1

(continued on page 2)

Inside

• Research Highlights ................. (p. 4)

• New Faces................................ (p. 12)

• Glossary ................................... (p. 16)

• Getting the Word Out ............ (p. 16)

Scientific Independence:

A Key to Credibility

USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bitterroot National Forest, Region 1 and the University of Montana College of Forestry and Conservation

Whether the subject is endangered species

management, dangers of second hand

smoke, or ecosystem management, credible science is prerequisite to informed

public discourse. This lynx research by

Forest Service Research is a good

example of independent work and the

credibility that follows. (Photo by Milo

Burcham)

Leonard F. Ruggiero, Deputy Program Manager, Wildlife and

Terrestrial Habitats Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

Independence and objectivity are key

ingredients of scientific credibility,

especially in research organizations that

are part of a natural resource management

agency like the Forest Service. Credibility,

in turn, is essential to the utility of

scientific information in socio-political

processes. In order to develop this thesis

further, a basic understanding of Forest

Service organizational structure is

important.

The Forest Service is comprised of

three major branches: the National Forest

System (managers and policy makers for

National Forests and National Grasslands),

Research and Development (scientists

chartered to address issues in natural

resource management for numerous

information users, including the public),

and State and Private Forestry (responsible

for providing assistance to private and state

landowners). This article is directed toward

the first two branches.

The relationship between the National

Forest System and the Forest Service

Research and Development (Research)

branches is somewhat hampered by

confusion over the respective roles of

scientists (researchers) and managers (policy makers and those

that implement management policy). For example, some

managers believe that scientists can enhance a given policy

position or management action by advocating for it. This

neglects the importance of scientific credibility and the

difference between advocating for one’s research versus

advocating for or against a given policy. Similarly, some

scientists believe the best way to increase funding for research

is to support management policies or actions. But, as a very

astute forest supervisor once told me, “Everyone has a hired

gun...they are not credible...and we need you guys [Forest

Service Research] to be credible.” It is naïve to believe that

direct involvement in the establishment or

evaluation of management policy doesn’t

damage scientific credibility in the long

run. Neglecting this fact may put one on

the short-term path to increased relevance

and greater funding opportunities, but at

the cost of long-term credibility.

 Behavior by scientists that simply

appears to serve a preconceived agenda

can cause one’s independence to be

questioned. And because independence is

a necessary component of scientific

credibility, a loss of credibility can result

from the mere perception that

independence has been lost or

compromised. Of course it is difficult to

avoid such perceptions in many instances,

especially when scientists and managers

work together to solve problems. For

example, this was the case with the

National Lynx Survey where National

Forest System field personnel were used

to collect data according to an

experimental design put into place by

Forest Service Research. In such

instances, it is essential to clearly state

roles and responsibilities in order to guard

against the perception that scientific

independence has been compromised.

No one—neither the scientist nor the policy maker—is

served by a loss of scientific credibility. This point is often

overlooked by

those who would

have scientists

assist managers

with litigation,

participate in policy
2

Scientific Independence . . . ( from page 1)

ECO-Report

Published by the

Rocky Mountain Research Station

800 E. Beckwith St., Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 777-7416

Editor/Writer: Sharon Ritter

Associate Editor: Janie Canton-Thompson

“Scientists have a responsibility to society

based on the confidence that is placed in

credible scientific information.”

(continued on page 4)

development, or demonstrate the relevance of their research

through various forms of accountability to clients. These kinds

of activities pose real risks to the hard-won credibility

currently enjoyed by the cadre of world-class Forest Service

researchers (see Harrison, Autumn-Lynn. 2006. Who’s who in

conservation biology—an authorship analysis. Conservation

Biology 20(3):652-657).

The Role of Science in

Natural Resource Management

Administratively, the National Forest System and the

Research branches are distinct until one gets to the office of

the Chief of the Forest Service. The chief is the head of the

agency, meaning that these two branches are administratively

distinct until joined at the very top of the organization. There is

very good reason for this, as we shall see.

The McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928

(replaced by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1976) is the

statute that enabled the Forest

Service to conduct scientific

research. The Forest Service

Manual (FSM), which provides

direction on how to implement

statutes and related regulations,

states in the section on Research

Policies: “To achieve its Research and Development (R&D)

program objectives, the Forest Service shall ... maintain the

R&D function as a separate entity ... with clear accountability

through a system that maintains scientific freedom...”

(emphasis added). This means that both Congress and the

authors of these FSM directives recognized the importance of

keeping research independent. This also signifies

congressional intent to protect a key element of scientific

credibility.

In addition, Congress appropriates funds separately for

management and research within the Forest Service. Congress

insists that research scientists and managers maintain distinct

roles, and this distinction is formalized by appropriating

funds separately for these two purposes and by ensuring that

funds appropriated for one purpose are not used for the

other.

This separation also serves to keep conducting science

separate from formulating policy and the political

ramifications of that process. The wisdom here is that science

cannot be credible if it is politicized. Science should not be

influenced by managers, and scientists should not establish

policy. This logic keeps scientific research “independent”

while ensuring that policy makers are free to consider factors

other than scientific understandings.

Thus, science simply informs decision making by land

managers. As the new forest planning regulations clearly state,

those responsible for land management decisions must

consider the best available science and document how this

science was applied (Federal Register 70(3), January 5, 2005;

Section 219.11(4); p. 1059). However, nothing says that

scientists are responsible for making decisions or establishing

policy. In fact, this is expressly not the role of scientists as

evident in the mechanisms discussed above.

The value of science to natural resource management

agencies thus emerges. Agency scientists are an independent,

credible source of information that is considered in both the

establishment of policy and in land management actions. In

this context, the scientific basis for decision making is

established in an impartial way. All other things equal, agency

research scientists are best equipped to work with managers to

define problems and seek solutions because they are most

familiar with agency culture. This includes a familiarity with

both the substance and the context of the scientific issues

facing managers.

The Role of Policy Makers, Scientists,

and the Public in the Establishment

of Management Policy

As we have seen, policy makers establish policy.

Scientists do not. Policy is established by considering science

along with the relevant political issues; hence, mechanisms for

public involvement exist. Because

policy formulation and the

political process are inherently

unscientific processes, scientists

must avoid any perception of

participation in them if they wish

to remain effective. The

perception of direct involvement

in policy development clearly

implies political considerations.

None of this obviates the need for scientists to advocate

for the results of their research. Perhaps such advocacy

includes the view that policy makers should carefully consider

or even apply their findings. However, this is a fundamentally

different posture than advocating for or participating in a

particular policy per se. A quote from Kessler and Thomas (in

previously cited Conservation Biology 20(3), June 2006)

drives this point home:

“It is one thing for an organization to advocate for

science and its effective use to inform policy and management

decisions. It is another thing to advocate for a particular

position or policy choice. All scientific societies struggle with

this issue, which has major implications for their credibility

and future effectiveness.”

Because agency scientists work for the American public,

the results of their work must be available for use by anyone

who wishes to engage in socio-political processes. Research

that appears to be influenced by personal or organizational bias

is not “scientific” and is not useful in this regard. When

independence is lacking in scientific research, society is not

served.
3

Program Leader’s Note

Part of the Trapper-Bunkhouse Project area near Darby

(background), with biomass stockpiles for use in the Darby school’s

biomass burner (foreground). The wildfire threat to this area, along

with its importance to residents for work, recreation, and esthetics

made it a high priority for fuel reduction treatments. (Photo by Betsy

Ballard)

(continued on page 4)

Greg Jones, Research Forester, Social, Economics, and

Decision Science Program, and BEMRP Program Leader,

RMRS, Missoula, MT

A couple of years ago the Bitterroot National Forest

began planning the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship

Project (Trapper-Bunkhouse Project). This project includes

fuels reduction, watershed improvements, noncommercial

thinning in plantations to improve resiliency to insects and

disease, and commercial timber harvest to provide economic

value to the community and help fund project activities.

The Trapper-Bunkhouse Project shows the value of the

partnership between managers and researchers that is at the

core of BEMRP. Researchers and managers came together to

ask what research questions could be addressed by a land

stewardship project such as this. We found we needed an

assessment of how landscape modeling could help managers

with their decisions and a scientifically sound assessment of

the effects of treatments. In the meantime, we’re also

continuing other research projects that address different needs

expressed by managers.

