based information and

plenty of opportunities to learn about one another and the

environment, then will they eventually reach consensus on goals

and practices for wildland management? In a presentation at the

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project symposium, Jane

Kapler Smith (RMRS) and Kerry McMenus (Northern Region)

suggested that this question has guided the Project’s human dimensions program.

Five years of research and communications show that the answer

is “not necessarily.” Where people’s values differ greatly, consensus

is not a realistic goal for short term planning. What are some realistic

goals and measures of success? Success has many dimensions in

public involvement. Agreement is important, but a project is at least

partly successful if all stakeholders are identified and included, if

relationships among participants are enhanced, if all participants

(managers, researchers, and members of the public) learn from one

another, and if public input is used to improve management plans and

practices. On-the-ground results— which can be viewed, evaluated,

and used to improve future work— are another important aspect of

success.

Agencies must continually work toward increased participation

and mutual understanding among partners. How can agency staff

improve this process? Based on the research and experience of the

past five years, Jane and Kerry made these suggestions:

• Accept tensions within communities. Tensions are forces that

contribute to balanced decisions. Agency outreach and actions can

benefit from them but cannot make them go away.

• Think and work within the local community. Think like a member

of the community, considering land management issues as

extending across time, not consisting of single projects. Learn

about community members’ values and address them in management choices. Use the infrastructure of the local community to

involve the public.

• Invest energy in long-term relationships with community groups

and members of the public. Search for ways to include newcomers.

Positive relationships with neighbors help agencies develop sound

local management practices.

• Keep track of what is learned and use it! Use a variety of communications methods. This newsletter is one. Personal contacts,

public meetings, field trips, educational programs, Web sites— all

of these methods share knowledge and help maintain relationships

among partners.

Many of the approximately 40 million acres of ponderosa pine/

Douglas-fir forests in the western United States would benefit from

treatments to improve ecosystem conditions. University of Montana

researchers Carl Fiedler (Forestry) and Chuck Keegan (Business)

conducted cooperative research funded through BEMRP on the

economics of restoring such forests. In their talk at the Spring 1999

BEMRP Symposium, Fiedler and Keegan stated their research

objectives were to 1) develop and evaluate alternative prescriptions

for restoring stands to a desired ecological condition and 2) determine

the potential value of forest products removed under each prescription to underwrite treatment costs.

Fiedler and Keegan began by analyzing inventory records to

quantify high hazard stand conditions.

This effort provided a composite (average) stand possessing the following

characteristics: 1) species composition

- ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, 2) 100

trees per acre 7-24” dbh (diameter at

breast height), 3) 550 trees per acre

less than 7” dbh, together with 120

square feet of basal area, and 4) presence of significant quantities of

ladder fuels. Subsequently, they

developed two stand restoration

prescriptions in consultation with other

ecologists and silviculturists:

1) The “comprehensive”

prescription included: a) a modified

selection cut designed to reduce basal

area to 40-50 square feet, encouraging

regeneration of ponderosa pine, b) a

The Economics of Ecosystem Management

Net value per acre for the comprehensive

prescription compared to the “thin from below”

prescription on both tractor and cable ground.

low thinning to reduce ladder fuels, and c) an improvement cut to

remove most fir and other low-quality trees.

2) The “thin-from-below” prescription entailed cutting most trees

up to 9” in diameter. For each prescription, the researchers then

calculated a net worth of wood products removed and delivered to a

mill (minus harvest and hauling costs) for trees >5” dbh.

 Results indicated the comprehensive restoration treatment was

superior in terms of ecological, financial, and employment benefits.

The comprehensive restoration prescription more than paid for itself

through the timber products produced. Ecosystem restoration

generated a positive net value in terms of revenues, employment, and

wages. When managers opt for comprehensive restoration treatments,

the potential exists not only to sustain but even

boost employment in the forest products industry.

For example, comprehensive restoration treatments

provide more wood products for processing and

require more highly trained employees to design

and implement the treatments. Keegan explained

that some of the highest paying jobs in the inland

rural west are found in the forest products industry.

The researchers offered some helpful hints for

resource managers. First, analyze both the reasons

for doing a treatment and the expected outcomes.

Second, understand the economics of timber

product values, markets, and harvest system costs.

Prescriptions should be specifically designed to

develop desired conditions (not just reduce fire

hazard over the short-term), since no one size fits

all. Finally, managers choosing stands most in need

of treatment are likely to realize positive net

benefits both economically and ecologically.
8

BOOK

CORNER

 Social Context:

Reaching a Sociological Maximum in the Bitterroot Valley

Historically, the human dimension has been

difficult to characterize in natural resource management and research. This is an interesting artifact

considering humans alone provide meanings to

ecosystems by conceptualizing, defining, and

manipulating them. One must gather, assess, and

apply information on the social system as part of a

greater effort to manage and restore ecosystems. For

the past five years, BEMRP has been engaged in

human dimension research centered on social context

(setting) and communications (public involvement and

public information). While developing a valuable

profile of residents, communities, institutions, and

processes making up the Bitterroot social system,

researchers have documented significant change in the

Valley’s human dimension.

In a nutshell, the Bitterroot Valley social system

is in the midst of its own kind of “health crisis.”

Fueled by 30 years of rapid growth, Ravalli County is

the fastest growing county in Montana. The Valley is

reaching a kind of sociological maximum as its heretofore-agricultural communities transform into more urban-like communities

whose needs stretch existing infrastructure. Subdivisions are allpervasive. Water quality is diminishing, and air pollution is growing.

The county’s rapid growth has been turning a once homogeneous

culture into a conglomeration of diversified cultural groups whose

differences have played out in value conflict over planning and other

social policies. Community cohesiveness has declined significantly.

The traditional sense of neighboring has also diminished in the wake

of time-consuming commutes for work and recreation, together with

a declining agricultural economy.

 Can the Bitterroot ecosystem be restored to some

historic range of variability? Restoration of

ecosystem health poses a challenge because the

social context in which biophysical systems were

historically managed has been drastically altered.

Viewed in the framework of social life even 40 years

ago, today’s population density and land use patterns

would be unthinkable. Ironically, research indicates

many newcomers hope to resurrect a historic set of

pastoral, agrarian values and lifestyles.

 Interestingly, the one value shared by old-timers

and newcomers alike (albeit for different reasons) is

a strong attachment to the natural environment. This

appears to be one of the few forces preserving a

historic sense of community, an effort that simultaneously binds residents together and tears them

apart.

 The interdependence between the human and

biophysical dimensions is dynamic and variable over

time and desired conditions always a moving target.

Residents must concur that all natural resource management involves

some degree of social tradeoff if they are to sustain the very environment most claim to be a major reason they live in the Bitterroot. This

social reality makes BEMRP human dimension research a critical

component of efforts to understand the total ecosystem. Since

changes in the Valley’s ecosystem, including the human dimension,

have occurred over a 100-year period, restoration will likewise be a

lengthy process. Only by understanding all dimensions of ecosystems

can we gradually bring about a healthy, sustainable forest environment for all life in the Bitterroot Valley.

By Perry J. Brown, Dean

School of Forestry, University of Montana

Ecosystem management suggests large-scale, integrative, and

collaborative management. It further implies that management

must be responsive to all with an interest in the land since they are

part of the system. Nature and the Human Spirit directly addresses this issue by bringing many voices to our consciousness.

Over the past century many more voices have become

enfranchised as we have moved from a small elite setting direction

for land management, particularly public land, to listening to the

ideas and concerns of a broadened array of interests. The

constituency for land management continues to expand as we

embrace the voices of more cultures and more people.

In Nature and the Human Spirit, Bev Driver and his coeditors allow us to sample many perspectives on the nature and

meaning of land and natural resources. We hear from Philosophers, Economists, Sociologists, and Psychologists and, more

importantly, from Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, and others who perceive the land differently from each other.

We also hear from those with economic ties to the land as well as

from those who see land in aesthetics and spirituality.

There exists a great plurality of land connections in America,

and these give managers many opportunities for listening and

A Review of

Nature and the Human Spirit:

Toward An Expanded

Land Management Ethic

learning about the land and its people. Land managers need to

understand more clearly how different kinds of citizens define and

relate to land and natural resources and how diverse groups satisfy

their needs from the land. The chapters of this book give a glimpse

into what others think and give voice to their perceptions and

concerns. It suggests land has deep meaning to individuals and

groups in society, it suggests there are many meanings and many

connections people have to land, it suggests a sense of place is

critical in understanding the relationships of people and land, and it

suggests there are culturally diverse associations with land that

must be recognized.

Reading through Nature and the Human Spirit will enlighten

and inform. It gives us much to ponder and a lot to build into our

conceptions of ecosystem management. It brings to light many

hard to define values about land and natural resources, and it stimulates the mind to consider that land does enhance the human spirit.

Driver, B.L., Daniel Dustin, Tony Baltic, Gary Elsner, and George

Peterson, editors.1996. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an

Expanded Land Management Ethic. Venture Publishing, Inc. State

College, PA. 467 pages.

Bitterroot flower. Some things

never change in the beautiful Valley

named for this flower. Photo by

Danny On.
9

Stephen F. Arno

RMRS, Retired

Historically, ponderosa pine-dominated

forests were widespread, covering more than 40

million acres in the Western U.S. During

the1800’s, forests in the Bitterroot Valley and

many other areas of the inland Northwest were

dominated by large “yellow pines,” a term

applied to old growth ponderosa pine. Yellow

pine commonly grew in open stands as a result

of frequent low-intensity fires that thinned out

small trees and undergrowth. Some landowners,

notably timber companies in California,

practiced “light burning” in these forests to

clean out underbrush and logging slash and to

improve forage for livestock. However, the

newly established profession of forestry

considered fire damaging and unnecessary.

Many people who were concerned about forests

did not realize fire was a natural part of the

ecosystem. They attributed all fires to human

carelessness. The fledgling profession of

forestry had been developed during the 1800’s in

humid regions of Europe, where fire was not

known to have a natural role, and these concepts

of forestry were brought to America. However,

the principal concern of European foresters was re-establishing trees

on lands that had been largely denuded for centuries, a much different

application of forestry than was called for in the vast, natural firedependent forests of western North America.

In 1899, Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the U.S. Forest Service,

published a detailed essay on fire in National Geographic. He

“What Do You Mean

By That?”

Have you ever wondered about the

meaning of word treasures like model,

collaboration, or transect, which appear

in Eco-Reports and other EM publications? Beginning in Y2K, the BEMRP

web page (url address=www.fs.fed.us/rm/

ecopartner) will be upgraded. One addition will

be an expandable glossary of unfamiliar terms. If you do not have

Internet access or would like a hard copy of the forthcoming glossary,

please contact the Eco-Report editor at 542-3248. You might also

suggest new words you’d like added. Here is a preview of some of

the words planned for the initial glossary.

BEMRP – Bitterrot Ecosystem Management Research Project.

COLLABORATION – a coalition of diverse people with diverse

values and expectations working together at the community level to

solve problems.

MODEL – a simplified representation of an aspect of the real world

that contains the important features of real “life” for making predictions.

PARTNERSHIP – a voluntary, mutually beneficial and desired

relationship entered into by two or more person(s) or group(s) to

accomplish mutual objectives.

TRANSECT – a straight line of a given length containing study

points located at specified distances.

Old Growth Ponderosa Pine. Photo by

Pete Stickney.

Historical Perspective on Ecosystem-based Management

recognized fire was a key factor in creating

many of the magnificent Western forests and

urged study of fire’s ecological role. Not much

came of this suggestion. After disastrous

wildfires struck the forests of northern Idaho

and northwestern Montana in 1910, the Forest

Service (Pinchot having resigned for other

reasons) led a campaign to eliminate fire,

including “light burning,” from all forests.

In the 1930’s biologists and landowners

convinced the Forest Service to allow controlled burning for maintaining pine plantations

in the Southern states. In 1943, Harold

Weaver, a government forester for Indian

reservations in the West, published an article in

the Journal of Forestry advocating controlled

fire in management of Western ponderosa pine

forests. Over the next 30 years, many other

foresters and biologists came to support this

viewpoint. They argued that even the most

progressive kinds of harvesting and thinning

were not an adequate substitute for natural fire,

which had killed primarily the smaller, weaker

trees, consumed excess fuels, and recycled

nutrients.

Meanwhile, the mission of attempting

to eliminate fire had become popular with

much of the public and was entrenched in most land management

organizations. Nevertheless, despite improved suppression technology and escalating expenditures, by the 1970’s more and more large,

severe wildfires were occurring. Congressional inquiries into these

problems led to adoption of a new fire policy that called for integration of prescribed fire and fuels management in western forests.

This is some of the historical background that led managers to

try ecosystem-based management in Western forests. In hindsight, it

might have been easier to achieve EM. had light burning been

allowed to continue. By the late1900’s the structure of ponderosa

pine forests had changed dramatically, with thickets of small trees,

often firs, and a buildup of dead fuels. Now thousands of new

homes are situated in dense forests, and concerns about smoke from

prescribed fire is another relatively new major problem. Modern

forest conditions often make it necessary to remove some excessive

trees to restore less hazardous stand structures before fire can be

returned as an ecological-based treatment.

New Publication Available

Eighty-Eight Years of Change in a Managed Ponderosa

Pine Forest is edited by Helen Smith and Steve Arno.

Follow the trail of the ecological changes in a ponderosa

pine forest through a series of repeat photos taken over 88

years. Publication includes commentary by 19 contributing

authors. Get your copy now by writing to Rocky Mountain

Research Station, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401. You

may also call 970-498-1392.

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, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 55 p. +

14 foldout photopoint pages, one poster.
10

Orville Daniels was Supervisor of the

Bitterroot National Forest at the

height of the Bitterroot Controversy.

Orville L. Daniels

USDA, Forest Service, Retired

I became Supervisor of the Bitterroot

National Forest in 1970, during the height of

the Forest’s management controversy. Arriving then gave me the opportunity to be analytical about its cause and implications. I

would like to share my personal observations

and conclusions rather than attempt any broad

agency perspective.

When I arrived on the Forest, the debate

raging was the same one that exists today —

how should the national forest be managed

and for what purposes. The basic argument

was over commodity versus amenity values of

national forests, essentially, who was to get

their desires and needs met by the way the

Forest was managed. This was an era in

which people were beginning to express

discontent with forest management on a

national level. There were five other national

forests experiencing the same types of controversy as the Bitterroot. Within the context of

this national debate, there was a significant

consensus among local people. The rate of

change taking place on the ground was too

much, too fast, and unacceptable to the preponderance of local citizenry.

Clear-cuts were appearing on mountainsides, terracing was occurring on steep

slopes, and roads were constructed or proposed into large blocks of undeveloped country, as well as along the Bitterroot face. Within the first few months, I heard from bankers,

loggers, lawyers, business people and ordinary citizens, who were all dissatisfied with

changes taking place within the Forest.

The Bitterroot Controversy –

A View from the Inside

The cause of this rapid change was a

combination of purposeful agency decisions

in response to national demand for wood

products and the influence of natural events.