As a first step in the researchers’ involvement with this

project, researchers and managers have been testing

interaction of three types of landscape models to evaluate:

1) the wildland fire behavior expected spatially on the

landscape given current vegetation and fuel patterns;

2) how current conditions are expected to change in the

future in the absence of vegetation treatments;

3) where to place vegetation treatments over time to

reduce likelihood of undesirable severe wildland fire

and improve forest health given available budgets;

and

4) evaluate effectiveness of treatment alternatives for

reducing undesirable severe wildland fire as well as

reducing associated losses from fire when it does

occur.

These modeling tests are nearing completion

(see Research Highlights written by Janet

Sullivan and Ward McCaughey). The

remaining modeling work is evaluating

treatment alternatives. A forthcoming

Station report will document results

from these modeling tests.

A small portion of the

Trapper-Bunkhouse Project is

devoted to replicated tests of

forest restoration/fuel

reduction treatments designed

for the frequent, low-intensity

fire regime forests that are

common in lower elevations of the Bitterroot Valley and

elsewhere in the Northern Rockies. Research questions

identified through BEMRP’s interactions with managers

include impacts of vegetation treatments on soil compaction

and nutritional qualities, potential for weed invasion, health

and vigor of resulting stands of trees, effectiveness in reducing

the probability of severe wildfire, and others. We identified

locations for the treatment replications, and the necessary

environmental analysis of our proposed research is included in

the draft Environment Impact Statement for the project.

Researchers are collecting pre-treatment data in anticipation of

treatments occurring in summer and fall 2008.

Other research undertaken by BEMRP’s participating

research units is addressing a number of topics important to

managing Rocky Mountain ecosystems. We have learned, for

example, that 13 years after applying forest restoration

thinning in ponderosa pine stands, trees are continuing to

respond positively, with less moisture stress and greater

photosynthetic activity than unthinned stands. We’ve also

learned that understory thinning and burning treatments in oldgrowth ponderosa pine and larch stands 6 years ago were

effective in reducing competition for water and nutrients,

resulting in preserving and improving the health of valuable

old-growth trees. Other studies have documented that impacts

of invasive plants can ripple through natural ecosystems from

plants to insects to songbirds. The results of these and other

studies were published in 53 research papers in 2006, making

this valuable research available to land managers throughout

the nation.

In other activities, BEMRP sponsored a well-attended

BEMRP: Conducting Research,

Sharing Results
4

Research Highlights

Scientific Independence. . . ( from page 2) Conducting Research . . . ( from page 3)

Scientists have a responsibility to society based on the

confidence that is placed in credible scientific information.

Indeed, as demonstrated by organizations like the National

Academy of Sciences, science often represents the only social

means by which complex problems can be solved. When

issues like “spotted owl conservation and national economics”

or “global warming” become highly politicized, the general

public, and some politicians, turn to science for reliable

information. In such cases, the preponderance of “scientific

information” holds sway even when scientific consensus is

beyond reach. For this reason alone, scientists must strive for

independent, credible understandings worthy of “scientific

stature” and the value placed on such stature by society. This

highlights a significant difference between scientists who work

with those who must consider political factors versus scientists

who work for them.

half-day session at the Northern Region Training Academy

that included presentations on: 1) biomass utilization

opportunities from restoration treatments; 2) ecology and

management of invasive species; 3) efficacy of herbicide for

mitigation of ecological impacts of spotted knapweed invasion;

and 4) fire history of riparian and upland zones in six

headwater drainages of the Bitterroot National Forest.

We also helped with eight school field trips to local Forest

sites and a public field trip to the Trapper-Bunkhouse Project

area. An impressive Lick Creek Demonstration/Research

Forest Interpretive Auto Tour brochure has been completed

recently and is available at the Bitterroot National Forest

Darby District office. Check out our updated website for more

information on BEMRP research, activities, and publications

(http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner).

Janet Sullivan, Biologist, Social, Economics, and Decision

Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT; and Kevin Hyde,

Landscape Modeling Hydrologist, Management &

Engineering Technologies International, Missoula, MT

BEMRP’s participation in the Bitterroot National Forest’s

proposed Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project

(Trapper-Bunkhouse Project) consists of two parts. One is the

field study mentioned elsewhere in this ECO-Report that is

looking into the effects of thinning and burning on various

resources. The other part involves modeling to determine

where treatments should take place both from a fuel reduction

and economic standpoint.

Through the course of the Trapper-Bunkhouse Project,

researchers have worked with Forest personnel to integrate

various types of computer models with the project planning

process (see the 2005 ECO-Report article “Visualizing a

Forest Landscape Today and Tomorrow” available at

BEMRP’s website: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner). Early

on, we used broad-scale models of vegetation disturbance

processes and fire behavior along the Bitterroot Front to help

the Forest focus in on a particular project area. During the final

phase of the planning process researchers worked with the

Forest to test the utility and efficiency of MAGIS, a planning

model that integrates vegetation information with fire hazard,

economic, and other resource information.

The objective of MAGIS modeling was to assist

development of scenarios that make the best use of budgets

and reduce wildfire hazards while providing other significant

resource benefits. During this process, researchers interacted

with Forest planning team members to design model scenarios

that included the issues outlined in the purpose-and-need

statements for the project, focusing

primarily on fire-risk rating and

economics. The modeled

scenarios indicated specific areas

(delineated as stands) where the

combined benefits (fuel

reduction AND economic

efficiency) could

increase the overall

efficiency of the project.

These areas were further

investigated on the ground to determine

whether they should be included in the action alternatives. The

“ground-truthed” treatments were compiled to build a modelassisted alternative to include with other alternatives in the

draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Once the Forest defined alternatives to evaluate, additional

fire behavior modeling provided a virtual test of how

effectively proposed treatments may alter future fire behavior

across the entire project area. The primary modeling tool for

this step was FlamMap, a product of the Fire Sciences Lab.

FlamMap is a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that

computes potential fire behavior characteristics (spread rate,

flame length, fireline intensity, etc.) over a landscape for

constant weather and fuel moisture conditions. We compared

proposed treatments under the action alternatives with the No

Action alternative. While analyses of the results are still

underway, preliminary results indicate that the model-assisted

alternative may more effectively constrain future fire behavior

than treatments defined and located using conventional

planning processes.

Using Models to Provide a Virtual

Test of Forest Treatments
5

Research Highlights

Understanding Forest Ecology from

the Landscape to the Project Level

Mick Harrington, Ed Hayes, and Cheri Hartless reviewing stands on

the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project that will potentially be used for research study sites. (Photo by Ward McCaughey)

Elaine Sutherland, Eric Ziegler, and Ethan Mace collecting an

increment core from a fire-killed tree on the Bitterroot National

Forest. (Photo by Mathew Burbank)

Ward McCaughey, Research Forester, Forest and Woodland

Ecosystems Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

Several researchers in the Forestry Sciences Laboratory

have been actively involved in BEMRP since its inception in

the early 1990s. The recent research on the Trapper

Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project began in 2004. In

ecosystem management, sometimes we need to look at the big

picture, or the landscape scale, and sometimes we need to

work on a more local, or project-level scale. In the past few

years we’ve taken a landscape-level approach to

understanding the role of fire in riparian forests and have used

models to predict where wildfires are likely to occur. We’ve

also focused in on a project area where we might be able to

affect wildfire behavior and study the effects of treatments to

reduce wildfire risk.

In 2004 and 2005, Jimmie Chew and Chris Stalling made

several computer simulation runs of landscape processes along

the entire western portion of the Bitterroot National Forest.

Chris used the SIMPPLLE (SIMulating Patterns and

Processes at Landscape scaLEs) model developed by Jimmie

to evaluate areas where wildfires might have greatest impact

on the wildland/urban interface. The predicted occurrences of

wildfires were influenced by the interaction of different forest

stand conditions with simulated insect and disease activity.

These simulations were for a no-treatment alternative, using

early vegetation data sets agreed upon by the BEMRP

Landscape Analysis Team in 2004.

The SIMPPLLE model identified three critical areas at

risk to high-severity wildfire along the Bitterroot Front, and

through local knowledge from Bitterroot National Forest

resource specialists the Forest chose the area between Trapper

and Bunkhouse Creeks on the Darby District as the highest

priority area in need of fuel reduction efforts. When new

vegetation maps (called VMAP) became available in early

2006, new model simulations validated the original runs.