After decades of custodial management

during which only low elevation ponderosa

pine stands were managed, the Forest began

selling timber in mid-elevation mixed conifer

and higher elevation lodgepole types. Numerous sales were planned and sold but

before they could be cut, two large fires

(Saddle Mountain and Sleeping Child)

burned over 30,000 acres of the same timber

types. These fires were so significant that

fears of future fires began influencing land

management decisions.

The Forest started a massive road building and salvage effort within the burned over

areas. Moreover, it began building road

systems and selling timber to create fuel

breaks that would help prevent the spread of

future large, destructive fires. I recall one

clear-cut that was planned to average one

half mile wide and eight miles long.

The combination of sales sold prior to

the fires, salvage sales, and fuel break sales

quadrupled the timber harvested from

slightly over 20 million to over 70 million

board feet within two years, a practice which

continued for nearly a decade. This massive

and rapid impact on the forest was simply

too much for people in the valley.

Other contributing factors of the Bitterroot controversy were numerous and extremely complex. Various groups and individuals played important roles in creating

notoriety for the Forest. Environmental

groups had national agendas, politicians had

political agendas, and the University of

Montana played a significant role. Pressures

from the Administration factored into the

situation, and ultimately policies and attitudes within the Forest Service played a part

as well. I have chosen to focus on the underlying cause because I believe the most

significant lesson to be learned from the

Bitterroot controversy is we first and foremost must have the support and understanding of local people.

Public involvement

developed at the Stevensville

Ranger District more than 50

years ago. District Ranger,

Charles McDonald (“Mac”),

supported by Bitterroot Forest

Supervisors Guy Brandborg and

Thurman Trosper, implemented a

District-based public education

program in the 1940s.

An early day ecosystembased manager, Mac took his job

as District steward seriously.

Intent on developing a citizenbased forest stewardship ethic, he

believed education was the key.

He devoted his public career and

private life to educating others on

topics ranging from noxious

Charles McDonald was Stevensville District Ranger from 1944 to

1965. Photo by Jane McDonald.

Public Involvement Efforts of Yesteryear

Early Attempts at Stevensville (1944-1965)

weeds, wildflower identification, erosion, overgrazing, silvicultural

practices, and fire suppression (like others of that era, he believed in

fire suppression because of public safety and the need for a reservoir

of standing timber). Mac accomplished his education program three

ways: presentations to groups, “show-me” trips (field trips), and

casual conversation.

He actively sought the public out as they did him. He was the

featured speaker at community service organizations, schools, and

university classrooms. However, he also gathered students and others

around him for ad hoc presentations. If he wasn’t providing formal

lectures, Mac was conducting “show-me” trips to study plantations

and other District sites. For example, busloads of University of

Montana students routinely picked up Ranger Mac and together with

their professors he guided them through the forest, delivering a

curriculum rich in ecosystem-based teaching.

Mac’s educational efforts extended beyond the Bitterroot Valley.

For example, he conducted seminars for teachers and other professionals at Yellow Bay on Flathead Lake. At the national level, Mac

(continued on page 11)
11

escorted conservation group directors and magazine editors,

including the editor of Sunset Magazine, on pack trips into the

heart of the Selway-Bitterroot Mountains. Astride a horse,

alongside a stream at lunchtime or hovered over a campfire

reflecting on a rocky cliff, they learned about intricacies of their

natural environment from Ranger Mac. Forming life long

friendships with him, they returned to their urban offices,

publishing articles conveying his stewardship message to a

national audience. His public involvement efforts in education

led to his receipt of the American Motors Award for outstanding

conservation work in 1962.

After he retired, Mac continued his public education efforts

through summer Wilderness Living Classes. He taught his

students the lore of wilderness riding, packing, and cutting out

trails, together with backcountry ecology and geology. For Mac,

public education was a way of life. He wanted people to

understand and value the forest and grasslands he loved so that

they would be preserved for posterity. Ranger Mac had many

aliases, including “Tree McDonald.” Some said, “If you cut him

he’d bleed green.” Mac was Forest Service through and through.

He practiced a lifestyle of public involvement. It was his life.

Public Involvement (continued from page 10)

Stevensville schools show-me trip conducted by Ranger Charles McDonald in

1951. Photo by Charles H. McDonald.

The Bitterroot Controversy – Revisited

Dale A. Burk

Author and Publisher

Stevensville, Montana

As we open a new millennium, a

fundamental reality faces resource managers

who come to the Bitterroot National Forest.

They inescapably walk in the legacy of the

Bitterroot Controversy. The Forest and its

inherited “Controversy” are writ-large in the

annals of U. S. natural resource history.

Like their predecessors, today’s

Bitterroot land managers function in a

spirited setting of contending public land

ideologies which drives the pervasive,

never-ending public scrutiny of almost every

detail of forest management. Sanctioned

public oversight of what takes place on

citizen-owned forest lands is basic to the

forest land management process.

As an outside, intimate observer during,

and after, the “Bitterroot Controversy”, it’s

my judgment that adjustment of management practices, including demands for

reform, has been painful. It has been

tortuous at times and only partially fulfilled,

despite new laws and constant personnel

changes. That, too, is part of an uneasy

legacy.

That legacy contains many parts, but a

few have overriding significance. They are

best stated in the famed “Bolle Report,” (socalled because the issuing committee was

chaired by UM Forestry School Dean, Dr.

Arnold Bolle), “A University View of the

Forest Service By a Select Committee of the

University of Montana,” released November

18, 1970, by U.S. Senator Lee Metcalf. Its

major points are central to the “forestry

issue” on the Bitterroot today. According to

the Report:

 “Multiple-use is stated as the guiding

principle of the Forest Service. Given

wide lip-service, it cannot be said to be

operational on the Bitterroot Forest at

this time. A change in funding to

increase considerably the activities in

nontimber uses would help, but could

not be effective until legislative and

executive emphasis is changed. But

even with this modification the

internal bureaucracy of the agency and

the lack of public involvement in

decision-making make real change

unlikely. As long as short-run

emphasis of timber production

overrides long-run (and short-run)

concern for related uses and local

environmental quality, real change is

impossible and the outlook is for

continued conflict and discontent.”

Since part of the Bitterroot Forest

legacy has been “continued conflict and

discontent,” one must ask whether the Bolle

Committee’s statement was not both

insightful and prophetic. That’s why, I

believe, despite controversy over public

involvement at last spring’s Symposium, the

Symposium itself, “Bitterroot Ecosystem

Management Research Project: What We

Have Learned,” lends hope to the cause.

One Bolle Committee finding, directly

manifested in the work presented at the

Symposium, stated: “The research basis for

management of the Bitterroot National

Forest is too weak to support the management practices used on the forest.” That, in

large measure, is a part of the legacy that is

being addressed in strong, positive fashion

as evidenced at the Symposium. The more

that is done, with research findings placed

squarely and truthfully into the public arena,

the more likely will all aspects of the

Bitterroot Controversy legacy, which is

really the legacy of public land forestry, be

positively addressed.

While a reporter for the Missoulian, Dale Burke,

author and publisher, provided news coverage

during the Bitterroot Controversy. Photo by Billie

Linkletter.
12

Colin C. Hardy

RMRS, Fire Effects Research

Scientists either directly or indirectly

associated with previous Bitterroot Ecosystem

Research Management Project (BEMRP)

vegetation studies continue to pursue both

fundamental and applied vegetation research

projects in the interior West. Most of the

“recent happenings” in vegetation research

relate to restoration of forested ecosystems,

including activities in whitebark pine, lodgepole pine, old growth ponderosa pine, mixed

conifer canyons, and fir-dominated riparian

areas (figure 1).

Whitebark pine—Two RMRS scientists

are currently working in the high elevation

whitebark pine forest type. Ward McCaughey, Research Forester at

the Bozeman Forestry Sciences Laboratory, has several studies evaluating regeneration and plantation success of whitebark pine on high

elevation sites in the Greater Yellowstone Area ecosystem. Research

Ecologist Bob Keane (Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory) is investigating silvicultural and prescribed fire methods to restore declining

whitebark pine ecosystems in the northern Rockies. Keane’s current

research effort involves six sites in western Montana and central

Idaho.

Lodgepole pine—McCaughey and Research Forester Colin

Hardy (Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory) are co-principals for an

extensive, multiple treatment study on the Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest in central Montana. Various combinations of four

treatment regimens are being imposed among eighteen separate

blocks: prescribed fire only, a silvicultural cutting design called

“shelterwood with reserves” with both even and grouped retention

On the Move: Recent Happenings in Vegetation Research

For some it might appear strange that fire and silviculture are

used to return altered forest ecosystems to healthy presettlement

conditions. We have been conditioned to believe these processes

assault forest ecosystems rather restore their health. However, research forester Mick Harrington (RMRS, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab)

and his colleagues assert both constitute a valid approach to system

restoration and sustainability.

Because fire was historically a key disturbance factor in Northern Rockies forest ecosystems, its 20th century exclusion has produced

unnatural conditions, including massive fuels buildup, loss of habitat,

and extreme site stocking. Currently, fuel conditions prevent fire

alone from returning these ecosystems to their desired presettlement

conditions. How then does one obtain a healthier forest ecosystem

and a reduction of fire hazard? Research has shown that one way to

mitigate forest health problems is to use some form of mechanical

treatment followed by prescription fire.

(figure 2), harvesting followed by prescribed

underburning, and no-treatment controls.

Old-growth ponderosa pine—Mick

Harrington, Research Forester from the

Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, is conducting a restoration project in stressed, 320

year-old ponderosa pine and larch near

Missoula. He is comparing five treatments,

including cutting and several burning options in Douglas-fir thickets as well as removal of some old trees to allow pine and

larch regeneration (see article on page 13).

Restoration of mixed-conifer forests—

Harrington is also the principal investigator

for a restoration project at the Sawmill Research Natural Area on the Bitterroot National Forest, where small diameter Douglas-fir have been cut and

piled for burning beneath old growth and younger ponderosa pine.

Some larger firs were also girdled to relieve competition. Invasive

weeds have been treated, and subsequent tree and understory response

to the integrated treatments will be monitored.

Riparian area restoration—A comparison of vegetation response to cutting and

burning of grand fir thickets is being made by

Harrington along two

streams in western Montana. Final, 2nd-year posttreatment measurements

have recently been completed.

Mick Harrington and

his associates have conducted forest health restoration projects for more

than 12 years. Usually,

these involve some form

of harvesting to prepare

sites for fire treatments.

“We have broken new

ground and are working in

controversial areas people

have avoided in the past

because of the controversies,” said Harrington. For example, he and others are conducting

riparian restoration treatments, applying mechanical activities (cutting), and then fire. Harrington explained that fire has been an historic disturbance in riparian as well as in upland areas. Because of

fire’s exclusion in riparian areas, a species shift has occurred which is

detrimental to riparian ecosystems in general. Researchers aim to

study ways of restoring riparian areas to a more sustainable condition

for the vegetation and wildlife that live there. However, they want to

be sensitive to the fragile nature of stream-side ecosystems.

Harrington explained that often researchers apply a treatment

and measure the first or second year effects, never to return to examine the more subtle, important changes, which occur during the next

decade such as new plants, tree mortality and growth release, soil

changes, and the like. Since few long-term forest restoration studies

have been published, Harrington plans to maintain his monitoring

Researchers use prescribed underburning to restore riparian studies for the long-term. Fire and silviculture to the rescue! vegetation at Larry Creek. Photo by Mick Harrington.

Figure 2—The two-aged silvicultural

prescription, called “shelterwood with

reserves,” will retain 50 percent of the

basal area in two different distributions—

even (a) and grouped (b).

Figure 1—Vegetation research is taking place in

five different vegetation types in the interior

Northwest.

Fire and Silviculture to the Rescue

a.

b.
13

Ameliorating Unhealthy Forest Conditions

Four distinctive types of deteriorating

forest health conditions led BEMRP

researchers Mick Harrington and Steve

Arno (recently retired) to implement

restoration studies combining the use of

fire and silvicultural treatments. Study

sites are located on the Bitterroot National

Forest at Lick Creek, Fred Burr face,

Sawmill Creek Research Natural Area

(RNA), and Larry Creek as well as

Snowbowl on the Lolo National Forest.

The Lick Creek Demonstration Forest

site exemplifies the first condition.

Initially harvested in 1909, this second

growth ponderosa pine stand has more than

80 years of photographic records, making it

a monitoring dream. While fire scars

indicate natural fires returned to Lick

Creek every seven years on average,

historically, the last wildfire occurred in the

late 1800s. These stands evidence

deterioration in terms of 1) tree density and

species composition, 2) deterioration of

understory vegetation, and 3) loss of larger

trees because of competitive stress and past

cutting practices. Silvicultural and fire

comparison treatments have been applied

to 15 different units. Harrington noted

Lick Creek has the honor of attracting the

most interest in terms of visibility and

visitation.

The Fred Burr site demonstrates the

second condition being studied. It is a

second growth stand more advanced

successionally than Lick Creek. Prior to

the early 1900s, ponderosa pine dominated

this stand. However, because of harvest

and fire exclusion, most of the site has

been taken over by Douglas-fir displaying

a multitude of forest health problems.

Pre- (a) and post-treatment (b) conditions at the Snowbowl old growth site showing the effects of slashing and piling of fir for

prescribed burning. Photos by Mick Harrington.

I think the demonstration part

allows people to observe, and then

they can make their own judgment

about what they like and don’t like.

Small comparative sivicultural treatments

(logging with dozers, skidders, farm

tractors, and horses) were applied side by

side and all underburned together with an

uncut control unit of similar size. The

project began in 1995, continued with

logging in 1996, and underwent burning in

spring, 1997.

Old growth stands comprise the third

condition under study. Two similar old

growth areas, Snowbowl and Sawmill, are

under restoration. At Snowbowl (see

photos at bottom of page), research

involves restoring old growth ponderosa

pine and western larch. Most of the

existing old growth trees are 280-320

years old. The stand is uncut and experienced a fire frequency of 20-year intervals

prior to 1919. Since then, Douglas-fir

(historically always a small part of the

stand) exploded in numbers, placing much

competitive stress on the old growth pine

and creating excess ladder fuels. Restoration treatments began in 1998. In one

treatment all Douglas-fir were cut, piled

and burned. In another treatment all fir

were cut and broadcast burned in place. In

some places old growth pine and larch

were harvested to open up the stands for

successful regeneration of shade intolerant

pine and larch.

Old growth restoration at Sawmill

Creek RNA differs from Snowbowl because

a grassland adjacent to the forest is also

being restored. Mechanical, on-site

treatments at Sawmill have included cutting

and piling all the Douglas-fir, which were

burned in November 1999. A broadcast

burn covering the grasslands in forested

canyons is scheduled for 2000.

 Larry Creek Riparian Project provides

the fourth condition under study. Although

fire intervals are longer in riparian areas,

fire exclusion has, nevertheless, caused

dense stocking of grand fir, resulting in

exclusion of shrubs and deterioration of

riparian vegetation. Researchers believe

removing the overstory of grand fir,

allowing more sunlight, space, nutrients,

and moisture for seral species, will benefit

the site the most. Several comparative

treatments to accomplish this goal were

accomplished as a part of a University of

Montana masters degree project directed by

Harrington.