I participate on the Bitterroot National Forest

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), which is composed of Forest

Service managers and researchers evaluating research needs

for the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project. I also

am on the Treatment Development Team sub-committee in

charge of developing a replicated set of experiments that will

test the effects of fuel reduction treatments. This past year I

worked together with Mick Harrington, a research forester

from the Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, to locate sites

similar in stand structure where experiments could be

conducted. We mapped and flagged boundaries of each

treatment area and installed temporary plots to measure pretreatment stand structures. We installed permanent plots in the

fall of 2006 and I will coordinate initial measurement of

vegetation components during the summer of 2007.

Other studies directed by Elaine Kennedy Sutherland have

been conducted on the Bitterroot National Forest since 2002.

Fire history and vegetation data from 13 headwater stream

corridors and associated uplands on the Bitterroot and Lolo

National Forests show that fires in these mixed conifer/

lodgepole pine systems were more frequent and less severe

than generally supposed. Our studies show that fires burned

through these riparian sites approximately every 5 to 36 years.

BEMRP’s projects are just a few of what we are doing

around the Northern Rockies to improve knowledge of the

ecosystems in this area. For more information on some of our

projects, please see our website at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/

ecology/.
6

Research Highlights

Impacts of Invasive Plants on Songbirds: Using Song

Structure as an Indicator of Habitat Quality

Chipping sparrow marked with bands used to track individuals.

Tracking birds and recording songs are part of a study of impacts of

weed invasion on populations. (Photo by Aubree Benson)

Aubree Benson sporting song-recording equipment and holding a

chipping sparrow captured for color-banding to allow tracking of

individuals. Aubree led song recording efforts and wrote a senior

thesis using data from the study. (Photo by Tricia Rodriguez) (continued on page 14)

Yvette Ortega, Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife and Terrestrial

Habitats Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

Invasive species can alter habitat quality over broad

scales, so they pose a severe threat to songbird populations.

Through our long-term research program supported by

BEMRP, we have found that changes in habitat quality

induced by exotic plants like spotted knapweed can lead to

subtle yet profound changes in songbird populations. For

example, in knapweed-invaded habitats compared to those

dominated by native vegetation, we detected no change in

abundance of adult chipping sparrows—but we observed

delays in breeding that led to reduced breeding productivity

and increased turnover of adults between breeding seasons.

Knapweed invasion caused declines in native plants that led to

declines in insects serving as key food sources for songbirds

and other vertebrates. This resulted in diminished habitat

quality for songbirds.

Our results illustrate the rippling impacts of invasive

species on songbirds. Results also underscore the importance

of measuring parameters other than abundance when assessing

population status of songbirds, as abundance is not necessarily

correlated with habitat quality. This presents a particular

challenge to natural resource managers charged with

monitoring songbird populations to assess changes in habitat

quality, especially since monitoring tools for songbirds are

currently limited primarily to count-based methodologies that

yield information on abundance alone. Furthermore, measures

of population status that are sensitive to changes in habitat

quality are difficult to derive, particularly at scales relevant to

management.

Using understandings obtained from our research and in

collaboration with Erick Greene at the University of Montana,

we are testing a novel method for assessing songbird

population status and habitat quality that is based on an easily

measured parameter—song structure. Song structure refers to

the array of song types sung by a species in a particular area.

Song types in birds are much like human accents, varying by

locale. In many migratory species, young birds acquire their

one signature song with its particular accent by learning from

their neighbors in their first breeding year. Areas of high

habitat quality should have low turnover of breeding adults

between years. Therefore, high quality sites are dominated by

older birds who learned their song on-site and therefore sing in

the local accent. In contrast, areas of low habitat quality should

have relatively few older birds to serve as teachers and songs

should exhibit greater variety since they were likely acquired

in other places. These differences in learning environment may

ultimately affect song structure, as young birds settling in

high-quality sites readily learn the local accent from their older

neighbors, maintaining the song tradition by returning in

subsequent breeding seasons. Those settling in low quality

habitats learn a mix of songs from various neighbors and

disperse in future seasons.

We are using 2 years of field data to link changes in

habitat quality caused by spotted knapweed invasion to

differences in song structure at invaded compared to nativedominated sites. In 2005 and 2006, we recorded songs of more

than 200 individually marked chipping sparrows at seven sites

on the Lolo National Forest in western Montana. Preliminary
7

Research Highlights

Off-Highway Vehicle Management under the New Forest

Service Travel Management Rule

Neal Christensen, PhD Candidate, College of Forestry and

Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula

Land management agencies nationwide are challenged to

plan for increasing

recreation use and

conflicts that arise

over that use on public

lands. The fastest

growing group of

users on most

National Forests in the

United States is offhighway vehicle

(OHV) riders. When

he was Forest Service

Chief, Dale Bosworth

cited unmanaged

recreation as one of

four threats to the

health of our nation’s

forests and grasslands.

He often talked about

growing unmanaged

OHV use on National

Forest System (NFS)

lands, saying “We

have to improve our

management [of

OHVs] so we get

responsible

recreational use based

on sound outdoor

ethics.”

Chief Bosworth decided the Forest Service would address

OHV issues through a new Service-wide travel management

rule that would take a systematic approach to designating all

motor vehicle use on NFS lands. The process will involve the

public and engage user groups and volunteers to help protect

National Forest lands through ethical and responsible use. The

travel management rule was established in November 2005

and calls for designating and mapping open roads, trails, and

areas by classes of vehicles and times of year that use may

occur.

Travel management planning will begin in the near future

on the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana and promises to

present many challenges. The Bitterroot Forest is currently

completing a general land management plan and will follow

that with site-specific Forest-wide travel management

planning. The challenge for managers is to determine an

appropriate balance between motorized and nonmotorized

designations on a finite number of travel routes. Most users

seek similar types of setting and experience opportunities,

including destinations, scenery, loops, and access for other

activities; but their choice of travel method may interfere with

other users’ desires. A recent BEMRP project provided

information about OHV

planning issues and approaches

under the new travel

management rule. The project

produced a report designed to

inform Forest managers and the

public about resources and

planning tools available to assist

in development of a travel

management plan, and it

provided lessons learned from

other travel planning efforts.

(Report is available on the

BEMRP website at http://

www.fs.fed.us/rm/

ecopartner/

hdrecent_papers.shtml.)

 The U.S. Forest

Service policy and

experiences of

planners nationwide

suggest a

collaborative process

with a system-wide,

Forest-level

perspective will be

the most appropriate

and successful for

developing a widely

supported OHV

travel management plan. Ongoing involvement of the public in

OHV planning is required and will contribute to public

acceptance of the resulting designations.

Social science research may be useful for OHV planning.

Developing good understanding among managers and the

public about recreation uses and their associated

environmental and social impacts will improve final travel

plans and their acceptability. Social science research can help

managers understand the effects of specific, limited scope

disturbances such as fuels reduction, logging, and wildfire on

larger scale road and trail systems. An in-depth understanding

of complex local relationships to National Forest lands may

help managers and the public develop working relationships in

the spirit of cooperation rather than taking on the polarized

nature that has marked past contentious OHV planning efforts

nationwide.

The fastest growing group of users

on National Forests in the United

States is OHV riders. A new

Service-wide travel management

rule establishes a systematic

approach to designating all motor

vehicle use on NFS roads, trails,

and areas by type of vehicle and

time of year. (Photos by U.S. Forest

Service)
8

Research Highlights

Benefits of Treating Old-Growth Stands

Before (left, 1998) and after (right, 2003) thinning and prescribed burning in an old-growth ponderosa pine/western larch stand. These trees are

between 250 and 330 years old and 18 to 24 inches diameter at breast height. (Photo by Mick Harrington)

Mick Harrington, Research Forester, Fire, Fuels, and Smoke

Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

Old-growth ponderosa pine and western larch forests that

developed as a result of frequent, low-intensity fires were once

extensive in the Inland West, but now are rare due to historical

logging and, more recently, severe wildfires. In response to

missing several natural fire cycles, remaining stands of old

trees are at increasingly greater risk from uncharacteristically

high severity wildfire and insect and disease impacts. Fire

suppression activities over almost a century have allowed

dense ingrowth of mostly shade-tolerant species. In turn, this

increased stand density creates ladder fuels (thickets of understory trees), increasing potential for high intensity wildfire and

competition for site resources (soil moisture and nutrients).

Land managers recognize this condition as unsustainable but

have been generally reluctant to implement treatments because

of uncertainty about effects on old-growth habitat.

We designed a study to evaluate alternative restoration

treatments for reducing the potential for high intensity crown

fire in an old-growth stand and to test and compare treatment

effects on physiological performance of old trees. The study

site was a remnant 330-year-old ponderosa pine/western larch

stand on the Lolo National Forest, 5 miles north of Missoula,

Montana. Historical fire return intervals averaged 20 years

with the longest interval being 34 years during the three

centuries prior to 1919, followed by an 80-year fire absence.

During this time the stand density increased from 60 trees/acre

of pine and larch to 500 trees/acre of mostly Douglas-fir. I

report here on results of three treatments: understory tree

removal with slash burning, understory removal and overstory

thinning with slash burning, and a control. Slash burning

included prescribed fire and pile burning. We designed

treatments to produce a condition that resembled the historical

stand with only a few healthy understory pine or larch left

under the canopy of old trees.

Six years after treatment, we remeasured stand

characteristics and surface fuels and used these data in current

fire behavior models to predict potential wildfire

characteristics. Under severe wildfire weather conditions, the

model predicted an almost certain high intensity crown fire in

the untreated control stand, resulting in high mortality of old

trees. This was primarily due to excessive levels of ladder

fuels. In both treated stand conditions, our models predicted a

surface fire to move quickly through the stand but predicted

that initiation and movement of crown fire was highly unlikely,

even under the worst fire weather conditions.

Data showed that physiological performance of old trees

in the treated stands was greatly improved over control trees

for 5 years after treatments. Removal of several hundred

understory trees/acre resulted in increased soil moisture in

treated stands that was measured as increased water use by the

old larch. This was at least partially responsible for increased

needle biomass and radial growth compared to control trees.

The 300+ years-old ponderosa pine also responded with

increased needle biomass, bud size, and radial growth, all

indicators of improved health and resistance to forest pests.

Our results give resource managers clear evidence that

fuel reduction/restoration treatments in old-growth, fireadapted ecosystems can have several benefits: 1) reduced

probability of uncharacteristically severe wildfire behavior and

effects, even under severe fire weather; and 2) improved

general health of old trees by reducing competition for soil

moisture and nutrients, allowing for greater resistance to

insects and disease. In addition, these treatments provide

greater opportunity for regeneration of pine and larch in the

created open understory with exposed mineral soil.
9

Research Highlights

Looking at Emissions and

Economics of Biomass Use

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator

and ECO-Report Editor, BEMRP, RMRS,

Stevensville, MT

There is more and more discussion these days

about greenhouse gas emissions and their contribution

to global warming. As a result of the 2006

documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, and reports

released intermittently by the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, individuals, businesses, and

private and governmental agencies feel a greater

urgency to find ways to reduce levels of greenhouse

gas emissions.

In Montana, several research foresters and

economists thought about how to measure local forest

management contributions to greenhouse gas

emissions. Greg Jones and Dave Calkin at the Rocky

Mountain Research Station (RMRS), and Dan

Loeffler and Edward Butler at the University of

Montana College of Forestry and Conservation (UM)

were interested in opportunities to use the biomass

residues (tops, limbs, and small commercial trees)

resulting from forest vegetation treatments such as

thinning trees and understory to reduce forest fuel

levels. These residues from forest treatments typically

end up in piles and are burned. The scattered plumes

of smoke rising from the forest in the spring and fall

come from burning these “slash” or biomass piles.

The researchers wanted to build on previous work

they conducted exploring the economics of using this

material as an energy source, but adding analysis of

greenhouse gas emissions from biomass used for

energy versus fossil fuels. For example, in the

Bitterroot Valley of Montana, biomass is used in

biomass boilers at schools in Darby and Victor.

Another user is Frenchtown’s Smurfit-Stone

Container Corporation where biomass supplies heat

for the manufacturing plant and to generate electricity.

The scientists wanted to understand the tradeoffs in

carbon balance and air quality (particulate matter)

between using the biomass as an energy source versus

burning it in the woods.

What makes this study unique is that it looked at

all sources of emissions and energy consumption

associated with the various options. Handling forest

residues to be used in biomass boilers expends energy

because it requires fossil fuels like gas and diesel to

harvest, chip, and haul the material to the boilers.

Even getting the fossil fuels from the ground and

refined for use in vehicles and boilers has energy

costs. The vehicles involved in harvesting, chipping,

and hauling give off carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide, methane, and particulate matter. On the

Measured emissions for 1) collecting, hauling and utilizing forest residue for heat

energy (white area), and 2) using either fuel oil or natural gas to produce equivalent

heat energy and burn biomass residues onsite (dark area). All measured emissions

associated with extracting, delivering, and final energy use are included for all three

fuel sources.

(continued on page 10)
10

other hand, burning biomass in place also releases these

pollutants.

So the question came down to this: What’s the best thing

to do from an economic and emissions perspective—use fossil

fuels such as natural gas or heating oil to heat a building and

burn the biomass on site, or chip and haul the biomass to a

nearby boiler and use it for energy instead of fossil fuels?

What the researchers found was that from an economics

standpoint it is cost-effective to haul this material to a

utilization site such as Darby school’s boiler or even the more

distant Frenchtown boiler, as long as the haul distance was a

maximum of 40 to 50 miles (given the current market and fuel

prices). Based on Environmental Protection Agency emission

factors, they also found that using the biomass for the

equivalent amount of thermal energy would release

approximately half of the carbon dioxide compared to using

fossil fuels for energy and burning the biomass at the harvest

site (see graphs). Particulate matter less than 10 microns in

size (PM-10) decreases by even more—75 percent. Methane, a

short-lived but very harmful component of greenhouse gases,

can be reduced by 90% by burning the biomass in boilers

rather than outside. Another advantage of burning biomass for

energy is that there is a net increase in the amount of

greenhouse gases that remain sequestered under ground from

unused fossil fuels, rather than released into the atmosphere.

Next the researchers want to look at other economic

aspects including the possibility that groups using biomass

boilers could sell carbon offsets. Carbon offsets counteract or

offset greenhouse gases that would have been emitted into the

atmosphere. For example, the Townsend school and Montana

Fuels for Schools Program have sold carbon offsets through

the Climate Trust to offset carbon produced at the Basin

Electric Power Plant in Butte. What was once considered

waste has now taken on a value, both economically and

environmentally. The researchers’ results show that by taking

into account all sources of emissions, the decrease in

emissions are even larger than originally thought.

Looking at Emissions . . ( from page 9)

This biomass boiler provides heat to the school in Darby,

Montana. Emissions are very low from this type of boiler.

(Photo by U.S. Forest Service)

Tree tops, limbs, and small trees (biomass) left over from a

thinning project on the Bitterroot National Forest. Originally

scheduled to be burned, it instead went to Darby for use in the

boiler. (Photo by U.S. Forest Service)

Meet BEMRP’s Executive Committee

BEMRP is a multi-disciplinary partnership that brings together these scientists from the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain

Research Station and the University of Montana, together with managers from the Bitterroot National Forest and Northern Region.

Greg Jones—RMRS Social, Economics, and Decision Science Program

Dave Calkin— RMRS Social, Economics, and Decision Science Program

Mick Harrington— RMRS Fire, Fuels, and Smoke Science Program

Ward McCaughey— RMRS Forest and Woodland Ecosystems Science Program

Alan Watson—Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

Dean Pearson—RMRS Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitats Science Program

Jim Burchfield—The University of Montana College of Forestry and Conservation

Sue Heald—Bitterroot National Forest

Kerry McMenus—Northern Region Office

Chuck Oliver—Bitterroot National Forest

Dan Ritter—Bitterroot National Forest
11

Research Highlights

Soil Productivity and Harvest Operations

Two types of cores collected with the

core sampler. The large core (4 cm x

30 cm) is used to determine pore size

distribution at various depths in the

mineral soil, and the small core (4 cm x

10 cm) is used to determine bulk

density (a measure of compaction).

(Photo by Han-Sup Han)

Researcher using an impact hammer

core sampler to collect bulk density

cores in Northern Idaho. (Photo by

Han-Sup Han)

Deborah Page-Dumroese,

Research Soil Scientist, Forest

and Woodland Ecosystems

Science Program, RMRS,

Moscow, ID

Concern over changes in

soil productivity due to forest

management is often debated by

forest managers and the public.