Harrington believes research, as shown

in these projects, is a valuable tool that

forest managers can use to give a more

scientific basis for treating unhealthy stands

prone to severe fire. The most important

aspect of restoration projects lies in their

demonstration value:

“I think the demonstration part allows

people to observe, and then they can make

their own judgment about what they like and

don’t like. We do have to proceed cautiously and deliberately, but the worst thing

we can do is not do anything. We won’t be

able to keep fire out of these stands entirely

in the long run.”

Pre-treatment (a) Post-treatment (b)
14

Understory Burning Gets the Job Done

Janie Canton-Thompson, RMRS, Eco-Report Editor

Dave Silvieus, Bitterroot National Forest

Whitebark pine occupies a habitat

visited by few but the hardiest outdoor

visitors. This “keystone” species is the

centerpiece of the valuable, upper subalpine

ecosystems of the northern Rocky Mountains

and Cascades. Historically the dominant

species in the Northern Rockies upper

elevation zone, today whitebark pine

becomes obvious to sojourners only at the

higher end of its former range, near

timberline.

The virtues of whitebark pine are

legion. For example, it protects snowpack by

delaying snowmelt through shading the

ground. Its presence also helps prevent steep

slopes from eroding, a threat during rapid

snowmelt. Whitebark pine communities

provide critical wildlife habitat. Many

species of birds and mammals utilize

whitebark pine, consuming its large,

nutritious seeds as their major foodstuff.

Although this pine produces a good cone

crop every 3-5 years, its seeds are wingless,

rendering it helpless to reproduce without

outside assistance. Enter the Clark’s

Nutcracker which has developed a “mutualistic relationship” with whitebark pine. If it

were not for this bird, the tree’s seeds would

mold on the branch or be consumed by

animals. However, its cones are displayed

upwards, attracting the Nutcracker to harvest

the seeds and store them in ground caches.

Since the bird disregards a portion of its

cached seed, viable seedlings germinate from

the forgotten caches. Essentially, all

whitebark pine regeneration initiates from

unclaimed nutcracker caches. Interestingly,

This past spring, during April and May, Stevensville Ranger

District completed 1,300 acres of underburning in Silverthorn, Gash,

Fulkerson, and Smith Creeks. The need for understory burning in

these locations was identified in the Stevensville West-Central

Environmental Assessment. Directed by Project ID (Interdisciplinary) Team Leader, Dave Silvieus, and District Fire Management

Officer, Bruce Windhorst, forest staff ignited burns in ponderosa

pine/Douglas-fir habitat types with three purposes in mind.

First, these areas have become overstocked with Douglas-fir,

primarily because of fire exclusion. Many of the firs are infected

with dwarf mistletoe. Killing Douglas-fir thickets will improve

ponderosa pine stocking, protect old growth trees, and stimulate pine

growth, which has been retarded in the absence of fire. Second, the

underburning will help alleviate fire threat in the wildland-residential

interface by reducing fuels near the forest boundary. Third,

firefighter safety will be fostered by reducing ground and ladder

fuels, which, in turn, should decrease the spread and intensity of

potential future wildfires.

Managers intend to continue restoring some of these lower

elevation areas where it is ecologically appropriate and compatible

with other resource and social objectives. These prescribed fires will

attempt to achieve more historic conditions where forest health was

sustained by periodic natural underburning.

Understory burning in a ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat type

improves pine stocking and reduces wildland fire threats. Photo by Mick

Harrington.

Dying Whitebark Pine Tree. Photo by Bob Keane.

whitebark pine forests will continue declining, changing the character of high mountain

landscapes; 2) Prescribed burning and

selective cutting of competing tree species

are the most practical restoration treatments;

3) Ensuring restoration of whitebark pine

ecosystems requires the return of ecosystem

processes like fire; and 4) Any ecologically

sound treatment capable of opening the forest

canopy and minimizing subalpine fir

competition can favor whitebark pine.

The Virtues and Travails of Whitebark Pine

the nutcracker prefers to cache its seed

collections in open areas created by

wildland fire. Fire further assists the

pine’s survival by thinning out the forest

and creating openings for regeneration.

Additionally, the nutcracker disperses

whitebark pine seeds much further than

wind-dispersed tree species, giving the

pine a colonization advantage.

Given whitebark pine’s critical role

in high elevation ecosystems, its decline

in about half of its historic range

concerns researchers. A combination of

three events precipitated whitebark pine

deterioration. Blister rust, accidently

introduced around 1910, spread across

the entire whitebark pine range by 1961.

Implementation of fire exclusion policies

during this same period exacerbated the

pine’s struggle for survival. An

extensive mountain pine beetle epidemic

hit the Northern Rocky Mountains in the

1930’s, killing many mature whitebark

pine, followed by other beetle epidemics

in recent years. These factors produced

a rapid demise of whitebark pine, which

has been replaced with subalpine fir and

Engelmann spruce.

 Preserving whitebark pine necessitates

innovative techniques. An ongoing study,

Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems, was

implemented in 1992 by Bob Keane at the

RMRS in Missoula. Five research sites

differing in biophysical environment, stages

of decline, and stand structure have been

examined. Lessons learned so far include:

1) Without proactive restoration treatments,
15

The Bitterbrush Problem:

Survival Help for a Plant That Helps Game Survive

Kristi D. Pflug

University of Montana, School of Forestry

Antelope bitterbrush is found from New

Mexico to British Columbia, and Montana to

California, in grasslands and open pine forests. A

member of the rose family, it has small, threelobed, wedge-shaped leaves that vary in color from

grayish to dark green and may be deciduous or

evergreen, depending on ecotype. Growth form

varies from tall and treelike to low and layering.

Bitterbrush is sometimes mistaken for big

sagebrush, but the two species can be easily

distinguished by their flowers. Bitterbrush

produces small single yellow flowers in mid-spring

to mid-summer while sagebrush bears composite

yellow flowers in late summer and fall. Bitterbrush is often a major component of the winter diet

for mule deer and elk. Moose, bighorn sheep,

yellow-pine chipmunk, deermice, chipping

sparrow, and blue grouse are among the other

species that use bitterbrush for food and cover. On

some sites, bitterbrush is the most heavily

consumed plant even when it comprises only a

small portion of the plant community.

During the last five decades, lack of natural

regeneration has become an increasing problem

throughout much of its range, with many mature shrubs dying and

leaving no replacements. Concern over this situation on the Bitterroot National Forest led to a 1997-1998 study of the impacts of four

different treatments — 1) a control and 2) shelterwood cuts with a)

no burn, b) a low consumption burn, and c) a

high consumption burn — on flower and seed

production and seedling recruitment. Flower

production did not differ significantly among

treatments, and no significant problems were

found in seed viability. However, no seedlings

were observed in undisturbed areas. Rodent

“caches” of bitterbrush seed in bare soil areas

are known to play a vital role in bitterbrush

germination and establishment. The largest

barrier to natural regeneration appears to be a

ground buildup of dead plant matter on undisturbed sites, leading to a lack of suitable

locations for rodent caching and seed germination. Necessary disturbances occurred on a

regular basis, until this century, as low intensity

fires swept through this site approximately every

seven years before eliminated by fire suppression. Logging and/or fires which mimic those

disturbances could be beneficial by providing

litter removal for seedling recruitment while still

retaining a number of mature bitterbrush, thus

facilitating both present and long-term survival

of this plant much favored by wildlife.