One key element in the

discussion is use of mechanized

equipment (such as rubber-tired

skidders, log forwarders, or

tracked vehicles) to remove

timber products from the forest.

Part of the debate focuses on soil

compaction, removal of

nutrients when tree crowns are

removed rather than left on the

soil surface after harvest, length

of time for soils to recover, and

methods for monitoring. We

have found that ultimately soil

properties (texture, organic

matter, and water content)

determine the impact of

harvesting or site preparation.

We are interested in

studying how fuel reduction

treatments proposed for the

Trapper Bunkhouse Land

Stewardship Project (Trapper-Bunkhouse Project) affect

physical and chemical properties of soils. BEMRP requested

the help of soil scientists at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory

in Moscow, Idaho. The study sites in the Trapper-Bunkhouse

Project will use a variety of harvesting and site preparation

techniques. This year, we collected pre-harvest data. Crews

assessed current soil surface and subsurface conditions using a

visual classification system. This visual classification system

(0-3) assesses current condition of the surface soil as it may

have been affected by previous harvest, site preparation

equipment, or burning. For instance, an area classified as “0”

is one that has had no previous disturbance, the forest floor is

intact, there are no ruts, and the area was not

burned. On the other hand, a classification of “3”

means there could be deep ruts from previous

equipment use, the area was severely burned, or

the forest floor was displaced more than 10 feet

away.

In addition, our soil assessment crew

collected soil cores to determine pre-harvest

organic matter, pH, texture, and nutrient

contents. To track impacts of the number of

machine passes, we will attach a Global

Positioning System (GPS) unit to each piece of

mechanized

equipment to track

movements. We will

be able to evaluate

the impact of

number of passes on

soil physical

properties like

compaction or

changes in pore-size

distribution. After

harvesting is

complete, we will

resample by

reassessing the soil

surface visually and

by again collecting

soil cores to

determine how

harvest methods

may impact soil

properties.

However, the

consequences of

soil impacts must be

measured against

vegetation growth over a long period of time. Because this

study involves many researchers from other disciplines, these

sites provide an ideal location for tracking the long-term

responses of both soil and vegetation after harvesting and fuel

reduction activities.

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY: The inherent capacity of a soil to

support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a

sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be

expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year, percent

plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation.

VMAP: A project to map current vegetation west of the

Continental Divide in the Forest Service’s Northern Region and

designed to address several needs. The result of this project is a

geo-spatial database that produces four primary map products:

Dominance Type, Tree Canopy Cover Class, Life Form,

and Tree Diameter Class.

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE:

Considering all available research and

weighing its relevance and reliability in

an integrated manner.

Glossary . . . ( from page 16)
12

New Faces in Collaboration

(continued on page 14)

“This Is a Great Place to Work!”

y 

While not new to the Bitterroot National Forest, Dan

Ritter is a new addition to BEMRP. (Photo by Sharon

Ritter)

“It is very humbling to be a district

ranger. It’s a huge responsibility and I

take it seriously.”

Janie Canton-Thompson, Social

Scientist, Social, Economics, and

Decision Science Program, RMRS,

Missoula, MT

“I still pinch myself. This is a

great place to work!” says Dan

Ritter, Stevensville, Montana’s

district ranger and one of the

Bitterroot National Forest’s

representatives to BEMRP. Dan’s

enthusiasm for the job spills out all

over. Raised in Nazareth,

Pennsylvania, Dan spent his youth

roaming the woods. His high school

passion was photography but a visit

to Yellowstone Park sowed the seed

for his career in natural resources.

After earning a degree in

recreation and parks management

from Penn State University, Dan

became a seasonal interpretative

specialist at Voyagers National Park in Minnesota. Next came

seasonal work in Yosemite, followed by a summer with The

Nature Conservancy as caretaker for land in Maine. In 1980,

Dan received his first seasonal Forest Service job as a

wilderness ranger on the Shoshone National Forest, Lander,

WY, where he met his wife Sharon. Over the next eight years,

he was a seasonal employee with trails, wilderness, and

recreation responsibilities.

In 1988, Dan obtained permanent status as a forestry

technician in Lander. In 1992, he

became the Selway-Bitterroot

wilderness coordinator on the Nez

Perce National Forest, Grangeville,

ID. He moved to the Bitterroot

National Forest in 1997 as Darby

District’s staff resource assistant.

“When I came to the Bitterroot I

realized after about 2 months that I’d led a very sheltered life. I

was so overwhelmed with the amount of activity and

controversy and workload here. I learned a lot in that job, and I

got a variety of experience that I would have never had.”

From 2000 to 2005, Dan filled five different acting and

deputy ranger jobs and a recreation staff officer position on the

Bitterroot Forest. In June 2005, he became Stevensville District

Ranger. Noting how much he enjoys the great variety in district

ranger duties, Dan exclaimed, “It’s the best job I’ve ever had!

It’s where the action is. There’s opportunity to make a

difference.”

Dan feels very much a part of the Stevensville community.

He thinks Forest Service jobs “are a lot about social science

and relationships with people.” Dan likes to listen to people

and tries to see all sides of an issue. It makes some decisions

difficult “when you can understand where everybody’s coming

from,” he says. A realist, he believes decision makers can never

make everyone happy because value

polarizations are too great on some

issues. Dan loves dealing with lots of

things at once: “It is very humbling to

be the district ranger. It’s a huge

responsibility, and I take it seriously.”

 Challenges are opportunities in

disguise, Dan believes. His district

faces at least four major challenges:

fire management, land use, wilderness

dams, and travel management.

According to him, successfully

managing these issues will require

more social science input.

 Over the past few decades, fire

suppression has become costly, and

cost effective responses to wildland

fires are critical. Point protection

(protecting immediately threatened

economic resources) rather than

perimeter control (full control of the

edge of a fire) is becoming the norm. Dan observed that some

members of the public disagree with the point protection

approach. He and his staff are working with community

members to explore solutions to wildland fire issues.

The Bitterroot Valley’s population is booming, escalating

the land use issues on Stevensville District. Residents are

requesting permits to connect driveways to Forest Service

roads, which are neither designed nor maintained for such use.

Moreover, a controversial proposal for a ski area on the district

has garnered thousands of public

comments.

 Dams in designated Wilderness

Areas remain an issue. Dan’s job is

enabling dam owners to maintain

the safety of their dams and still

preserve wilderness values.

 Travel management presents a

growing challenge. District recreational use has escalated, and

Dan wants to accommodate it while protecting the resource

and maintaining the rustic character of recreational

experiences.

Dan’s vision for the district is “caring for the land and

serving the people,” professionally providing the best customer

service possible. “We’re here to serve people whether they

agree or disagree with us,” he said. “Caring for the land,” for

Dan, means practicing sustainable land stewardship, with some

timber management and some livestock grazing. He’s

optimistic the agency can work with the public to plan projects

with these ends in mind.

Dan has been involved with BEMRP for 2 years and

serves on its Executive Committee. I asked him about his

vision for BEMRP. He responded, “The idea of having

researchers and managers working together is a great idea; it
13

New Faces in Collaboration

Private Industrial Foresters and Forest Service

Research—The Relevancy Question

Pat Connell felling the first of several beetle-killed

Douglas-firs on a Healthy Forest Restoration Act project on

the Bitterroot National Forest. Pat says “the science of

forestry and foresters cannot be fooled when the venue is

the woods rather than the courts.” (Photo by Mary Beaver)

(continued on page 14)

Janie Canton-Thompson, Social Scientist, Social, Economics,

and Decision Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

What is the nature of the relationship between U.S. Forest

Service researchers and private industrial foresters? How can

Forest Service Research maintain independence while serving

agency and private forestry managers? We decided to seek

input from someone outside of the Forest Service, so I asked

Pat Connell, Vice President of Resource Operations for Rocky

Mountain Log Homes, Hamilton, MT, for his views. Pat is a

member of the Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee

that works with local citizens and the Bitterroot National

Forest.

With 33 years as a private industrial forester, Pat is one of

very few professional foresters in the nation’s log home

industry. He’s passionate about private industrial forestry and

shared with me his experience with Forest Service Research

and views on many current issues. Pat cautioned that his views

are those of a non-landed private industrial forester whose

industry relies on agency timber sales. Foresters in this branch

of the forest products industry may have interests in Forest

Service Research that differ from those of commercial forestland industrial foresters.

At one time, private foresters and researchers pursued

“interrelated cooperative efforts” to solve mutual problems.

Pat recalls working with researchers in the western Tree

Improvement Program (a program that addresses tree

genetics) and cooperative nursery efforts during the 1970s and

early 1980s. Before the early 1990s, Forest Service Research

employed more logging system specialists and

economists.(Note: Forest Service records show that

nationwide its research scientists in the forest products

technology job series declined from 63 in 1985 to 17 in 2007,

a 73 percent reduction, while the

number of research scientist

foresters shrank from 350 to 140, a

60 percent decline. Total number of

Forest Service research scientists

decreased from 985 to 547, a 44

percent reduction over the same

period.) In addition, the National

Forest System used to invite private foresters and Forest

Service Research to provide input to National Forest

interdisciplinary teams (IDT) in the interest of creating

synergistic products.

Pat blames the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

for extinguishing these cooperative efforts. With FACA, says

Pat, “We were the bad guys. We were from industry, and there

were only extremely special situations where Forest Service

and industry could ‘work together’ because of fear of collusive

results.”

 It’s now difficult for industrial foresters to convey the

costs of timber sale policy inconsistencies within and among

regions. According to Pat, economic realities are not

adequately addressed when requiring new harvesting systems

and equipment. “I’ve got stuff that requires incredible yarding

distance, utilization standards that are insane, and as a result

the Forest Service is getting much

less stumpage value than if there

was a little more creativity!” While

Pat thinks timber sales designed

for multiple benefits are a worthy

goal, too often the result isn’t

viable for industry. There’s an

opportunity for research

economists to involve private foresters in designing more

realistic competitive bid processes to obtain best value. The

small volume offered in today’s sales makes it unaffordable for

private companies to invest in the innovative technology

required to meet increasingly rigid contract specifications. Pat

suggested researchers study the economic implications of

current Federal timber sale policies and test contract

specifications against reality.

According to Pat, lack of harvestable wood has forced the

segment of the log home industry that is dependent on dead

wood into Canada to acquire such wood. This occurs despite

“The Forest Service is getting much

less stumpage value than if there was a

little more creativity!”
14

Ritter . . . ( from page 12)

Connell . . . ( from page 13)

Invasive Plants . . . ( from page 6)

Tours . . . ( from page 19)

analyses support the idea that song structure may be an

important indicator of habitat quality—songs at nativedominated sites formed cohesive neighborhoods that were

more similar to each other than those at knapweed-invaded

sites. Sampling at additional sites over a range of habitats will

be necessary to evaluate song structure as a broadly applicable

measure of population status. Given the links between song

learning, turnover rates, and habitat quality in songbirds, song

structure may serve as a new and improved means of

monitoring population status, including impacts of invasive

species.

works.” This partnership helps managers understand what’s

“best science” and keeps researchers “grounded with what’s

real.” Researchers are regarded as independent, so

researchers’ involvement gives managers’ decisions

credibility. These days, much of a forest manager’s job is

social science-related. “I wouldn’t want BEMRP to lose sight

of that,” he says.

Dan sees a role for BEMRP in travel management. This

effort will require considerable social science research

because people deeply value the National Forest, traveling

through it by different means and for different reasons.

Outside the job, Dan pursues his passion for the outdoors

by traveling, mountain biking, backpacking with Sharon and

sons Dylan and Torrey, and fishing. “My real passion is golf.

It’s a game that demands 100 percent focus. You can’t play

golf and think about work.”

Wildland fire, lands, wilderness dams, and travel

management—these challenges promise an exciting journey

for Dan. Given his eagerness to work with diverse publics and

openness to scientifically based research on management

issues, Dan’s vision of quality land stewardship and customer

service is becoming a reality on the Stevensville Ranger

District.

more wood volume growing annually on National Forests than

being harvested or burned. Therefore, he recommends the

Forest Service focus less on tree-growth research and more on

what the National Forest System can do to satisfy National

Environmental Policy Act requirements while providing a

sustainable supply of wood.

Pat is unaware of any collaboration or partnership between

Research and private foresters. This indicates that Research

needs to do a better job informing the public about research

taking place. He believes the agency needs to realize “industry

actually knows something.” Opportunity exists for researchers

and private foresters to collaborate in developing useful forest

management tools and techniques. For example, Pat’s

company utilizes dead wood in a unique way; yet few agency

managers or researchers “have come to see what we do, what

improvement we do, any thoughts we’ve got.” As a result, the

agency seems unaware that markets are changing and how.

Useful technology transfer could be improved between

researchers and private industrial foresters. For example, Pat

suggested that district ranger stations, supervisors’ offices, and

Research Stations provide indexes of locally conducted

research in their foyers. Annotated bibliographies of this

research by category and location would be helpful to private

foresters and the public.

Relevancy is the basic question, Pat thinks. Who chooses

what projects to research or conveys their needs and ensures

scientific answers? This leads to the issue of Forest Service

Research maintaining independence and credibility. Connell

believes Research should serve the National Forest System,

providing information it needs. According to him,

independence and credibility mean research that can be

replicated. Without this, there’s a validity problem. Pat

affirmed researchers require great autonomy for best science.

Pat believes Research provides data and information to

National Forest System management about issues, but does not

make management decisions. Moreover, informing and sharing

“best science” seldom convinces those with ideological

opposition to embrace sound projects.

Pat is disturbed by the mantra of forest restoration being

necessitated by past fire suppression. In reality, he thinks fuels

are accumulating because timber harvest has ground to a halt.

“Right now we’re growing more than we’re burning [through

all types of fires]. We have made a social change of opinion

that we are willing to have our wood fiber supplied by Canada

[and] want the National Forests to become de facto National

Parks,” he says. Moreover, he thinks the agency’s ability to

attack fires while they’re reasonably small has diminished

because there are fewer agency and industrial crews working

in the woods.

According to Connell, Research needs to provide

information and tools to help managers analyze implications of

“No Action” alternatives in projects: “Basically the No Action

alternative is taking a photograph, and all subsequent proposed

actions are compared to [this] photograph. In truth, there’s no

such thing as a static forest. You can’t actively manage when

you create an inactive, inanimate icon as a control.”

From start to finish, the Forest Service Research relevancy

question is dependent on context. It must be answered in terms

of what research results are needed, by whom, when, where,

and for what purpose.

restoration projects. We then retraced the route we used for the

public tour and Chuck shared concerns expressed by the public

on their tour.

These chances to interact—public to manager to

researcher—take time and commitment, but it’s worth it to

share information and perspectives while out in the forest

together. It has been a key part of BEMRP’s efforts to work in

partnership and share research results with others.
15

New Faces in Collaboration

Dean handling a lynx kitten. (Photo by

Milo Burcham)

Dean Pearson

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

“There are no Mondays”

(continued on page 16)

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management

Coordinator and ECO-Report Editor,

BEMRP, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

Listen to Dean Pearson tell his story,

and you can imagine him as a kid

exploring the Bitterroot River, questioning

how the natural world worked. That same

questioning spirit led to his current

position as a research wildlife biologist

with RMRS. It shows in his fascination

with community ecology and kept him

going this past summer digging trenches in

100 degree heat to bury a predator-proof

fence.

Dean grew up in the Bitterroot,

Flathead, and Missoula areas. High school

and Dean didn’t get along, so he dropped

out. A summer program with Montana

Department of Natural Resources led to

work as a fire lookout, then firefighter.

Eventually, he got his high school diploma

and a counselor recommended college.

Given his love of the outdoors,

majoring in wildlife biology sounded good

to Dean. After he got his bachelors degree from the University

of Montana, he hooked up with Kerry Foresman in the

Division of Biological Sciences. He earned his masters degree

in zoology by working on a BEMRP-funded study on

detecting carnivores using track plates and cameras and

preparing a literature review for BEMRP on small mammals

of the Bitterroot National Forest.

Just as he was finishing that project, Len Ruggiero with

RMRS in Missoula needed someone with a strong

background in small mammals, carnivores, and statistics.

Dean spent the next half dozen years working for Len.