**For more detailed information on this study

and others, please refer to: Pflug, K. D. 1999. Bitterbrush (Purshia

tridentata) regeneration processes in a ponderosa pine stand at the

Lick Creek Study Area. Master’s Thesis. University of Montana,

Missoula, Montana, 77 pp.

Bruce Winhorst, Bitterroot National Forest

Brooke Thompson, Bitterroot National Forest, Retired

On October 8, 1998, Stevensville District fire managers (Bitterroot National Forest) ignited a prescribed fire high in the Bitterroot

Mountains overlooking Victor, MT. The project was designed to help

restore whitebark pine (WBP) on a 170-acre stand where the species

has been declining for decades. WBP here suffered significant mortality in a pine beetle epidemic during the late 1920’s and is currently

afflicted with white pine blister rust. Additionally, fire exclusion

during the past century has favored subalpine fir (SAF) regeneration.

The resulting crown closure inhibits WPB seed caching by Clark’s

Nutcracker, its primary method of regeneration (see article on page

14).

Project objectives included: 1) restoration of WBP on the stand

by providing conditions favorable to natural reseeding and 2) reduction of fuel loadings to acceptable conditions for WBP’s survival in a

wildfire. The work required careful planning and execution to meet

objectives. For example, SAF had to be greatly reduced or eliminated

from large portions of the stand without signficantly affecting the

remaining WBP. Beginning in 1996, selected portions of SAF were

non-commercially cut, providing an acceptable fine fuels bed to carry

fire spread. “Jackpot” burning under moist conditions to reduce fire

intensity eliminated excessive fuel concentrations in some areas.

Existing WBP trees were protected from fire damage by removing

ladder fuels from near their bases, where possible.

Once the burning unit is properly prepared and fuel conditions

are right, fire managers must wait for the prescribed weather conditions and forecast to successfully burn the unit. At this elevation the

Subalpine fir goes up in flames in an effort to

aid whitebark pine restoration. Photo by Bob

Keane.

Bitterbrush. Photo by Danny On.

window of opportunity

is small and in fact may

not occur every year.

One must be ready

when it does.

For several weeks

prior to ignition, fire

managers monitored

environmental conditions at the site, including weather and fuel

moisture content. Their

burn plan required a

killing frost to ensure

fuel conditions supported the needed fire

intensity.

On October 6,

1998, everything came

together – proper stand

conditions and a favorable weather forecast.

Gathering 50 firefighters skilled in this type of burning is a challenge,

but by October 8 everyone was in place and ignition commenced. All

went as planned, but after several hours a light rain curtailed the

operations after about 40 acres had been burned. Follow-up monitoring in the summer of 1999 showed objectives were met. The remaining 130 acres of burning was successfully completed in October 1999.

The Bear Overlook Prescribed Fire Project –

A Case Study in Whitebark Pine Restoration
16

Tom Thompson

RMRS, Wildlife Research

Imagine the thrill of getting up at 3:30 a.m. several days a week

from late April through June to go bird watching! And get paid for it!

That’s what several researchers did to gather information about

breeding birds in our area. Many of the first days included skiing

several miles in the dark with headlamps to be ready to begin counts

at dawn. Point counts for breeding birds generally begin within a

half-hour of dawn and end by 11:00 a.m. This is the most active

period for breeding birds; they perch prominently, sing loudly, and

defend their territories against intruders. Only heavy rain (or snow)

and high winds can damper their enthusiasm, or researcher’s desire to

go and count them. In this study, researchers had transects of five

counting points, 200 meters apart, along a line 1 kilometer long, in

eight study locations in old growth ponderosa pine stands.

What do you do after you’ve skied or hiked into an area to count

birds? Upon arriving at the first transect point, you take a moment to

catch your breath, get out your pencil, clipboard, binoculars, and start

listening. That’s right, listen. Most birds are identified by their songs

or calls, not by sight. Not only do our intrepid researchers need to be

able to identify some 60 species of birds by sight, but they also need

to recognize their song and call. The species and number of birds

seen or heard is recorded by time interval and approximate distance to

the birds. Most important are birds seen or heard within 100m, but

the observers record birds seen or heard up 200 meters. Other esoteric

data recorded include count start and end time, temperature, wind

speed, and other weather conditions.

From these data researchers can determine the relative abundance of bird species in the community, as well as how their

detectability changes throughout the breeding season. They discovered many yearlong resident species such as woodpeckers begin their

breeding season before the migrants from Central and South America

return to Montana to breed. Therefore, the best time of year to count

birds may very well depend on which species are of interest.

Wildlife Research Highlights:

Evaluating the Ecology and Restoration

of Winter Range Sites

Deer mouse being processed. Photo by

Kevin McKelvey.

We have initiated a five-year study to

examine effects of knapweed and its removal

on winter range sites on the Lolo National

Forest. These areas are dominated by grasses

and forbs with scatterings of trees and shrubs.

Using standard sampling techniques, vegetation, insects, small mammals, birds, and

ungulates are being studied on eight sites.

They are south to west-facing slopes of at least

5 ha (approximately 12.5 acres) located at

Yvette K. Ortega, RMRS, Wildlife Research

Kevin S. McKelvey, RMRS, Wildlife Research

elevations of 4,400 to 5,600 ft. Half have

dense patches of knapweed while the others

are dominated by native vegetation with only

trace amounts of knapweed. To date, we

have catalogued all species of plants at 800

sample stations, collected 4,160 insect

samples, completed 6,000 trap-nights of

small mammal sampling, mapped territories

of avian species, monitored 55 bird nests,

and sampled pellets of ungulates along 4 km

of transect. From these data, we will obtain

indices of abundance by species, as well as

information on diet, reproduction, and

survivorship for birds and small mammals.

As part of this research, four sites will be

treated, using both herbicide and subsequent

broadcast burning to remove exotic weeds.

Changes in plant communities caused

by knapweed invasion and treatment to

remove knapweed may directly affect

animals. Species of insects, small mammals,

birds, and ungulates, to varying degrees, are

closely associated with select types of plants.

Vegetation structure also has direct effects on

animals by determining availability of cover

and sites for foraging, nesting, and denning.

These changes in plant communities may also

have indirect effects through interactions

between species. For example, deer mice

may increase on knapweed sites because they

readily eat gall flies associated with knapweed seedheads. Small mammals depredate

nests of songbirds and function as prey for

larger birds, and knapweed-related changes in

their densities could spur ecosystem-level

effects.

By simultaneously considering plants,

insects, small mammals, birds, and ungulates,

we can relate observed changes to the

underlying causes. For instance, if reproductive rates for a particular insectivorous bird

change after treatment, we will be able to

relate these changes directly to changes in the

insect community, and the insect community

in turn to the changes in vegetation. We

believe that evaluating effects of weed

invasion and treatment across multiple trophic

(food chain) levels will therefore best serve

the needs of restoration ecology and ecosystem management.

Bird counting in a treatment area.

Doing BEMRP Bird Point Counts
17

A previous issue of Eco-Report featured

the remarkable story of nest parasitism by the

Brown-headed cowbird. This bird pawns its

eggs off on a host songbird, which unwittingly incubates and rears the nestlings. Since

cowbird young hatch earlier, behave more

aggressively, and are larger than their stepsiblings, they possess a competitive feeding

advantage, thriving while songbird young

starve. These findings come from a fascinating study by University of Montana researcher, Josh Tewksbury.

Over the past five years, Tewksbury

followed the success story of over 3,000 nests

involving 75 different songbird species. He

has identified two distinctive theats to healthy

songbird communities ( nest parasitism and

Incredible Interactions:

Deer Mice, Knapweed, and Gall Flies

Dean E. Pearson

RMRS, Wildlife Research

Although researchers and managers

recognize that noxious weed invasions

dramatically alter vegetative communities,

little is known about how wildlife is affected

by these changes. This is important when

attempting to restore natural systems because

ecosystem management tools such as fire and

timber harvest can accelerate weed invasion.