Eventually, he realized that he was going to need a PhD if he

wanted to go anywhere with research. So he worked with Ray

Callaway in the Division of Biological Sciences to get his

PhD in organismal biology and ecology, which gave him a

strong background in plant ecology. This led to what became

his next great adventure—trying to understand how whole

communities work.

Dean’s PhD research on knapweed, native plants,

biocontrols, deer mice, and hantavirus made him both famous

and infamous. Mt. Sentinel’s invading knapweed aroused

Dean’s curiosity about knapweed’s effects on the grassland

community. He had noticed small piles of knapweed

seedheads that looked like piles deer mice might make while

feeding. When he trapped some mice and

examined their stomachs, they were full of

maggots of the gall fly Urophora affinis, one

of 13 biocontrols released in Montana to

control spotted knapweed. Dean, Ray, and

their colleagues went on to show that this

readily available source of protein during the

winter months increases mouse populations,

with a resultant increase in prevalence of the

Sin Nombre virus. Populations of hungry

mice also put more strain on native plants,

already suffering from effects of knapweed.

 Dean cautions weed managers to

consider overall effects of introducing

biocontrols, including indirect effects on

nontarget species. Researchers in biocontrol

spend a great deal of time and money

making sure that species they introduce only

feed on targeted plant species. Some of these

biocontrols have been very successful.

“When it works, it’s amazing,” he says. But

when he presented his research on deer mice

and the gall fly at a meeting of biocontrol

folks, “You could have heard a pin drop. It

was complete silence, then suddenly hands started shooting up

in the air. ‘Why do you want to shut down biocontrol?’ Now,

how does what I’m reporting lead to that?”

Instead, Dean advocates spending more effort testing the

efficacy of biocontrols before introducing them. If we

understand which ones will be the most successful, we will

end up with an ecological feedback loop. The biocontrol will

successfully reduce weeds, mice numbers will return to more

normal levels, their predation on native plant seeds will

decrease, and native plants will increase. “It’s community

reassembly,” he says, taking a community that is heading in a

trajectory we don’t want and redirecting it onto a trajectory

that, while different than the original, is still better than the

one directed by weeds.

Dean isn’t afraid of controversy: “If I see something that’s

wrong, I’ll speak out.” He strongly advocates dialogue,

whether it’s about biocontrols or the role of Forest Service

research. Researchers’ autonomy is important to both

researchers and managers. Says Dean: “Our role as researchers

is to understand the system, tools, and side effects, and help

managers understand the results of alternatives, whether it’s

the result of doing no active management or the results of

various types of management. We need to lay it out objectively

to the public.”
16

Getting the Word Out

Glossary – “What Do You Mean By That?”

Despite our efforts to write ECO-Report articles in “jargon-free” language, we still have

to use terminology unfamiliar to some readers. Should you not recognize a term in ECOReport, this glossary may help. If you don’t find the word here, visit BEMRP’s Glossary web

page at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner. Remember some definitions change over time as

new information develops. Periodically, we revise our web glossary page to reflect these

changes.

BIOMASS: The amount of all living or dead plant material in an

area. In terms of forest biomass utilization, it is often used to

refer to the woody material (resulting from forest treatments) that

is unsuitable for traditional forest products such as pulp wood or

lumber.

BIOMASS BOILER: Boiler fired by biomass used to produce

thermal heat and/or electricity.

BREEDING PRODUCTIVITY: The number of young

successfully produced per pair of birds in a season.

CARBON BALANCE: The concentration of carbon released

into the atmosphere compared to the amounts stored in the

oceans, soil, and vegetation.

CARBON OR GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSETS: A

greenhouse gas offset is generated by the reduction, avoidance,

or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions from a specific

project. Offsets counteract or offset greenhouse gases that would

have been emitted into the atmosphere; they are a compensating

equivalent for reductions made at a specific source of emissions.

CARBON SEQUESTRATION: The provision of long-term

storage of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, underground, or

the oceans so that the buildup of carbon dioxide (the principal

greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere will reduce

or slow.

PARTICULATE MATTER: A complex mixture of

extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particulate

matter may be in the form of fly ash, soot, dust, fumes, etc.

Small particulate matter, or PM-10, is less than 10 microns in

size and can pass through the throat and nose and enter the

lungs.

PEER REVIEW: A publication is considered peer reviewed

if it has been reviewed independently and approved by other

experts in the author’s field before it is published.

RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RAC):

Resource Advisory Committees (RAC) were formed under

the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) to improve collaborative

relationships and provide advice and recommendations to the

land management agencies.

Dean Pearson . . . ( from page 15)

The public often doesn’t understand the difference

between U.S. Forest Service management and research

branches. Dean says, “Research was set up to be autonomous

from the National Forest System and State and Private

Forestry. Research doesn’t answer to managers and the budgets

are completely separate.” Yet, it is also important for

researchers to know how managers function so they can

conduct relevant research. BEMRP provides that close

interaction, he says, but the closer they work together, the

wider becomes the gray zone that separates them. “We just

need to keep talking and stay aware of when we’re entering

that gray zone.”

Dean’s interest in community ecology continues with John

Maron in the Division of Biological Sciences on the project

requiring predator-proof fences. You can sense his excitement

as he talks about this attempt to understand the role of

predators and small mammals in a grassland ecosystem. He

loves coming to work, saying, “There are no Mondays.” Each

day gives him more and more chances to increase his

understanding of nature.

Dean Pearson loves to share his love of the outdoors with daughters

Anya (left) and Rachel (right), shown here in Yellowstone. (Photo by

Ellen McCullough)

(continued on page 11)
17

Getting the Word Out

A Review of

Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and

the Distortion of Scientific Research

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and

ECO-Report Editor, BEMRP, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

The National Forest System (NFS) and Forest Service

Research and Development (Research) are separate

branches of the U.S. Forest Service. The need for partners

within BEMRP to remain independent is constantly on

their minds. Research scientists take great care to remain

independent from the NFS and NFS managers strongly

encourage that independence. Without it, the result would

be a lack of credibility and loss of support from both the

public and the research community-at-large.

For example, we are expecting valuable information to

come from the study of effects of fuel reduction treatments

proposed for the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship

Project. Both managers and scientists realize it will be

money and time wasted if there is any question that

Research is influencing policy or that managers are

influencing research methods or results. So the two groups

work together, but with care.

In Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the

Distortion of Scientific Research, edited by Wendy Wagner

and Rena Steinzor,

 1 15 leading academics in law, science,

and philosophy look at basic principles of science and give

examples of how these principles have been violated. They

also suggest changes that could be made legally and

through policy to keep scientific principles in place.

The book is organized around three principles laid out

in the introduction. It then presents several chapters for

each principle, giving examples of how each is threatened

by existing practices and policies. The three principles are:

Independence and Freedom: Scientists must be able to

conduct research without unjustified restrictions, including

undue influence by research sponsors.

Transparency and Honesty: Data and results of research

must be communicated honestly and expeditiously to the

research community and broader public. Findings must be

represented accurately, including limitations of the

research.

A Public Infrastructure for Science: Government support

of independent research is essential to produce discoveries

that benefit the public good. In appropriate circumstances,

peer review serves an important role in assisting the

government’s decision making regarding the use and

funding of science, but peer review must never be used to

censor research.

Scientific independence is threatened by special interest

groups when they attack individual studies, and sometimes

even the integrity of the scientists themselves, to have courts

reject some research as “junk science.” Authors remind us

that science is a continuing search for answers and rarely

comes up with one definitive answer. Instead, scientists use

the “weight of the evidence” approach when evaluating

relevant studies. “The principle that research by its nature is

incomplete and to dismiss research because it does not

provide a definitive answer could result in the exclusion of

valuable science from regulatory decision making,” says

author Donald T. Hornstein.2

Scientific freedom is at risk when some private

industries that fund scientists to conduct studies include a

nondisclosure clause in their contracts. This clause prevents

scientists from releasing data or publishing their research

unless approved by their funding source. Research that is

negative to the company can be legally withheld from the

public and regulatory agencies. Interestingly, under the 1999

Data Access Act, data collected under federally funded

studies must be made available to the public and private

industry, but the same is not true of privately funded studies.

Most examples given in the book relate to medical and

environmental toxicology studies, such as investigations of

the effects of chemicals on human health. These are often the

ones that end up in court because scientific evidence contrary

to a private industry’s financial interests can have huge

economic consequences. The payoff for an industry to cast

doubt on the science is worth the cost of litigation.