Exacerbating this situation is the fact that use

of biological control agents further alters

ecosystems in complex ways that are poorly

understood.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station’s

Wildlife Habitats Unit and BEMRP have

begun examining some of the complex

problems associated with noxious weed

invasion. We have found that deer mice

consume the larvae of gall flies, insects

introduced for biological control of spotted

knapweed. As a result, deer mice aggregate

in dense stands of knapweed during winter

when larvae are present in seedheads, and

may achieve higher than normal population

densities in knapweed-invaded habitats.

Other small mammals such as voles that

feed on grasses and forbs may decrease as a

result of knapweed invasion due to loss of

their primary foods. The result may be a

shift in small mammal communities that

favors deer mice. At higher levels of the

food chain, diurnal (daytime) raptors could

be negatively affected because deer mice

are strictly nocturnal. Furthermore,

increases in densities and aggregations of

deer mice may affect transmission rates of

Hantavirus within deer mouse populations.

This carries potentially important implications for humans since deer mice are the

primary agent for transmission of

Hantavirus. Additional research will be

critical to further our current understanding

of these complex ecological problems.

The Food Chain — Knapweed is eaten by gall

flies; gall flies are consumed by deer mice.

Knapweed

Gall Fly

Mouse

Nest Challenges

The Continuing Saga of an Avian Community

nest predation. Tewksbury found levels of

both threats vary greatly among different

deciduous riparian patches. The most

significant factor affecting these phenomena

seems to be the landscape surrounding avian

habitat.

Tewkbury has discovered a strong

linkage between cowbird abundance and

interface housing/ farmstead density. His

research indicates cowbirds capitalize on

bounteous food reservoirs available in

corrals, feedlots, bird feeders, and similar

structures. Remarkably, addition of 1-2

houses or 1 corral within 1 km of deciduous

riparian songbird habitat may double the

percentage of cowbird-parasitized nests if

there are few houses or farms on the

landscape to begin with. Moreover,

one female cowbird is capable of

laying up to 40 eggs a season while

one corral produces enough food to

support large numbers of these

birds. Lest our saga end in tragedy,

Tewksbury reveals one heartening

finding. Human structures built

further than 1 km from the nests of

songbirds have decidedly less effect

on nest parasitism rates. From a

manager’s perspective, even small

natural areas may provide sufficient

buffers for protecting important bird

communities.

Tewksbury also says songbirds nesting

in conifer-surrounded riparian habitats fall

prey to red squirrels, which consume eggs

and hapless nestlings. In comparison,

habitat encompassed by agricultural

landscapes, chiefly along the Bitterroot

River, supports predators like magpies and

jays. While songbirds lose many young in

each case, the forested/agricultural interface

produces their greatest threat. Here,

squirrels, magpies, raccoons, and skunks eat

most songbird young.

“Ecosystem management requires

understanding not only the processes

important within a habitat but also the

connections between habitats and landscape,” notes Tewksbury. He recommends

special attentiveness to this linkage in the

Bitterroot Valley because most songbirdbreeding habitat lies in deciduous riparian

areas close to the private/public land

interface. He also endorses the return of

natural disturbances, required by riparian

deciduous forests to foster successful

songbird breeding.

University of Montana researcher Josh Tewksbury gives

a talk on the Larry Creek riparian area field trip. Photo

by Brooke Thompson.

Photo by Milo Burcham

Photo by Dean Pearson

Photo by Dean Pearson
18

Ecosystem Management Means Partnership

Furthering the goals of this project requires public participation in decision making.

Would you like to become a partner? For more information, please contact

Greg Jones, Program Leader, Rocky Mountain Research Station

P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807 (406-542-4167)

e-mail: gjones/rmrs_missoula@fs.fed.us

Nan Christianson, District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District

88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870 (406-777-5461)

e-mail: nchristianson/r1_bitterroot@fs.fed.us

Professor Robert Pfister, The University of Montana School of Forestry

Missoula, MT 59812 (406) 243-6582

e-mail: rpfister@forestry.umt.edu

Visit the Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project on the Internet!

www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner

Dave Silvieus

Bitterroot National Forest

The MAGIS (Multi-Resource Analysis

and Geographic Information System) model

for assisting managers in making resource

decisions was used for the Stevensville West

Central (approximately 39,400 acres) and

Daly Creek (approximately 39,000 acres)

analyses on the Bitterroot National Forest.

Our objectives in using MAGIS included: 1)

testing and evaluating MAGIS within the

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)

process and 2) utilizing it to develop and

evaluate alternatives.

MAGIS was used to predict water and

sediment yield by alternative. It was faster

and more efficient than manually running the

WATSED (water sediment) model. MAGIS

also worked well for calculating equivalent

clearcut area (ECA) road impact factors

(RIF), along with sediment predictions and

water yield. Our stand and compartment

boundaries do not follow watershed boundaries, and problems occurred when stands

had to be divided to stay consistent.

MAGIS was used to calculate the

effects on management indicator species

(MIS) habitat and old growth habitat. This

saved time over historical analysis methods.

Lack of accurate

old growth and

down woody

material data

hampered the

wildlife effects

calculations.

MAGIS was

also used

REAL WORLD EXPERIENCES – WHAT THE USERS ARE SAYING

Using MAGIS at the Fine Scale

to predict vegetative treatment costs and

the economic viability of timber sales by

alternatives. With MAGIS we developed

an alternative in the Daly analysis (Alternative 7) designed for selected stands and

silvicultural options, which optimized net

timber sale revenue while still meeting

Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Obstacles

The interdisciplinary team was unable

to fully utilize the model within the 18 to

24 month NEPA time frame. Closer

communication and additional assistance

with computer applications and database

management from the research group

would have helped us stay within our

schedule. We needed a full-time person on

the interdisciplinary team to provide

database cleaning, GIS setup, modeling,

and coordination with the research group.

With the Daly analysis area, we used

the optimizer for one run, but it was not

utilized fully. We developed alternatives

using our knowledge rather than MAGIS

because of polygon (computerized spacial

unit) problems, as well as inaccuracies and

gaps in the database. Although we used the

model to evaluate alternatives, we had too

many obstacles to develop more than one

alternative within our planning schedule.

At the start of the project, our treatment

units became parts and combinations of

stands rather than the complete stands the

Daly MAGIS was built to work with. This

happened because silvicultural opportunities were identified at a finer scale in the

field, and the team was unwilling to have

the model select

treatments without

field validation.

Digitizing the

sub-stand

treatment

polygons

(specifying the unit

boundaries in GIS) required time and

introduced errors. Had we known this, we

could have:

• built a GIS layer based on the proposed

action alternative with the maximum

silvicultural treatment polygons

identified (stand parts and combinations) and the rest filled with remaining

untreated stands and portions of stands,

or;

• stayed with stands as the basic

foundation for data as we did with

Stevensville West Central, limiting

stand divisions and combinations to

critical needs such as riparian habitat

conservation areas or inventoried

roadless areas.

The other major obstacle was lack of

an accurate database that could be relied on

at the sub-unit scale for such critical needs

as volume estimates, old growth delineations, and dead and down wood. Stand

exam inventories were not completed for

many of the stands, and the photo interpreted data and strata-averaging was not

consistent.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The model should be used only where

the underlying database is adequate. We

tried to apply the model to areas with over

2,000 stands, and this may be too broad.