A few examples focus on natural resource issues. In her

chapter addressing the principle of transparency, author

Holly Doremus states, “Transparency about who makes

regulatory decisions, about the scientific basis for those

decisions, and especially about the value choices made in the

translation step from science to policy is essential to the

effective use of scientific information in the political world

of policy making.”3 As an example of lack of transparency,

Dr. Doremus presents the Klamath Basin Water Conflict.

This was in the national news in 2001 when a severe drought

resulted in the federal government deciding to stop flow of

(continued on page 18)

BOOK

CORNER
18

Getting the Word Out

Restoring an Educational Area

A student from Lone Rock School in the Bitterroot Valley

learns how to properly plant native species at the Willoughby

Environmental Education Area. (Photo by Julie Schreck)

Students from Lone Rock School wrestle a log while rebuilding

a trail at the Willoughby Environmental Education Area.

(Photo by Julie Schreck)

Review. . . ( from page 17)

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and ECOReport Editor, BEMRP, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

The Watershed Education Network (WEN), Lone Rock

School, and Bitterroot National Forest teamed up to complete

some much needed conservation work at the Willoughby

Environmental Education Area southeast of Stevensville, MT.

WEN received a grant from the Ravalli County Resource

Advisory Committee to facilitate conservation work in Ravalli

County. WEN then partnered with Lone Rock School’s

seventh grade class and asked them to design a management

plan for the site. After touring Willoughby, the students came

up with recommendations to improve the education area.

The next year, as eighth graders, the students created an

interpretive welcome sign for Willoughby made from

individual tiles that each of the students painted. They moved

15 tons of gravel onto the interpretive trail and filled in some

holes in the road leading to the site. They removed large rocks

from the trail and recontoured parts that were eroded or had

started to slope outwards. A group of students also pruned

sagebrush and trees that had encroached upon the trail.

The students, in partnership with the Trapper Creek Job

Corps Center, Bitterroot Ecological Awareness Resources,

WEN, and U.S. Forest Service, planted more than 1,000

sagebrush, rose, cottonwood, and rabbitbrush on the site.

BEMRP helped purchase these native plant species with

conservation education funding from the Rocky Mountain

Research Station. Lone Rock School students plan to adopt the

site and will continue to monitor needs of the Willoughby

Environmental Education Area for years to come.

irrigation water to long-term agricultural users. In this case,

she concludes that natural resource agencies hid their political

decisions “behind a veneer of science,”4

 hence making them

unaccountable politically for what was mostly a political

decision.

The third principle is maintaining a public infrastructure

for science. Authors of these chapters stress that peer review

must be conducted by balanced panels and free from politics

and conflicts of interest. They also argue that some research

needs to be publicly funded, especially research that promises

the greatest public benefit and is in greatest need of

government oversight.

Rescuing Science from Politics reveals ways that the three

principles of science have come under attack in the last few

decades. If we are to retain or in some cases regain our faith in

science, we need to be vigilant. This book will add to

discussions about the need for the regulatory process to follow

these principles—for the good of our health and our

environment.

Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of

Scientific Research by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor. Published

in 2006 by Cambridge University Press, New York. 304 pages. ISBN13: 978-0-521-85520-4. Available in hardcover ($75.00) and

paperback ($29.99).

 1 Wendy Wagner is the Joe A. Worsham Centennial Professor at the

University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. Rena Steinzor is

the Jacob A. France Research Professor of Law at the University of

Maryland School of Law and has a secondary appointment at the

University of Maryland Medical School Department of Epidemiology

and Preventive Medicine.

 2 Hornstein, Donald T. 2006. The data wars, adaptive management,

and the irony of “sound science.” In: Wagner, Wendy; Steinzor, Rena.

Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of

Scientific Research. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 104.

 3 Doremus, Holly. 2006. Using science in a political world: the

importance of transparency in natural resource regulation. In: Wagner

and Steinzor, Rescuing Science from Politics. p. 144.

 4 Ibid., 158.
19

Getting the Word Out

Getting Out on the Ground:

Tours of Trapper-Bunkhouse Project

Research unit in the Trapper-Bunkhouse Project, showing stump from

a timber sale 80 to 90 years ago, and dense regrowth. (Photo by

Sharon Ritter)

Mick Harrington sharing research results from his old-growth study.

(Photo by Sharon Ritter)

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and ECOReport Editor, BEMRP, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

One of the most effective ways to share information is

face to face. BEMRP researchers provided information during

two tours of the Bitterroot National Forest’s proposed Trapper

Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project (Trapper-Bunkhouse

Project) in 2006 that reached out to other groups. On August

23, BEMRP executive committee members Chuck Oliver,

Ward McCaughey, Mick Harrington, and Alan Watson joined

Bitterroot National Forest employees and 35 members of the

public on a 3-hour tour of the project area.

Stop 1 was at Chaffin Creek where Fisheries Biologist

Rob Brassfield discussed possible forest treatments to protect

an isolated population of bull trout from habitat loss due to

stand-replacing fire. However, a November 2006 flood altered

the stream and the Forest decided to remove those treatments

from this project.

Stop 2 was at one of two units that will have special

treatments as research plots. Research Foresters Mick

Harrington and Ward McCaughey pointed out that there is no

such thing as fire-proofing a forest. After all, this forest has

been through multiple fires historically, as revealed by the fire

scars found in large stumps from the last timber sale 80 to 90

years ago. “What we’re trying to do,” said Mick, “is change

fire behavior.” When asked if he had to test the effectiveness

of treatments by burning the forest, Mick looked a little

wistful as he said, “I’ve been waiting for years for a fire to

come through my research plots.” Instead, he will assess

effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments by using fire

models.

The research units will have a replicated research design

with different thinning treatments and ways to reduce fuels.

Researchers will look at the effects of these treatments on soil

compaction, soil nutrients, and productivity of sites. They also

will look at invasive weeds and how remaining trees and

understory vegetation respond to thinning and prescribed fire.

Bitterroot National Forest North Zone Silviculturist Kim

Johnson explained the need to reduce fuels for public and

firefighter safety and protect important natural resources. The

Gash Creek Fire that burned 8,500 acres in 2006 started in an

area with a high concentration of fuels and was one of the sites

that BEMRP’s modeling also had shown as being at risk.

Stop 3 was the most controversial. Here, within view of

private land, Forest trails staff members Deb Gale and Monte

Monroe discussed the proposal to address off-highway-vehicle

(OHV) issues in the area, including erosion. At the public’s

request the Forest has since postponed OHV-related proposals

for later consideration in a Forest-wide travel management

plan.

Questions from the public revealed concerns they had

about elk security, harvesting trees, roads, OHV use, and how

the Forest would be able to accomplish needed work given

decreasing budgets. Although there wasn’t enough time for

discussion, everyone definitely benefited from hearing firsthand about the project and people’s concerns.

On September 15, seven members of the Northern

Region’s Ecosystem Management (EM) Team joined Chuck

Oliver and Mick Harrington for a tour. Kevin Hyde and Kim

Johnson discussed modeling used to select the area between

Trapper and Bunkhouse Creeks for treatment. The modeling

then was used to predict fire behavior and select possible

stands for treatment. The EM Team was particularly interested

in how data were used in integrated models. This could help in

a region-wide Integrated Restoration and Protection Strategy

that will prioritize funding for fuel reduction and forest

(continued on page 14)
20

ECO-Report

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

800 E. Beckwith St.

Missoula, MT 59801

The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis

of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternate means

for communication of program

information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of

discrimination, write USDA Director,

Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

employer.

New Publication Available

The Natural Inquirer, a Forest Service education

journal for middle school science students, published the

Invasive Species Edition in 2006. The article “Goll-ly!

Don’t Take a Knapweed!” featured several researchers

associated with BEMRP. Yvette Ortega, Dean Pearson,

and Kevin McKelvey talk about the scientific process,

ecosystems, and their research on knapweed, gall flies,

and deer mice. They offer opportunities for students to

reflect on research findings, do some number crunching,

and create graphs.

Ortega, Yvette; Pearson, Dean; McKelvey, Kevin. 2006.

Goll-ly! Don’t take a knapweed! The impact of

nonnative plants and animals on deer mice. The Natural

Inquirer 8(1):58-76. The Invasive Species Edition and

other editions are available at: http://

www.naturalinquirer.usda.gov/.