Also, it is important that the interdisciplinary team have confidence in the predictions. We probably need to spend more

time at the beginning of the analysis

determining how to best use the model.

Minimizing polygon digitizing will reduce

time and errors. A procedure to remove tiny

stand fragments and GIS errors is also

required.

The initial rule base needs more

refinement, including more accurately

selecting logging systems without manual

adjustment. The model was also applying

single-tree selection to stands inappropriately. There needs to be a way to factor in

cover type and ecological needs when

applying treatment options and for integrating silvicultural logic in the applications of

systems for specific habitats.
19

Cathy Stewart

Lolo National Forest

SIMPPLLE (SIMulating Vegetative Patterns and Processes at

Landscape ScaLEs) is a useful model for tracking and analyzing lots

of spatial data and processes at one time. It gives one the BIG

picture, providing landscape patterns (pictures) over time. It

considers past as well as adjacent processes and conditions, includes

specific pest hazards, and identifies problem areas. The model can be

tweaked to reflect local conditions and knowledge. Data needs are

simple, basic, and reasonably inexpensive. It can analyze treatment

impacts and provides a good public involvement tool to display

various conditions and effects of different alternatives. It also has a

good interface/window system that is being constantly improved.

Some disadvantages relate to fire and insect modeling. For

instance, fire occurrence and intensity by decade can be high, and

average-stand size polygons have higher fire probability than actual

data suggest. Mountain pine beetle effects can be low in mixed

REAL WORLD EXPERIENCES – WHAT THE USERS ARE SAYING

SIMPPLLE in Practice

stands, and pole mortality can be low during an epidemic, requiring

adjustments. Other problems relate to the data. Smaller landscapes

have less reasonable outcomes than larger ones, and old data (which

is common these days) need to be adjusted. The current version is

polygon-based and cannot be split. Data requirements include

vertical stand structure, which can be hard to obtain.

Other system problems include the following: 1) Pathways and

vegetation descriptions are not yet available; 2) On-line help is not

fully developed, and the program is currently available only on an

IBM Unix platform (the Forest Service IBM servers); and

3) Depending on the system size, large numbers of polygons can take

some time to run. Remedies for many of the above problems are

already underway. Continual upgrades are being made to the fire

model portion, including adjustments for fire starts, size, and probability. One can now run SIMPPLLE for average or extreme fire

conditions. Aquatics are currently included but only in a prototype

version.

Janet Sullivan

RMRS, Forest Economics

Computer models are used to simulate ecosystems and test largescale ‘what if’ questions like “What if we never suppressed any

fires?” These questions cannot be answered by direct landscape

manipulation, either because we can’t wait that long or the possibility

of negative consequences is too great, or both!

BEMRP has been participating in developing and testing two

landscape modeling systems. SIMPPLLE (SIMulating Vegetative

Patterns and Processes at Landscape ScaLEs) simulates changes in

vegetation patterns resulting from various disturbance processes such

as insect infestation and wildfire. With individual SIMPPLLE

simulations, we can produce possible levels of processes and

vegetative conditions over decade time-steps. All

simulations can be made with or without fire suppression and management activities. Occurrences of

processes and conditions can be mapped. Since

SIMPPLLE uses probabilities for disturbance processes,

multiple simulations produce a range of outcomes

useful for mapping the probability of occurrence for

processes and vegetative conditions.

MAGIS (Multiple-Resource Analysis and

Geographic Information System) develops optimal

schedules for management actions on the landscape and

is driven by the multiple goals and constraints of land

management. Using MAGIS, planners can predict “If

we do this set of treatments, we will have a two percent

increase in sediment for a short period, no loss of

wildlife habitat, and produce approximately one

hundred sixty thousand dollars.” MAGIS also models

transportation networks and addresses long-term

management questions about the effects of removing

specific roads.

MAGIS is an application in the process of

development. Our current favorite addition is a

graphical interface that allows users to assign yarding

(log accumulation) methods and road loading points to

treatment units, displaying elevation and contours to aid

the process. Another enhancement vastly decreases the

amount of database work needed; we can now add

spatial data to MAGIS by importing a coverage directly

MAGIS and SIMPPLLE models are the product of eight researchers’ efforts. Seated, left to

right, are Janet Sullivan, Kirk Moeller, and Jim Chew. Standing, left to right, are Chris

Stalling, Greg Jones, Kurt Krueger, and Steve Slack. Not pictured is Hans Zuuring

(University of Montana). Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.

Recent Developments in Landscape Modeling

from ArcView (a computer geographic information system). Previously, users had to “translate” spatial data into database files, a

cumbersome process.

SIMPPLLE is also being improved. A recent project is programming SIMPPLLE in Java (a programming language) that allows it to

be run on all types of computers. Other changes include an option to

convert landscapes to uniform polygons (spatial units on the

landscape used in geographic information systems) with size selected

by the user. This decreases potential problems due to differing

polygon sizes. A prototype for representing other ecological units

such as aquatic and landform units is still under development. The

SIMPPLLE team is also busy developing versions for both forested

and grassland ecosystems in other areas across the country.
20

ECO-Report

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

Greg Jones and Janet Sullivan, RMRS, Forest Economics Research

Jim Chew, RMRS, Forest Ecology Research

Addressing forest health issues at landscape scales requires

techniques to predict the location and severity of natural disturbances

such as fire, insects, and disease. When desired future conditions

differ from predicted conditions, management alternatives accounting

for these differences, together with other resource objectives, are

needed. BEMRP researchers have been testing a sequential simulation/optimization modeling approach for analyzing landscapes that

takes advantage of the strengths of both types of models. With this

approach they have been successfully developing fuel treatment

alternatives for a 60,000-acre landscape where the net cost of

proactive management is LESS than the suppression costs alone for

“no action.” Also, the combined sediment from fuel treatments and

natural disturbances is LESS than the amounts predicted for the

natural disturbances for “no action.” The exciting thing about this

approach is that it captures the probabilistic nature of natural

disturbances processes while developing activity schedules that best

meet the objectives specified for a management alternative – a

difficult task for either model alone. Furthermore, it provides a

comparison of “no action” with site-specific treatment alternatives

that includes the costs and effects of the treatments AND the costs

and effects associated with the natural disturbances processes!

Data movement between the systems has been automated to

minimize processing time. There are four steps in this simulation/

optimization approach.

Step 1: SIMPPLLE is run to simulate the location and severity of

future disturbance patterns on the landscape, assuming fire suppression but no other management treatments. A stand-specific disturbance index results.

 The “Buddy System”

Choosing Effective Treatments for a Landscape

The new editor Janie Canton-Thompson

looks over the Eco-Report. Photo by Steve

Slack.

Step 2: This index is brought

into MAGIS, using the same

polygons, where it is

combined and run with other

objectives (e.g., maintaining

watershed and wildlife).

MAGIS develops schedules

of activities for the landscape

that best address the simulated forest health issues and

the other specified objectives.

These spatially- and temporally-specific schedules

provide alternative strategies

for achieving desired

conditions.

Step 3: These alternative

schedules of activities are

imported into SIMPPLLE to

model the resulting effects on

the extent and frequency of

natural disturbance processes.

Step 4: The spatially- and

temporally- specific predicted

natural disturbances and

treatments are imported into

MAGIS to compute overall

natural resource effects, costs,

and net revenues.

Fig 2. Percentage change in sediment from

current condition resulting from the

combination of treatments and natural

disturbance processes for four fuel treatment

alternatives and No Action.

Fig 1. Discounted net cost (including

treatment revenues, treatment costs, and fire

suppression costs) for four fuel landscape

treatment alternatives compared to the

discounted fire suppression cost for the No

Action alternative.